View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
nod
Joined: 24 Dec 2006 Posts: 3558
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:08 pm Post subject: Uisng hard shoulders |
|
|
Is it me or does this not makes sense the way it was explained on the radio 2 news.
They tried to say it was a success because it reduced congestion, pollution and accidents BUT the pollution and accidents were due to the reduced speeds Doesn't reduced speeds mean it must be more congested ? or more likely it's got speed cameras basically every 800 metres, which always appear to be 40mph whatever the road conditions.
Aren't they more likely to be the cause of the 'improvements' ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RockitRon
Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 7646
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Using the hard shoulder was Ruth Kelly's big idea last October (I think she has quotas or targets to keep) and we discussed it then - the trials, principally on the M42 around Solihull, where there is a pro-active traffic management (including speed limits) system, showed that it does actually work.
Today's announcement is for "pay-as-you-drive" motorway lanes - you pay a toll to drive on a less congested lane. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/04/nmway104.xml
This will again be expensive, because the extra lanes have to be constructed, and the management systems (including one to police it, because there will always be some who try to use it without paying) put in place.
If you had said to the founders of the Labour movement that one day the party that bore the name would be proposing a new transport system based on class and ability to pay they would probably have said "over our dead bodies" Well... _________________ Ron |
|
Back to top |
|
|
RockitRon
Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 7646
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, nod, you're right - RK is having a busy day and has publicised the hard shoulder idea again as well - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7276634.stm
So long as the same conditions as the trial section are applied, and they only do it at the busiest times, then it should work. The temptation will be to save money and do it on the cheap, without the mandatory speed limit management scheme. The hard shoulder is a rougher surface, and quite often has debris strewn across it. I notice they are talking about allowing vehicles to use it at 60mph, and I for one would not like to hit a stray piece of tyre rubber or wheel hub (or have one thrown up at me from the vehicle in front) at that speed. _________________ Ron |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nod
Joined: 24 Dec 2006 Posts: 3558
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No hard shoulder = no where to break down
or Police or 'Highway patrol' vehicles to reverse towards you |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mark occomore
Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 9955 Location: UK
|
Posted: Tue Mar 04, 2008 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At the same time the Government is buying a £2.5 Million Satellite system in bid to stop Motorways clogging up after crashes. The spy - in - the -sky gear will be used by investigators to make a virtual map after an accident showing skid marks and impact points.
Tests have shown it will be much quicker than the old method of police officers drawing a diagram, with wreckage cleared and roads opened much quicker.
The system will be used on over 4,500 miles of motorways and major A-Roads. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nod
Joined: 24 Dec 2006 Posts: 3558
|
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
a spy in the sky for £2.5m ? bargain !
I thought they brought us the Highway Patrol to speed things up, not just chat to brokendown motorists ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John W
Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 3367 Location: Warwickshire, UK
|
Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject: Re: Uisng hard shoulders |
|
|
nod wrote: | BUT the pollution and accidents were due to the reduced speeds Doesn't reduced speeds mean it must be more congested ? |
I'm not always convinced about the reduced speed, reduced pollution thing. Yes, the vehicle is producing pollution at a lower rate, but if it's driving at half the speed then it takes twice as long...... producing pollution for twice as long so.....
Look at my diesel receipts for the last two tanks (I always run the tank to near empty and fill it up):
17/02 - 27/02 used 55.11 litres, I did 420 miles
27/02 - 04/03 used 55.96 litres, I did 530 miles
The difference? The first tank was all driving round Coventry & Warks at between 10-40mph. The second tank included two return trips to Heathrow (400miles) at 70-80mph.
So during that second tank, driving faster, when I had done 420 miles I had probably only consumed 44 litres compared to 55 litres the previous period.
John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SantaFefan
Joined: 07 Dec 2006 Posts: 11258 Location: top of the cliffs in Norfolk
|
Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RockitRon wrote: | Using the hard shoulder was Ruth Kelly's big idea last October (I think she has quotas or targets to keep) and we discussed it then - the trials, principally on the M42 around Solihull, where there is a pro-active traffic management (including speed limits) system, showed that it does actually work.
Today's announcement is for "pay-as-you-drive" motorway lanes - you pay a toll to drive on a less congested lane. ... |
I can't see what the big deal is here, the Americans have been using the hardshoulder during rush hour periods for decades! also their use of tolls for speedier routes is well tried and tested.... are we really this far behind? _________________ Johnnie Walker read out my message on Pirate Radio! 13/8/07
I have heard how radio should be. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|