To Drive To London Or Not
Discussion
I don't think London is massively worse than other big cities, but it is a lot of large and busy junctions and confusing road layouts one after the other, which can get quite stressful/tiring after a while.
I'd say sat-nav is essential for knowing where you are going, but as mentioned you do need to have you eyes open to ensure you are in the correct lanes.
I drove Heathrow to Blackfriars at around midday a couple of weeks ago, Waze wanted to take me all the way on the A4 which seemed a bad idea, I turned off to run along the embankment and it was all fine, Parliament Square is always fun to drive through.
I'd say sat-nav is essential for knowing where you are going, but as mentioned you do need to have you eyes open to ensure you are in the correct lanes.
I drove Heathrow to Blackfriars at around midday a couple of weeks ago, Waze wanted to take me all the way on the A4 which seemed a bad idea, I turned off to run along the embankment and it was all fine, Parliament Square is always fun to drive through.
braddo said:
Driving on the weekend is different though.
A different type of s
t maybe. There can be traffic jams on the M25, A406, A205, A3, M3, M4 any time, any day. Road works and closures are often scheduled for weekends in order to minimise disruption to commuters, as I found out on the way back from holiday in the middle of the night a few weeks ago. It's a surreal experience being in a traffic jam on the M25 at 1am on a Saturday night/Sunday morning.As others have said, it's perfectly do-able and might even work out ok, but I'd go by train.
Park at East Finchley ( info here). Then get the northern line down to Clapham Common.
East Finchley is a piece of piss to get to from the M1. Come off at M1 J2, join the A406 from the a1 (stay in lane 1 where it splits; you get idiots trying to come across onto the A406 at the last second). You then come off at the A1000 junction (you will see a BP garage and a speed camera, it's the junction immediately after these), turn left at that junction and follow the high road down to East Finchley.
East Finchley is a piece of piss to get to from the M1. Come off at M1 J2, join the A406 from the a1 (stay in lane 1 where it splits; you get idiots trying to come across onto the A406 at the last second). You then come off at the A1000 junction (you will see a BP garage and a speed camera, it's the junction immediately after these), turn left at that junction and follow the high road down to East Finchley.
Edited by Swanny87 on Monday 1st September 15:01
RYH64E said:
A different type of st maybe. There can be traffic jams on the M25, A406, A205, A3, M3, M4 any time, any day. Road works and closures are often scheduled for weekends in order to minimise disruption to commuters, as I found out on the way back from holiday in the middle of the night a few weeks ago. It's a surreal experience being in a traffic jam on the M25 at 1am on a Saturday night/Sunday morning.
As others have said, it's perfectly do-able and might even work out ok, but I'd go by train.
M25 isn't London. t maybe. There can be traffic jams on the M25, A406, A205, A3, M3, M4 any time, any day. Road works and closures are often scheduled for weekends in order to minimise disruption to commuters, as I found out on the way back from holiday in the middle of the night a few weeks ago. It's a surreal experience being in a traffic jam on the M25 at 1am on a Saturday night/Sunday morning.As others have said, it's perfectly do-able and might even work out ok, but I'd go by train.
Roadworks and accidents messing things up are just a matter of luck. I bought a car recently and driving home late on a weeknight, the M42/M40 junction had been closed and I had to make a massive detour to get around it, with an unfamiliar car and sat nav. But I don't say that Birmingham is a st place to drive because of that.On the other hand, you can have a perfectly pleasant drive around central London ticking off the Monopoly board sights on any Sunday morning.
braddo said:
M25 isn't London. Roadworks and accidents messing things up are just a matter of luck. I bought a car recently and driving home late on a weeknight, the M42/M40 junction had been closed and I had to make a massive detour to get around it, with an unfamiliar car and sat nav. But I don't say that Birmingham is a st place to drive because of that.
To everyone outside of the M25, London is the space enclosed by the M25, to everyone inside they get all argumentative that they don't live in London, they live in Kent, or Essex or some other area, anywhere but London. Roadworks and accidents messing things up are just a matter of luck. I bought a car recently and driving home late on a weeknight, the M42/M40 junction had been closed and I had to make a massive detour to get around it, with an unfamiliar car and sat nav. But I don't say that Birmingham is a st place to drive because of that.
The map says otherwise, for all intents and purposes London is the area enclosed by the M25, the bits that aren't are pretty insignificant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_London_U...
I digress though, Birmingham is a s
t place to drive in places. The M6 in particular is a fecking nightmare. Still not a patch on London though.
ferrariF50lover said:
A licence is a licence to drive everywhere. It says that the holder is fully competent to drive on all manner of roads, in the worst of conditions, among you, me, and those we respectively care about.
How exactly would we actually ensure that "the holder is fully competent to drive on all manner of roads, in the worst of conditions" ? Does that mean that anyone who ever admits to being nervous should be ineligible to hold a licence?And where do you draw the line? Shall we start testing for car control, to ensure that all of our licence holders are comfortably able to correct over- and understeer situations?
ferrariF50lover said:
That you seem to think being able to drive in London as a full licence holder with some solo driving experience somehow represents overconfidence. I think that every licence holder should be fully confident of their ability to drive in London (as any other absolutely ordinary set of roads) by virtue of having a licence so to do.
Imagine a pilot refusing to fly into Stanstead airport or a Dr refusing to deal with btoken bones. These people are similarly licenced to carry out certain activities. Their being granted those licences despite not being at a level of ability where they are confident enough to deal with routine tasks would be unacceptable. I feel that the same attitude should be adopted with driving. We have, for my money, far too many drivers on the roads as it is. Perhaps one way to reduce the numbers would be for the test to represent a meaningful challenge, instead of the gimmie it seems to be at present?
Simon.
A lovely dream, and I can see your point, but unlikely to ever happen. The test never has and most likely never will account for your ability to honestly examine your own talent and sense of risk - which is what young males usually score badly on, and why they're so over-represented in crash figures. If people used to be more confident, that's less they were better drivers and more that they were more likely to be deficient in that area - as the higher fatality figures in the past show.Imagine a pilot refusing to fly into Stanstead airport or a Dr refusing to deal with btoken bones. These people are similarly licenced to carry out certain activities. Their being granted those licences despite not being at a level of ability where they are confident enough to deal with routine tasks would be unacceptable. I feel that the same attitude should be adopted with driving. We have, for my money, far too many drivers on the roads as it is. Perhaps one way to reduce the numbers would be for the test to represent a meaningful challenge, instead of the gimmie it seems to be at present?
Simon.
FTR, I'd expect a good doctor to seek consults with others more qualified in a given field, even if they are in theory capable of proceeding on their own, in many situations. That's not the same as refusing but it's not far off from what's occurring here.
Edited by paranoid airbag on Monday 1st September 17:23
I never train to London. I always drive to Newbury Park and then use the Central Line to get into the City. Just doesnt work out economical even on my own at £39 return + tube. £20 fuel and £7.70 on oyster as a cap.
Take a look here and find a station nearest to you then drive there.
https://www.tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/tube-station-...
Oyster is a god send by the way!
Take a look here and find a station nearest to you then drive there.
https://www.tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/tube-station-...
Oyster is a god send by the way!
OK, let's not get hung up on the other not-altogether-the-same-at-all examples I gave.
Judging by the tone of one reply, it seems that I'm being unreasonable in expecting all licence holders to actually be able to do anything more than identify which major control does what.
It might be impractical to suggest that all holders are experienced in powersliding on snow, but as another poster alluded to, if you've done your lessons and test in deeply rural Lincolnshire, what good are you going to be first time you come across a city?
I'm suggesting that perhaps a handful of hours on local roads followed by a test which lasts for a few minutes and is completed successfully provided no one requires hospitalisation might not be sufficiently rigorous. To whit, I present the OP, who, despite being cleared to drive any car, in any conditions, in any location, feels he isn't able to confidently tackle a perfectly ordinary driving based task.
The PH collective seems to disagree, so I shall accept that I am asking too much, while still maintaining that such a low required standard is probably bad news all round.
I should perhaps point out, although no one has yet made the accusation, that I don't think the OP is being unreasonable. The way London is lauded as some kind of motoring hell hole, I can well understand his reluctance. To him, I'd say, you'll be fine. Be assertive and understand that no one else gives a toss about you, your car or your journey and you'll sail through it. As with almost everything, confidence is key. Once you've done it once, you'll wonder what all the fuss was about.
Simon.
Judging by the tone of one reply, it seems that I'm being unreasonable in expecting all licence holders to actually be able to do anything more than identify which major control does what.
It might be impractical to suggest that all holders are experienced in powersliding on snow, but as another poster alluded to, if you've done your lessons and test in deeply rural Lincolnshire, what good are you going to be first time you come across a city?
I'm suggesting that perhaps a handful of hours on local roads followed by a test which lasts for a few minutes and is completed successfully provided no one requires hospitalisation might not be sufficiently rigorous. To whit, I present the OP, who, despite being cleared to drive any car, in any conditions, in any location, feels he isn't able to confidently tackle a perfectly ordinary driving based task.
The PH collective seems to disagree, so I shall accept that I am asking too much, while still maintaining that such a low required standard is probably bad news all round.
I should perhaps point out, although no one has yet made the accusation, that I don't think the OP is being unreasonable. The way London is lauded as some kind of motoring hell hole, I can well understand his reluctance. To him, I'd say, you'll be fine. Be assertive and understand that no one else gives a toss about you, your car or your journey and you'll sail through it. As with almost everything, confidence is key. Once you've done it once, you'll wonder what all the fuss was about.
Simon.
ferrariF50lover said:
Judging by the tone of one reply, it seems that I'm being unreasonable in expecting all licence holders to actually be able to do anything more than identify which major control does what.
20 years after passing her test my wife still can't parallel park, at all, and one of the 30 something year old ladies at work refuses to even consider using reverse gear under any circumstances (if her car absolutely has to reverse she gets someone else to take the wheel). So maybe you're not being unreasonable, just wildly optimistic.I've been to London today. Two jobs plus an afternoon with my daughter at the transport museum.
I could have driven, Takes 3 hours minimum.
Instead I went by train. 1hr 40 mins. Used underground, overground and bus. Far far quicker than moving around different ends by car.
Able to have a couple of beers with my tea and chill out on ph with free wifi on the return.
For London moving around use app called citymapper. Amazing resource.
I could have driven, Takes 3 hours minimum.
Instead I went by train. 1hr 40 mins. Used underground, overground and bus. Far far quicker than moving around different ends by car.
Able to have a couple of beers with my tea and chill out on ph with free wifi on the return.
For London moving around use app called citymapper. Amazing resource.
ferrariF50lover said:
OK, let's not get hung up on the other not-altogether-the-same-at-all examples I gave.
Judging by the tone of one reply, it seems that I'm being unreasonable in expecting all licence holders to actually be able to do anything more than identify which major control does what.
It might be impractical to suggest that all holders are experienced in powersliding on snow, but as another poster alluded to, if you've done your lessons and test in deeply rural Lincolnshire, what good are you going to be first time you come across a city?
I'm suggesting that perhaps a handful of hours on local roads followed by a test which lasts for a few minutes and is completed successfully provided no one requires hospitalisation might not be sufficiently rigorous. To whit, I present the OP, who, despite being cleared to drive any car, in any conditions, in any location, feels he isn't able to confidently tackle a perfectly ordinary driving based task.
The PH collective seems to disagree, so I shall accept that I am asking too much, while still maintaining that such a low required standard is probably bad news all round.
I should perhaps point out, although no one has yet made the accusation, that I don't think the OP is being unreasonable. The way London is lauded as some kind of motoring hell hole, I can well understand his reluctance. To him, I'd say, you'll be fine. Be assertive and understand that no one else gives a toss about you, your car or your journey and you'll sail through it. As with almost everything, confidence is key. Once you've done it once, you'll wonder what all the fuss was about.
Simon.
(I don't know who that's aimed at, but-) I don't think you're wrong really. I wish we had better drivers too - this very week, someone decided to turn left across my path whilst I was in a bike lane and then proceed to tell me about the highway code. Something about cyclists were always in the wrong and don't have the right to life and... something about sucking cocks, or similar. (on the plus side, I'm the most motherfJudging by the tone of one reply, it seems that I'm being unreasonable in expecting all licence holders to actually be able to do anything more than identify which major control does what.
It might be impractical to suggest that all holders are experienced in powersliding on snow, but as another poster alluded to, if you've done your lessons and test in deeply rural Lincolnshire, what good are you going to be first time you come across a city?
I'm suggesting that perhaps a handful of hours on local roads followed by a test which lasts for a few minutes and is completed successfully provided no one requires hospitalisation might not be sufficiently rigorous. To whit, I present the OP, who, despite being cleared to drive any car, in any conditions, in any location, feels he isn't able to confidently tackle a perfectly ordinary driving based task.
The PH collective seems to disagree, so I shall accept that I am asking too much, while still maintaining that such a low required standard is probably bad news all round.
I should perhaps point out, although no one has yet made the accusation, that I don't think the OP is being unreasonable. The way London is lauded as some kind of motoring hell hole, I can well understand his reluctance. To him, I'd say, you'll be fine. Be assertive and understand that no one else gives a toss about you, your car or your journey and you'll sail through it. As with almost everything, confidence is key. Once you've done it once, you'll wonder what all the fuss was about.
Simon.
king chilled driver ever, you realise how trivial that stuff is when you've got a safety cell)But I can't help suspect getting everyone to the sort of standard an airline pilot or doctor is at, would cost... as much as training a doctor or airline pilot would. For every single driver, forever. So long as we view driving as integral to a high quality life that won't happen - a tougher test would ruin any party that wanted working-class votes (I assume this training is not going to be taxpayer funded), and/or simply be ignored. If there's one good thing, that's what driverless cars will do well: it's nothing about silicon reflexes and everything about the fact that teaching all future cars the lessons learned by the first is trivial.
Within the context we have, I'd rather be happy at someone seeking advice, and encourage them to do so when many others would rather pretend they're infalliable, than bemoan a compromised test. That doesn't mean I don't agree that things would be better if we had a better test.
Grew up in London and learnt to drive there, but fortunately don't need to live there now. BUT -always drive in. If I'm going right into the Congestion Charging theft zone, then I park just outside and grab a cab. If it's to other stuff outside the zone, then I park there.
The principal issue with public transport is the public. Also, it's a fker trying to get where you want to go when you want to go there and even worse trying to get back when you want to get back. Moreover, what other mode of public transport has electric leather heated seats, climate, Nav, surround sound, airbags, and is a chav free zone that doesn't need to stop every two minutes to pick up (more often than not, smelly fkers)?
The principal issue with public transport is the public. Also, it's a f
ker trying to get where you want to go when you want to go there and even worse trying to get back when you want to get back. Moreover, what other mode of public transport has electric leather heated seats, climate, Nav, surround sound, airbags, and is a chav free zone that doesn't need to stop every two minutes to pick up (more often than not, smelly fkers)? Diderot said:
The principal issue with public transport is the public. Also, it's a fker trying to get where you want to go when you want to go there and even worse trying to get back when you want to get back. Moreover, what other mode of public transport has electric leather heated seats, climate, Nav, surround sound, airbags, and is a chav free zone that doesn't need to stop every two minutes to pick up (more often than not, smelly fkers)?
Good point well made.ker trying to get where you want to go when you want to go there and even worse trying to get back when you want to get back. Moreover, what other mode of public transport has electric leather heated seats, climate, Nav, surround sound, airbags, and is a chav free zone that doesn't need to stop every two minutes to pick up (more often than not, smelly fkers)? paranoid airbag said:
ferrariF50lover said:
OK, let's not get hung up on the other not-altogether-the-same-at-all examples I gave.
Judging by the tone of one reply, it seems that I'm being unreasonable in expecting all licence holders to actually be able to do anything more than identify which major control does what.
It might be impractical to suggest that all holders are experienced in powersliding on snow, but as another poster alluded to, if you've done your lessons and test in deeply rural Lincolnshire, what good are you going to be first time you come across a city?
I'm suggesting that perhaps a handful of hours on local roads followed by a test which lasts for a few minutes and is completed successfully provided no one requires hospitalisation might not be sufficiently rigorous. To whit, I present the OP, who, despite being cleared to drive any car, in any conditions, in any location, feels he isn't able to confidently tackle a perfectly ordinary driving based task.
The PH collective seems to disagree, so I shall accept that I am asking too much, while still maintaining that such a low required standard is probably bad news all round.
I should perhaps point out, although no one has yet made the accusation, that I don't think the OP is being unreasonable. The way London is lauded as some kind of motoring hell hole, I can well understand his reluctance. To him, I'd say, you'll be fine. Be assertive and understand that no one else gives a toss about you, your car or your journey and you'll sail through it. As with almost everything, confidence is key. Once you've done it once, you'll wonder what all the fuss was about.
Simon.
(I don't know who that's aimed at, but-) I don't think you're wrong really. I wish we had better drivers too - this very week, someone decided to turn left across my path whilst I was in a bike lane and then proceed to tell me about the highway code. Something about cyclists were always in the wrong and don't have the right to life and... something about sucking cocks, or similar. (on the plus side, I'm the most motherfJudging by the tone of one reply, it seems that I'm being unreasonable in expecting all licence holders to actually be able to do anything more than identify which major control does what.
It might be impractical to suggest that all holders are experienced in powersliding on snow, but as another poster alluded to, if you've done your lessons and test in deeply rural Lincolnshire, what good are you going to be first time you come across a city?
I'm suggesting that perhaps a handful of hours on local roads followed by a test which lasts for a few minutes and is completed successfully provided no one requires hospitalisation might not be sufficiently rigorous. To whit, I present the OP, who, despite being cleared to drive any car, in any conditions, in any location, feels he isn't able to confidently tackle a perfectly ordinary driving based task.
The PH collective seems to disagree, so I shall accept that I am asking too much, while still maintaining that such a low required standard is probably bad news all round.
I should perhaps point out, although no one has yet made the accusation, that I don't think the OP is being unreasonable. The way London is lauded as some kind of motoring hell hole, I can well understand his reluctance. To him, I'd say, you'll be fine. Be assertive and understand that no one else gives a toss about you, your car or your journey and you'll sail through it. As with almost everything, confidence is key. Once you've done it once, you'll wonder what all the fuss was about.
Simon.
king chilled driver ever, you realise how trivial that stuff is when you've got a safety cell)But I can't help suspect getting everyone to the sort of standard an airline pilot or doctor is at, would cost... as much as training a doctor or airline pilot would. For every single driver, forever. So long as we view driving as integral to a high quality life that won't happen - a tougher test would ruin any party that wanted working-class votes (I assume this training is not going to be taxpayer funded), and/or simply be ignored. If there's one good thing, that's what driverless cars will do well: it's nothing about silicon reflexes and everything about the fact that teaching all future cars the lessons learned by the first is trivial.
Within the context we have, I'd rather be happy at someone seeking advice, and encourage them to do so when many others would rather pretend they're infalliable, than bemoan a compromised test. That doesn't mean I don't agree that things would be better if we had a better test.
I also grew up in London and learnt to drive there. I also spent 10 years sliding police cars through London traffic on "twos and blues" and never had "a touch".
So actually driving in London isn't particularly hard, but I still wouldn't choose to do it: Parking problems (either hard to find or piggin' expensive) and congestion charging have done it for me.
These days, if I really have to, it's motorcycling or tube and even on the bike I'd want somewhere to park where it's not likely to get nicked.
Those things make it a PITA more than the actual traffic.
So actually driving in London isn't particularly hard, but I still wouldn't choose to do it: Parking problems (either hard to find or piggin' expensive) and congestion charging have done it for me.
These days, if I really have to, it's motorcycling or tube and even on the bike I'd want somewhere to park where it's not likely to get nicked.
Those things make it a PITA more than the actual traffic.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff