How to Easily Improve Britain's Roads

Watch
UniWasEz
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
*Those with under 4 years driving experience should be confined to 1L naturally aspirated engine cars with no power enhancing modifications.

*Drivers with over 4 years experience should be barred from driving cars that are incapable of accelerating from 0-62 in under 9 seconds.

*Anyone that drives below the speed limit despite good road conditions to such an extent that it impedes other motorists should have their licence taken away

*An additional charge on all public transport with all proceeds going towards road repair/improvement.

*Speed limits outside of urban areas increased. Cars generally have much better safety equipment and braking than when many of the speed limits on roads were first put in place. Also roads will be a lot quieter than they are just now with less dangerous drivers.

*Farm traffic, lorries and other slow moving traffic not allowed to use roads during morning and evening rush hour.

These changes would undeniably improve the quality and safety of our roads, decrease travel times, improve air quality, increase use and coverage of public transport, and generally make Britain great again.
0
reply
IWMTom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
(Original post by UniWasEz)
lorries and other slow moving traffic not allowed to use roads during morning and evening rush hour.
What a stupid idea.
2
reply
UniWasEz
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by IWMTom)
What a stupid idea.
Informative reply, thanks for expanding!
0
reply
IWMTom
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by UniWasEz)
Informative reply, thanks for expanding!
That's at minimum in a good area 4 hours a day you're saying lorries can't travel, up to 8 hours in heavily congested areas.

The postal system would grind to a halt!
0
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
4 years experience and suddenly you need something with more acceleration than a 2.0l petrol focus?

even if you just want to use it for going to the supermarket and doing school runs?
0
reply
UniWasEz
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by IWMTom)
That's at minimum in a good area 4 hours a day you're saying lorries can't travel, up to 8 hours in heavily congested areas.

The postal system would grind to a halt!
I disagree on it being 4 hours a day but just for arguments sake lets say it is. That still leaves 20 hours a day for them to travel without being massive inconveniences to other road users while also allowing the lorries to maintain a consistently higher speed while causing less pollution, seems like a positive change to me. Perhaps it could be adjusted though so that lorries can travel on motorways during these times so that faster moving traffic can still easily and safely pass during busy hours.

The working pattern for postal workers could change.
0
reply
monkeyman0121
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by UniWasEz)
*Those with under 4 years driving experience should be confined to 1L naturally aspirated engine cars with no power enhancing modifications.

*Drivers with over 4 years experience should be barred from driving cars that are incapable of accelerating from 0-62 in under 9 seconds.

*Anyone that drives below the speed limit despite good road conditions to such an extent that it impedes other motorists should have their licence taken away

*An additional charge on all public transport with all proceeds going towards road repair/improvement.

*Speed limits outside of urban areas increased. Cars generally have much better safety equipment and braking than when many of the speed limits on roads were first put in place. Also roads will be a lot quieter than they are just now with less dangerous drivers.

*Farm traffic, lorries and other slow moving traffic not allowed to use roads during morning and evening rush hour.

These changes would undeniably improve the quality and safety of our roads, decrease travel times, improve air quality, increase use and coverage of public transport, and generally make Britain great again.
Ok, I am fine with some of this but the public transport charge increase I am not. At some point it will reach an sum that means it would just not be worth going on public transport.

Also why the 4 years and higher suggestion?
0
reply
Tommy123Hull
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
Britain has some of the safest roads in Europe. But this isn't Britain... This is der Autobahn! - Alan Partridge
1
reply
howitoughttobe
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by UniWasEz)
*Those with under 4 years driving experience should be confined to 1L naturally aspirated engine cars with no power enhancing modifications.
1L is ridiculously small. My first car was a 1.2L and that struggled sometimes.

(Original post by UniWasEz)
*Drivers with over 4 years experience should be barred from driving cars that are incapable of accelerating from 0-62 in under 9 seconds.
Why after four years do you suddenly need a car that can accelerate quickly? Seems pointless and illogical to me.

(Original post by UniWasEz)
*Anyone that drives below the speed limit despite good road conditions to such an extent that it impedes other motorists should have their licence taken away
Pretty sure you can already get points for this. Instant disqualification is unnecessary.

(Original post by UniWasEz)
*An additional charge on all public transport with all proceeds going towards road repair/improvement.
Public transport is already ridiculously expensive. How is increasing the cost going to encourage people to use it?

(Original post by UniWasEz)
*Speed limits outside of urban areas increased. Cars generally have much better safety equipment and braking than when many of the speed limits on roads were first put in place. Also roads will be a lot quieter than they are just now with less dangerous drivers.
Why will there be less dangerous drivers?

(Original post by UniWasEz)
*Farm traffic, lorries and other slow moving traffic not allowed to use roads during morning and evening rush hour.
Slow moving vehicles are more of a problem when the roads are quieter because they slow people down. During rush hour you can rarely get up to the speed limit anyway.

Do you actually drive OP?
2
reply
Tommy123Hull
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
Seriously though, I agree with what you’ve said 😀
0
reply
UniWasEz
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by monkeyman0121)
Ok, I am fine with some of this but the public transport charge increase I am not. At some point it will reach an sum that means it would just not be worth going on public transport.
I probably should of explained my thinking behind this point. I think the other changes would have a significant influence on the number of people using public transport which should in theory improve margins for public transport providers. Part of this increased profit could be used to absorb costs for this additional charge.

(Original post by monkeyman0121)
Also why the 4 years and higher suggestion?
I feel it gives someone plenty of time to get experience driving a car that shouldn't be outwith their abilities. I have seen way too many people crash cars that are way too powerful for their ability. Admittedly it is anecdotal, but in my mind it is crazy that an inexperienced driver is presently legally allowed to drive something like an audi s3. Being honest, 4 years does seem like a long time to me and maybe it should be less, but I would say it is a sensible length of time.
0
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by UniWasEz)
--snip--
I feel it gives someone plenty of time to get experience driving a car that shouldn't be outwith their abilities. I have seen way too many people crash cars that are way too powerful for their ability. Admittedly it is anecdotal, but in my mind it is crazy that an inexperienced driver is presently legally allowed to drive something like an audi s3.
Yeah, but what you said was...
*Drivers with over 4 years experience should be barred from driving cars that are incapable of accelerating from 0-62 in under 9 seconds.
Which means when you hit 4 years experience you can only drive a car that'll do 0-62 in less than 9 seconds.

Which seems out of touch with what people are actually driving and want to drive (and pay for)
0
reply
UniWasEz
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Joinedup)
Yeah, but what you said was...


Which means when you hit 4 years experience you can only drive a car that'll do 0-62 in less than 9 seconds.

Which seems out of touch with what people are actually driving and want to drive (and pay for)
You can get 1L hatchbacks that will do it in under 9 seconds (going by parkers specs). That said I feel you may be right about 9 seconds being too ambitious and if it was under 10 seconds this would open up a lot more specifications of cars that would meet the criteria.

People will also quite happily sit below 50 in nationals with others quite happily to sit right behind them meaning those that do not want to, have to overtake multiple cars at once. In my experience these drivers often cause massive tailbacks. While part of the problem is some people are downright selfish in their driving, I get the impression that many are nervous to overtake in very under-powered cars.
0
reply
TajwarC
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
Why on Earth should people who've been driving for over 4 years be forced to drive a car that does 0-62 in under 9 seconds? A lot of people living in urban areas chose to drive cars with 1.0-1.4L engines. You mention that some 1.0L hatchbacks can do this in under 9 seconds, however most cannot. In fact, they won't even be driving above 40/50 unless they do an occasional motorway journey. So you'd be forcing these people to drive cars with bigger engines and therefore force them to spend more on fuel. Explain how that will improve air quality?
0
reply
unveilednectar
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by UniWasEz)
I get the impression that many are nervous to overtake in very under-powered cars.
These drivers are not 'nervous', They are law abiding citizens who do not desire to get speeding tickets through a couple of minutes of speed racing. They are in simple terms, saving themselves money in which they can use for something more productive.
0
reply
Realitysreflexx
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
More fuel consumption amd faster cars wont unclog roads...we need more car sharing a coordination between people and not a medium like uber, but sustainable car sharing options and a reduction in this american led overconsumption culture of more cars. The UK is a tiny place, theres far too many vechicles for the size of it on the road.
0
reply
UniWasEz
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by unveilednectar)
These drivers are not 'nervous', They are law abiding citizens who do not desire to get speeding tickets through a couple of minutes of speed racing. They are in simple terms, saving themselves money in which they can use for something more productive.
Wouldn't call having the courtesy to sit at the speed limit in good road conditions "speed racing". Perhaps it also highlights a need for drivers to be able to exceed the speed limit by a predefined amount when overtaking on single carriageway roads, which if Im not mistaken exists in some countries on the continent.

(Original post by TajwarC)
Why on Earth should people who've been driving for over 4 years be forced to drive a car that does 0-62 in under 9 seconds? A lot of people living in urban areas chose to drive cars with 1.0-1.4L engines. You mention that some 1.0L hatchbacks can do this in under 9 seconds, however most cannot. In fact, they won't even be driving above 40/50 unless they do an occasional motorway journey. So you'd be forcing these people to drive cars with bigger engines and therefore force them to spend more on fuel. Explain how that will improve air quality?
You agree that there are 1L cars that can meet the criteria so if someone were to buy a big engine car that would be their choice (along with the additional fuel). I also replied to an earlier post saying that perhaps under 10 seconds would be better as it gives even more options yet avoids severely under-powered cars. air quality improves as there would likely be less cars on the road and there isnt a need for big engines.
0
reply
TajwarC
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by UniWasEz)
Wouldn't call having the courtesy to sit at the speed limit in good road conditions "speed racing". Perhaps it also highlights a need for drivers to be able to exceed the speed limit by a predefined amount when overtaking on single carriageway roads, which if Im not mistaken exists in some countries on the continent.



You agree that there are 1L cars that can meet the criteria so if someone were to buy a big engine car that would be their choice (along with the additional fuel). I also replied to an earlier post saying that perhaps under 10 seconds would be better as it gives even more options yet avoids severely under-powered cars. air quality improves as there would likely be less cars on the road and there isnt a need for big engines.
Yes, but the vast majority of 1L cars cannot do a sub 10 second 0-62. Increasing your made up criteria by one second does not really extend options either. So there would be definitely an increase in the number of cars with larger engines. How does this reduce the number of cars on the road? Especially when you propose to *increase* public transport fairs also...
0
reply
monkeyman0121
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by UniWasEz)
I probably should of explained my thinking behind this point. I think the other changes would have a significant influence on the number of people using public transport which should in theory improve margins for public transport providers. Part of this increased profit could be used to absorb costs for this additional charge.



I feel it gives someone plenty of time to get experience driving a car that shouldn't be outwith their abilities. I have seen way too many people crash cars that are way too powerful for their ability. Admittedly it is anecdotal, but in my mind it is crazy that an inexperienced driver is presently legally allowed to drive something like an audi s3. Being honest, 4 years does seem like a long time to me and maybe it should be less, but I would say it is a sensible length of time.
I mean the 'people with 4 years have to have a car that can go from 0 to 62 ish in 9 seconds'. Or did you mean they are allowed to have a car like that because of the 4 years. (I assumed it meant they could not have a worse car than that.)
0
reply
UniWasEz
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by TajwarC)
Yes, but the vast majority of 1L cars cannot do a sub 10 second 0-62. Increasing your made up criteria by one second does not really extend options either. So there would be definitely an increase in the number of cars with larger engines. How does this reduce the number of cars on the road? Especially when you propose to *increase* public transport fairs also...
By that thinking every criteria is made up. Increasing by 1 second increase what you can get by quite a lot, actually.

It reduces the number of cars on the road as many are suitable and people would be more likely to adopt public transport. An additional charge for using public transport does not necessarily translate to increased fares, especially if passanger numbers increase.


(Original post by monkeyman0121)
I mean the 'people with 4 years have to have a car that can go from 0 to 62 ish in 9 seconds'. Or did you mean they are allowed to have a car like that because of the 4 years. (I assumed it meant they could not have a worse car than that.)
You are right, I meant not have a worse car after 4 years experience. That said, I wouldnt say under 10 seconds is unreasonable.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Who is winning Euro 2020

France (82)
26.71%
England (104)
33.88%
Belgium (26)
8.47%
Germany (37)
12.05%
Spain (5)
1.63%
Italy (25)
8.14%
Netherlands (10)
3.26%
Other (Tell us who) (18)
5.86%

Watched Threads

View All