Green Liberal Democrats

Add a Comment

Comment by Paul Luton on January 16, 2012 at 9:44am

RE MP quizzes government on lack of safeguards for cyclists.

Missing from the article is Pennings' assertion that cyclists wouldn't be on the roads controlled by his department. Pity that no-one took him up on that. Cycling along truck roads is usually not pleasant but there is often no sensible alternative. Any lengthy journey is likely to involve crossing trunk roads.

Comment by Paul Luton on September 22, 2011 at 7:58pm

Who "we" ? If you mean highway authorities, then they have been so timid that it is not surprising that effects have been limited. Give carte blanche to a planner from Copenhagen, Amsterdam or  following the Minister - Munich and we might get results.

 

I cycled to work for 35 years and found my own cover easier to arrange.

 

Comment by jonathan thomson on September 20, 2011 at 11:37am

Sorry, I was under the impression that we had tried to convince ppl down the "intergrated transport" approach , and whilst not exactly failed, we are having very slow progress. Or am I just (impatiently) getting ahead of things. As for conjestion what about the fact that the cars would be smaller therefore allowing more ppl/vehicles per X square metre? also as they would be lighter they would also reduce stop/start time. When timesing this by millions of cars, it would  (I beleive) significantly improve traffic flow and general speed.

 

 Another idea, was regarding cycle paths, why not have spaced metal hoops along them and in the winter time have purpose fitting canvas cover so ppl can cycle to work in the dry thereby improving its attractiveness. This could be self-funding with advertising on the canvas.  

Comment by Paul Luton on September 19, 2011 at 9:11pm

a propos of our discussion - Norman Baker today :

" But cars – clean or dirty – can still cause congestion, particularly in our urban areas.  And nobody wants congestion in their town. But now here’s a fact. Half of all car journeys are less than five miles in length, and nearly all car journeys to school are less than two miles. These journeys lend themselves to modal shift to cycling or walking. So an integrated approach to local transport in our towns and cities can ease the congestion, cut the carbon and help business by making our urban areas more pleasant places to be. I was in Bavaria for my holidays last month and saw town after town where there was virtually no traffic in the historic core. Yet the pavements were bustling and the shops teeming."

Comment by Paul Luton on September 19, 2011 at 4:08pm

I agree with jonathan about the desirability of small, light, low-powered electric vehicles. (perhaps provide parking spaces in cities exclusively for the use of ) Won't get me off my bike though - I need the exercise.

Comment by jonathan thomson on September 18, 2011 at 11:11pm

oops, bad ending to the last post, I wanted to say: I agree with paul when he said "provide good alternatives to car ownership (public transport, cycle friendly streets, even car clubs)"

Comment by jonathan thomson on September 18, 2011 at 11:08pm

"parking spaces are usually created at the expense of some other land use"....well, underground parking springs to mind. Already extensively used in mainland europe!

I would like to surgest that if (understandably) people want creature comforts and not be shoe-horned into a metro carriage or freeze their nuts off on a push bike in December on their way to work in the morning, what about creating the legal and physical infrustructure for a new class of vehicle. Small, light, low powered and cheap, Sort of half way between a car and a bike, think G-wiz roads/parking spaces/charge points. Ideally transforming the congestion zone into sole use by these vehicles. Is there any point in having heavy cars with empty seats sitting long traffic jams when they may actually be moving if they were all smaller.

I agree with paul about the "

Comment by Paul Luton on September 14, 2011 at 1:02pm

No - I was suggesting that planning cities in such a way as to provide good alternatives to car ownership (public transport, cycle friendly streets, even car clubs) is healthier, greener and as least as liberal as planning cities in such a way as to maximise the number of parking spaces. I hope that you accept that parking spaces are usually created at the expense of some other land use.

Comment by Simon Oliver on September 13, 2011 at 10:54pm

Seriously - you think restricting the number of parking spaces is the same as giving people the freedom not to need a car? Sorry, but I find that kind of logical contortion impossible to follow.

Comment by Paul Luton on September 13, 2011 at 9:42pm

But unfortunately space is often an issue. If we want to provide as many homes as possible in a convenient location and to provide green space maybe parking space should not be a priority. In a remote rural location a car may be a necessity, in a city it shouldn't be. Giving people the freedom not to need a car seems fully liberal   As Liberals we are too often inclined to assume that you can have all sorts of things that are incompatible - that is not subtlety that is woolliness.

Electric vehicles definitely reduce local pollution but they do nothing to reduce congestion and the discouragement of active means of travel. How far they can be considered low-carbon depends on how the electricity is generated and how much CO2 is generated in manufacturing the batteries etc.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page