View Full Version : Well done Kent Police
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7664055/Stubborn-driver-faces-100-fine-hogging-middle-lane-M20-three-miles.html
About time these inconsiderate menaces got prosecuted
I concur, middle lane hoggers are a right royal PITA.
archiesdad
08-11-2019, 17:12
Fine them, points on the license and a week in the stocks, complete idiots.
camera van operator I know reckons most speeders are in the outer lanes and tends to ignore the nearside lane when out catching speeders.
Too right - fucking cockheads! :D :upyours::upyours:
They do my box in, and shouldn't be allowed near a bloody road - fine 'em and ban 'em for life, I say... How these useless tools manage to pass their test in the first place, I've no idea. And the thick fuck didn't even realise he or she had done anything wrong? Incredible!:doh::rolleyes:
Marco.
julesd68
08-11-2019, 17:19
Wot he said ^ :)
Sadly this is only the first I have heard of anyone getting done for this!
Wot he said ^ :)
Sadly this is only the first I have heard of anyone getting done for this!
Actually happens quite a lot, most people moan about it though, so it's refreshing to read posts from people who agree.
WESTLOWER
08-11-2019, 17:30
Mildly annoying but not exactly crime of the century
From the article:
"According to a poll last year, more than four in ten (43 per cent) drivers admit to hogging the middle lane, with most committing this sin to avoid the need to overtake slower traffic such as lorries further down the road"
Lazy bastards. They need to learn that they don't own the road, or any lanes on it, and to SHIFT when it's necessary!
This is the one which gets me, though:
"More than one in five (22 per cent) said they stay in the middle lane because it makes them feel safer, while one in nine (11 per cent) who avoid the inside lane do so because they claim they drive at the maximum speed limit so no one should be overtaking them."
Firstly, if that's the case, and they're so much of a timid snowflake, then they shouldn't be on the road in the first place, especially on motorways. I'd make them "feel safer" in a prison cell! Secondly... Now those smug, arrogant fuckers [self-appointed traffic police] I 'UTTERLY DETEST"!! So, listen up:
It's got FUCK ALL to do with YOU what speed anyone else is driving at on a motorway, as long as they're not putting you (or anyone else there) in any immediate danger. It's not up to you to judge why they're driving so fast. And doing 70mph does not entitle you to hog the outside land of a motorway if the middle lane and/or inside lane is clear!!
If that's the case, and you see someone coming up behind you who, for whatever reason (could be an emergency, you don't know) is in a hurry and wants to overtake, then you *SHIFT YOUR ARSE* out of their way into either lane 2 or 1, and let them past - and YOU SIT THERE, no matter whether you're doing 70 mph or less, until you have good cause to move back out again into lane 2 or 3- END OF!
Understand what your STEERING WHEEL and MIRRORS are for - and fucking use them, ya arrogant, inconsiderate wankers!!
<Rant over>:)
Marco.
would prefer them to stop people who do this in traffic rather than on a quiet road ,when they are probably bored:)
Mildly annoying but not exactly crime of the century
Sorry, Adrian - it's a damn sight more than mildly annoying. It's their arrogant attitude, and sheer inconsiderateness, that beggars belief and makes me seethe!
Marco.
By the law of averages there must be folk on this site that do it ! . Hands up anybody :lol:. I use to see it regular though and sometimes early mornings on deserted motorways
WESTLOWER
08-11-2019, 18:01
I can see it certainly gets your goat.
It is annoying I agree, and dangerous when the road is occupied... on a totally empty road although there was no point in the knob being in the middle lane, but can’t see a huge deal personally if the road is totally empty.
I fear, The ignorance / arrogance is the bit that got him the nick!
Pigmy Pony
08-11-2019, 18:58
From the article:
"According to a poll last year, more than four in ten (43 per cent) drivers admit to hogging the middle lane, with most committing this sin to avoid the need to overtake slower traffic such as lorries further down the road"
Lazy bastards. They need to learn that they don't own the road, or any lanes on it, and to SHIFT when it's necessary!
This is the one which gets me, though:
"More than one in five (22 per cent) said they stay in the middle lane because it makes them feel safer, while one in nine (11 per cent) who avoid the inside lane do so because they claim they drive at the maximum speed limit so no one should be overtaking them."
Firstly, if that's the case, and they're so much of a timid snowflake, then they shouldn't be on the road in the first place, especially on motorways. I'd make them "feel safer" in a prison cell! Secondly... Now those smug, arrogant fuckers [self-appointed traffic police] I 'UTTERLY DETEST"!! So, listen up:
It's got FUCK ALL to do with YOU what speed anyone else is driving at on a motorway, as long as they're not putting you (or anyone else there) in any immediate danger. It's not up to you to judge why they're driving so fast. And doing 70mph does not entitle you to hog the outside land of a motorway if the middle lane and/or inside lane is clear!!
If that's the case, and you see someone coming up behind you who, for whatever reason (could be an emergency, you don't know) is in a hurry and wants to overtake, then you *SHIFT YOUR ARSE* out of their way into either lane 2 or 1, and let them past - and YOU SIT THERE, no matter whether you're doing 70 mph or less, until you have good cause to move back out again into lane 2 or 3- END OF!
Understand what your STEERING WHEEL and MIRRORS are for - and fucking use them, ya arrogant, inconsiderate wankers!!
<Rant over>:)
Marco.
Exactly. These self-important morons are reluctant to use the first lane for fear of "losing their place", and being stuck behind something slower. Their attitude seems to be that anyone going slower than them are dawdling, and any faster than them are reckless.
In my experience the French get it right (although the autoroutes are mostly 2 lane). If you are tanking along at eighty or so and a car up ahead is in the second lane, they see you and get out of the way quick sharp. That's my experience, and I'd rather drive there any day of the week. If they can get it right why can't we?
Sorry, Adrian - it's a damn sight more than mildly annoying. It's their arrogant attitude, and sheer inconsiderateness, that beggars belief and makes me seethe!
Marco.
Spot on
It's the "I'm going to to do whatever suits me" attitude, it has no place in life or the road.
Annoying, particularly when you are in the inside lane and have to go over two lanes just to get past, particularly if there are no other cars around.
I'm sometimes naughty, after getting past a middle lane hog via the 3rd outside lane and back in the inside lane, I switch my hazards on for a few seconds. That invariably gets the hog over to the inside lane. Please don't report me using my hazards! :)
I find fast undertakers far more annoying and also drivers who do not give way to traffic on their right when entering a roundabout.
Pigmy Pony
08-11-2019, 19:31
It seems a lot of folk have to have an outlet for their dickhead-ness, and because of all the speed cameras they need to find some other way to be a twat. Recently I've noticed a big increase in the number of people taking the piss with traffic lights, going through long after they've gone to red. It's got so I really have to look around me before setting off on green.
Toyota Prius taxis are the worst offenders, though German cars come a close second :(
Bad driving and inconsiderate drivers are bain of modern roads.
It used to be a form of pride that you learned to drive properly and behaved to other drivers as you would wish to be treated.
Now its just, me, me, me
dave2010
08-11-2019, 19:37
Sorry, Adrian - it's a damn sight more than mildly annoying. It's their arrogant attitude, and sheer inconsiderateness, that beggars belief and makes me seethe!
Marco.Depending on circumstances it may not bother me as much as it appears to bother you. However, on one trip not very long ago I reckon one driver stuck in the middle lane for at least 50 miles, possibly more, from somewhere round the M6 toll down to the M25. Also was not going too fast - so when we pulled off for a coffee, catching up with him was easy, but figuring out how to get round somewhat less so. Seemed a complete plonker, and maybe oblivious to other cars completely.
Pigmy Pony
08-11-2019, 19:47
Bad driving and inconsiderate drivers are bain of modern roads.
It used to be a form of pride that you learned to drive properly and behaved to other drivers as you would wish to be treated.
Now its just, me, me, me
That's because their journey is more important than anyone else's.
Pigmy Pony
08-11-2019, 19:52
I think a lot has to do with risk compensation - the safer the car, the more unsafe the driver. Manufacturers should stop dicking around with crumple zone, seat belts and airbags, and fit a steel spike to the steering wheel. I bet we'd see some better driving then :)
Annoying, particularly when you are in the inside lane and have to go over two lanes just to get past, particularly if there are no other cars around.
I'm sometimes naughty, after getting past a middle lane hog via the 3rd outside lane and back in the inside lane, I switch my hazards on for a few seconds. That invariably gets the hog over to the inside lane. Please don't report me using my hazards! :)
I find fast undertakers far more annoying and also drivers who do not give way to traffic on their right when entering a roundabout.
As long as you don't alter course or speed you can pass on the left (undertake) I can't recall the name but there is a stated case where the judge made this ruling.
If you're in Lane 2 and move to Lane 1 to pass a vehicle in Lane 2 you're committing an offence but if you're already in lane1 you can legally pass a vehicle in lane 2
Or big brother ejector seats. They'd be fun
My car can already drive itself up to a point.
In advanced mode it will follow speed of car in front. This is really for motorway work but with care can be used elsewhere. Just dont trust it on sharp bends at slower speeds like roundabouts.
It can and will pull the car back into lane if you carelessly cross it.
It can also bring car to a halt at side of road if it thinks your not able to drive.
Of course it can park itself too in either way. Horizontal ir end in..
It also tells you of anything is behind you, which is especially good when reversing in a car park etc. Saves not seeing a pedestrian in blind spot.
From the article:
"According to a poll last year, more than four in ten (43 per cent) drivers admit to hogging the middle lane, with most committing this sin to avoid the need to overtake slower traffic such as lorries further down the road"
Lazy bastards. They need to learn that they don't own the road, or any lanes on it, and to SHIFT when it's necessary!
This is the one which gets me, though:
"More than one in five (22 per cent) said they stay in the middle lane because it makes them feel safer, while one in nine (11 per cent) who avoid the inside lane do so because they claim they drive at the maximum speed limit so no one should be overtaking them."
Firstly, if that's the case, and they're so much of a timid snowflake, then they shouldn't be on the road in the first place, especially on motorways. I'd make them "feel safer" in a prison cell! Secondly... Now those smug, arrogant fuckers [self-appointed traffic police] I 'UTTERLY DETEST"!! So, listen up:
It's got FUCK ALL to do with YOU what speed anyone else is driving at on a motorway, as long as they're not putting you (or anyone else there) in any immediate danger. It's not up to you to judge why they're driving so fast. And doing 70mph does not entitle you to hog the outside land of a motorway if the middle lane and/or inside lane is clear!!
If that's the case, and you see someone coming up behind you who, for whatever reason (could be an emergency, you don't know) is in a hurry and wants to overtake, then you *SHIFT YOUR ARSE* out of their way into either lane 2 or 1, and let them past - and YOU SIT THERE, no matter whether you're doing 70 mph or less, until you have good cause to move back out again into lane 2 or 3- END OF!
Understand what your STEERING WHEEL and MIRRORS are for - and fucking use them, ya arrogant, inconsiderate wankers!!
<Rant over>:)
Marco.
Whilst I agree with everything you said you have made one glaring error regarding your comments about not owning the road.
I'm pretty sure that act of Parliament in the late 80s actually transferred ownership of (previously) public roads to the drivers of BMWs, Audis and Mercedes.
At least that's how it appears judging by how most of the arrogant twats drive
Pigmy Pony
08-11-2019, 20:09
Or big brother ejector seats. They'd be fun
Not if I was driving behind and they landed on my windscreen! My wipers wouldn't cope with that
As long as you don't alter course or speed you can pass on the left (undertake) I can't recall the name but there is a stated case where the judge made this ruling.
If you're in Lane 2 and move to Lane 1 to pass a vehicle in Lane 2 you're committing an offence but if you're already in lane1 you can legally pass a vehicle in lane 2
Oh I did not know that. I'll look it up. I thought it was when all lanes are busy and only then passing on the left is allowed, or when a car is turning right etc.
I guess I was thinking more of when all lanes are super busy and I'm in the 'fast' lane, the plonker behind me nips in front of me via the 'middle' lane just because a gap opens up in the 'middle' lane. Just to shave 0.1 second from his journey time.
Bad driving and inconsiderate drivers are bain of modern roads.
It used to be a form of pride that you learned to drive properly and behaved to other drivers as you would wish to be treated.
Now its just, me, me, me
Yup, everyone is now cocooned inside their own little bubble, fiercely 'defending their space' from 'outsiders' - that's the kind of world we've built: full of selfish, insular arseholes. Welcome to the 21st century Rat Race!:doh:
Marco.
Pigmy Pony
08-11-2019, 20:15
Whilst I agree with everything you said you have made one glaring error regarding your comments about not owning the road.
I'm pretty sure that act of Parliament in the late 80s actually transferred ownership of (previously) public roads to the drivers of BMWs, Audis and Mercedes.
At least that's how it appears judging by how most of the arrogant twats drive
Well it's that looking after number one attitude that got them into a job that can pay for such cars. Nice folk like me can only afford a Ford Transit :( And before you shout White Van Man! I'll have you know it's yellow (ex AA) :)
Whilst I agree with everything you said you have made one glaring error regarding your comments about not owning the road.
I'm pretty sure that act of Parliament in the late 80s actually transferred ownership of (previously) public roads to the drivers of BMWs, Audis and Mercedes.
At least that's how it appears judging by how most of the arrogant twats drive
:lolsign:
I'm not your typical Merc driver, though.... :trust:
Marco.
[emoji38]sign:
I'm not your typical Merc driver, though.... :trust:
Marco.Bloody Rd hog [emoji23]. BMW and audi are the worst tbh. Ignorant too.
Toyota drivers are the best lol
I think a lot has to do with risk compensation - the safer the car, the more unsafe the driver. Manufacturers should stop dicking around with crumple zone, seat belts and airbags, and fit a steel spike to the steering wheel. I bet we'd see some better driving then :)
Yeah, that's a *very* good point! Such 'mollycoddling' simply breeds selfish, careless bad drivers, as it hides their deficiencies and encourages complacency. And anyone who confesses to liking being 'high up' on the road, and drives a huge 4x4 'bus', to facilitate that, but NEVER goes off-road, and can't park the fucking thing for toffee [HELLO brainless bints on school runs:wave:]:usually comes under that category!;)
Marco.
I rather embarrassingly found out decades ago that there is no offence of overtaking someone on the nearside (undertaking), I won't embellish, but those who know me can probably join the dots :o
Central lane hogging is actually a tad more serious than just mildly annoying. Around 40% of collisions occur in the right hand 'overtaking' or 'fast' lane as some call it. By hogging the central lane you are forcing most drivers to overtake using the right hand 'fast' lane where the greater majority of collisions occur, as most people believe you can't undertake, which you can. The road may have been empty for this driver, but it's a point of habit and drivers are creatures of it. If they do it when the roads are empty, they do it when it's full as well, so they need educating that's it's not best practice, potentially hazardous and an offence. Road policing units have been encouraged to enforce this for a number of years now, that's a Home Office directive, not a police officer having a bad day and looking for tickets! Collisions occur when drivers have to change course or alter speed and if you're hogging the central carriageway unnecessarily, it's a potential consequence and any collision on a major route is enormously expensive.
Any action where you cause another driver to unnecessarily change course or alter speed is careless or inconsiderate driving and punishable - it's quite simple really. Another great example is entering a motorway or road via a slip road. Those are give way lines as you enter, so you have to give way to the traffic on the main carriageway. Barrelling down and entering at speed causing anyone to change speed or alter course to accommodate you is actually an offence as well.
If you drive in the far left lane you are nearly twice as unlikely to be involved in a collision/incident as when driving in the far right or outside lane. Additionally, if something does happen you often have an escape area to head for to your nearside, in the other two lanes you've got nowhere to go except into other traffic, especially if it's busy.
We've still got pretty safe roads though, just check out some Russian dashcam footage if you don't believe me :)
95% of time I'm in left lane. I'm not desperate for time. Just leave earlier and enjoy a relaxing drive with a good book is my advice
Pigmy Pony
08-11-2019, 22:02
95% of time I'm in left lane. I'm not desperate for time. Just leave earlier and enjoy a relaxing drive with a good book is my advice
Sounds like good advice, but I would want a book-holder mounted on the windscreen. Need my hands free for my knife and fork :)
Sounds like good advice, but I would want a book-holder mounted on the windscreen. Need my hands free for my knife and fork :)Audio book. Lol
Pigmy Pony
08-11-2019, 22:08
Great idea, now I can eat me dinner in complete safety
I let my cars sensors take some of strain. I'm all for a pleasent run now. Fast or slow, it don't matter to me.
I rather embarrassingly found out decades ago that there is no offence of overtaking someone on the nearside (undertaking), I won't embellish, but those who know me can probably join the dots :o
Central lane hogging is actually a tad more serious than just mildly annoying. Around 40% of collisions occur in the right hand 'overtaking' or 'fast' lane as some call it. By hogging the central lane you are forcing most drivers to overtake using the right hand 'fast' lane where the greater majority of collisions occur, as most people believe you can't undertake, which you can. The road may have been empty for this driver, but it's a point of habit and drivers are creatures of it. If they do it when the roads are empty, they do it when it's full as well, so they need educating that's it's not best practice, potentially hazardous and an offence. Road policing units have been encouraged to enforce this for a number of years now, that's a Home Office directive, not a police officer having a bad day and looking for tickets! Collisions occur when drivers have to change course or alter speed and if you're hogging the central carriageway unnecessarily, it's a potential consequence and any collision on a major route is enormously expensive.
Any action where you cause another driver to unnecessarily change course or alter speed is careless or inconsiderate driving and punishable - it's quite simple really. Another great example is entering a motorway or road via a slip road. Those are give way lines as you enter, so you have to give way to the traffic on the main carriageway. Barrelling down and entering at speed causing anyone to change speed or alter course to accommodate you is actually an offence as well.
If you drive in the far left lane you are nearly twice as unlikely to be involved in a collision/incident as when driving in the far right or outside lane. Additionally, if something does happen you often have an escape area to head for to your nearside, in the other two lanes you've got nowhere to go except into other traffic, especially if it's busy.
We've still got pretty safe roads though, just check out some Russian dashcam footage if you don't believe me :)
All interesting stuff, Tim, so thanks for sharing. In particular, I hadn't thought of the far left vs far right lane in that way, and you're right:)
And yes, I've watched a few YouTube videos, showing 'drivers' in Russia:eek::eek: They're bloody crazy!
Returning to what Steve (Piggurs) alluded to earlier, what they should be concentrating on more is improving the overall standards of driving, by making the test more difficult/challenging on more levels to pass, thus reducing the amount of incompetent numpties on our roads, than making cars easier to drive!!!
Cars that are designed to do everything (all your thinking and judgement) for you, simply encourage lazy, incompetent drivers - and which is one of the reasons why the standard of driving today is so poor, and getting worse, not better.
:exactly:
Marco.
Audio Al
09-11-2019, 04:54
I see this every shift it's a daily occurrence , Middle aged to older drivers think lane one is the slow lane for HGV's and the middle lane is for them to use at 45 / 50 miles per hour :rolleyes:
Pigmy Pony
09-11-2019, 08:10
I see this every shift it's a daily occurrence , Middle aged to older drivers think lane one is the slow lane for HGV's and the middle lane is for them to use at 45 / 50 miles per hour :rolleyes:
This is a problem which needs addressed - driving too slow is every bit as dangerous as driving too fast, it makes other drivers often take silly risks to get past them. These drivers (usually older folk) don't want to do their 50mph in the slow lane as they will be overtaken by the HGVs, which would scare them shitless. So they hog the middle lane, and because HGV's aren't allowed in the fast lane can cause real congestion problems.
Perhaps trucks should be fitted with those 'cow shifters' they used to have on the front of trains in the Wild West. That should do the trick :)
This is a problem which needs addressed - driving too slow is every bit as dangerous as driving too fast, it makes other drivers often take silly risks to get past them. These drivers (usually older folk) don't want to do their 50mph in the slow lane as they will be overtaken by the HGVs, which would scare them shitless
Absolutely, so that's why a re-test should be MANDATORY, for all over 65s, to prove that they're still competent enough as drivers to be on the road, and if not, then their licences are revoked, before they end up killing someone. It's as simple as that. TBH, I'd advocate doing the same for *everyone* regardless of age, after, say, 15 years of driving, as too many folk let standards slip once they've passed their test, so it's not just an old-age thing.
Quite simply though, If you're 'scared shitless' of a lorry passing you, then you shouldn't be on the road. The fact is, there are too many bloody cars on the road in the first place, and also too many incompetent assholes driving them, so it might help the planet more and also ease congestion, if we had a mass cull of all the cars driven by such assholes;)
Make it much harder to pass a driving test, so that you have to EARN THE RIGHT to own a driving licence, rather than the piss-easy joke the test is currently (plus older folks who passed much easier tests in the past should be made to prove that they're up to current standards) *and* if you don't pass within, say, 6 attempts, you forfeit the right to drive a car, as quite clearly, you're not up to the task!
Plus make it law that a maximum of two cars is allowed per household, and introduce financial incentives to encourage car sharing.
Honestly, if I were transport minister, I'd sort out the current road chaos in jig-time!:trust:
Marco.
im inclined to say its in general, not old folk causing the issues but young folk, and middleaged born again race drivers;)
dave2010
09-11-2019, 10:36
Plus make it law that a maximum of two cars is allowed per household, and introduce incentives to encourage car sharing.
Depends on the size of a household. OK - you want to force people to all live in little boxes in a city where there may be public transport, or cycling or walking are feasible. Maybe you want to stop people from having kids, or alternatively condemn parents to forever providing a taxi service.
Maybe you don't want people to live together in one house - which can be more efficient energy wise. Maybe you want to stop relatively poorer people from owning their own homes, so that they have to move into one house with their parents, or share with friends, because they can't afford to live otherwise. Maybe you want to stop some of the people living in multiple occupancy homes from using cars to go to work, as otherwise they won't get there in time, and won't get paid, and thus make their problems even worse.
I suspect you want everyone else to belong to this - http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm. :)
Firebottle
09-11-2019, 10:38
From my time of driving in France it was extremely rare to see any mid/outer lane hogging.
If the rules work over there I don't see why they shouldn't over here.
I was once on a 3 lane British motorway, very little traffic, in 'a bit of a hurry' shall we say. I was batting along in the left lane and catching up a BMW in the right (outer) lane, out there all alone doing 70.
What to do? I just stayed in the left lane and he was still there minutes later. Cock.
dave2010
09-11-2019, 10:40
What to do? I just stayed in the left lane and he was still there minutes later.Perhaps the driver thought he was in France!
mightymonoped
09-11-2019, 10:54
The fact is, there are too many bloody cars on the road in the first place, and also too many incompetent assholes driving them, so it might help the planet more and also ease congestion, if we had a mass cull of all the assholes;)
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191109/3745d71fe1336301eee91645eaff761c.jpg
[emoji23]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Funny how everyone else is a bad driver !. Law of averages again say there s gonna be a few dodgy ones on this forum. Maybe some that have posted here ! :lol:
Plus make it law that a maximum of two cars is allowed per household
And that neither of them should be diesel.
willbewill
09-11-2019, 11:49
I too hate middle lane hoggers however on a lot of motorways the nearside lane is a mess of potholes and ruts left by heavy goods vehicles which can made these lanes definitely less safe to use especially in heavy rain.
Worst lane hogging I've seen was a woman in a new Mercedes in outside lane for miles doing about 65mph, when I finally past her (in middle lane!) saw she was texting on her phone.
willbewill
09-11-2019, 12:03
Regarding older drivers I tend to agree, although you can usually identify them by their flat caps! I do have a theory though, and now I am 65 I'm putting it to the test, which is: if one continues to drive fast (not necessarily high speeds though) and also continue to do a lot of miles each year then one's reflexes etc stay sharp.
mad-moon
09-11-2019, 12:16
:lolsign:
I'm not your typical Merc driver, though.... :trust:
Marco.
:lol:
Regarding older drivers I tend to agree, although you can usually identify them by their flat caps! I do have a theory though, and now I am 65 I'm putting it to the test, which is: if one continues to drive fast (not necessarily high speeds though) and also continue to do a lot of miles each year then one's reflexes etc stay sharp.
hey i wear a flat cap sometimes:D its about keeping you mind active and then using your experience to avoid others issues. But there comes a time when, if your smart, you know when its time to hang up the keys. 65 isnt that time for majority.
willbewill
09-11-2019, 12:33
hey i wear a flat cap sometimes:D
Peaky Blinder :doh:
But there comes a time when, if your smart, you know when its time to hang up the keys. 65 isnt that time for majority.
Totally agree
Peaky Blinder :doh:
Ive never seen it. I wore caps when young too. They were out of fashion then so i wore em.. Mostly wear fedoras but a cap works well when in car. a damn site better than a baseball cap
Depends on the size of a household. OK - you want to force people to all live in little boxes in a city where there may be public transport, or cycling or walking are feasible. Maybe you want to stop people from having kids, or alternatively condemn parents to forever providing a taxi service.
Maybe you don't want people to live together in one house - which can be more efficient energy wise. Maybe you want to stop relatively poorer people from owning their own homes, so that they have to move into one house with their parents, or share with friends, because they can't afford to live otherwise. Maybe you want to stop some of the people living in multiple occupancy homes from using cars to go to work, as otherwise they won't get there in time, and won't get paid, and thus make their problems even worse.
I suspect you want everyone else to belong to this - http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm. :)
Jeez, that's a bit grim... You obviously don't know me very well!:eek:
No way would I advocate anything so extreme as the latter, or indeed any of the above. More likely the exact opposite! However just to address this:
Maybe you want to stop people from having kids, or alternatively condemn parents to forever providing a taxi service.
No, but the 'little darlings' don't need a car each either!
They can learn to share, or live on their own (if they're old enough to drive a car and pay for it), so that they're not restricted by the '2 cars per household' rule. Quite simply, the situation is beyond ridiculous now, where many of the UK's Victorian residential streets, which simply aren't designed for such levels of traffic, are barely accessible because every bugger living on them thinks that they are 'entitled' to have a car, so they all end up parked parallel to each other, outside on very narrow streets!:doh:
Therefore something drastic needs done, as it's not sustainable...
My goal would be to ensure that every major city in the UK has a proper underground system, such as in use in London, and/or a proper infrastructure for trams, plus I'd ensure that there were bus and trains services (regular and punctual), with extensive networks of such running throughout the country (including rural areas), and which people could rely on. Basically, I'd improve our public transport system as much as possible, in order to encourage folks when they're travelling, for everyday journeys at least, to leave their cars at home - or even better (if possible) not to own one in the first place.
Now of course, saying that, and PAYING for it and making it become a reality, are two very different things!:D
However, maybe if all our resident millionaires/billionaires and 'fat cats' were forced to pay proper taxes, in line with their huge earnings, and we spent a bit less on developing and housing nuclear weapons/submarines, etc, it might go some way towards helping pay for it...?;)
Marco.
need to police them too tho as a lot of folk are rightly afraid to use much of the public transport system. its a sad reflection on our society when you even have to comtemplate this but such is the way its going
:lol:
What's funny, daftee? I honestly am not; at least certainly not as they're often negatively portrayed!:)
Marco.
And that neither of them should be diesel.
Sure, I'd go with that, as diesel is not the future. My next car defo won't be a diesel, but it won't be electric either!;)
Marco.
Hanging's too good for 'em!
I agree lane discipline on European motorways is far better.
I see people here in the outside lane on the M4 who will not move over under any circumstance. Often they are not even going 70 and seem oblivious to the traffic backing up behind them. :steam:
I rather embarrassingly found out decades ago that there is no offence of overtaking someone on the nearside (undertaking), I won't embellish, but those who know me can probably join the dots :o
Central lane hogging is actually a tad more serious than just mildly annoying. Around 40% of collisions occur in the right hand 'overtaking' or 'fast' lane as some call it. By hogging the central lane you are forcing most drivers to overtake using the right hand 'fast' lane where the greater majority of collisions occur, as most people believe you can't undertake, which you can. The road may have been empty for this driver, but it's a point of habit and drivers are creatures of it. If they do it when the roads are empty, they do it when it's full as well, so they need educating that's it's not best practice, potentially hazardous and an offence. Road policing units have been encouraged to enforce this for a number of years now, that's a Home Office directive, not a police officer having a bad day and looking for tickets! Collisions occur when drivers have to change course or alter speed and if you're hogging the central carriageway unnecessarily, it's a potential consequence and any collision on a major route is enormously expensive.
Any action where you cause another driver to unnecessarily change course or alter speed is careless or inconsiderate driving and punishable - it's quite simple really. Another great example is entering a motorway or road via a slip road. Those are give way lines as you enter, so you have to give way to the traffic on the main carriageway. Barrelling down and entering at speed causing anyone to change speed or alter course to accommodate you is actually an offence as well.
If you drive in the far left lane you are nearly twice as unlikely to be involved in a collision/incident as when driving in the far right or outside lane. Additionally, if something does happen you often have an escape area to head for to your nearside, in the other two lanes you've got nowhere to go except into other traffic, especially if it's busy.
We've still got pretty safe roads though, just check out some Russian dashcam footage if you don't believe me :)
I wouldn't recommend overtaking on the left, unless in accordance with the Highway Code rule below:
Rule 268
Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.
Pigmy Pony
09-11-2019, 16:41
From my time of driving in France it was extremely rare to see any mid/outer lane hogging.
If the rules work over there I don't see why they shouldn't over here.
I was once on a 3 lane British motorway, very little traffic, in 'a bit of a hurry' shall we say. I was batting along in the left lane and catching up a BMW in the right (outer) lane, out there all alone doing 70.
What to do? I just stayed in the left lane and he was still there minutes later. Cock.
You're just copying my post and wording it in a way that people can understand! :D
I've been thinking about the France thing, why they get it right while not being as smart or as good-looking as us, and I think it may be due to our country being overcrowded. Many of (but not all of) the autoroutes have tolls, and I bet many locals would rather use the local roads than bother with the expense and hassle of the "peage". As opposed to over here, where we will use the motorway to nip just 5 miles up the road.
If we had a toll system on our motorways it would go some way to reducing the congestion there, but the A- and B-roads would be absolute chaos. Because Britain is overcrowded (did I already mention that?)
If Marco were to put himself forward as transport Minister (God help us all :ner:) I would also toss my hat into the ring. I would revoke the licence of everyone under the age of 61 whose name isn't Steve, and if that didn't do the trick I would extend it to the over 62s too :D
You're just copying my post and wording it in a way that people can understand! :D
I've been thinking about the France thing, why they get it right while not being as smart or as good-looking as us, and I think it may be due to our country being overcrowded. Many of (but not all of) the autoroutes have tolls, and I bet many locals would rather use the local roads than bother with the expense and hassle of the "peage". As opposed to over here, where we will use the motorway to nip just 5 miles up the road.
If we had a toll system on our motorways it would go some way to reducing the congestion there, but the A- and B-roads would be absolute chaos. Because Britain is overcrowded (did I already mention that?)
If Marco were to put himself forward as transport Minister (God help us all :ner:) I would also toss my hat into the ring. I would revoke the licence of everyone under the age of 61 whose name isn't Steve, and if that didn't do the trick I would extend it to the over 62s too :D
You'd end up with very sore baws;)
HI Steve,
Hanging's too good for 'em!
I agree lane discipline on European motorways is far better.
I see people here in the outside lane on the M4 who will not move over under any circumstance. Often they are not even going 70 and seem oblivious to the traffic backing up behind them. :steam:
Completely agree. In general, motorway drivers in the likes of France or Germany are better than many UK drivers. Italians, though, are just plain NUTS!:D:mental:
And those useless fuckers you're referring to who hog the outside lane, they're not *seemingly* oblivious of what's around them; they ARE oblivious, simply because they're in a hapless stupor, doing their best to mimic Mr Magoo!!:doh:
Marco.
Pigmy Pony
09-11-2019, 16:53
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191109/3745d71fe1336301eee91645eaff761c.jpg
[emoji23]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Perfect! Should be an emoji :)
I've been thinking about the France thing, why they get it right while not being as smart or as good-looking as us, and I think it may be due to our country being overcrowded. Many of (but not all of) the autoroutes have tolls, and I bet many locals would rather use the local roads than bother with the expense and hassle of the "peage". As opposed to over here, where we will use the motorway to nip just 5 miles up the road.
Absolutely true, but also to enjoy the beautiful scenery and quaint little towns en-route, rather than largely enduring miles upon miles of boring nothingness! So in terms of that last bit, speak for yourself. Where possible, I'll always use A or B roads, instead of bloody motorways.
If we had a toll system on our motorways it would go some way to reducing the congestion there, but the A- and B-roads would be absolute chaos. Because Britain is overcrowded (did I already mention that?)
Not a viable solution. We have WAY too many cars circulating around for such a small country, so the answer is to significantly reduce the amount of them on our roads, especially during rush hours.
If Marco were to put himself forward as transport Minister (God help us all :ner:) I would also toss my hat into the ring. I would revoke the licence of everyone under the age of 61 whose name isn't Steve, and if that didn't do the trick I would extend it to the over 62s too :D
Excellent idea. I'm just working out how I can combine the words "toss" and "ring" into an amusing (and suitably perverted) little ditty.
Marco.
Pigmy Pony
09-11-2019, 17:00
Regarding older drivers I tend to agree, although you can usually identify them by their flat caps! I do have a theory though, and now I am 65 I'm putting it to the test, which is: if one continues to drive fast (not necessarily high speeds though) and also continue to do a lot of miles each year then one's reflexes etc stay sharp.
You may have a point Malcolm, though the thought of our nation's trilby-wearers testing the performance limits of their Nissan Micras horrifies me a little bit :eek:
Pigmy Pony
09-11-2019, 17:07
You'd end up with very sore baws;)
Let's not kid ourselves, my transport policy would be a vote-loser, just like Marco's. Not enough Steves in Britain. I may extend the driving priviledges to include Margot Robbies of all ages. I'd still end up with sore baws, but in a good way.
Pigmy Pony
09-11-2019, 17:28
Absolutely true, but also to enjoy the beautiful scenery and quaint little towns en-route, rather than largely miles upon miles of boring nothingness! So in terms of that last bit, speak for yourself. Where possible, I'll always use A or B roads, instead of bloody motorways.
Not a viable solution. We have WAY too many cars for such a small country, so the answer is to significantly reduce the amount of cars on our roads, especially during rush hours.
Excellent idea. I'm just working out how I can combine the words "toss" and "ring" into an amusing (and suitably perverted) little ditty.
Marco.
Re. the first paragraph: I'm speaking for not just myself, but pretty much everyone who has more than a handful of miles to cover, out of necessity rather than for pleasure. In this respect you are the exception, not the rule. If it were any different we probably wouldn't have this thread!
Second paragraph: completely agree. And when I say the country is overcrowded I don't mean people, but car owners. We're moving towards a point where everyone will have their own personal communication device (nearly there), and transportation device. I'm sure there are plenty of folk whose jobs could be done without having to leave the house and this should be encouraged.
Better public transport, made more affordable and desirable would be nice, but no UK government will ever go for that one - they would rather make current practice as unpleasant as possible (and make a bit of money) than make alternatives attractive (costing money).
Re. the first paragraph: I'm speaking for not just myself, but pretty much everyone who has more than a handful of miles to cover, out of necessity rather than for pleasure. In this respect you are the exception, not the rule.
Ok, then be more specific, daftee, and don't just assume that everyone here shares your mentality. The secret though is not always to be running around like a blue-arsed fly [the bane of modern-day life], and so have time sometimes to choose alternative routes, which are more pleasurable and rewarding.
I still managed that sometimes when I was working, and out in the car all day on customer appointments... Time management is the key;)
Also, what about working folks on their days off, when they want to relax while driving somewhere - would they ALL still want to use motorways? Not in my experience!
Second paragraph: completely agree. And when I say the country is overcrowded I don't mean people, but car owners. We're moving towards a point where everyone will have their own personal communication device (nearly there), and transportation device. I'm sure there are plenty of folk whose jobs could be done without having to leave the house and this should be encouraged.
Absolutely, and that should be easier now than ever with the current technology available. Trouble is, that wouldn't stop some folk from still selfishly wanting to own their own transport, even if they didn't *really* need it [read as could easily get by using public transport or sharing the car of a friend or family member, to do any travelling that was necessary].
Better public transport, made more affordable and desirable would be nice, but no UK government will ever go for that one - they would rather make current practice as unpleasant as possible (and make a bit of money) than make alternatives attractive (costing money).
Sure, but that doesn't make it right or devalue what I was proposing. One of the worst things we ever did in this country (and which happened before my time) was getting rid of trams! Look at how well cities such as Amsterdam are thriving with them... That could be Manchester, Birmingham or Glasgow - if the 'powers that be' *really* wanted it to happen!:)
Marco.
. That could be Manchester, Birmingham or Glasgow - if the 'powers that be' really wanted it to happen!:)
Marco.
Manchester has trams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Metrolink
So does Edinburgh. Cost a fortune to put in. Should never have taken them out of the cities. Used to use Aberdeen trams
Manchester has trams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Metrolink
Ah, didn't know. Ok, then you could substitute Manchester with some other tram-less major UK city. You get my point!:)
Marco.
Croydon has trams also. I m waiting for the trolley bus to come back, remember them in London back in the day. Run on electric wires above one s head , Sweet.
Yeah, my dad told me about those... Sounds cool, and I'd be all for their reintroduction!:)
Marco.
Yeah, my dad told me about those... Sounds cool, and I'd be all for their reintroduction!:)
Marco.
Although the London buses are a bit better now over the years we ve had to endure hideous fumes being pumped out.... AARGH
I wouldn't recommend overtaking on the left
I agree, but I think you've misunderstood. Nowhere in my post was I recommending people overtake on the left, just saying that it's not a specific offence and can be done (unless the laws been changed recently?). Many people think it's illegal full stop (probably due to the Highway Code), it isn't. But a driver hogging the central lane unnecessarily is potentially forcing faster drivers to pass them, either by using the far right (3), or nearside lanes (1). Both of which are not as safe as the inconsiderate driver taking up a position in lane 1, leaving lanes 2 and 3 free. Most drivers will pass to the right, as per the Highway Code and is pretty much what we all do in the UK.
However, many drivers are very nervous of moving into lane 3 to overtake, which actually might be more hazardous for them than using lane 1. It's not normally a good idea as many drivers won't expect it, or be looking for it if they choose to suddenly change lane whilst you are completing the manoeuvre. But there are times it may actually be safer.
Don't forget the Highway Code is just that, a code and not a legal document. Some rules are legally backed up when the words 'must' or 'must not' are used, only the Road Traffic Acts are law. So no, I'm not recommending it, but for some drivers it could in some circumstances be the safer option. Of course if you collide, then it's not going to look good as you have, as rightly pointed out, not acted in accordance with rule 268. So you could be the one prosecuted for careless or inconsiderate driving.
It's all moot anyway, we just need the arseholes hogging the middle to drive more considerately, then it's not an issue and if they don't, skin em' alive (or take them to court!).
Simples :D
dave2010
10-11-2019, 00:02
Quite simply, the situation is beyond ridiculous now, where many of the UK's Victorian residential streets, which simply aren't designed for such levels of traffic, are barely accessible because every bugger living on them thinks that they are 'entitled' to have a car, so they all end up parked parallel to each other, outside on the street!:doh:
Not only Victorian streets. There's one road in Shepperton, where just about every house has had the garden taken out, a couple of cars on the front, and the pavement on both sides pretty much all along is taken up with cars, some on the pavement, some half on-half off. Driving down the middle is just about possible - but three point turns a complete no-no. That is insane.
That is an extreme example, but I'm sure there are others.
dave2010
10-11-2019, 00:12
One of the worst things we ever did in this country (and which happened before my time) was getting rid of trams! Look at how well cities such as Amsterdam are thriving with them... That could be Manchester, Birmingham or Glasgow - if the 'powers that be' *really* wanted it to happen!:).I remember putting (old) pennies on tram tracks to see them get squashed when the trams ran over them.
mad-moon
10-11-2019, 00:47
What's funny, daftee? I honestly am not; at least certainly not as they're often negatively portrayed!:)
Marco.
You're funny, daftee....I'll believe you...millions wouldn't
But a driver hogging the central lane unnecessarily is potentially forcing faster drivers to pass them, either by using the far right (3), or nearside lanes (1). Both of which are not as safe as the inconsiderate driver taking up a position in lane 1, leaving lanes 2 and 3 free.
Am I reading that correctly? Shouldn't it be considerate, rather than inconsiderate driver?:scratch:
I suspect I'm misinterpreting what you're trying to say, but lane 1 is precisely where you should be, *if* the motorway is otherwise empty, and there is no-one to overtake, or you're travelling at the same speed as other lane 1 users.
Marco.
The problem with cars is that people want contradictory things. They want a car, preferably their own car rather than a shared vehicle, so they can travel when and where they want, without being tied to timetables and bus/train routes. They also want to be able to park at or near their own property. However, they also want fewer cars on the road, less pollution, and less crowded roads.
The obsession with car ownership led to the insane schemes of the 60s and 70s where perfectly sound housing (which in many cases had survived the Blitz) was torn down to make way for flyovers, ring roads, urban expressways and the like. Then, in the 80s and 90s, out-of-town shopping malls became 'the thing', increasing people's dependency on the car, especially as public transport was privatised and less-profitable routes were axed. Because public transport had become mostly for those too poor or too young or too old to drive, there was little effective resistance to this.
But, of course, everyone, though perhaps recognising the problems arising from mass car ownership, is resistant to changing their own pattern of behaviour because they enjoy the freedom of choice of when and where to travel that owning one's own car enables.
Not only Victorian streets. There's one road in Shepperton, where just about every house has had the garden taken out, a couple of cars on the front, and the pavement on both sides pretty much all along is taken up with cars, some on the pavement, some half on-half off. Driving down the middle is just about possible - but three point turns a complete no-no. That is insane.
Well, there you go... That situation is completely unsustainable, so something drastic has to be done, as it's only going to get worse! Therefore, my proposal of introducing a law restricting households to a maximum of two cars each would go some way towards addressing the problem.
People need to start looking at the bigger picture, and the knock-on effect that their actions are having upon the environment that they're living in, rather than just selfishly protecting their own interests!
Marco.
Well, there you go! That situation is completely unsustainable, so something drastic has to be done to address it, as it's only going to get worse, and so my proposal of introducing a law restricting households to a maximum of two cars each would go some way to addressing the problem..
Restricting them to one car each would go even further!
The problem with cars is that people want contradictory things. They want a car, preferably their own car rather than a shared vehicle, so they can travel when and where they want, without being tied to timetables and bus/train routes. They also want to be able to park at or near their own property.
And, aside from increasing your carbon footprint accordingly, that's fine *PROVIDING* the property you live in and the surrounding road infrastructure, can safely accommodate it, but otherwise no. We could park 10 cars on our grounds and harm/inconvenience no-one, as we have the space, but simply no desire to own 10 cars.
Currently, we effectively have one, as Del's has Sorned her old A-Class Merc, prior to it being bought by someone (likely a friend from work), so we're car sharing until she gets her new one next year. And if we lived in the likes of London, it's unlikely either of us would own a car, *unless* the property we lived had its own private parking facility, preferably off-road.
If not, we'd simply use the tube or train, and hire a car if we wanted to drive somewhere far (say up to Scotland to visit my family, or go abroad). *That* is the kind of mentality folks need to adopt, and consider where they live first, the practicality of owning a car and its impact on the local environment (if the roads are already overcrowded), before buying one - not just thinking 'I want a car, and fuck the consequences for everyone else'...:doh:
Marco.
Restricting them to one car each would go even further!
The little Darlings won't like that. They pile up the narrow streets in Hampstead with there obligatory Fulham farmer vehicles and then 1 little scrawny kid
gets out the back on arrival at the school :lol:. Sometimes I see heated arguments resulting because 2 cars have met head to head in a side street. Hilarious !
And they say entertainment is dead.
Restricting them to one car each would go even further!
Indeed, but I think that would be a little unfair in certain circumstances. Athough, it could be 'need tested'... However, I think we'd have to start with stopping folk having 5 and 6 cars per household, simply because mum and dad (and every eligible child) think that they need a car each, which is not only ridiculous, but unsustainable.
Sort that out first, then we can move onto the next stage.
Marco.
Restricting them to one car each would go even further!
Alas no party would run with that. sure way to be unelected:lol: and all parties would never agree to agree, even if they agreed.
The little Darlings won't like that. They pile up the narrow streets in Hampstead with there obligatory Fulham farmer vehicles and then 1 little scrawny kid
gets out the back on arrival at the school :lol:. Sometimes I see heated arguments resulting because 2 cars have met head to head in a side street. Hilarious !
And they say entertainment is dead.
Funny though it may be, that shit is a big part of the problem, but relatively easily solved.
You simply either introduce a law that forces car-sharing, so that pupils who live within, say, a two-mile radius of the school in question, are driven there by a set number of cars belonging to parents living in that area. You could get at least 4 kids, plus a driver, in most cars. Either that, or the government introduces suitable financial incentives (say discounted road tax) for anyone who adopts the proposed car-sharing scheme.
Or if the little darlings live near enough to the school in question, make them walk! Just like many of us used to do back in the day, with most of us surviving the experience, despite the fact that there were as many paedophiles around then, as there are now, just not as well publicised;) Plus, it would help tackle the current epidemic of childhood obesity, as too many kids today don't get anywhere near enough exercise.
If that were done, however, for safety reasons kids would walk to school in groups, accompanied either by a school teaching assistant, should any live near the school in question, and/or another responsible adult or adults, perhaps parents of some of the kids in question, living in the area, should they be free to do so.
Personally, I'd go for option 2, running alongside option 3 - the combination of which would no doubt go some way to addressing the problem you've described... All it takes is applying some common sense and showing a willingness to compromise and be less selfish. The fact is, living in your own private little 'bubble', cocooning your kids inside such and mollycoddling them, is simply no longer sustainable and also counterproductive.
Wouldn't the world be a better place, and much nicer to live in, if people were more courteous and considerate towards others?:)
Marco.
walpurgis
10-11-2019, 09:53
Restricting them to one car each would go even further!
I had seven cars parked outside at one time. :)
ive only one and its parked off the rd in driveway at all times. but i have neighbours further dow street that have 4 or 5 cars outside one house. its a farce with pavements blocked and cars on corners.. police aint interested
I had seven cars parked outside at one time. :)
Presumably you had the space to house them all, so that they weren't inconveniencing others?
Marco.
ive only one and its parked off the rd in driveway at all times. but i have neighbours further dow street that have 4 or 5 cars outside one house. its a farce with pavements blocked and cars on corners.. police aint interested
Well, they should be! As it's all an accident waiting to happen, some of which are likely to be fatal...
Marco.
I had seven cars parked outside at one time. :)
A bloke down the road from us has about that many, including a Rolls Royce, a Bentley, a Jag, two Mercedes and a Range Rover. There's some more round the back of his house, but they're not visible from the road. Occasionally he drives one of them around; last week it was the Rolls. He looks a right scruff and his house is in a terrible state.
Sounds like a typical, eccentric 'old money' type;)
Fairly large, old house, I presume?
Marco.
Restricting them to one car each would go even further!
Excellent idea, I wouldn't be able to go to work then as my wife earns more than me.
I could use public transport but when I finish at 3pm on a Sunday I wouldn't get home until 7.30am on Monday by which time I'd be late for work
Sounds like a typical, eccentric 'old money' type;)
Fairly large, old house, I presume?
Marco.
I don't know the bloke; he's my age and lives by himself. House is fairly large; I'd guess seven bedrooms; late Victorian or Edwardian. Given the location, it'd probably sell for £1.5 million if in good nick, but probably needs tens of thousands spent on it.
No worries... That's pretty much how I'd pictured it;)
I know a few folk exactly like him, with the same type of houses. They're generally asset rich, but cash poor: 'old money' types. I much prefer them to the rather vulgar nouveau riche.
Marco.
dave2010
10-11-2019, 19:17
Well, there you go... That situation is completely unsustainable, so something drastic has to be done, as it's only going to get worse! Therefore, my proposal of introducing a law restricting households to a maximum of two cars each would go some way towards addressing the problem.
People need to start looking at the bigger picture, and the knock-on effect that their actions are having upon the environment that they're living in, rather than just selfishly protecting their own interests!
I agree things aren't good, but your "solutions" won't work, unless you want to impose an absolute dictatorship - perhaps you do! Having two cars in a household with two people is probably OK - as otherwise each individual won't be able to act independently. Of course if there's good public transport, or some accessible public transport nearby, then one car per household can work. In rural areas it doesn't, and if one car fails the outcome can seem catastrophic.
If households have more than two people, are you seriously going to restrict those who can drive - and possibly go out to work - from having their own vehicle? If it's based on households, the more well off people will simply go and buy or rent additional homes in order to increase their allowance of cars, but for the relatively poor people in our society, they won't have that as an option.
You could have another constraint on the number of houses people are allowed to own - though there is effectively such a rule already - based on economics. That might also have unexpected side effects.
In India recently there has been an imposed rule on the use of cars - only cars with odd/even numbers are allowed to drive on some days of the week. Again, richer people can get round that one.
I agree about looking at the bigger picture, but many people won't - or will be all too willing to impose rules on other people, but not on themselves. Sometimes the consequences in the "bigger picture" aren't always what you might at first expect.
I agree things aren't good, but your "solutions" won't work, unless you want to impose an absolute dictatorship - perhaps you do!
Nope - it's simply a suggestion, which I disagree *could* work, if implemented alongside my other suggestion, which you appear to have missed, of significantly improving and extending the public transport network, including that found in rural areas.
Despite what you think, with a little effort and adjustment, it's perfectly possible to function without a car *IF* someone else you're living with has one they're willing to share, and/or you have access to decent public transport (see my post about introducing trams, underground systems and such into every major UK city).
Aside from that, you're not seriously suggesting that with living in London, as you do, it's not possible to survive without a car? Come on...
You can independently walk, cycle, use buses, trains, not forgetting a superb underground system, so it's just sheer unacceptable laziness and stubbornness refusing to function without a car, when you live in somewhere like London!
If households have more than two people, are you seriously going to restrict those who can drive - and possibly go out to work - from having their own vehicle?
Yes, see above. My wife worked in London for years and got to work quite happily without a car [via a combination of walking and using the tube], not to mention visiting her parents in North Wales, via train, every weekend, then back to London on Sunday nights, to start work again on the Monday. You just have to alter your mindset, make a little more effort, and not expect everything to be laid out on a plate!
I agree about looking at the bigger picture, but many people won't - or will be all too willing to impose rules on other people, but not on themselves. Sometimes the consequences in the "bigger picture" aren't always what you might at first expect.
They will be if they're forced to via law, or encouraged to do so, via the financial incentives I outlined earlier. If I were still working, and lived in London, I'd have no qualms whatsoever about imposing those rules on myself, so others can do the same.
Otherwise, what would you suggest we do to address the completely unsustainable gross overcrowding, and associated traffic chaos, on the streets of our cities? *Something* has to give, as we simply can't go on the way things are!
Marco.
I'm feeling particularly pleased with myself
I've started a thread that has actually pushed the tedious two and three words daily threads down the list.
Whoop whoop
Lol - you're lucky it tackles one of my pet hates!;)
Marco.
Guys you are looking at this the wrong way, the bigger picture is different IMO. We shouldn't be thinking of restricting the numbers of cars, cars themselves aren't the problem . . . we are. We should be restricting the number of babies, as ultimately that's the real problem, over-population.
The biggest threat to the continued existence of the human race is us. We are not sustainable, not the planet, the planet would do very nicely without us thank-you, in fact it would thrive. A rather drastic solution? . . . absolutely . . . and in reality it's never going to happen, unless nature or disease culls us. But that's the only real answer, less people.
I'll get my coat . . . .
:sofa:
Indeed, humans, especially in areas of globe where surviving is difficult are having continued population explosions, partly due to better medicines etc but still a shortage of food and water.
Countries like UK requires immigration to keep population at a stable size and age. We here breed less but live too long in general.
It's quite complex and no simple idea will fix it
But that's the only real answer, less people.
I'll get my coat . . . .
:sofa:
I should think so, too. Less people indeed. Fewer people, surely? Anyway, I've added two, won't be adding more, so fair play to me.
Guys you are looking at this the wrong way, the bigger picture is different IMO. We shouldn't be thinking of restricting the numbers of cars, cars themselves aren't the problem . . . we are. We should be restricting the number of babies, as ultimately that's the real problem, over-population.
The biggest threat to the continued existence of the human race is us. We are not sustainable, not the planet, the planet would do very nicely without us thank-you, in fact it would thrive. A rather drastic solution? . . . absolutely . . . and in reality it's never going to happen, unless nature or disease culls us. But that's the only real answer, less people.
I'll get my coat . . . .
:sofa:
You forgot to answer post 80, daftee!;)
Aside from that, I sympathise with what you've just written. Consider this, however: how do we improve the quality of the gene pool, not simply reduce the human population, as it often seems that the biggest idiots/knuckle-draggers have the most kids? Why is that?:hmm:
They seem to think that popping out sprogs is their only purpose in life... If they showed a little more 'imagination', things could be different!
<Discuss>
Marco.
P.S I'll join you behind that sofa!:D
You forgot to answer post 80, daftee!;)
Aside from that, I sympathise with what you've just written. Consider this, however: how do we improve the quality of the gene pool, not simply reduce the human population, as it often seems that the biggest idiots/knuckle-draggers have the most kids? Why is that?:hmm:
They seem to think that popping out sprogs is their only purpose in life... If they showed a little more 'imagination' things could be different!
<Discuss>
Marco.
P.S I'll join you behind that sofa!:D
That'll be because they get financially rewarded for it, more kids equals more benefits.
That'll be because they get financially rewarded for it, more kids equals more benefits.
The cost of raising children far exceeds the amount of benefits each additional child attracts, so they're not being rewarded in net financial terms. It's basically an educational 'thing'; in developed countries, on average, the more educated people are, the fewer children they are likely to have, and the longer they delay before starting families. Over time, such countries may then face the problems arising from an ageing population with too few younger people to support it. In poorer countries, more children equal more wealth, because they are put to work at a very early age (as they were in this country until the late 19th century).
As for 'improving the gene pool', that's impossible to do, because it's unknowable how the combination of any two sets of genes will work out. The Hapsburg royal family refused to marry anyone they considered inferior, with terrible problems resulting from inter-breeding. Mix-and-match is best; mongrels are usually healthier than thoroughbreds.
you get £13.70 for each additional kid after first. if you can bring a kid up on that and also live the fat life, good on you;)
So if it's not for financial reward, why the obsession with popping out sprogs in large numbers, in our supposedly 'developed' country? I'm tempted to say, as per the proposed cars-per-houshold rule, 'two is plenty'...;)
Marco.
So if it's not for financial reward, why the obsession with popping out sprogs in large numbers, in our supposedly 'developed' country? I'm tempted to say, as per the proposed cars-per-houshold rule, 'two is plenty'...;)
Marco.
You'll be pleased to hear that your target has already been well met:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42110846
Contrary to populist belief, the number of children per family in the UK has been steadily declining for decades now - and the number of single person households significantly increasing.
Households with more than two children form a significant minority by a long chalk:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/families/bulletins/familiesandhouseholds/2017
One of the reasons why we are so dependent on immigrant labour to fulfil our economic needs
....or because we're too choosy or lazy [would rather claim benefits than work] to do the menial, low-paid jobs, immigrants are only too happy to take?;)
Marco.
walpurgis
11-11-2019, 10:24
One of the reasons why we are so dependent on immigrant labour to fulfil our economic needs
Nothing to do with it being an attractively cheap (labour) option then? Or skinflint employers and government unwillingness to spend on training British people for the roles?
walpurgis
11-11-2019, 10:30
Come the revolution! :guns:
Damn straight, dude. Shall I lead the troops or you?:eyebrows:
Marco.
walpurgis
11-11-2019, 10:58
Damn straight, dude. Shall I lead the troops or you?:eyebrows:
Marco.
Won't need troops, just assassin drones and killer 'bots. :)
:lolsign:
Yeah, what more constructive way to utilise today's technology!
Marco.
This is, of course, not a new problem. Bernard Mandeville wrote in 1723:
'Those who spent a great part of their Youth in Learning to Read, Write and Cypher, expect, and not unjustly, to be employ’d where those Qualifications may be of use to them; the generality […] will look down upon downright Labour with the utmost contempt.'
So, we want people to be educated, because we don't want an ignorant populace. But if we educate them 'too much', who will empty the bins? There are, as ever, no easy answers, and any attempts to 'police' breeding (as well as being a bad idea anyway) would be doomed to failure without a dictatorial form of government and a massive network of informers.
This is, of course, not a new problem. Bernard Mandeville wrote in 1723:
'Those who spent a great part of their Youth in Learning to Read, Write and Cypher, expect, and not unjustly, to be employ’d where those Qualifications may be of use to them; the generality […] will look down upon downright Labour with the utmost contempt.'
Yes, but that's just arrogant snobbery. No-one should look down upon anyone with the utmost contempt. It's attitudes like that which are fundamentally responsible for creating the abhorrent class divisions that exist, not only here in the UK, but worldwide.
So, we want people to be educated, because we don't want an ignorant populace. But if we educate them 'too much', who will empty the bins?
I guess anyone who needs the money to put a roof over their head and feed themselves (and/or their family), and who isn't too 'proud' or snooty to take whatever work is available, and which facilitates the former, no matter how "well educated" they are. Simples...
You roll your sleeves up and do whatever is necessary to survive, if no 'better' jobs are available, rather than sit on your arse, claiming benefits, because you consider yourself as 'too good' to empty bins! *That* is what many of our immigrants do.
'Entitlement syndrome' is as alive and kicking today, it seems, as it was in 1723;)
Marco.
....or because we're too choosy or lazy [would rather claim benefits than work] to do the menial, low-paid jobs, immigrants are only too happy to take?;)
I did say 'one of the reasons' Marco ;)
As to the 'benefits' argument ... that is largely redundant (as has been pointed out)
That 'Land of Milk and Honey' delusion was shattered yonks ago.
Yes, but that's just arrogant snobbery. No-one should look down upon anyone with the utmost contempt. It's attitudes like that which are fundamentally responsible for the abhorrent class divisions that exist, not only in the UK, but worldwide.
I guess anyone who needs the money to put a roof over their heads and feed themselves (and/or their family), and who isn't too 'proud' or snooty to take whatever work is available, and which facilitates the former, no matter how "well educated" they are. Simples...
You roll your sleeves up and do whatever is necessary to survive, if no 'better' jobs are available, rather than sit on your arse, claiming benefits, because you consider yourself as 'too good' to empty bins! *That* is what many of our immigrants do.
'Entitlement syndrome' is as alive and kicking today, it seems, as it was in 1723;)
Marco.
I was a qualified engineer but it didnt stop me labouring etc to earn a crust. Pride in oneself is more important.. alas now i cant do bugger all, so maybe all the lazy gits were right..:doh:
You roll your sleeves up and do whatever is necessary to survive, if no 'better' jobs are available, rather than sit on your arse, claiming benefits, because you consider yourself as 'too good' to empty bins! *That* is what many of our immigrants do.
All very well in some urban situations - doesn't deal with the chronic labour shortages in agriculture (for instance) where a lack of affordable housing in rural communities mean that families simply can't afford to live there, even if they both have jobs. Compounded of course by the very seasonal nature of that kind of employment which gives rise to high levels of income insecurity that make bringing up a family very difficult.
A lot of the villages around where I grew up are now like ghost towns ... stuffed with holiday rentals and over-priced retirement homes. Schools have been long shut down and shops are twee souvenir hovels.
I did say 'one of the reasons' Marco ;)
As to the 'benefits' argument ... that is largely redundant (as has been pointed out)
That 'Land of Milk and Honey' delusion was shattered yonks ago.
Yup, I was simply providing another:)
Thing is, it's not just cash payment benefits that serial 'sprog popper-outers' get is it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the perks of such, preferential treatment, in terms of council house allocation, so in effect they are given a 'free home' in which to house their 'collection of mongrels'?)
Goodness knows what else they get too, in terms of similar perks (as I'm not party to such information), as reward for successfully performing a biological function.
Marco.
I've managed to get by on a combination of intelligence, charm and a winning smile, leaving the hard work for those who enjoy that sort of thing.
Yup, I was simply providing another:)
Thing is, it's not just cash payment benefits that serial 'sprog popper-outers' get is it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the perks of such, preferential treatment, in terms of council house allocation, so in effect they are given 'free home' in which to house their collection of 'mongrels'?;)
There's precious few council houses available these days. Many families end up in insecure B&B accommodation. It's not a way of life I'd envy. But, as I've said, education is the key.
I was a qualified engineer but it didnt stop me labouring etc to earn a crust. Pride in oneself is more important.. alas now i cant do bugger all, so maybe all the lazy gits were right..:doh:
Exactly, mate. You do what you have to do, and practice a strong work ethic! If I had kids and a wife to support, I'd clean toilets if I had to, despite being too 'well educated'...
Kids these days also have no real concept of what it takes to make your way in the world. Del had a project she set her students, part of which was for them to outline what sort of income they'd expect to earn when they left college, based on the lifestyle that they wanted, and you should've seen some of the answers....:doh:
Most said they 'wouldn't get out of bed' for less than £30k a year (despite having achieved very little qualifications and having zero work experience), and they wanted a nice car and a house, massive flat-screen TV and two holidays a year.... Cloud-cuckoo land.
And you can bet your boots that they''ll continue with that misguided attitude when they get to the job centre, and turn down work that they think doesn't pay them what they 'deserve'!
Marco.
I've managed to get by on a combination of intelligence, charm and a winning smile, leaving the hard work for those who enjoy that sort of thing.
Very good!:D
Marco.
There's precious few council houses available these days.
That's not my understanding of the situation, but I could well be wrong. I guess it also depends where you live. In the major cities, the situation is liable to be worse than out with of that.
Marco.
Exactly, mate. You do what you have to do, and practice a strong work ethic! If I had kids and a wife to support, I'd clean toilets if I had to, despite being too 'well educated'...
Kids these days also have no real concept of what it takes to make your way in the world. Del had a project she set her students, part of which was for them to outline what sort of income they'd expect to earn when they left college, based on the lifestyle that they wanted, and you should've seen some of the answers....:doh:
Most said they 'wouldn't get out of bed' for less than £30k a year (despite having achieved very little qualifications and having zero work experience), and they wanted a nice car and a house, massive flat-screen TV and two holidays a year.... Cloud-cuckoo land. And you can bet your boots that they''ll continue with that misguided attitude when they get to the job centre, and turn down work that they think doesn't pay them what they 'deserve'!
Marco.
they will learn you cant turn down work persay just willy nilly, or your benefits will be stopped..but there are other ways, im sure many will learn.
As to labouring etc, nowt wrong with it and you often meet a better"class" of people too who will be more inclined to help than hinder too. Ive woke up unable to get out of bed many a time due to overhard work but you get out somehow and at least turn up and try again..
That's not my understanding of the situation, but I could well be wrong. I guess it also depends where you live. In the major cities, the situation is liable to be worse than out with of that.
Marco.
Thatcher sold off a huge amount, and few new council houses have been built since. Detailed info is here:
https://fullfact.org/economy/whats-happening-rented-social-housing-england/
But, briefly, the number of council-owned properties fell from 5 million in 1976 to 1.5 million in 2016, and as a percentage of all housing fell from about 35% to about 15% over the same period.
Fair enough, but it would be interesting to know *exactly* what perks/financial support parents get now with, say, five kids or more, when both aren't working?
I'd like to see a list of such from someone who knows, as I don't believe that it's not somehow 'financially advantageous' [pays more, or as much as working, doing jobs that are undesired], or that the system can't be milked in some other way, if enough 'little darlings' are spawned, as I know of folk like that living near me, none of whom are working, yet appear to enjoy a pretty comfortable life!
Perhaps I should ask them?:D
Marco.
Maybe you should. Better than just speculating.
I was hoping someone here would know!;)
Marco.
well if on a low income apart from child benefit you get rent rebate or better.. same with rates/comunity charge. But you get those without sprogs so the kids are of no benefit. I dare say your "dole money" will be higher too although I dont know .. never asked for it
archiesdad
17-11-2019, 15:34
Ok, one solution to many problems, middle lane hoggers-
Stop the car and execute the occupants,
This removes a middle lane car,
This lowers the population,
This might educate others,
People might pay to be able to carry this out and so the treasury coffers might benefit.
This thread ha grown beyond any expectations.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.