>They are not a universal panacea

> JNugent wrote:

>> John Rowland wrote:

>
>

>> The "A"23 Coulsdon bypass is a typical example of the "modern"
>> anti-car thinking of highway engineers in the pay of local
>> authorities: single carriageway (unbelievable!) and with a
>> significant part of the width conned-off for use only by buses (an
>> admission of failure before it was even opened).

>
> There are no local buses on the bypass. I've never used the road, but I
> would imagine the major beneficiaries of the "bus lane" would be taxis from
> Gatwick to London. Looking athttp://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=sjmczmgznw97&sty...
> it seems as if there is room at the northern end to create a flat junction
> which wouldn't clog.
>

> On Aug 17, 2:10 pm, "John Rowland"
> journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> JNugent wrote:

>>> John Rowland wrote:

>>

>>> The "A"23 Coulsdon bypass is a typical example of the "modern"
>>> anti-car thinking of highway engineers in the pay of local
>>> authorities: single carriageway (unbelievable!) and with a
>>> significant part of the width conned-off for use only by buses (an
>>> admission of failure before it was even opened).

>> There are no local buses on the bypass. I've never used the road, but I
>> would imagine the major beneficiaries of the "bus lane" would be taxis from
>> Gatwick to London. Looking athttp://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=sjmczmgznw97&sty...
>> it seems as if there is room at the northern end to create a flat junction
>> which wouldn't clog.
>>

> What weird comments. Perhaps it would have been better to find out a
> few facts before launching into attack. How was the road in any way
> anti car? It is a single carriageway road connecting a single ...

> On Aug 17, 2:10 pm, "John Rowland"
> journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> JNugent wrote:

>>> John Rowland wrote:

>>
>>

>>> The "A"23 Coulsdon bypass is a typical example of the "modern"
>>> anti-car thinking of highway engineers in the pay of local
>>> authorities: single carriageway (unbelievable!) and with a
>>> significant part of the width conned-off for use only by buses (an
>>> admission of failure before it was even opened).

>>
>> There are no local buses on the bypass. I've never used the road,
>> but I
>> would imagine the major beneficiaries of the "bus lane" would be
>> taxis from
>> Gatwick to London. Looking
>> athttp://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=sjmczmgznw97&sty...
>> it seems as if there is room at the northern end to create a flat ...

> Doug riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> (Of traffic lights)
>

>> I find them useful because they make motorists drive in convoys with
>> gaps between the convoys where people can cross the road without fear of
>> being killed. The alternative seems to be an endless stream of traffic
>> which makes crossing the road virtually impossible or else means waiting
>> a long, long time.

>
> Aren't cyclists "traffic", then?

>
> Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I don;t know the area, and was misled
> into believing that the junction was the problem by JNugent's comments.- Hide quoted text -
>

> "John Rowland" journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> JNugent wrote:

>>> John Rowland wrote:

>>> The "A"23 Coulsdon bypass is a typical example of the "modern"
>>> anti-car thinking of highway engineers in the pay of local
>>> authorities: single carriageway (unbelievable!) and with a
>>> significant part of the width conned-off for use only by buses (an
>>> admission of failure before it was even opened).

>> There are no local buses on the bypass. I've never used the road, but I
>> would imagine the major beneficiaries of the "bus lane" would be taxis from
>> Gatwick to London. Looking athttp://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCC&cp=sjmczmgznw97&sty...
>> it seems as if there is room at the northern end to create a flat junction
>> which wouldn't clog.

> What weird comments. Perhaps it would have been better to find out a
> few facts before launching into attack. How was the road in any way
> anti car?

> Strange, I'd always got the impression that you were in favour of more
> people being allowed to travel easily by road between various points in
> London? Maybe I've misunderstood.

> Peter Heather wrote:

>> And the comment about the northern junction needing work to avoid
>> clogging is absurd. The junction is fine and only clogs when traffic
>> tails back from the north, which no amount of redesign of the junction
>> would cure.

> Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I don;t know the area, and was misled
> into believing that the junction was the problem by JNugent's comments.

> Brimstone wrote:
>

>> Strange, I'd always got the impression that you were in favour of
>> more people being allowed to travel easily by road between various
>> points in London? Maybe I've misunderstood.

>
> That does not include allowing pedestrians, cyclists,
> horses-and-carts, moped-riders and milk-floats to use motorways.