Peanuts it may be but, if you are working from your vehicle you, or your employer, have to find £25 a week from either your bottom line or from your customers. If you have a large fleet, you also have to look at the effect on your cashflow.
The cost to businesses will be considerably less than £25 per vehicle. The charge will be off set against tax, will reduce dead time and increase working time and will reduce vehicle running costs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
No. The West Lothian question is in regard to MPs outside of England and Wales voting on matters which have nothing to do with, and with no effect on, Scotland (or NI for that matter).
The congestion charge and the outcome of the referendum will effect the pockets of everyone in the regional travel to work area. The congestion charge, if implemented, will be a tax without representation on many tens of thousands of people who, everyday, have no choice but to travel within the zones to get to and from work and currently, and for the future, have no choice but to use their cars. Thus all those who regularly work within the cordons should have a vote..
But my point is that many who choose to work in Manchester but not live here would have absolutely no reason to care what happens to the residents of Manchester as long as it doesn't cost them.
Those who have no choice but to use their cars will either be the handicapped who will recieve a 100% discount or those using vehicles for work. The idea of the roads being clooged at peak times and then chunks of expensive city centre land being tied up by parked cars for eight or so hours of the day does not make economic sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
That's a very naive question. People working in Greater Manchester contribute to the economy of the area and to do so have to travel into the area and suffer the congestion...
But they do not suffer the economic effects of congestion to the extent that residents and bus passengers do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
On the other hand - and I base this on 33 years driving around the UK on a daily basis up to 1998 (averaging 35,000 miles a year) and very regular visits since - bus lanes turn usable roadspace into sterile areas and cause congestion in the remaining lane(s)....
It may look as if the bus lane is sterile but stand by it and compare the number of bus passengers with the number of cars running alongside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
They inhibit parking for deliveries, the markings make left turns at busy junctions difficult in many cases where the lane ends less than 50 yards from the junction and there are often many hundreds of yards of bus lanes unoccupied even at peak times....
How about prohibbiting deliveries at peak times? Surely an unoccupied bus lane is a bus lane that is doing its job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
Bus lanes are fine on roads with multiple routes on frequent headways and in those instances the maths can be shown to work. On the other hand there are many bus lanes in British cities on roads with just a couple of routes working a ten minute headway.....
Ok, so do away with the lane, you will need more buses to work the same headway. The operator will have to increase fares to maintain revenue. Some passengers will abandon the bus for their cars. The operator will increase fares to maintain revenue. More passengers will revert to their cars. The operator will increase headway, more passengers etc etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
- and often do not return to the bus lane if they see buses ahead or have a right turn within a half mile.....
If more drivers observed the highway code and gave way to buses leaving a stop I reckon many miles of bus lanes and 'jettyed' stops could be done away with to everybodies benefit. However, too many motorists cannot see beyond their immediate daily need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
How many times a year do you cross the cordon in London? Had you regularly (more than a couple of days a week) worked within the cordon though living outside the Greater London area, there is every argument that you should have had a say.
Phil, you did say 'across the whole North West' without restricting it to those who worked in Manchester. I'm sure that I drive in London as often as some in Carlisle drive in Manchester.
To summarise, I would do the following if I was in charge of transport.
1, Reregulate and renationalise the buses, completely getting rid of the private sector (Paint them orange and white again, not the later livery incorporating brown, that was awful)
Entirely agree about reregulation, TiF does return some regulatory powers to GMPTE.
Buses never were Nationalised. Some larger Authorities ran public transport, in smaller areas it was provided by private companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr angry
2, Build the Castlefield curve to link Victoria with the electrified lines south of Manchester and revert the Bury and Altrincham lines to Network Rail and Northern Trains.
Fine for through and cross town traffic but it was dumped because it did nothing to help those bound for the city centre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr angry
3, Cancel the conversion of the Oldham/Rochdale line and electrify this, and the Bury line at 25kv, running through services from Crewe/Alderley/Macclesfield)
Are you really serious about running 25Kv services on streets?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr angry
4, Allow the Metrolink extension to Droylesden and retain the city centre and Eccles lines, but no more
What, no line to the Trafford Centre! That line alone would releave an awful lot of congestion throughtout the day, not just at peak times.
Morning. Firstly, on buses I mean to return them to what they were before they were messed up by the ridiculous 1986 Transport Act. Some WERE nationalised, the Tilling Group was, Crosville was part of it, later this was merged with BET to become the National Bus Company.
The Castlefield Curve, if you want to go to the City Centre, get off at Victoria
I do not mean run 25kv through the streets. The city centre section of Metrolink would be unchanged, I mean electrify the Bury and Rochdale lines on this system which would be linked to the south Manchster by the Castlefield curve and Windsor link to Salfors Crescent, while you were at it, extend 25kv to Bolton or Prteston as well to aid through running
Trafford Centre. Sorry forgot about that, yes by all means extend the Eccles line of Metrolink to it
The cost to businesses will be considerably less than £25 per vehicle. The charge will be off set against tax, will reduce dead time and increase working time and will reduce vehicle running costs
Until moving to Ireland in 1998 I ran a consultancy for a courier company based in Sussex with daily "rounds" in London plus "specials" to and from London. I kept in regular touch with them for a good few years and their experience of the London congestion charge was totally at odds to your rosy view.
Their driver base was a mix of self employed and employed. The first problem they hit was that their regular customers refused point blank to accept increases in charges for deliveries to/from the charge area. This was especially true for "special" deliveries where the original £5 charge would be loaded in its entirety on the one customer.
The self employed drivers, faced with £5 per day extra to pay, quickly started invoicing their charges weekly instead of fortnightly or monthly, leading to extra admin costs and cash flow problems.
Whilst there was a reduction in traffic at all times during the day (the London charge applying throughout the working day) the reduction at rush hours lasted for only a short period and traffic, especially in the late afternoon and early evening was soon back towards previous levels.
Quote:
But my point is that many who choose to work in Manchester but not live here would have absolutely no reason to care what happens to the residents of Manchester as long as it doesn't cost them.
Those who have no choice but to use their cars will either be the handicapped who will recieve a 100% discount or those using vehicles for work.
I'm sorry, but factually that is a nonsense. I worked in Central Manchester for a good number of years, living in Helmshore. Whilst I was charged with bringing business to Manchester, and thus did care what happened to the residents, and more importantly businesses of Manchester, the same goes for thousands of others. To say that in general those living outside and working in the city don't care shows a lack of understanding of the demographics of the travel to work area, the level of involvement in business of those who travel in from outside the area and the dependence on the economic value of those people to the centre.
Without those from outside the city boundaries and the two cordons, Manchester would not be the economic unit it is today and, in terms of caring, I can assure you from years of experience that the outsiders are just as concerned with what goes on in Manchester, costing them or not.
On the last point, thousands will have no choice but to use their cars to get to at least the outer cordon - given the paucity of public transport outside the GMPTE area - so the provision of large, free and secure car parking will be a necessity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
People working in Greater Manchester contribute to the economy of the area and to do so have to travel into the area and suffer the congestion...
Originally posted by John:
Quote:
But they do not suffer the economic effects of congestion to the extent that residents and bus passengers do.
So sitting in traffic, losing working time, burning fuel, building frustration etc., is less for non-residents than it is for residents in the same queue, delayed deliveries do not affect businesses owned by people living outside the area but working within as muuch as they affect residents and the cost of road schemes is not reflected in taxation and business rates at the same rate for Manchester businesses owned and operated by people living outside the area as it is for those who live within?....come on!!
Quote:
It may look as if the bus lane is sterile but stand by it and compare the number of bus passengers with the number of cars running alongside.
Which was exactly my point. On roads with a good number of routes with frequent headways, the maths work.
On roads with just a couple of routes with a ten minute headway, they don't. In ten minutes, even in rush hour, if all lanes were available to all vehicles on such roads the numbers travelling in cars would equal or surpass those on the buses, moreso in those lanes operating against the flow of the rush hour traffic but operated all day.
Quote:
How about prohibbiting deliveries at peak times?
The logistics of deliveries is a complex subject. Most deliveries are banned at peak times but many bus lanes in the UK are operated throughout the working day with bans on deliveries for much or all of the time. Unfortunately, most of the roads selected for bus lanes have properties where the only sensible delivery point is through the front door.
Quote:
Ok, so do away with the lane, you will need more buses to work the same headway. The operator will have to increase fares to maintain revenue. Some passengers will abandon the bus for their cars. The operator will increase fares to maintain revenue. More passengers will revert to their cars. The operator will increase headway, more passengers etc etc.
There is no evidence to support this argument. Bus lanes run out at junctions and are not uniformly applied along the length of most routes. The mixing with the rest of the traffic at these "choke points" causes the bulk of the delays which break down the even running of a schedule and cause congestion for other road users already restricted to fewer (often one) lanes.
Headway maintenance was a problem 50 years ago when I was travelling in to school from the suburbs, before the boom in private car ownership before bus lanes and when buses had conducters so the blockage of roadspace whilst fares are collected/passes are checked, never happened though jams, often caused by too many buses fighting for access to stops, did.
The reason for fare increases in those days was down to increased costs infuel and wages - fleet sizes remained relatively constant.
Bus lanes have become a political statement more than a beneficial use of roadspace and, whilst the "greens" love them, they carefully overlook the pollution caused by queues of cars restricted to half the roadspace they have been taxed (in road tax, VAT and fuel duty) to use.
Quote:
If more drivers observed the highway code and gave way to buses leaving a stop I reckon many miles of bus lanes and 'jettyed' stops could be done away with to everybodies benefit. However, too many motorists cannot see beyond their immediate daily need.
You could equally say that if more bus drivers pulled in correctly at stops, didn't hog half the bus lane and half the other traffic lane whilst dropping passengers behind two other vehicles, intent on getting ahead of the competition for the next stop, or drive in whichever lane they saw fit, then other drivers might just accept bus lanes. As it is the powers that be allow bus companies to have the best of both worlds.
Quote:
Phil, you did say 'across the whole North West' without restricting it to those who worked in Manchester. I'm sure that I drive in London as often as some in Carlisle drive in Manchester.
Correct, I did, but I did go on to define the area for the referendim much more tightly by detailing the travel to work areas.
As to Metrolink, the Castlefield Curve and who should operate buses, I'm very much a fan of trams/light rail. There is no reason why, with properly directed investment, the UK should not have tram systems equal to those throughout Europe and beyond as a fast method of urban transportation.
The Castlefield Curve was abandoned due to a range of problems, mainly connected with difficulties of the cost of upgrading the infrastructure compared to the economic gain, given that a number of choke points existed which could not, and probably still cannot, be overcome without a great deal of tearing down of structures (both rail and local buildings) and the installation of new overhead lines.
As to bus transport, since the 1950s I've been in favour of a Greater Manchester Transport system which started to come true in 1969, was enhanced in 1974 and was torn apart by Nicholas Ridley (Ridiculous Ridley as the bus industry came to know him) who, against the advice of his own in house team, outside consultants and local politicians throughout the country listened to the Grocer's Daughter and deregulated bus transport to the detriment of all but Stagecoach, First Bus, Arriva and Go Ahead which, between them, have mopped up the myriad operators Ridley spawned and have "regulated" the industry to their own benefit outside of the PTE areas whilst paying lip service to the small amount of regulation imposed by the PTEs.
here in Manchester we do not have the courier business to anything like the extent that London does. A fair amount of the courier business that exists is carried by taxis that are exempt. The business are of Manchester is such that it is ideal for cycle couriers.
OK, so you did have an interest in bringing business to Manchester. I don't think the same automatically applies to somebosdy working in, say, the insurance business, or anybody whose major interest in work is to do the job, draw the pay and go home.
The TIF does include many thousands of secure parking outside the charging zones, whether this is free or not is not clear yet.
Of course delayed delivers and work time lost through congestion affect drivers, hence the need to reduce congestion. I was thinking more on the environmental impact, the noise, the dirt, the hazard to pedestrians.
Many road improvements are paid for by the local authority, not by central government and therefore not by many of the people who use the facilities.
On bus lanes, there are peak time lanes where I live. Drivers tend to keep out of them when they are free to be used, and use them when they are not. The lanes are not continuous and according to many motorists are grossly under used (25 buses scheduled per hour) Strangley, when the bus lane stops, there are suddenly far too many buses causing congestion. Nobody seems to have spotted that the bus lane is stopped, and traffic moved into one lane because one lane have been turned over to car parking. It is still the buses causing congestion, not the parked cars!
Indeed bus lanes run out at junctions and it is easy to see how this causes buses to bunch.
As for buses pulling into stops. Controversy rages in Chorlton. The quality bus corridor includes one stop with a 'jetty' that projects into the road beyond the parked cars. Before this state of affairs either buses could not reach the stop for cars illegally parked on the stop or, when they could reach the stop and free the traffic lane, they would not be allowed to rejoin the traffic. With a good, none aggresive bus driver the bus was often forced to wait until the stop was needed by the next bus, often 3 or 4 minutes.
But still no comment on the question of how drivers are persuaded not to drive when they have no need to?
With respect, you probably aren't seeing half the objections to the charge that we see in M?c.
These include being charged to drive the children half a mile to school, being charged for doing the weekly shop at peak times, and many more equally trivial. Amongst those are the ones who freely admit that they could use bus or metrolink but don't want to.
Morning. Firstly, on buses I mean to return them to what they were before they were messed up by the ridiculous 1986 Transport Act. Some WERE nationalised, the Tilling Group was, Crosville was part of it, later this was merged with BET to become the National Bus Company.
The Castlefield Curve, if you want to go to the City Centre, get off at Victoria
I do not mean run 25kv through the streets. The city centre section of Metrolink would be unchanged, I mean electrify the Bury and Rochdale lines on this system which would be linked to the south Manchster by the Castlefield curve and Windsor link to Salfors Crescent, while you were at it, extend 25kv to Bolton or Prteston as well to aid through running
Trafford Centre. Sorry forgot about that, yes by all means extend the Eccles line of Metrolink to it
Yeah sorry about BTC but I've never really considered that as nationisation as with the railways.
But the big problem with Victoria is that it is away from the city centre, the cross city options were intended to address this problem.
I wish that I could forget the Trafford Centre, how is it done:-)
here in Manchester we do not have the courier business to anything like the extent that London does. A fair amount of the courier business that exists is carried by taxis that are exempt. The business are of Manchester is such that it is ideal for cycle couriers.
I used the couriers as an example from the wide range of delivery services that will be affected, that ensure all Manchester's shops, offices and manufacturing industries keep in business. All delivery vehicles will be subjected to the charge and the RHA has mounted a massive campaign for exemption on precisely the grounds I've laid out. Thus far it has received a concession that HGVs will only pay the same as cars and light vans. Its campaign continues.
As far as couriers go, Greater Manchester has a wide range of couriers, from national companies down to one man bands using everything from bikes, through light and medium vans to 7.5 tonne trucks. The use of taxis and cyclists is limited by cost and capability. I've yet to see a taxi that can economically or physically carry 800 kgs of mixed goods on a round encompassing the city centre and the outer suburbs or be able to match the price of a light/medium van delivering 80 boxes of stationery to a fifth floor as a "special". Cyclist couriers are just about limited to an envelope or single piece of artwork, motor cycle couriers to not much more.
Quote:
Many road improvements are paid for by the local authority, not by central government and therefore not by many of the people who use the facilities.
Sorry John, you are way off beam with this one. The bulk of road improvements and repairs in England are paid for by everyone, no matter where they live. This is how it works:
All major trunk routes (for example in Manchester, the motorways, the A6, A57 etc.) are totally funded by the government and the decisions are made by the Secretary of State for Transport and implemented by the Highways Agency. The total cost is covered from central government which pays the contractors through the Highways Agency.
Secondary routes, minor routes and residential streets are paid for by local councils who make the decisions on what is to be done from strategic planning to minor repairs. Where a council's plans impinge on a major trunk route the Highways Agency is, at least, consulted.
The councils pay for any work they do from their funds. Their funds are composed of 70% income from the Government Block Grant (monies generated from general taxation and the business rate) 25% council tax and 5% interest on deposit and other miscellaneous income.
Thus everyone contributes to all road schemes, regardless of their domicile.
Quote:
On bus lanes, there are peak time lanes where I live. Drivers tend to keep out of them when they are free to be used, and use them when they are not
That's a fair point. Driver education on peak hour only bus lanes has been woefully lacking. With so much "street furniture" drivers can't always take in all the visual information offered and the overriding message wherever bus lanes have been implemented is that using them at the wrong time incurs fines, so most drivers just avoid them.
I had a situation in Dublin a couple of years ago when I was stopped by the Gardai for driving in a bus lane at 10.30 at night. The lane was clearly marked as operating from 7 am to 7 pm with repeater signs every 200 yards or so and after every junction. The Garda's position was that a bus lane is for buses, period. I had to walk him to the nearest sign to have him back off. I'm well aware the same mind set exists in the UK and the bus operators have no interest in changing it - or having any restriction to keep buses in the bus lanes when they are operating.
Quote:
Nobody seems to have spotted that the bus lane is stopped, and traffic moved into one lane because one lane have been turned over to car parking. It is still the buses causing congestion, not the parked cars!
If the cars are legally parked, the problem lies with the design of the road and the decision to allow parking though it has to be said buses tend to bunch and push their way through traffic.
Quote:
Before this state of affairs either buses could not reach the stop for cars illegally parked on the stop or, when they could reach the stop and free the traffic lane, they would not be allowed to rejoin the traffic. With a good, none aggresive bus driver the bus was often forced to wait until the stop was needed by the next bus, often 3 or 4 minutes.
Again, a problem of the design of the road and use of road space. You might not be aware that many of the people who design road schemes don't drive or only drive to and from work and socially, many not even reaching 10,000 miles a year.
I remember discussions with road planners at GMC nearly 30 years ago when we looked at vehicle, particularly bus, access to a particular venue. The understanding of the term "swept circle" and the need for long, wide, vehicles to have enough space to turn corners - surely a prerequisite for road planners - was in staggeringly short supply.
There are plenty of examples of bad "band aid" thinking in road planning where solving one problem creates another. Look at the London Boroughs that are removing speed humps and replacing them with enforced 20 mph limits and chicanes on "rat runs" and many minor through routes because the planners forgot (or didn't have the driving experience to understand) that humps slow emergency vehicles, make for discomfort for midi bus passengers when used on bus routes, damage steering and suspension, can "ground" longer vehicles and are noisy for residents.
Quote:
But still no comment on the question of how drivers are persuaded not to drive when they have no need to?
I find that the phrase "when they have no need to" rather smacks of Big Brother. In a free society everyone has the right to decide for themselves when and by what means they travel and when they have the need. If the general will of the people is that travelling at certain times should be discouraged by imposition of charging or by restriction of access to certain areas, so be it but "persuading" (aka forcing) people not to drive on the basis of an "authority" deciding on the validity of the day to day or one off needs of an individual is just plain wrong in peacetime in a democracy.
Quote:
With respect, you probably aren't seeing half the objections to the charge that we see in M?c. These include being charged to drive the children half a mile to school, being charged for doing the weekly shop at peak times, and many more equally trivial. Amongst those are the ones who freely admit that they could use bus or metrolink but don't want to.
I'm very much aware of the objections. Apart from the fact that I watch Northwest Today, Northwest Tonight and the 10.35 pm Granada News most days, I read the MEN on the internet, have many relatives in Manchester with whom I speak regularly, including some with positions in the media and local government and keep my contact with a number of friends and former colleagues who are very much involved with the scheme and the referendum.
I'm in favour of culling the school run, not so much for environmental or traffic reasons but as part of the means of removing the hysterical nonsense that children are permanently under threat as soon as they are out of sight of a responsible adult. As people have to have the freedom to travel as and when they wish the method of persuasion could be that all stopping and parking within 100 yards either side of a school premises should be banned as should U turns in the same area during the hours of 08.00 to 16.30 on school days and the restrictions should be rigidly enforced. People would still have the choice and would have to pay any congestion charge but the concept of home door to school gate "secure" delivery being the only way to get Janet and John to school might just begin to be seen as the ridiculous nonsense it is.
I'd also introduce a licence category, subject to test, for all drivers of 4x4 vehicles as half the people (mostly women) who drive them on the school run have no idea of the size of their vehicle or how to park it.
Apart from people doing their weekly shopping on the way home from work (where the charge would apply to their journey anyway) anyone who wants to drive to a supermarket during the rush hour and be on the road for no other reason must be a masochist.
Those who don't want to use the bus or the Metro could well have legitimate points. My use of both means of transport in Manchester in recent years has given mixed experiences.
The trams have certainly got tatty. Lack of facilities for change - especially on the Eccles line - can cause problems and the remoteness and isolation at some stations is a cause for concern.
The buses can be packed and the standard of driving often leaves a lot to be desired. Also the behaviour of some of the passengers, even in rush periods, from the downright loutish to those who insist on imposing "ting ting ting" on all those near them from their iPods etc., would put off a good number of people. The internal cleanliness of some vehicles with old chewing gum on seats, fast food litter in the footways and graffitti on the windows, even on the newest vehicles, does not encourage reluctant commuters.
The congestion charge is meant to solve a vast range of problems by paying for the solutions AFTER the investment has been made. If it works it will be a brilliant example of innovative thinking but the plan is riddled with problems, not least of which is just how it can be implemented in such a short time scale in the current economic climate and just how the authorities will act when (not if) the time scale slips.
As far as couriers go, Greater Manchester has a wide range of couriers, from national companies down to one man bands using everything from bikes, through light and medium vans to 7.5 tonne trucks. The use of taxis and cyclists is limited by cost and capability. I've yet to see a taxi that can economically or physically carry 800 kgs of mixed goods on a round encompassing the city centre and the outer suburbs or be able to match the price of a light/medium van delivering 80 boxes of stationery to a fifth floor as a "special". Cyclist couriers are just about limited to an envelope or single piece of artwork, motor cycle couriers to not much more..
Hm, 800KG! if the vehicle stayed in Manchester for the whole day, the charge would amount to 6.25p per Kg. Of course many couriers would not catch both the inbound and out bound charge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
Sorry John, you are way off beam with this one. The bulk of road improvements and repairs in England are paid for by everyone, no matter where they live. This is how it works....
Thus everyone contributes to all road schemes, regardless of their domicile.
And of course irrespective of how or even if they use the road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
If the cars are legally parked, the problem lies with the design of the road and the decision to allow parking though it has to be said buses tend to bunch and push their way through traffic.:..
My main point being that whilst motorists see buses as congestion causing, they do not see parked cars in the same way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
Again, a problem of the design of the road and use of road space. You might not be aware that many of the people who design road schemes don't drive or only drive to and from work and socially, many not even reaching 10,000 miles a year. I remember discussions with road planners at GMC nearly 30 years ago when we looked at vehicle, particularly bus, access to a particular venue. The understanding of the term "swept circle" and the need for long, wide, vehicles to have enough space to turn corners - surely a prerequisite for road planners - was in staggeringly short supply.
I take your point but you do not really need to spend half your life driving to know how to use a set of railway curves and a compass. I've seen many a, supposedly experienced driver trying to undertake left turning artics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
I find that the phrase "when they have no need to" rather smacks of Big Brother. In a free society everyone has the right to decide for themselves when and by what means they travel and when they have the need. If the general will of the people is that travelling at certain times should be discouraged by imposition of charging or by restriction of access to certain areas, so be it but "persuading" (aka forcing) people not to drive on the basis of an "authority" deciding on the validity of the day to day or one off needs of an individual is just plain wrong in peacetime in a democracy.
There comes a point were self interest does not serve the good of society as a whole and of course your proposition only applies to motorists, if I decide to travel by plane or train, I travel at the cost dictated to me by the operator and if my chosen time is at peak times when everybody else wants to travel, I expect to pay more than I would at periods of lesser demand. Pricing is a very common way of controling demand and democratic or not, it is here to stay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
I'm in favour of culling the school run, not so much for environmental or traffic reasons but as part of the means of removing the hysterical nonsense that children are permanently under threat as soon as they are out of sight of a responsible adult.
We are entering a field where I suspect we would struggle to find a point of disagreement. By trying to protect our children we expose them to greater and greater risks whilst removing their ability to assess that risk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
I'd also introduce a licence category, subject to test, for all drivers of 4x4 vehicles as half the people (mostly women) who drive them on the school run have no idea of the size of their vehicle or how to park it..
I would go even further and restrict any driver from driving high performance cars without at least several years experience, and a retest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
Those who don't want to use the bus or the Metro could well have legitimate points. My use of both means of transport in Manchester in recent years has given mixed experiences. .
Again, we come back to those who don't read signs, though bus companies could and should invest in a few more cleaners (it isn't enough to clean at the end of the days work) passengers could will take note of signs suggesting that they don't eat, and by inference not discard unwanted food on the floor, or even the seats!
John
BTW, I have little computer access at the moment, my responses are niether as clear or considered as I would like and several points that I would like to have expanded have sunk without trace.
25/11/08, 06:38 PM
Linear Mode
