Three Towns Travel project: what the £12m scheme to tackle congestion will mean for you

Three Towns Travel project: what the £12m scheme to tackle congestion will mean for you

Three Towns Travel project: what the £12m scheme to tackle congestion will mean for you

First published in News
Last updated
by

A MULTI-million-pound effort to tackle traffic congestion in Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch will pick up pace this year, with residents being promised visible improvements.

But not everyone is convinced – a year into the three-year Three Towns Travel project, there is criticism councils are wasting money “tinkering around the edges” of Dorset’s creaking road system.

Three Towns Travel is the name given to a major programme covering Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch. Funded by central government, the money is being spent improving the A35 corridor, encouraging more people to use public transport, bikes or to walk and making travelling more efficient and safer.

See the plans in full here

In effect, £12million is being spent building bus stops, re-designing busy junctions, creating cycle lanes and improving the public realm, with dozens of individual projects all being tackled in the name of Three Towns Travel.

Cllr Michael Filer, Bournemouth’s cabinet member for transportation, said: “An enormous amount of planning and preparation has been undertaken over the past 12 months by the three partner organisations and 2014 will mark a big year in terms of the public seeing the work happening on the ground.

“As the population grows, there will be more people, more jobs and more commuters on the road network. Three Towns Travel is about preparing for tomorrow’s journeys today by offering people easier, safer and more attractive travel.”

Ian Kalra, head of transportation services in Bournemouth, said they were reaching “a new phase” when residents will start “reaping the benefits” of early projects.

“Not only are we making physical network improvements but through a package of complimentary measures we want to provide attractive sustainable travel opportunities for those who may not have considered the benefits of walking, cycling and bus travel before.”

And Cllr Xena Dion, Poole’s cabinet member for transport, said residents needed to bear in mind the individual schemes were all part of an overarching strategy to improve the east-west corridor.

“It’s a key link between Christchurch, Bournemouth and Poole.

For years we have wanted to improve the transport corridor, reduce congestion and have better bus services.

“We have spent huge amounts of time listening to what people want and we have gone with the majority.

“I can’t pretend I have a magic wand and that Ashley Road will be perfect but we are doing the best we can with what we have and I believe there will be improvements.”

But not all of the schemes have found favour with residents. A proposal to close Boscombe Crescent as part of a package of measures to improve the area around St John’s Road was declared “the worst bit of traffic planning I’ve seen in this town for 50 years” by a Labour councillor.

And many cyclists are unconvinced the changes will make their lives easier.

Mike Chalkley, a former chair of Bournemouth Cycling Forum, said: “If you look at the Ashley Road scheme as an example, what they’re not addressing is the fundamental problem that the road has a dual use – as an artery and a shopping area.

“They really need to segregate the two but they’re not, they are just fiddling about doing little things which won’t make a great deal of difference to how people travel.

“With virtually all the schemes they’re doing, they say they want to increase the throughput of traffic to ease congestion. But if you create more throughput, you will get more traffic. The more capacity you create for driving, the more driving you will get.

“They’re not really approaching it in the right way and I don’t think the money’s going to make a lot of difference.

“They’re doing the best they can but they’re just tinkering around the edges. The problem is the volume of motor traffic; untiI that’s addressed nothing is going to change.”

And Labour leader Cllr Ben Grower, said he had no confidence the £12m investment would lead to visible improvements.

“This is just leading up to the elections in 2015,” he said.

“The administration wants to be seen to doing something in different areas of the town.

“We should be saying to the government not to give us money to spend on stupid traffic schemes, give us money so we can help people who can’t pay their council tax, people that are relying on food banks.”

Cllr David Jones, county and borough councillor at Christchurch said the scheme was “an invitation to waste public money.”

“If it was a scheme to benefit the area like the Burton Road cycleway – but otherwise it is just spending money for the sake of it.

“It does not remove bottlenecks to car travel. Most people in a democratic, free society choose to travel by car.

“Just because this is government money, does not mean it is not taxpayers’ money.”

The schemes under way or in the pipeline

The Bournemouth schemes currently under way or in the pipeline include:

  • The creation of a bus hub at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital
  • Improvements at Horseshoe Common including replacing the roundabout with a junction and the creation of a new shared space.
  • Better signage and landscaping at the Bournemouth Travel Interchange and improvements to the route between the station and the town centre.
  • Alterations to two different stretches of Christchurch Road in Boscombe – a section that runs towards Iford and at the Springbourne end.

In Poole, schemes include:

  • The Sea View super stop, which has seen improvements to bus and cycling facilities and the public realm.
  • Poole Train Station, where the bus stop and disabled parking have been enhanced.
  • The Shah of Persia junction, which includes an improved traffic signal junction, bus priority, improved pedestrian and cycling facilities.
  • Upgrades to the gyratory systems at the Civic Centre and County Gates.
  • Improvements to Ashley Road.

And in Christchurch the Burton Road footbridge has been completed, along with phase one of the cycleway between Burton and the Grange. The traffic signal at the Stony Lane and Purewell junction has also been upgraded.

Comments (79)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:08am Wed 29 Jan 14

Baywolf says...

Oo many busses too many bus stops and not enough room for motorists to overtake..it takes the same time for the M2 and M1 which uses the same routes.to get into Poole from Boscombe or Castlepoint as it does for National Express to get into London from Bournemouth! Why do these routes run parallel in follow the leader..why is there not a limited stop service from Christchurch to Bournemouth to Poole ..it takes 10 mins by train. Too many bus stops within walking distance and placed I front of traffic lights and on roundabouts..how's that for planning?
Oo many busses too many bus stops and not enough room for motorists to overtake..it takes the same time for the M2 and M1 which uses the same routes.to get into Poole from Boscombe or Castlepoint as it does for National Express to get into London from Bournemouth! Why do these routes run parallel in follow the leader..why is there not a limited stop service from Christchurch to Bournemouth to Poole ..it takes 10 mins by train. Too many bus stops within walking distance and placed I front of traffic lights and on roundabouts..how's that for planning? Baywolf
  • Score: 22

10:09am Wed 29 Jan 14

billy bumble says...

Wow - for once I am in complete agreement with all three of a cyclist, a Labour leader and a Councillor

These so-called improvements are at best cosmetic - any marginal improvement they will make to traffic flow will be cancelled out by the time they are completed - if they ever are completed

But £12 million is nowhere near enough to solve the problem
Wow - for once I am in complete agreement with all three of a cyclist, a Labour leader and a Councillor These so-called improvements are at best cosmetic - any marginal improvement they will make to traffic flow will be cancelled out by the time they are completed - if they ever are completed But £12 million is nowhere near enough to solve the problem billy bumble
  • Score: 13

10:19am Wed 29 Jan 14

justme20092009 says...

stop the money wasting for cyclists fgs they pay nowt towards the roads
stop the money wasting for cyclists fgs they pay nowt towards the roads justme20092009
  • Score: -18

10:22am Wed 29 Jan 14

Wackerone says...

billy bumble wrote:
Wow - for once I am in complete agreement with all three of a cyclist, a Labour leader and a Councillor

These so-called improvements are at best cosmetic - any marginal improvement they will make to traffic flow will be cancelled out by the time they are completed - if they ever are completed

But £12 million is nowhere near enough to solve the problem
Totally agree, about time that some of our elected cllr's came out and stated the obvious. Everything that is being done is only for the benefit of pedestrians and cyclists, is cosmetic at best and a total waste of public money. People will always want to use their cars and congestion will only get worse and that will include the buses.
[quote][p][bold]billy bumble[/bold] wrote: Wow - for once I am in complete agreement with all three of a cyclist, a Labour leader and a Councillor These so-called improvements are at best cosmetic - any marginal improvement they will make to traffic flow will be cancelled out by the time they are completed - if they ever are completed But £12 million is nowhere near enough to solve the problem[/p][/quote]Totally agree, about time that some of our elected cllr's came out and stated the obvious. Everything that is being done is only for the benefit of pedestrians and cyclists, is cosmetic at best and a total waste of public money. People will always want to use their cars and congestion will only get worse and that will include the buses. Wackerone
  • Score: 9

10:34am Wed 29 Jan 14

Redgolfer says...

I will start it, will not make one iota to the flow of traffic between the 3 towns, Filer states that there has been an enormous amount of planning and consultation, NOT with the right people, you are thinking you know best, sorry you are wrong.
Take one for instance, removing the roundabout at Horse Shoe and making a junction, so you have 4 roads merging at that point, BUSSES during the day, from Fir Vale Road going up to Richmond Hill and Old Christchurch Road and you THINK a junction is going to improve it, what planet are you on.
Improvements to Boscombe Bus Station because its dirty and draughty, at least it is in the right location for busses to get in and out and you are getting on and off busses, so you want to dress it up for the undesirables to have somewhere nice and warm to stay.
Please what is it with all these cycle proposals, yes they have a right to be considered and be safe but I for one would not cycle on these roads in any circumstances and I think that trying to make people cycle everywhere is foolish and throwing money away.
Alterations to 2 different stretches of Christchurch Road in Boscombe - a section that runs towards Iford and at the Springbourne end, HOW can you be taken seriously when you DO NOT KNOW where you are, just to give you a clue, THERE IS NO CHRISTCHURCH ROAD IN SPRINGBOURNE ???
I will start it, will not make one iota to the flow of traffic between the 3 towns, Filer states that there has been an enormous amount of planning and consultation, NOT with the right people, you are thinking you know best, sorry you are wrong. Take one for instance, removing the roundabout at Horse Shoe and making a junction, so you have 4 roads merging at that point, BUSSES during the day, from Fir Vale Road going up to Richmond Hill and Old Christchurch Road and you THINK a junction is going to improve it, what planet are you on. Improvements to Boscombe Bus Station because its dirty and draughty, at least it is in the right location for busses to get in and out and you are getting on and off busses, so you want to dress it up for the undesirables to have somewhere nice and warm to stay. Please what is it with all these cycle proposals, yes they have a right to be considered and be safe but I for one would not cycle on these roads in any circumstances and I think that trying to make people cycle everywhere is foolish and throwing money away. Alterations to 2 different stretches of Christchurch Road in Boscombe - a section that runs towards Iford and at the Springbourne end, HOW can you be taken seriously when you DO NOT KNOW where you are, just to give you a clue, THERE IS NO CHRISTCHURCH ROAD IN SPRINGBOURNE ??? Redgolfer
  • Score: 13

10:39am Wed 29 Jan 14

EdBmth says...

justme20092009 wrote:
stop the money wasting for cyclists fgs they pay nowt towards the roads
I am a cyclist and for your information I work and so I pay this thing called TAX. In addition my bike and all equipment that I buy for the bike are subject to VAT. It is this money that goes towards the roads so yes I do pay towards the roads
[quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop the money wasting for cyclists fgs they pay nowt towards the roads[/p][/quote]I am a cyclist and for your information I work and so I pay this thing called TAX. In addition my bike and all equipment that I buy for the bike are subject to VAT. It is this money that goes towards the roads so yes I do pay towards the roads EdBmth
  • Score: 8

10:41am Wed 29 Jan 14

rayc says...

"The Sea View super stop, which has seen improvements to bus and cycling facilities and the public realm."
What does that mean?
"The Sea View super stop, which has seen improvements to bus and cycling facilities and the public realm." What does that mean? rayc
  • Score: 8

10:44am Wed 29 Jan 14

Joking says...

And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago! Joking
  • Score: 14

10:48am Wed 29 Jan 14

mikey2gorgeous says...

Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
[quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes? mikey2gorgeous
  • Score: 1

10:49am Wed 29 Jan 14

Lord Spring says...

Are we losing control of the Bailiwick of Springbourne or do the Eastcliff electorate wish be include in the renamed parish.
Are we losing control of the Bailiwick of Springbourne or do the Eastcliff electorate wish be include in the renamed parish. Lord Spring
  • Score: 1

11:04am Wed 29 Jan 14

Joking says...

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
No, I don't have a bike, but as a pedestrian trying to walk my dog on a lead along those pavements, I am constantly jumping out of the way of cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]No, I don't have a bike, but as a pedestrian trying to walk my dog on a lead along those pavements, I am constantly jumping out of the way of cyclists. Joking
  • Score: 3

11:33am Wed 29 Jan 14

scrumpyjack says...

justme20092009 wrote:
stop the money wasting for cyclists fgs they pay nowt towards the roads
How are roads paid for?

We all look forward to you explaining.

Don't go over board just, how about the top 2 sources of payment.?
[quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop the money wasting for cyclists fgs they pay nowt towards the roads[/p][/quote]How are roads paid for? We all look forward to you explaining. Don't go over board just, how about the top 2 sources of payment.? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 8

11:38am Wed 29 Jan 14

muscliffman says...

It seems that the minority political interests which drive the funding for this 'Three Towns Travel' project are basically those old 'green' PC ones, so it is essentially pro-public transport and cyclist - but anti-motorist.

Virtually all the expensive tinkering highlighted in the article - and regardless of your perspective that is all it is - is only aimed at improving facilities for buses and cyclists. In many if not all cases it is obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to think it through that the end result of these 'improvements' will add to general traffic congestion locally and not assist it at all - in fact in some cases that seems to be the very intention.

Surely we have far better things to spend this £12million of transport money on, such as local road improvements that might actually help the MAJORITY of the users. I think the general motoring public already have grave reservations about this whole project and no amount of two page Echo PR promotional adverts from Councillors (for that is what this article really is) will change that.
It seems that the minority political interests which drive the funding for this 'Three Towns Travel' project are basically those old 'green' PC ones, so it is essentially pro-public transport and cyclist - but anti-motorist. Virtually all the expensive tinkering highlighted in the article - and regardless of your perspective that is all it is - is only aimed at improving facilities for buses and cyclists. In many if not all cases it is obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to think it through that the end result of these 'improvements' will add to general traffic congestion locally and not assist it at all - in fact in some cases that seems to be the very intention. Surely we have far better things to spend this £12million of transport money on, such as local road improvements that might actually help the MAJORITY of the users. I think the general motoring public already have grave reservations about this whole project and no amount of two page Echo PR promotional adverts from Councillors (for that is what this article really is) will change that. muscliffman
  • Score: 8

11:40am Wed 29 Jan 14

scrumpyjack says...

Joking wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
No, I don't have a bike, but as a pedestrian trying to walk my dog on a lead along those pavements, I am constantly jumping out of the way of cyclists.
I don't ride a bike but do walk a hell of lot - easily 12 - 20 miles a week.

But I don't ever seen to be 'jumping out of the way of cyclists'. Let alone 'constantly'.

What constitutes 'constant'? Once every 5 minutes? Once an hour? Once a day? Once a week? Well I've been racking my brains about the last couple of months and can't think of one occasion.

Wonder if the reality of your situation is actually just biased clap trap?

Perhaps you could keep a score and in a few weeks see how many times you had to 'jump out of the way' of a cyclist?

I suspect you will be rather surprised at the results.....
[quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]No, I don't have a bike, but as a pedestrian trying to walk my dog on a lead along those pavements, I am constantly jumping out of the way of cyclists.[/p][/quote]I don't ride a bike but do walk a hell of lot - easily 12 - 20 miles a week. But I don't ever seen to be 'jumping out of the way of cyclists'. Let alone 'constantly'. What constitutes 'constant'? Once every 5 minutes? Once an hour? Once a day? Once a week? Well I've been racking my brains about the last couple of months and can't think of one occasion. Wonder if the reality of your situation is actually just biased clap trap? Perhaps you could keep a score and in a few weeks see how many times you had to 'jump out of the way' of a cyclist? I suspect you will be rather surprised at the results..... scrumpyjack
  • Score: 5

11:44am Wed 29 Jan 14

muscliffman says...

rayc wrote:
"The Sea View super stop, which has seen improvements to bus and cycling facilities and the public realm."
What does that mean?
Someone is talking 'Council speak' *******s basically!
[quote][p][bold]rayc[/bold] wrote: "The Sea View super stop, which has seen improvements to bus and cycling facilities and the public realm." What does that mean?[/p][/quote]Someone is talking 'Council speak' *******s basically! muscliffman
  • Score: 15

11:46am Wed 29 Jan 14

scrumpyjack says...

muscliffman wrote:
It seems that the minority political interests which drive the funding for this 'Three Towns Travel' project are basically those old 'green' PC ones, so it is essentially pro-public transport and cyclist - but anti-motorist.

Virtually all the expensive tinkering highlighted in the article - and regardless of your perspective that is all it is - is only aimed at improving facilities for buses and cyclists. In many if not all cases it is obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to think it through that the end result of these 'improvements' will add to general traffic congestion locally and not assist it at all - in fact in some cases that seems to be the very intention.

Surely we have far better things to spend this £12million of transport money on, such as local road improvements that might actually help the MAJORITY of the users. I think the general motoring public already have grave reservations about this whole project and no amount of two page Echo PR promotional adverts from Councillors (for that is what this article really is) will change that.
The roads are not clogged with cyclists and pedestrians.

They are clogged with car drivers like me and with the lorries and vans devlivering the goods we need.

They are clogged with school buses, mums doing the school run, OAPS getting about because they can't walk far.

So this whole 2we are right and being picked on" moaning stance from drivers ignores the fact it is the fact we all use our cars - the drivers are the reason the roads are jammed in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: It seems that the minority political interests which drive the funding for this 'Three Towns Travel' project are basically those old 'green' PC ones, so it is essentially pro-public transport and cyclist - but anti-motorist. Virtually all the expensive tinkering highlighted in the article - and regardless of your perspective that is all it is - is only aimed at improving facilities for buses and cyclists. In many if not all cases it is obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to think it through that the end result of these 'improvements' will add to general traffic congestion locally and not assist it at all - in fact in some cases that seems to be the very intention. Surely we have far better things to spend this £12million of transport money on, such as local road improvements that might actually help the MAJORITY of the users. I think the general motoring public already have grave reservations about this whole project and no amount of two page Echo PR promotional adverts from Councillors (for that is what this article really is) will change that.[/p][/quote]The roads are not clogged with cyclists and pedestrians. They are clogged with car drivers like me and with the lorries and vans devlivering the goods we need. They are clogged with school buses, mums doing the school run, OAPS getting about because they can't walk far. So this whole 2we are right and being picked on" moaning stance from drivers ignores the fact it is the fact we all use our cars - the drivers are the reason the roads are jammed in the first place. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 11

12:20pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Baywolf says...

If Ashley road would sync the forest of traffic lights and pedestrian crossing lights so they promote the flow of traffic it would help prevent grid lock along that road, nothing moves because it's stop start at different points ..if all lights were red and green at the same time it would create a better flow of traffic.
If Ashley road would sync the forest of traffic lights and pedestrian crossing lights so they promote the flow of traffic it would help prevent grid lock along that road, nothing moves because it's stop start at different points ..if all lights were red and green at the same time it would create a better flow of traffic. Baywolf
  • Score: 13

12:21pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Justme8 says...

Ok, I live on the Christchurch border and work in Fleetsbridge, Poole so how are the proposals to improve the roads going to benefit commuters like me. Too far to cycle and bus would take hours. Perhaps we need an underground system!
Ok, I live on the Christchurch border and work in Fleetsbridge, Poole so how are the proposals to improve the roads going to benefit commuters like me. Too far to cycle and bus would take hours. Perhaps we need an underground system! Justme8
  • Score: 4

12:41pm Wed 29 Jan 14

PokesdownMark says...

I can pull out my smartphone and see the position, in real-time, of every aeroplane flying over Europe. Their speed, type, the airport they departed, their destination, altitude, direction, time of arrival, what they are serving for dinner. Ok maybe not that last one?!

When I can do the same for the local busses I may be more easily persuaded to use them!!!!!!!!

Jeez when will those in power get an actual clue about where to spend our money?
I can pull out my smartphone and see the position, in real-time, of every aeroplane flying over Europe. Their speed, type, the airport they departed, their destination, altitude, direction, time of arrival, what they are serving for dinner. Ok maybe not that last one?! When I can do the same for the local busses I may be more easily persuaded to use them!!!!!!!! Jeez when will those in power get an actual clue about where to spend our money? PokesdownMark
  • Score: 8

12:42pm Wed 29 Jan 14

jobsworthwatch says...

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars. jobsworthwatch
  • Score: 3

12:42pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

We were all promised significant road building and improvements over 20 years ago but the tree hugging unemployed anoraks put a stop to it.
We were all promised significant road building and improvements over 20 years ago but the tree hugging unemployed anoraks put a stop to it. Hessenford
  • Score: 13

12:45pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Phixer says...

Justme8 wrote:
Ok, I live on the Christchurch border and work in Fleetsbridge, Poole so how are the proposals to improve the roads going to benefit commuters like me. Too far to cycle and bus would take hours. Perhaps we need an underground system!
Where is our friend with the monorail proposal?
[quote][p][bold]Justme8[/bold] wrote: Ok, I live on the Christchurch border and work in Fleetsbridge, Poole so how are the proposals to improve the roads going to benefit commuters like me. Too far to cycle and bus would take hours. Perhaps we need an underground system![/p][/quote]Where is our friend with the monorail proposal? Phixer
  • Score: 9

12:47pm Wed 29 Jan 14

muscliffman says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
It seems that the minority political interests which drive the funding for this 'Three Towns Travel' project are basically those old 'green' PC ones, so it is essentially pro-public transport and cyclist - but anti-motorist.

Virtually all the expensive tinkering highlighted in the article - and regardless of your perspective that is all it is - is only aimed at improving facilities for buses and cyclists. In many if not all cases it is obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to think it through that the end result of these 'improvements' will add to general traffic congestion locally and not assist it at all - in fact in some cases that seems to be the very intention.

Surely we have far better things to spend this £12million of transport money on, such as local road improvements that might actually help the MAJORITY of the users. I think the general motoring public already have grave reservations about this whole project and no amount of two page Echo PR promotional adverts from Councillors (for that is what this article really is) will change that.
The roads are not clogged with cyclists and pedestrians.

They are clogged with car drivers like me and with the lorries and vans devlivering the goods we need.

They are clogged with school buses, mums doing the school run, OAPS getting about because they can't walk far.

So this whole 2we are right and being picked on" moaning stance from drivers ignores the fact it is the fact we all use our cars - the drivers are the reason the roads are jammed in the first place.
I agree, of course motorised traffic congestion is jamming the roads and not cyclists, pedestrians or even bus passengers, that is precisely my point!

So why spend £12million on improving facilities for the very people that are NOT causing any of the more serious congestion problems - because what exactly is that meant to achieve or solve?
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: It seems that the minority political interests which drive the funding for this 'Three Towns Travel' project are basically those old 'green' PC ones, so it is essentially pro-public transport and cyclist - but anti-motorist. Virtually all the expensive tinkering highlighted in the article - and regardless of your perspective that is all it is - is only aimed at improving facilities for buses and cyclists. In many if not all cases it is obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to think it through that the end result of these 'improvements' will add to general traffic congestion locally and not assist it at all - in fact in some cases that seems to be the very intention. Surely we have far better things to spend this £12million of transport money on, such as local road improvements that might actually help the MAJORITY of the users. I think the general motoring public already have grave reservations about this whole project and no amount of two page Echo PR promotional adverts from Councillors (for that is what this article really is) will change that.[/p][/quote]The roads are not clogged with cyclists and pedestrians. They are clogged with car drivers like me and with the lorries and vans devlivering the goods we need. They are clogged with school buses, mums doing the school run, OAPS getting about because they can't walk far. So this whole 2we are right and being picked on" moaning stance from drivers ignores the fact it is the fact we all use our cars - the drivers are the reason the roads are jammed in the first place.[/p][/quote]I agree, of course motorised traffic congestion is jamming the roads and not cyclists, pedestrians or even bus passengers, that is precisely my point! So why spend £12million on improving facilities for the very people that are NOT causing any of the more serious congestion problems - because what exactly is that meant to achieve or solve? muscliffman
  • Score: 6

12:49pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Franks Tank says...

justme20092009 wrote:
stop the money wasting for cyclists fgs they pay nowt towards the roads
Now I realise that the British tax system can be a bit complicated, BUT, you really don't have a clue how roads are paid for do you?

Just to help, and to save you embarrassing yourself further, it's defiantly not via Vehicle Excise Duty (VED).

Poor attempts at homophobic insults don't reflect well on you either.
[quote][p][bold]justme20092009[/bold] wrote: stop the money wasting for cyclists fgs they pay nowt towards the roads[/p][/quote]Now I realise that the British tax system can be a bit complicated, BUT, you really don't have a clue how roads are paid for do you? Just to help, and to save you embarrassing yourself further, it's defiantly not via Vehicle Excise Duty (VED). Poor attempts at homophobic insults don't reflect well on you either. Franks Tank
  • Score: 4

12:52pm Wed 29 Jan 14

freedom for pokesdown says...

Heard it all before: a roundabout becomes a junction, then later becomes a roundabout again. The only thing that will make an improvement will be free park and ride schemes in all the outskirts
Heard it all before: a roundabout becomes a junction, then later becomes a roundabout again. The only thing that will make an improvement will be free park and ride schemes in all the outskirts freedom for pokesdown
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Squars says...

Given the disaster that`s the Holdenhurst Rd roundabout, the awful arrangements for traffic leaving Boscombe Spa Road, this will grind all three towns to a stop.
Given the disaster that`s the Holdenhurst Rd roundabout, the awful arrangements for traffic leaving Boscombe Spa Road, this will grind all three towns to a stop. Squars
  • Score: 9

1:00pm Wed 29 Jan 14

fedupwithjobsworths says...

jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
[quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians fedupwithjobsworths
  • Score: 5

1:13pm Wed 29 Jan 14

bluto999 says...

fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.
[quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians[/p][/quote]Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement. bluto999
  • Score: 7

1:16pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Wackerone says...

Justme8 wrote:
Ok, I live on the Christchurch border and work in Fleetsbridge, Poole so how are the proposals to improve the roads going to benefit commuters like me. Too far to cycle and bus would take hours. Perhaps we need an underground system!
Nothing personal, but it is people like you that are the cause of a lot of the problems and vice versa those who live at Fleetsbridge and work at the Christchurch border. Have you ever considered either getting a job at Christchurch or moving to Fleetsbridge? I know that during my working life I most certainly would have done as I wouldn't have wanted the stress of that journey every day and the amount of travelling time removed from the leisure side of my life span.
[quote][p][bold]Justme8[/bold] wrote: Ok, I live on the Christchurch border and work in Fleetsbridge, Poole so how are the proposals to improve the roads going to benefit commuters like me. Too far to cycle and bus would take hours. Perhaps we need an underground system![/p][/quote]Nothing personal, but it is people like you that are the cause of a lot of the problems and vice versa those who live at Fleetsbridge and work at the Christchurch border. Have you ever considered either getting a job at Christchurch or moving to Fleetsbridge? I know that during my working life I most certainly would have done as I wouldn't have wanted the stress of that journey every day and the amount of travelling time removed from the leisure side of my life span. Wackerone
  • Score: -10

1:26pm Wed 29 Jan 14

bluto999 says...

Justme8 wrote:
Ok, I live on the Christchurch border and work in Fleetsbridge, Poole so how are the proposals to improve the roads going to benefit commuters like me. Too far to cycle and bus would take hours. Perhaps we need an underground system!
You could take a bike on the train. There are off road cycle lanes pretty much all the way from Poole station to Fleetsbridge.
[quote][p][bold]Justme8[/bold] wrote: Ok, I live on the Christchurch border and work in Fleetsbridge, Poole so how are the proposals to improve the roads going to benefit commuters like me. Too far to cycle and bus would take hours. Perhaps we need an underground system![/p][/quote]You could take a bike on the train. There are off road cycle lanes pretty much all the way from Poole station to Fleetsbridge. bluto999
  • Score: 4

1:32pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

bluto999 wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.
WHAT, are you for real.
[quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians[/p][/quote]Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.[/p][/quote]WHAT, are you for real. Hessenford
  • Score: -12

1:33pm Wed 29 Jan 14

bluto999 says...

muscliffman wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
It seems that the minority political interests which drive the funding for this 'Three Towns Travel' project are basically those old 'green' PC ones, so it is essentially pro-public transport and cyclist - but anti-motorist.

Virtually all the expensive tinkering highlighted in the article - and regardless of your perspective that is all it is - is only aimed at improving facilities for buses and cyclists. In many if not all cases it is obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to think it through that the end result of these 'improvements' will add to general traffic congestion locally and not assist it at all - in fact in some cases that seems to be the very intention.

Surely we have far better things to spend this £12million of transport money on, such as local road improvements that might actually help the MAJORITY of the users. I think the general motoring public already have grave reservations about this whole project and no amount of two page Echo PR promotional adverts from Councillors (for that is what this article really is) will change that.
The roads are not clogged with cyclists and pedestrians.

They are clogged with car drivers like me and with the lorries and vans devlivering the goods we need.

They are clogged with school buses, mums doing the school run, OAPS getting about because they can't walk far.

So this whole 2we are right and being picked on" moaning stance from drivers ignores the fact it is the fact we all use our cars - the drivers are the reason the roads are jammed in the first place.
I agree, of course motorised traffic congestion is jamming the roads and not cyclists, pedestrians or even bus passengers, that is precisely my point!

So why spend £12million on improving facilities for the very people that are NOT causing any of the more serious congestion problems - because what exactly is that meant to achieve or solve?
By improving the cycle/bus/pedestrian facilities it becomes easier for people to realise that they don't always have to drive everywhere.
The more people that walk/cycle/bus, the less congestion there is for the drivers.
And, it's better for everyone's health the more we walk and cycle.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: It seems that the minority political interests which drive the funding for this 'Three Towns Travel' project are basically those old 'green' PC ones, so it is essentially pro-public transport and cyclist - but anti-motorist. Virtually all the expensive tinkering highlighted in the article - and regardless of your perspective that is all it is - is only aimed at improving facilities for buses and cyclists. In many if not all cases it is obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to think it through that the end result of these 'improvements' will add to general traffic congestion locally and not assist it at all - in fact in some cases that seems to be the very intention. Surely we have far better things to spend this £12million of transport money on, such as local road improvements that might actually help the MAJORITY of the users. I think the general motoring public already have grave reservations about this whole project and no amount of two page Echo PR promotional adverts from Councillors (for that is what this article really is) will change that.[/p][/quote]The roads are not clogged with cyclists and pedestrians. They are clogged with car drivers like me and with the lorries and vans devlivering the goods we need. They are clogged with school buses, mums doing the school run, OAPS getting about because they can't walk far. So this whole 2we are right and being picked on" moaning stance from drivers ignores the fact it is the fact we all use our cars - the drivers are the reason the roads are jammed in the first place.[/p][/quote]I agree, of course motorised traffic congestion is jamming the roads and not cyclists, pedestrians or even bus passengers, that is precisely my point! So why spend £12million on improving facilities for the very people that are NOT causing any of the more serious congestion problems - because what exactly is that meant to achieve or solve?[/p][/quote]By improving the cycle/bus/pedestrian facilities it becomes easier for people to realise that they don't always have to drive everywhere. The more people that walk/cycle/bus, the less congestion there is for the drivers. And, it's better for everyone's health the more we walk and cycle. bluto999
  • Score: 5

1:35pm Wed 29 Jan 14

rozmister says...

Baywolf wrote:
Oo many busses too many bus stops and not enough room for motorists to overtake..it takes the same time for the M2 and M1 which uses the same routes.to get into Poole from Boscombe or Castlepoint as it does for National Express to get into London from Bournemouth! Why do these routes run parallel in follow the leader..why is there not a limited stop service from Christchurch to Bournemouth to Poole ..it takes 10 mins by train. Too many bus stops within walking distance and placed I front of traffic lights and on roundabouts..how's that for planning?
Having travelled on the M2 from Poole to Boscombe, the M1 from Poole to Castlepoint and the National Express from Bournemouth to London pretty regularly I can tell you that the National Express takes much longer! Over 2 hours to London from Bournemouth, roughly 45 minutes - 1 hour on the M2/M1 route. Let me guess from the fact your complaint is about buses blocking the way of motorists - you travel mainly by car?
[quote][p][bold]Baywolf[/bold] wrote: Oo many busses too many bus stops and not enough room for motorists to overtake..it takes the same time for the M2 and M1 which uses the same routes.to get into Poole from Boscombe or Castlepoint as it does for National Express to get into London from Bournemouth! Why do these routes run parallel in follow the leader..why is there not a limited stop service from Christchurch to Bournemouth to Poole ..it takes 10 mins by train. Too many bus stops within walking distance and placed I front of traffic lights and on roundabouts..how's that for planning?[/p][/quote]Having travelled on the M2 from Poole to Boscombe, the M1 from Poole to Castlepoint and the National Express from Bournemouth to London pretty regularly I can tell you that the National Express takes much longer! Over 2 hours to London from Bournemouth, roughly 45 minutes - 1 hour on the M2/M1 route. Let me guess from the fact your complaint is about buses blocking the way of motorists - you travel mainly by car? rozmister
  • Score: 5

1:39pm Wed 29 Jan 14

mikey2gorgeous says...

Justme8 wrote:
Ok, I live on the Christchurch border and work in Fleetsbridge, Poole so how are the proposals to improve the roads going to benefit commuters like me. Too far to cycle and bus would take hours. Perhaps we need an underground system!
About 9 miles - take 3/4 hour to cycle leisurely. Probably takes that to drive in rush hour. You should try it sometime - it's much more enjoyable than commuting in a car.
[quote][p][bold]Justme8[/bold] wrote: Ok, I live on the Christchurch border and work in Fleetsbridge, Poole so how are the proposals to improve the roads going to benefit commuters like me. Too far to cycle and bus would take hours. Perhaps we need an underground system![/p][/quote]About 9 miles - take 3/4 hour to cycle leisurely. Probably takes that to drive in rush hour. You should try it sometime - it's much more enjoyable than commuting in a car. mikey2gorgeous
  • Score: 8

1:40pm Wed 29 Jan 14

scrumpyjack says...

muscliffman wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
It seems that the minority political interests which drive the funding for this 'Three Towns Travel' project are basically those old 'green' PC ones, so it is essentially pro-public transport and cyclist - but anti-motorist.

Virtually all the expensive tinkering highlighted in the article - and regardless of your perspective that is all it is - is only aimed at improving facilities for buses and cyclists. In many if not all cases it is obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to think it through that the end result of these 'improvements' will add to general traffic congestion locally and not assist it at all - in fact in some cases that seems to be the very intention.

Surely we have far better things to spend this £12million of transport money on, such as local road improvements that might actually help the MAJORITY of the users. I think the general motoring public already have grave reservations about this whole project and no amount of two page Echo PR promotional adverts from Councillors (for that is what this article really is) will change that.
The roads are not clogged with cyclists and pedestrians.

They are clogged with car drivers like me and with the lorries and vans devlivering the goods we need.

They are clogged with school buses, mums doing the school run, OAPS getting about because they can't walk far.

So this whole 2we are right and being picked on" moaning stance from drivers ignores the fact it is the fact we all use our cars - the drivers are the reason the roads are jammed in the first place.
I agree, of course motorised traffic congestion is jamming the roads and not cyclists, pedestrians or even bus passengers, that is precisely my point!

So why spend £12million on improving facilities for the very people that are NOT causing any of the more serious congestion problems - because what exactly is that meant to achieve or solve?
Because it is clear they cannot fix the roads without spending £10's and £1o0's of million it no £100m.

So the only alternative is to try and improve what they can afford to to try and reduce traffic (getting people to use alternative means of transport) and make what roads there are run smoothly by trying to come up with ways to dilute bottle necks.

But why not just stick to the usual knee-jerk reaction (and look where that has got us) of how did you put it...."so it is essentially pro-public transport and cyclist - but anti-motorist."
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: It seems that the minority political interests which drive the funding for this 'Three Towns Travel' project are basically those old 'green' PC ones, so it is essentially pro-public transport and cyclist - but anti-motorist. Virtually all the expensive tinkering highlighted in the article - and regardless of your perspective that is all it is - is only aimed at improving facilities for buses and cyclists. In many if not all cases it is obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to think it through that the end result of these 'improvements' will add to general traffic congestion locally and not assist it at all - in fact in some cases that seems to be the very intention. Surely we have far better things to spend this £12million of transport money on, such as local road improvements that might actually help the MAJORITY of the users. I think the general motoring public already have grave reservations about this whole project and no amount of two page Echo PR promotional adverts from Councillors (for that is what this article really is) will change that.[/p][/quote]The roads are not clogged with cyclists and pedestrians. They are clogged with car drivers like me and with the lorries and vans devlivering the goods we need. They are clogged with school buses, mums doing the school run, OAPS getting about because they can't walk far. So this whole 2we are right and being picked on" moaning stance from drivers ignores the fact it is the fact we all use our cars - the drivers are the reason the roads are jammed in the first place.[/p][/quote]I agree, of course motorised traffic congestion is jamming the roads and not cyclists, pedestrians or even bus passengers, that is precisely my point! So why spend £12million on improving facilities for the very people that are NOT causing any of the more serious congestion problems - because what exactly is that meant to achieve or solve?[/p][/quote]Because it is clear they cannot fix the roads without spending £10's and £1o0's of million it no £100m. So the only alternative is to try and improve what they can afford to to try and reduce traffic (getting people to use alternative means of transport) and make what roads there are run smoothly by trying to come up with ways to dilute bottle necks. But why not just stick to the usual knee-jerk reaction (and look where that has got us) of how did you put it...."so it is essentially pro-public transport and cyclist - but anti-motorist." scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

1:42pm Wed 29 Jan 14

PokesdownMark says...

Wackerone wrote:
Justme8 wrote:
Ok, I live on the Christchurch border and work in Fleetsbridge, Poole so how are the proposals to improve the roads going to benefit commuters like me. Too far to cycle and bus would take hours. Perhaps we need an underground system!
Nothing personal, but it is people like you that are the cause of a lot of the problems and vice versa those who live at Fleetsbridge and work at the Christchurch border. Have you ever considered either getting a job at Christchurch or moving to Fleetsbridge? I know that during my working life I most certainly would have done as I wouldn't have wanted the stress of that journey every day and the amount of travelling time removed from the leisure side of my life span.
Stamp duty means that any home owners within the three towns area are not going to want to move. Stamp duty is a terrible barrier to mobility. High time the govt withdrew it.
[quote][p][bold]Wackerone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Justme8[/bold] wrote: Ok, I live on the Christchurch border and work in Fleetsbridge, Poole so how are the proposals to improve the roads going to benefit commuters like me. Too far to cycle and bus would take hours. Perhaps we need an underground system![/p][/quote]Nothing personal, but it is people like you that are the cause of a lot of the problems and vice versa those who live at Fleetsbridge and work at the Christchurch border. Have you ever considered either getting a job at Christchurch or moving to Fleetsbridge? I know that during my working life I most certainly would have done as I wouldn't have wanted the stress of that journey every day and the amount of travelling time removed from the leisure side of my life span.[/p][/quote]Stamp duty means that any home owners within the three towns area are not going to want to move. Stamp duty is a terrible barrier to mobility. High time the govt withdrew it. PokesdownMark
  • Score: 12

1:49pm Wed 29 Jan 14

bluto999 says...

Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.
WHAT, are you for real.
Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles.

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/publicatio
ns/reported-road-cas
ualties-great-britai
n-annual-report-2012
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians[/p][/quote]Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.[/p][/quote]WHAT, are you for real.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-annual-report-2012 bluto999
  • Score: 3

2:02pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

bluto999 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.
WHAT, are you for real.
Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles.

https://www.gov.uk/g

overnment/publicatio

ns/reported-road-cas

ualties-great-britai

n-annual-report-2012
98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle.
Not on the pavement though as you suggest.
[quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians[/p][/quote]Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.[/p][/quote]WHAT, are you for real.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-annual-report-2012[/p][/quote]98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. Not on the pavement though as you suggest. Hessenford
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Niel says...

I hope the transport people follow London's lead and include solo motorcycle's in the list of 'Bus Lane' permitted users. The cyclista's hated the idea from the start, but since Barmy Boris and co allowed solo motorcycles to use them the cyclist injury accident rate has fallen, not least because other road users now know they have to look properly before crossing the said 'Bus Lanes' to enter of exit the traffic flow. The thought of a hairy biker introducing you to his 'don't drive like an arse' thoughts seems to have focused minds!
I hope the transport people follow London's lead and include solo motorcycle's in the list of 'Bus Lane' permitted users. The cyclista's hated the idea from the start, but since Barmy Boris and co allowed solo motorcycles to use them the cyclist injury accident rate has fallen, not least because other road users now know they have to look properly before crossing the said 'Bus Lanes' to enter of exit the traffic flow. The thought of a hairy biker introducing you to his 'don't drive like an arse' thoughts seems to have focused minds! Niel
  • Score: 8

2:08pm Wed 29 Jan 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.
WHAT, are you for real.
I think he has a big dose of facts. A lot more people should try it, it helps people stop making fools of themselves. Well it would if they took any notice.

From the Office for Statistic's:

Deaths in England & Wales:

Pedestrian in collision with cycle in 2009 = 0, in 2010 = 2 (both women)

Like to compare with other points raised....?:

Pedestrian in collision with car, lorry, van or bus or van in 2009 = 232, and in 2010 = 188. Total of 420

That means a pedestrian is 210 times more likely (that's 21,000%!) to be killed by a car/lorry/bus than a cyclist.

Oh and for motorbikes the two year combined figure was 15 and a train - get this - compared to the 2 killed over the 2 year period by cyclists those killed by trains was 74.

Yeah the real message I am getting from this is that the secret, silent killer here are those damned cyclists?


When are people just going to read and absorb a few facts rather than time after time saying nothing but "poor us the driver" and spouting nothing but total BS ranting about how bad cyclists are to absolutely everything???

It is so Neanderthal and pathetic.

I have said time and time again I am not even a cyclist and have no axe to grind. But I do hate it when people spout bile and are not challenged.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians[/p][/quote]Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.[/p][/quote]WHAT, are you for real.[/p][/quote]I think he has a big dose of facts. A lot more people should try it, it helps people stop making fools of themselves. Well it would if they took any notice. From the Office for Statistic's: Deaths in England & Wales: Pedestrian in collision with cycle in 2009 = 0, in 2010 = 2 (both women) Like to compare with other points raised....?: Pedestrian in collision with car, lorry, van or bus or van in 2009 = 232, and in 2010 = 188. Total of 420 That means a pedestrian is 210 times more likely (that's 21,000%!) to be killed by a car/lorry/bus than a cyclist. Oh and for motorbikes the two year combined figure was 15 and a train - get this - compared to the 2 killed over the 2 year period by cyclists those killed by trains was 74. Yeah the real message I am getting from this is that the secret, silent killer here are those damned cyclists? When are people just going to read and absorb a few facts rather than time after time saying nothing but "poor us the driver" and spouting nothing but total BS ranting about how bad cyclists are to absolutely everything??? It is so Neanderthal and pathetic. I have said time and time again I am not even a cyclist and have no axe to grind. But I do hate it when people spout bile and are not challenged. scrumpyjack
  • Score: -1

2:23pm Wed 29 Jan 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.
WHAT, are you for real.
Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles.

https://www.gov.uk/g


overnment/publicatio


ns/reported-road-cas


ualties-great-britai


n-annual-report-2012
98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle.
Not on the pavement though as you suggest.
How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement?

Again you just assume.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians[/p][/quote]Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.[/p][/quote]WHAT, are you for real.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-annual-report-2012[/p][/quote]98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. Not on the pavement though as you suggest.[/p][/quote]How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement? Again you just assume. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 5

2:33pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.
WHAT, are you for real.
Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles.

https://www.gov.uk/g



overnment/publicatio



ns/reported-road-cas



ualties-great-britai



n-annual-report-2012
98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle.
Not on the pavement though as you suggest.
How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement?

Again you just assume.
As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians[/p][/quote]Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.[/p][/quote]WHAT, are you for real.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-annual-report-2012[/p][/quote]98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. Not on the pavement though as you suggest.[/p][/quote]How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement? Again you just assume.[/p][/quote]As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring. Hessenford
  • Score: -3

2:57pm Wed 29 Jan 14

jobsworthwatch says...

Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.
WHAT, are you for real.
Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles.

https://www.gov.uk/g




overnment/publicatio




ns/reported-road-cas




ualties-great-britai




n-annual-report-2012
98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle.
Not on the pavement though as you suggest.
How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement?

Again you just assume.
As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.
About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians[/p][/quote]Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.[/p][/quote]WHAT, are you for real.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-annual-report-2012[/p][/quote]98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. Not on the pavement though as you suggest.[/p][/quote]How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement? Again you just assume.[/p][/quote]As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.[/p][/quote]About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges. jobsworthwatch
  • Score: 6

3:00pm Wed 29 Jan 14

alisont1964 says...

raise council tax by extra 5% use the #12m and offer free bus travel for all. this has been proved to work in other countries where bus usage has increased significantly at the same time reducing traffic congestion.
raise council tax by extra 5% use the #12m and offer free bus travel for all. this has been proved to work in other countries where bus usage has increased significantly at the same time reducing traffic congestion. alisont1964
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Wed 29 Jan 14

The Archer says...

they never learn, the mess they have made at the top of Poole Lane, since they finished it I have only seen 2 people use the pedestrian lights which is fortunate because as soon as the lights stop the traffic the roundabout jams up, yes i know they have put a yellow box there but that only keeps one side of Ringwood Road going briefly and the other box junction keeps the service road rat run clear and jams up Poole Lane and Turbary park Road. they have made a bad junction infinitely worse.
they never learn, the mess they have made at the top of Poole Lane, since they finished it I have only seen 2 people use the pedestrian lights which is fortunate because as soon as the lights stop the traffic the roundabout jams up, yes i know they have put a yellow box there but that only keeps one side of Ringwood Road going briefly and the other box junction keeps the service road rat run clear and jams up Poole Lane and Turbary park Road. they have made a bad junction infinitely worse. The Archer
  • Score: 8

3:13pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

jobsworthwatch wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.
WHAT, are you for real.
Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles.

https://www.gov.uk/g





overnment/publicatio





ns/reported-road-cas





ualties-great-britai





n-annual-report-2012
98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle.
Not on the pavement though as you suggest.
How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement?

Again you just assume.
As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.
About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges.
40 out of a population of over 60 million and over 25 million cars,although I would prefer to see no one killed its not exactly a threat to the human race is it.
As far as crossings go, the pedestrian only has right of way when they are on it, not as some idiots do which is to simply walk out and hope the car stops.
[quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians[/p][/quote]Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.[/p][/quote]WHAT, are you for real.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-annual-report-2012[/p][/quote]98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. Not on the pavement though as you suggest.[/p][/quote]How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement? Again you just assume.[/p][/quote]As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.[/p][/quote]About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges.[/p][/quote]40 out of a population of over 60 million and over 25 million cars,although I would prefer to see no one killed its not exactly a threat to the human race is it. As far as crossings go, the pedestrian only has right of way when they are on it, not as some idiots do which is to simply walk out and hope the car stops. Hessenford
  • Score: -2

3:23pm Wed 29 Jan 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.
WHAT, are you for real.
Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles.

https://www.gov.uk/g




overnment/publicatio




ns/reported-road-cas




ualties-great-britai




n-annual-report-2012
98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle.
Not on the pavement though as you suggest.
How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement?

Again you just assume.
As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.
Show ONE rant against "motorists" (generic not specific).

Individual 'motorists' have been challenged for negative and pointless comments.


The (again) supposedly hard done contributions?

1st post: Too many bus stops

2nd post: These so-called improvements are at best cosmetic'

3rd post: 'stop the money wasting for cyclists fgs they pay nowt towards the roads'

4th post 'Everything that is being done is only for the benefit of pedestrians and cyclists, is cosmetic at best and a total waste of public money.'

(There's pattern forming here)

5th post: 'Please what is it with all these cycle proposals,'

6th post 'I am a cyclist and for your information I work and so I pay this thing called TAX. In addition my bike and all equipment that I buy for the bike are subject to VAT. It is this money that goes towards the roads so yes I do pay towards the roads' - ------THIS does not do anything but correct a misnomer.

Post 7 - about the journalism

Post 8 - 'And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements .....despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!'


Post 9. 'Have you used the cycle lanes?' (Hardly a 'rant against motorists')

Post 10 as a pedestrian trying to walk my dog on a lead along those pavements, I am constantly jumping out of the way of cyclists.


So, you see this as nothing but road users having a go at 'motorists' for no reason.

Yeah that's exactly what I got from the first 10 posts on this topic....
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians[/p][/quote]Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.[/p][/quote]WHAT, are you for real.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-annual-report-2012[/p][/quote]98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. Not on the pavement though as you suggest.[/p][/quote]How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement? Again you just assume.[/p][/quote]As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.[/p][/quote]Show ONE rant against "motorists" (generic not specific). Individual 'motorists' have been challenged for negative and pointless comments. The (again) supposedly hard done contributions? 1st post: Too many bus stops 2nd post: These so-called improvements are at best cosmetic' 3rd post: 'stop the money wasting for cyclists fgs they pay nowt towards the roads' 4th post 'Everything that is being done is only for the benefit of pedestrians and cyclists, is cosmetic at best and a total waste of public money.' (There's pattern forming here) 5th post: 'Please what is it with all these cycle proposals,' 6th post 'I am a cyclist and for your information I work and so I pay this thing called TAX. In addition my bike and all equipment that I buy for the bike are subject to VAT. It is this money that goes towards the roads so yes I do pay towards the roads' - ------THIS does not do anything but correct a misnomer. Post 7 - about the journalism Post 8 - 'And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements .....despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!' Post 9. 'Have you used the cycle lanes?' (Hardly a 'rant against motorists') Post 10 as a pedestrian trying to walk my dog on a lead along those pavements, I am constantly jumping out of the way of cyclists. So, you see this as nothing but road users having a go at 'motorists' for no reason. Yeah that's exactly what I got from the first 10 posts on this topic.... scrumpyjack
  • Score: 1

3:29pm Wed 29 Jan 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hessenford wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.
WHAT, are you for real.
Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles.

https://www.gov.uk/g






overnment/publicatio






ns/reported-road-cas






ualties-great-britai






n-annual-report-2012
98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle.
Not on the pavement though as you suggest.
How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement?

Again you just assume.
As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.
About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges.
40 out of a population of over 60 million and over 25 million cars,although I would prefer to see no one killed its not exactly a threat to the human race is it.
As far as crossings go, the pedestrian only has right of way when they are on it, not as some idiots do which is to simply walk out and hope the car stops.
From the Highway Code:

195

Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing look out for pedestrians WAITING to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross

You MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing

196

Pelican crossings. These are signal-controlled crossings where flashing amber follows the red ‘Stop’ light. You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution.

197

Pelican crossings which go straight across the road are one crossing, even when there is a central island. You MUST wait for pedestrians who are crossing from the other side of the island, even if they have made it to the central island.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians[/p][/quote]Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.[/p][/quote]WHAT, are you for real.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-annual-report-2012[/p][/quote]98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. Not on the pavement though as you suggest.[/p][/quote]How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement? Again you just assume.[/p][/quote]As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.[/p][/quote]About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges.[/p][/quote]40 out of a population of over 60 million and over 25 million cars,although I would prefer to see no one killed its not exactly a threat to the human race is it. As far as crossings go, the pedestrian only has right of way when they are on it, not as some idiots do which is to simply walk out and hope the car stops.[/p][/quote]From the Highway Code: 195 Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing look out for pedestrians WAITING to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross You MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing 196 Pelican crossings. These are signal-controlled crossings where flashing amber follows the red ‘Stop’ light. You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution. 197 Pelican crossings which go straight across the road are one crossing, even when there is a central island. You MUST wait for pedestrians who are crossing from the other side of the island, even if they have made it to the central island. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 3

3:51pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.
WHAT, are you for real.
Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles.

https://www.gov.uk/g







overnment/publicatio







ns/reported-road-cas







ualties-great-britai







n-annual-report-2012
98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle.
Not on the pavement though as you suggest.
How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement?

Again you just assume.
As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.
About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges.
40 out of a population of over 60 million and over 25 million cars,although I would prefer to see no one killed its not exactly a threat to the human race is it.
As far as crossings go, the pedestrian only has right of way when they are on it, not as some idiots do which is to simply walk out and hope the car stops.
From the Highway Code:

195

Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing look out for pedestrians WAITING to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross

You MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing

196

Pelican crossings. These are signal-controlled crossings where flashing amber follows the red ‘Stop’ light. You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution.

197

Pelican crossings which go straight across the road are one crossing, even when there is a central island. You MUST wait for pedestrians who are crossing from the other side of the island, even if they have made it to the central island.
That's what I said, must give way when pedestrian has already moved onto the crossing, unfortunately there are some who think that they can start to cross when a car is only about six feet from the crossing and expect them to stop.that's how arrogant pedestrians get injured.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians[/p][/quote]Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.[/p][/quote]WHAT, are you for real.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-annual-report-2012[/p][/quote]98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. Not on the pavement though as you suggest.[/p][/quote]How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement? Again you just assume.[/p][/quote]As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.[/p][/quote]About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges.[/p][/quote]40 out of a population of over 60 million and over 25 million cars,although I would prefer to see no one killed its not exactly a threat to the human race is it. As far as crossings go, the pedestrian only has right of way when they are on it, not as some idiots do which is to simply walk out and hope the car stops.[/p][/quote]From the Highway Code: 195 Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing look out for pedestrians WAITING to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross You MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing 196 Pelican crossings. These are signal-controlled crossings where flashing amber follows the red ‘Stop’ light. You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution. 197 Pelican crossings which go straight across the road are one crossing, even when there is a central island. You MUST wait for pedestrians who are crossing from the other side of the island, even if they have made it to the central island.[/p][/quote]That's what I said, must give way when pedestrian has already moved onto the crossing, unfortunately there are some who think that they can start to cross when a car is only about six feet from the crossing and expect them to stop.that's how arrogant pedestrians get injured. Hessenford
  • Score: -3

4:08pm Wed 29 Jan 14

jobsworthwatch says...

Hessenford wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.
WHAT, are you for real.
Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles.

https://www.gov.uk/g






overnment/publicatio






ns/reported-road-cas






ualties-great-britai






n-annual-report-2012
98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle.
Not on the pavement though as you suggest.
How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement?

Again you just assume.
As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.
About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges.
40 out of a population of over 60 million and over 25 million cars,although I would prefer to see no one killed its not exactly a threat to the human race is it.
As far as crossings go, the pedestrian only has right of way when they are on it, not as some idiots do which is to simply walk out and hope the car stops.
3 million people cycle 3 times a week or more in the UK. and they kill less than 2 pedestrians per year. A 100 or so cyclists are killed by cars per year by cars.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians[/p][/quote]Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.[/p][/quote]WHAT, are you for real.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-annual-report-2012[/p][/quote]98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. Not on the pavement though as you suggest.[/p][/quote]How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement? Again you just assume.[/p][/quote]As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.[/p][/quote]About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges.[/p][/quote]40 out of a population of over 60 million and over 25 million cars,although I would prefer to see no one killed its not exactly a threat to the human race is it. As far as crossings go, the pedestrian only has right of way when they are on it, not as some idiots do which is to simply walk out and hope the car stops.[/p][/quote]3 million people cycle 3 times a week or more in the UK. and they kill less than 2 pedestrians per year. A 100 or so cyclists are killed by cars per year by cars. jobsworthwatch
  • Score: 2

4:37pm Wed 29 Jan 14

ekimnoslen says...

Any scheme that relies on persuading 21st century people to walk, cycle or wait for buses in the wet and cold of winter will fail. People do not regress.
If you wish to reduce traffic you need to introduce a commuter congestion charge to encourage people to live closer the their place of work.
Any scheme that relies on persuading 21st century people to walk, cycle or wait for buses in the wet and cold of winter will fail. People do not regress. If you wish to reduce traffic you need to introduce a commuter congestion charge to encourage people to live closer the their place of work. ekimnoslen
  • Score: 2

4:38pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

jobsworthwatch wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.
WHAT, are you for real.
Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles.

https://www.gov.uk/g







overnment/publicatio







ns/reported-road-cas







ualties-great-britai







n-annual-report-2012
98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle.
Not on the pavement though as you suggest.
How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement?

Again you just assume.
As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.
About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges.
40 out of a population of over 60 million and over 25 million cars,although I would prefer to see no one killed its not exactly a threat to the human race is it.
As far as crossings go, the pedestrian only has right of way when they are on it, not as some idiots do which is to simply walk out and hope the car stops.
3 million people cycle 3 times a week or more in the UK. and they kill less than 2 pedestrians per year. A 100 or so cyclists are killed by cars per year by cars.
Oh I get it now, you are hijacking a story about relieving congesting to use it as a podium to cause yet more arguments between motorists and cyclists, these arguments are becoming very boring and simply cause more animosity between the two groups, say what you will, I will not get involved.
[quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians[/p][/quote]Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.[/p][/quote]WHAT, are you for real.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-annual-report-2012[/p][/quote]98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. Not on the pavement though as you suggest.[/p][/quote]How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement? Again you just assume.[/p][/quote]As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.[/p][/quote]About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges.[/p][/quote]40 out of a population of over 60 million and over 25 million cars,although I would prefer to see no one killed its not exactly a threat to the human race is it. As far as crossings go, the pedestrian only has right of way when they are on it, not as some idiots do which is to simply walk out and hope the car stops.[/p][/quote]3 million people cycle 3 times a week or more in the UK. and they kill less than 2 pedestrians per year. A 100 or so cyclists are killed by cars per year by cars.[/p][/quote]Oh I get it now, you are hijacking a story about relieving congesting to use it as a podium to cause yet more arguments between motorists and cyclists, these arguments are becoming very boring and simply cause more animosity between the two groups, say what you will, I will not get involved. Hessenford
  • Score: -5

4:44pm Wed 29 Jan 14

speedy231278 says...

The reason the roads are clogged is the result of too many 'traffic calming' schemes, too many buses, too many bus stops far too close together, far too many overlapping bus routes and the high cost of said buses. Recently, Yellow Buses put the price of a trip to the station from the Square up from £1.40 to £1.60 - a hike of almost 15%! A day ticket on the M1/M2 has increased 50% in the last few years, suspiciously it went up from £2.40 to £3.20 shortly after W+D were title sponsor of the air show....

You don't need so many buses all doing to the same place (Poole) from all around if they all go to Bournemouth first. Surely it would make far more sense for Bournemouth to have a large bus station as Poole does, and then a shuttle service between the two? If you ever see a traffic jam pic of somewhere between Westbourne and Poole, there are invariably neraly as many buses as cars in it!
The reason the roads are clogged is the result of too many 'traffic calming' schemes, too many buses, too many bus stops far too close together, far too many overlapping bus routes and the high cost of said buses. Recently, Yellow Buses put the price of a trip to the station from the Square up from £1.40 to £1.60 - a hike of almost 15%! A day ticket on the M1/M2 has increased 50% in the last few years, suspiciously it went up from £2.40 to £3.20 shortly after W+D were title sponsor of the air show.... You don't need so many buses all doing to the same place (Poole) from all around if they all go to Bournemouth first. Surely it would make far more sense for Bournemouth to have a large bus station as Poole does, and then a shuttle service between the two? If you ever see a traffic jam pic of somewhere between Westbourne and Poole, there are invariably neraly as many buses as cars in it! speedy231278
  • Score: 3

4:51pm Wed 29 Jan 14

scrumpyjack says...

Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.
WHAT, are you for real.
Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles.

https://www.gov.uk/g








overnment/publicatio








ns/reported-road-cas








ualties-great-britai








n-annual-report-2012
98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle.
Not on the pavement though as you suggest.
How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement?

Again you just assume.
As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.
About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges.
40 out of a population of over 60 million and over 25 million cars,although I would prefer to see no one killed its not exactly a threat to the human race is it.
As far as crossings go, the pedestrian only has right of way when they are on it, not as some idiots do which is to simply walk out and hope the car stops.
From the Highway Code:

195

Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing look out for pedestrians WAITING to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross

You MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing

196

Pelican crossings. These are signal-controlled crossings where flashing amber follows the red ‘Stop’ light. You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution.

197

Pelican crossings which go straight across the road are one crossing, even when there is a central island. You MUST wait for pedestrians who are crossing from the other side of the island, even if they have made it to the central island.
That's what I said, must give way when pedestrian has already moved onto the crossing, unfortunately there are some who think that they can start to cross when a car is only about six feet from the crossing and expect them to stop.that's how arrogant pedestrians get injured.
If they can step onto the crossing when you are a car are only '6 feet away; I draw your attention (again) to:

"Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing look out for pedestrians WAITING to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross"

Its always someone else s fault with you isn't? Cyclists / Dogs / Pedestrians / Motorcyclists. Ever had to the courage to wonder if it might be you? Heaven forbid eh?
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians[/p][/quote]Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.[/p][/quote]WHAT, are you for real.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-annual-report-2012[/p][/quote]98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. Not on the pavement though as you suggest.[/p][/quote]How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement? Again you just assume.[/p][/quote]As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.[/p][/quote]About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges.[/p][/quote]40 out of a population of over 60 million and over 25 million cars,although I would prefer to see no one killed its not exactly a threat to the human race is it. As far as crossings go, the pedestrian only has right of way when they are on it, not as some idiots do which is to simply walk out and hope the car stops.[/p][/quote]From the Highway Code: 195 Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing look out for pedestrians WAITING to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross You MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing 196 Pelican crossings. These are signal-controlled crossings where flashing amber follows the red ‘Stop’ light. You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution. 197 Pelican crossings which go straight across the road are one crossing, even when there is a central island. You MUST wait for pedestrians who are crossing from the other side of the island, even if they have made it to the central island.[/p][/quote]That's what I said, must give way when pedestrian has already moved onto the crossing, unfortunately there are some who think that they can start to cross when a car is only about six feet from the crossing and expect them to stop.that's how arrogant pedestrians get injured.[/p][/quote]If they can step onto the crossing when you are a car are only '6 feet away; I draw your attention (again) to: "Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing look out for pedestrians WAITING to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross" Its always someone else s fault with you isn't? Cyclists / Dogs / Pedestrians / Motorcyclists. Ever had to the courage to wonder if it might be you? Heaven forbid eh? scrumpyjack
  • Score: 2

4:53pm Wed 29 Jan 14

scrumpyjack says...

speedy231278 wrote:
The reason the roads are clogged is the result of too many 'traffic calming' schemes, too many buses, too many bus stops far too close together, far too many overlapping bus routes and the high cost of said buses. Recently, Yellow Buses put the price of a trip to the station from the Square up from £1.40 to £1.60 - a hike of almost 15%! A day ticket on the M1/M2 has increased 50% in the last few years, suspiciously it went up from £2.40 to £3.20 shortly after W+D were title sponsor of the air show....

You don't need so many buses all doing to the same place (Poole) from all around if they all go to Bournemouth first. Surely it would make far more sense for Bournemouth to have a large bus station as Poole does, and then a shuttle service between the two? If you ever see a traffic jam pic of somewhere between Westbourne and Poole, there are invariably neraly as many buses as cars in it!
Next time I am sat in a queue of 100 plus cars i will be sure to remember it's the buses fault.

Especially when I am queuing on the Wessex Way.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: The reason the roads are clogged is the result of too many 'traffic calming' schemes, too many buses, too many bus stops far too close together, far too many overlapping bus routes and the high cost of said buses. Recently, Yellow Buses put the price of a trip to the station from the Square up from £1.40 to £1.60 - a hike of almost 15%! A day ticket on the M1/M2 has increased 50% in the last few years, suspiciously it went up from £2.40 to £3.20 shortly after W+D were title sponsor of the air show.... You don't need so many buses all doing to the same place (Poole) from all around if they all go to Bournemouth first. Surely it would make far more sense for Bournemouth to have a large bus station as Poole does, and then a shuttle service between the two? If you ever see a traffic jam pic of somewhere between Westbourne and Poole, there are invariably neraly as many buses as cars in it![/p][/quote]Next time I am sat in a queue of 100 plus cars i will be sure to remember it's the buses fault. Especially when I am queuing on the Wessex Way. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.
WHAT, are you for real.
Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles.

https://www.gov.uk/g









overnment/publicatio









ns/reported-road-cas









ualties-great-britai









n-annual-report-2012
98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle.
Not on the pavement though as you suggest.
How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement?

Again you just assume.
As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.
About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges.
40 out of a population of over 60 million and over 25 million cars,although I would prefer to see no one killed its not exactly a threat to the human race is it.
As far as crossings go, the pedestrian only has right of way when they are on it, not as some idiots do which is to simply walk out and hope the car stops.
From the Highway Code:

195

Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing look out for pedestrians WAITING to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross

You MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing

196

Pelican crossings. These are signal-controlled crossings where flashing amber follows the red ‘Stop’ light. You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution.

197

Pelican crossings which go straight across the road are one crossing, even when there is a central island. You MUST wait for pedestrians who are crossing from the other side of the island, even if they have made it to the central island.
That's what I said, must give way when pedestrian has already moved onto the crossing, unfortunately there are some who think that they can start to cross when a car is only about six feet from the crossing and expect them to stop.that's how arrogant pedestrians get injured.
If they can step onto the crossing when you are a car are only '6 feet away; I draw your attention (again) to:

"Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing look out for pedestrians WAITING to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross"

Its always someone else s fault with you isn't? Cyclists / Dogs / Pedestrians / Motorcyclists. Ever had to the courage to wonder if it might be you? Heaven forbid eh?
So you believe that a pedestrian can simply walk across a road with tail to tail cars, vans, buses and lorries, and because the pedestrian starts walking across every body should stop, if that's what you are saying its no wonder pedestrians are killed or injures, common courtesy is the word here, wait for someone to stop if you value your life, personally I would like to see every crossing controlled by lights to avoid any accidents.
I walk and I use crossings but I wouldn't be so arrogant to think that as soon as I put my foot on the crossing cars will stop, the highway code also states, look right, look left and look right again, perhaps you should read it, if people didn't have arrogant tendencies such as you show perhaps they would live a little longer.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians[/p][/quote]Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.[/p][/quote]WHAT, are you for real.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-annual-report-2012[/p][/quote]98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. Not on the pavement though as you suggest.[/p][/quote]How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement? Again you just assume.[/p][/quote]As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.[/p][/quote]About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges.[/p][/quote]40 out of a population of over 60 million and over 25 million cars,although I would prefer to see no one killed its not exactly a threat to the human race is it. As far as crossings go, the pedestrian only has right of way when they are on it, not as some idiots do which is to simply walk out and hope the car stops.[/p][/quote]From the Highway Code: 195 Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing look out for pedestrians WAITING to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross You MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing 196 Pelican crossings. These are signal-controlled crossings where flashing amber follows the red ‘Stop’ light. You MUST stop when the red light shows. When the amber light is flashing, you MUST give way to any pedestrians on the crossing. If the amber light is flashing and there are no pedestrians on the crossing, you may proceed with caution. 197 Pelican crossings which go straight across the road are one crossing, even when there is a central island. You MUST wait for pedestrians who are crossing from the other side of the island, even if they have made it to the central island.[/p][/quote]That's what I said, must give way when pedestrian has already moved onto the crossing, unfortunately there are some who think that they can start to cross when a car is only about six feet from the crossing and expect them to stop.that's how arrogant pedestrians get injured.[/p][/quote]If they can step onto the crossing when you are a car are only '6 feet away; I draw your attention (again) to: "Zebra crossings. As you approach a zebra crossing look out for pedestrians WAITING to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross" Its always someone else s fault with you isn't? Cyclists / Dogs / Pedestrians / Motorcyclists. Ever had to the courage to wonder if it might be you? Heaven forbid eh?[/p][/quote]So you believe that a pedestrian can simply walk across a road with tail to tail cars, vans, buses and lorries, and because the pedestrian starts walking across every body should stop, if that's what you are saying its no wonder pedestrians are killed or injures, common courtesy is the word here, wait for someone to stop if you value your life, personally I would like to see every crossing controlled by lights to avoid any accidents. I walk and I use crossings but I wouldn't be so arrogant to think that as soon as I put my foot on the crossing cars will stop, the highway code also states, look right, look left and look right again, perhaps you should read it, if people didn't have arrogant tendencies such as you show perhaps they would live a little longer. Hessenford
  • Score: -3

5:09pm Wed 29 Jan 14

scrumpyjack says...

Whatever.

Plank.
Whatever. Plank. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 4

5:48pm Wed 29 Jan 14

loftusrod says...

The Archer wrote:
they never learn, the mess they have made at the top of Poole Lane, since they finished it I have only seen 2 people use the pedestrian lights which is fortunate because as soon as the lights stop the traffic the roundabout jams up, yes i know they have put a yellow box there but that only keeps one side of Ringwood Road going briefly and the other box junction keeps the service road rat run clear and jams up Poole Lane and Turbary park Road. they have made a bad junction infinitely worse.
Couldn't agree more with this; plus the ridiculous amount of money spent on the cycle lane from this roundabout to the Bear Cross roundabout. And l'm a cyclist!
If the council want to encourage cyclists the first thing they should do is to fill in the potholes and repair drain covers so cyclists don't have to swerve in to traffic.
[quote][p][bold]The Archer[/bold] wrote: they never learn, the mess they have made at the top of Poole Lane, since they finished it I have only seen 2 people use the pedestrian lights which is fortunate because as soon as the lights stop the traffic the roundabout jams up, yes i know they have put a yellow box there but that only keeps one side of Ringwood Road going briefly and the other box junction keeps the service road rat run clear and jams up Poole Lane and Turbary park Road. they have made a bad junction infinitely worse.[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more with this; plus the ridiculous amount of money spent on the cycle lane from this roundabout to the Bear Cross roundabout. And l'm a cyclist! If the council want to encourage cyclists the first thing they should do is to fill in the potholes and repair drain covers so cyclists don't have to swerve in to traffic. loftusrod
  • Score: 8

5:58pm Wed 29 Jan 14

itsneverblackorwhite says...

Build a monorail and keep the prices low, plus the tourists would love it!
Build a monorail and keep the prices low, plus the tourists would love it! itsneverblackorwhite
  • Score: 6

7:01pm Wed 29 Jan 14

bea says...

Should be very efficient in reducing carbon emissions, looks as if they are going to run everything on the hot air generated by endless discussions. What practical solutions are they proposing for private transport?
Should be very efficient in reducing carbon emissions, looks as if they are going to run everything on the hot air generated by endless discussions. What practical solutions are they proposing for private transport? bea
  • Score: 4

7:10pm Wed 29 Jan 14

bobthedestroyer says...

bea wrote:
Should be very efficient in reducing carbon emissions, looks as if they are going to run everything on the hot air generated by endless discussions. What practical solutions are they proposing for private transport?
All three councils continue to "deter" the private motorist even though the government have told them to stop picking on the motorist. It is all well and good having buses and cycle lanes to get to work, but how do you do a weeks shop, plus take kids in tow. It is near impossible to manage that on public transport and it is impossible on a bike. To answer the sopping one, the three councils could pay for delivery charge imposed by the supermarkets (I'm back in cloud cuckoo land).

Maybe the £12million should have been spent improving the access into and out of the towns (Wessex Way relief road) and not tinkering.

Only my humble opnions.
[quote][p][bold]bea[/bold] wrote: Should be very efficient in reducing carbon emissions, looks as if they are going to run everything on the hot air generated by endless discussions. What practical solutions are they proposing for private transport?[/p][/quote]All three councils continue to "deter" the private motorist even though the government have told them to stop picking on the motorist. It is all well and good having buses and cycle lanes to get to work, but how do you do a weeks shop, plus take kids in tow. It is near impossible to manage that on public transport and it is impossible on a bike. To answer the sopping one, the three councils could pay for delivery charge imposed by the supermarkets (I'm back in cloud cuckoo land). Maybe the £12million should have been spent improving the access into and out of the towns (Wessex Way relief road) and not tinkering. Only my humble opnions. bobthedestroyer
  • Score: 8

7:21pm Wed 29 Jan 14

muscliffman says...

speedy231278 wrote:
The reason the roads are clogged is the result of too many 'traffic calming' schemes, too many buses, too many bus stops far too close together, far too many overlapping bus routes and the high cost of said buses. Recently, Yellow Buses put the price of a trip to the station from the Square up from £1.40 to £1.60 - a hike of almost 15%! A day ticket on the M1/M2 has increased 50% in the last few years, suspiciously it went up from £2.40 to £3.20 shortly after W+D were title sponsor of the air show....

You don't need so many buses all doing to the same place (Poole) from all around if they all go to Bournemouth first. Surely it would make far more sense for Bournemouth to have a large bus station as Poole does, and then a shuttle service between the two? If you ever see a traffic jam pic of somewhere between Westbourne and Poole, there are invariably neraly as many buses as cars in it!
Oddly buses are indeed part of the congestion problems these days. Deregulation has attracted unnecessarily high frequency competing bus services to some main route corridors, meanwhile the buses have changed from mainly road space compact double-deckers to much longer single-deckers and bus stops have been thoughtlessly (PC) redesigned with raised kerbs preventing these modern lower stepped vehicles from pulling properly in to bus stops and out of other road users way.

It is quite an achievement to have turned a potential traffic congestion solution into part of the problem - but rest assured here in the UK we can do it!
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: The reason the roads are clogged is the result of too many 'traffic calming' schemes, too many buses, too many bus stops far too close together, far too many overlapping bus routes and the high cost of said buses. Recently, Yellow Buses put the price of a trip to the station from the Square up from £1.40 to £1.60 - a hike of almost 15%! A day ticket on the M1/M2 has increased 50% in the last few years, suspiciously it went up from £2.40 to £3.20 shortly after W+D were title sponsor of the air show.... You don't need so many buses all doing to the same place (Poole) from all around if they all go to Bournemouth first. Surely it would make far more sense for Bournemouth to have a large bus station as Poole does, and then a shuttle service between the two? If you ever see a traffic jam pic of somewhere between Westbourne and Poole, there are invariably neraly as many buses as cars in it![/p][/quote]Oddly buses are indeed part of the congestion problems these days. Deregulation has attracted unnecessarily high frequency competing bus services to some main route corridors, meanwhile the buses have changed from mainly road space compact double-deckers to much longer single-deckers and bus stops have been thoughtlessly (PC) redesigned with raised kerbs preventing these modern lower stepped vehicles from pulling properly in to bus stops and out of other road users way. It is quite an achievement to have turned a potential traffic congestion solution into part of the problem - but rest assured here in the UK we can do it! muscliffman
  • Score: 4

9:45pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Wageslave says...

Hessenford wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
bluto999 wrote:
fedupwithjobsworths wrote:
jobsworthwatch wrote:
mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Joking wrote:
And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago!
Have you used the cycle lanes?
That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.
But not a safer mix for pedestrians
Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.
WHAT, are you for real.
Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles.

https://www.gov.uk/g






overnment/publicatio






ns/reported-road-cas






ualties-great-britai






n-annual-report-2012
98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle.
Not on the pavement though as you suggest.
How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement?

Again you just assume.
As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.
About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges.
40 out of a population of over 60 million and over 25 million cars,although I would prefer to see no one killed its not exactly a threat to the human race is it.
As far as crossings go, the pedestrian only has right of way when they are on it, not as some idiots do which is to simply walk out and hope the car stops.
Usually about 6 feet away from a pedestrian crossing. Jay walking is an offence in USA it should be here too
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bluto999[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fedupwithjobsworths[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joking[/bold] wrote: And the cyclists are STILL all using the pavements along Barrack Road from Iford Roundabout, despite the fancy cycle lanes put in at great expense a couple of years ago![/p][/quote]Have you used the cycle lanes?[/p][/quote]That's where the cycle lanes should be, on the pavement , cyclists and pedestrians is a much safer mix than cyclists and cars.[/p][/quote]But not a safer mix for pedestrians[/p][/quote]Whether cyclists go on the pavement will make little actual difference to the safety of pedestrians. Cars are far the biggest cause of pedestrian deaths or injuries on the pavement.[/p][/quote]WHAT, are you for real.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. In 2012, 98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. 2% cycles. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/reported-road-cas ualties-great-britai n-annual-report-2012[/p][/quote]98% of pedestrians killed or seriously injured in urban areas were the result of a collision with a motor vehicle. Not on the pavement though as you suggest.[/p][/quote]How do you know it's not the pavement, or a pedestrian crossing, which is deemed to have the same pedestrian rights as the pavement? Again you just assume.[/p][/quote]As usual the same people rant against the motorist, very boring.[/p][/quote]About 40 pedestrians a year are killed by cars on pavements and verges.[/p][/quote]40 out of a population of over 60 million and over 25 million cars,although I would prefer to see no one killed its not exactly a threat to the human race is it. As far as crossings go, the pedestrian only has right of way when they are on it, not as some idiots do which is to simply walk out and hope the car stops.[/p][/quote]Usually about 6 feet away from a pedestrian crossing. Jay walking is an offence in USA it should be here too Wageslave
  • Score: -2

10:20pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Chris@Bmouth says...

These are hardly going to improve traffic congestion. Since when does re-fitting a curb have anything to do with reducing congestion. Unfortunately, the only way to curb the horrendous congestion is to widen roads and forcefully demolish buildings - of course that would never happen.

How can planning for the future be so bad? We build roads which are just 2 lanes wide in Australia and leave sufficient space for an additional 2-4 lanes. Admittedly it's easier because we have all of the space, but demolition is a real option.
These are hardly going to improve traffic congestion. Since when does re-fitting a curb have anything to do with reducing congestion. Unfortunately, the only way to curb the horrendous congestion is to widen roads and forcefully demolish buildings - of course that would never happen. How can planning for the future be so bad? We build roads which are just 2 lanes wide in Australia and leave sufficient space for an additional 2-4 lanes. Admittedly it's easier because we have all of the space, but demolition is a real option. Chris@Bmouth
  • Score: 2

12:07am Thu 30 Jan 14

Yankee1 says...

1. Extend the Wessex Way from the westbound to Holes Bay Road.

2. Turn the A31 into the M27 to Exeter.

3. Create a bypass for Christchurch.
1. Extend the Wessex Way from the westbound to Holes Bay Road. 2. Turn the A31 into the M27 to Exeter. 3. Create a bypass for Christchurch. Yankee1
  • Score: 9

2:01am Thu 30 Jan 14

Boscomite says...

You can often walk faster than the traffic's moving. Take a look at how many cars have just one person in them. That's where the problem lies.
You can often walk faster than the traffic's moving. Take a look at how many cars have just one person in them. That's where the problem lies. Boscomite
  • Score: 3

7:24am Thu 30 Jan 14

tbpoole says...

Yankee1 wrote:
1. Extend the Wessex Way from the westbound to Holes Bay Road.

2. Turn the A31 into the M27 to Exeter.

3. Create a bypass for Christchurch.
Now just got to find that spare couple of billion pounds to pay for it all.....
[quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: 1. Extend the Wessex Way from the westbound to Holes Bay Road. 2. Turn the A31 into the M27 to Exeter. 3. Create a bypass for Christchurch.[/p][/quote]Now just got to find that spare couple of billion pounds to pay for it all..... tbpoole
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Franks Tank says...

tbpoole wrote:
Yankee1 wrote:
1. Extend the Wessex Way from the westbound to Holes Bay Road.

2. Turn the A31 into the M27 to Exeter.

3. Create a bypass for Christchurch.
Now just got to find that spare couple of billion pounds to pay for it all.....
Maybe some sort of ROAD TAX could be levied to pay for it!
[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: 1. Extend the Wessex Way from the westbound to Holes Bay Road. 2. Turn the A31 into the M27 to Exeter. 3. Create a bypass for Christchurch.[/p][/quote]Now just got to find that spare couple of billion pounds to pay for it all.....[/p][/quote]Maybe some sort of ROAD TAX could be levied to pay for it! Franks Tank
  • Score: 6

4:35pm Thu 30 Jan 14

blackdog1 says...

Pathetic waste of money for the ever present cycle lobby! Fed up with the constant ...".lets get people out of their cars so they can walk /cycle etc"...blah blah blah! Cars are evil cycles are good? I will always use my car and dont care what they waste on cycle schemes it will not make me give up the use of my motor vehicle.I suspect it is much the same for most people these days?
Pathetic waste of money for the ever present cycle lobby! Fed up with the constant ...".lets get people out of their cars so they can walk /cycle etc"...blah blah blah! Cars are evil cycles are good? I will always use my car and dont care what they waste on cycle schemes it will not make me give up the use of my motor vehicle.I suspect it is much the same for most people these days? blackdog1
  • Score: -3

4:38pm Thu 30 Jan 14

alisont1964 says...

muscliffman wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
The reason the roads are clogged is the result of too many 'traffic calming' schemes, too many buses, too many bus stops far too close together, far too many overlapping bus routes and the high cost of said buses. Recently, Yellow Buses put the price of a trip to the station from the Square up from £1.40 to £1.60 - a hike of almost 15%! A day ticket on the M1/M2 has increased 50% in the last few years, suspiciously it went up from £2.40 to £3.20 shortly after W+D were title sponsor of the air show....

You don't need so many buses all doing to the same place (Poole) from all around if they all go to Bournemouth first. Surely it would make far more sense for Bournemouth to have a large bus station as Poole does, and then a shuttle service between the two? If you ever see a traffic jam pic of somewhere between Westbourne and Poole, there are invariably neraly as many buses as cars in it!
Oddly buses are indeed part of the congestion problems these days. Deregulation has attracted unnecessarily high frequency competing bus services to some main route corridors, meanwhile the buses have changed from mainly road space compact double-deckers to much longer single-deckers and bus stops have been thoughtlessly (PC) redesigned with raised kerbs preventing these modern lower stepped vehicles from pulling properly in to bus stops and out of other road users way.

It is quite an achievement to have turned a potential traffic congestion solution into part of the problem - but rest assured here in the UK we can do it!
i dont suppose you are a bus user. single deckers carry more passengers than double deckers (high number stand) the reason the buses are high frequent is because there is a demand. quiet often especially during rush hour the buses are full. Raised kerbs are there to enable wheelchair users to board and alight the bus quickly. Traffic congestion mainly occurs during rush hour when there is a greater number of cars on the road. Interestingly enough if you banned cars from 7.30am till 9.am then this would force commuters on to their bikes, walking or onto buses and traffic congestion would cease.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: The reason the roads are clogged is the result of too many 'traffic calming' schemes, too many buses, too many bus stops far too close together, far too many overlapping bus routes and the high cost of said buses. Recently, Yellow Buses put the price of a trip to the station from the Square up from £1.40 to £1.60 - a hike of almost 15%! A day ticket on the M1/M2 has increased 50% in the last few years, suspiciously it went up from £2.40 to £3.20 shortly after W+D were title sponsor of the air show.... You don't need so many buses all doing to the same place (Poole) from all around if they all go to Bournemouth first. Surely it would make far more sense for Bournemouth to have a large bus station as Poole does, and then a shuttle service between the two? If you ever see a traffic jam pic of somewhere between Westbourne and Poole, there are invariably neraly as many buses as cars in it![/p][/quote]Oddly buses are indeed part of the congestion problems these days. Deregulation has attracted unnecessarily high frequency competing bus services to some main route corridors, meanwhile the buses have changed from mainly road space compact double-deckers to much longer single-deckers and bus stops have been thoughtlessly (PC) redesigned with raised kerbs preventing these modern lower stepped vehicles from pulling properly in to bus stops and out of other road users way. It is quite an achievement to have turned a potential traffic congestion solution into part of the problem - but rest assured here in the UK we can do it![/p][/quote]i dont suppose you are a bus user. single deckers carry more passengers than double deckers (high number stand) the reason the buses are high frequent is because there is a demand. quiet often especially during rush hour the buses are full. Raised kerbs are there to enable wheelchair users to board and alight the bus quickly. Traffic congestion mainly occurs during rush hour when there is a greater number of cars on the road. Interestingly enough if you banned cars from 7.30am till 9.am then this would force commuters on to their bikes, walking or onto buses and traffic congestion would cease. alisont1964
  • Score: 0

8:26pm Thu 30 Jan 14

scrumpyjack says...

Franks Tank wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Yankee1 wrote:
1. Extend the Wessex Way from the westbound to Holes Bay Road.

2. Turn the A31 into the M27 to Exeter.

3. Create a bypass for Christchurch.
Now just got to find that spare couple of billion pounds to pay for it all.....
Maybe some sort of ROAD TAX could be levied to pay for it!
If only they would come up with such a thing.

It'd be like I'd own a part of the road forever each time I paid. Coo imagine.
[quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: 1. Extend the Wessex Way from the westbound to Holes Bay Road. 2. Turn the A31 into the M27 to Exeter. 3. Create a bypass for Christchurch.[/p][/quote]Now just got to find that spare couple of billion pounds to pay for it all.....[/p][/quote]Maybe some sort of ROAD TAX could be levied to pay for it![/p][/quote]If only they would come up with such a thing. It'd be like I'd own a part of the road forever each time I paid. Coo imagine. scrumpyjack
  • Score: 4

10:25am Fri 31 Jan 14

Franks Tank says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
Franks Tank wrote:
tbpoole wrote:
Yankee1 wrote:
1. Extend the Wessex Way from the westbound to Holes Bay Road.

2. Turn the A31 into the M27 to Exeter.

3. Create a bypass for Christchurch.
Now just got to find that spare couple of billion pounds to pay for it all.....
Maybe some sort of ROAD TAX could be levied to pay for it!
If only they would come up with such a thing.

It'd be like I'd own a part of the road forever each time I paid. Coo imagine.
Just think of the extra revenue from equestrians, mobility scooters, skate boarders, electric cars, low emission vehicles, cars build before 1973, war pensioners on a mobility supplement, tractors, emergency vehicles, gritters, road construction vehicles, the disabled. Even the Queen and those dam pesky cyclists could be charged.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Franks Tank[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Yankee1[/bold] wrote: 1. Extend the Wessex Way from the westbound to Holes Bay Road. 2. Turn the A31 into the M27 to Exeter. 3. Create a bypass for Christchurch.[/p][/quote]Now just got to find that spare couple of billion pounds to pay for it all.....[/p][/quote]Maybe some sort of ROAD TAX could be levied to pay for it![/p][/quote]If only they would come up with such a thing. It'd be like I'd own a part of the road forever each time I paid. Coo imagine.[/p][/quote]Just think of the extra revenue from equestrians, mobility scooters, skate boarders, electric cars, low emission vehicles, cars build before 1973, war pensioners on a mobility supplement, tractors, emergency vehicles, gritters, road construction vehicles, the disabled. Even the Queen and those dam pesky cyclists could be charged. Franks Tank
  • Score: 4

2:40pm Fri 31 Jan 14

nodder1 says...

scrumpyjack wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
It seems that the minority political interests which drive the funding for this 'Three Towns Travel' project are basically those old 'green' PC ones, so it is essentially pro-public transport and cyclist - but anti-motorist.

Virtually all the expensive tinkering highlighted in the article - and regardless of your perspective that is all it is - is only aimed at improving facilities for buses and cyclists. In many if not all cases it is obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to think it through that the end result of these 'improvements' will add to general traffic congestion locally and not assist it at all - in fact in some cases that seems to be the very intention.

Surely we have far better things to spend this £12million of transport money on, such as local road improvements that might actually help the MAJORITY of the users. I think the general motoring public already have grave reservations about this whole project and no amount of two page Echo PR promotional adverts from Councillors (for that is what this article really is) will change that.
The roads are not clogged with cyclists and pedestrians.

They are clogged with car drivers like me and with the lorries and vans devlivering the goods we need.

They are clogged with school buses, mums doing the school run, OAPS getting about because they can't walk far.

So this whole 2we are right and being picked on" moaning stance from drivers ignores the fact it is the fact we all use our cars - the drivers are the reason the roads are jammed in the first place.
wow somone with self awareness on here!! congratulations sir.
[quote][p][bold]scrumpyjack[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: It seems that the minority political interests which drive the funding for this 'Three Towns Travel' project are basically those old 'green' PC ones, so it is essentially pro-public transport and cyclist - but anti-motorist. Virtually all the expensive tinkering highlighted in the article - and regardless of your perspective that is all it is - is only aimed at improving facilities for buses and cyclists. In many if not all cases it is obvious to anyone who takes the trouble to think it through that the end result of these 'improvements' will add to general traffic congestion locally and not assist it at all - in fact in some cases that seems to be the very intention. Surely we have far better things to spend this £12million of transport money on, such as local road improvements that might actually help the MAJORITY of the users. I think the general motoring public already have grave reservations about this whole project and no amount of two page Echo PR promotional adverts from Councillors (for that is what this article really is) will change that.[/p][/quote]The roads are not clogged with cyclists and pedestrians. They are clogged with car drivers like me and with the lorries and vans devlivering the goods we need. They are clogged with school buses, mums doing the school run, OAPS getting about because they can't walk far. So this whole 2we are right and being picked on" moaning stance from drivers ignores the fact it is the fact we all use our cars - the drivers are the reason the roads are jammed in the first place.[/p][/quote]wow somone with self awareness on here!! congratulations sir. nodder1
  • Score: 1

3:21pm Fri 31 Jan 14

Niel says...

muscliffman wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
The reason the roads are clogged is the result of too many 'traffic calming' schemes, too many buses, too many bus stops far too close together, far too many overlapping bus routes and the high cost of said buses. Recently, Yellow Buses put the price of a trip to the station from the Square up from £1.40 to £1.60 - a hike of almost 15%! A day ticket on the M1/M2 has increased 50% in the last few years, suspiciously it went up from £2.40 to £3.20 shortly after W+D were title sponsor of the air show....

You don't need so many buses all doing to the same place (Poole) from all around if they all go to Bournemouth first. Surely it would make far more sense for Bournemouth to have a large bus station as Poole does, and then a shuttle service between the two? If you ever see a traffic jam pic of somewhere between Westbourne and Poole, there are invariably neraly as many buses as cars in it!
Oddly buses are indeed part of the congestion problems these days. Deregulation has attracted unnecessarily high frequency competing bus services to some main route corridors, meanwhile the buses have changed from mainly road space compact double-deckers to much longer single-deckers and bus stops have been thoughtlessly (PC) redesigned with raised kerbs preventing these modern lower stepped vehicles from pulling properly in to bus stops and out of other road users way.

It is quite an achievement to have turned a potential traffic congestion solution into part of the problem - but rest assured here in the UK we can do it!
Just hope they don't follow Southampton's idea and 'build out' bus stops so you can't overtake the slowest moving vehicle, the bus...
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: The reason the roads are clogged is the result of too many 'traffic calming' schemes, too many buses, too many bus stops far too close together, far too many overlapping bus routes and the high cost of said buses. Recently, Yellow Buses put the price of a trip to the station from the Square up from £1.40 to £1.60 - a hike of almost 15%! A day ticket on the M1/M2 has increased 50% in the last few years, suspiciously it went up from £2.40 to £3.20 shortly after W+D were title sponsor of the air show.... You don't need so many buses all doing to the same place (Poole) from all around if they all go to Bournemouth first. Surely it would make far more sense for Bournemouth to have a large bus station as Poole does, and then a shuttle service between the two? If you ever see a traffic jam pic of somewhere between Westbourne and Poole, there are invariably neraly as many buses as cars in it![/p][/quote]Oddly buses are indeed part of the congestion problems these days. Deregulation has attracted unnecessarily high frequency competing bus services to some main route corridors, meanwhile the buses have changed from mainly road space compact double-deckers to much longer single-deckers and bus stops have been thoughtlessly (PC) redesigned with raised kerbs preventing these modern lower stepped vehicles from pulling properly in to bus stops and out of other road users way. It is quite an achievement to have turned a potential traffic congestion solution into part of the problem - but rest assured here in the UK we can do it![/p][/quote]Just hope they don't follow Southampton's idea and 'build out' bus stops so you can't overtake the slowest moving vehicle, the bus... Niel
  • Score: 4

10:41am Sun 2 Feb 14

pedantica says...

bobthedestroyer wrote:
bea wrote:
Should be very efficient in reducing carbon emissions, looks as if they are going to run everything on the hot air generated by endless discussions. What practical solutions are they proposing for private transport?
All three councils continue to "deter" the private motorist even though the government have told them to stop picking on the motorist. It is all well and good having buses and cycle lanes to get to work, but how do you do a weeks shop, plus take kids in tow. It is near impossible to manage that on public transport and it is impossible on a bike. To answer the sopping one, the three councils could pay for delivery charge imposed by the supermarkets (I'm back in cloud cuckoo land).

Maybe the £12million should have been spent improving the access into and out of the towns (Wessex Way relief road) and not tinkering.

Only my humble opnions.
I drive, and have a car, but am able to chose to cycle to work daily, and guess what, I go past shops! Easy to stop and shop regularly, the bike carries quite a load of stuff home, and I only use the car for longer journeys or at non commuter times, or to collect really big items.....simps. Fair enough, it was different when the kids were little, mind you, why take them with you unless you are a lone parent with zero child care options?
[quote][p][bold]bobthedestroyer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bea[/bold] wrote: Should be very efficient in reducing carbon emissions, looks as if they are going to run everything on the hot air generated by endless discussions. What practical solutions are they proposing for private transport?[/p][/quote]All three councils continue to "deter" the private motorist even though the government have told them to stop picking on the motorist. It is all well and good having buses and cycle lanes to get to work, but how do you do a weeks shop, plus take kids in tow. It is near impossible to manage that on public transport and it is impossible on a bike. To answer the sopping one, the three councils could pay for delivery charge imposed by the supermarkets (I'm back in cloud cuckoo land). Maybe the £12million should have been spent improving the access into and out of the towns (Wessex Way relief road) and not tinkering. Only my humble opnions.[/p][/quote]I drive, and have a car, but am able to chose to cycle to work daily, and guess what, I go past shops! Easy to stop and shop regularly, the bike carries quite a load of stuff home, and I only use the car for longer journeys or at non commuter times, or to collect really big items.....simps. Fair enough, it was different when the kids were little, mind you, why take them with you unless you are a lone parent with zero child care options? pedantica
  • Score: 2

9:05pm Sun 2 Feb 14

davecook says...

Phixer wrote:
Justme8 wrote:
Ok, I live on the Christchurch border and work in Fleetsbridge, Poole so how are the proposals to improve the roads going to benefit commuters like me. Too far to cycle and bus would take hours. Perhaps we need an underground system!
Where is our friend with the monorail proposal?
Had the railway line from Poole to Wimborne been re-opened before the route was built on, it would have had a station at Fleets Corner, Broadstone, Merley, and Wimborne with direct trains from Christchurch and Bournemouth. However, our LibDem councillor at the time of my suggestion did not approve of the re-opening of the line as she felt that children would play on the track. Sadly, the best off road link in our part of the area has been got rid of. Unsurprisingly the person concerned has now moved up and lives by the golf course where the railway originally ran between Broadstone and Wimborne.........
[quote][p][bold]Phixer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Justme8[/bold] wrote: Ok, I live on the Christchurch border and work in Fleetsbridge, Poole so how are the proposals to improve the roads going to benefit commuters like me. Too far to cycle and bus would take hours. Perhaps we need an underground system![/p][/quote]Where is our friend with the monorail proposal?[/p][/quote]Had the railway line from Poole to Wimborne been re-opened before the route was built on, it would have had a station at Fleets Corner, Broadstone, Merley, and Wimborne with direct trains from Christchurch and Bournemouth. However, our LibDem councillor at the time of my suggestion did not approve of the re-opening of the line as she felt that children would play on the track. Sadly, the best off road link in our part of the area has been got rid of. Unsurprisingly the person concerned has now moved up and lives by the golf course where the railway originally ran between Broadstone and Wimborne......... davecook
  • Score: 3

9:59pm Sun 2 Feb 14

FNS-man says...

blackdog1 wrote:
Pathetic waste of money for the ever present cycle lobby! Fed up with the constant ...".lets get people out of their cars so they can walk /cycle etc"...blah blah blah! Cars are evil cycles are good? I will always use my car and dont care what they waste on cycle schemes it will not make me give up the use of my motor vehicle.I suspect it is much the same for most people these days?
Condemning your kids to have a fat dad, and to be slaves to the car themselves. Wobble happy there, blackdog.
[quote][p][bold]blackdog1[/bold] wrote: Pathetic waste of money for the ever present cycle lobby! Fed up with the constant ...".lets get people out of their cars so they can walk /cycle etc"...blah blah blah! Cars are evil cycles are good? I will always use my car and dont care what they waste on cycle schemes it will not make me give up the use of my motor vehicle.I suspect it is much the same for most people these days?[/p][/quote]Condemning your kids to have a fat dad, and to be slaves to the car themselves. Wobble happy there, blackdog. FNS-man
  • Score: 0

2:10am Mon 3 Feb 14

AdelaidePete says...

Chris@Bmth has a point. Tinkering at the edges is sending good money after bad. It's time to bite the bullet and do some major work, and it is unfortunately going to mean demolishing some housing to put proper roads in. An o-bahn system could take huge numbers of busses off the road, speeding up both car traffic and the bus traffic. (See Adelaide's system on you-tube) The narrow roads choked with traffic as in Winton, and I guess elsewhere, are leftovers from the 1900s and were never designed for the capacity expected today.
Chris@Bmth has a point. Tinkering at the edges is sending good money after bad. It's time to bite the bullet and do some major work, and it is unfortunately going to mean demolishing some housing to put proper roads in. An o-bahn system could take huge numbers of busses off the road, speeding up both car traffic and the bus traffic. (See Adelaide's system on you-tube) The narrow roads choked with traffic as in Winton, and I guess elsewhere, are leftovers from the 1900s and were never designed for the capacity expected today. AdelaidePete
  • Score: 2

2:50am Tue 4 Feb 14

Chris@Bmouth says...

AdelaidePete wrote:
Chris@Bmth has a point. Tinkering at the edges is sending good money after bad. It's time to bite the bullet and do some major work, and it is unfortunately going to mean demolishing some housing to put proper roads in. An o-bahn system could take huge numbers of busses off the road, speeding up both car traffic and the bus traffic. (See Adelaide's system on you-tube) The narrow roads choked with traffic as in Winton, and I guess elsewhere, are leftovers from the 1900s and were never designed for the capacity expected today.
But they wont demolish, they're all worried about providing extra housing. It's breaking headlines when the council builds 10 homes. Can you imagine if they were to demolish 100 homes? omg.
[quote][p][bold]AdelaidePete[/bold] wrote: Chris@Bmth has a point. Tinkering at the edges is sending good money after bad. It's time to bite the bullet and do some major work, and it is unfortunately going to mean demolishing some housing to put proper roads in. An o-bahn system could take huge numbers of busses off the road, speeding up both car traffic and the bus traffic. (See Adelaide's system on you-tube) The narrow roads choked with traffic as in Winton, and I guess elsewhere, are leftovers from the 1900s and were never designed for the capacity expected today.[/p][/quote]But they wont demolish, they're all worried about providing extra housing. It's breaking headlines when the council builds 10 homes. Can you imagine if they were to demolish 100 homes? omg. Chris@Bmouth
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree