Why the hell would you want to go into 5th gear in the town centre??
To make sure you get all the cyclists
Why the hell would you want to go into 5th gear in the town centre??
North Laines seem ever more popular with shoppers from out of town, no wonder, I went to Worthing a couple of weeks ago, I'm sorry to our friends over there but it is a very poor shopping experience. Brighton is lively, has quirky and interesting shops, people look happy as well, I couldn't wait to get back home. Worthing just seemed to be full of miserable looking pensioners.
Has anyone noticed that Lewes Road is quieter today, at 8 o'clock this morning the road wasn't too bad and at lunchtime very quiet indeed so im not sure if they have changed the traffic lights or it is just a one off.
Maybe you need to attempt to drive a car at 20mph, the emissions will be higher as you cannot achieve the highest gear which will be very pleasing for all the residents and pedestrians now caught in the daily jam caused by near empty bus/cycle lanes. It will now be interesting to see if cases of asthma increase in these area's now
Anyway, your argument is contradictory - 20mph is too slow, but there are traffic jams meaning you can't go faster?
I don't think there is contradiction there. There is a certain logic in assuming that if the traffic is flowing well, less cars will be at any one time on a particular road as more people will have therefore finished their journey earlier.
Just a question for the 'greens are NOT anti car' brigade ...
whats the idea behind the current parking proposals on Elm Grove ?
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1070...ncil_announces_crackdown_on_pavement_parking/
If the traffic is moving at the speed limit then more vehicles will pass a point at 20mph in any given time than at 30pmh or at 40mph. This is because the gaps between cars is smaller as less time is needed to stop safely at lower speeds.
At higher speeds the gaps increase. This may make it appear less busy, but fewer journeys are completed.
It's quite simple, as these diagrams illustrate.Is that a fact for the speed of 20mph? I understand your point but isn't there a trade-off as although more cars may be on the road, it would theoretically take them longer to get from a to b? There must be an optimum speed for traffic I suppose.
I think it's more 'Greens are anti-dangerous parking'.
As is the rest of the council.
Just a question for the 'greens are NOT anti car' brigade ...
whats the idea behind the current parking proposals on Elm Grove ?
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1070...ncil_announces_crackdown_on_pavement_parking/
It's quite simple, as these diagrams illustrate.
The fundamental diagram of traffic flow is a diagram that gives a relation between the traffic flux (vehicles/hour) and the traffic density (vehicles/km). A macroscopic traffic model involving traffic flux, traffic density and velocity forms the basis of the fundamental diagram. It can be used to predict the capability of a road system, or its behaviour when applying inflow regulation or speed limits.
There is a connection between traffic density and vehicle velocity: The more vehicles are on a road, the slower their velocity will be.
To prevent congestion and to keep traffic flow stable, the number of vehicles entering the control zone has to be smaller or equal to the number of vehicles leaving the zone in the same time.
At a critical traffic density and a corresponding critical velocity the state of flow will change from stable to unstable.
If one of the vehicles brakes in unstable flow regime the flow will collapse.
The primary tool for graphically displaying information in the study traffic flow is the fundamental diagram. Fundamental diagrams consist of 3 different graphs: flow-density, speed-flow, and speed-density. The graphs are two dimensional graphs. All the graphs are related by the equation “flow = speed * density”; this equation is the essential equation in traffic flow. The fundamental diagrams were derived by the plotting of field data points and giving these data points a best fit curve. With the fundamental diagrams researchers can explore the relationship between speed, flow, and density of traffic.
The key factor is the one I've highlighted:- If one of the vehicles brakes in unstable flow regime the flow will collapse. What this means is that the most efficient way of driving on a busy road is for everyone to travel at the same speed - the variable speed limit signs on the M25 are a well-known example of trying to get this message across.
I wonder if that equation was considered or whether ideology superseded the notion of a better flow.
What ideology? Seeing that this was a plan originally proposed by Labour, passed through the council (with organised funding) by the Tories and implemented by the Greens; how it could have been implemented for ideological reasons?
There may be a lot of political differences between all three parties but there's a remarkable degree of agreement between them on transport issues (something that a lot of people posting on here seem to have trouble taking on board).
Quite simply , because the council "lost" on its recent plans to implement resident parking in the area , its nothing but spite !
The people who live on Elm Grove soon wont be able to park there , they will park in the side roads , the side road residents will have no where to park , the council will then install resident parking and thereby win a previous lost battle and get lots of extra cash . Snidey feckers !!
The dangerous parking area's (corners etc) could be marked or hatched out and rightly so , but all of Elm Grove ? Really ?
How many more times does one have to say 'how many more times?'
Quite simply , because the council "lost" on its recent plans to implement resident parking in the area , its nothing but spite !