Debate on 15 minute cities on Radio 4 now.

[softlips]

Doesn't whether the Daily Mail is in favour or against most things simply alternate on odd and even dates?

I definitely remember coffee, bacon and wine being both good and bad for me.

In fairness they all are good for you in moderation but bad in excess.

[pq]

Bacon is classified by the WHO as a class 1 carcinogen, ie it is known to cause cancer. So it is not good for you at all, even in moderation. Advice on the other two seems less conclusive. So I consume coffee and red wine in moderation but not bacon.

[cycle tramp]

Bacon is classified by the WHO as a class 1 carcinogen, ie it is known to cause cancer. So it is not good for you at all, even in moderation. Advice on the other two seems less conclusive. So I consume coffee and red wine in moderation but not bacon.

I believe that the WHO has advised that being alive may cause you cancer. Research has conclusively proved that people who are not alive are 100% risk free of developing cancer after their date of death....

[mjr]

Bacon is classified by the WHO as a class 1 carcinogen, ie it is known to cause cancer. So it is not good for you at all, even in moderation. Advice on the other two seems less conclusive. So I consume coffee and red wine in moderation but not bacon.

How would you consume coffee in bacon anyway?

[Bmblbzzz]

Bacon is classified by the WHO as a class 1 carcinogen, ie it is known to cause cancer. So it is not good for you at all, even in moderation. Advice on the other two seems less conclusive. So I consume coffee and red wine in moderation but not bacon.

How would you consume coffee in bacon anyway?

Available in Aldi:
https://www.aldipresscentre.co.uk/produ ... sed-bacon/

[toontra]

Erm - thread drift

LTN's and 15MC's are a topic worthy of debate, particularly for cyclists. Let's try and keep the bacon out of it.

[mattheus]

I've noticed*a recent shift in emphasis recently: less about Human Rights nonsense, more about how residents on the arterial roads are getting shafted with more pollution.
Now, I'm pretty sure this hasn't happened in most established zones on the continent, and opponents will be inventing a lot of numbers, BUT:

My direct experiences are in quite small towns (Oxford, and NED/BEL places): I could believe that in big cities you could really mess this up by diverting the rat-runners onto roads that will just get even busier; and
compound this by not providing enough active alternatives.
I'm thinking of where drivers are almost all crossing from outside an (arbitrary) ring-road to inside, so you can't easily improve that journey in anyway with a simple LTN. So maybe SOME schemes in big UK cities ARE in fact flawed.

How is my logic, people of CUKForum Campaigning sub-Forum?!?

*I stress "notice", as I may have learned to ignore the noise from the ghetto, Magan-Carta, anti-vax, Laurence Fox etc ... etc... types

[Jdsk]

...
My direct experiences are in quite small towns (Oxford, and NED/BEL places): I could believe that in big cities you could really mess this up by diverting the rat-runners onto roads that will just get even busier; and
compound this by not providing enough active alternatives.
I'm thinking of where drivers are almost all crossing from outside an (arbitrary) ring-road to inside, so you can't easily improve that journey in anyway with a simple LTN. So maybe SOME schemes in big UK cities ARE in fact flawed.
...

Aldred's recent thoughts on traffic on the boundary roads... sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65243274

Jonathan

[Pete Owens]

And course if you think about it it cannot make much difference to the main roads.

The reason rat runners do it is essentially to queue jump. If the main roads were not already congested then there wouldn't be any incentive to divert onto inherently slower back streets. Also, if those back streets carried any significant volume of traffic they would snarl up completely . So rat running cam only work for the rat runner if they are a very small proportion of the traffic.

Also the benefit of rat running is entirely to the rat runner at the expense of other drivers.

Imagine you are driving down a congested main road (and remember that as a driver you are the cause of that congestion rather than the victim of it). There is a bottle neck somewhere further along the road and you are queueing to take your turn behind the other drivers that arrived before you. But some of the drivers behind you have other ideas. They know a rat run and you notice a lot of people seem to turning into a residential street. Further along they re-emerge onto the main road to take their place in the queue. But now they are ahead of you - their time saving is at your expense. They can get away with it, because most of their manoeuvre is out of sight When they re-emerge onto the main road, people they have jumped in the queue will generously stop to let them in, assuming they are simply local residents trying to get out from their own street.

Now imagine you are quieting at the checkout of a busy supermarket with half the staff off sick. There are long queues of people pushing loaded trollies to each of the tills; You have waited for ten minutes and just about reached the till when a rat runner notices that there is a gap between two of the queues so they whiz along the gap and nip into the queue just ahead of you and start loading the conveyor. As they put the "next customer" bar down they turn to you and explain how they were easing the congestion in your line.

[mattheus]

...
My direct experiences are in quite small towns (Oxford, and NED/BEL places): I could believe that in big cities you could really mess this up by diverting the rat-runners onto roads that will just get even busier; and
compound this by not providing enough active alternatives.
I'm thinking of where drivers are almost all crossing from outside an (arbitrary) ring-road to inside, so you can't easily improve that journey in anyway with a simple LTN. So maybe SOME schemes in big UK cities ARE in fact flawed.
...

Aldred's recent thoughts on traffic on the boundary roads... sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65243274

Jonathan

Thanks. Problem there is:

Prof Rachel Aldred of Westminster University has studied the impact of 46 schemes in London

London is unique within the UK (and almost* unique across Europe). This supports my idea that London schemes may not be representative.

*Waits ...

[mjr]

Problem there is:

Prof Rachel Aldred of Westminster University has studied the impact of 46 schemes in London

London is unique within the UK (and almost* unique across Europe). This supports my idea that London schemes may not be representative.

*Waits ...

But where else in the UK has had similar systems in place long enough and studies made of them?

This is the same old anti-progress junk: first, findings from similar towns in Benelux are rejected because "that's not England"; then after London moves forwards, similar findings from there are rejected because "our town is different to London"; then after smaller cities move forwards, similar evidence from them is rejected because "Bristol/Birmingham/Leicester/York are in other parts of the country" (I've been told that cycling is popular in Bristol because it's on a big river and it wouldn't work in King's Lynn because we're not, which rather ignores that the Great Ouse is far bigger than the Avon by most measures); then after a county town finally moves forwards, evidence from them showing the same things yet again are rejected because "the county town is bigger than our town". So we get 20 years after London moved forwards and most of England is still wibbling that there's not enough evidence that it will work.

Meanwhile, small towns have built crazy things like 9-lane roads in failed attempts to cure congestion and just ended up with more congestion, more pollution and more injuries, yet their local governments are still trying to argue that more and wider roads will cure congestion, despite the evidence to the contrary from their very own towns.

It's not really about evidence of what works and doesn't, is it?

[mattheus]

Pete, mjr:
I don't who you think you're writing for! I'm 100% on-board with the LTN concept, so no point in preaching at me.
But you haven't addressed my last two posts at all - no offence, but I'm just left shrugging at those two posts.

(HINT: surely you'd agree that as with ANY urban-planning, it's possible to feck these things up? Pretty sure mjr had a right go at the Oxford scheme pages back, showing how much more perfect some scheme in GER/NED/BEL was ! )

[Cowsham]

Just tested this on my " conspiracy theory mad " workmate.

I didn't know till reading this thread what a 15min city was but noting it's got conspiracy theorists up in arms I thought I'd test this out on my workmate ( I'm a bit mischievous at times ) to see what he knows about it.

I asked innocently " Do you know what a 15min city is ?" The response first line I kid you not " your not allowed out of your house!" He went on till he got to exploding cow sheds

[Jdsk]

Just tested this on my " conspiracy theory mad " workmate.
...

Dare I ask... did you mention Sunday's test of the Emergency Alert system?

Jonathan

[Cowsham]

Just tested this on my " conspiracy theory mad " workmate.
...

Dare I ask... did you mention Sunday's test of the Emergency Alert system?

Jonathan

Forgot -- but now you reminded me I'll ask him on Friday -- that should be entertaining -- the conversation will probably be in the same vain ( sorry ) as the microchips in the covid vaccine.