|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Peter HeatherPeter Heather Date: Aug 18, 2008 12:50
On Aug 18, 8:03 pm, JNugent NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Who said it was?
>
> And the comment about the northern junction needing work to avoid
>> clogging is absurd.
>
> Not my comment.
>
I was replying to John Rowland's comments, not yours. So what are you
getting so excited about?
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: John WrightJohn Wright Date: Aug 18, 2008 14:54
Brimstone wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Which motorway is such traffic allowed to use?
Any motorway in Duhg world. Especially pedestrians and cyclists.
--
John Wright
"What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?
You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!" - Professor Temple Grandin
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: JNugentJNugent Date: Aug 18, 2008 14:56
Peter Heather wrote:
> On Aug 18, 8:03 pm, JNugent NPPTG.com> wrote:
> >>> 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?
>> Who said it was?
>>
>> And the comment about the northern junction needing work to avoid
>>> clogging is absurd.
>> Not my comment.
>>
>
> I was replying to John Rowland's comments, not yours.
You were replying, portmanteau-style, to both sets of comments.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JNugentJNugent Date: Aug 18, 2008 14:57
Brimstone wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>> 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.
> Which motorway is such traffic allowed to use?
The former A40(M), M41 and A102(M) - or at least, the automatic motorway
restrictions no longer apply.
All achieved by stripping those roads of their motorway status and
handing them over to Mad Ken.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BrimstoneBrimstone Date: Aug 18, 2008 15:03
JNugent wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>> Which motorway is such traffic allowed to use?
>
> The former A40(M), M41 and A102(M) - or at least, the automatic
> motorway restrictions no longer apply.
>
> All achieved by stripping those roads of their motorway status and
> handing them over to Mad Ken.
|
| Show full article (0.69Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JNugentJNugent Date: Aug 18, 2008 15:29
Brimstone wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Which motorway is such traffic allowed to use?
>> The former A40(M), M41 and A102(M) - or at least, the automatic
>> motorway restrictions no longer apply.
>> All achieved by stripping those roads of their motorway status and
>> handing them over to Mad Ken.
> So they're not motorways?
I was wondering whether you would try that line.
They used to be motorways and had the traffic-flow efficiencies of that
category.
|
| Show full article (1.22Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MortimerMortimer Date: Aug 18, 2008 15:48
"JNugent" NPPTG.com> wrote in message
news:EOmdneSPPOFRajTVnZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d@pipex.net...> Then they were reclassified as non-motorways precisely so that Mad Ken >
> could get his grubby mitts on them and downgrade the speed limits, narrow
> them, or anything else of the sort of thing you'd expexct from him (he
> never had authority over any of the London motorways - eg, M1, M3(?), M4,
> M40, M11 - except the ones which were nobbled and handed over to him.
That tactic is not confined to London and Mad Ken. The A329(M)
Reading-Bracknell-via-M4 motorway was downgraded to an A road - I think just
the bit between Winnersh and the A4 - so they could designate Lane 1 as a
bus lane for exclusive use by park and ride buses.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Richard J.Richard J. Date: Aug 18, 2008 16:46
JNugent wrote:
> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>
>>>> Which motorway is such traffic allowed to use?
>
>>> The former A40(M), M41 and A102(M) - or at least, the automatic
>>> motorway restrictions no longer apply.
>>> All achieved by stripping those roads of their motorway status and ...
|
| Show full article (2.28Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John BJohn B Date: Aug 18, 2008 17:27
On 18 Aug, 23:48, "Mortimer" privacy.net> wrote:> That tactic is not confined to London and Mad Ken. The A329(M)
> Reading-Bracknell-via-M4 motorway was downgraded to an A road - I think just
> the bit between Winnersh and the A4 - so they could designate Lane 1 as a
> bus lane for exclusive use by park and ride buses.
Hmm. What's the pink bit in the middle of the M4 on the way in from
Heathrow, then?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: MIGMIG Date: Aug 18, 2008 17:54
On Aug 19, 12:46 am, "Richard J." blueukder.co.yon> wrote:> JNugent wrote:
>> Brimstone wrote:
>
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> Brimstone wrote:
>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>>> Which motorway is such traffic allowed to use?
>
>>>> The former A40(M), M41 and A102(M) - or at least, the automatic
>>>> motorway restrictions no longer apply. ...
|
| Show full article (1.70Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
