Too many vehicles!!!

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by TonyR »

cycleruk wrote:It could be a local "rat run"?
The normal main road way could have hold ups so those in the know take the lane.


Those in the know are unlikely to take a lane so narrow that a cyclist and a car can't pass each other. The first time they meet another car is going to create an impasse with somebody having to reverse up.
TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by TonyR »

pwa wrote:
TonyR wrote:
simonineaston wrote:Too many humans, full stop. This morning, I was listening to Bill Gates, on DID - nice bloke, don't get me wrong, but he was banging on about ending malaria and saving lives and I thought, "Weird - for a bright bloke, you just don't get it... we don't need more people on this earth, we need LESS, so spend all that money thinking of ways we could get rid of them some of them!"


Are you suggesting we need more wars? :shock:


And disease, and famine. Too drastic, of course, but I agree that there are too many of us. And absolutely no government policies to steer things in a different direction.


What would those policies be. Chinese one family one child rule to go global? In the past a life expectancy half what it is now together with wars and famines and disease kept the population down but we are rightly focussed on increasing the first and removing the rest. So what other measures can you use? A Logan's Run style termination at 30?
User avatar
Vantage
Posts: 3050
Joined: 24 Jan 2012, 1:44pm
Location: somewhere in Bolton
Contact:

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by Vantage »

TonyR wrote:
cycleruk wrote:It could be a local "rat run"?
The normal main road way could have hold ups so those in the know take the lane.


Those in the know are unlikely to take a lane so narrow that a cyclist and a car can't pass each other. The first time they meet another car is going to create an impasse with somebody having to reverse up.


Dunno about that.
From what I've seen, many seem to think they're the only road user on the planet and as such are happy to overtake on a blind corner or crest with the belief that nothing could possibly be coming from the opposite direction.
Bill


“Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride.” ~ Eddy Merckx
It's a rich man whos children run to him when his pockets are empty.
pwa
Posts: 17370
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by pwa »

TonyR's question about what we can do about population increase without resorting to draconian policies (one child per family, etc) is a good one. And you can add to it the fact that the increase in the number of old people makes an increase in the number of younger people (to support them) essential. But there must be a limit. Unless the whole world is going to look like Hong Kong!

I'd limit Child Benefit to, say, two or three children, and take a similar approach with other benefits related to family size. I'd also want a public campaign to encourage sustainable family size.
pwa
Posts: 17370
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by pwa »

TonyR wrote:
cycleruk wrote:It could be a local "rat run"?
The normal main road way could have hold ups so those in the know take the lane.


Those in the know are unlikely to take a lane so narrow that a cyclist and a car can't pass each other. The first time they meet another car is going to create an impasse with somebody having to reverse up.


On Thursday night I was driving home from work and my main road (B road) route was blocked by a crash between a lorry and a bus. Nobody hurt but diesel all over the road. I did a quick left and made my way home on the maze of narrow lanes covered in farm mud and muck. I accept that I will meet other traffic and will have to reverse to a passing place. I'm used to it.
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 10593
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by 661-Pete »

I remember once encountering a pair of pantechnicon vans, just here. Now it's fairly obvious, even from just looking at Streetview, that there's no room for a bike and a van to pass on that stretch. Indeed the vans were pretty much firmly wedged between the banks. I had two options: backtrack, or clamber up the bank dragging bike behind me. I chose the latter. The drivers were making a delivery to a house in that lane, so they had a reason to be there despite a 2m width limit: but all the houses are at the southern end, access is easy from the south, and of course they were approaching it from the wrong direction. Satnav again!

I can only assume that they made it to their destination somehow. Now if anyone had been approaching them in a car..... reversing as far as the nearest passing place would have been tricky on that road.
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by MikeF »

Bmblbzzz wrote:Don't forget that vehicles going up hill have priority over those descending!
I was going uphill - the same direction as them. Surprisingly nothing came down the hill. Seemed like a pointless route for a rat run.
Grandad wrote:Used for the classic Catford Hill Climb.

To quote the Catford CC 707 yard climb with an average gradient of 12.5%, with two stretches of 25% which requires an all-out lung bursting effort to get up the climb. The current record of 1 minute 47.6 seconds was set by Phil Mason (San Fairy Ann CC) in 1983 and despite the inducement of various special prizes has not been broken for 31 years!

It wasn't broken in 2015 either.
:o I don't know if it would have defeated me as I didn't get the chance to try, but one vehicle would have put paid to all that fast cycling. :wink: It's not marked as that steep on the OS map, but it's certainly a climb.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by MikeF »

661-Pete wrote:I remember once encountering a pair of pantechnicon vans, just here.
Similar situation. I was here recently. It didn't look like that though;East Sussex CC has dug out the ditches so all that area where the cow parsley was has been heaped alongside the road in two banks. No thought for walkers or cyclists. I met an 8 wheeler lorry here which occupied the whole road - probably been to a farm site. I had to stand precariously on the spoil heap to let it pass.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
tyreon
Posts: 936
Joined: 4 Oct 2012, 4:39pm

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by tyreon »

Generalisation(I know): Top Table seem to be having more and more kids: 4 is standard,3 a little below average. Each will probably multiply and want 4x4 cars. They're not reducing family size cos they've got better health or fear losing physical/psychological security through having no social security.

BG should be looking at reducing human size on each generation so's that we go down to the size of ants: wont demand so much of Earth's resources. The pictured lane would then be as wide as the English Channel. Next, make consumable goods somehow recycleable(Encourage returns:some reward like returnable money you got on pop bottles 50/60s for returning unwanted goods). Next, single non-reproductive tax advantages.

I leave open the next 20+ suggestions for other commentators here
ambodach
Posts: 1023
Joined: 15 Mar 2011, 6:45pm

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by ambodach »

There are sadly fairly frequent collisions on the A85 between Connel and Oban. There is a back road ( a cycle route incidentally) from Connel to Oban. Once police have been alerted one of their early moves is to close this back road to all motor traffic. Otherwise being single track it very quickly becomes a very long car park. At least it leaves it free for bikes and emergency vehicles. Generally it does not carry too much traffic so is reasonable to cycle on. Mind you anything would be better than the A85.
beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by beardy »

pwa wrote:TonyR's question about what we can do about population increase without resorting to draconian policies (one child per family, etc) is a good one. And you can add to it the fact that the increase in the number of old people makes an increase in the number of younger people (to support them) essential. But there must be a limit. Unless the whole world is going to look like Hong Kong!

I'd limit Child Benefit to, say, two or three children, and take a similar approach with other benefits related to family size. I'd also want a public campaign to encourage sustainable family size.


You would "punish" children for their parents sake then?
£13 a week isnt enough to make me condone abortion and I would anyway rather have a child raised in poverty than terminated and not raised at all. That is actually the only reason for our existence, to self propagate.

Drinking is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Obesity is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Truancy is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Antisocial behaviour is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Immigration is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Housing is a problem. Cut their benefits

One could imagine the only real problem is poor people. What was IDS's solution for poor people?
Oh yes, Cut their benefits.
old_windbag
Posts: 1869
Joined: 19 Feb 2015, 3:55pm

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by old_windbag »

beardy wrote:That is actually the only reason for our existence, to self propagate.


This is very true but that only works when you add in the natural controls of disease and famine( a bit harsh :shock: ). It works happily for other species and did for us too..... until we were able to control most childhood illnesses and conquer many bacterial infections. After that it is up to us to self regulate to keep a handle on the population required to sustain the older generation etc. As you say to propogate is our main function and therefore after parenting is completed the parents can die as their purpose has been served...... but we don't want that. So should we not forecast required population for sustainability then the birth to death ratio would be known and we could have people submit a request to have a child which would be granted on the next available death of a person( in the forecast ratio required ). It would be a queued system and would give us a good chance of kepping population from exploding as it seems to be in england( net plus migration not helping either, but balanced exiting equals entering Ok ).

It's pretty complicated but perhaps nature sadly had it right?. Not much fun if you actually enjoy being alive and the advantages/benefits of being a human, that so many seem to waste...... but again thats missing the point that we are just here to eat,sleep, procreate a few times and die.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by reohn2 »

beardy wrote:
pwa wrote:TonyR's question about what we can do about population increase without resorting to draconian policies (one child per family, etc) is a good one. And you can add to it the fact that the increase in the number of old people makes an increase in the number of younger people (to support them) essential. But there must be a limit. Unless the whole world is going to look like Hong Kong!

I'd limit Child Benefit to, say, two or three children, and take a similar approach with other benefits related to family size. I'd also want a public campaign to encourage sustainable family size.


You would "punish" children for their parents sake then?
£13 a week isnt enough to make me condone abortion and I would anyway rather have a child raised in poverty than terminated and not raised at all. That is actually the only reason for our existence, to self propagate.

Drinking is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Obesity is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Truancy is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Antisocial behaviour is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Immigration is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Housing is a problem. Cut their benefits

One could imagine the only real problem is poor people. What was IDS's solution for poor people?
Oh yes, Cut their benefits.


Agreed,with reservations.
Some(dispassionate) thoughts
Responsibility is the main one,if we don't curb population growth,the planet will do it for us,if war doesn't.
We are already seeing mutant forms of infection resistant to antibiotics,which while some don't kill they severely disable individuals thereby,in the western world at least,need more resources for such people to have a quality of life.
That aside we can only feed so many people otherwise the whole ecosystem teeters on the brink of crashing and I wouldn't want to be around when it does,there'll be a remnant of humanity to begin the cycle again and the planet will restore itself,but it'll take time.
Consumerism is based on never ending growth both in population and resources,which is a nonsense as even a blindman can see it's not possible,energy is needed and will cost more and become evermore scarce as time passes.
After WW2 we could've been forgiven for thinking that there were an endless supply of everything,but who would've thought the population increase would've been so large and in such a short time.
Child benefit in the UK was introduced to repopulate a country ravaged by the toll of war, but now it's not needed so should IMHO be phased out over a period,and population growth discouraged,how we do that is a matter for debate and no mean task in itself.
But one thing's for sure we simply can't go on as we are doing in the hope that our technology will somehow pull us out of the mire,it won't based on simply mathamatics.
War yet again looms,how catastrophic it could be this time is anyone's guess but it has the potential of being almost total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
User avatar
squeaker
Posts: 4112
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 11:43pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by squeaker »

reohn2 wrote:Child benefit in the UK was introduced to repopulate a country ravaged by the toll of war, but now it's not needed so should IMHO be phased out over a period,and population growth discouraged,how we do that is a matter for debate and no mean task in itself.
But one thing's for sure we simply can't go on as we are doing in the hope that our technology will somehow pull us out of the mire,it won't based on simply mathamatics.
War yet again looms,how catastrophic it could be this time is anyone's guess but it has the potential of being almost total.
Spot on, IMHO: just a matter of time :(
"42"
pwa
Posts: 17370
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Too many vehicles!!!

Post by pwa »

beardy wrote:
pwa wrote:TonyR's question about what we can do about population increase without resorting to draconian policies (one child per family, etc) is a good one. And you can add to it the fact that the increase in the number of old people makes an increase in the number of younger people (to support them) essential. But there must be a limit. Unless the whole world is going to look like Hong Kong!

I'd limit Child Benefit to, say, two or three children, and take a similar approach with other benefits related to family size. I'd also want a public campaign to encourage sustainable family size.


You would "punish" children for their parents sake then?
£13 a week isnt enough to make me condone abortion and I would anyway rather have a child raised in poverty than terminated and not raised at all. That is actually the only reason for our existence, to self propagate.

Drinking is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Obesity is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Truancy is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Antisocial behaviour is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Immigration is a problem. Cut their benefits.
Housing is a problem. Cut their benefits

One could imagine the only real problem is poor people. What was IDS's solution for poor people?
Oh yes, Cut their benefits.


Steady on. I say I think A and B, so you jump to the conclusion that I also think C, D and E.

I think that in a world of finite resources and problems created by our effluent it is irresponsible of us to multiply too fast. I think having a big family is a bad idea. If we do not exercise self control in this area the old natural solutions of war and famine will do the job for us. I'd like to avoid that. Or I could just stick my head in the sand and pretend there is no problem.

Anything our government does to encourage having more than two or three children should be thought about very carefully. And it's no use saying that is making children poorer, because having large families already does that. If you don't like the emphasis on benefits, come up with a better way.

I don't condone abortion as a way of controlling family size. Contraception works well for most of us.
Post Reply