Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
What causes traffic congestion?
13 Answers
The answer to that is simple - Local Authorities do. Traffic has difficulty exiting motorways and 'A' roads because of the decisions taken by councils that include the introduction of road narrowing, speed bumps, bus lanes, speed cameras, erratic traffic lights, on-street parking etc. Having introduced all of these, the cheeky b4st4rds are now going to charge us all for the privilege of negotiating them. All of these should be removed or banned. Traffic lights should be taken down and replaced by round-abouts. Pavements should be narrowed. They are vastly underused and ridiculously wide in places. The answer to congestion is to speed traffic up, not slow it down. The speed limit should be increased to 35 mph. The cost is enormous to consumers and industry. But none of this will happen because: 1. It will cost money. 2. The arrogance and ignorance of Local Authority and Government officials will ensure it never happens.
And we will end up paying through the fcking nose for the incompetence of so-called experts to slow us down each day.
And we will end up paying through the fcking nose for the incompetence of so-called experts to slow us down each day.
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. 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.
traffic congestion will never be erased as the roads in britain were not built for the volume of traffic now using it?
the main problem on urban roads with the ideas you have just mention will be the danger to the public....... if some motorist is going to use the back roads as a short cut he will be putting many lives in danger by doing so, so in effect,having speed bumps and lane narrowing is in fact a good idea for safty reasons!.
on the motorways in france there is no congestion because people have to get in the near side lane, and if they dont ,the person behind will force him over!! its a wonderful idea and sounds a bit course but it works!!
the main problem on urban roads with the ideas you have just mention will be the danger to the public....... if some motorist is going to use the back roads as a short cut he will be putting many lives in danger by doing so, so in effect,having speed bumps and lane narrowing is in fact a good idea for safty reasons!.
on the motorways in france there is no congestion because people have to get in the near side lane, and if they dont ,the person behind will force him over!! its a wonderful idea and sounds a bit course but it works!!
Are you a traffic planning officer rugeleyboy?
A danger to the public? What public? The vast majority of people are now using cars and are being penalised and restricted for doing so.
'Safety reasons' is the biggest red herring and swallowed by suckers that believe all the propoganda put out by the government and local authorities.
There is room if the restrictions are removed, but officialdom want to choke us up and be happy to pay for it.
A danger to the public? What public? The vast majority of people are now using cars and are being penalised and restricted for doing so.
'Safety reasons' is the biggest red herring and swallowed by suckers that believe all the propoganda put out by the government and local authorities.
There is room if the restrictions are removed, but officialdom want to choke us up and be happy to pay for it.
Too many cars, and........bus lanes!! Halve the capacity of a road just so a bus can tootle along.....
Why are there too many cars?? Because nobody uses public transport unless they absolutely have to- buses are dreadful; filthy dirty, only for people who have all day to get somewhere, and otherwise full of psychos and drunks.....yeearrrghhh, and trains are now for rich people only.
I don't care what it costs, I'll always go by car- safe, comfortable, clean, and door to door! (unless its local when I'll get the bicycle out....anything to avoid public transport!!!)
Why are there too many cars?? Because nobody uses public transport unless they absolutely have to- buses are dreadful; filthy dirty, only for people who have all day to get somewhere, and otherwise full of psychos and drunks.....yeearrrghhh, and trains are now for rich people only.
I don't care what it costs, I'll always go by car- safe, comfortable, clean, and door to door! (unless its local when I'll get the bicycle out....anything to avoid public transport!!!)
I've said it before but I think it's worth repeating.....
"What do you mean? Fuel is far too cheap, if the masses can afford it, it must be too cheap! We are never going to remove people from their slow moving steel boxes without some radical policies. Politicians with some bottle required!"
Pragmatically speaking motoring is far too cheap, now if the goverenment really wanted to stop congestion they'd stop tinkering around the edges and get brutal with it. I mean radical policies like �100 a gallon for private usage for example but get public transport up to standard first.
The trouble is that it would take more than 1 parliament to do it, hence politicians aren't interested in political suicide.
"What do you mean? Fuel is far too cheap, if the masses can afford it, it must be too cheap! We are never going to remove people from their slow moving steel boxes without some radical policies. Politicians with some bottle required!"
Pragmatically speaking motoring is far too cheap, now if the goverenment really wanted to stop congestion they'd stop tinkering around the edges and get brutal with it. I mean radical policies like �100 a gallon for private usage for example but get public transport up to standard first.
The trouble is that it would take more than 1 parliament to do it, hence politicians aren't interested in political suicide.
No, the real reason motoring is still affordable is tax-take. No government will make it too pricey as the income from fuel-tax and road fund licence would drop off......it's the same with fags-everyone knows they are bad for you, and any half sensible health secretary would ban it immediately, but there's far too much tax income involved for that.
lol, �100 a gallon? The economy would collapse!!
How would anyone get to work?
It's all fine saying get public transport sorted, but that only works in urban areas where there are actually people to use it!
Oh, and rugeley, drivers on motorways in the UK have to use the nearside lane too, you just find that people like driving in the middle lane when there's no traffic about. That and the fact that the roads are so busy you can't get back over to the nearside lane!
How would anyone get to work?
It's all fine saying get public transport sorted, but that only works in urban areas where there are actually people to use it!
Oh, and rugeley, drivers on motorways in the UK have to use the nearside lane too, you just find that people like driving in the middle lane when there's no traffic about. That and the fact that the roads are so busy you can't get back over to the nearside lane!
ugly bob........ i know but i think a lot of people, especially around by me, m6 m5 junction tend to stay in the middle lane no matter what? even if it is free to move over they stay there?
�100 per gallon............what about the knock on effect?? if its costinng another �100 per every 6 mile a lorry does,this means your weetabix will have to go up to cover the costs?
�100 per gallon............what about the knock on effect?? if its costinng another �100 per every 6 mile a lorry does,this means your weetabix will have to go up to cover the costs?
That's why I said for private motoring only rugleyboy/ugly_bob. The �100 a gallon was just an example, an idea of the sort of magnitude of change you have to contemplate to have any effect. Of course it would need thoroughly thinking through.
The problem is we have become too attached to the mobility the car gives us. I mean 20 years ago I wouldn't contemplate taking a job that's 30 miles away, now it's common place. People lived near where they worked.
The railways have been systematically destroyed, first by Beeching and then others, the railways should be restored to the level they where, where virtually everywhere had a station. National public transport should be revived and subsidised, largely by private motorists. Don't get me wrong, I have a car and a motorbike which I would dearly love not to need.
The problem is we have become too attached to the mobility the car gives us. I mean 20 years ago I wouldn't contemplate taking a job that's 30 miles away, now it's common place. People lived near where they worked.
The railways have been systematically destroyed, first by Beeching and then others, the railways should be restored to the level they where, where virtually everywhere had a station. National public transport should be revived and subsidised, largely by private motorists. Don't get me wrong, I have a car and a motorbike which I would dearly love not to need.
Loosehead - I can see what you're saying, it's just that it's not feasible for rural areas. I never used a car when I lived in Nottingham - there was a bus every 15 minutes. In the country, it wouldn't be possible for me to get to work. Public transport would mean me taking 3 different busses and a 2 hour trip to work - it's only 10 miles! There's simply not enough demand to create a decent public transport system. Even if there were no private cars.
As for the motorway lane discipline problem - people need re-educating. I remember a couple of months ago driving down the (almost empty - honestly) M1. As I came to a junction, I pulled into the middle lane to allow the 2 cars joining the motorway to enter. They both then pulled straight into the middle lane right in front of me depsite there being nothing in the left lane for at least a mile! I must admit there was a bit of choice language coming from my direction!!
As for the motorway lane discipline problem - people need re-educating. I remember a couple of months ago driving down the (almost empty - honestly) M1. As I came to a junction, I pulled into the middle lane to allow the 2 cars joining the motorway to enter. They both then pulled straight into the middle lane right in front of me depsite there being nothing in the left lane for at least a mile! I must admit there was a bit of choice language coming from my direction!!
-- answer removed --
1 to 13 of 13
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.