Car is still the king

Swindon Advertiser: Traffic on Great Western Way heading towards the M4 near Swindon Traffic on Great Western Way heading towards the M4 near Swindon

NEW figures released yesterday show car dependency in Swindon is on the rise as more than two thirds of commuters currently drive to work.

A report released by the RAC shows 69.7 per cent of all commuters in the town drive to and from work.

This puts 76,286 vehicles on the roads during the peak rush hours.

Only just over 10 per cent of commuters walk to work, with 4.3 per cent using their bicycles, and 0.5 per cent regularly calling taxis.

A number of initiatives have been launched in Swindon recently to promote alternative modes of transport, including Swindon Travel Choices, which seeks to get commuters and travellers out of their cars.

South Swindon MP Robert Buckland thinks that, while attitudes are changing, many people have no choice but to use cars.

He said: “With increasing use of transportation, including the buses and railways, it means issues around infrastructure will have to be a priority. It will be more important for our town as time goes on.

“I believe that if we are to continue to grow as we have, it is essential that we have the right infrastructure in place to keep that going.

“It is a long road, but reports like this are very helpful in focusing on the fact that people rely heavily on their cars to get around.

“Issues like the cost of fuel will always be a significant point, and something that we have to keep a watchful eye on.

“I am a great believer in getting out there and using alternative means of transport, so the money being used to improve connections between West Swindon and the town centre are very welcome.

“Bearing in mind the fact that the costs of using cars have gone up, it is going to be important for us to think conservatively about using our cars, but as a town that makes cars and has grown as a result, attracting people into the town centre has worked to great effect.

“People depend on their cars for their work, but think differently about leisure activities for the weekend. I think issues like the cost of living are important in Swindon, and they take that into account.

“We have got to recognise that people might be doing commutes in their work, but on the weekend will want to do something different. You always see people jogging and cycling around the town, and it is the sort of place where these activities can be encouraged.”

Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said: “The coalition government has rightly prioritised efforts to get the nation working, but it has to remember how the nation actually travels to work.

“Westminster politicians risk being fixated with travel by train, bus and bike, but the reality is that outside of London the car dominates the journey to work.

“The vast majority of workers in rural areas are heavily dependent on their cars, but the surprise is that the same could be said of many urban commuters.

“People are still driving despite a decade over which the cost of running a car has outstripped wage inflation and that’s because most have no alternative.

“Transport poverty is a real threat to the economy and there needs to be renewed justification from ministers as to why such an essential product as road fuel is taxed at 60 per cent.”

Comments (53)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:41am Tue 3 Dec 13

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

For anyone having to travel outside of Swindon using the car is a necessity. The main train line through Swindon is one of the most expensive in the country, and offers poor service and value for money. Its far cheaper to use a car.
For anyone having to travel outside of Swindon using the car is a necessity. The main train line through Swindon is one of the most expensive in the country, and offers poor service and value for money. Its far cheaper to use a car. LordAshOfTheBrake

8:45am Tue 3 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency.

Get on with it.
Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency. Get on with it. Ringer

8:48am Tue 3 Dec 13

GroundhogDay says...

Well Swindon is a car utopia after all people!

The town has been designed for cars, cars, and more cars. So no surprise that's what people use is it.

This is unlikely to change until the council make a commitment to providing viable alternatives for people. Although I can't see them being progressive enough to do this. I predict they will carry on with their futile efforts to solve the congestion problems by increasing traffic flow. Which will lead to more cars, more cars and more cars....
Well Swindon is a car utopia after all people! The town has been designed for cars, cars, and more cars. So no surprise that's what people use is it. This is unlikely to change until the council make a commitment to providing viable alternatives for people. Although I can't see them being progressive enough to do this. I predict they will carry on with their futile efforts to solve the congestion problems by increasing traffic flow. Which will lead to more cars, more cars and more cars.... GroundhogDay

9:15am Tue 3 Dec 13

Hmmmf says...

Professor Stephen Glaister said:
there needs to be renewed justification from ministers as to why such an essential product as road fuel is taxed at 60 per cent.

Government taxies the old favourites of fuel, alcohol, and tobacco to prevent the huge rises in income tax that would otherwise be necessary. And pandering to ecofascists and carbonistas.
[quote][p][bold]Professor Stephen Glaister[/bold] said: there needs to be renewed justification from ministers as to why such an essential product as road fuel is taxed at 60 per cent.[/quote] Government taxies the old favourites of fuel, alcohol, and tobacco to prevent the huge rises in income tax that would otherwise be necessary. And pandering to ecofascists and carbonistas. Hmmmf

9:25am Tue 3 Dec 13

scottwichall says...

So my choices are as follows:
a) 50 minute (flat out) cycle to work + 50 minute cycle home
b) 1 hour round the houses bus journey, + 1 hour home.
c) 20 minutes in the car between J15 & J16 + 20 mins home.

Considering I don't actually have the luxury of spending all day travelling to and from work, its quite clear that my choice has to be the car.

I also car share with a work colleague but of course there is no recognition for people who do this.
So my choices are as follows: a) 50 minute (flat out) cycle to work + 50 minute cycle home b) 1 hour round the houses bus journey, + 1 hour home. c) 20 minutes in the car between J15 & J16 + 20 mins home. Considering I don't actually have the luxury of spending all day travelling to and from work, its quite clear that my choice has to be the car. I also car share with a work colleague but of course there is no recognition for people who do this. scottwichall

9:27am Tue 3 Dec 13

scottwichall says...

GroundhogDay wrote:
Well Swindon is a car utopia after all people!

The town has been designed for cars, cars, and more cars. So no surprise that's what people use is it.

This is unlikely to change until the council make a commitment to providing viable alternatives for people. Although I can't see them being progressive enough to do this. I predict they will carry on with their futile efforts to solve the congestion problems by increasing traffic flow. Which will lead to more cars, more cars and more cars....
Have you ever actually driven through Swindon's succession of poorly designed roundabouts, junctions etc?

This town suffers from a complete lack of any kind of traffic planning, this becomes obvious when you actually visit a large town/small city that has planned their transport infrastructure.

All roads in this town snake their way to the town center, rather than a properly layered ring road system. The bus service is the same, you can go anywhere you want in the town, as long as its via the bus station.
[quote][p][bold]GroundhogDay[/bold] wrote: Well Swindon is a car utopia after all people! The town has been designed for cars, cars, and more cars. So no surprise that's what people use is it. This is unlikely to change until the council make a commitment to providing viable alternatives for people. Although I can't see them being progressive enough to do this. I predict they will carry on with their futile efforts to solve the congestion problems by increasing traffic flow. Which will lead to more cars, more cars and more cars....[/p][/quote]Have you ever actually driven through Swindon's succession of poorly designed roundabouts, junctions etc? This town suffers from a complete lack of any kind of traffic planning, this becomes obvious when you actually visit a large town/small city that has planned their transport infrastructure. All roads in this town snake their way to the town center, rather than a properly layered ring road system. The bus service is the same, you can go anywhere you want in the town, as long as its via the bus station. scottwichall

9:33am Tue 3 Dec 13

silvergran says...

They shouldn't have closed the park and ride - it could have been kept open to cater for peak times getting more cars off the road at the most important times of day. It used to be a very reliable service and I think they made a big mistake ditching it.
They shouldn't have closed the park and ride - it could have been kept open to cater for peak times getting more cars off the road at the most important times of day. It used to be a very reliable service and I think they made a big mistake ditching it. silvergran

9:55am Tue 3 Dec 13

GroundhogDay says...

scottwichall wrote:
GroundhogDay wrote:
Well Swindon is a car utopia after all people!

The town has been designed for cars, cars, and more cars. So no surprise that's what people use is it.

This is unlikely to change until the council make a commitment to providing viable alternatives for people. Although I can't see them being progressive enough to do this. I predict they will carry on with their futile efforts to solve the congestion problems by increasing traffic flow. Which will lead to more cars, more cars and more cars....
Have you ever actually driven through Swindon's succession of poorly designed roundabouts, junctions etc?

This town suffers from a complete lack of any kind of traffic planning, this becomes obvious when you actually visit a large town/small city that has planned their transport infrastructure.

All roads in this town snake their way to the town center, rather than a properly layered ring road system. The bus service is the same, you can go anywhere you want in the town, as long as its via the bus station.
Thanks for adding weight to my argument... The road network / layout is poor (I agree) but despite this 70% still rely on it to get to work. Because the alternative options are worse as they've never been planned for at all!
[quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GroundhogDay[/bold] wrote: Well Swindon is a car utopia after all people! The town has been designed for cars, cars, and more cars. So no surprise that's what people use is it. This is unlikely to change until the council make a commitment to providing viable alternatives for people. Although I can't see them being progressive enough to do this. I predict they will carry on with their futile efforts to solve the congestion problems by increasing traffic flow. Which will lead to more cars, more cars and more cars....[/p][/quote]Have you ever actually driven through Swindon's succession of poorly designed roundabouts, junctions etc? This town suffers from a complete lack of any kind of traffic planning, this becomes obvious when you actually visit a large town/small city that has planned their transport infrastructure. All roads in this town snake their way to the town center, rather than a properly layered ring road system. The bus service is the same, you can go anywhere you want in the town, as long as its via the bus station.[/p][/quote]Thanks for adding weight to my argument... The road network / layout is poor (I agree) but despite this 70% still rely on it to get to work. Because the alternative options are worse as they've never been planned for at all! GroundhogDay

9:57am Tue 3 Dec 13

GroundhogDay says...

scottwichall wrote:
So my choices are as follows:
a) 50 minute (flat out) cycle to work + 50 minute cycle home
b) 1 hour round the houses bus journey, + 1 hour home.
c) 20 minutes in the car between J15 & J16 + 20 mins home.

Considering I don't actually have the luxury of spending all day travelling to and from work, its quite clear that my choice has to be the car.

I also car share with a work colleague but of course there is no recognition for people who do this.
Yeah I think car sharing should be encouraged / rewarded. Not sure how though.
[quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: So my choices are as follows: a) 50 minute (flat out) cycle to work + 50 minute cycle home b) 1 hour round the houses bus journey, + 1 hour home. c) 20 minutes in the car between J15 & J16 + 20 mins home. Considering I don't actually have the luxury of spending all day travelling to and from work, its quite clear that my choice has to be the car. I also car share with a work colleague but of course there is no recognition for people who do this.[/p][/quote]Yeah I think car sharing should be encouraged / rewarded. Not sure how though. GroundhogDay

9:58am Tue 3 Dec 13

scottwichall says...

GroundhogDay wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
GroundhogDay wrote:
Well Swindon is a car utopia after all people!

The town has been designed for cars, cars, and more cars. So no surprise that's what people use is it.

This is unlikely to change until the council make a commitment to providing viable alternatives for people. Although I can't see them being progressive enough to do this. I predict they will carry on with their futile efforts to solve the congestion problems by increasing traffic flow. Which will lead to more cars, more cars and more cars....
Have you ever actually driven through Swindon's succession of poorly designed roundabouts, junctions etc?

This town suffers from a complete lack of any kind of traffic planning, this becomes obvious when you actually visit a large town/small city that has planned their transport infrastructure.

All roads in this town snake their way to the town center, rather than a properly layered ring road system. The bus service is the same, you can go anywhere you want in the town, as long as its via the bus station.
Thanks for adding weight to my argument... The road network / layout is poor (I agree) but despite this 70% still rely on it to get to work. Because the alternative options are worse as they've never been planned for at all!
So the town hasn't really been "designed for cars, cars and more cars" then....

Basically it hasn't been designed for anything except a hotchpotch of organic growth with developments here there and anywhere with zero strategic thinking.

And now they want to do the eastern villages which will add thousands of vehicles to an area of the town that is already stretched to breaking point.
[quote][p][bold]GroundhogDay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GroundhogDay[/bold] wrote: Well Swindon is a car utopia after all people! The town has been designed for cars, cars, and more cars. So no surprise that's what people use is it. This is unlikely to change until the council make a commitment to providing viable alternatives for people. Although I can't see them being progressive enough to do this. I predict they will carry on with their futile efforts to solve the congestion problems by increasing traffic flow. Which will lead to more cars, more cars and more cars....[/p][/quote]Have you ever actually driven through Swindon's succession of poorly designed roundabouts, junctions etc? This town suffers from a complete lack of any kind of traffic planning, this becomes obvious when you actually visit a large town/small city that has planned their transport infrastructure. All roads in this town snake their way to the town center, rather than a properly layered ring road system. The bus service is the same, you can go anywhere you want in the town, as long as its via the bus station.[/p][/quote]Thanks for adding weight to my argument... The road network / layout is poor (I agree) but despite this 70% still rely on it to get to work. Because the alternative options are worse as they've never been planned for at all![/p][/quote]So the town hasn't really been "designed for cars, cars and more cars" then.... Basically it hasn't been designed for anything except a hotchpotch of organic growth with developments here there and anywhere with zero strategic thinking. And now they want to do the eastern villages which will add thousands of vehicles to an area of the town that is already stretched to breaking point. scottwichall

10:05am Tue 3 Dec 13

Tonyblairisthedevil says...

I travel 120 miles a day to and from work and looked at using the train.. £89 a day and thats booked in advance.. Running a car is far cheaper and more convienient. Until there is a viable alternative i see no other option.
Personally i would love to take a train or bus and read a book on my way to work but i cannot see this happening in my life time.
I travel 120 miles a day to and from work and looked at using the train.. £89 a day and thats booked in advance.. Running a car is far cheaper and more convienient. Until there is a viable alternative i see no other option. Personally i would love to take a train or bus and read a book on my way to work but i cannot see this happening in my life time. Tonyblairisthedevil

10:10am Tue 3 Dec 13

scottwichall says...

Tonyblairisthedevil wrote:
I travel 120 miles a day to and from work and looked at using the train.. £89 a day and thats booked in advance.. Running a car is far cheaper and more convienient. Until there is a viable alternative i see no other option.
Personally i would love to take a train or bus and read a book on my way to work but i cannot see this happening in my life time.
Oh don't even get me started. Last year we wanted to go and see the in-laws who live in Scotland. The return train fare for two adults and one child was in the order of £700.

The cost in petrol to drive up there, and spend some time going around was around £250. So why on earth would you go by train, the prices are absolute insanity.

In the end I didn't go and the wife flew up there with my son, for less than £200 return.
[quote][p][bold]Tonyblairisthedevil[/bold] wrote: I travel 120 miles a day to and from work and looked at using the train.. £89 a day and thats booked in advance.. Running a car is far cheaper and more convienient. Until there is a viable alternative i see no other option. Personally i would love to take a train or bus and read a book on my way to work but i cannot see this happening in my life time.[/p][/quote]Oh don't even get me started. Last year we wanted to go and see the in-laws who live in Scotland. The return train fare for two adults and one child was in the order of £700. The cost in petrol to drive up there, and spend some time going around was around £250. So why on earth would you go by train, the prices are absolute insanity. In the end I didn't go and the wife flew up there with my son, for less than £200 return. scottwichall

10:12am Tue 3 Dec 13

Ringer says...

GroundhogDay wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
So my choices are as follows:
a) 50 minute (flat out) cycle to work + 50 minute cycle home
b) 1 hour round the houses bus journey, + 1 hour home.
c) 20 minutes in the car between J15 & J16 + 20 mins home.

Considering I don't actually have the luxury of spending all day travelling to and from work, its quite clear that my choice has to be the car.

I also car share with a work colleague but of course there is no recognition for people who do this.
Yeah I think car sharing should be encouraged / rewarded. Not sure how though.
In the States, where they're not so stupid as to have bus lanes, they have lanes set aside for those who are car sharing. Cameras quite easily monitor the lanes to check whether drivers have one passenger or more and the whole system works brilliantly.

Those who car share are rewarded by getting to their destination a little more quickly and use less fuel.

The council could quite easily turn all the town's bus lanes into car pool lanes during rush hour periods... but they're simply not forward thinking or progressive enough and so all they do is continue with failed 'buses are the best' ideologies from the early 90s.

It hasn't worked and it won't ever work. Let's do something more positive instead.
[quote][p][bold]GroundhogDay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: So my choices are as follows: a) 50 minute (flat out) cycle to work + 50 minute cycle home b) 1 hour round the houses bus journey, + 1 hour home. c) 20 minutes in the car between J15 & J16 + 20 mins home. Considering I don't actually have the luxury of spending all day travelling to and from work, its quite clear that my choice has to be the car. I also car share with a work colleague but of course there is no recognition for people who do this.[/p][/quote]Yeah I think car sharing should be encouraged / rewarded. Not sure how though.[/p][/quote]In the States, where they're not so stupid as to have bus lanes, they have lanes set aside for those who are car sharing. Cameras quite easily monitor the lanes to check whether drivers have one passenger or more and the whole system works brilliantly. Those who car share are rewarded by getting to their destination a little more quickly and use less fuel. The council could quite easily turn all the town's bus lanes into car pool lanes during rush hour periods... but they're simply not forward thinking or progressive enough and so all they do is continue with failed 'buses are the best' ideologies from the early 90s. It hasn't worked and it won't ever work. Let's do something more positive instead. Ringer

10:20am Tue 3 Dec 13

scottwichall says...

Ringer wrote:
GroundhogDay wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
So my choices are as follows:
a) 50 minute (flat out) cycle to work + 50 minute cycle home
b) 1 hour round the houses bus journey, + 1 hour home.
c) 20 minutes in the car between J15 & J16 + 20 mins home.

Considering I don't actually have the luxury of spending all day travelling to and from work, its quite clear that my choice has to be the car.

I also car share with a work colleague but of course there is no recognition for people who do this.
Yeah I think car sharing should be encouraged / rewarded. Not sure how though.
In the States, where they're not so stupid as to have bus lanes, they have lanes set aside for those who are car sharing. Cameras quite easily monitor the lanes to check whether drivers have one passenger or more and the whole system works brilliantly.

Those who car share are rewarded by getting to their destination a little more quickly and use less fuel.

The council could quite easily turn all the town's bus lanes into car pool lanes during rush hour periods... but they're simply not forward thinking or progressive enough and so all they do is continue with failed 'buses are the best' ideologies from the early 90s.

It hasn't worked and it won't ever work. Let's do something more positive instead.
I agree Ringer... its also quite common to see a massive bus trundling along emitting huge amounts of diesel particulates with just a couple of passengers.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GroundhogDay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: So my choices are as follows: a) 50 minute (flat out) cycle to work + 50 minute cycle home b) 1 hour round the houses bus journey, + 1 hour home. c) 20 minutes in the car between J15 & J16 + 20 mins home. Considering I don't actually have the luxury of spending all day travelling to and from work, its quite clear that my choice has to be the car. I also car share with a work colleague but of course there is no recognition for people who do this.[/p][/quote]Yeah I think car sharing should be encouraged / rewarded. Not sure how though.[/p][/quote]In the States, where they're not so stupid as to have bus lanes, they have lanes set aside for those who are car sharing. Cameras quite easily monitor the lanes to check whether drivers have one passenger or more and the whole system works brilliantly. Those who car share are rewarded by getting to their destination a little more quickly and use less fuel. The council could quite easily turn all the town's bus lanes into car pool lanes during rush hour periods... but they're simply not forward thinking or progressive enough and so all they do is continue with failed 'buses are the best' ideologies from the early 90s. It hasn't worked and it won't ever work. Let's do something more positive instead.[/p][/quote]I agree Ringer... its also quite common to see a massive bus trundling along emitting huge amounts of diesel particulates with just a couple of passengers. scottwichall

10:22am Tue 3 Dec 13

Davethered says...

Just seems such a shame when you might have 4 people who all work for Honda in the same street , all using separate cars .
Just seems such a shame when you might have 4 people who all work for Honda in the same street , all using separate cars . Davethered

10:37am Tue 3 Dec 13

GroundhogDay says...

scottwichall wrote:
GroundhogDay wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
GroundhogDay wrote:
Well Swindon is a car utopia after all people!

The town has been designed for cars, cars, and more cars. So no surprise that's what people use is it.

This is unlikely to change until the council make a commitment to providing viable alternatives for people. Although I can't see them being progressive enough to do this. I predict they will carry on with their futile efforts to solve the congestion problems by increasing traffic flow. Which will lead to more cars, more cars and more cars....
Have you ever actually driven through Swindon's succession of poorly designed roundabouts, junctions etc?

This town suffers from a complete lack of any kind of traffic planning, this becomes obvious when you actually visit a large town/small city that has planned their transport infrastructure.

All roads in this town snake their way to the town center, rather than a properly layered ring road system. The bus service is the same, you can go anywhere you want in the town, as long as its via the bus station.
Thanks for adding weight to my argument... The road network / layout is poor (I agree) but despite this 70% still rely on it to get to work. Because the alternative options are worse as they've never been planned for at all!
So the town hasn't really been "designed for cars, cars and more cars" then....

Basically it hasn't been designed for anything except a hotchpotch of organic growth with developments here there and anywhere with zero strategic thinking.

And now they want to do the eastern villages which will add thousands of vehicles to an area of the town that is already stretched to breaking point.
Not sure I articulated my point that well. I think my use of the word 'designed' was an error. I don't believe any part of Swindon's rapid expansion was well planned infrastructure wise. Agree with you totally.

I was trying to point out that if transport policy focuses on increasing road capacity you will always end up with more cars and more congestion.

I do believe SBC have attempted to plan for cars. They've just failed. They certainly haven't invested any real time or money hstorically into other transport options which would reduce the 70% figure and therefore reduce congestion for those people whose only option is to drive.
[quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GroundhogDay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GroundhogDay[/bold] wrote: Well Swindon is a car utopia after all people! The town has been designed for cars, cars, and more cars. So no surprise that's what people use is it. This is unlikely to change until the council make a commitment to providing viable alternatives for people. Although I can't see them being progressive enough to do this. I predict they will carry on with their futile efforts to solve the congestion problems by increasing traffic flow. Which will lead to more cars, more cars and more cars....[/p][/quote]Have you ever actually driven through Swindon's succession of poorly designed roundabouts, junctions etc? This town suffers from a complete lack of any kind of traffic planning, this becomes obvious when you actually visit a large town/small city that has planned their transport infrastructure. All roads in this town snake their way to the town center, rather than a properly layered ring road system. The bus service is the same, you can go anywhere you want in the town, as long as its via the bus station.[/p][/quote]Thanks for adding weight to my argument... The road network / layout is poor (I agree) but despite this 70% still rely on it to get to work. Because the alternative options are worse as they've never been planned for at all![/p][/quote]So the town hasn't really been "designed for cars, cars and more cars" then.... Basically it hasn't been designed for anything except a hotchpotch of organic growth with developments here there and anywhere with zero strategic thinking. And now they want to do the eastern villages which will add thousands of vehicles to an area of the town that is already stretched to breaking point.[/p][/quote]Not sure I articulated my point that well. I think my use of the word 'designed' was an error. I don't believe any part of Swindon's rapid expansion was well planned infrastructure wise. Agree with you totally. I was trying to point out that if transport policy focuses on increasing road capacity you will always end up with more cars and more congestion. I do believe SBC have attempted to plan for cars. They've just failed. They certainly haven't invested any real time or money hstorically into other transport options which would reduce the 70% figure and therefore reduce congestion for those people whose only option is to drive. GroundhogDay

10:43am Tue 3 Dec 13

GroundhogDay says...

Ringer wrote:
GroundhogDay wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
So my choices are as follows:
a) 50 minute (flat out) cycle to work + 50 minute cycle home
b) 1 hour round the houses bus journey, + 1 hour home.
c) 20 minutes in the car between J15 & J16 + 20 mins home.

Considering I don't actually have the luxury of spending all day travelling to and from work, its quite clear that my choice has to be the car.

I also car share with a work colleague but of course there is no recognition for people who do this.
Yeah I think car sharing should be encouraged / rewarded. Not sure how though.
In the States, where they're not so stupid as to have bus lanes, they have lanes set aside for those who are car sharing. Cameras quite easily monitor the lanes to check whether drivers have one passenger or more and the whole system works brilliantly.

Those who car share are rewarded by getting to their destination a little more quickly and use less fuel.

The council could quite easily turn all the town's bus lanes into car pool lanes during rush hour periods... but they're simply not forward thinking or progressive enough and so all they do is continue with failed 'buses are the best' ideologies from the early 90s.

It hasn't worked and it won't ever work. Let's do something more positive instead.
Yes I've seen this idea and it's a good one. Fairly simple to implement. Although I do think you'll find bus lanes in American cities. New York for example.

I do think buses have a place in a 21st century transport system. Some people rely on them. I don't see any reason why the bus lanes can't be shared by buses and car sharers during rush hour.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GroundhogDay[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: So my choices are as follows: a) 50 minute (flat out) cycle to work + 50 minute cycle home b) 1 hour round the houses bus journey, + 1 hour home. c) 20 minutes in the car between J15 & J16 + 20 mins home. Considering I don't actually have the luxury of spending all day travelling to and from work, its quite clear that my choice has to be the car. I also car share with a work colleague but of course there is no recognition for people who do this.[/p][/quote]Yeah I think car sharing should be encouraged / rewarded. Not sure how though.[/p][/quote]In the States, where they're not so stupid as to have bus lanes, they have lanes set aside for those who are car sharing. Cameras quite easily monitor the lanes to check whether drivers have one passenger or more and the whole system works brilliantly. Those who car share are rewarded by getting to their destination a little more quickly and use less fuel. The council could quite easily turn all the town's bus lanes into car pool lanes during rush hour periods... but they're simply not forward thinking or progressive enough and so all they do is continue with failed 'buses are the best' ideologies from the early 90s. It hasn't worked and it won't ever work. Let's do something more positive instead.[/p][/quote]Yes I've seen this idea and it's a good one. Fairly simple to implement. Although I do think you'll find bus lanes in American cities. New York for example. I do think buses have a place in a 21st century transport system. Some people rely on them. I don't see any reason why the bus lanes can't be shared by buses and car sharers during rush hour. GroundhogDay

10:45am Tue 3 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

He said: “With increasing use of transportation, including the buses and railways, it means issues around infrastructure will have to be a priority. It will be more important for our town as time goes on.

Hahahahahahahahaha.. Haahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahaha. Wait, haven't finished yet. Hahahahahahahahahaha
haha.

Isn't that what the residents have been telling them for at least the last 15 years of the unfettered and unmitigated disaster that is the Swindon traffic system? And yet they keep building more without ANY investment in infrastructure.

As an example at Tadpole Farm the whole investment in traffic mitigation for a 1700 house development (with potential for an additional 4000 or so cars) amounts to two zebra crossings. On a bit of road that is already a crossing point. So it amounts to a bit of paint on the road and sticking in a pole with a flashing light. This is apparently what £60,000 gets you, no wonder our traffic system is screwed up!
He said: “With increasing use of transportation, including the buses and railways, it means issues around infrastructure will have to be a priority. It will be more important for our town as time goes on. Hahahahahahahahaha.. Haahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha. Wait, haven't finished yet. Hahahahahahahahahaha haha. Isn't that what the residents have been telling them for at least the last 15 years of the unfettered and unmitigated disaster that is the Swindon traffic system? And yet they keep building more without ANY investment in infrastructure. As an example at Tadpole Farm the whole investment in traffic mitigation for a 1700 house development (with potential for an additional 4000 or so cars) amounts to two zebra crossings. On a bit of road that is already a crossing point. So it amounts to a bit of paint on the road and sticking in a pole with a flashing light. This is apparently what £60,000 gets you, no wonder our traffic system is screwed up! The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

11:24am Tue 3 Dec 13

Davey Gravey says...

Ringer wrote:
Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency.

Get on with it.
Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency. Get on with it.[/p][/quote]Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking Davey Gravey

11:34am Tue 3 Dec 13

benzss says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency.

Get on with it.
Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking
bad drivers don't cause congestion...
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency. Get on with it.[/p][/quote]Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking[/p][/quote]bad drivers don't cause congestion... benzss

11:41am Tue 3 Dec 13

Ringer says...

benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency.

Get on with it.
Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking
bad drivers don't cause congestion...
Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency. Get on with it.[/p][/quote]Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking[/p][/quote]bad drivers don't cause congestion...[/p][/quote]Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion. Ringer

11:41am Tue 3 Dec 13

Davey Gravey says...

benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency.

Get on with it.
Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking
bad drivers don't cause congestion...
Of course they do as they are on the roads adding to it. And those causing accidents make it even worse
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency. Get on with it.[/p][/quote]Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking[/p][/quote]bad drivers don't cause congestion...[/p][/quote]Of course they do as they are on the roads adding to it. And those causing accidents make it even worse Davey Gravey

11:43am Tue 3 Dec 13

Davey Gravey says...

Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency.

Get on with it.
Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking
bad drivers don't cause congestion...
Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.
We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency. Get on with it.[/p][/quote]Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking[/p][/quote]bad drivers don't cause congestion...[/p][/quote]Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.[/p][/quote]We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined. Davey Gravey

11:48am Tue 3 Dec 13

scottwichall says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency.

Get on with it.
Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking
bad drivers don't cause congestion...
Of course they do as they are on the roads adding to it. And those causing accidents make it even worse
Yeah, there is carnage everywhere, every single morning.

The rules do not need to be more stringent, the police need to start pulling people for poor driving standards and tearing a major strip off them in the first instance, then prosecuting.

The problem is, the previous socialist fail government decided on the mantra that excess speed is the only ever possible cause of accidents, rather than all the things that actually cause the majority of accidents.

More law will not fix the problem, enforcing the current law will.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency. Get on with it.[/p][/quote]Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking[/p][/quote]bad drivers don't cause congestion...[/p][/quote]Of course they do as they are on the roads adding to it. And those causing accidents make it even worse[/p][/quote]Yeah, there is carnage everywhere, every single morning. The rules do not need to be more stringent, the police need to start pulling people for poor driving standards and tearing a major strip off them in the first instance, then prosecuting. The problem is, the previous socialist fail government decided on the mantra that excess speed is the only ever possible cause of accidents, rather than all the things that actually cause the majority of accidents. More law will not fix the problem, enforcing the current law will. scottwichall

11:50am Tue 3 Dec 13

scottwichall says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency.

Get on with it.
Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking
bad drivers don't cause congestion...
Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.
We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined.
Davey, have you ever witnessed the congestion on the motorway caused by HGV's insisting on doing a 2 mile overtake 0.5 mph faster than the HGV on the inside lane?

Its a common problem, and when there are less HGV's on the road during rush hour there is less congestion. This is a simple observable fact.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency. Get on with it.[/p][/quote]Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking[/p][/quote]bad drivers don't cause congestion...[/p][/quote]Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.[/p][/quote]We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined.[/p][/quote]Davey, have you ever witnessed the congestion on the motorway caused by HGV's insisting on doing a 2 mile overtake 0.5 mph faster than the HGV on the inside lane? Its a common problem, and when there are less HGV's on the road during rush hour there is less congestion. This is a simple observable fact. scottwichall

12:01pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Davey Gravey says...

scottwichall wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency.

Get on with it.
Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking
bad drivers don't cause congestion...
Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.
We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined.
Davey, have you ever witnessed the congestion on the motorway caused by HGV's insisting on doing a 2 mile overtake 0.5 mph faster than the HGV on the inside lane?

Its a common problem, and when there are less HGV's on the road during rush hour there is less congestion. This is a simple observable fact.
They don't insist on it their vehicles have speed limiters in them that are all set slightly differently. It does cause a problem for sure but car drivers cause a **** site more. We need lorries to provide virtually everything we need in our lives. Cars having to slow down a bit while waiting for a lorry isn't the same as sitting in traffic jams due to the amount of vehicles on the road.
More vehicles= more jams
Lorries = slowing down a bit
[quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency. Get on with it.[/p][/quote]Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking[/p][/quote]bad drivers don't cause congestion...[/p][/quote]Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.[/p][/quote]We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined.[/p][/quote]Davey, have you ever witnessed the congestion on the motorway caused by HGV's insisting on doing a 2 mile overtake 0.5 mph faster than the HGV on the inside lane? Its a common problem, and when there are less HGV's on the road during rush hour there is less congestion. This is a simple observable fact.[/p][/quote]They don't insist on it their vehicles have speed limiters in them that are all set slightly differently. It does cause a problem for sure but car drivers cause a **** site more. We need lorries to provide virtually everything we need in our lives. Cars having to slow down a bit while waiting for a lorry isn't the same as sitting in traffic jams due to the amount of vehicles on the road. More vehicles= more jams Lorries = slowing down a bit Davey Gravey

12:12pm Tue 3 Dec 13

benzss says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency.

Get on with it.
Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking
bad drivers don't cause congestion...
Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.
We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined.
Davey, have you ever witnessed the congestion on the motorway caused by HGV's insisting on doing a 2 mile overtake 0.5 mph faster than the HGV on the inside lane?

Its a common problem, and when there are less HGV's on the road during rush hour there is less congestion. This is a simple observable fact.
They don't insist on it their vehicles have speed limiters in them that are all set slightly differently. It does cause a problem for sure but car drivers cause a **** site more. We need lorries to provide virtually everything we need in our lives. Cars having to slow down a bit while waiting for a lorry isn't the same as sitting in traffic jams due to the amount of vehicles on the road.
More vehicles= more jams
Lorries = slowing down a bit
The limiters are not all the same, it's true, but the biggest factor is the ability of a lorry to traverse gradients effectively, and that depends more on weight and torque than the limiter.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency. Get on with it.[/p][/quote]Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking[/p][/quote]bad drivers don't cause congestion...[/p][/quote]Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.[/p][/quote]We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined.[/p][/quote]Davey, have you ever witnessed the congestion on the motorway caused by HGV's insisting on doing a 2 mile overtake 0.5 mph faster than the HGV on the inside lane? Its a common problem, and when there are less HGV's on the road during rush hour there is less congestion. This is a simple observable fact.[/p][/quote]They don't insist on it their vehicles have speed limiters in them that are all set slightly differently. It does cause a problem for sure but car drivers cause a **** site more. We need lorries to provide virtually everything we need in our lives. Cars having to slow down a bit while waiting for a lorry isn't the same as sitting in traffic jams due to the amount of vehicles on the road. More vehicles= more jams Lorries = slowing down a bit[/p][/quote]The limiters are not all the same, it's true, but the biggest factor is the ability of a lorry to traverse gradients effectively, and that depends more on weight and torque than the limiter. benzss

12:20pm Tue 3 Dec 13

scottwichall says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency.

Get on with it.
Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking
bad drivers don't cause congestion...
Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.
We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined.
Davey, have you ever witnessed the congestion on the motorway caused by HGV's insisting on doing a 2 mile overtake 0.5 mph faster than the HGV on the inside lane?

Its a common problem, and when there are less HGV's on the road during rush hour there is less congestion. This is a simple observable fact.
They don't insist on it their vehicles have speed limiters in them that are all set slightly differently. It does cause a problem for sure but car drivers cause a **** site more. We need lorries to provide virtually everything we need in our lives. Cars having to slow down a bit while waiting for a lorry isn't the same as sitting in traffic jams due to the amount of vehicles on the road.
More vehicles= more jams
Lorries = slowing down a bit
So the lorry on the inside lane couldn't ease off on the gas very very slightly to allow the overtaking lorry to complete its overtake quicker? You know to stop inconveniencing the other road users perhaps?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency. Get on with it.[/p][/quote]Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking[/p][/quote]bad drivers don't cause congestion...[/p][/quote]Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.[/p][/quote]We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined.[/p][/quote]Davey, have you ever witnessed the congestion on the motorway caused by HGV's insisting on doing a 2 mile overtake 0.5 mph faster than the HGV on the inside lane? Its a common problem, and when there are less HGV's on the road during rush hour there is less congestion. This is a simple observable fact.[/p][/quote]They don't insist on it their vehicles have speed limiters in them that are all set slightly differently. It does cause a problem for sure but car drivers cause a **** site more. We need lorries to provide virtually everything we need in our lives. Cars having to slow down a bit while waiting for a lorry isn't the same as sitting in traffic jams due to the amount of vehicles on the road. More vehicles= more jams Lorries = slowing down a bit[/p][/quote]So the lorry on the inside lane couldn't ease off on the gas very very slightly to allow the overtaking lorry to complete its overtake quicker? You know to stop inconveniencing the other road users perhaps? scottwichall

12:23pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Davey Gravey says...

benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency.

Get on with it.
Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking
bad drivers don't cause congestion...
Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.
We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined.
Davey, have you ever witnessed the congestion on the motorway caused by HGV's insisting on doing a 2 mile overtake 0.5 mph faster than the HGV on the inside lane?

Its a common problem, and when there are less HGV's on the road during rush hour there is less congestion. This is a simple observable fact.
They don't insist on it their vehicles have speed limiters in them that are all set slightly differently. It does cause a problem for sure but car drivers cause a **** site more. We need lorries to provide virtually everything we need in our lives. Cars having to slow down a bit while waiting for a lorry isn't the same as sitting in traffic jams due to the amount of vehicles on the road.
More vehicles= more jams
Lorries = slowing down a bit
The limiters are not all the same, it's true, but the biggest factor is the ability of a lorry to traverse gradients effectively, and that depends more on weight and torque than the limiter.
But not a factor on level roads.

This article is about traffic in Swindon anyway, of which lorries are not really a factor at all in congestion in the town. Bus lanes contribute but fat mums taking their kids to school is something that makes a huge difference. Look how quiet the roads are when schools are off.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency. Get on with it.[/p][/quote]Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking[/p][/quote]bad drivers don't cause congestion...[/p][/quote]Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.[/p][/quote]We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined.[/p][/quote]Davey, have you ever witnessed the congestion on the motorway caused by HGV's insisting on doing a 2 mile overtake 0.5 mph faster than the HGV on the inside lane? Its a common problem, and when there are less HGV's on the road during rush hour there is less congestion. This is a simple observable fact.[/p][/quote]They don't insist on it their vehicles have speed limiters in them that are all set slightly differently. It does cause a problem for sure but car drivers cause a **** site more. We need lorries to provide virtually everything we need in our lives. Cars having to slow down a bit while waiting for a lorry isn't the same as sitting in traffic jams due to the amount of vehicles on the road. More vehicles= more jams Lorries = slowing down a bit[/p][/quote]The limiters are not all the same, it's true, but the biggest factor is the ability of a lorry to traverse gradients effectively, and that depends more on weight and torque than the limiter.[/p][/quote]But not a factor on level roads. This article is about traffic in Swindon anyway, of which lorries are not really a factor at all in congestion in the town. Bus lanes contribute but fat mums taking their kids to school is something that makes a huge difference. Look how quiet the roads are when schools are off. Davey Gravey

12:24pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Davey Gravey says...

scottwichall wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency.

Get on with it.
Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking
bad drivers don't cause congestion...
Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.
We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined.
Davey, have you ever witnessed the congestion on the motorway caused by HGV's insisting on doing a 2 mile overtake 0.5 mph faster than the HGV on the inside lane?

Its a common problem, and when there are less HGV's on the road during rush hour there is less congestion. This is a simple observable fact.
They don't insist on it their vehicles have speed limiters in them that are all set slightly differently. It does cause a problem for sure but car drivers cause a **** site more. We need lorries to provide virtually everything we need in our lives. Cars having to slow down a bit while waiting for a lorry isn't the same as sitting in traffic jams due to the amount of vehicles on the road.
More vehicles= more jams
Lorries = slowing down a bit
So the lorry on the inside lane couldn't ease off on the gas very very slightly to allow the overtaking lorry to complete its overtake quicker? You know to stop inconveniencing the other road users perhaps?
Yes. And the car drivers can be a bit patient too maybe?
[quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency. Get on with it.[/p][/quote]Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking[/p][/quote]bad drivers don't cause congestion...[/p][/quote]Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.[/p][/quote]We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined.[/p][/quote]Davey, have you ever witnessed the congestion on the motorway caused by HGV's insisting on doing a 2 mile overtake 0.5 mph faster than the HGV on the inside lane? Its a common problem, and when there are less HGV's on the road during rush hour there is less congestion. This is a simple observable fact.[/p][/quote]They don't insist on it their vehicles have speed limiters in them that are all set slightly differently. It does cause a problem for sure but car drivers cause a **** site more. We need lorries to provide virtually everything we need in our lives. Cars having to slow down a bit while waiting for a lorry isn't the same as sitting in traffic jams due to the amount of vehicles on the road. More vehicles= more jams Lorries = slowing down a bit[/p][/quote]So the lorry on the inside lane couldn't ease off on the gas very very slightly to allow the overtaking lorry to complete its overtake quicker? You know to stop inconveniencing the other road users perhaps?[/p][/quote]Yes. And the car drivers can be a bit patient too maybe? Davey Gravey

12:58pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Ringer says...

@Davey Gravey: lorries on ANY roads during rush hour periods are a complete menace. They DO cause serious congestion and they're also responsible for an inordinate number of accidents. Let alone getting stuck under bridges every five minutes.

Get them off the roads at rush hour times and scrap the appalling bus lanes and you'd see congestion fall dramatically in and around Swindon.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of atrocious car drivers out there, just that they don't generally cause congestion (unless they crash or are so woefully slow that they cause tailbacks).
@Davey Gravey: lorries on ANY roads during rush hour periods are a complete menace. They DO cause serious congestion and they're also responsible for an inordinate number of accidents. Let alone getting stuck under bridges every five minutes. Get them off the roads at rush hour times and scrap the appalling bus lanes and you'd see congestion fall dramatically in and around Swindon. That's not to say there aren't plenty of atrocious car drivers out there, just that they don't generally cause congestion (unless they crash or are so woefully slow that they cause tailbacks). Ringer

12:59pm Tue 3 Dec 13

scottwichall says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency.

Get on with it.
Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking
bad drivers don't cause congestion...
Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.
We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined.
Davey, have you ever witnessed the congestion on the motorway caused by HGV's insisting on doing a 2 mile overtake 0.5 mph faster than the HGV on the inside lane?

Its a common problem, and when there are less HGV's on the road during rush hour there is less congestion. This is a simple observable fact.
They don't insist on it their vehicles have speed limiters in them that are all set slightly differently. It does cause a problem for sure but car drivers cause a **** site more. We need lorries to provide virtually everything we need in our lives. Cars having to slow down a bit while waiting for a lorry isn't the same as sitting in traffic jams due to the amount of vehicles on the road.
More vehicles= more jams
Lorries = slowing down a bit
So the lorry on the inside lane couldn't ease off on the gas very very slightly to allow the overtaking lorry to complete its overtake quicker? You know to stop inconveniencing the other road users perhaps?
Yes. And the car drivers can be a bit patient too maybe?
I doubt it. Personally, I am normally tucked into the inside lane behind the lorries anyway. I laugh when I see all the idiots kicking each other in the **** in the right hand lane, and they arrive at the next junction 3 or 4 cars ahead.

But the point stands, the HGV's could be a lot more considerate. I do seem to notice a lot more foreign number plates being involved in these, the Brit drivers are generally a lot more courteous.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency. Get on with it.[/p][/quote]Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking[/p][/quote]bad drivers don't cause congestion...[/p][/quote]Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.[/p][/quote]We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined.[/p][/quote]Davey, have you ever witnessed the congestion on the motorway caused by HGV's insisting on doing a 2 mile overtake 0.5 mph faster than the HGV on the inside lane? Its a common problem, and when there are less HGV's on the road during rush hour there is less congestion. This is a simple observable fact.[/p][/quote]They don't insist on it their vehicles have speed limiters in them that are all set slightly differently. It does cause a problem for sure but car drivers cause a **** site more. We need lorries to provide virtually everything we need in our lives. Cars having to slow down a bit while waiting for a lorry isn't the same as sitting in traffic jams due to the amount of vehicles on the road. More vehicles= more jams Lorries = slowing down a bit[/p][/quote]So the lorry on the inside lane couldn't ease off on the gas very very slightly to allow the overtaking lorry to complete its overtake quicker? You know to stop inconveniencing the other road users perhaps?[/p][/quote]Yes. And the car drivers can be a bit patient too maybe?[/p][/quote]I doubt it. Personally, I am normally tucked into the inside lane behind the lorries anyway. I laugh when I see all the idiots kicking each other in the **** in the right hand lane, and they arrive at the next junction 3 or 4 cars ahead. But the point stands, the HGV's could be a lot more considerate. I do seem to notice a lot more foreign number plates being involved in these, the Brit drivers are generally a lot more courteous. scottwichall

1:21pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Davey Gravey says...

Ringer wrote:
@Davey Gravey: lorries on ANY roads during rush hour periods are a complete menace. They DO cause serious congestion and they're also responsible for an inordinate number of accidents. Let alone getting stuck under bridges every five minutes.

Get them off the roads at rush hour times and scrap the appalling bus lanes and you'd see congestion fall dramatically in and around Swindon.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of atrocious car drivers out there, just that they don't generally cause congestion (unless they crash or are so woefully slow that they cause tailbacks).
Lorries have to be there. They are people going about their work. They are alot less in number than cars and the vast majority are better drivers than those in cars. Accidents they are involved in are usually not their fault but of course there are bad lorry drivers too.

Car drivers doing unnecessary journeys are a far bigger problem. School runs as I mentioned above, probably the biggest factor of them all.
[quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @Davey Gravey: lorries on ANY roads during rush hour periods are a complete menace. They DO cause serious congestion and they're also responsible for an inordinate number of accidents. Let alone getting stuck under bridges every five minutes. Get them off the roads at rush hour times and scrap the appalling bus lanes and you'd see congestion fall dramatically in and around Swindon. That's not to say there aren't plenty of atrocious car drivers out there, just that they don't generally cause congestion (unless they crash or are so woefully slow that they cause tailbacks).[/p][/quote]Lorries have to be there. They are people going about their work. They are alot less in number than cars and the vast majority are better drivers than those in cars. Accidents they are involved in are usually not their fault but of course there are bad lorry drivers too. Car drivers doing unnecessary journeys are a far bigger problem. School runs as I mentioned above, probably the biggest factor of them all. Davey Gravey

1:25pm Tue 3 Dec 13

scottwichall says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
@Davey Gravey: lorries on ANY roads during rush hour periods are a complete menace. They DO cause serious congestion and they're also responsible for an inordinate number of accidents. Let alone getting stuck under bridges every five minutes.

Get them off the roads at rush hour times and scrap the appalling bus lanes and you'd see congestion fall dramatically in and around Swindon.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of atrocious car drivers out there, just that they don't generally cause congestion (unless they crash or are so woefully slow that they cause tailbacks).
Lorries have to be there. They are people going about their work. They are alot less in number than cars and the vast majority are better drivers than those in cars. Accidents they are involved in are usually not their fault but of course there are bad lorry drivers too.

Car drivers doing unnecessary journeys are a far bigger problem. School runs as I mentioned above, probably the biggest factor of them all.
So how is then, if they are better drivers they are nearly always involved in motorway RTC's.

A good driver should be maintaining a safe stopping distance. Especially when they are driving 38 tonnes of instant death.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @Davey Gravey: lorries on ANY roads during rush hour periods are a complete menace. They DO cause serious congestion and they're also responsible for an inordinate number of accidents. Let alone getting stuck under bridges every five minutes. Get them off the roads at rush hour times and scrap the appalling bus lanes and you'd see congestion fall dramatically in and around Swindon. That's not to say there aren't plenty of atrocious car drivers out there, just that they don't generally cause congestion (unless they crash or are so woefully slow that they cause tailbacks).[/p][/quote]Lorries have to be there. They are people going about their work. They are alot less in number than cars and the vast majority are better drivers than those in cars. Accidents they are involved in are usually not their fault but of course there are bad lorry drivers too. Car drivers doing unnecessary journeys are a far bigger problem. School runs as I mentioned above, probably the biggest factor of them all.[/p][/quote]So how is then, if they are better drivers they are nearly always involved in motorway RTC's. A good driver should be maintaining a safe stopping distance. Especially when they are driving 38 tonnes of instant death. scottwichall

1:30pm Tue 3 Dec 13

benzss says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency.

Get on with it.
Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking
bad drivers don't cause congestion...
Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.
We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined.
Davey, have you ever witnessed the congestion on the motorway caused by HGV's insisting on doing a 2 mile overtake 0.5 mph faster than the HGV on the inside lane?

Its a common problem, and when there are less HGV's on the road during rush hour there is less congestion. This is a simple observable fact.
They don't insist on it their vehicles have speed limiters in them that are all set slightly differently. It does cause a problem for sure but car drivers cause a **** site more. We need lorries to provide virtually everything we need in our lives. Cars having to slow down a bit while waiting for a lorry isn't the same as sitting in traffic jams due to the amount of vehicles on the road.
More vehicles= more jams
Lorries = slowing down a bit
The limiters are not all the same, it's true, but the biggest factor is the ability of a lorry to traverse gradients effectively, and that depends more on weight and torque than the limiter.
But not a factor on level roads.

This article is about traffic in Swindon anyway, of which lorries are not really a factor at all in congestion in the town. Bus lanes contribute but fat mums taking their kids to school is something that makes a huge difference. Look how quiet the roads are when schools are off.
There aren't that many truly level roads around here, or anywhere really.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: Even more reason for the council to scrap all bus lanes in Swindon as a matter of urgency. Get on with it.[/p][/quote]Trouble is it still ends in gridlock where the bus lanes end. I think the answer is to ban more drivers so only the good ones are left making roads quieter and safer. Make driving rules much more stringent and penalties harsher and the dross will soon be on buses or walking[/p][/quote]bad drivers don't cause congestion...[/p][/quote]Buses, bus lanes, lorries and abysmal overuse of traffic lights and poor highways planning cause congestion.[/p][/quote]We need buses and lorries for transport and goods. There are more cars causing problems than buses and lorries combined.[/p][/quote]Davey, have you ever witnessed the congestion on the motorway caused by HGV's insisting on doing a 2 mile overtake 0.5 mph faster than the HGV on the inside lane? Its a common problem, and when there are less HGV's on the road during rush hour there is less congestion. This is a simple observable fact.[/p][/quote]They don't insist on it their vehicles have speed limiters in them that are all set slightly differently. It does cause a problem for sure but car drivers cause a **** site more. We need lorries to provide virtually everything we need in our lives. Cars having to slow down a bit while waiting for a lorry isn't the same as sitting in traffic jams due to the amount of vehicles on the road. More vehicles= more jams Lorries = slowing down a bit[/p][/quote]The limiters are not all the same, it's true, but the biggest factor is the ability of a lorry to traverse gradients effectively, and that depends more on weight and torque than the limiter.[/p][/quote]But not a factor on level roads. This article is about traffic in Swindon anyway, of which lorries are not really a factor at all in congestion in the town. Bus lanes contribute but fat mums taking their kids to school is something that makes a huge difference. Look how quiet the roads are when schools are off.[/p][/quote]There aren't that many truly level roads around here, or anywhere really. benzss

1:34pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Davey Gravey says...

scottwichall wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
@Davey Gravey: lorries on ANY roads during rush hour periods are a complete menace. They DO cause serious congestion and they're also responsible for an inordinate number of accidents. Let alone getting stuck under bridges every five minutes.

Get them off the roads at rush hour times and scrap the appalling bus lanes and you'd see congestion fall dramatically in and around Swindon.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of atrocious car drivers out there, just that they don't generally cause congestion (unless they crash or are so woefully slow that they cause tailbacks).
Lorries have to be there. They are people going about their work. They are alot less in number than cars and the vast majority are better drivers than those in cars. Accidents they are involved in are usually not their fault but of course there are bad lorry drivers too.

Car drivers doing unnecessary journeys are a far bigger problem. School runs as I mentioned above, probably the biggest factor of them all.
So how is then, if they are better drivers they are nearly always involved in motorway RTC's.

A good driver should be maintaining a safe stopping distance. Especially when they are driving 38 tonnes of instant death.
How can they when cars and vans cut in front into their safe distances?
Most of their collisions are caused by idiots in cars and vans. It's harder to take evasive action in a lorry. There are far more accidents on motorways with no lorries involved by the way. It's just that it causes alot more damage when they are involved
[quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @Davey Gravey: lorries on ANY roads during rush hour periods are a complete menace. They DO cause serious congestion and they're also responsible for an inordinate number of accidents. Let alone getting stuck under bridges every five minutes. Get them off the roads at rush hour times and scrap the appalling bus lanes and you'd see congestion fall dramatically in and around Swindon. That's not to say there aren't plenty of atrocious car drivers out there, just that they don't generally cause congestion (unless they crash or are so woefully slow that they cause tailbacks).[/p][/quote]Lorries have to be there. They are people going about their work. They are alot less in number than cars and the vast majority are better drivers than those in cars. Accidents they are involved in are usually not their fault but of course there are bad lorry drivers too. Car drivers doing unnecessary journeys are a far bigger problem. School runs as I mentioned above, probably the biggest factor of them all.[/p][/quote]So how is then, if they are better drivers they are nearly always involved in motorway RTC's. A good driver should be maintaining a safe stopping distance. Especially when they are driving 38 tonnes of instant death.[/p][/quote]How can they when cars and vans cut in front into their safe distances? Most of their collisions are caused by idiots in cars and vans. It's harder to take evasive action in a lorry. There are far more accidents on motorways with no lorries involved by the way. It's just that it causes alot more damage when they are involved Davey Gravey

1:37pm Tue 3 Dec 13

scottwichall says...

Rather than get another big quote which makes it difficult to read.

@Davey then they should slow down a bit to maintain their safe stopping distance. How many times do you see HGV's tailgating other HGV's? I see it every single night on the way home. Safe stopping distance clearly doesn't apply.
Rather than get another big quote which makes it difficult to read. @Davey then they should slow down a bit to maintain their safe stopping distance. How many times do you see HGV's tailgating other HGV's? I see it every single night on the way home. Safe stopping distance clearly doesn't apply. scottwichall

1:48pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Davey Gravey says...

@Scott It's not that simple. Another car will just jump into their safe space. There are bad truckers for sure. I'm not condoning their poor actions. I will add that they often get into tail gating situations due to selfish car drivers who refuse to move over to let them overtake. Often when the conditions of the road mean they themselves could easily move to the outside lane.
@Scott It's not that simple. Another car will just jump into their safe space. There are bad truckers for sure. I'm not condoning their poor actions. I will add that they often get into tail gating situations due to selfish car drivers who refuse to move over to let them overtake. Often when the conditions of the road mean they themselves could easily move to the outside lane. Davey Gravey

1:50pm Tue 3 Dec 13

house on the hill says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
@Davey Gravey: lorries on ANY roads during rush hour periods are a complete menace. They DO cause serious congestion and they're also responsible for an inordinate number of accidents. Let alone getting stuck under bridges every five minutes.

Get them off the roads at rush hour times and scrap the appalling bus lanes and you'd see congestion fall dramatically in and around Swindon.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of atrocious car drivers out there, just that they don't generally cause congestion (unless they crash or are so woefully slow that they cause tailbacks).
Lorries have to be there. They are people going about their work. They are alot less in number than cars and the vast majority are better drivers than those in cars. Accidents they are involved in are usually not their fault but of course there are bad lorry drivers too.

Car drivers doing unnecessary journeys are a far bigger problem. School runs as I mentioned above, probably the biggest factor of them all.
What exactly is an unnecessary journey then? and who makes that decision? I am sure the answer to that would be very different to different people. We all pay masses of tax and insurance just to get our cars on the road so why shouldn't we use them whenever we want to? What's next then, unnecessary drinking and smoking??

Urban traffic is flawed in many ways. Not least having a system where 1 pedestrian can cause upwards of 50 cars to be stationary while they cross the road is never going to be conducive to free flowing traffic. Yes the basic infrastructure is **** and inadequate but there are lots of things that contribute to it.

But the overriding issue is that if the Govt are going to tax us up to the hilt and beyond to own and run our cars then i intend to get my full moneys worth!
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @Davey Gravey: lorries on ANY roads during rush hour periods are a complete menace. They DO cause serious congestion and they're also responsible for an inordinate number of accidents. Let alone getting stuck under bridges every five minutes. Get them off the roads at rush hour times and scrap the appalling bus lanes and you'd see congestion fall dramatically in and around Swindon. That's not to say there aren't plenty of atrocious car drivers out there, just that they don't generally cause congestion (unless they crash or are so woefully slow that they cause tailbacks).[/p][/quote]Lorries have to be there. They are people going about their work. They are alot less in number than cars and the vast majority are better drivers than those in cars. Accidents they are involved in are usually not their fault but of course there are bad lorry drivers too. Car drivers doing unnecessary journeys are a far bigger problem. School runs as I mentioned above, probably the biggest factor of them all.[/p][/quote]What exactly is an unnecessary journey then? and who makes that decision? I am sure the answer to that would be very different to different people. We all pay masses of tax and insurance just to get our cars on the road so why shouldn't we use them whenever we want to? What's next then, unnecessary drinking and smoking?? Urban traffic is flawed in many ways. Not least having a system where 1 pedestrian can cause upwards of 50 cars to be stationary while they cross the road is never going to be conducive to free flowing traffic. Yes the basic infrastructure is **** and inadequate but there are lots of things that contribute to it. But the overriding issue is that if the Govt are going to tax us up to the hilt and beyond to own and run our cars then i intend to get my full moneys worth! house on the hill

1:50pm Tue 3 Dec 13

scottwichall says...

Yeah, true, but then they should back off a bit, the same way a car driver has to when some road warrior in an A3/3 series/Mundano swoops across 3 lanes of traffic 100 yards before a motorway junction. Just to make sure they are at the front of course.

Plus the ones I am referring to, you would only be able to fit a smart car between their trucks lol.
Yeah, true, but then they should back off a bit, the same way a car driver has to when some road warrior in an A3/3 series/Mundano swoops across 3 lanes of traffic 100 yards before a motorway junction. Just to make sure they are at the front of course. Plus the ones I am referring to, you would only be able to fit a smart car between their trucks lol. scottwichall

1:53pm Tue 3 Dec 13

scottwichall says...

house on the hill wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
@Davey Gravey: lorries on ANY roads during rush hour periods are a complete menace. They DO cause serious congestion and they're also responsible for an inordinate number of accidents. Let alone getting stuck under bridges every five minutes.

Get them off the roads at rush hour times and scrap the appalling bus lanes and you'd see congestion fall dramatically in and around Swindon.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of atrocious car drivers out there, just that they don't generally cause congestion (unless they crash or are so woefully slow that they cause tailbacks).
Lorries have to be there. They are people going about their work. They are alot less in number than cars and the vast majority are better drivers than those in cars. Accidents they are involved in are usually not their fault but of course there are bad lorry drivers too.

Car drivers doing unnecessary journeys are a far bigger problem. School runs as I mentioned above, probably the biggest factor of them all.
What exactly is an unnecessary journey then? and who makes that decision? I am sure the answer to that would be very different to different people. We all pay masses of tax and insurance just to get our cars on the road so why shouldn't we use them whenever we want to? What's next then, unnecessary drinking and smoking??

Urban traffic is flawed in many ways. Not least having a system where 1 pedestrian can cause upwards of 50 cars to be stationary while they cross the road is never going to be conducive to free flowing traffic. Yes the basic infrastructure is **** and inadequate but there are lots of things that contribute to it.

But the overriding issue is that if the Govt are going to tax us up to the hilt and beyond to own and run our cars then i intend to get my full moneys worth!
Well considering they only spend about 8 bill of the nearly 50 bill they steal from the motorist on the transport system we would have to drive 24/7 to get any moneys worth lol.

Completely agree though.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @Davey Gravey: lorries on ANY roads during rush hour periods are a complete menace. They DO cause serious congestion and they're also responsible for an inordinate number of accidents. Let alone getting stuck under bridges every five minutes. Get them off the roads at rush hour times and scrap the appalling bus lanes and you'd see congestion fall dramatically in and around Swindon. That's not to say there aren't plenty of atrocious car drivers out there, just that they don't generally cause congestion (unless they crash or are so woefully slow that they cause tailbacks).[/p][/quote]Lorries have to be there. They are people going about their work. They are alot less in number than cars and the vast majority are better drivers than those in cars. Accidents they are involved in are usually not their fault but of course there are bad lorry drivers too. Car drivers doing unnecessary journeys are a far bigger problem. School runs as I mentioned above, probably the biggest factor of them all.[/p][/quote]What exactly is an unnecessary journey then? and who makes that decision? I am sure the answer to that would be very different to different people. We all pay masses of tax and insurance just to get our cars on the road so why shouldn't we use them whenever we want to? What's next then, unnecessary drinking and smoking?? Urban traffic is flawed in many ways. Not least having a system where 1 pedestrian can cause upwards of 50 cars to be stationary while they cross the road is never going to be conducive to free flowing traffic. Yes the basic infrastructure is **** and inadequate but there are lots of things that contribute to it. But the overriding issue is that if the Govt are going to tax us up to the hilt and beyond to own and run our cars then i intend to get my full moneys worth![/p][/quote]Well considering they only spend about 8 bill of the nearly 50 bill they steal from the motorist on the transport system we would have to drive 24/7 to get any moneys worth lol. Completely agree though. scottwichall

2:04pm Tue 3 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Many accidents involving lorries on motorways are caused by their inability to react (too close to the lorry in front), and their inability to keep in their lane (no idea why this is the case, it's not that difficult!)

In towns though with cars and vans all over the place it's incredible to watch a skilled lorry driver negotiate a large vehicle through small spaces.

The reality is that congestion is caused by too many people using not enough infrastructure. The cutting in, the tailgating, the going at high speed and so on is just a symptom of those delays and the expectation of society and the constant pressure to do everything sooner, quicker, constantly expecting more from less.
Many accidents involving lorries on motorways are caused by their inability to react (too close to the lorry in front), and their inability to keep in their lane (no idea why this is the case, it's not that difficult!) In towns though with cars and vans all over the place it's incredible to watch a skilled lorry driver negotiate a large vehicle through small spaces. The reality is that congestion is caused by too many people using not enough infrastructure. The cutting in, the tailgating, the going at high speed and so on is just a symptom of those delays and the expectation of society and the constant pressure to do everything sooner, quicker, constantly expecting more from less. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

2:12pm Tue 3 Dec 13

2wg4wg says...

Amazed there is no mention of cycling here - not even negative! While the number of cyclists is going up overall this doesn't seem to be encouraged in Swindon. I have cycle commuted 6 miles each way for the last 20 years (stopping at red lights and obeying the highway code), if a few more people did this we would have less traffic and fitter people. However, cycle lanes only seem to get factored in when something completely new goes in, so its OK going in from west swindon, but travelling south I only get around 50 metres of shared cycle lane.

I am heartened by the number of bikes now in the shed at work, at least another 30-40 cars not on the road compared to a few years ago, but sensible consideration on the roads and encouraging employers could increase this.
Amazed there is no mention of cycling here - not even negative! While the number of cyclists is going up overall this doesn't seem to be encouraged in Swindon. I have cycle commuted 6 miles each way for the last 20 years (stopping at red lights and obeying the highway code), if a few more people did this we would have less traffic and fitter people. However, cycle lanes only seem to get factored in when something completely new goes in, so its OK going in from west swindon, but travelling south I only get around 50 metres of shared cycle lane. I am heartened by the number of bikes now in the shed at work, at least another 30-40 cars not on the road compared to a few years ago, but sensible consideration on the roads and encouraging employers could increase this. 2wg4wg

4:10pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Ringer says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Ringer wrote:
@Davey Gravey: lorries on ANY roads during rush hour periods are a complete menace. They DO cause serious congestion and they're also responsible for an inordinate number of accidents. Let alone getting stuck under bridges every five minutes.

Get them off the roads at rush hour times and scrap the appalling bus lanes and you'd see congestion fall dramatically in and around Swindon.

That's not to say there aren't plenty of atrocious car drivers out there, just that they don't generally cause congestion (unless they crash or are so woefully slow that they cause tailbacks).
Lorries have to be there. They are people going about their work. They are alot less in number than cars and the vast majority are better drivers than those in cars. Accidents they are involved in are usually not their fault but of course there are bad lorry drivers too.

Car drivers doing unnecessary journeys are a far bigger problem. School runs as I mentioned above, probably the biggest factor of them all.
Why do lorry drivers 'have' to be there? In fact, I'd argue that it makes precisely NO sense for professional lorry drivers to be paid to sit around in congestion, whilst increasing that congestion, during peak traffic hours.

Lorry drivers already work almost round the clock - as anyone who drives early morning and late night knows only too well - and often have to park up to eat, sleep and take their tacho breaks... so the logical solution, that would benefit everyone (including the lorry drivers and their employers), would be to ban lorries from driving between 8am to 9.30am and 4.30pm to 6pm.

I also wholly dispute your claim that lorry drivers are any better than car drivers, in general. As others have pointed out, if they're such good drivers, why are the involved in SO many accidents?

Lorries and buses are the biggest menace on our roads in terms of both serious accidents and congestion.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ringer[/bold] wrote: @Davey Gravey: lorries on ANY roads during rush hour periods are a complete menace. They DO cause serious congestion and they're also responsible for an inordinate number of accidents. Let alone getting stuck under bridges every five minutes. Get them off the roads at rush hour times and scrap the appalling bus lanes and you'd see congestion fall dramatically in and around Swindon. That's not to say there aren't plenty of atrocious car drivers out there, just that they don't generally cause congestion (unless they crash or are so woefully slow that they cause tailbacks).[/p][/quote]Lorries have to be there. They are people going about their work. They are alot less in number than cars and the vast majority are better drivers than those in cars. Accidents they are involved in are usually not their fault but of course there are bad lorry drivers too. Car drivers doing unnecessary journeys are a far bigger problem. School runs as I mentioned above, probably the biggest factor of them all.[/p][/quote]Why do lorry drivers 'have' to be there? In fact, I'd argue that it makes precisely NO sense for professional lorry drivers to be paid to sit around in congestion, whilst increasing that congestion, during peak traffic hours. Lorry drivers already work almost round the clock - as anyone who drives early morning and late night knows only too well - and often have to park up to eat, sleep and take their tacho breaks... so the logical solution, that would benefit everyone (including the lorry drivers and their employers), would be to ban lorries from driving between 8am to 9.30am and 4.30pm to 6pm. I also wholly dispute your claim that lorry drivers are any better than car drivers, in general. As others have pointed out, if they're such good drivers, why are the involved in SO many accidents? Lorries and buses are the biggest menace on our roads in terms of both serious accidents and congestion. Ringer

6:03pm Tue 3 Dec 13

female resident says...

The trouble with a place like Swindon is that people work staggered hours and can work in any area. Thus all those cars are probably going to different places to be in time for working days of varied hours. A few 'express' buses and peak time park and ride makes sense to lessen the load of people actually going into town. A lot of people who live in Swindon don't even work in Swindon so they're probably just trying to get out - the train service is expensive, useless to get to many places and does not always run at convenient times. No-one wants to sit in traffic for ages every day so the chances are that people are doing so because there is little alternative. Cycling is all very well but not if you have a lot to carry or want to look respectable when you arrive. Most towns in the western world have the same problem unless they have a really good subsidised and integrated transport system.
The trouble with a place like Swindon is that people work staggered hours and can work in any area. Thus all those cars are probably going to different places to be in time for working days of varied hours. A few 'express' buses and peak time park and ride makes sense to lessen the load of people actually going into town. A lot of people who live in Swindon don't even work in Swindon so they're probably just trying to get out - the train service is expensive, useless to get to many places and does not always run at convenient times. No-one wants to sit in traffic for ages every day so the chances are that people are doing so because there is little alternative. Cycling is all very well but not if you have a lot to carry or want to look respectable when you arrive. Most towns in the western world have the same problem unless they have a really good subsidised and integrated transport system. female resident

6:55pm Tue 3 Dec 13

smurfs are blue says...

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought Swindon Council had Swindon travel choices who were given large government funding to encourage better use of the roads and encourage more bus travel? Are they still working and if so, what are they doing to tackle the travel problems?
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought Swindon Council had Swindon travel choices who were given large government funding to encourage better use of the roads and encourage more bus travel? Are they still working and if so, what are they doing to tackle the travel problems? smurfs are blue

9:24pm Tue 3 Dec 13

Ellofolks says...

scottwichall wrote:
Tonyblairisthedevil wrote:
I travel 120 miles a day to and from work and looked at using the train.. £89 a day and thats booked in advance.. Running a car is far cheaper and more convienient. Until there is a viable alternative i see no other option.
Personally i would love to take a train or bus and read a book on my way to work but i cannot see this happening in my life time.
Oh don't even get me started. Last year we wanted to go and see the in-laws who live in Scotland. The return train fare for two adults and one child was in the order of £700.

The cost in petrol to drive up there, and spend some time going around was around £250. So why on earth would you go by train, the prices are absolute insanity.

In the end I didn't go and the wife flew up there with my son, for less than £200 return.
£250 fuel to Scotland and back with a bit of driving up there. Either you've a heavy foot or a terrible car. I do this regularly in a 2.2l car and £200 is more than enough.
[quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tonyblairisthedevil[/bold] wrote: I travel 120 miles a day to and from work and looked at using the train.. £89 a day and thats booked in advance.. Running a car is far cheaper and more convienient. Until there is a viable alternative i see no other option. Personally i would love to take a train or bus and read a book on my way to work but i cannot see this happening in my life time.[/p][/quote]Oh don't even get me started. Last year we wanted to go and see the in-laws who live in Scotland. The return train fare for two adults and one child was in the order of £700. The cost in petrol to drive up there, and spend some time going around was around £250. So why on earth would you go by train, the prices are absolute insanity. In the end I didn't go and the wife flew up there with my son, for less than £200 return.[/p][/quote]£250 fuel to Scotland and back with a bit of driving up there. Either you've a heavy foot or a terrible car. I do this regularly in a 2.2l car and £200 is more than enough. Ellofolks

9:43pm Tue 3 Dec 13

scottwichall says...

Ellofolks wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
Tonyblairisthedevil wrote:
I travel 120 miles a day to and from work and looked at using the train.. £89 a day and thats booked in advance.. Running a car is far cheaper and more convienient. Until there is a viable alternative i see no other option.
Personally i would love to take a train or bus and read a book on my way to work but i cannot see this happening in my life time.
Oh don't even get me started. Last year we wanted to go and see the in-laws who live in Scotland. The return train fare for two adults and one child was in the order of £700.

The cost in petrol to drive up there, and spend some time going around was around £250. So why on earth would you go by train, the prices are absolute insanity.

In the end I didn't go and the wife flew up there with my son, for less than £200 return.
£250 fuel to Scotland and back with a bit of driving up there. Either you've a heavy foot or a terrible car. I do this regularly in a 2.2l car and £200 is more than enough.
I shall do a bit of maths for you before you shoot yourself in the foot shall I.

Fuel price = £1.30 per litre.
Qty of fuel = £250/£1.30 = 192 litres / 4.54 = 42.36 Gallons

Distance to destination = 550 miles * 2 + 300 miles sightseeing = 1400 miles

Fuel consumption is therefore 1400/42.36 which equates to 33 mpg.
Considering I have a 2.8l straight six automatic petrol, I consider that to be excellent as the normal overall average is about 25 mpg.
[quote][p][bold]Ellofolks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tonyblairisthedevil[/bold] wrote: I travel 120 miles a day to and from work and looked at using the train.. £89 a day and thats booked in advance.. Running a car is far cheaper and more convienient. Until there is a viable alternative i see no other option. Personally i would love to take a train or bus and read a book on my way to work but i cannot see this happening in my life time.[/p][/quote]Oh don't even get me started. Last year we wanted to go and see the in-laws who live in Scotland. The return train fare for two adults and one child was in the order of £700. The cost in petrol to drive up there, and spend some time going around was around £250. So why on earth would you go by train, the prices are absolute insanity. In the end I didn't go and the wife flew up there with my son, for less than £200 return.[/p][/quote]£250 fuel to Scotland and back with a bit of driving up there. Either you've a heavy foot or a terrible car. I do this regularly in a 2.2l car and £200 is more than enough.[/p][/quote]I shall do a bit of maths for you before you shoot yourself in the foot shall I. Fuel price = £1.30 per litre. Qty of fuel = £250/£1.30 = 192 litres / 4.54 = 42.36 Gallons Distance to destination = 550 miles * 2 + 300 miles sightseeing = 1400 miles Fuel consumption is therefore 1400/42.36 which equates to 33 mpg. Considering I have a 2.8l straight six automatic petrol, I consider that to be excellent as the normal overall average is about 25 mpg. scottwichall

1:28pm Wed 4 Dec 13

swindon_alan says...

All it really needs is some more imaginative thinking to mitigate the jams which are the major problem for car use (we are never going to get people out of them, it is just too convenient). Flexible working hours for a start. Why have traffic peaks at 8:00 - 9:00 and 17:00 - 18:00? Core hours of 10:00 - 14:00 for example would allow starting at 06:00 or 07:00 or 08:00 and spread the congestion. For those who do not do manual on-premise work, expand home working, it exists now. Not even full time but maybe a couple of days a week. These approaches lead to happier less stressed workers so it is a positive for employers.
All it really needs is some more imaginative thinking to mitigate the jams which are the major problem for car use (we are never going to get people out of them, it is just too convenient). Flexible working hours for a start. Why have traffic peaks at 8:00 - 9:00 and 17:00 - 18:00? Core hours of 10:00 - 14:00 for example would allow starting at 06:00 or 07:00 or 08:00 and spread the congestion. For those who do not do manual on-premise work, expand home working, it exists now. Not even full time but maybe a couple of days a week. These approaches lead to happier less stressed workers so it is a positive for employers. swindon_alan

8:01pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Ellofolks says...

scottwichall wrote:
Ellofolks wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
Tonyblairisthedevil wrote:
I travel 120 miles a day to and from work and looked at using the train.. £89 a day and thats booked in advance.. Running a car is far cheaper and more convienient. Until there is a viable alternative i see no other option.
Personally i would love to take a train or bus and read a book on my way to work but i cannot see this happening in my life time.
Oh don't even get me started. Last year we wanted to go and see the in-laws who live in Scotland. The return train fare for two adults and one child was in the order of £700.

The cost in petrol to drive up there, and spend some time going around was around £250. So why on earth would you go by train, the prices are absolute insanity.

In the end I didn't go and the wife flew up there with my son, for less than £200 return.
£250 fuel to Scotland and back with a bit of driving up there. Either you've a heavy foot or a terrible car. I do this regularly in a 2.2l car and £200 is more than enough.
I shall do a bit of maths for you before you shoot yourself in the foot shall I.

Fuel price = £1.30 per litre.
Qty of fuel = £250/£1.30 = 192 litres / 4.54 = 42.36 Gallons

Distance to destination = 550 miles * 2 + 300 miles sightseeing = 1400 miles

Fuel consumption is therefore 1400/42.36 which equates to 33 mpg.
Considering I have a 2.8l straight six automatic petrol, I consider that to be excellent as the normal overall average is about 25 mpg.
Ha ha I know the math. I was right you have a terrible car. If you get 33 mpg on a 2.8 petrol auto your driving like a village vicar and probably holding people up. Get a better car for your galavanting and you'll be able to afford to go with the family next time.
[quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellofolks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tonyblairisthedevil[/bold] wrote: I travel 120 miles a day to and from work and looked at using the train.. £89 a day and thats booked in advance.. Running a car is far cheaper and more convienient. Until there is a viable alternative i see no other option. Personally i would love to take a train or bus and read a book on my way to work but i cannot see this happening in my life time.[/p][/quote]Oh don't even get me started. Last year we wanted to go and see the in-laws who live in Scotland. The return train fare for two adults and one child was in the order of £700. The cost in petrol to drive up there, and spend some time going around was around £250. So why on earth would you go by train, the prices are absolute insanity. In the end I didn't go and the wife flew up there with my son, for less than £200 return.[/p][/quote]£250 fuel to Scotland and back with a bit of driving up there. Either you've a heavy foot or a terrible car. I do this regularly in a 2.2l car and £200 is more than enough.[/p][/quote]I shall do a bit of maths for you before you shoot yourself in the foot shall I. Fuel price = £1.30 per litre. Qty of fuel = £250/£1.30 = 192 litres / 4.54 = 42.36 Gallons Distance to destination = 550 miles * 2 + 300 miles sightseeing = 1400 miles Fuel consumption is therefore 1400/42.36 which equates to 33 mpg. Considering I have a 2.8l straight six automatic petrol, I consider that to be excellent as the normal overall average is about 25 mpg.[/p][/quote]Ha ha I know the math. I was right you have a terrible car. If you get 33 mpg on a 2.8 petrol auto your driving like a village vicar and probably holding people up. Get a better car for your galavanting and you'll be able to afford to go with the family next time. Ellofolks

9:40am Thu 5 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Ellofolks wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
Ellofolks wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
Tonyblairisthedevil wrote:
I travel 120 miles a day to and from work and looked at using the train.. £89 a day and thats booked in advance.. Running a car is far cheaper and more convienient. Until there is a viable alternative i see no other option.
Personally i would love to take a train or bus and read a book on my way to work but i cannot see this happening in my life time.
Oh don't even get me started. Last year we wanted to go and see the in-laws who live in Scotland. The return train fare for two adults and one child was in the order of £700.

The cost in petrol to drive up there, and spend some time going around was around £250. So why on earth would you go by train, the prices are absolute insanity.

In the end I didn't go and the wife flew up there with my son, for less than £200 return.
£250 fuel to Scotland and back with a bit of driving up there. Either you've a heavy foot or a terrible car. I do this regularly in a 2.2l car and £200 is more than enough.
I shall do a bit of maths for you before you shoot yourself in the foot shall I.

Fuel price = £1.30 per litre.
Qty of fuel = £250/£1.30 = 192 litres / 4.54 = 42.36 Gallons

Distance to destination = 550 miles * 2 + 300 miles sightseeing = 1400 miles

Fuel consumption is therefore 1400/42.36 which equates to 33 mpg.
Considering I have a 2.8l straight six automatic petrol, I consider that to be excellent as the normal overall average is about 25 mpg.
Ha ha I know the math. I was right you have a terrible car. If you get 33 mpg on a 2.8 petrol auto your driving like a village vicar and probably holding people up. Get a better car for your galavanting and you'll be able to afford to go with the family next time.
How is it a "terrible" car? MPG isn't everything you know!
[quote][p][bold]Ellofolks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellofolks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tonyblairisthedevil[/bold] wrote: I travel 120 miles a day to and from work and looked at using the train.. £89 a day and thats booked in advance.. Running a car is far cheaper and more convienient. Until there is a viable alternative i see no other option. Personally i would love to take a train or bus and read a book on my way to work but i cannot see this happening in my life time.[/p][/quote]Oh don't even get me started. Last year we wanted to go and see the in-laws who live in Scotland. The return train fare for two adults and one child was in the order of £700. The cost in petrol to drive up there, and spend some time going around was around £250. So why on earth would you go by train, the prices are absolute insanity. In the end I didn't go and the wife flew up there with my son, for less than £200 return.[/p][/quote]£250 fuel to Scotland and back with a bit of driving up there. Either you've a heavy foot or a terrible car. I do this regularly in a 2.2l car and £200 is more than enough.[/p][/quote]I shall do a bit of maths for you before you shoot yourself in the foot shall I. Fuel price = £1.30 per litre. Qty of fuel = £250/£1.30 = 192 litres / 4.54 = 42.36 Gallons Distance to destination = 550 miles * 2 + 300 miles sightseeing = 1400 miles Fuel consumption is therefore 1400/42.36 which equates to 33 mpg. Considering I have a 2.8l straight six automatic petrol, I consider that to be excellent as the normal overall average is about 25 mpg.[/p][/quote]Ha ha I know the math. I was right you have a terrible car. If you get 33 mpg on a 2.8 petrol auto your driving like a village vicar and probably holding people up. Get a better car for your galavanting and you'll be able to afford to go with the family next time.[/p][/quote]How is it a "terrible" car? MPG isn't everything you know! The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

7:13pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Ellofolks says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Ellofolks wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
Ellofolks wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
Tonyblairisthedevil wrote:
I travel 120 miles a day to and from work and looked at using the train.. £89 a day and thats booked in advance.. Running a car is far cheaper and more convienient. Until there is a viable alternative i see no other option.
Personally i would love to take a train or bus and read a book on my way to work but i cannot see this happening in my life time.
Oh don't even get me started. Last year we wanted to go and see the in-laws who live in Scotland. The return train fare for two adults and one child was in the order of £700.

The cost in petrol to drive up there, and spend some time going around was around £250. So why on earth would you go by train, the prices are absolute insanity.

In the end I didn't go and the wife flew up there with my son, for less than £200 return.
£250 fuel to Scotland and back with a bit of driving up there. Either you've a heavy foot or a terrible car. I do this regularly in a 2.2l car and £200 is more than enough.
I shall do a bit of maths for you before you shoot yourself in the foot shall I.

Fuel price = £1.30 per litre.
Qty of fuel = £250/£1.30 = 192 litres / 4.54 = 42.36 Gallons

Distance to destination = 550 miles * 2 + 300 miles sightseeing = 1400 miles

Fuel consumption is therefore 1400/42.36 which equates to 33 mpg.
Considering I have a 2.8l straight six automatic petrol, I consider that to be excellent as the normal overall average is about 25 mpg.
Ha ha I know the math. I was right you have a terrible car. If you get 33 mpg on a 2.8 petrol auto your driving like a village vicar and probably holding people up. Get a better car for your galavanting and you'll be able to afford to go with the family next time.
How is it a "terrible" car? MPG isn't everything you know!
But spending time with you loved ones is. You state cost was the issue and detailed it explicitly for the car and hence the plane was taken without you. It was the cause of the time apart from those that matter the most. To me that is terrible. Most have experience this I'm sure you have too. Your all back together now though and that's what counts.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellofolks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellofolks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tonyblairisthedevil[/bold] wrote: I travel 120 miles a day to and from work and looked at using the train.. £89 a day and thats booked in advance.. Running a car is far cheaper and more convienient. Until there is a viable alternative i see no other option. Personally i would love to take a train or bus and read a book on my way to work but i cannot see this happening in my life time.[/p][/quote]Oh don't even get me started. Last year we wanted to go and see the in-laws who live in Scotland. The return train fare for two adults and one child was in the order of £700. The cost in petrol to drive up there, and spend some time going around was around £250. So why on earth would you go by train, the prices are absolute insanity. In the end I didn't go and the wife flew up there with my son, for less than £200 return.[/p][/quote]£250 fuel to Scotland and back with a bit of driving up there. Either you've a heavy foot or a terrible car. I do this regularly in a 2.2l car and £200 is more than enough.[/p][/quote]I shall do a bit of maths for you before you shoot yourself in the foot shall I. Fuel price = £1.30 per litre. Qty of fuel = £250/£1.30 = 192 litres / 4.54 = 42.36 Gallons Distance to destination = 550 miles * 2 + 300 miles sightseeing = 1400 miles Fuel consumption is therefore 1400/42.36 which equates to 33 mpg. Considering I have a 2.8l straight six automatic petrol, I consider that to be excellent as the normal overall average is about 25 mpg.[/p][/quote]Ha ha I know the math. I was right you have a terrible car. If you get 33 mpg on a 2.8 petrol auto your driving like a village vicar and probably holding people up. Get a better car for your galavanting and you'll be able to afford to go with the family next time.[/p][/quote]How is it a "terrible" car? MPG isn't everything you know![/p][/quote]But spending time with you loved ones is. You state cost was the issue and detailed it explicitly for the car and hence the plane was taken without you. It was the cause of the time apart from those that matter the most. To me that is terrible. Most have experience this I'm sure you have too. Your all back together now though and that's what counts. Ellofolks

8:36am Fri 6 Dec 13

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Ellofolks wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Ellofolks wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
Ellofolks wrote:
scottwichall wrote:
Tonyblairisthedevil wrote:
I travel 120 miles a day to and from work and looked at using the train.. £89 a day and thats booked in advance.. Running a car is far cheaper and more convienient. Until there is a viable alternative i see no other option.
Personally i would love to take a train or bus and read a book on my way to work but i cannot see this happening in my life time.
Oh don't even get me started. Last year we wanted to go and see the in-laws who live in Scotland. The return train fare for two adults and one child was in the order of £700.

The cost in petrol to drive up there, and spend some time going around was around £250. So why on earth would you go by train, the prices are absolute insanity.

In the end I didn't go and the wife flew up there with my son, for less than £200 return.
£250 fuel to Scotland and back with a bit of driving up there. Either you've a heavy foot or a terrible car. I do this regularly in a 2.2l car and £200 is more than enough.
I shall do a bit of maths for you before you shoot yourself in the foot shall I.

Fuel price = £1.30 per litre.
Qty of fuel = £250/£1.30 = 192 litres / 4.54 = 42.36 Gallons

Distance to destination = 550 miles * 2 + 300 miles sightseeing = 1400 miles

Fuel consumption is therefore 1400/42.36 which equates to 33 mpg.
Considering I have a 2.8l straight six automatic petrol, I consider that to be excellent as the normal overall average is about 25 mpg.
Ha ha I know the math. I was right you have a terrible car. If you get 33 mpg on a 2.8 petrol auto your driving like a village vicar and probably holding people up. Get a better car for your galavanting and you'll be able to afford to go with the family next time.
How is it a "terrible" car? MPG isn't everything you know!
But spending time with you loved ones is. You state cost was the issue and detailed it explicitly for the car and hence the plane was taken without you. It was the cause of the time apart from those that matter the most. To me that is terrible. Most have experience this I'm sure you have too. Your all back together now though and that's what counts.
huh, I haven't stated anything other than MPG not being everything. Depreciation costs way more than fuel!
[quote][p][bold]Ellofolks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellofolks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ellofolks[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scottwichall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Tonyblairisthedevil[/bold] wrote: I travel 120 miles a day to and from work and looked at using the train.. £89 a day and thats booked in advance.. Running a car is far cheaper and more convienient. Until there is a viable alternative i see no other option. Personally i would love to take a train or bus and read a book on my way to work but i cannot see this happening in my life time.[/p][/quote]Oh don't even get me started. Last year we wanted to go and see the in-laws who live in Scotland. The return train fare for two adults and one child was in the order of £700. The cost in petrol to drive up there, and spend some time going around was around £250. So why on earth would you go by train, the prices are absolute insanity. In the end I didn't go and the wife flew up there with my son, for less than £200 return.[/p][/quote]£250 fuel to Scotland and back with a bit of driving up there. Either you've a heavy foot or a terrible car. I do this regularly in a 2.2l car and £200 is more than enough.[/p][/quote]I shall do a bit of maths for you before you shoot yourself in the foot shall I. Fuel price = £1.30 per litre. Qty of fuel = £250/£1.30 = 192 litres / 4.54 = 42.36 Gallons Distance to destination = 550 miles * 2 + 300 miles sightseeing = 1400 miles Fuel consumption is therefore 1400/42.36 which equates to 33 mpg. Considering I have a 2.8l straight six automatic petrol, I consider that to be excellent as the normal overall average is about 25 mpg.[/p][/quote]Ha ha I know the math. I was right you have a terrible car. If you get 33 mpg on a 2.8 petrol auto your driving like a village vicar and probably holding people up. Get a better car for your galavanting and you'll be able to afford to go with the family next time.[/p][/quote]How is it a "terrible" car? MPG isn't everything you know![/p][/quote]But spending time with you loved ones is. You state cost was the issue and detailed it explicitly for the car and hence the plane was taken without you. It was the cause of the time apart from those that matter the most. To me that is terrible. Most have experience this I'm sure you have too. Your all back together now though and that's what counts.[/p][/quote]huh, I haven't stated anything other than MPG not being everything. Depreciation costs way more than fuel! The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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