horizon wrote:So thanks Mick for your thoughtful tolerance! Cheers Horizon
No problem! It was just an idle thought, and to be honest, I can't see me ever doing the ride. Whilst looking at the maps, I was horrified to see the way that the M25 has "split" the area. We now have an "Inside" and "Outside" the M25. Two separate and different places.
irc wrote:The A82 north of Tarbert is still unimproved.
It depends on how far back in time you go! I remember that stretch being improved in the early 80's. (or was it the late 70's - I forget!)
My mistake. Should have said from Tarbet to the top of Loch Lomond.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?
I have a book "Cycle touring in France" and one of the tours is a circumnavigation of Paris, but around 40-50 miles out from the centre, passing through such places as Beauvais and Compiegne. I'm think a similar circumnaviagtion of London would be an interesting ride, but this would be quite a bit further out than the M25.
toontra wrote:Some folks over a YACF were planning a "London Orbital" last year, following the M25 as closely as possible. Initially it was a 1-day ride but then reduced to a leisurely 2-dayer.
In what strange theory of time does 1 day reduce to 2? Is this the special relativity of a racing cyclist I wonder?
Chris Juden One lady owner, never raced or jumped.
horizon wrote: To my mind this is the most profound way in which cyclists have been forced off the roads: the nature of the road has been altered so that it is less interesting, less immediate, less bound to the topography, too fast, too straight, noisier and one's progress seems slower. They may (arguably) be "safer" but then you wouldn't want to cycle on them anyway so that is a mouthful of dry dust.
19th century cart tracks were bound to the topography but I wouldn't want to drive from Scotland to London on them. In 2001 motorways in the UK carried 31.5% of all road traffic but only had 8% of the accidents. To me that is progress.
The big mistakes have been made when new roads were built on top of old roads. Where the old road still exists then it is often excellent for cycling when a new road carries the vast majority of the traffic.
Since we don't have 1950s levels of car ownership we can't get by with a 1950s road network.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?
horizon wrote: To my mind this is the most profound way in which cyclists have been forced off the roads: the nature of the road has been altered so that it is less interesting, less immediate, less bound to the topography, too fast, too straight, noisier and one's progress seems slower. They may (arguably) be "safer" but then you wouldn't want to cycle on them anyway so that is a mouthful of dry dust.
19th century cart tracks were bound to the topography but I wouldn't want to drive from Scotland to London on them. In 2001 motorways in the UK carried 31.5% of all road traffic but only had 8% of the accidents. To me that is progress.
The big mistakes have been made when new roads were built on top of old roads. Where the old road still exists then it is often excellent for cycling when a new road carries the vast majority of the traffic.
Since we don't have 1950s levels of car ownership we can't get by with a 1950s road network.
Hi irc:
19th century cart tracks were bound to the topography but I wouldn't want to drive from Scotland to London on them.Who's talking about cart tracks? First class (ex)toll roads with macadam surfaces. By the 1920s, first class roads with tarmacadam surfaces - the hey day.
The big mistakes have been made when new roads were built on top of old roads. Absolutely - this is what I meant - which also means that the designers and builders of your motorways were less benign than you might think - when it suited them they trashed the lot.
Since we don't have 1950s levels of car ownership. That's right - we have 21st century levels of car ownership created in part and encouraged by 1920s thinking, dealt with by 1960s thinking and inflicted upon the rest of us by thinking that belongs to the Normans.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
horizon wrote:The big mistakes have been made when new roads were built on top of old roads. Absolutely - this is what I meant - which also means that the designers and builders of your motorways were less benign than you might think - when it suited them they trashed the lot.
I'm glad we can almost agree . But IMO it's A roads that are the main problem. Motorways were usually built on a different line for ease of construction. Whatever the sacrafices that had to be made a road system that meant long distance travel didn't mean driving througfh the center of every town en route is better.
Since we don't have 1950s levels of car ownership. That's right - we have 21st century levels of car ownership created in part and encouraged by 1920s thinking, dealt with by 1960s thinking and inflicted upon the rest of us by thinking that belongs to the Normans.[/quote]
If it was inflicted on us then why is any measure to restrict car use a vote loser? THe Edinburgh congestion charge for example. In fact I can't think of any case where residents have voted for a congestion charge.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?
I thought it was worth dipping in to make a point or two, aimed particularly at those who seem to think that building larger/more roads is a good thing:
More road capacity = more demand It's a very simple premise and one established by transport academics getting on for 20 years ago, and it makes sense when you discover that since the 1950's the amount of time people spend travelling has remained relatively static but the distances have changed drastically. New/increased road capacity has only served to keep journey times constant whilst resulting in huge changes to how and where people live. We used to be a country with most people living in cities/towns where they would also work and countryside populations directly related to the rural economy. Increasingly providing for motor traffic growth, in combination with the cost of car ownership reducing year on years for decades, has given us the hellish conditions which we now enjoy. It will take decades to undo all of this preceded by the political/public will to do so but unfortunately this isn't going to happen whilst people are unable to understand this relationship.
It's worth noting that the same principal works in reverse: less capacity = less demand, aptly demonstrated when the predicted 'travel chaos' never seems to materialise when roads/bridges are closed or a London congestion charge is introduced as people find alternatives.
I cannot claim any inside or prior knowledge on this but it now seems that Stephen Byers has put the price on the cost of progress: it costs between £3,000 and £5,000 per day to progress (i.e. to get a decision to build a road). That the road will not solve the problem it purports to, that innocent lives will be damaged (thousands due to air pollution according to latest figures) and that the gullible motoring public will be enraged with disappointment appears irrelevant – for them, the profits to be made outweigh the cost in someone else’s human misery. That we call greed and deception “progress” sends Orwellian shivers down one’s spine. I ride a bike.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
irc wrote:If it was inflicted on us then why is any measure to restrict car use a vote loser? THe Edinburgh congestion charge for example. In fact I can't think of any case where residents have voted for a congestion charge.
We can add recycling to that.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
horizon wrote:If it was inflicted on us then why is any measure to restrict car use a vote loser? THe Edinburgh congestion charge for example. In fact I can't think of any case where residents have voted for a congestion charge.
Like many things if it's unintuitive people will not vote for it, add to the fact that it's something that may cost money and the chances of something getting voted for is minimal.
If something is built on a unsuitable model you can keep chucking more of whatever it needs at it for a while to keep it going (be this money, energy, or road) or you can start to try and alter the way this are run and the way things work.
If a business is unsustainable you can through money at it for a while but it's a waste of time and people realise that, there is a nice simple profit loss figure at the end of the year. Turn over is nothing without profit. Many other issues including transport and specifically road transport however "profit" seems to be ignored and only turnover considered.
GrahamG wrote:I thought it was worth dipping in to make a point or two, aimed particularly at those who seem to think that building larger/more roads is a good thing:
More road capacity = more demand It's a very simple premise and one established by transport academics getting on for 20 years ago, and it makes sense when you discover that since the 1950's the amount of time people spend travelling has remained relatively static but the distances have changed drastically. New/increased road capacity has only served to keep journey times constant whilst resulting in huge changes to how and where people live.
Travelling further in the same time was the whole idea of better roads. I'm quite happy with it. I'm glad it works. Outside major cities it is quite possible to build road to meet a predicted demand. For example to M74 built 20? years ago. Still under capacity. The modern A9. The dual carriageway sections still under capacity 25 years on.
GrahamG wrote:We used to be a country with most people living in cities/towns where they would also work and countryside populations directly related to the rural economy. .
Ah yes the old times. Part of my family came from a rural area of Scotland. We used to go up there on holiday in the 60s and 70s. I once asked my mother how it was she knew everyone in the village but nobody in the neighbouring village 2 miles away. The answer was that the rural economy meant that when she was brought up there in the 1940s the standard of living was at a level where there were almost no private cars in the and area none of the children had bikes. So they never came in to contact with the people 2 miles away. They weren't mobile enough. Their diet was largely potatoes, mutton and fish. The rural economy provided little else. I think if you ask many people who experienced the old rural economy to choose they would stick with the way things are today.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?
irc wrote: I think if you ask many people who experienced the old rural economy to choose they would stick with the way things are today.
Agree.
I wonder if there was a "Perfect Time"? A time where progress hadn't gone too far, a time when people still had some of the old ways, and a time when people had some modern luxuries as well?
irc wrote: I think if you ask many people who experienced the old rural economy to choose they would stick with the way things are today.
Agree.
I wonder if there was a "Perfect Time"? A time where progress hadn't gone too far, a time when people still had some of the old ways, and a time when people had some modern luxuries as well?
If the life portrayed in Lark Rise to Candleford was anything like the truth then that would be pretty good - if you owned the Post Office!
However, I think that it is in our nature to want more - not from a greed rationale, but from a desire to improve. I think that today few are content and satisfied with what they have to the extent that they can't envisage changing anything whether it be possessions or lifestyle
