Sheriffhall Roundabout

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

2 hours ago, Jeffros Furios said:

If you were cycling near me you would receive the Jeffros flame thrower .

 

 

Ah yes if you disagree with someone just kill them, how very mature!

Edited October 7, 2022 by will-i-am-a-jambo

[Jeffros Furios]

1 minute ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

Ah yes if you disagree with someone just kill them, how very mature!

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

3 hours ago, OBE said:

 

Driving is now a chore and expensive, but you think the shinny new flyover will encourage day trippers.

Day trippers, what are you talking about? It is a well established fact that building more roads encourages and entices more cars on the road. 

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

1 minute ago, Jeffros Furios said:

When you've cleaned everyone out at least you can sit on your own wee island to yourself 😉

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

3 hours ago, jonesy said:

The housing issues and the transport issues are inextricably linked. 
 

In 20odd years the majority of vehicles will be electric anyway. So investing in roads now to allow the emission free cars to get around freely is kind of future proofing the city.

 

And your ‘lazy’ comment is typical of those who seek to vilify car users. A year or so ago, I saw an ambulance stuck behind 3 cars at Causewayside. The cars had nowhere to go because of the cycle lane bollards. When discussing this with a sustrans cheerleader, he simply said “the cars shouldn’t be there”. This person is now training to be a city planner. No knowledge of who the drivers were  or why they were on the road, but they simply “shouldn’t be there”. Ignorance and snobbery masquerading as concern for the climate.
 

Christ, if the future is the likes of Greta and her kind lecturing everyone about not eating meat and cycling to work, then I’m getting myself a Land Rover to hasten our demise.

Ok so l can take on board your link between housing and roads.

 

You are talking specific examples though whereas lm talking in general.

 

If you want to stick your head in the sand regarding climate change then knock yourself out. You don't have to take my word for it though, the evidence is already there, energy crises, food shortages and high prices, heat waves, flash floods etc etc. It is in everyone's best interest to protect and care for the planet and that means everyone takes part, takes responsibility for their own actions rather than let other people carry the can. It's not just for now but for future generations, yours and mine children and grandchildren. I want to be able to look them in the eye and say l did what l could! Can you say the same?

 

Unfortunately a lot of people are selfish and only think about their own needs rather than look at the bigger picture and always find an excuse to do what they want rather think about the consequences of their actions.

 

I'm sorry about your issues with cycle lobbyists, not all cyclists are like that. I've already accepted some cars are necessary for mobility, services, trades etc. So not completely blinkered. 

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

11 hours ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

I live on a hill.

Typical of the 'lm alright Jack and bugger everyone else' attitude that's causing this mess in the first place.

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

7 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Fair enough mate.

 

But we could zero our nation's emissions overnight and, unless China, India and the States were to seriously reduce theirs - something they have no interest in doing - then it wouldn't make a difference. Until then, I'll take advantage of the great invention that is the internal combustion engine to make the most of my life.

 

Humans are fecked unless we become interplanetary. No amount of bollards is going to change that.

So let's just give up, pathetic! I'd rather die trying than give up. This is my point, let's blame other people, countries, and not take any responsibily. It is up to us to sort out our own house first before we can point the finger. Yes, India, China and the US are big contributers but so are we in our own small way. 

 

Do you honestly believe building the flyover will solve congestion? They built the bypass to avoid congestion in the city and now we have congestion in the city and in the bypass. The flyover will only encourage more cars and more congestion. Yes it may solve it short term but certainly not long term. The council/government need to provide good, clean, safe alternative public transport to encourage people out of their cars to solve long term issues.

[OBE]

36 minutes ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

Day trippers, what are you talking about? It is a well established fact that building more roads encourages and entices more cars on the road. 

 

£8 a gallon and rising again soon, thanks OPEC. Cars will be dumped soon enough when other priorities kick in...

[OBE]

20 minutes ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

So let's just give up, pathetic! I'd rather die trying than give up. This is my point, let's blame other people, countries, and not take any responsibily. It is up to us to sort out our own house first before we can point the finger. Yes, India, China and the US are big contributers but so are we in our own small way. 

 

Do you honestly believe building the flyover will solve congestion? They built the bypass to avoid congestion in the city and now we have congestion in the city and in the bypass. The flyover will only encourage more cars and more congestion. Yes it may solve it short term but certainly not long term. The council/government need to provide good, clean, safe alternative public transport to encourage people out of their cars to solve long term issues.

 

Yes, at Sheriffhall, but the same flyovers will be needed at Old Craighall for A1 South and Hermiston Gate...I mean, traffic lights at the end of an inadequate dual carriageway...

Edited October 7, 2022 by OBE

[Dazo]

2 hours ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

Day trippers, what are you talking about? It is a well established fact that building more roads encourages and entices more cars on the road. 

This wouldn’t be a new road though. Can’t see a huge change in numbers using that junction because of a flyover. It’s needed to reduce a bottleneck not entice new road users. 

[Footballfirst]

4 hours ago, OBE said:

 

Proper bypasses take the heat of the inner city's, The state of Edinburgh's bypass, encourages evil drivers to use inner city roads, something ain't right...

The Edinburgh City Bypass was opened in sections between 1981 and 1989. The Musselburgh bypass on the A1 was opened in 1986 and the M8 extension to Hermiston gate in 1995.

 

In the last 25 years The City of Edinburgh's and East Lothian's populations have gone up by around 20%.

 

It is hardly surprising that the bypass, as designed, cannot cope.  House building continues apace along most of the A1 corridor to Prestonpans and the Eastern end of the bypass itself. If nothing is done, then the whole city will become gridlocked.  It is far more fuel efficient and eco friendly for vehicles to be able to move freely. That means better infrastructure.

[OBE]

48 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The Edinburgh City Bypass was opened in sections between 1981 and 1989. The Musselburgh bypass on the A1 was opened in 1986 and the M8 extension to Hermiston gate in 1995.

 

In the last 25 years The City of Edinburgh's and East Lothian's populations have gone up by around 20%.

 

It is hardly surprising that the bypass, as designed, cannot cope.  House building continues apace along most of the A1 corridor to Prestonpans and the Eastern end of the bypass itself. If nothing is done, then the whole city will become gridlocked.  It is far more fuel efficient and eco friendly for vehicles to be able to move freely. That means better infrastructure.

 

The bypass has never properly coped. No longer commute on it, TFFT! Was comical mind, Old MacDonald in his tractor bouncing along doing 15mph, utter carnage behind him because wee Bessy/Bob hadn't anticipated that they'd eventually need to breenge into the outside lane...

Edited October 7, 2022 by OBE

[il Duce McTarkin]

3 hours ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

Typical of the 'lm alright Jack and bugger everyone else' attitude that's causing this mess in the first place.

 

Suck it up, princess.

[il Duce McTarkin]

4 hours ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

 

You are talking specific examples though whereas lm talking in general.

 

If you want to stick your head in the sand regarding climate change then knock yourself out. You don't have to take my word for it though, the evidence is already there, energy crises, food shortages and high prices, heat waves, flash floods etc etc. It is in everyone's best interest to protect and care for the planet and that means everyone takes part, takes responsibility for their own actions rather than let other people carry the can. It's not just for now but for future generations, yours and mine children and grandchildren. I want to be able to look them in the eye and say l did what l could! Can you say the same?

 

Unfortunately a lot of people are selfish and only think about their own needs rather than look at the bigger picture and always find an excuse to do what they want rather think about the consequences of their actions.

 

8 hours ago, jonesy said:

 Ignorance and snobbery masquerading as concern for the climate.

 

The first quoted post is a solid example of the second quoted post.

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

3 hours ago, Lord BJ said:

😂 it appears some posters not really getting internet. 
 

You are not going to move people from their cars, until there is a suitable alternative. That would seem unlikely to ever happen, if we’re being honest. (Lots of reasons) and some people can’t be removed car for practical reasons. 
 

Cars and personal transport aren’t going away, no matter what some might want.  
 

The connectivity within Scotland is very poor even within the central belt. Outside, main city centres, it drops off a cliff. Population is increasingly living outside the city centres for a large number of reasons is  exahberating the issue. The infrastructure hasn’t really changed to reflect that and in many ways policy has compounded issues. 

 

Things like putting bollards up or increasing cycle paths don’t do that much to address the fundamental issues. In fact they generally exaberate the problems. Albeit. I understand they will improve conditions for existing cyclists. 
 

The core issue needs to be addressed. Something central and local govts have largely failed to address. 
 

Also increasing roads capacity is about decreasing congestion and pollution. Edinburgh, is already a LEZ city. In probably less than 10years the ice will be the minority. We’ll all be driving a cleaner vehicle such as electric, hydrogen, synthetic fuel etc. 
 

Something needs done with the bypass, a flyover should improve things. It’s, like most the infrastructure in this country not fit for purpose. 

 
 

 

 

Totally agree with you. Needs a lot more joined up thinking. As lve stated previously l think cars still play a role. It's finding solutions that are more sustainable than at present. Encouraging people out of their cars is a good starting point but as you rightly say there needs to be cheap, safe and clean alternatives put in place. You making an interesting point about infrastructure not keeping pace with the movement of people. 

[il Duce McTarkin]

3 minutes ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

Totally agree with you. Needs a lot more joined up thinking. As lve stated previously l think cars still play a role. It's finding solutions that are more sustainable than at present. Encouraging people out of their cars is a good starting point but as you rightly say there needs to be cheap, safe and clean alternatives put in place. You making an interesting point about infrastructure not keeping pace with the movement of people. 

 

None of what Lord BJ says is novel information to anyone who uses a car, tbf.

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

2 hours ago, Dazo said:

This wouldn’t be a new road though. Can’t see a huge change in numbers using that junction because of a flyover. It’s needed to reduce a bottleneck not entice new road users. 

I think you are missing the point, anything like building new roads, flyovers whatever you want to call it encourages people to use their cars and ultimately leads to more people to use the roads, flyovers etc which ultimately leads to more traffic.

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

25 minutes ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

 

The first quoted post is a solid example of the second quoted post.

Ignorance works both ways hence the debate and the forum. 

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

1 hour ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

Suck it up, princess.

Grow up. 

[il Duce McTarkin]

6 minutes ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

Grow up. 

 

It's not me that's scooting about with a lecturing air of superiority, clad in skin-tight lycra, with a helmet from a 70s sci-fi B movie on my napper. 🤷‍♂️

 

Glass houses and that.

 

Let the grown ups discuss infrastructure, and you can stick to terrorizing pedestrians on canal tow-paths that you wrongly assume are a leg of the Tour de France.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2022 by Dirk McClaymore

[OBE]

3 minutes ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

I think you are missing the point, anything like building new roads, flyovers whatever you want to call it encourages people to use their cars and ultimately leads to more people to use the roads, flyovers etc which ultimately leads to more traffic.

 

Folk use their motors because they need to be somewhere. You reckon folk will add journeys to their schedule just because there's a flyover. Why?

[il Duce McTarkin]

3 minutes ago, OBE said:

 

Folk use their motors because they need to be somewhere. You reckon folk will add journeys to their schedule just because there's a flyover. Why?

 

Come on, you know why.

[OBE]

2 minutes ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

Come on, you know why.

 

I need to read it from Willy...

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

3 minutes ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

It's not me that's scooting about with a lecturing air of superiority, clad in skin-tight lycra, with a helmet from a 70s sci-fi B movie on my napper. 🤷‍♂️

 

Glass houses and that.

 

 

Lol lm just making my opinions known about building roads, flyovers and how it is not really a long term solution. If you don't like what l have to say you don't have to respond. You have made it perfectly clear where you stand on the issue although you spend more time name calling which says more about you.  I don't think lm superior to anyone, l actually own a car but use it sparingly only when l need to. I'm not against it. The rest of the time l use alternative means as l understand the consequences of using the car all the time. Btw l don't own any lycra but you bash on.

[il Duce McTarkin]

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

10 minutes ago, OBE said:

 

Folk use their motors because they need to be somewhere. You reckon folk will add journeys to their schedule just because there's a flyover. Why?

If people see there is a quick and convenient  route to their destination because there is a flyover they are more likely to use the car instead of alternative means. There is plenty of evidence building more roads, flyovers encourages car use. I feel like lm going round in circles here. 

[il Duce McTarkin]

3 minutes ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

I feel like lm going round in circles here. 

 

Unlike the folk who are required to use the Sheriffhall roundabout.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2022 by Dirk McClaymore

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

10 minutes ago, OBE said:

 

I need to read it from Willy...

So you agree with me then, cool. 

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

2 minutes ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

Unlike the folk who are required to use the Sheriffhall roundabout.

 

 

 

 

😂

[il Duce McTarkin]

7 minutes ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

😂

 

👍

[Dazo]

29 minutes ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

I think you are missing the point, anything like building new roads, flyovers whatever you want to call it encourages people to use their cars and ultimately leads to more people to use the roads, flyovers etc which ultimately leads to more traffic.

I’m not missing anything, you just made something up to dismiss the idea of a flyover. You’re right though can’t wait to take the mrs and the kids on a pointless trip over the new flyover we wouldn’t have taken if it was still a roundabout. Hopefully the round about at old Craighall remains or I’ll never get home. 

[Jeffros Furios]

1 hour ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

So you agree with me then, cool. 

Are you big willy or wee willy ? 

[OBE]

1 hour ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

If people see there is a quick and convenient  route to their destination because there is a flyover they are more likely to use the car instead of alternative means. There is plenty of evidence building more roads, flyovers encourages car use. I feel like lm going round in circles here. 

 

Quick and convenient is the goal Bud!

[skinnybob72]

If you want an example of the kind of decision making we have around Edinburgh in terms of traffic management consider where the park and ride is at Sheriffhall - it’s INSIDE the bypass!!!

 

It’s not taking any traffic away from the roundabout!! Surely anyone with 2 brain cells to run together would have built it on the other side of the bypass to remove a lot of traffic from the roundabout?? 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, skinnybob72 said:

If you want an example of the kind of decision making we have around Edinburgh in terms of traffic management consider where the park and ride is at Sheriffhall - it’s INSIDE the bypass!!!

 

It’s not taking any traffic away from the roundabout!! Surely anyone with 2 brain cells to run together would have built it on the other side of the bypass to remove a lot of traffic from the roundabout?? 

Spot on, and no easy way to get to it either.  There's also no decent pedestrian or cycle route over sherrifhall without taking your life into your hands

[Doctor FinnBarr]

14 hours ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

Typical of the 'lm alright Jack and bugger everyone else' attitude that's causing this mess in the first place.

 

Ok, how do you address my problem, I live in West Lothian but work in Lanarkshire. It would take me 3 busses to get to work (and over 2 hours) and I can't get home again because public transport is so bad. Am I allowed a car or not?

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

6 hours ago, FinnBarr Saunders said:

 

Ok, how do you address my problem, I live in West Lothian but work in Lanarkshire. It would take me 3 busses to get to work (and over 2 hours) and I can't get home again because public transport is so bad. Am I allowed a car or not?

If you had read my other posts, most car journeys are between 3-5 miles and can be done using other means. The school pick up/drop off being a prime example. I've also  already said people need to use cars still for various reasons. Building new roads, flyovers is an extremely short term view to solve traffic congestion. 

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

13 hours ago, OBE said:

 

Quick and convenient is the goal Bud!

Whilst destroying the planet in the process? How very thoughtful. 

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

9 hours ago, skinnybob72 said:

If you want an example of the kind of decision making we have around Edinburgh in terms of traffic management consider where the park and ride is at Sheriffhall - it’s INSIDE the bypass!!!

 

It’s not taking any traffic away from the roundabout!! Surely anyone with 2 brain cells to run together would have built it on the other side of the bypass to remove a lot of traffic from the roundabout?? 

I actually agree with you on this 

Edited October 8, 2022 by will-i-am-a-jambo

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

19 hours ago, OBE said:

 

£8 a gallon and rising again soon, thanks OPEC. Cars will be dumped soon enough when other priorities kick in...

Yep corporate greed at its finest aided and abetted by our weak government. I feel sorry for the people and businesses who have no choice but to use their vehicles. 

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

15 hours ago, Dazo said:

I’m not missing anything, you just made something up to dismiss the idea of a flyover. You’re right though can’t wait to take the mrs and the kids on a pointless trip over the new flyover we wouldn’t have taken if it was still a roundabout. Hopefully the round about at old Craighall remains or I’ll never get home. 

I'm not making anything up. They built extra lanes on the M25 around London thinking it would ease congestion but guess what it hasn't. And there are plenty of other examples, our very own bypass for one. The same will happen with this flyover. Do you honestly think it will ease congestion on the bypass? It's a very short term solution spending millions of your and mine tax payers money in the process. Would it not be better to spend it on long term alternative solutions? Like investing in infrastructure for better public transport facilities? And at least giving people a choice in the process.

Edited October 8, 2022 by will-i-am-a-jambo

[OBE]

2 minutes ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

Yep corporate greed at its finest aided and abetted by our weak government. I feel sorry for the people and businesses who have no choice but to use their vehicles. 

 

Our Government has no control over OPEC, they've just slashed production to increase the cost of a barrel..£10 a gallon is looming, if that happened, I'd seriously consider getting rid of my pride and joy...£10 for 32 miles with a bus-pass on my hip, eh! 

[Dazo]

3 minutes ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

I'm not making anything up. They built extra lanes on the M25 around London thinking it would ease congestion but guess what it hasn't. And there are plenty of other examples, our very own bypass for one. The same will happen with this flyover. Do you honestly think it will ease congestion on the bypass? It's a very short term solution spending millions of your and mine tax payers money in the process. Would it not be better to spend it on long term alternative solutions? Like investing in infrastructure for better public transport facilities?

It will ease congestion at the sheriffhall for A1 and bypass traffic 100%. I think these type of things should go hand in hand with infrastructure improvements. Cars aren’t going away and what will be your argument about congestion and saving the planet when we are all driving electric cars ? 

[OBE]

20 minutes ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

Whilst destroying the planet in the process? How very thoughtful. 

 

Quick and convenient v Slow, frustrating, polluting more & time wasting. 

[stirlo]

1 hour ago, will-i-am-a-jambo said:

I'm not making anything up. They built extra lanes on the M25 around London thinking it would ease congestion but guess what it hasn't. And there are plenty of other examples, our very own bypass for one. The same will happen with this flyover. Do you honestly think it will ease congestion on the bypass? It's a very short term solution spending millions of your and mine tax payers money in the process. Would it not be better to spend it on long term alternative solutions? Like investing in infrastructure for better public transport facilities? And at least giving people a choice in the process.

 

I think you make a fair point that building roads is not always the solution as they can just lead to more traffic. But the thing about Sheriffhall, is that a very large proportion of the traffic that goes through that roundabout is traffic that's coming from the bypass and staying on the bypass. So the main effect of that roundabout is just to hold up traffic. I can never remember a time when the traffic at Sheriffhall was not bad and building an overpass is way overdue IMO.

[Dazo]

9 minutes ago, stirlo said:

 

I think you make a fair point that building roads is not always the solution as they can just lead to more traffic. But the thing about Sheriffhall, is that a very large proportion of the traffic that goes through that roundabout is traffic that's coming from the bypass and staying on the bypass. So the main effect of that roundabout is just to hold up traffic. I can never remember a time when the traffic at Sheriffhall was not bad and building an overpass is way overdue IMO.

Yep, really takes the new road argument out of the equation. Obviously this may push some of the problems down to the next roundabout if heading south. There really should have been a slip road straight onto the A1 at that junction. 

Edited October 8, 2022 by Dazo

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

13 hours ago, Dazo said:

It will ease congestion at the sheriffhall for A1 and bypass traffic 100%. I think these type of things should go hand in hand with infrastructure improvements. Cars aren’t going away and what will be your argument about congestion and saving the planet when we are all driving electric cars ? 

Imo I think it's extremely naive to think it will solve congestion around Sheriffhall. In fact ld go as far as to say it will make it worse. I've given examples as to why l think that is so lm not going over old ground. The traffic will just be pushed to other areas, it's just kicking the can down the road. So lets agree to disagree?

 

Yeah l agree about the infrastructure as at least it will give people a choice and l agree cars aren't going away.

 

Electric cars aren't as green as you think. For all cars most energy goes into the production 50% of the energy in the average cars lifespan and that causes CO2 release in itself, there are other issues as well such as micro rubbers from braking and tyres which have ended up in the rivers and seas. There is also the issue of lithium batteries, they reckon there's only enough to make 4 billion cars. But that is for another debate. 

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

12 hours ago, stirlo said:

 

I think you make a fair point that building roads is not always the solution as they can just lead to more traffic. But the thing about Sheriffhall, is that a very large proportion of the traffic that goes through that roundabout is traffic that's coming from the bypass and staying on the bypass. So the main effect of that roundabout is just to hold up traffic. I can never remember a time when the traffic at Sheriffhall was not bad and building an overpass is way overdue IMO.

I can see why you think it will ease congestion and solve the bottleneck but imo l think it's just kicking the can down the road, the congestion will just end up in other areas. It's just a quick fix and ld rather tax payers money was spent on long term sustainable solutions rather than waste millions on something that is a short term solution at best.  

[Greedy Jambo]

 

[will-i-am-a-jambo]

10 hours ago, Lord BJ said:

People using the bypass aren’t making short 2-3 miles journeys🤣 They are using that road as they have little option. The 2-3 mile journeys that happen are the ones that happen within towns and villages. 
 

The population increase in that area and the continued expansion that is happening just outside the bypass means it isn’t fit for purpose. That road is facing a shit ton more of traffic, irrespective of flyover being built. 

 

No one is suggesting building roads is the answer to pollution/environmental problems. That’s just a manufactured argument by poster to create as false equivancely; as is most the ranting tbqfhwy 
 

The extension at sheriff hall would be upgrading infrastructure to be more fit for purpose and reflect the way people live,  therefore reduce pollution from congestion. (You can increase traffic and reduce pollution by reducing congestion especially when we are transitioning greener cars) 

 

Even when we’re all driving electric car, that road still won’t be fit for purpose. It should be done in conjunction with other things eg. Move the park and ride, improve/provide cycle routes (ideally away from cars), better public transport links etc. Doubt we see these thing happen if they do the will most likely be poorly thought out if past experience anything to go by. 

 

As an aside we could do with sone larger investments in infrastructure in Scotland for sone economic benefits; especially with a recession on it's way. 
 

I rarely use the bypass  occasional trip to Costco. Albeit don’t think I’m getting my Costco shopping on the back of my bike. The road is busy more often than not in my experience and that in large part down to the roundabout being a pinch point. You solve that issue you reduce congestion and pollution. Which would seem a win win to me. Also improving the cities connectivity with the residential areas outside the city, which is important on a number of levels. 
 

 

You make some valid points re connectivity, l just think it's a short term solution with tax payers money being wasted when it could be better spent on long term sustainable solutions. As mentioned before building new roads or whatever does not solve congestion issues in the long run and would go as far as saying it makes it worse. It's kicking the can down the road. See the M8 as a way to ease congestion in Glasgow city centre, it doesn't work. The bypass was supposed to ease congestion in Edinburgh, now you get congestion in the city and on the bypass. Do you see the point lm trying to make?  

 

I don't know who uses the bypass but l agree they're probably not making 2-3 mile journeys. We are talking 2 separate issues here. The govt/councils need to provide alternatives so at least people can make a choice.

 

I don't expect folk to load up on Costco goods and ride on their bikes although it'd be fun to see them try! I have said lm not totally against cars, its use should be limited to those that really need it as long as alternatives are provided for others.