Roadworks, Particularly When No Work Is Even Being Done.

[Chekhov 488]

On 22/05/2022 at 07:42, Chekhov said:

The wasted time of motorists (and their passengers don't forget) is of minimal concern for the powers that be. When there is an accident on any motorway, once any injured are removed (or just stabilised) reopening it should be top priority. But it is not. I can remember getting in a huge M1 tail back just north of Tinsley viaduct. When we got to the front it was down to one lane, of four don't forget, so that explained it.

BUT ! There was no need for only one lane top be open. A caravan had been smashed up by a truck and its wreckage sprawled over road, I don't see how anyone could even have been injured, but if they had they'd long ago been taken to hospital. The second lane out had a small piece of ex caravan poking into its right hand side by a small amount, in fact it was so small one bloke could have moved it over (only about two feet  ! ) and the capacity of the road doubled. But whether it was excessive Health & Safety zeal or because nobody could be arsed it was inexcusable.

If 3000 vehicles with an average occupancy of 1.5 were delayed by one hour that's 4,500 hours in total, and at the national minimum wage that's £45,000, every hour...

 

22 hours ago, trastrick said:

Well, they do have to have a complete post crash survey, so they need all their resources on the scene to facilitate that. They won't move anything until that's done.

I don't buy that T. and if that is the case it's just an inflexible application of a H&S edict

I think it is unlikely anyone even got injured in that accident, and I am even more sure nobody got killed.

But even if they did why is it they cannot move anything ? Have they not ever heard of cameras ?

Quite apart from anything else the piece of debris (that was sticking about 2 feet into a the adjacent lane) must have constituted a fraction of 1% of the remains of that caravan.

To quote my signature :

 

For all Health & Safety edicts we should ask : exactly how much safer will this make us ? 

And what are we sacrificing to achieve that ?

 

So, what exactly are they gaining from leaving that piece of debris where it is ?

And what is being sacrificed to achieve that ?

 

The answer to the first question must be almost certainly very little, and the answer to the second, a very great deal : thousands of hours of wasted time.....

[trastrick 866]

3 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

To be frank, it doesn't look overly horrendous. I've seen just as bad traffic queuing along primary routes in Sheffield which has less than 10% of the population numbers.

 

I'm really not sure what your point is. All cities are prioritising pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.  They've been doing it for nearly 40 years.  I am no econmentalist  but even I know that something has to be done with our ever increasing dominance of car. It is simply not sustainable. Something has to be done and the key for all local authorities is getting the right balance, something which often fails to be met. As has been shown in our own city, it's either all too heavy one way or the other.

 

However, whilst I don't agree to every single traffic reducing measure, neither am I going to blindly accept that all Motorists are absolutely vitally dependant on their cars nor that complete freedom to do what they want is a feasible option either.

 

Directly knowing people in the the proper wilds of Canada I understand that certain areas have specific needs and will always require personal transportation. It is obvious that in places outside of big cities with vast swathes of nothing in between and temperatures reaching -15  -20, -30 degrees a car/truck is an absolute necessity.

 

However, even in the extremist of weathers you're not telling me that every single citizen in the Greater Toronto Area has a desperate and absolute need to keep hold of their cars. You are not telling me that every single element of their well integrated public transport system grinds to a halt for several months of the year with no alternatives.

I'm not "telling" you anything. Just reporting what I see.

 

A  lot of parents choose to take their kids to school, and do a load of shopping, I don't want to be the one telling them what they can and can't do. Or deciding who actually needs their car on any given day.

 

I'll leave that to the folks who are good at banning things!

 

I'll be back at my favorite tropical watering hole, with a cold beer, while they try to sort out the pro choicers and anti's on just about every social issue there is!   

 

 

Edited May 23, 2022 by trastrick

[Bargepole23 337]

7 hours ago, trastrick said:

Problem is, people can't live in a city of 6 million (GTA) without the vehicles that suppy and service the population.

 

Traffic is a necessary evil for a city.

 

But Toronto council have opted to prioratize pedestrians and cyclists.

 

That's their elected right, of course!

 

 

Toronto main thoroughfare, Yonge Street. 

 

Mid town

 

Absolutely. But of course, there's traffic in cities which is necessary, and traffic which isn't. And by providing viable alternatives in the form of better cycling and walking routes and joined up public transport, a lot of that unnecessary traffic goes away.

 

There's also antisocial driving and parking.

 

There's also many many times more facilities for car drivers than that provided for cyclists, in every city and town in the world, similarly in Toronto, so let's not pretend that prioritising cycling and walking has somehow tipped the balance in their favour.