Level crossing stupidity...

[Reorte]

7 minutes ago, SM42 said:

Visual amenity is in my opinion always a weak argument

...

The built environment is an important amenity and its look for a location even more so, however there have to be,  as with everything,   limits. 

I'm certainly not arguing against any sorts of limits, but those two parts look like a bit of a contradiction.

 

My argument is simply that the visual quality of your surroundings is as important for mental health as the environmental conditions are for your physical. It's difficult to deal with because it's much more different from person to person than physical conditions, but no less important. There are definitely times when I'd prefer physical to visual pollution.

Edited July 29 by Reorte

[Reorte]

8 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

It's an interesting point and I genuinely wonder what sort of things you are thinking about?

I'd rather not go in to it because I feel it could turn nasty quickly. Suffice to say that I don't always agree with what I actually feel - there are definitely areas here where what I want and what I think is right don't align.

[SM42]

21 minutes ago, Reorte said:

I'm certainly not arguing against any sorts of limits, but those two parts look like a bit of a contradiction.

 

 

 

The point I  was trying to make was that these things are important but so subjective that any argument using them is weak. 

 

Andy

[corneliuslundie]

Time perhaps to get back to the topic of the thread - and I am aware that I have been as guilty as anyone else in taking the thread off topic.

Jonathan

[Reorte]

28 minutes ago, SM42 said:

 

The point I  was trying to make was that these things are important but so subjective that any argument using them is weak.

Fair point, but it leaves us in "what should we do about it then?" territory. In any case the same's frequently true of any benefits - after all, whether something's good or bad I'd argue always is subjective at the end of the day. The closest you can get to being definitive is a broad consensus; you can come up with various things that you can measure but whether they translate to improving or not the lives of people you're back in subjective territory.

[Nick C]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

If people thought more about those around them life for disabled people would be a lot less strained. 

If people thought more about those around them life for everyone would be a lot less strained!

[caradoc]

On 29/07/2024 at 14:26, Reorte said:

I do get extremely annoyed about people who dismiss "spoiling the view." The aesthetic nature of our surroundings is massively important for a good quality of life

 

I always wonder when someone says 'it will spoil my view'; What was the view like before their house was built and probably spoiled it for others?

 

[2E Sub Shed]

Level crossing incident 1934

[Michael Hodgson]

41 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

I always wonder when someone says 'it will spoil my view'; What was the view like before their house was built and probably spoiled it for others?

 

Why do you think it cost more to buy a house at the edge of the green belt?

[johnofwessex]

3 hours ago, 2E Sub Shed said:

Level crossing incident 1934

 

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/MoT_WharfRoad1934.pdf

[Reorte]

14 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

I always wonder when someone says 'it will spoil my view'; What was the view like before their house was built and probably spoiled it for others?

 

As for their house, a lot depends, doesn't it? What it's like itself, how many of them are there and so on. It's not a case of "either building anything in any amount is fine or building nothing at all is fine" is it?

 

And it's not usually spoil my view. It's the view. Obviously most noticeable for the people it's most affecting, but why be so dismissive about it? Natural beauty (even when heavily human modified at times) is one of the most precious, wonderful resources we've got. The level of contempt too much of our society has for it is appalling, and one of the biggest (internal) threat the country faces. Sneering about spoiling views just sounds like not giving a damn about the world around us, regarding it as nothing more than something to be used and abused. I've no idea how anyone can think like that. I'm very glad I can't, even though I might be happier if I didn't care.

Edited July 31 by Reorte

[Reorte]

14 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Why do you think it cost more to buy a house at the edge of the green belt?

And for those strange individuals who are only able to value things in monetary terms that illustrates that it does indeed have value, that it's something special and precious that people are prepared to pay for it. Normally we regard progress as being able to increase the supply of such things to people, not the reverse.

[phil_sutters]

Of course, let's not forget it was the railways that were to blame for blighting the countryside and encouraging the growth of large filthy cities!

Edited July 31 by phil_sutters

[Wickham Green too]

Not primarily to blame - though they certainly facilitated it.

[ruggedpeak]

16 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

I always wonder when someone says 'it will spoil my view'; What was the view like before their house was built and probably spoiled it for others?

 

For info, the concept of spoiling someone's view has specifically been excluded as a consideration in UK planning decisions for a very long time. Objectors need to find other legitimate planning reasons to stop developments. It was realised post-war that protecting an individual's view would preclude development.

 

However broader scenic views are a legitimate planning consideration, whether a protected landscape or a cityscape (tower developments in central London have to consider the impact of views towards things like St Pauls).

 

Not that views are often an issue for level crossings........

[Compound2632]

https://fb.watch/tFJdXxNw7d/

[Nick C]

45 minutes ago, ruggedpeak said:

However broader scenic views are a legitimate planning consideration, whether a protected landscape or a cityscape (tower developments in central London have to consider the impact of views towards things like St Pauls).

That still gets abused though - we had one here a few years ago regarding a proposed wind-farm - and one of the major objections was that it'd ruin the views around Winchester - which was rubbish as if you worked it out, on a really clear day you'd just be able to see the very tip of the blades from there!

 

Another major objection was about the amount of noise they would make, and how this would affect local residents. There was only one house within earshot, and that was the farm that owned the land, and so presumably was in favour - plus the whole site was next to a major road interchange, so you'd struggle to hear anything over the noise of the lorries...

 

I also remember the "unspoilt countryside" argument being tried when Brighton wanted to build their new football stadium at Falmer. The site was in between the main road and the railway, adjacent to two university campuses... 

[Wickham Green too]

58 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

https://fb.watch/tFJdXxNw7d/

I love Edwin Renahan's comment " Every day should be crossing awareness day ! " ................ indeed.

[SM42]

Visuals are a planning issue. 

Here upper floor extensions have to be set back by 300mm from the existing to stop the street looking like a terrace. 

Looking like a higgeldy piggeldy terrace is OK though  

 

This thread drift appears to be a good omen of little stupidity at crossings, but I can assure that it is an everyday occurrence and is now so common that it hardly warrants mention and is dealt with by the railway all as part of the day job

 

Occasionally it will be caught on camera, occasionally that footage gets released and ends up here and other outlets. 

 

Trust me  lack of activity here and in the press does not mean it isn't happening even as we speak.

 

Andy

[Michael Hodgson]

3 hours ago, phil_sutters said:

Of course, let's not forget it was the railways that were to blame for blighting the countryside and encouraging the growth of large filthy cities!

 

Yes, but for the industrial revolution blighting the countryside we could still all be peasants enjoying the quaint old pastime of subsistence farming in our idyllic countrside and doffing our caps to the squire in the big house.  We should have listened to the Rev Dionysius Lardner when he said steam engines would asphyxiate us in tunnels.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

59 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Yes, but for the industrial revolution blighting the countryside we could still all be peasants enjoying the quaint old pastime of subsistence farming in our idyllic countrside and doffing our caps to the squire in the big house.  We should have listened to the Rev Dionysius Lardner when he said steam engines would asphyxiate us in tunnels.

Well, in the right (or wrong) circumstances.

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=1999

[dunwurken]

The thread drift is detracting from the interesting historic cases uploaded recently and which are much more interesting than the froth being produced by the  green belt and views discussion.  Indeed the thread drift is spoiling the view of the core subject matter which in danger of being lost in the froth and hot air being produced on what can be an emotive subject.   Please move any further discussion on views and green belts to another thread.  Thank you.

[kevinlms]

Some close calls with trams in Canberra, Australia.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-05/canberra-light-rail-near-misses-safety-message/104184188

[Reorte]

On 31/07/2024 at 11:44, Michael Hodgson said:

Yes, but for the industrial revolution blighting the countryside we could still all be peasants enjoying the quaint old pastime of subsistence farming in our idyllic countrside and doffing our caps to the squire in the big house.  We should have listened to the Rev Dionysius Lardner when he said steam engines would asphyxiate us in tunnels.

 

Yes, it did indeed produce quite a bit of blight. And on the other hand it got us out of scraping by to survive (eventually). But that was solving yesterday's problems. It's hardly justification for vandalism now (and it's hardly comparable anyway, for various reasons, both in terms of its ups and downs, although we've solved, to a fair degree if not entirely, the problems it caused).

 

Beats me how anyone thinks we're making the country a more, not less appealing place to live in now. Some of it's down to having messed things up before, leaving us little choice (but there's a disturbing lack of evidence of trying to avoid carrying on the same mistakes), but a lot seems to be nothing more than a twisted dogma that "more stuff and more modern stuff is better." Sometimes it is. Often it's not, if you define better as "the future sounds more appealing to live in than today." Right now, it doesn't, and there's no sign of that changing. What positive there is is largely superficial, short-term appeal, that ultimately doesn't leave us happier (again, there are, of course, exceptions to that).

Edited August 8 by Reorte

[LMS2968]

On 31/07/2024 at 11:44, Michael Hodgson said:

Yes, but for the industrial revolution blighting the countryside we could still all be peasants enjoying the quaint old pastime of subsistence farming in our idyllic countrside and doffing our caps to the squire in the big house.  We should have listened to the Rev Dionysius Lardner when he said steam engines would asphyxiate us in tunnels.

Which is why men such as the Duke of Wellington were so opposed to railways. They had the foresight to realise that they meant the end of the feudal system, much to their disadvantage.