It's a crazy system like the M4 bus lane which simply reduces the amount of road available for the common motorist.
As someone who used to commute up the M4 into west London 4 days a week I can say that the M4 bus lane improved traffic flow, not because the buses/taxis were able to move faster, instead simply because it moved the three into two lane bottle neck to a more suitable place by jct 3 rather than just before the elevated section. It was also a good move to lower the speed limit (to 50mph for a while then to 60) this helped smooth the traffic flow that previously piled in towards Heston at 85 plus before bunching up by jct 3.
... bus lane improved traffic flow .... good move to lower the speed limit .... can't belive I have said that, I guess there is an exception to every rule!
|
Well, it'll make the school run quicker; at least in one direction!
Cockle
|
|
How are they going to enforce this? What's the point of spending hundreds of £millions adding a new lane to the M1 that only about one car in twenty will be able to use?
|
The A647 in Leeds has had a similar 2+ lane for about 3 years. It is only over a short distance (with phased t.lights controlling the 2 lanes merging) and it seems to work (if you have 2 or more people in the car!)...
Having said that, when I am on my own I take a different route as it adds 20 minutes onto your journey at rush hour. I hadn't used the road before the HOV was introduced, so can't comment of the difference it's made.
|
Different, I know, but it works well in the Bay Area, California.
And it does cause peopleto share cars.
The thing is, as it is now cars will fill whatever the available space is. So double the road throughput and eventually you'll end up with double the cars.
Stop being silly, stop penalising car drivers, stop coming up wiht schemes and start spending money on public transport.
|
but it works well in the Bay Area, California.
But so do Stretch Limos.....(QED)
|
If they really want to ease congestion on the M1, the best way to do it would be to upgrade the A1 to motorway status all the way up = and build more roads linking the two routes, at the moment there's only the M25 and A14.
Oh dear, I just said the evil words, "build more roads".
|
I don't think two people is enough. It should be at least three, like where I live. Also what about counterflows in rush hours? Much cheaper I would have thought.
|
Also, T2 and T3 lanes in Sydney, Australia. Transit lanes for 2 or 3 occupants on arterial freeways and major roads.
|
Depending on how the legislation is worded, as HJ says, a blow-up doll and a visit to an Oxfam shop, or perhaps even carrying a dog, cat or other animal in the car might work as a by-pass measure.
|
I don't know what happened, but a 8.5 month pregnant woman was trying to beat her fine in San Mateo a couple of years ago. Last I heard the pro-life people were all over the case given that it depended on classing a foetus as a person.
Generally I can't say I really see what the objection is. In other parts of the world HO lanes work well, as does reversing the direction of one or more lanes depending on the traffic flow.
Mind you, US turn right on red junctions and 4-way stop junctions work well as well but if they, and the other examples above, were implemented here, I'm sure that 1) they wouldn't work here as everybody tried to get some advantage or be first and 2) there'd be some outrage about what a stupid idea it was.
The more things change.....................
|
Dummy run for UK car sharers
quote
"So who can use it? And how will it be enforced?
Washington State lays out the ground rules for using its HOV lanes pretty clearly.
"Children and your spouse count as carpool passengers."
"Pets do NOT count as carpool or vanpool passengers."
But with or without Fido, solo drivers continue to take their chances in the US's 125 dedicated lanes.
HOV motorists have been calling the "shop-a-lane-cheat" hotline in droves to report lone drivers sneaking into their lanes.
Whether there is any truth in the story of the pregnant woman arguing that her unborn child was her second person is uncertain.
But there are plenty of examples of people dressing up shop dummies in wigs and clothes and sitting them in the passenger seat.
One, caught out after causing a major pile-up in southern California by veering in front of a school bus, told journalists: "This saved 45 minutes on my commute each day."
"There was just this temptation."
In the UK, the Department for Transport hopes the M1 scheme will be "self enforcing" - there will be no special cameras, nor a gated entrance to the HOV lane.
Instead police patrols and the driver's own sense of shame will determine the level of cheating.
No free ticket for pet owners
If drivers are carrying one or more passengers, be they colleagues, friends, hitchhikers or children, theoretically they are free to zip ahead in the HOV lane. But again, pets definitely do not count.
"We are looking at vehicles carrying two or more people - it doesn't matter who," said a Department for Transport spokeswoman.
In the States, complete strangers have been queuing up to take advantage of the scheme for more than 20 years.
"Slugging" - or casual carpooling - sees people lining up at the side of the road for a free lift from lone drivers who can then legitimately dodge the jams in an HOV lane.
Car sharing schemes - often run through websites - in which people can register their details to find someone with a matching journey have already seen some success in the UK.
Liftshare has more than 60,000 members on its books and says the estimated distance shared each year by them is 5,525,353 km or 3,433,295 miles.
The government thinks car sharing could lead to a 5% reduction of cars on the road.
And while the exact details have yet to be been ironed out, those caught cheating can expect to face some punishment - possibly a fine.
But is the government worried about drivers dressing up pets and shop dummies to cheat their way into the lane?
"We would expect enforcement techniques to be sufficient to deal with mischief makers," said the spokeswoman.
|
>>Whether there is any truth in the story of the pregnant woman arguing that her unborn child was her second person is uncertain.
Oh it is certainly true. I rememebr reading about it in the papers and hearing it on the radio at the time.
On a similar subject, I am not sure I agree with this article, but it has an interesting point or two;
www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2000/10/0...l
|
"Slugs" is apparently the term for people loitering at the start of a car sharing route waiting for a free ride in return for helping the driver use the dedicated lane.
It made me smile, but what a horrid term!
|
If you don't have a car share lane near you, but do have a bus lane and a few grand to spare, buy one of these!
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4075085.stm
|
My experience of the Leeds 2+ lane is that it adds no more than 5 minutes to the journey if you are in the single occupancy lane at rush hour - hardly a major inconvenience - I've just queued for 10 minutes at a major roundabout with an Asda off it and that's outside rush hour!
The lack of policing (it only received revenue funding for police cover for 6 months!) means plenty of drivers flout the 2+ rule anyway.
|
|
If they put a lane in each direction there would be good career openings for people wanting to be professional car-sharers.
|
I don't travel on this stretch of the M1 too often (thank goodness) but whenever I do, it's always in the rush-hour, it's always congested/crawling/stationary, and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of vehicles I've seen that have multiple occupants in them.
Just what is this proposal likely to achieve? I can see it might benefit an urban commuter route but not this particular road.
|
> There is another issue, I could be stopped and prosecuted for using the lane if I have no
> passenger however a drunk, drugged up, uninsured, no MOT, bald tyred etc etc driver would
> motor on through just because he has got his mate with him.
Totally irrelevant.
> people wanting to be professional car-sharers.
These people already exist. They are called taxi drivers.
I agree with the point that you're doing it to try to encourage people to car pool, not to reward the ones who _already_ do. It's to make it slightly more convenient for car-poolers, to just swing the balance a little bit in its favour.
If one in five people could car pool a couple of times a week, it would make a 10% reduction in the traffic on the motorways. And that reduction is for everyone - people who are in a situation to make car pooling sensible, and those who are not.
The idea of it moderating itself by "shame" will only apply if illegitimate use of the HOV lane is seen as shameful. Would it be? Would you be embarassed to be seen to do it? Hard to know. Some people are embarassed to do a sensible overtake, others aren't embarassed to undertake and cut people up.
-Mark
|
Would you be embarassed to be seen to do it?
I drive one of two cars - a BMW coupe and a Porsche.
Everyone already hates me. Would driving alone in a 2+ lane increase that noticeably? I think not......
;-)
|
> There is another issue, I could be stopped and prosecuted for using the lane if I have no > passenger however a drunk, drugged up, uninsured, no MOT, bald tyred etc etc driver would > motor on through just because he has got his mate with him. Totally irrelevant.
It is toatlly relevant as far as I am concerned!
The point being that this is yet another reason to penalise law abiding motorists when the authorities should be clamping down on the law breakers.
|
|
