The economy needs just-in-time deliveries

TruckerT

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Without wishing to dig myself into a hole, I'd say my shift is 24 hours a day. Since retiring, my entire life is a 'Comedy Club'!

How about this - "if Clapton were to bury his head in the sand, would he manage to come up with a grain of common sense"


TruckerT

custardy

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

????? Who said that???

No. As for car drivers, licensing helps to take the 'killers' off the road so that they can't do any more damage!

So licensing wont change that then,so whats the point?
will bikes have ANPR suitable plates fitted to show registered keepers?
How exactly do you see that working day to day?

custardy

TruckerT wrote: »

The vast majority of cyclists, and the vast majority of lorry drivers, never experience a fatal collision.


But occasionally it happens.


It makes no economic sense to completely re-organise the nation's haulage industry in order to satisfy the politically correct demands of a small(ish) group of free-riders.


TruckerT

http://grist.org/list/one-mile-on-a-bike-is-a-42-economic-gain-to-society-one-mile-driving-is-a-20-loss/

A forward thinking city.

http://kk.sites.itera.dk/apps/kk_pub2/pdf/823_Bg65v7UH2t.pdf

custardy

cells wrote: »

Such [STRIKE]a bus/car/HGV tunnel [/STRIKE] an increase in cycling through proper cycling infrastructure would reduce overground tube and road capacity problems so not just a benifit to users of the [STRIKE]tunnel[/STRIKE] bike but to non users too.

:beer::beer::beer::beer:

chris_m

TruckerT wrote: »

The vast majority of cyclists, and the vast majority of lorry drivers, never experience a fatal collision.
But occasionally it happens.
It makes no economic sense to completely re-organise the nation's haulage industry in order to satisfy the politically correct demands of a small(ish) group of free-riders.....

... of which many (but by no means all) seem to have little or no sense of self-preservation nor inclination to follow the rules of the road - which are there for the safety of all road users.

Generali

Hmmm. Tunneling through clay for 10s of miles. Any engineers on here? Failing that does anyone have any thoughts as to why there are no tube trains in SE London and the ones in the SW are extremely deep?

bugslet

Generali wrote: »

I'm not sure why people like to whine about cyclists. We use less road, pay more taxes and are healthier than car drivers.

For the same reason people like to whine about any set of road users; they have a bad experience with one or two and then escalate that to include everyone, irrespective of evidence.

I'm not sure why people like to whine about trucks, each artic shunts over 50k ( that's what it was in 2002, I'm sure it's gone up since then) into the economy via tax. During the fuel protests, Tony Blair said that fuel duty subsidises hospitals and schools. As an industry we are surprisingly progressive and truck manufacturers strive to bring out cleaner vehicles. Because as an industry we have these large vehicles so visible in daily life, it's easy to point at them and lay the blame for so many woes at their wheels. However, every customer is only interested in how cheap the job can be done and when you have that environment, you get people who cut corners and reflect badly on the majority who remain compliant and proactive in reducing fuel emissions, vehicle defects and maintaining their Operators License.

buglawton

Emigrate to one of the hundreds of European mainland towns/cities with safe, pleasant segregated cycle routes. For some wierd reason many Northern European roads systems have been designed/built with cycling in mind since the 1960s, without fuss, bother or politics.

cells

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Sorry!

Too close to my back yard. Think again.

It would be a benefit to you.

Instead of cars going through great Cambridge Road down towards seven sisters or further south they would take the tunnel.

Just two such vehicle tunnels could cut surface traffic by 2-3 billion miles annually. Wven of you never use the tunnel toy would benifit in less traffic and quicker speeds on surface roads.

You are looking at 200 million litres of less fuel burnt too due to lower milage and higher fuel efficiency of those vehicles using the tunnel. There would also be a substantial fuel saving over ground with less traffic and less stop start. It could be as high as 500 million litres pa total. Plus everyones time value. Of thos tunnel decreased average transport time by 50 hours per person per year that is over 400 million less wasted hours a year.

Also it could make your journey to central London 15 minutes non stopnon a bus. Rather than 15 minites just tondo 1 mile on GCR

cells

Generali wrote: »

Hmmm. Tunneling through clay for 10s of miles. Any engineers on here? Failing that does anyone have any thoughts as to why there are no tube trains in SE London and the ones in the SW are extremely deep?

You would require a larger tunnel than a train tunnel so it would be more earth to move. However with the ability of buses to use the tunnel it would efftively be a 'tube' system but instead of trains multiple buses could use the lines.

It would not be cheap nor quock but it would allow huge public transport via buses and huge amounts of private and commercial traffic too.

Could perhaps save 500 million litres of fuel a year
And perhaps 500 million hours of less traffic and time spent computing.
I would put the benefit at over £3 billion a year. If it cost less than £30B to build I'd be very pro for it. Would also create lots of construction jobs for a decade so that £30B isn't vanishing into the ether