Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Using the hardshoulder of motorways.
20 Answers
http://www.dailymail....g-hard-shoulders.html
When our government continue to dish out millions of pounds to foreign governments, their own people have to accept continuous cuts in jobs and services.
The latest cheepo from them we have got to accept is the mad-cap idea of using the existing hard shoulder to improve our already abysmal motorway system.
Shouldn't they be investing in our own infrastructure, which in turn would create jobs, than handing out cash 'willy nilly' to all those foreign countries, so that they can improve their infrastructure?
When our government continue to dish out millions of pounds to foreign governments, their own people have to accept continuous cuts in jobs and services.
The latest cheepo from them we have got to accept is the mad-cap idea of using the existing hard shoulder to improve our already abysmal motorway system.
Shouldn't they be investing in our own infrastructure, which in turn would create jobs, than handing out cash 'willy nilly' to all those foreign countries, so that they can improve their infrastructure?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is another thing that makes my blood boil. I truly believe we need a peoples government. Get this lot out and stop labour/conservatives etc from getting back in. A true peoples government is the way forward for the uk.
Where is my road tax money being spent if any widening of the road is happening by simply using the emergency lane.
Where is my road tax money being spent if any widening of the road is happening by simply using the emergency lane.
No it’s not, VHG. Widening roads to cope with traffic congestion is why motorists pay their Road Fund Licence and contribute 75% of the cost of each litre of fuel they buy to the Exchequer.
Using the hard shoulder as an additional lane is bound to end in tragedy. I was on the M25 last Friday when a serious accident had occurred on the opposite carriageway. Two fire/rescue appliances were in attendance together with four ambulances and a number of police and Highways Agency vehicles. The traffic was stationary and the queue stretched back over seven miles – well beyond the previous junction. If the hard shoulder had been blocked with parked traffic there is no way those emergency vehicles would have reached the scene so readily and no doubt the lives of those injured would have been in considerably greater jeopardy.
There is a connection between this issue (as well as many issues where public spending is concerned) and foreign aid. The electorate is being told that there is little money for road schemes and that budgets for police, the Armed Forces, firefighters and care for the elderly (to name but a few) must be drastically cut. Many accept that as the price to be paid for the profligacy of the last administration. But meantime money for “overseas development” (a misnomer if ever there was one) can increase seemingly without bounds.
Yes, we did have an election. But the party political system in this country means that voters had the choice of two packages – neither of them particularly attractive to many people and almost identical in many key respects. In the event we got neither but instead were landed with a mish-mash of an administration with large areas of policy being dictated by the party who came a distant third in the election. Only when this is changed to a proper Parliamentary system where candidates stand independently and vote on individual issues according to their constituents’ needs will proper democracy take a hold.
Using the hard shoulder as an additional lane is bound to end in tragedy. I was on the M25 last Friday when a serious accident had occurred on the opposite carriageway. Two fire/rescue appliances were in attendance together with four ambulances and a number of police and Highways Agency vehicles. The traffic was stationary and the queue stretched back over seven miles – well beyond the previous junction. If the hard shoulder had been blocked with parked traffic there is no way those emergency vehicles would have reached the scene so readily and no doubt the lives of those injured would have been in considerably greater jeopardy.
There is a connection between this issue (as well as many issues where public spending is concerned) and foreign aid. The electorate is being told that there is little money for road schemes and that budgets for police, the Armed Forces, firefighters and care for the elderly (to name but a few) must be drastically cut. Many accept that as the price to be paid for the profligacy of the last administration. But meantime money for “overseas development” (a misnomer if ever there was one) can increase seemingly without bounds.
Yes, we did have an election. But the party political system in this country means that voters had the choice of two packages – neither of them particularly attractive to many people and almost identical in many key respects. In the event we got neither but instead were landed with a mish-mash of an administration with large areas of policy being dictated by the party who came a distant third in the election. Only when this is changed to a proper Parliamentary system where candidates stand independently and vote on individual issues according to their constituents’ needs will proper democracy take a hold.
"Widening roads to cope with traffic congestion is why motorists pay their Road Fund Licence and contribute 75% of the cost of each litre of fuel they buy to the Exchequer. "
Road widening schemes are controversial and hard to get approval for in many instances. And speaking as a road fund licence payer myself, I am very glad about that.
The idea that because we spend x amount of money on foreign aid we therefore don't have the money that would otherwise go on concreting over the countryside (or as VHG aptly puts it "widening our trousers") is plainly ridiculous.
Road widening schemes are controversial and hard to get approval for in many instances. And speaking as a road fund licence payer myself, I am very glad about that.
The idea that because we spend x amount of money on foreign aid we therefore don't have the money that would otherwise go on concreting over the countryside (or as VHG aptly puts it "widening our trousers") is plainly ridiculous.
Why is it so ridiculous? Motorists pay taxes to run their vehicles and have a reasonable expectation that the roads provided by the State will meet their requirements. Some of those requirements may mean that roads need to be widened (as is clearly accepted by the fact that consideration is being given to using the hard shoulders). They are told there is no cash to do so, but in the same breath are told that money for foreign projects (many of them highly dubious and which may show little or no benefit to UK taxpayers) is “ring fenced” and is actually set to increase considerably.
So what is more ridiculous, telling taxpayers there is no cash for the things they might reasonably expect to be provided whilst pouring ever increasing sums of money into the sump that is “overseas aid”, or simply providing facilities for UK taxpayers that they have paid for?
So what is more ridiculous, telling taxpayers there is no cash for the things they might reasonably expect to be provided whilst pouring ever increasing sums of money into the sump that is “overseas aid”, or simply providing facilities for UK taxpayers that they have paid for?
"Widening roads to cope with traffic congestion is why motorists pay their Road Fund Licence..."
Errrm, Excise Duties collected from motorists (VED and Fuel Duty) have not been ringfenced for (nor have had any form of direct link to) transport infrastructure expenditure for many, many decades. The Road Fund Licence has not existed since 1936 and the remnants of the Road Fund itself was wound up in 1955.
Although the hypothecated taxation link to road building/maintenance was broken decades earlier, the comparison of revenue to expenditure was still favourable in the mid 70s, e.g. in 1975;
Revenue (VED, Fuel Duty & VAT) ~ £14bn
Expenditure (Roads & Public Transport) ~ £13bn
but the gap has widened greatly such that by 2008;
Revenue (VED, Fuel Duty & VAT) ~ £35bn
Expenditure (Department of Transport) ~ £10bn
Errrm, Excise Duties collected from motorists (VED and Fuel Duty) have not been ringfenced for (nor have had any form of direct link to) transport infrastructure expenditure for many, many decades. The Road Fund Licence has not existed since 1936 and the remnants of the Road Fund itself was wound up in 1955.
Although the hypothecated taxation link to road building/maintenance was broken decades earlier, the comparison of revenue to expenditure was still favourable in the mid 70s, e.g. in 1975;
Revenue (VED, Fuel Duty & VAT) ~ £14bn
Expenditure (Roads & Public Transport) ~ £13bn
but the gap has widened greatly such that by 2008;
Revenue (VED, Fuel Duty & VAT) ~ £35bn
Expenditure (Department of Transport) ~ £10bn
No matter how many extra lanes they put onto motorways in the event of a serious crash that section is closed. You would think that using helicopters to get to the scene of accidents could make the hard shoulder irrelevent and therefore could be used at all times. Gone are the days when it was needed to be kept clear for ambulances to get there quicker.
Traffic congestion around the M25 could be eased in two ways:
Move Heathrow to the Thames estuary... The M4 turnoff has queues all day long.
Secondly create an outer M25 but instead of taking valuable farmland use existing A roads that could be joined together to form a ring.
Traffic congestion around the M25 could be eased in two ways:
Move Heathrow to the Thames estuary... The M4 turnoff has queues all day long.
Secondly create an outer M25 but instead of taking valuable farmland use existing A roads that could be joined together to form a ring.
bednobs
If you looked into my post more closely that just making the first jibe that came into your head you would have realised it is not just the matter of using the hard shoulder of motorway.
I used this as an example of how our government continues to increase the amount of foreign aid, while their own people have to accept cuts and shortages, because they are forever telling us "we are short of cash" and "we can't afford it".
Perhaps if they didn't give our money away, then perhaps they would no longer be 'short of cash' and they could 'afford it', after all aren't we supposed to be one of the riches countries in the world?
Tell that to a pensioner who on reaching the grand age of 80 years, is awarded an extra £0.25p on their already meagre State Pension.
If you looked into my post more closely that just making the first jibe that came into your head you would have realised it is not just the matter of using the hard shoulder of motorway.
I used this as an example of how our government continues to increase the amount of foreign aid, while their own people have to accept cuts and shortages, because they are forever telling us "we are short of cash" and "we can't afford it".
Perhaps if they didn't give our money away, then perhaps they would no longer be 'short of cash' and they could 'afford it', after all aren't we supposed to be one of the riches countries in the world?
Tell that to a pensioner who on reaching the grand age of 80 years, is awarded an extra £0.25p on their already meagre State Pension.
-- answer removed --
ichkeria
/// that would otherwise go on concreting over the countryside ///
I am afraid the days are gone when we could afford the privilege of having vast areas of countryside in our already overcrowded small Island.
It is said that by 2033, the population of England will be almost as large as the current populations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8318010.stm
With this increase of population will come an increase in the need for houses, schools, hospitals etc, plus of course cars, buses, trains etc. so therefore even more green areas will disappear under concrete and tarmac.
Unless of course you know of a way of reducing the population, curbing the birth rate and reverting back to the horse and cart?
/// that would otherwise go on concreting over the countryside ///
I am afraid the days are gone when we could afford the privilege of having vast areas of countryside in our already overcrowded small Island.
It is said that by 2033, the population of England will be almost as large as the current populations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8318010.stm
With this increase of population will come an increase in the need for houses, schools, hospitals etc, plus of course cars, buses, trains etc. so therefore even more green areas will disappear under concrete and tarmac.
Unless of course you know of a way of reducing the population, curbing the birth rate and reverting back to the horse and cart?
/// AOG The example of what you posted seems to have recieved a rather less than positive feed back. ///
On the contrary I think that amongst those that contributed there as been a very good positive feed back.
If you mean the small number of replies, then I put this down to some not being able to oppose the argument.
On the contrary I think that amongst those that contributed there as been a very good positive feed back.
If you mean the small number of replies, then I put this down to some not being able to oppose the argument.
Leaving aside the semantic debate about what the tax is called, essentially UK taxpayers are being told this:
We don’t have enough money for everything you’d all like. Despite this, we are going to continue to give money – in increasing quantities - to nations who have contributed nothing to the UK (nor are every likely to). There are a number of things you’d probably like. We’d love to pay an increased State pension for all but unfortunately, because of our financial distress, this can only be afforded for “new” pensioners. As well as this we notice there is terrible congestion on a stretch of motorway and it could ideally do with an extra lane. No money for that either, so we’re going to introduce just about the most dangerous idea you could imagine – using the hard shoulder for regular traffic. It may result in a few unnecessary deaths but never mind.
In other words, those of you who have paid taxes and NI all your life can go forth and multiply so long as we look after the rest of the world. After all, it will make us all feel good !!
BTW – great idea about using helicopters to reach accidents rov. Just a couple of snags: they cost upwards of £2k per hour to run and need huge capital outlay to buy (no money, remember); they cannot be used in urban situations so would have to be kept solely for motorway type incidents. The incident I saw last week would have needed at least six of them and the vehicles that did make it to the site did so because, despite the motorway being at a standstill, the hard shoulder was free.
We don’t have enough money for everything you’d all like. Despite this, we are going to continue to give money – in increasing quantities - to nations who have contributed nothing to the UK (nor are every likely to). There are a number of things you’d probably like. We’d love to pay an increased State pension for all but unfortunately, because of our financial distress, this can only be afforded for “new” pensioners. As well as this we notice there is terrible congestion on a stretch of motorway and it could ideally do with an extra lane. No money for that either, so we’re going to introduce just about the most dangerous idea you could imagine – using the hard shoulder for regular traffic. It may result in a few unnecessary deaths but never mind.
In other words, those of you who have paid taxes and NI all your life can go forth and multiply so long as we look after the rest of the world. After all, it will make us all feel good !!
BTW – great idea about using helicopters to reach accidents rov. Just a couple of snags: they cost upwards of £2k per hour to run and need huge capital outlay to buy (no money, remember); they cannot be used in urban situations so would have to be kept solely for motorway type incidents. The incident I saw last week would have needed at least six of them and the vehicles that did make it to the site did so because, despite the motorway being at a standstill, the hard shoulder was free.
I agree that the issue of what the tax is called is irrelevant. Obviously also money needs to be spent on improving the road system.
I agree also that using the hard shoulder of motorways as an extra lane is dangerous and to be discouraged.
But many people who pay their tax, no matter what it is called, myself included, do NOT want to see roads widened unless there is a very good reason.
What is daft is the claim that more money on foreign aid = less money for widening roads. If foerign aid was cut you would not see wider motorways -thank God.
I agree also that using the hard shoulder of motorways as an extra lane is dangerous and to be discouraged.
But many people who pay their tax, no matter what it is called, myself included, do NOT want to see roads widened unless there is a very good reason.
What is daft is the claim that more money on foreign aid = less money for widening roads. If foerign aid was cut you would not see wider motorways -thank God.
1 to 20 of 20
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.