Birmingham cars could be banned from driving through city centre

Status
Not open for further replies.
AndrewFlannigan said:
Maintenance crews are out at those times because it's empty. There are all sorts of things going on through the night and speed limits could be set for any number of good reasons.
Click to expand...
As I say, empty, no cars, no lorries, no roadworks, not even any cones. Nothing.
 
bass_junkie83 said:
Apparently there is is a main feed to a substation and/or a gas main that was located in the centre of the roundabout when it was originally built which stop the road from being straightened out. The argument is that the cost and time required to relocate the services and then straighten the road is such that leaving as is is the better option when considering the amount of disruption that work would create.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. Perhaps it is somewhat less nonsensical than I had assumed.
 
nilagin said:
As I say, empty, no cars, no lorries, no roadworks, not even any cones. Nothing.
Click to expand...
Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there or was there but has now moved on. The people who run the motorway are tasked with keeping it moving which includes reducing collisions to a minimum. Their viewpoint is different to that of a road user who has no access to the information they are working from.
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there or was there but has now moved on. The people who run the motorway are tasked with keeping it moving which includes reducing collisions to a minimum. Their viewpoint is different to that of a road user who has no access to the information they are working from.
Click to expand...
If it has moved on there is no point in a 50mph reduced speed limit for about 4 miles. As there was barely another vehicle on the road at the time, a collision was already reduced to a minimum. If there had been anything blocking any of the lanes then they would have closed some of the lanes with red x's.
Add to that my sat nav would have also advised of a hazard, but it didn't.
 
nilagin said:
Add to that my sat nav would have also advised of a hazard, but it didn't.
Click to expand...
I really can't see any purpose in continuing this discussion.
 
One common reason for temporary speed restrictions is to allow workers to pick up crap that's fallen off roofracks, trucks etc. with a reduced risk of some impatient tw@ running into them. Might only take a minute or 2 to do the actual clearing but the restriction on speeds will be in place until the control room (who tend to be overstretched these days) has a chance to remove it.
 
Nod said:
One common reason for temporary speed restrictions is to allow workers to pick up crap that's fallen off roofracks, trucks etc. with a reduced risk of some impatient tw@ running into them. Might only take a minute or 2 to do the actual clearing but the restriction on speeds will be in place until the control room (who tend to be overstretched these days) has a chance to remove it.
Click to expand...

This may well be why few take much notice of temporary speed restrictions these day: signs go up warning of workers in the road, or an accident, or something else, but the hazard never appears - it's almost as though someone thinks it's fun to see if the poor mugs on the motorway will slow down for nothing. Of course there may be a perfectly good reason, but when that's not obvious it reduces credibility and eventually no-one takes any notice when 'wolf' is cried.
 
it is the future, get used to it. Unfettered private transport is on the way out, for the good of the planet and future generations. The people railing against it are just going to have to unlearn the behaviours developed over the last 60 years and get used to living in a much more sustainable way.

that's if there is enough time left.
 
I am waiting to see what is going to be the solution for replacing the millions of gas fired central heating boilers we are using as a nation, as they contribute a similar amount of pollution as cars do ........
 
Quite, there are an awful lot of things to do, things we should have started doing years, or even decades ago.
 
Ideally, we shouldn't have started doing them millennia ago!
 
Birmingham is a nightmare. I have to go to the ICC tomorrow for our annual conference and it'll be a lottery as to which roads will be closed off!
 
Ref smart motorways, they are computer controlled generally, with human input for overriding circumstances. If you do not see the cause of the delay then they have, in most cases, worked as designed.
On occasions, quite often, the speed on a smart motorway is set to accommodate traffic flow on feeder roads.
Obviously, they are not 100% all the time.

Some people need to brush up on the highway code. A posted speed limit accompanied by flashing yellow lights is advisory and not an enforced limit. Any posted limit in a red circle is an obligatory limit and is enforced.
That said, ignore an advisory and have an accident and you could be looking at a charge of driving without due care and attention but you won't be charged with speeding provided you were below the actual posted limit.
 
Ste_S said:
As someone who actually lives in Birmingham unlike I guess the majority of posters in this thread, I can't wait for this to get implemented.
Click to expand...

Well enjoy then. If you ever need my real estate photography services, or I guess any other service from their respective providers please don't be offended to pay basically near double. Good luck.
 
broc said:
I am waiting to see what is going to be the solution for replacing the millions of gas fired central heating boilers we are using as a nation, as they contribute a similar amount of pollution as cars do ........
Click to expand...

I suggest there shall be no central heating and cold water is just fine... Who is the first to sign up?
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I suggest there shall be no central heating and cold water is just fine... Who is the first to sign up?
Click to expand...
Hmmm. Destruction of the planetary ecosystem or your warm bath.
it’s a tough one.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Well enjoy then. If you ever need my real estate photography services, or I guess any other service from their respective providers please don't be offended to pay basically near double. Good luck.
Click to expand...
This is a key point, of course.

oil and coal have been plentiful and have created a false economy. The key to the future is how we got out of that false economy. its possible that cheap real estate photos have to suffer, along with a few other things.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Well enjoy then. If you ever need my real estate photography services, or I guess any other service from their respective providers please don't be offended to pay basically near double. Good luck.
Click to expand...
Could it not work out better for you? Less traffic on the roads from people commuting or making personal journeys, which in turn frees up the roads for for people providing services that can't avoid using a car such as yourself? You spend less time stuck in traffic and can spend more time on profitable activities.

Sure, you might end up paying congestion charges, but the suggestion that it will double your fees seems a bit silly, unless you are only charging a tenner to photograph a property. Besides, the charges are tax deductible expenditures anyway so you just put that much lass aside for your tax bill each month.
 
bass_junkie83 said:
Could it not work out better for you? Less traffic on the roads from people commuting or making personal journeys, which in turn frees up the roads for for people providing services that can't avoid using a car such as yourself? You spend less time stuck in traffic and can spend more time on profitable activities.

Sure, you might end up paying congestion charges, but the suggestion that it will double your fees seems a bit silly, unless you are only charging a tenner to photograph a property. Besides, the charges are tax deductible expenditures anyway so you just put that much lass aside for your tax bill each month.
Click to expand...

Just in case this somehow ends up with this or another council.... 1. The roads around centre will be certainly far more congested leading to actually increased time spent in traffic. 2. I don't have a globalist budget to pay for something unnecessary to avoid being near "plebs". I'm rather one of them. 3. I would much rather work in Cotswold anyway. 4. 20% off of that bill + loads more for parking for tax deductible is a crap incentive. Sorry customer will have to pay for all this inconvenience
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Well enjoy then. If you ever need my real estate photography services, or I guess any other service from their respective providers please don't be offended to pay basically near double. Good luck.
Click to expand...
LongLensPhotography said:
Just in case this somehow ends up with this or another council.... 1. The roads around centre will be certainly far more congested leading to actually increased time spent in traffic. 2. I don't have a globalist budget to pay for something unnecessary to avoid being near "plebs". I'm rather one of them. 3. I would much rather work in Cotswold anyway. 4. 20% off of that bill + loads more for parking for tax deductible is a crap incentive. Sorry customer will have to pay for all this inconvenience
Click to expand...

I will indeed carry on to use the many local reasonably priced services who seem to have a better attitude than you have :)
 
Ste_S said:
I will indeed carry on to use the many local reasonably priced services who seem to have a better attitude than you have :)
Click to expand...

I really don't blame you, that's the only choice you will soon have anyway. Maybe that's OK for me too because I never liked going to urban places for many many reasons.

nilagin said:
Meanwhile in London a ULEZ scrappage scheme is being run for low income or disabled car owners to give them the opportunity to get a car which will meet the ULEZ.
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/car-and-motorcycle-scrappage-scheme
Click to expand...

Sounds interesting and well intentioned on the surface. However, it bugs me a great deal knowing we will be footing £2000 bills for £100 cars to be scrapped, and many rouge traders and their families will stock up on them to benefit. £1000 for a £50 moped is even more outrageous. All I'm saying there should be some sort of valuation applied unless you are desperate to shift those bangers out at ANY cost to the rest of the country. Probably some of these cars only do 1000 or less miles in a year, but I will give you that I truly hate old stinky noisy mopeds more than anything on the roads.
 
Pound Coin said:
Hmmm. Destruction of the planetary ecosystem or your warm bath.
it’s a tough one.
Click to expand...

I hope you are doing your bit?

Never heard such tosh in my life as what you are spouting but.............there you go.
 
Pound Coin said:
oil and coal have been plentiful and have created a false economy. The key to the future is how we got out of that false economy.
Click to expand...

Sorry to say this is pretty much true - they have been treated as inexhaustible and as though the placement of waste in all its forms from them into the environment could have no effect. It's a bit like believing that we are recycling by sending waste to another country 'who recycle for us' when all they do is dump it in landfill or the sea.

There's a huge investment into other ways of providing energy, and it's unlikely that those methods would/could have been created without the massive consumption of resources that we seen. At the same time we have to hope that fossil fuels have provided a high enough springboard to enable us to move to the next level without causing massive destruction.

Sadly the quote about ecosystems and baths is only going to make environmentalists more enemies than friends, and is likely to cause a deliberate shunning of technologies that may be better for the environment. There was a radio interview with a representative from Shell a few weeks back, and the 'environmentalist' voice was more concerned about trying to make Shell look bad in public than encouraging them to invest further in green technology - this movement needs friends, but is apparently not interested in winning anyone over.
 
ancient_mariner said:
There's a huge investment into other ways of providing energy, and it's unlikely that those methods would/could have been created without the massive consumption of resources that we seen. At the same time we have to hope that fossil fuels have provided a high enough springboard to enable us to move to the next level without causing massive destruction.

Sadly the quote about ecosystems and baths is only going to make environmentalists more enemies than friends, and is likely to cause a deliberate shunning of technologies that may be better for the environment. There was a radio interview with a representative from Shell a few weeks back, and the 'environmentalist' voice was more concerned about trying to make Shell look bad in public than encouraging them to invest further in green technology - this movement needs friends, but is apparently not interested in winning anyone over.
Click to expand...

To say it mildly, new technology should be in place and readily available before old is phased out. I personally suspect there are crazy military advances classified top secret and kept in the "occult" domain as far as we are concerned. You are indeed right this alternative approach is generating a lot of enemies of the green tyranny system, and thank God for that. All it is designed to do is make you live out in the cold, without transport or amenities but ample of surveillance paid by yourself (smartfones and CCTV funded from taxes).

There are big problems with the big multinationals expecting to shift us old out of date products for decades by only putting a different lipstick on this pig. At the same time they as well as the military will kill off any "dangerous" new tech. Well we should be flying by now, and not going back to the omnibus or the bikes. Preferably single gear ones to make sure one doesn't venture too far... The very same breed of such revolutionisers were carrying red flags and are responsible for 1917 in Russia and far worse in China. Green is the new red now.

ancient_mariner said:
It's a bit like believing that we are recycling by sending waste to another country 'who recycle for us' when all they do is dump it in landfill or the sea.
Click to expand...

Remember it is not YOUR fault this is happening. Governments are crazy and big business need to make and sell their bloody toxic plastics. Well perhaps someone with a bit of brain and less selfishness should be in charge. The big polluters should pay. China is the worst of them all by far yet they are allowed by Paris to INCREASE their s***ting. Explain me that!
 
DK602 said:
I hope you are doing your bit?

Never heard such tosh in my life as what you are spouting but.............there you go.
Click to expand...

Humanity has grown its existence on this planet for a very long time. Right now there are very significant signs that human existence is making non-reversible changes to the world's ecosystem. Humanity needs the ecosystem to survive. This is not a scenario where a few potatoes grown in some poo will suffice.

Currently humanity's social and economic systems are based on growth.

Do you think the growth should just carry on?
 
Pound Coin said:
Currently humanity's social and economic systems are based on growth.

Do you think the growth should just carry on?
Click to expand...
I would say it was based more on health and preventing death.
How do you propose we alter that?
 
Pound Coin said:
Humanity has grown its existence on this planet for a very long time. Right now there are very significant signs that human existence is making non-reversible changes to the world's ecosystem. Humanity needs the ecosystem to survive. This is not a scenario where a few potatoes grown in some poo will suffice.

Currently humanity's social and economic systems are based on growth.

Do you think the growth should just carry on?
Click to expand...
This is just scaremongering and is completely false!
Humans haven't been around 'for a very long time at all' - the planet is 6 billion years old and humans have only existed for 'the blink of an eye' in comparison, let alone burning fossil fuels.
There has always been climate change and the climate is always changing - we have only a tiny influence on it.
CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and climate has changed more rapidly before man existed.
Population will not keep growing - (posted before):
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI&t=366s


Human caused climate change is socialism in disguise where doom mongers hate to see us progress and want companies to pay huge taxes on their emissions.

Thankfully the leader of the Western world has spotted the hoax.
 
Doesn't address my points, just regurgitates climate change denier stuff.
 
Pound Coin said:
Doesn't address my points, just regurgitates climate change denier stuff.
Click to expand...

It does but there again I'm not going to get into a debate with someone who's thoughts are completely 'anti human' .
 
Currently humanity's social and economic systems are based on growth.
Click to expand...

nilagin said:
I would say it was based more on health and preventing death.
How do you propose we alter that?
Click to expand...

Would it make more sense if it were described as industrial and monetary systems? Most countries around the world seem to have geared their industry to make more and more stuff that people have to be persauded to buy - a good example of doing this blatantly are Sonos: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/sonos-speaker-and-devices.706194/. People buy stuff and the countries economy grows. Countries borrow money against future growth, expecting that increased tax take will enable them to cover their debts instead of having to borrow more to cover them.

Certainly people are more focussed on health and preventing death, and there's a medical industry that grows as we buy more stuff to keep us healthy for longer or prevent bad things happening. That's not a bad thing of itself, although in many ways the 'planet' would benefit if we lived shorter lives and were less populous.

How should we alter that? On a personal level, just buy what you need, don't throw things out when you get bored or if they're a little worn and repair instead of discarding, eat moderately, drive as necessary but no more.

On a national level, bringing this to an end by legislation is the end of life as we knew it - TBH I don't think it's possible because there are too many people who see personal freedom as more important than anything else, including the suffering of others.
 
Last edited:
DK602 said:
It does but there again I'm not going to get into a debate with someone who's thoughts are completely 'anti human' .
Click to expand...

Please don't try and make up what I think. Makes you look a tad sad.

ancient_mariner said:
On a national level, bringing this to an end by legislation is the end of life as we knew it - TBH I don't think it's possible because there are too many people who see personal freedom as more important than anything else, including the suffering of others.
Click to expand...

I think that is a key point. We cannot carry on as we have been: there are two endings. One is a scaling back of what we do as humans, and the other is Mad Max without any good bits.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Would it make more sense if it were described as industrial and monetary systems? Most countries around the world seem to have geared their industry to make more and more stuff that people have to be persauded to buy - a good example of doing this blatantly are Sonos: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/sonos-speaker-and-devices.706194/. People buy stuff and the countries economy grows. Countries borrow money against future growth, expecting that increased tax take will enable them to cover their debts instead of having to borrow more to cover them.

Certainly people are more focussed on health and preventing death, and there's a medical industry that grows as we buy more stuff to keep us healthy for longer or prevent bad things happening. That's not a bad thing of itself, although in many ways the 'planet' would benefit if we lived shorter lives and were less populous.

How should we alter that? On a personal level, just buy what you need, don't throw things out when you get bored or if they're a little worn and repair instead of discarding, eat moderately, drive as necessary but no more.

On a national level, bringing this to an end by legislation is the end of life as we knew it - TBH I don't think it's possible because there are too many people who see personal freedom as more important than anything else, including the suffering of others.
Click to expand...
Basically that means everybody should exist, not live.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top