In London, as well as other cities, right turns are prohibited at many cross roads controlled by traffic lights. To overcome this many vehicles turn left and immediately U turn and try to force their way into the queue of traffic going straight on. This inevitable blocks the road and gridlock occurs until someone gives way.
I once tackled some police(who were standing watching) about this event. An Inspector(no less) said they had prosecuted a van driver for ?Driving without Due Care and Attention? at this junction.(Albert Bridge on the Embankment if anyone knows it) He was a regular offender who had been previously warned. The case was dismissed because his solicitor argued successfully that he wasn?t ?Driving without Due Care and Attention? but was deliberate in his actions and, whilst unsocial, it was not dangerous.
On another thread Dwight Van Driver said that there was an offence of ?driving a vehicle without reasonable consideration for other people using the road.? I don?t know what penalty this offence carries but surely this could be used in those cases where the ?offence?, although minor, causes huge disruption.
For instance on my route to work a particular delivery van parks outside a hotel every morning on double yellow lines. Without going into the detail the delay this causes hundreds of cars is out of all proportion to the trivial offence of stopping on a double yellow.
|
BobH - I quite agree with you re inconsiderate parking. I used to drive quite a lot for my job, and the number of serious tailbacks caused by one stupid, lazy parker was ridiculous.
If the government wants to tackle congstion they need to rigidly enforce the parking regs instead of talking about congestion charging.
|
|
|
Andy,
I agree your point about enforcing parking regulations before worrying about congestion charges. I guess the police don?t bother because the penalties for parking offences are trivial.
As BobH says hit them with a more serious charge and you might stop it.
|
|
|
Ah, but does the government want to tackle congestion?
Congestion suits their purpose in that it slows traffic to a crawl and makes road use difficult.
London is a prime example. The last time that any thought was given to the road system was in the 1960s. There are thousands of sets of traffic lights. Average speed is about ten miles per hour on a good day, down to about three miles per hour on a bad one. One broken-down vehicle, road works, an accident or suchlike results in an instant two mile tailback.
The whole thing needs re-planning with more gyratory systems and fewer lights. But instead all we get is more bus lanes, with buses carrying an average of half a dozen passengers, and more road narrowing and "traffic calming" measures.
The whole thrust is to bring traffic to a halt, not to enable it to maintain speed, far less speed up.
|
|
|
Quite agree, Brian.
It has become obvious over the last few years that local authorities (with central gov't blessing) are doing everything in their power to frustrate the private motorist.
Anything that exacerbates congestion will be encouraged, so that they can point to 'worsening congestion' to justify schemes to exclude cars and introduce charges.
|
Ever heard of conspiracy theory? The Americans get ribbed about it but it seems to be alive and well on this thread!
Do you really believe that politicians are encouraging traffic congestion for financial reasons? Do you think they like congestion when they're in their cars?Get real! The reality is poor or inconsiderate parking in urban areas and too many lazy motorists who drive a few hundred yards instead of walking. I do it myself.
Pat
|
|
|
|
Yes Pat, there are far too many short trips by car. But this gov't has set itself against the car and is determined to cram us all onto public transport.
Have you seen the EU's 'Copenhagen Declaration'? It says " All member States shall disourage car use by any means possible".
If they had not narrowed our roads, lowered the speed limits and blocked off access routes, we wouldn't have half the congestion we have today.
It is not for financial reasons, it is ideological. However, they seem quite willing to make money out of us in the process.
|
|
|
Well said Pat.
Some contributors to this forum never miss an opportunity to have a go at politicians, police and the establishment in general. To imply that the Government want congestion and the police are in league with them is absurd.
The point of the original post seemed quite simple to me. Inconsiderate actions by some can cause huge inconvenience to the average motorist. Could they be deterred by prosecuting them under the provisions of the ?(un)reasonable consideration? legislation that attracts stiffer penalties?
|
Clapper,
If you think it is absurd, it shows you are not paying attention. Read this from London Transport Highways engineer Malcolm Heymer.
"In May 1996, The Car Free Cities Network of the European Union adopted the 'Copenhagen Declaration', which included the following exhortation: "All decision makers at the local, regional, national and European levels are urged to play their part in changing our culture of mobility.'. Thus car use is to be discouraged by all possible means. "
|
That is, they favour a culture of immobility.
Having got which they have to put up house tax because so many businesses have shut up shop or moved out; for where there is nowhere to take the car, we have to shop by E-mail.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought politicians just used the bus lanes so they didn't get held up by congestion?
|
Bob H.
Sorry but I have been round the back having a cup of tea and watching the scrap going on. Now that things are more placid I will venture forth.
Road Traffic Acts and Regulations cover almost every sin that can be committed by drivers and your interest is covered by Dangerous driving , driving without due care and attention (careless) or reasonable consideration for other road users and perhaps Highway Obstruction. The 'U' turners could argueably come under the later but could be better dealt with by a U Turn Order forbidding, but they can argue they do not make a U Turn but a 90 degree and return.
Already you will see that in all things it is a question of fact and he who asserts must prove. The final decision is made on the Bench by ordinary members of the public, similar to those present on this Forum who have their own strong opinions, cannot agree and at times get on with each other. So some cases before them will not get the black cap.
C.P.S. who give the nod on prosecution will not entertain looking at a case unless it is a stonewaller in their opinion but can then come across the above block.
Poor old Plod, of which there are not sufficient numbers having been cut back in relation to population and case load because of the need for economy, and out in the theatre of war if he takes action is faced with a mountain of paperwork before it passes to CPS on relatively minor but annoying breaches which could be eliminated if we all showed consideration. With the alligator of crime snapping at his backside and a need to be everything to all men is there no wonder he exercises discretion and ignores these minor breaches and perhaps relying on the fact that if we suffer we will ensure that we do not do similar actions for the benefit of others.
As an ex White Van Driver for a Food Firm I retired in Sept last. I know of your frustration and have come across all your concerns. I do understand that offences concerning driving standards Dangerous, due care etc are being reviewed for a single offence with multi penalty depending on severity/consequence. But at the end of the day are there people about that can enforce it?
DVD
|
|
|
|
Well if Martin Heymer - a London Transport engineer indeed - said that in May 1996 that absolutely proves your point doesn't it. Wow Martin Heymer Himself!!
So is your conclusion these inconsiderate motorists are Government agents in disguise working to a plan to cause disruption? A sort of motoring fifth column?
Why not start a thread entitled ?another rant at the establishment? and not hijack sensible motoring topics for your own ends.
|
Look again Crapper, Malcolm Heymer is a Highways Engineer, not a bus mechanic.
Do you know the difference?
|
|
|
Crapper wrote.....
>To imply that the Government want congestion and the police are in league with them is absurd.<
What has the above got to do with "inconsiderate motorists"
I am saying there is the political will to get us out of our cars for no good reason other than control.
|
|
|
|
Following on from The Growlers comments on bus lanes, if I was to buy an old stinking bus, could I use the bus lanes even with no passengers?
Bill
|
Ever thought that the government has another incentive, with the amount of tax on fuel as it is, they must make a mint out of traffic jams.
Think about it, on motorways for example mile upon mile of cars, 3/4 lanes wide crawling fowards [so engine on] without actually going very far.
Conspiracy, me thinks so.
Kev
|
|
|
|
|
Alwyn, Not to disagree with your point(s), but maybe the name mis-spelling might be a little unnecessary ?
|
|
|
Alwyn
There may be the political will do just as you say. But what has that to do with the original thread.
Because a "London Transport Highways engineer sic " says something does that make it gospel? Only if it agrees with your anti-establishment stance apparently.
A nice rebuke from Mark I thought. Could you be losing the argument?
C
|
clapper wrote:
>
> Alwyn
> There may be the political will do just as you say. But what
> has that to do with the original thread.
>
> Because a "London Transport Highways engineer sic " says
> something does that make it gospel? Only if it agrees with
> your anti-establishment stance apparently.
>
> A nice rebuke from Mark I thought. Could you be losing the
> argument?
>
> C
No.
|
|
|
C,
Malcolm Heymer was simply drawing attention to the edict issued by the EU. You have totally missed the message.
Do you blame Trevor MacDonald if you don't like the news? He does not make the news. He tells you about it
The Copenhagen Declaration, which you seem to think was an "opinion" from Malcolm, was an instruction to politicians at all levels to "discourage our culture of mobility"
Is that clear enough for you?
|
|
|
|
Having started this thread, do I have any right to comment on the dispute between Alwyn and Clapper? Pity about the spelling mistake (x 2) Alwyn.
I really wanted a response from DVD or any other Policeman on the merits of upping the anti on certain types of offence.
I have to say I found Pat?s post on the conspiracy theory made the most sense to me and I really had no idea that Malcolm Heymer had achieved Guru status; I must confess I had never heard of him!
BobH
|
Bob H,
Time to put this one to bed, perhaps? You certainly opened a can of worms, Bob. I know I'm probably not the best qualified to say this, but one or two contributors to this site need to lighten up a bit!
Considerate motoring is the only way forward.
Pat
|
|
|
Bob,
See my response above. Malcolm was telling us about an EU instruction; it was not his "opinion".
|
|
|
|
Alwyn,
How astute of you to rumble my grand plan to gridlock London. Thank goodness buses are not affected by jammed roads.
By the way are you and Tomo related, share a PC or anything?
Mal
[Malcolm Heymer declares that this message did not originate from him]
|
Malcolm,
Is it really you?
Just as well I gave you the credit for the quote!
|
|
|
|
I found this on an old thread-
If the cap fits
|
|
|
I found this on an old thread-
In the meantime, a city, almost devoid of traffic, can be gridlocked (think about it) by a relatively tiny number of cars strategically placed to block the nodes of the grid - the junctions.
Yet when was the last time that you saw anyone given a ticket for stopping in a Yellow Box junction, never mind told off for blocking an ordinary junction?
In fact, has either ever happened?!
Hmmmmmmmmmm
Quite clearly it's the fact that car use in towns has gone down (there is a small overall increase in "traffic", but that's goods on motorways) that's causing congestion.
And not a government conspiracy.
Quite clearly chancellors and transport ministers who don't have driving licences, and prime ministers and ex transport ministers who drive in bus lanes, wouldn't dream of making driving difficult for themselves.
And as for Jo Moore, though she likes making life difficult for herself: the fact that she "got on her bike" wouldn't come into the equation either.
Would it?
Perhaps we're not giving the Greens due credit for their honesty and integrity here ?;-)
|
|
|
A perfectly reasonable question from Bob H. A thoroughly balanced and intelligent summary of the problems associated with the question posed, by DVD.
The usual mix of sensible, honest opinion, plus the usual dogma, interspersed with frippery, (as was expected) in between.
No change there.
But thought provoking stuff nontheless and thanks to all for an interesting thread.
Personally, if my contribution to reducing the congestion in London means moving to somewhere less congested thus reducing the numbers by one(+one), then I'll volunteer for that. I'll await the expected response that by doing that, I'm just transferring the problem to somewhere else. To which I'm afraid I have no answer.
KB.
|
|
|
DVD/KB/Pat -
Thanks. Didn?t realize it would cause such controversy, but interesting none the less.
BobH
|
Bob, having read through the thread, and seen it diversify off (as is the cahnnel's wont) I thought I'd add my thruppence worth.
It seems the solution (as mentioned above) is more enforcement, and a sweeping law of "driving without due consideration for other road users."
Could be used against drivers:
travelling in the middle lane of a motorway at 60
keeping their foglights on 24/7
driving with the stereo playing at 150db
hurrying down the outside lane, past a mile of queueing traffic, and cutting-in to avoid the roadworks
Pipe dream, maybe? But again, it is down to Police on the street to do it..
|
|
|
|
Alwyn
Not sure. Yours or mine ?
|
|
|
Alwyn,
I don?t want to intervene in your battles. However, for the sake of argument, let us assume that everything that you have said in this thread is 100% true. What is the relevance to my original post? e.g The ability of police to deal effectively with motorists who cause huge disruption.
If it has a relevance I am afraid I missed your point(s).
BobH
|
Hi Bob,
You are right. I could not remember how we got to this point, but, on reading back, I see it was because Pat and Clapper said it was ludicrous to think that politicians were deliberately causing congestion.
Clapper responded with ridicule because he was not aware of the Copenhagen Declaration. The ridicule sparked the problems.
If Clapper wants to see even more European nonsense he should check out this little lot.
europa.eu.int/comm/transport/extra/res_urban_trans...l
We have discussed it before but it is so mad that some of us thought it was a spoof. On checking, it turns out to be correct.
Pax?
|
|
|
|
