Southampton's traffic among the slowest in the country - but Winchester motors along just fine

Daily Echo: Traffic in Southampton earlier this year Traffic in Southampton earlier this year

MOTORISTS in Southampton are being driven mad by some of the slowest traffic queues in the country.

Roadworks, red lights and thousands of passengers disembarking from cruise ships combine to create daily misery for people behind the wheel.

Now the city has been exposed in a study by insurance firm Direct Line which has named and shamed the nation’s top ten most gridlocked cities.

Meanwhile, neighbouring Winchester was named as one of the most stress-free cities for a journey to work in a car.

The survey reveals Southampton’s traffic moves just 2mph faster in peak times than in the heart of London – where vehicles move at just 10mph.

It is further humiliation for transport chiefs who last year launched a raft of measures to tackle roads chaos when the city twice ground to a halt in a perfect storm of major roadworks and multiple cruise ships in port.

But transport groups have dismissed the figures, claiming a host of jambusting projects are improving the city’s roads.

The research found that drivers in Southampton crawl along at an average of 12.64mph during rush hour, making it the tenth slowest out of 49 cities studied.

It is almost half the speed of traffic in Winchester where motorists cruise along at 19.99mph.

Thursday has been highlighted as the worst day on Southampton roads, while Friday is the worst to travel into Winchester.

The figures were measured by Direct Line’s Drive Plus telematics system enabling people to track their journeys by calculating speeds and locations to try to slash times and save fuel.

They draw on three billion speed and location observations in 20 million miles of data logged by motorists between December last year and April 2012.

Last night Southampton City Council refused to comment on the survey.

But Nick Farthing, area manager for green transport charity Sustrans, stressed that infrastructure work such as the Platform to Prosperity in Platform Road and improvements to Central Bridge will greatly improve the city’s traffic flow.

He also said initiatives they are running with the council such as ‘My Journey’ were encouraging more individuals and big company employees to walk, cycle and travel by public transport.

He said: “Congestion in peak times and a speed of 12mph is not that bad.

“There is a lot of work being done and the council is spending a lot of money improving infrastructure.

“People are happy to line up for tenminutes to get a coffee but can’t wait for two minutes in a traffic queue.”

Former Winchester City Council transport leader Cllr Victoria Weston said that while the city’s narrow streets often caused bottlenecks, the recent adoption of 20mph speed limits would increase safety and encourage more people to walk and cycle.

She said: “Many short journeys are still done by car but if you can make the streets safer more people will walk and bring a big improvement in air quality.”

Comments (80)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:08am Fri 6 Jun 14

southamptonadi says...

So in 2012 we were a really gridlocked, instead of our bosses
A. Refusing to comment
B. dismissing a report that is factually backed up
C. Then saying 12 Mph ain't bad but nearly every other city is better
D. Saying we've improved things


Why don't they actually say what they have improved and how it's improved it because my feeling is it's got worse.
So in 2012 we were a really gridlocked, instead of our bosses A. Refusing to comment B. dismissing a report that is factually backed up C. Then saying 12 Mph ain't bad but nearly every other city is better D. Saying we've improved things Why don't they actually say what they have improved and how it's improved it because my feeling is it's got worse. southamptonadi
  • Score: 49

10:14am Fri 6 Jun 14

Inform Al says...

Immaterial as far as I'm concerned. I refuse to go anywhere I have to pay to park my car so I never get stuck in traffic.
Immaterial as far as I'm concerned. I refuse to go anywhere I have to pay to park my car so I never get stuck in traffic. Inform Al
  • Score: 4

10:23am Fri 6 Jun 14

AFrustratedCyclist says...

There other ways to get places, to many people addicted to their cars, which are often used for very short journeys.

Walk, bike, bus, train, car share (a massive proportion of cars commuting each day are single occupancy).

No it won't suit or work for everybody no, but there are lots of options for many who will still drive and sit in traffic, while buses, trains bikes and pedestrians pass them.

Yes I have a car, I just chose to use it less than most.
There other ways to get places, to many people addicted to their cars, which are often used for very short journeys. Walk, bike, bus, train, car share (a massive proportion of cars commuting each day are single occupancy). No it won't suit or work for everybody no, but there are lots of options for many who will still drive and sit in traffic, while buses, trains bikes and pedestrians pass them. Yes I have a car, I just chose to use it less than most. AFrustratedCyclist
  • Score: -15

10:31am Fri 6 Jun 14

Beer Monster says...

Agreed AFrustatedCyclist - I commuted between Hythe and Salisbury for six years using my bicycle, the ferry and the trains. It wasn't easy, but I made the most of it (mostly in the pubs along the way, of course). Never driven in my life, and would prefer not to if I can help it.
Agreed AFrustatedCyclist - I commuted between Hythe and Salisbury for six years using my bicycle, the ferry and the trains. It wasn't easy, but I made the most of it (mostly in the pubs along the way, of course). Never driven in my life, and would prefer not to if I can help it. Beer Monster
  • Score: 3

10:32am Fri 6 Jun 14

RomseyKeith says...

I used to work in Southampton city centre and my journey home of 8 miles would take 50 mins to an hour. It made no difference whether I used the Avenue, Hill Lane, Shirley High Street, or the dual carriageway along Millbrook/Redbridge.

I now work the same distance away, but on the outskirts of Totton. My journey home now takes 15 mins, 20 mins if traffic.
We know the traffic sucks in Southampton, and that the people in charge are clueless and too arrogant to listen to the concerns of the people. That's just the way it is. It won't ever change.
I used to work in Southampton city centre and my journey home of 8 miles would take 50 mins to an hour. It made no difference whether I used the Avenue, Hill Lane, Shirley High Street, or the dual carriageway along Millbrook/Redbridge. I now work the same distance away, but on the outskirts of Totton. My journey home now takes 15 mins, 20 mins if traffic. We know the traffic sucks in Southampton, and that the people in charge are clueless and too arrogant to listen to the concerns of the people. That's just the way it is. It won't ever change. RomseyKeith
  • Score: 41

10:39am Fri 6 Jun 14

Woolston ollie says...

No **** Sherlock
No **** Sherlock Woolston ollie
  • Score: 13

10:40am Fri 6 Jun 14

redsnapper says...

RomseyKeith wrote:
I used to work in Southampton city centre and my journey home of 8 miles would take 50 mins to an hour. It made no difference whether I used the Avenue, Hill Lane, Shirley High Street, or the dual carriageway along Millbrook/Redbridge.


I now work the same distance away, but on the outskirts of Totton. My journey home now takes 15 mins, 20 mins if traffic.
We know the traffic sucks in Southampton, and that the people in charge are clueless and too arrogant to listen to the concerns of the people. That's just the way it is. It won't ever change.
Got it one. Arrogant and clueless and the woman in charge of this planning shambles should be fired.
[quote][p][bold]RomseyKeith[/bold] wrote: I used to work in Southampton city centre and my journey home of 8 miles would take 50 mins to an hour. It made no difference whether I used the Avenue, Hill Lane, Shirley High Street, or the dual carriageway along Millbrook/Redbridge. I now work the same distance away, but on the outskirts of Totton. My journey home now takes 15 mins, 20 mins if traffic. We know the traffic sucks in Southampton, and that the people in charge are clueless and too arrogant to listen to the concerns of the people. That's just the way it is. It won't ever change.[/p][/quote]Got it one. Arrogant and clueless and the woman in charge of this planning shambles should be fired. redsnapper
  • Score: 28

10:58am Fri 6 Jun 14

tootle says...

What a surprise!

Use the bus? Whoops the bus fare since last years re-arrangements of buses is about the same cost as the fuel to my daughters and back. To get there I have to take 2 buses. Driving there are multiple busy routes available and it is still quicker than the bus. Took a taxi the other day from town. The fare was less than 2 adults + 1 child would have been on the bus - and door to door(child wasn't old enough to pay but not having to walk shopping buggy child from the bus stop made all the difference in the world).

Cost effective public transport would ease congestion if not pollution.

And no I am noy tiding a cycle out there, thank you. Especially with grown up daughter, shopping and a toddler to fit in the basket LOL
What a surprise! Use the bus? Whoops the bus fare since last years re-arrangements of buses is about the same cost as the fuel to my daughters and back. To get there I have to take 2 buses. Driving there are multiple busy routes available and it is still quicker than the bus. Took a taxi the other day from town. The fare was less than 2 adults + 1 child would have been on the bus - and door to door(child wasn't old enough to pay but not having to walk shopping buggy child from the bus stop made all the difference in the world). Cost effective public transport would ease congestion if not pollution. And no I am noy tiding a cycle out there, thank you. Especially with grown up daughter, shopping and a toddler to fit in the basket LOL tootle
  • Score: 20

11:40am Fri 6 Jun 14

From the sidelines says...

tootle wrote:
What a surprise!

Use the bus? Whoops the bus fare since last years re-arrangements of buses is about the same cost as the fuel to my daughters and back. To get there I have to take 2 buses. Driving there are multiple busy routes available and it is still quicker than the bus. Took a taxi the other day from town. The fare was less than 2 adults + 1 child would have been on the bus - and door to door(child wasn't old enough to pay but not having to walk shopping buggy child from the bus stop made all the difference in the world).

Cost effective public transport would ease congestion if not pollution.

And no I am noy tiding a cycle out there, thank you. Especially with grown up daughter, shopping and a toddler to fit in the basket LOL
You need a cargo bike. Google 'bakfiets'.

They're very popular in more enlightened countries.
[quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: What a surprise! Use the bus? Whoops the bus fare since last years re-arrangements of buses is about the same cost as the fuel to my daughters and back. To get there I have to take 2 buses. Driving there are multiple busy routes available and it is still quicker than the bus. Took a taxi the other day from town. The fare was less than 2 adults + 1 child would have been on the bus - and door to door(child wasn't old enough to pay but not having to walk shopping buggy child from the bus stop made all the difference in the world). Cost effective public transport would ease congestion if not pollution. And no I am noy tiding a cycle out there, thank you. Especially with grown up daughter, shopping and a toddler to fit in the basket LOL[/p][/quote]You need a cargo bike. Google 'bakfiets'. They're very popular in more enlightened countries. From the sidelines
  • Score: 3

11:42am Fri 6 Jun 14

From the sidelines says...

Actually, I think the traffic jams are a good thing.

The lanes are wide enough to cycle between the cars, and if they're moving that slowly, they present little danger.

Looking into cars as I pass, a fair number of sotonians appear to use the time to catch up on email and social media.
Actually, I think the traffic jams are a good thing. The lanes are wide enough to cycle between the cars, and if they're moving that slowly, they present little danger. Looking into cars as I pass, a fair number of sotonians appear to use the time to catch up on email and social media. From the sidelines
  • Score: 1

12:01pm Fri 6 Jun 14

one in a million says...

Its not just southampton, its the whole triangle between winchester, southampton and Pompey. The motorways and roads to wards them and the towns are F@cked every morning; loads of housing planned = 1000's more car journeys but no money for serious investment in an infrastucture to support them probably because there is more money to be made for councillors from housing.
Its not just southampton, its the whole triangle between winchester, southampton and Pompey. The motorways and roads to wards them and the towns are F@cked every morning; loads of housing planned = 1000's more car journeys but no money for serious investment in an infrastucture to support them probably because there is more money to be made for councillors from housing. one in a million
  • Score: 19

12:23pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Inform Al says...

tootle wrote:
What a surprise!

Use the bus? Whoops the bus fare since last years re-arrangements of buses is about the same cost as the fuel to my daughters and back. To get there I have to take 2 buses. Driving there are multiple busy routes available and it is still quicker than the bus. Took a taxi the other day from town. The fare was less than 2 adults + 1 child would have been on the bus - and door to door(child wasn't old enough to pay but not having to walk shopping buggy child from the bus stop made all the difference in the world).

Cost effective public transport would ease congestion if not pollution.

And no I am noy tiding a cycle out there, thank you. Especially with grown up daughter, shopping and a toddler to fit in the basket LOL
It gets worse, the No 5 to Swaythling has just been reduced to one an hour and the suspicion is that if not enough cash goes into the route it will cease completely. As this route serves an area where the most OAPs live they are reneging on the grant given to them to run such services as insufficient cash is being paid. If and when this happens the council should fund a service for the area, using the percentage of the grant applicable to the route.
[quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: What a surprise! Use the bus? Whoops the bus fare since last years re-arrangements of buses is about the same cost as the fuel to my daughters and back. To get there I have to take 2 buses. Driving there are multiple busy routes available and it is still quicker than the bus. Took a taxi the other day from town. The fare was less than 2 adults + 1 child would have been on the bus - and door to door(child wasn't old enough to pay but not having to walk shopping buggy child from the bus stop made all the difference in the world). Cost effective public transport would ease congestion if not pollution. And no I am noy tiding a cycle out there, thank you. Especially with grown up daughter, shopping and a toddler to fit in the basket LOL[/p][/quote]It gets worse, the No 5 to Swaythling has just been reduced to one an hour and the suspicion is that if not enough cash goes into the route it will cease completely. As this route serves an area where the most OAPs live they are reneging on the grant given to them to run such services as insufficient cash is being paid. If and when this happens the council should fund a service for the area, using the percentage of the grant applicable to the route. Inform Al
  • Score: 8

12:28pm Fri 6 Jun 14

03alpe01 says...

Park and Ride scheme anyone???
Park and Ride scheme anyone??? 03alpe01
  • Score: 2

12:33pm Fri 6 Jun 14

southy says...

Maybe Southampton should consider having an underground rail, and extend it to Eastleigh, Totton. it would be a lot faster and would more likely be cheaper to travel on
Maybe Southampton should consider having an underground rail, and extend it to Eastleigh, Totton. it would be a lot faster and would more likely be cheaper to travel on southy
  • Score: 10

12:33pm Fri 6 Jun 14

S!monOn says...

I'm confused.... when was the survey done? Between "December last year and April 2012"? ie. December 2011 to April 2012?
I'm confused.... when was the survey done? Between "December last year and April 2012"? ie. December 2011 to April 2012? S!monOn
  • Score: 4

12:40pm Fri 6 Jun 14

camerajuan says...

Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic!
Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic! camerajuan
  • Score: -9

12:49pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Oliverm says...

A slow news day...
A slow news day... Oliverm
  • Score: -2

1:21pm Fri 6 Jun 14

bucktoom says...

Big surprise. I'd rather drive in London then Southampton- at least you know you're actually getting somewhere
Big surprise. I'd rather drive in London then Southampton- at least you know you're actually getting somewhere bucktoom
  • Score: 8

1:34pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Quicker to walk backwards.
Quicker to walk backwards. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Fri 6 Jun 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

bucktoom wrote:
Big surprise. I'd rather drive in London then Southampton- at least you know you're actually getting somewhere
That rather depends where you drive in London though doesn't it? It is a big place and my experiences haven't been that good. The M25 Car Park, the North Circular with it's permanent crawler lanes, Once took me 4 hours to travel from Wembley to the start of the M3. Not all good I am sorry to say.
[quote][p][bold]bucktoom[/bold] wrote: Big surprise. I'd rather drive in London then Southampton- at least you know you're actually getting somewhere[/p][/quote]That rather depends where you drive in London though doesn't it? It is a big place and my experiences haven't been that good. The M25 Car Park, the North Circular with it's permanent crawler lanes, Once took me 4 hours to travel from Wembley to the start of the M3. Not all good I am sorry to say. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 4

1:40pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

From the sidelines wrote:
Actually, I think the traffic jams are a good thing.

The lanes are wide enough to cycle between the cars, and if they're moving that slowly, they present little danger.

Looking into cars as I pass, a fair number of sotonians appear to use the time to catch up on email and social media.
Little danger unless the car is a blue Porsche 911 GT3, saw it this morning speeding along Witworth Crescent and then it pulled out on a car AND a motorcycle, to then jump the queue and push it's way into the queue on Cobden Bridge, sadly I was in the work vehicle and not on my bike so no footage.
[quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: Actually, I think the traffic jams are a good thing. The lanes are wide enough to cycle between the cars, and if they're moving that slowly, they present little danger. Looking into cars as I pass, a fair number of sotonians appear to use the time to catch up on email and social media.[/p][/quote]Little danger unless the car is a blue Porsche 911 GT3, saw it this morning speeding along Witworth Crescent and then it pulled out on a car AND a motorcycle, to then jump the queue and push it's way into the queue on Cobden Bridge, sadly I was in the work vehicle and not on my bike so no footage. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -10

1:45pm Fri 6 Jun 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

Inform Al wrote:
tootle wrote:
What a surprise!

Use the bus? Whoops the bus fare since last years re-arrangements of buses is about the same cost as the fuel to my daughters and back. To get there I have to take 2 buses. Driving there are multiple busy routes available and it is still quicker than the bus. Took a taxi the other day from town. The fare was less than 2 adults + 1 child would have been on the bus - and door to door(child wasn't old enough to pay but not having to walk shopping buggy child from the bus stop made all the difference in the world).

Cost effective public transport would ease congestion if not pollution.

And no I am noy tiding a cycle out there, thank you. Especially with grown up daughter, shopping and a toddler to fit in the basket LOL
It gets worse, the No 5 to Swaythling has just been reduced to one an hour and the suspicion is that if not enough cash goes into the route it will cease completely. As this route serves an area where the most OAPs live they are reneging on the grant given to them to run such services as insufficient cash is being paid. If and when this happens the council should fund a service for the area, using the percentage of the grant applicable to the route.
The Uni bus have knicked a lot of the 5 route trade, unfortunately they don't cover the bit that I use most. A one hourly bus service is not acceptable, one bus breaks down and what have you got? Just as well pull out of it altogether. Time to change the Operator methinks, and time for the powers that be to conduct a new survey to find out where people actually want to travel to and from. When you notice the volume of passengers using the Shirley routes it is obvious that their use is proportionate to the frequency of the timetable.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: What a surprise! Use the bus? Whoops the bus fare since last years re-arrangements of buses is about the same cost as the fuel to my daughters and back. To get there I have to take 2 buses. Driving there are multiple busy routes available and it is still quicker than the bus. Took a taxi the other day from town. The fare was less than 2 adults + 1 child would have been on the bus - and door to door(child wasn't old enough to pay but not having to walk shopping buggy child from the bus stop made all the difference in the world). Cost effective public transport would ease congestion if not pollution. And no I am noy tiding a cycle out there, thank you. Especially with grown up daughter, shopping and a toddler to fit in the basket LOL[/p][/quote]It gets worse, the No 5 to Swaythling has just been reduced to one an hour and the suspicion is that if not enough cash goes into the route it will cease completely. As this route serves an area where the most OAPs live they are reneging on the grant given to them to run such services as insufficient cash is being paid. If and when this happens the council should fund a service for the area, using the percentage of the grant applicable to the route.[/p][/quote]The Uni bus have knicked a lot of the 5 route trade, unfortunately they don't cover the bit that I use most. A one hourly bus service is not acceptable, one bus breaks down and what have you got? Just as well pull out of it altogether. Time to change the Operator methinks, and time for the powers that be to conduct a new survey to find out where people actually want to travel to and from. When you notice the volume of passengers using the Shirley routes it is obvious that their use is proportionate to the frequency of the timetable. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 5

2:10pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Mary80 says...

03alpe01 wrote:
Park and Ride scheme anyone???
Portsmouth has park and ride but nobody bloody uses it
[quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Park and Ride scheme anyone???[/p][/quote]Portsmouth has park and ride but nobody bloody uses it Mary80
  • Score: 5

2:12pm Fri 6 Jun 14

S!monOn says...

bucktoom wrote:
Big surprise. I'd rather drive in London then Southampton- at least you know you're actually getting somewhere
You didn't read the article did you?
[quote][p][bold]bucktoom[/bold] wrote: Big surprise. I'd rather drive in London then Southampton- at least you know you're actually getting somewhere[/p][/quote]You didn't read the article did you? S!monOn
  • Score: 4

2:13pm Fri 6 Jun 14

S!monOn says...

Mary80 wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Park and Ride scheme anyone???
Portsmouth has park and ride but nobody bloody uses it
Is that because they risk their cars getting nicked? :)
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Park and Ride scheme anyone???[/p][/quote]Portsmouth has park and ride but nobody bloody uses it[/p][/quote]Is that because they risk their cars getting nicked? :) S!monOn
  • Score: 3

2:15pm Fri 6 Jun 14

stay local says...

try this experiment, place your hands around your neck and squeeze tightly. Does you feel better, can you think more clearly as the blood in your veins is prevented from moving. This is exactly the same principle as traffic calming measures, They simply restrict the flow of traffic and therefore the flow of finance.

Would it not be better to try and improve traffic flow across the city than restrict. if you can improve traffic flow this does not mean more cars rather that the cars spend less time in one area spewing exhaust fumes.

If the shops in the city enjoyed more trade because of better access for their customers could we not recoup the costs from business rates? Rather than having a desolate student drinking zone, would it not be better to restart the city by freeing up transport. I am sure if motorists felt less restricted in their journeys, for the majority of them this would increase their good nature and reduce the amount of cutting up, cutting in etc.
try this experiment, place your hands around your neck and squeeze tightly. Does you feel better, can you think more clearly as the blood in your veins is prevented from moving. This is exactly the same principle as traffic calming measures, They simply restrict the flow of traffic and therefore the flow of finance. Would it not be better to try and improve traffic flow across the city than restrict. if you can improve traffic flow this does not mean more cars rather that the cars spend less time in one area spewing exhaust fumes. If the shops in the city enjoyed more trade because of better access for their customers could we not recoup the costs from business rates? Rather than having a desolate student drinking zone, would it not be better to restart the city by freeing up transport. I am sure if motorists felt less restricted in their journeys, for the majority of them this would increase their good nature and reduce the amount of cutting up, cutting in etc. stay local
  • Score: 10

2:17pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

stay local wrote:
try this experiment, place your hands around your neck and squeeze tightly. Does you feel better, can you think more clearly as the blood in your veins is prevented from moving. This is exactly the same principle as traffic calming measures, They simply restrict the flow of traffic and therefore the flow of finance.

Would it not be better to try and improve traffic flow across the city than restrict. if you can improve traffic flow this does not mean more cars rather that the cars spend less time in one area spewing exhaust fumes.

If the shops in the city enjoyed more trade because of better access for their customers could we not recoup the costs from business rates? Rather than having a desolate student drinking zone, would it not be better to restart the city by freeing up transport. I am sure if motorists felt less restricted in their journeys, for the majority of them this would increase their good nature and reduce the amount of cutting up, cutting in etc.
But Brighton businesses are enjoying MORE trade from people using the car LESS.
[quote][p][bold]stay local[/bold] wrote: try this experiment, place your hands around your neck and squeeze tightly. Does you feel better, can you think more clearly as the blood in your veins is prevented from moving. This is exactly the same principle as traffic calming measures, They simply restrict the flow of traffic and therefore the flow of finance. Would it not be better to try and improve traffic flow across the city than restrict. if you can improve traffic flow this does not mean more cars rather that the cars spend less time in one area spewing exhaust fumes. If the shops in the city enjoyed more trade because of better access for their customers could we not recoup the costs from business rates? Rather than having a desolate student drinking zone, would it not be better to restart the city by freeing up transport. I am sure if motorists felt less restricted in their journeys, for the majority of them this would increase their good nature and reduce the amount of cutting up, cutting in etc.[/p][/quote]But Brighton businesses are enjoying MORE trade from people using the car LESS. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -7

2:43pm Fri 6 Jun 14

03alpe01 says...

Mary80 wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Park and Ride scheme anyone???
Portsmouth has park and ride but nobody bloody uses it
so why don't they just get rid of it then?
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Park and Ride scheme anyone???[/p][/quote]Portsmouth has park and ride but nobody bloody uses it[/p][/quote]so why don't they just get rid of it then? 03alpe01
  • Score: -1

3:01pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Highfielder says...

When there are roadworks on Bitterne Road West and Bursledon Road that result in long tailbacks why doesn't the Council have the vision to let traffic use the Itchen Bridge free during the duration of such roadworks. This would allow motorists to choose their route without being financially penalised and the loss of revenue to the Council coffers would encourage the Council to see that the roadworks were finished as quickly as possible.
When there are roadworks on Bitterne Road West and Bursledon Road that result in long tailbacks why doesn't the Council have the vision to let traffic use the Itchen Bridge free during the duration of such roadworks. This would allow motorists to choose their route without being financially penalised and the loss of revenue to the Council coffers would encourage the Council to see that the roadworks were finished as quickly as possible. Highfielder
  • Score: 13

3:17pm Fri 6 Jun 14

bigfella777 says...

For every improvement there are a 1000 more cars
This will only get worse unless they congestion charge the city centre. It has to be done.
For every improvement there are a 1000 more cars This will only get worse unless they congestion charge the city centre. It has to be done. bigfella777
  • Score: -13

3:21pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Make the roads bike, public transport and pedestrian friendly and ban HGV's from the city center, meaning anything over 7.5Tonnes, even these small "city" artics with single axle trailers cause massive tailbacks when reversing into unloading bays outside shops.
Make the roads bike, public transport and pedestrian friendly and ban HGV's from the city center, meaning anything over 7.5Tonnes, even these small "city" artics with single axle trailers cause massive tailbacks when reversing into unloading bays outside shops. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

3:31pm Fri 6 Jun 14

wwozzer says...

Why is everyone moaning? It's a city, it gets congested! At least there are 9 others in the UK worse than ours.
Why is everyone moaning? It's a city, it gets congested! At least there are 9 others in the UK worse than ours. wwozzer
  • Score: -1

3:39pm Fri 6 Jun 14

camerajuan says...

camerajuan wrote:
Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic!
From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic![/p][/quote]From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why. camerajuan
  • Score: -7

4:00pm Fri 6 Jun 14

ITPete says...

Southampton City Council ruined Cobden Bridge as a useful route by putting cycle lanes both sides. Traffic is now very bad at most times of day, whereas before that it was fine. And, many cyclists still use the pavement instead of the cycle lanes. Another by-product is that this stopped locals parking overnight on the southern side of the bridge and worsened the parking situation in St Denys. Methinks the city planners haven't much of a clue about traffic management. Perhaps they don't live in Bitterne Park, St Denys or Portswood and therefore have to experience the jams every day!
Southampton City Council ruined Cobden Bridge as a useful route by putting cycle lanes both sides. Traffic is now very bad at most times of day, whereas before that it was fine. And, many cyclists still use the pavement instead of the cycle lanes. Another by-product is that this stopped locals parking overnight on the southern side of the bridge and worsened the parking situation in St Denys. Methinks the city planners haven't much of a clue about traffic management. Perhaps they don't live in Bitterne Park, St Denys or Portswood and therefore have to experience the jams every day! ITPete
  • Score: 9

4:02pm Fri 6 Jun 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Quicker to walk backwards.
Bet you can't cycle backwards! Do you go where you are looking or look where you are going?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Quicker to walk backwards.[/p][/quote]Bet you can't cycle backwards! Do you go where you are looking or look where you are going? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 3

4:04pm Fri 6 Jun 14

From the sidelines says...

camerajuan wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic!
From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.
It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'.

You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language.

(Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic![/p][/quote]From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.[/p][/quote]It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'. You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language. (Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.) From the sidelines
  • Score: 7

4:16pm Fri 6 Jun 14

camerajuan says...

From the sidelines wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic!
From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.
It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'.

You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language.

(Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)
I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on.

(Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)
[quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic![/p][/quote]From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.[/p][/quote]It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'. You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language. (Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)[/p][/quote]I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on. (Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not) camerajuan
  • Score: -3

4:38pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Red Lights pong of Diesel no wonder I cannot get my Breath!
Red Lights pong of Diesel no wonder I cannot get my Breath! Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Fri 6 Jun 14

bucktoom says...

S!monOn wrote:
bucktoom wrote:
Big surprise. I'd rather drive in London then Southampton- at least you know you're actually getting somewhere
You didn't read the article did you?
No I didn't actually.......and I still haven't.
[quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bucktoom[/bold] wrote: Big surprise. I'd rather drive in London then Southampton- at least you know you're actually getting somewhere[/p][/quote]You didn't read the article did you?[/p][/quote]No I didn't actually.......and I still haven't. bucktoom
  • Score: 1

5:25pm Fri 6 Jun 14

tootle says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
tootle wrote:
What a surprise!

Use the bus? Whoops the bus fare since last years re-arrangements of buses is about the same cost as the fuel to my daughters and back. To get there I have to take 2 buses. Driving there are multiple busy routes available and it is still quicker than the bus. Took a taxi the other day from town. The fare was less than 2 adults + 1 child would have been on the bus - and door to door(child wasn't old enough to pay but not having to walk shopping buggy child from the bus stop made all the difference in the world).

Cost effective public transport would ease congestion if not pollution.

And no I am noy tiding a cycle out there, thank you. Especially with grown up daughter, shopping and a toddler to fit in the basket LOL
It gets worse, the No 5 to Swaythling has just been reduced to one an hour and the suspicion is that if not enough cash goes into the route it will cease completely. As this route serves an area where the most OAPs live they are reneging on the grant given to them to run such services as insufficient cash is being paid. If and when this happens the council should fund a service for the area, using the percentage of the grant applicable to the route.
The Uni bus have knicked a lot of the 5 route trade, unfortunately they don't cover the bit that I use most. A one hourly bus service is not acceptable, one bus breaks down and what have you got? Just as well pull out of it altogether. Time to change the Operator methinks, and time for the powers that be to conduct a new survey to find out where people actually want to travel to and from. When you notice the volume of passengers using the Shirley routes it is obvious that their use is proportionate to the frequency of the timetable.
Shirley has always had loads of buses. Grew up in Woolston and little seems to have changed for the better over there. They have just axed the bus daughter likes to get because she can usually get on it _ where it starts - as opposed to the other bus which is often full so she has to wait for the next one. Of course they are full of OAPs whose money does not pay for the services to be run.. By the time I get my bus pass there won't be any buses.

Halve the bus fares, put on more buses on popular routes, run buses where people actually want to go, ensure all new housing developments have bus routes into town and to nearest supermarket at the least and watch the passengers flood back.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: What a surprise! Use the bus? Whoops the bus fare since last years re-arrangements of buses is about the same cost as the fuel to my daughters and back. To get there I have to take 2 buses. Driving there are multiple busy routes available and it is still quicker than the bus. Took a taxi the other day from town. The fare was less than 2 adults + 1 child would have been on the bus - and door to door(child wasn't old enough to pay but not having to walk shopping buggy child from the bus stop made all the difference in the world). Cost effective public transport would ease congestion if not pollution. And no I am noy tiding a cycle out there, thank you. Especially with grown up daughter, shopping and a toddler to fit in the basket LOL[/p][/quote]It gets worse, the No 5 to Swaythling has just been reduced to one an hour and the suspicion is that if not enough cash goes into the route it will cease completely. As this route serves an area where the most OAPs live they are reneging on the grant given to them to run such services as insufficient cash is being paid. If and when this happens the council should fund a service for the area, using the percentage of the grant applicable to the route.[/p][/quote]The Uni bus have knicked a lot of the 5 route trade, unfortunately they don't cover the bit that I use most. A one hourly bus service is not acceptable, one bus breaks down and what have you got? Just as well pull out of it altogether. Time to change the Operator methinks, and time for the powers that be to conduct a new survey to find out where people actually want to travel to and from. When you notice the volume of passengers using the Shirley routes it is obvious that their use is proportionate to the frequency of the timetable.[/p][/quote]Shirley has always had loads of buses. Grew up in Woolston and little seems to have changed for the better over there. They have just axed the bus daughter likes to get because she can usually get on it _ where it starts - as opposed to the other bus which is often full so she has to wait for the next one. Of course they are full of OAPs whose money does not pay for the services to be run.. By the time I get my bus pass there won't be any buses. Halve the bus fares, put on more buses on popular routes, run buses where people actually want to go, ensure all new housing developments have bus routes into town and to nearest supermarket at the least and watch the passengers flood back. tootle
  • Score: 3

5:43pm Fri 6 Jun 14

loosehead says...

Shirley was a much wider road but the pavements were widened the road narrowed & they now wonder why there's a build up of traffic?
I've noticed where roundabouts allowed free flowing traffic we now have lights which are poor to say the least & actually slow traffic.
Shirley was a much wider road but the pavements were widened the road narrowed & they now wonder why there's a build up of traffic? I've noticed where roundabouts allowed free flowing traffic we now have lights which are poor to say the least & actually slow traffic. loosehead
  • Score: 10

6:26pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Lone Ranger. says...

Highfielder wrote:
When there are roadworks on Bitterne Road West and Bursledon Road that result in long tailbacks why doesn't the Council have the vision to let traffic use the Itchen Bridge free during the duration of such roadworks. This would allow motorists to choose their route without being financially penalised and the loss of revenue to the Council coffers would encourage the Council to see that the roadworks were finished as quickly as possible.
If they did that then the Itchen bridge and its surrounding areas on both sides would then be impossibly congested ...... This would then allow more moaning
[quote][p][bold]Highfielder[/bold] wrote: When there are roadworks on Bitterne Road West and Bursledon Road that result in long tailbacks why doesn't the Council have the vision to let traffic use the Itchen Bridge free during the duration of such roadworks. This would allow motorists to choose their route without being financially penalised and the loss of revenue to the Council coffers would encourage the Council to see that the roadworks were finished as quickly as possible.[/p][/quote]If they did that then the Itchen bridge and its surrounding areas on both sides would then be impossibly congested ...... This would then allow more moaning Lone Ranger.
  • Score: -2

6:28pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Quicker to walk backwards.
Bet you can't cycle backwards! Do you go where you are looking or look where you are going?
I look where I intend to go and the bike follows, I also look where I AM going.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Quicker to walk backwards.[/p][/quote]Bet you can't cycle backwards! Do you go where you are looking or look where you are going?[/p][/quote]I look where I intend to go and the bike follows, I also look where I AM going. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -3

6:33pm Fri 6 Jun 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Quicker to walk backwards.
Bet you can't cycle backwards! Do you go where you are looking or look where you are going?
I look where I intend to go and the bike follows, I also look where I AM going.
You will never see the idiot that clocks you, he will be the one that isn't looking where he/she is going!
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Quicker to walk backwards.[/p][/quote]Bet you can't cycle backwards! Do you go where you are looking or look where you are going?[/p][/quote]I look where I intend to go and the bike follows, I also look where I AM going.[/p][/quote]You will never see the idiot that clocks you, he will be the one that isn't looking where he/she is going! OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 1

6:34pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Quicker to walk backwards.
Bet you can't cycle backwards! Do you go where you are looking or look where you are going?
Also, you can cycle backwards if you ride a fixed gear bike.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Quicker to walk backwards.[/p][/quote]Bet you can't cycle backwards! Do you go where you are looking or look where you are going?[/p][/quote]Also, you can cycle backwards if you ride a fixed gear bike. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -4

6:45pm Fri 6 Jun 14

dango says...

stay local wrote:
try this experiment, place your hands around your neck and squeeze tightly. Does you feel better, can you think more clearly as the blood in your veins is prevented from moving. This is exactly the same principle as traffic calming measures, They simply restrict the flow of traffic and therefore the flow of finance.

Would it not be better to try and improve traffic flow across the city than restrict. if you can improve traffic flow this does not mean more cars rather that the cars spend less time in one area spewing exhaust fumes.

If the shops in the city enjoyed more trade because of better access for their customers could we not recoup the costs from business rates? Rather than having a desolate student drinking zone, would it not be better to restart the city by freeing up transport. I am sure if motorists felt less restricted in their journeys, for the majority of them this would increase their good nature and reduce the amount of cutting up, cutting in etc.
Exactly, and the worst culprits for restricting traffic flow are............buses
. Buses in many areas used to pull into a bust stop lay-by off the main carriageway. Now, those same stops have been extended out and onto the road so that when they stop, traffic behind them has to stop yet the road in front of the bus is clear.
Same with the chicanes on Wilton Ave. and Wellington Rd. (to name just two). Rather than traffic continually flowing in both directions, one direction has to stop and wait. The ones on Wilton Ave. are a real danger also with many drivers 'chancing' it and forcing people to brake hard even though they have the right of way.
[quote][p][bold]stay local[/bold] wrote: try this experiment, place your hands around your neck and squeeze tightly. Does you feel better, can you think more clearly as the blood in your veins is prevented from moving. This is exactly the same principle as traffic calming measures, They simply restrict the flow of traffic and therefore the flow of finance. Would it not be better to try and improve traffic flow across the city than restrict. if you can improve traffic flow this does not mean more cars rather that the cars spend less time in one area spewing exhaust fumes. If the shops in the city enjoyed more trade because of better access for their customers could we not recoup the costs from business rates? Rather than having a desolate student drinking zone, would it not be better to restart the city by freeing up transport. I am sure if motorists felt less restricted in their journeys, for the majority of them this would increase their good nature and reduce the amount of cutting up, cutting in etc.[/p][/quote]Exactly, and the worst culprits for restricting traffic flow are............buses . Buses in many areas used to pull into a bust stop lay-by off the main carriageway. Now, those same stops have been extended out and onto the road so that when they stop, traffic behind them has to stop yet the road in front of the bus is clear. Same with the chicanes on Wilton Ave. and Wellington Rd. (to name just two). Rather than traffic continually flowing in both directions, one direction has to stop and wait. The ones on Wilton Ave. are a real danger also with many drivers 'chancing' it and forcing people to brake hard even though they have the right of way. dango
  • Score: 3

7:34pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Pobinr says...

Too much traffic, too many people, too much immigration!
Vote UKIP
Too much traffic, too many people, too much immigration! Vote UKIP Pobinr
  • Score: -1

9:06pm Fri 6 Jun 14

victor meldrew,totton says...

Came across the bottom of town tonight about 5 from Dock gate 4 heading toward Totton when we came to a virtual stop near the old bowling green. After a while we crawled along assuming this stretched way pass West Quay only to find that the traffic light outside Red Funnel entrance was jammed on red and drivers afraid to cross when it was obvious there was a problem. It took a van driver behind me to run up to the driver of the car in front and give him a few choice words to move on. After that it was a clear run through.
Came across the bottom of town tonight about 5 from Dock gate 4 heading toward Totton when we came to a virtual stop near the old bowling green. After a while we crawled along assuming this stretched way pass West Quay only to find that the traffic light outside Red Funnel entrance was jammed on red and drivers afraid to cross when it was obvious there was a problem. It took a van driver behind me to run up to the driver of the car in front and give him a few choice words to move on. After that it was a clear run through. victor meldrew,totton
  • Score: 1

9:11pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Pobinr says...

How is it no one mentions population increase as a a cuase of more congestion?
Southampton soclai housing queue is now 8+ years long. Every other name on the maternity unit cots is East European!
How is it no one mentions population increase as a a cuase of more congestion? Southampton soclai housing queue is now 8+ years long. Every other name on the maternity unit cots is East European! Pobinr
  • Score: 1

10:20pm Fri 6 Jun 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Quicker to walk backwards.
Bet you can't cycle backwards! Do you go where you are looking or look where you are going?
Also, you can cycle backwards if you ride a fixed gear bike.
It's fun on a monocycle but just as dangerous.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: Quicker to walk backwards.[/p][/quote]Bet you can't cycle backwards! Do you go where you are looking or look where you are going?[/p][/quote]Also, you can cycle backwards if you ride a fixed gear bike.[/p][/quote]It's fun on a monocycle but just as dangerous. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: -2

11:52pm Fri 6 Jun 14

gristle says...

The local driving test should include an hour or so of traffic light knowledge.
Currently, about half a dozen drivers manage to get through a green light. Maybe a few more if the lights are green for more than 10 minutes.
The local driving test should include an hour or so of traffic light knowledge. Currently, about half a dozen drivers manage to get through a green light. Maybe a few more if the lights are green for more than 10 minutes. gristle
  • Score: 0

12:13am Sat 7 Jun 14

Lord Swood says...

Lived in Southampton my whole life, worked in the city too for a while, but I got so fed up with sitting in traffic jams, I haven't been into the city centre for >5 years.
There now seem to be traffic lights every 50m, none of them synchronised. Every roundabout seems to have lights too. There are new shops and places to go, but the roads haven't been improved at all. Roads that have been modified have been made considerably worse.
I find driving in town to be a thoroughly unpleasant experience so I shop out of town (or actually anywhere other than Southampton), which is a shame.
Lived in Southampton my whole life, worked in the city too for a while, but I got so fed up with sitting in traffic jams, I haven't been into the city centre for >5 years. There now seem to be traffic lights every 50m, none of them synchronised. Every roundabout seems to have lights too. There are new shops and places to go, but the roads haven't been improved at all. Roads that have been modified have been made considerably worse. I find driving in town to be a thoroughly unpleasant experience so I shop out of town (or actually anywhere other than Southampton), which is a shame. Lord Swood
  • Score: 7

12:37am Sat 7 Jun 14

Mary80 says...

03alpe01 wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
03alpe01 wrote:
Park and Ride scheme anyone???
Portsmouth has park and ride but nobody bloody uses it
so why don't they just get rid of it then?
Councils don't really like to admit they are wrong they'd rather keep it despite it going unused rather than admit they made a mistake. I went to South Sea last week and the road was congested going to Gunwharf so clearly it doesn't work.
[quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Park and Ride scheme anyone???[/p][/quote]Portsmouth has park and ride but nobody bloody uses it[/p][/quote]so why don't they just get rid of it then?[/p][/quote]Councils don't really like to admit they are wrong they'd rather keep it despite it going unused rather than admit they made a mistake. I went to South Sea last week and the road was congested going to Gunwharf so clearly it doesn't work. Mary80
  • Score: 2

1:01am Sat 7 Jun 14

GrahamSimmons says...

Pobinr wrote:
How is it no one mentions population increase as a a cuase of more congestion?
Southampton soclai housing queue is now 8+ years long. Every other name on the maternity unit cots is East European!
This isn't true - car ownership amongst the lower socioeconomic bands is falling rapidly. In fact, the rate of new car purchasing is in decline.
[quote][p][bold]Pobinr[/bold] wrote: How is it no one mentions population increase as a a cuase of more congestion? Southampton soclai housing queue is now 8+ years long. Every other name on the maternity unit cots is East European![/p][/quote]This isn't true - car ownership amongst the lower socioeconomic bands is falling rapidly. In fact, the rate of new car purchasing is in decline. GrahamSimmons
  • Score: 1

8:09am Sat 7 Jun 14

loosehead says...

GrahamSimmons wrote:
Pobinr wrote:
How is it no one mentions population increase as a a cuase of more congestion?
Southampton soclai housing queue is now 8+ years long. Every other name on the maternity unit cots is East European!
This isn't true - car ownership amongst the lower socioeconomic bands is falling rapidly. In fact, the rate of new car purchasing is in decline.
are you saying the lower socioeconomic bands can afford brand new cars?
[quote][p][bold]GrahamSimmons[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pobinr[/bold] wrote: How is it no one mentions population increase as a a cuase of more congestion? Southampton soclai housing queue is now 8+ years long. Every other name on the maternity unit cots is East European![/p][/quote]This isn't true - car ownership amongst the lower socioeconomic bands is falling rapidly. In fact, the rate of new car purchasing is in decline.[/p][/quote]are you saying the lower socioeconomic bands can afford brand new cars? loosehead
  • Score: -1

10:38am Sat 7 Jun 14

southy says...

camerajuan wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic!
From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.
It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'.

You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language.

(Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)
I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on.

(Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)
It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport.
Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic![/p][/quote]From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.[/p][/quote]It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'. You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language. (Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)[/p][/quote]I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on. (Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)[/p][/quote]It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport. Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry) southy
  • Score: 0

11:06am Sat 7 Jun 14

Torchie1 says...

GrahamSimmons wrote:
Pobinr wrote:
How is it no one mentions population increase as a a cuase of more congestion?
Southampton soclai housing queue is now 8+ years long. Every other name on the maternity unit cots is East European!
This isn't true - car ownership amongst the lower socioeconomic bands is falling rapidly. In fact, the rate of new car purchasing is in decline.
In your mind the numbers may be declining but the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders keeps a close eye on sales and this is from their site :-


Posted at 08:59 on 5 June 2014.

May increase drives UK new car market to 27 consecutive months of growth, breaking record set in the late 1980s. New car registrations increased 7.7% in May to 194,032 units – the most in May since 2004.
[quote][p][bold]GrahamSimmons[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pobinr[/bold] wrote: How is it no one mentions population increase as a a cuase of more congestion? Southampton soclai housing queue is now 8+ years long. Every other name on the maternity unit cots is East European![/p][/quote]This isn't true - car ownership amongst the lower socioeconomic bands is falling rapidly. In fact, the rate of new car purchasing is in decline.[/p][/quote]In your mind the numbers may be declining but the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders keeps a close eye on sales and this is from their site :- Posted at 08:59 on 5 June 2014. May increase drives UK new car market to 27 consecutive months of growth, breaking record set in the late 1980s. New car registrations increased 7.7% in May to 194,032 units – the most in May since 2004. Torchie1
  • Score: -2

11:55am Sat 7 Jun 14

redsnapper says...

Let's face it the people (councillors and other political jobsworths) are usually just jumped up shop keepers and wannabe do gooders who have no frigging idea how to run a cities transportation. Give them a budget with more tha 000,s in it and they are soon blinded by snake oil salesman selling projects, consultants and ideas which cost millions but never work.

And here is the result , the city of Southampton a major gateway to the UK and it takes hours to get out of the city. Hats off and brakes on to Jacqui Rayment and her fellow incompetents..no vision. .no idea and giving Southampton a reputation of a place which is a complete cluster**** .
Let's face it the people (councillors and other political jobsworths) are usually just jumped up shop keepers and wannabe do gooders who have no frigging idea how to run a cities transportation. Give them a budget with more tha 000,s in it and they are soon blinded by snake oil salesman selling projects, consultants and ideas which cost millions but never work. And here is the result , the city of Southampton a major gateway to the UK and it takes hours to get out of the city. Hats off and brakes on to Jacqui Rayment and her fellow incompetents..no vision. .no idea and giving Southampton a reputation of a place which is a complete cluster**** . redsnapper
  • Score: 2

11:55am Sat 7 Jun 14

redsnapper says...

Let's face it the people (councillors and other political jobsworths) are usually just jumped up shop keepers and wannabe do gooders who have no frigging idea how to run a cities transportation. Give them a budget with more tha 000,s in it and they are soon blinded by snake oil salesman selling projects, consultants and ideas which cost millions but never work.

And here is the result , the city of Southampton a major gateway to the UK and it takes hours to get out of the city. Hats off and brakes on to Jacqui Rayment and her fellow incompetents..no vision. .no idea and giving Southampton a reputation of a place which is a complete cluster**** .
Let's face it the people (councillors and other political jobsworths) are usually just jumped up shop keepers and wannabe do gooders who have no frigging idea how to run a cities transportation. Give them a budget with more tha 000,s in it and they are soon blinded by snake oil salesman selling projects, consultants and ideas which cost millions but never work. And here is the result , the city of Southampton a major gateway to the UK and it takes hours to get out of the city. Hats off and brakes on to Jacqui Rayment and her fellow incompetents..no vision. .no idea and giving Southampton a reputation of a place which is a complete cluster**** . redsnapper
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Mushymat says...

AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
There other ways to get places, to many people addicted to their cars, which are often used for very short journeys.

Walk, bike, bus, train, car share (a massive proportion of cars commuting each day are single occupancy).

No it won't suit or work for everybody no, but there are lots of options for many who will still drive and sit in traffic, while buses, trains bikes and pedestrians pass them.

Yes I have a car, I just chose to use it less than most.
terrifying you get downvotied for this, its a sound logical suggestion.

Its strange how many are so connected with their cars that the suggestion they do something different offends so much.

Its a shame.
[quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: There other ways to get places, to many people addicted to their cars, which are often used for very short journeys. Walk, bike, bus, train, car share (a massive proportion of cars commuting each day are single occupancy). No it won't suit or work for everybody no, but there are lots of options for many who will still drive and sit in traffic, while buses, trains bikes and pedestrians pass them. Yes I have a car, I just chose to use it less than most.[/p][/quote]terrifying you get downvotied for this, its a sound logical suggestion. Its strange how many are so connected with their cars that the suggestion they do something different offends so much. Its a shame. Mushymat
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Mushymat says...

Look at the picture, I can count about about 20 cars. So at an educated guess I would say that's around 25 people being transported (working under the assumption that around 80% of cars at rush hour are single occupancy)

There's your problem right there.

What kind of collective blindness do people have that they fail to realize a whole car for one person is simply stupid, and while everyone has that selfish attitude do you honestly think things will improve?

Change your ways or get used to it.
Look at the picture, I can count about about 20 cars. So at an educated guess I would say that's around 25 people being transported (working under the assumption that around 80% of cars at rush hour are single occupancy) There's your problem right there. What kind of collective blindness do people have that they fail to realize a whole car for one person is simply stupid, and while everyone has that selfish attitude do you honestly think things will improve? Change your ways or get used to it. Mushymat
  • Score: -1

12:27pm Sat 7 Jun 14

downfader says...

Who chooses to drive a couple of miles to work? The individual.

The trouble is a lot of individuals now exist in parallel and have in reality been the cause of the problem of the traffic. These people had a choice of bus, walking or two wheels and CHOSE to sit in traffic.

Having a pop at the transport department is fair at times, but without a proper innercity driver survey to establish and officialise what many of us have started to realise the future road developments needed will falter.

Downvoting comments about choice is all very well but what you're actually saying is "I'm lazy/selfish/unprepa
red to make a change in my life or help facilitate others right to change!"

Dont moan about it. Get off your a rse and do something about it. A Council can only do so much, especially with an uncooperative electorate.
Who chooses to drive a couple of miles to work? The individual. The trouble is a lot of individuals now exist in parallel and have in reality been the cause of the problem of the traffic. These people had a choice of bus, walking or two wheels and CHOSE to sit in traffic. Having a pop at the transport department is fair at times, but without a proper innercity driver survey to establish and officialise what many of us have started to realise the future road developments needed will falter. Downvoting comments about choice is all very well but what you're actually saying is "I'm lazy/selfish/unprepa red to make a change in my life or help facilitate others right to change!" Dont moan about it. Get off your a rse and do something about it. A Council can only do so much, especially with an uncooperative electorate. downfader
  • Score: 1

1:04pm Sat 7 Jun 14

downfader says...

People. Your downvoting only serves to prove that you are addicted to the car.

http://www.medicalne
wstoday.com/info/add
iction/signs-of-addi
ction.php

Read the above! The substance you now crave and that has a negative impact upon your life is the motor car. But there is a wonderful drug on the market in the form of two wheels.

Swallow that pill. Make the change. Save money & time, get healthy.
People. Your downvoting only serves to prove that you are addicted to the car. http://www.medicalne wstoday.com/info/add iction/signs-of-addi ction.php Read the above! The substance you now crave and that has a negative impact upon your life is the motor car. But there is a wonderful drug on the market in the form of two wheels. Swallow that pill. Make the change. Save money & time, get healthy. downfader
  • Score: -3

3:42pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Torchie1 says...

downfader wrote:
People. Your downvoting only serves to prove that you are addicted to the car.

http://www.medicalne

wstoday.com/info/add

iction/signs-of-addi

ction.php

Read the above! The substance you now crave and that has a negative impact upon your life is the motor car. But there is a wonderful drug on the market in the form of two wheels.

Swallow that pill. Make the change. Save money & time, get healthy.
What happened to the individuals freedom of choice to engage in a perfectly legal pastime. Mummy doesn't always know best.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: People. Your downvoting only serves to prove that you are addicted to the car. http://www.medicalne wstoday.com/info/add iction/signs-of-addi ction.php Read the above! The substance you now crave and that has a negative impact upon your life is the motor car. But there is a wonderful drug on the market in the form of two wheels. Swallow that pill. Make the change. Save money & time, get healthy.[/p][/quote]What happened to the individuals freedom of choice to engage in a perfectly legal pastime. Mummy doesn't always know best. Torchie1
  • Score: -1

3:59pm Sat 7 Jun 14

downfader says...

Torchie1 wrote:
downfader wrote:
People. Your downvoting only serves to prove that you are addicted to the car.

http://www.medicalne


wstoday.com/info/add


iction/signs-of-addi


ction.php

Read the above! The substance you now crave and that has a negative impact upon your life is the motor car. But there is a wonderful drug on the market in the form of two wheels.

Swallow that pill. Make the change. Save money & time, get healthy.
What happened to the individuals freedom of choice to engage in a perfectly legal pastime. Mummy doesn't always know best.
Well then you stop complaining about the traffic. Driving is not a passtime. Its a mode of transport for many and mostly a poorly chosen one.

You say "Mummy doesnt always know best" - well perhaps people need to be treated like kids then instead of blaming others for their choices.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: People. Your downvoting only serves to prove that you are addicted to the car. http://www.medicalne wstoday.com/info/add iction/signs-of-addi ction.php Read the above! The substance you now crave and that has a negative impact upon your life is the motor car. But there is a wonderful drug on the market in the form of two wheels. Swallow that pill. Make the change. Save money & time, get healthy.[/p][/quote]What happened to the individuals freedom of choice to engage in a perfectly legal pastime. Mummy doesn't always know best.[/p][/quote]Well then you stop complaining about the traffic. Driving is not a passtime. Its a mode of transport for many and mostly a poorly chosen one. You say "Mummy doesnt always know best" - well perhaps people need to be treated like kids then instead of blaming others for their choices. downfader
  • Score: -3

7:08pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Torchie1 says...

downfader wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
downfader wrote:
People. Your downvoting only serves to prove that you are addicted to the car.

http://www.medicalne



wstoday.com/info/add



iction/signs-of-addi



ction.php

Read the above! The substance you now crave and that has a negative impact upon your life is the motor car. But there is a wonderful drug on the market in the form of two wheels.

Swallow that pill. Make the change. Save money & time, get healthy.
What happened to the individuals freedom of choice to engage in a perfectly legal pastime. Mummy doesn't always know best.
Well then you stop complaining about the traffic. Driving is not a passtime. Its a mode of transport for many and mostly a poorly chosen one.

You say "Mummy doesnt always know best" - well perhaps people need to be treated like kids then instead of blaming others for their choices.
Is that akin to cyclists blaming everyone else for whatever misfortune befalls them instead of fitting lights, not ignoring the red traffic light, not undertaking on the blind side of a truck when they can't see it's indicators, not going the wrong way down a one way street etc etc etc are not adult ways to to behave and face up to the consequences if these actions lead to a collision ?
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: People. Your downvoting only serves to prove that you are addicted to the car. http://www.medicalne wstoday.com/info/add iction/signs-of-addi ction.php Read the above! The substance you now crave and that has a negative impact upon your life is the motor car. But there is a wonderful drug on the market in the form of two wheels. Swallow that pill. Make the change. Save money & time, get healthy.[/p][/quote]What happened to the individuals freedom of choice to engage in a perfectly legal pastime. Mummy doesn't always know best.[/p][/quote]Well then you stop complaining about the traffic. Driving is not a passtime. Its a mode of transport for many and mostly a poorly chosen one. You say "Mummy doesnt always know best" - well perhaps people need to be treated like kids then instead of blaming others for their choices.[/p][/quote]Is that akin to cyclists blaming everyone else for whatever misfortune befalls them instead of fitting lights, not ignoring the red traffic light, not undertaking on the blind side of a truck when they can't see it's indicators, not going the wrong way down a one way street etc etc etc are not adult ways to to behave and face up to the consequences if these actions lead to a collision ? Torchie1
  • Score: -1

10:02pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Ronnie G says...

Highfielder wrote:
When there are roadworks on Bitterne Road West and Bursledon Road that result in long tailbacks why doesn't the Council have the vision to let traffic use the Itchen Bridge free during the duration of such roadworks. This would allow motorists to choose their route without being financially penalised and the loss of revenue to the Council coffers would encourage the Council to see that the roadworks were finished as quickly as possible.
Because that means they would be acting FOR our best interests plus its common sense and this lot don't do common sense!
[quote][p][bold]Highfielder[/bold] wrote: When there are roadworks on Bitterne Road West and Bursledon Road that result in long tailbacks why doesn't the Council have the vision to let traffic use the Itchen Bridge free during the duration of such roadworks. This would allow motorists to choose their route without being financially penalised and the loss of revenue to the Council coffers would encourage the Council to see that the roadworks were finished as quickly as possible.[/p][/quote]Because that means they would be acting FOR our best interests plus its common sense and this lot don't do common sense! Ronnie G
  • Score: 1

11:08pm Sat 7 Jun 14

downfader says...

Torchie1 wrote:
downfader wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
downfader wrote:
People. Your downvoting only serves to prove that you are addicted to the car.

http://www.medicalne




wstoday.com/info/add




iction/signs-of-addi




ction.php

Read the above! The substance you now crave and that has a negative impact upon your life is the motor car. But there is a wonderful drug on the market in the form of two wheels.

Swallow that pill. Make the change. Save money & time, get healthy.
What happened to the individuals freedom of choice to engage in a perfectly legal pastime. Mummy doesn't always know best.
Well then you stop complaining about the traffic. Driving is not a passtime. Its a mode of transport for many and mostly a poorly chosen one.

You say "Mummy doesnt always know best" - well perhaps people need to be treated like kids then instead of blaming others for their choices.
Is that akin to cyclists blaming everyone else for whatever misfortune befalls them instead of fitting lights, not ignoring the red traffic light, not undertaking on the blind side of a truck when they can't see it's indicators, not going the wrong way down a one way street etc etc etc are not adult ways to to behave and face up to the consequences if these actions lead to a collision ?
Now then Torchie, we've been through this before. I'm talking targeted demographics, and since I dont fall into your targeted demographic of "the great unlit" that comment does not apply to me.

However when people on here moan and moan like spoilt kids about traffic jams when they themselves are part of that traffic jam, ergo part of the problem, they're self perpetuating the issues they face.

Hoist by your own petard there, Torchie.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: People. Your downvoting only serves to prove that you are addicted to the car. http://www.medicalne wstoday.com/info/add iction/signs-of-addi ction.php Read the above! The substance you now crave and that has a negative impact upon your life is the motor car. But there is a wonderful drug on the market in the form of two wheels. Swallow that pill. Make the change. Save money & time, get healthy.[/p][/quote]What happened to the individuals freedom of choice to engage in a perfectly legal pastime. Mummy doesn't always know best.[/p][/quote]Well then you stop complaining about the traffic. Driving is not a passtime. Its a mode of transport for many and mostly a poorly chosen one. You say "Mummy doesnt always know best" - well perhaps people need to be treated like kids then instead of blaming others for their choices.[/p][/quote]Is that akin to cyclists blaming everyone else for whatever misfortune befalls them instead of fitting lights, not ignoring the red traffic light, not undertaking on the blind side of a truck when they can't see it's indicators, not going the wrong way down a one way street etc etc etc are not adult ways to to behave and face up to the consequences if these actions lead to a collision ?[/p][/quote]Now then Torchie, we've been through this before. I'm talking targeted demographics, and since I dont fall into your targeted demographic of "the great unlit" that comment does not apply to me. However when people on here moan and moan like spoilt kids about traffic jams when they themselves are part of that traffic jam, ergo part of the problem, they're self perpetuating the issues they face. Hoist by your own petard there, Torchie. downfader
  • Score: 1

11:08pm Sat 7 Jun 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
downfader wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
downfader wrote:
People. Your downvoting only serves to prove that you are addicted to the car.

http://www.medicalne




wstoday.com/info/add




iction/signs-of-addi




ction.php

Read the above! The substance you now crave and that has a negative impact upon your life is the motor car. But there is a wonderful drug on the market in the form of two wheels.

Swallow that pill. Make the change. Save money & time, get healthy.
What happened to the individuals freedom of choice to engage in a perfectly legal pastime. Mummy doesn't always know best.
Well then you stop complaining about the traffic. Driving is not a passtime. Its a mode of transport for many and mostly a poorly chosen one.

You say "Mummy doesnt always know best" - well perhaps people need to be treated like kids then instead of blaming others for their choices.
Is that akin to cyclists blaming everyone else for whatever misfortune befalls them instead of fitting lights, not ignoring the red traffic light, not undertaking on the blind side of a truck when they can't see it's indicators, not going the wrong way down a one way street etc etc etc are not adult ways to to behave and face up to the consequences if these actions lead to a collision ?
Torchie, compared to 3 or 4 cyclists I saw breaking the law this week, the number of MOTORISTS I saw breaking the law was into double figures, including a red light jumper that almost took out a motorcyclist, another driver that failed to give way almost taking out a motorcyclist and then jumping the queue on Cobden avenue by 20 cars, several others using their phones while driving, people smoking in company vehicles, another who wasn't driving with due care and attention when they almost reversed into me in the Range car park and some other person who decided to try and make an illegal right turn from the middle lane on Bitterne road west to go up bullar road, I also, quite often see motorists driving the wrong way down one-way streets, more often than I see cyclists doing it.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: People. Your downvoting only serves to prove that you are addicted to the car. http://www.medicalne wstoday.com/info/add iction/signs-of-addi ction.php Read the above! The substance you now crave and that has a negative impact upon your life is the motor car. But there is a wonderful drug on the market in the form of two wheels. Swallow that pill. Make the change. Save money & time, get healthy.[/p][/quote]What happened to the individuals freedom of choice to engage in a perfectly legal pastime. Mummy doesn't always know best.[/p][/quote]Well then you stop complaining about the traffic. Driving is not a passtime. Its a mode of transport for many and mostly a poorly chosen one. You say "Mummy doesnt always know best" - well perhaps people need to be treated like kids then instead of blaming others for their choices.[/p][/quote]Is that akin to cyclists blaming everyone else for whatever misfortune befalls them instead of fitting lights, not ignoring the red traffic light, not undertaking on the blind side of a truck when they can't see it's indicators, not going the wrong way down a one way street etc etc etc are not adult ways to to behave and face up to the consequences if these actions lead to a collision ?[/p][/quote]Torchie, compared to 3 or 4 cyclists I saw breaking the law this week, the number of MOTORISTS I saw breaking the law was into double figures, including a red light jumper that almost took out a motorcyclist, another driver that failed to give way almost taking out a motorcyclist and then jumping the queue on Cobden avenue by 20 cars, several others using their phones while driving, people smoking in company vehicles, another who wasn't driving with due care and attention when they almost reversed into me in the Range car park and some other person who decided to try and make an illegal right turn from the middle lane on Bitterne road west to go up bullar road, I also, quite often see motorists driving the wrong way down one-way streets, more often than I see cyclists doing it. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

12:40pm Sun 8 Jun 14

andysaints007 says...

03alpe01 wrote:
Park and Ride scheme anyone???
Thats too simple for the planners in Soton to understand!
[quote][p][bold]03alpe01[/bold] wrote: Park and Ride scheme anyone???[/p][/quote]Thats too simple for the planners in Soton to understand! andysaints007
  • Score: 0

8:55am Mon 9 Jun 14

camerajuan says...

southy wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic!
From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.
It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'.

You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language.

(Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)
I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on.

(Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)
It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport.
Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)
I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is!

Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic![/p][/quote]From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.[/p][/quote]It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'. You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language. (Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)[/p][/quote]I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on. (Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)[/p][/quote]It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport. Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)[/p][/quote]I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is! Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out! camerajuan
  • Score: 0

11:44am Mon 9 Jun 14

Inform Al says...

camerajuan wrote:
southy wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic!
From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.
It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'.

You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language.

(Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)
I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on.

(Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)
It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport.
Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)
I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is!

Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out!
Actually, just for once, there is some logic to what southy says. I personally walk to most places in Southampton I go to, so do not add to the traffic, except on the pavement where I seem to inconvenience quite a few cyclists in Portswood.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic![/p][/quote]From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.[/p][/quote]It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'. You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language. (Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)[/p][/quote]I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on. (Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)[/p][/quote]It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport. Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)[/p][/quote]I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is! Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out![/p][/quote]Actually, just for once, there is some logic to what southy says. I personally walk to most places in Southampton I go to, so do not add to the traffic, except on the pavement where I seem to inconvenience quite a few cyclists in Portswood. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Mon 9 Jun 14

camerajuan says...

Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
southy wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic!
From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.
It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'.

You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language.

(Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)
I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on.

(Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)
It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport.
Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)
I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is!

Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out!
Actually, just for once, there is some logic to what southy says. I personally walk to most places in Southampton I go to, so do not add to the traffic, except on the pavement where I seem to inconvenience quite a few cyclists in Portswood.
Firstly, change the record. We know Portswood Cyclists annoy you.

Secondly, Southy has stated that more bikes and less cars could equal more traffic than what is currently filling up the roads. There is utterly NO logic there whatsoever if you take in all variables and all factors. It wouldn't happen.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic![/p][/quote]From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.[/p][/quote]It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'. You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language. (Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)[/p][/quote]I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on. (Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)[/p][/quote]It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport. Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)[/p][/quote]I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is! Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out![/p][/quote]Actually, just for once, there is some logic to what southy says. I personally walk to most places in Southampton I go to, so do not add to the traffic, except on the pavement where I seem to inconvenience quite a few cyclists in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Firstly, change the record. We know Portswood Cyclists annoy you. Secondly, Southy has stated that more bikes and less cars could equal more traffic than what is currently filling up the roads. There is utterly NO logic there whatsoever if you take in all variables and all factors. It wouldn't happen. camerajuan
  • Score: 1

2:20pm Mon 9 Jun 14

loosehead says...

I don't want to come to Southy's defence but after living in Thailand & seeing how motor cyclists are there compared to this country I can see where Southy's coming from.
At all junctions/traffic lights the bikes would funnel towards the front of the first vehicle then sit & wait & this would end up being a lot of bikes so when the lights changed if as a car driver you were at the back of the queue you might not make it across.
But I can also see that is a worst case scenario in this country & can see bikes as a good alternative but the security for bike parking would have to be greatly improved.
I don't want to come to Southy's defence but after living in Thailand & seeing how motor cyclists are there compared to this country I can see where Southy's coming from. At all junctions/traffic lights the bikes would funnel towards the front of the first vehicle then sit & wait & this would end up being a lot of bikes so when the lights changed if as a car driver you were at the back of the queue you might not make it across. But I can also see that is a worst case scenario in this country & can see bikes as a good alternative but the security for bike parking would have to be greatly improved. loosehead
  • Score: 0

7:09am Tue 10 Jun 14

Inform Al says...

camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
southy wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic!
From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.
It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'.

You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language.

(Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)
I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on.

(Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)
It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport.
Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)
I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is!

Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out!
Actually, just for once, there is some logic to what southy says. I personally walk to most places in Southampton I go to, so do not add to the traffic, except on the pavement where I seem to inconvenience quite a few cyclists in Portswood.
Firstly, change the record. We know Portswood Cyclists annoy you.

Secondly, Southy has stated that more bikes and less cars could equal more traffic than what is currently filling up the roads. There is utterly NO logic there whatsoever if you take in all variables and all factors. It wouldn't happen.
You obviously have not seen the rush hour traffic around Hyde Park Corner lately, the volume of cycles is astounding and unfortunately makes walking across the central section, a shared facility, more than just a bit hairy. The reason I mention Portswood is because I stroll through there a few times a day, I'm sure that errant cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk in many other places in the city.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic![/p][/quote]From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.[/p][/quote]It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'. You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language. (Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)[/p][/quote]I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on. (Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)[/p][/quote]It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport. Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)[/p][/quote]I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is! Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out![/p][/quote]Actually, just for once, there is some logic to what southy says. I personally walk to most places in Southampton I go to, so do not add to the traffic, except on the pavement where I seem to inconvenience quite a few cyclists in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Firstly, change the record. We know Portswood Cyclists annoy you. Secondly, Southy has stated that more bikes and less cars could equal more traffic than what is currently filling up the roads. There is utterly NO logic there whatsoever if you take in all variables and all factors. It wouldn't happen.[/p][/quote]You obviously have not seen the rush hour traffic around Hyde Park Corner lately, the volume of cycles is astounding and unfortunately makes walking across the central section, a shared facility, more than just a bit hairy. The reason I mention Portswood is because I stroll through there a few times a day, I'm sure that errant cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk in many other places in the city. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

8:53am Tue 10 Jun 14

camerajuan says...

Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
southy wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic!
From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.
It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'.

You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language.

(Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)
I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on.

(Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)
It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport.
Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)
I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is!

Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out!
Actually, just for once, there is some logic to what southy says. I personally walk to most places in Southampton I go to, so do not add to the traffic, except on the pavement where I seem to inconvenience quite a few cyclists in Portswood.
Firstly, change the record. We know Portswood Cyclists annoy you.

Secondly, Southy has stated that more bikes and less cars could equal more traffic than what is currently filling up the roads. There is utterly NO logic there whatsoever if you take in all variables and all factors. It wouldn't happen.
You obviously have not seen the rush hour traffic around Hyde Park Corner lately, the volume of cycles is astounding and unfortunately makes walking across the central section, a shared facility, more than just a bit hairy. The reason I mention Portswood is because I stroll through there a few times a day, I'm sure that errant cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk in many other places in the city.
No more cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk than "errant" motorists are putting everyone else at risk.

Hyde Park is in London, where people have lost their sense of spacial awareness, their manners, and their sense of wellbeing for people around them. Nothing logical works in London.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic![/p][/quote]From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.[/p][/quote]It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'. You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language. (Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)[/p][/quote]I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on. (Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)[/p][/quote]It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport. Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)[/p][/quote]I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is! Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out![/p][/quote]Actually, just for once, there is some logic to what southy says. I personally walk to most places in Southampton I go to, so do not add to the traffic, except on the pavement where I seem to inconvenience quite a few cyclists in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Firstly, change the record. We know Portswood Cyclists annoy you. Secondly, Southy has stated that more bikes and less cars could equal more traffic than what is currently filling up the roads. There is utterly NO logic there whatsoever if you take in all variables and all factors. It wouldn't happen.[/p][/quote]You obviously have not seen the rush hour traffic around Hyde Park Corner lately, the volume of cycles is astounding and unfortunately makes walking across the central section, a shared facility, more than just a bit hairy. The reason I mention Portswood is because I stroll through there a few times a day, I'm sure that errant cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk in many other places in the city.[/p][/quote]No more cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk than "errant" motorists are putting everyone else at risk. Hyde Park is in London, where people have lost their sense of spacial awareness, their manners, and their sense of wellbeing for people around them. Nothing logical works in London. camerajuan
  • Score: 0

5:17pm Tue 10 Jun 14

loosehead says...

camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
southy wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic!
From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.
It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'.

You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language.

(Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)
I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on.

(Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)
It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport.
Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)
I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is!

Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out!
Actually, just for once, there is some logic to what southy says. I personally walk to most places in Southampton I go to, so do not add to the traffic, except on the pavement where I seem to inconvenience quite a few cyclists in Portswood.
Firstly, change the record. We know Portswood Cyclists annoy you.

Secondly, Southy has stated that more bikes and less cars could equal more traffic than what is currently filling up the roads. There is utterly NO logic there whatsoever if you take in all variables and all factors. It wouldn't happen.
You obviously have not seen the rush hour traffic around Hyde Park Corner lately, the volume of cycles is astounding and unfortunately makes walking across the central section, a shared facility, more than just a bit hairy. The reason I mention Portswood is because I stroll through there a few times a day, I'm sure that errant cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk in many other places in the city.
No more cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk than "errant" motorists are putting everyone else at risk.

Hyde Park is in London, where people have lost their sense of spacial awareness, their manners, and their sense of wellbeing for people around them. Nothing logical works in London.
In Shirley there are signs every where saying no cycling on the pavements but they still do.
That said it's not right to categorise all cyclists because of the mindless few.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic![/p][/quote]From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.[/p][/quote]It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'. You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language. (Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)[/p][/quote]I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on. (Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)[/p][/quote]It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport. Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)[/p][/quote]I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is! Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out![/p][/quote]Actually, just for once, there is some logic to what southy says. I personally walk to most places in Southampton I go to, so do not add to the traffic, except on the pavement where I seem to inconvenience quite a few cyclists in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Firstly, change the record. We know Portswood Cyclists annoy you. Secondly, Southy has stated that more bikes and less cars could equal more traffic than what is currently filling up the roads. There is utterly NO logic there whatsoever if you take in all variables and all factors. It wouldn't happen.[/p][/quote]You obviously have not seen the rush hour traffic around Hyde Park Corner lately, the volume of cycles is astounding and unfortunately makes walking across the central section, a shared facility, more than just a bit hairy. The reason I mention Portswood is because I stroll through there a few times a day, I'm sure that errant cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk in many other places in the city.[/p][/quote]No more cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk than "errant" motorists are putting everyone else at risk. Hyde Park is in London, where people have lost their sense of spacial awareness, their manners, and their sense of wellbeing for people around them. Nothing logical works in London.[/p][/quote]In Shirley there are signs every where saying no cycling on the pavements but they still do. That said it's not right to categorise all cyclists because of the mindless few. loosehead
  • Score: 0

5:25pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Inform Al says...

camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
southy wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic!
From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.
It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'.

You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language.

(Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)
I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on.

(Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)
It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport.
Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)
I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is!

Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out!
Actually, just for once, there is some logic to what southy says. I personally walk to most places in Southampton I go to, so do not add to the traffic, except on the pavement where I seem to inconvenience quite a few cyclists in Portswood.
Firstly, change the record. We know Portswood Cyclists annoy you.

Secondly, Southy has stated that more bikes and less cars could equal more traffic than what is currently filling up the roads. There is utterly NO logic there whatsoever if you take in all variables and all factors. It wouldn't happen.
You obviously have not seen the rush hour traffic around Hyde Park Corner lately, the volume of cycles is astounding and unfortunately makes walking across the central section, a shared facility, more than just a bit hairy. The reason I mention Portswood is because I stroll through there a few times a day, I'm sure that errant cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk in many other places in the city.
No more cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk than "errant" motorists are putting everyone else at risk.

Hyde Park is in London, where people have lost their sense of spacial awareness, their manners, and their sense of wellbeing for people around them. Nothing logical works in London.
I was brought up in Paddington, and I possess all the qualities you deny to Londoners. Fact is with all those cycles on shared space you need more spacial awareness and sense of wellbeing than anywhere else in the world.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic![/p][/quote]From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.[/p][/quote]It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'. You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language. (Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)[/p][/quote]I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on. (Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)[/p][/quote]It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport. Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)[/p][/quote]I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is! Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out![/p][/quote]Actually, just for once, there is some logic to what southy says. I personally walk to most places in Southampton I go to, so do not add to the traffic, except on the pavement where I seem to inconvenience quite a few cyclists in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Firstly, change the record. We know Portswood Cyclists annoy you. Secondly, Southy has stated that more bikes and less cars could equal more traffic than what is currently filling up the roads. There is utterly NO logic there whatsoever if you take in all variables and all factors. It wouldn't happen.[/p][/quote]You obviously have not seen the rush hour traffic around Hyde Park Corner lately, the volume of cycles is astounding and unfortunately makes walking across the central section, a shared facility, more than just a bit hairy. The reason I mention Portswood is because I stroll through there a few times a day, I'm sure that errant cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk in many other places in the city.[/p][/quote]No more cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk than "errant" motorists are putting everyone else at risk. Hyde Park is in London, where people have lost their sense of spacial awareness, their manners, and their sense of wellbeing for people around them. Nothing logical works in London.[/p][/quote]I was brought up in Paddington, and I possess all the qualities you deny to Londoners. Fact is with all those cycles on shared space you need more spacial awareness and sense of wellbeing than anywhere else in the world. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

10:54pm Tue 10 Jun 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

loosehead wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
southy wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic!
From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.
It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'.

You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language.

(Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)
I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on.

(Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)
It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport.
Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)
I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is!

Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out!
Actually, just for once, there is some logic to what southy says. I personally walk to most places in Southampton I go to, so do not add to the traffic, except on the pavement where I seem to inconvenience quite a few cyclists in Portswood.
Firstly, change the record. We know Portswood Cyclists annoy you.

Secondly, Southy has stated that more bikes and less cars could equal more traffic than what is currently filling up the roads. There is utterly NO logic there whatsoever if you take in all variables and all factors. It wouldn't happen.
You obviously have not seen the rush hour traffic around Hyde Park Corner lately, the volume of cycles is astounding and unfortunately makes walking across the central section, a shared facility, more than just a bit hairy. The reason I mention Portswood is because I stroll through there a few times a day, I'm sure that errant cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk in many other places in the city.
No more cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk than "errant" motorists are putting everyone else at risk.

Hyde Park is in London, where people have lost their sense of spacial awareness, their manners, and their sense of wellbeing for people around them. Nothing logical works in London.
In Shirley there are signs every where saying no cycling on the pavements but they still do.
That said it's not right to categorise all cyclists because of the mindless few.
Also easy to see why people do it when people tailgate and squeeze past cyclists in a space smaller than the eye of a needle.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic![/p][/quote]From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.[/p][/quote]It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'. You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language. (Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)[/p][/quote]I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on. (Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)[/p][/quote]It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport. Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)[/p][/quote]I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is! Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out![/p][/quote]Actually, just for once, there is some logic to what southy says. I personally walk to most places in Southampton I go to, so do not add to the traffic, except on the pavement where I seem to inconvenience quite a few cyclists in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Firstly, change the record. We know Portswood Cyclists annoy you. Secondly, Southy has stated that more bikes and less cars could equal more traffic than what is currently filling up the roads. There is utterly NO logic there whatsoever if you take in all variables and all factors. It wouldn't happen.[/p][/quote]You obviously have not seen the rush hour traffic around Hyde Park Corner lately, the volume of cycles is astounding and unfortunately makes walking across the central section, a shared facility, more than just a bit hairy. The reason I mention Portswood is because I stroll through there a few times a day, I'm sure that errant cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk in many other places in the city.[/p][/quote]No more cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk than "errant" motorists are putting everyone else at risk. Hyde Park is in London, where people have lost their sense of spacial awareness, their manners, and their sense of wellbeing for people around them. Nothing logical works in London.[/p][/quote]In Shirley there are signs every where saying no cycling on the pavements but they still do. That said it's not right to categorise all cyclists because of the mindless few.[/p][/quote]Also easy to see why people do it when people tailgate and squeeze past cyclists in a space smaller than the eye of a needle. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

5:49am Wed 11 Jun 14

loosehead says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
loosehead wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
southy wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
From the sidelines wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic!
From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.
It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'.

You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language.

(Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)
I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on.

(Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)
It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport.
Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)
I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is!

Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out!
Actually, just for once, there is some logic to what southy says. I personally walk to most places in Southampton I go to, so do not add to the traffic, except on the pavement where I seem to inconvenience quite a few cyclists in Portswood.
Firstly, change the record. We know Portswood Cyclists annoy you.

Secondly, Southy has stated that more bikes and less cars could equal more traffic than what is currently filling up the roads. There is utterly NO logic there whatsoever if you take in all variables and all factors. It wouldn't happen.
You obviously have not seen the rush hour traffic around Hyde Park Corner lately, the volume of cycles is astounding and unfortunately makes walking across the central section, a shared facility, more than just a bit hairy. The reason I mention Portswood is because I stroll through there a few times a day, I'm sure that errant cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk in many other places in the city.
No more cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk than "errant" motorists are putting everyone else at risk.

Hyde Park is in London, where people have lost their sense of spacial awareness, their manners, and their sense of wellbeing for people around them. Nothing logical works in London.
In Shirley there are signs every where saying no cycling on the pavements but they still do.
That said it's not right to categorise all cyclists because of the mindless few.
Also easy to see why people do it when people tailgate and squeeze past cyclists in a space smaller than the eye of a needle.
ginger don't get me wrong I'm pro cyclist but a minority ruin it for the majority don't you think?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: Less Cars + More Bikes = Less Traffic![/p][/quote]From last count, 5 people think that this statement is false. I would love to hear why.[/p][/quote]It's not that they think it's false, they're objecting to you writing 'less cars', when you should have written 'fewer cars'. You see, the sotonians are highly educated and care about the use of language. (Some or all of the above may be flippant and/or wrong.)[/p][/quote]I understand your explanation and shall conduct myself in a more eloquent manner from now on. (Whatever the grammar, the statement is a fact, like it or not)[/p][/quote]It should same traffic because all you are saying take1 type of transport and replacing it with another type of transport. Less Cars + More Bikes = Same Amount of Traffic (it could even be more traffic as cars will hold more people than a bike can carry)[/p][/quote]I've only just seen this and I almost spat out my breakfast at how dense your statement is! Think about what you're saying southy, just for once. Please. Help us all out![/p][/quote]Actually, just for once, there is some logic to what southy says. I personally walk to most places in Southampton I go to, so do not add to the traffic, except on the pavement where I seem to inconvenience quite a few cyclists in Portswood.[/p][/quote]Firstly, change the record. We know Portswood Cyclists annoy you. Secondly, Southy has stated that more bikes and less cars could equal more traffic than what is currently filling up the roads. There is utterly NO logic there whatsoever if you take in all variables and all factors. It wouldn't happen.[/p][/quote]You obviously have not seen the rush hour traffic around Hyde Park Corner lately, the volume of cycles is astounding and unfortunately makes walking across the central section, a shared facility, more than just a bit hairy. The reason I mention Portswood is because I stroll through there a few times a day, I'm sure that errant cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk in many other places in the city.[/p][/quote]No more cyclists are putting pedestrians at risk than "errant" motorists are putting everyone else at risk. Hyde Park is in London, where people have lost their sense of spacial awareness, their manners, and their sense of wellbeing for people around them. Nothing logical works in London.[/p][/quote]In Shirley there are signs every where saying no cycling on the pavements but they still do. That said it's not right to categorise all cyclists because of the mindless few.[/p][/quote]Also easy to see why people do it when people tailgate and squeeze past cyclists in a space smaller than the eye of a needle.[/p][/quote]ginger don't get me wrong I'm pro cyclist but a minority ruin it for the majority don't you think? loosehead
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree