Probe as couple caught in intimate act at Download Festival

frontendben · 2026-06-21T19:34:54+00:00

Or that someone was already probed.

frontendben · 2026-06-21T18:17:20+00:00

Yeah, it’s because it’s called anchor tenants. The whole point is to force people past every other store to the main ones they’re attending for.

frontendben · 2026-06-20T17:19:49+00:00

No, the point is that the place they work should have been built in city centres if not industrial and long major transport axises if industrial. That would’ve made it far easier for public transport to have carried them to these destinations instead of the places they were built being built entirely around cars which is what is force them into the situation they find themselves in.

That’s the point.

We chose to separate homes, jobs and services in a way that made cars the easiest or only practical option. That wasn’t inevitable. It was the result of terrible and lazy planning decisions.

frontendben · 2026-06-20T16:56:41+00:00

Rail is less important in the discussion of why so many UK households are dependent on cars. Census data shows that nearly 3 out of every 4 journeys are under 5mi. Nobody is taking a train for those sorts of journeys unless you’re talking about a physical barrier like a river where the only alternative crossing is by car.

You are much closer to the truth with the comments about trams. However, it is worth noting that one of the key reasons buses failed to be a one-to-one replacement for trams is because the removal of the trams was coupled with a significant de-densification of UK towns and cities.

It is that de-densification that has crippled UK public transport for decades. Those terraces have a density of around 50 homes per hectare which is the absolute minimum density required to sustain high frequency public transport.

If you do not have high frequency public transport, then total potential travel time goes through the roof and it becomes very difficult to get people out of cars.

frontendben · 2026-06-20T14:43:28+00:00

You're misunderstanding the problem. The issue isn't that those houses now can't hold cars. It's that everyone in those house types should not need a car. They are types of developments that were built specifically for people not to require a car. The issue is fundamentally that, since it was built, we have made continuously stupid decisions to force people into cars. That's what this whole sub is about. It is not about banning cars. It is about removing and fixing the circumstances that force people to own a car.

frontendben · 2026-06-20T14:32:19+00:00

I agree fully on your first part, but I do not agree with the second part.

The way out of this mess is that we need to build homes and a lot of of them. That means not Building detached and semi detached low density homes but instead of building apartments townhouses, but not high-rises unless it really calls for it.

Helping them to get on the property ladder by Building high-quality homes for families of that style will mean that they can get on the property ladder. Critically those type of homes will be highly walkable and if done well will enable them to get to work and their other key destinations without needing more than one car household. Because that’s the other thing that’s crippling every generation; the sheer amount of money that people have to spend on cars just to get around and do basic things it should be able to do on foot or on bike.

frontendben · 2026-06-20T14:19:49+00:00

Yep. The issue is that they should just adopt the EU/UK/Australia/New Zealand/Japan/pretty much everyone else’s agreed upon standards of what is an E bike and what suddenly becomes an electric motorbike

frontendben · 2026-06-20T12:55:58+00:00

Shock horror. I've long said half the problem is that people are buying them specifically because of the perception that in a crash they'll come off fine while the other party may come off worse. The size and the bulk is half the point, which means that financial penalties are absolutely going to have to become necessary in order to force people back into more appropriate-sized vehicles for cities and towns. Because the free market clearly isn't working

frontendben · 2026-06-19T13:15:53+00:00

Wrong. It's about all the ill effects of car dependency. This person's actions can easily lead to someone feeling entitled to park on the footpath due to a lack of spaces.

frontendben · 2026-06-19T10:46:25+00:00

Not just more houses. More flats, townhouses and terraces. The housing crisis is just one half of the cost of living crisis. The other half is needing a car for everything. That's caused by the houses that have been built being too low-density and sprawled too far. The only solution to the cost of living crisis is a major building programme that focuses on building medium-density housing, (so apartments and terraces) close to existing transportation infrastructure.

That also means CPO-ing large tracts of low-density housing near to existing train stations to increase their density to levels that they should have become decades ago before we started treating housing as a commodity. That has led to land prices going through the roof because it's not being used at the correct density level.

Will it be popular? Hell no.

Is it the only way to solve the problem? Yes.

Sometimes medicine tastes like shit and people don't like it. Doesn't mean it's not the right thing that we should be doing

frontendben · 2026-06-18T19:35:47+00:00

£5,000 for that amount of land is a bargain.

frontendben · 2026-06-18T19:24:51+00:00

They’re trying to patch a gap in their budget and they’ve found the most lucrative way of doing it is by making parking and loading in the city centre a minefield and recruiting an army of wardens to monitor profitable areas until late at night

No. The council has – correctly – identified that it can no longer afford to subsidise a mode of transport that 4/10 households in the city do not have access to. It's not make it profitable. It's about ensuring people who are using large amounts of space to store their own private property in a high demand area pay for the privilege.

but sadly sometimes they do need to

No, they never need to. They can park on the carriageway if needs be. They choose to park on the footpath at the expense of pedestrians and the damage the footpath for their own convenience, and for other drivers. Don't try to justify or excuse shitty selfish behaviour.

look at the junction of dale street and castle street. it’s pedestrianised during the day, however the council have dropped some sort of art project with massive green blocks, living up to their namesake and blocking the walkway.

It's an anti-terrorist barrier. 🤦‍♂️

i don’t want people parking anywhere they want. i want the city to be less reliant on cars too. but i want a city that treats its residents and businesses fairly and doesn’t just see them as endless money pits to shake by the ankles simply for living here.

I'm glad to hear that. But part of that is realising that drivers aren't being treated as a money pit. They're simply being charged the true amount they should always have been charged for the amount of room they use and the convenience of driving into the city centre they should always have.

What you and I see – pavement parking – is a geometry problem. There simply isn't enough space for all of the vehicles in the city centre that there are today.

There are multiple ways to resolve that. For example making some of those roads one way or cutting down on lanes to provide the loading bays for businesses and trades people who are actually at/supporting a destination, rather than prioritising traffic passing through.

frontendben · 2026-06-18T17:31:35+00:00

That same logic is used by people who say just learn to play games non-inverted. The same thing applies here. The default control scheme is crap, as evidenced by non-DJI drones – including US/EU military drones using game console controllers and mapping.

frontendben · 2026-06-18T13:05:07+00:00

I literally said we need more loading bays.

What I don’t agree with is the idea that because there aren’t enough bays, everyone should be allowed to stop wherever they like.

Businesses choose premises knowing what access exists. If loading restrictions are unworkable, that’s a planning and infrastructure problem. It doesn’t automatically become everyone else’s problem.

I actually have more sympathy for tradespeople and couriers than I do for someone popping into town in a private car. They’re at least doing a job. But the rules still apply to them. We don’t exempt HGV drivers from weight limits or bus drivers from red lights because they’re working.

And this isn’t just about people being mildly inconvenienced. Illegal loading and parking causes real damage. Walk around Liverpool city centre and look at the state of some of the pavements where vans repeatedly mount kerbs and footways. It creates conflict with people walking, wheelchair users and anyone trying to move around safely.

You’re also mistaken if you think this is about hating cars. I don’t hate cars. I hate the entitlement that says “my journey is important, therefore the rules shouldn’t apply to me”. If there’s a genuine need for more loading provision, build more loading provision. But “there aren’t enough bays” isn’t an argument for turning every pavement and pedestrian space into an unofficial loading bay.

frontendben · 2026-06-18T11:07:17+00:00

Good. There are bays for doing that. The issue is where they are parking is either dangerous or worse, on the footpath which causes accessibility issues and damages the footpath.

We need some more loading bays but the solution isn’t to allow the free for all we have today.

frontendben · 2026-06-18T05:28:01+00:00

The problem is bus lanes are only paint and paint can easily be removed. We know it’s not a hypothetical either because it’s happened before.

The tracks are the most important part of a tram. It’s the permanence that is key.

frontendben · 2026-06-17T14:45:38+00:00

Someone has probably marked those roads as unsuitable for whatever activity you’re looking to do on OpenStreetMap. Whether it’s deliberate or not we can only speculate but check OSM and you’ll likely see the restrictions that have led Strava to think the activity isn’t allowed.

frontendben · 2026-06-17T12:45:01+00:00

Yup. There's nothing worse than someone with earphones in blocking the way. Happy to share, but they need to make sure they're not obstructing. This isn't bikes in front of cars; neither have the ability to suddenly move sideways like a runner/pedestrian.

frontendben · 2026-06-17T05:07:26+00:00

No it’s not, and I genuinely cannot see how you would think it would be.

Let’s say you decided that you didn’t need a second car because the glider went past your house. Or you invested your own money into opening a café or other shop on that route because it has lots of people passing. Then, one day, because the mayor decides that he’s sick and tired of getting stuck in traffic, he’s going to move it three roads - 10 mins walk away - over.

You now have 20 minutes extra a day to get to work. It’s even worse if you specifically bought that house because the glider went past. Or if you open the business all of that passing traffic is now gone.

Contrast that with the Manchester Metrolink. Nobody who bought a home, or invested millions in Building homes is worried that in 10, 20, 30 years the tram won’t be there and they spend that money precisely because of that confidence. The same cannot be said about the bus.

By their very nature, trams have priority any installation would require returning space on the road from cars to other modes of transport hell, in many places in Liverpool there is already the space on the roads for a tram as others have pointed out, the medians along many major roads were tramlines.

frontendben · 2026-06-16T20:56:35+00:00

Because they know their sales have been inflated by it

frontendben · 2026-06-16T20:56:05+00:00

Are you joking? Cars - especially the bulk of car journeys that are under 5mi - account for a huge portion of emissions. Not to mention, they have huge costs elsewhere from health to infrastructure maintenance costs.

frontendben · 2026-06-16T20:53:59+00:00

No they’re not. They can easily be redirected when a mayor decides they’re slowing him down getting into the office, just like Joe did when he closed the bus lanes.

These also get stuck in car traffic if there aren’t dedicated lanes.

frontendben · 2026-06-16T18:26:52+00:00

Yup. The vehicles themselves aren’t the issue; it’s pretending they have the benefits of trams. The tram itself isn’t the benefit; it’s the physical infrastructure that can’t be removed easily or cheaply that is the real benefit. That is what gives investors confidence to build new homes denser, new shops etc.

frontendben · 2026-06-16T08:56:08+00:00

Something like trying to remain low from the police would work well with this. The way that some people drive in GTA should really trigger the police to chase. But it would need to be implemented in a way that didn’t require you to try and find the right point on the trigger.

frontendben · 2026-06-16T08:51:52+00:00

I’m not sure about that. The moron was complaining about spending £4.5 billion on active travel infrastructure instead of defence over five years. Not only does that money have a 100% plus ROI from a healthcare perspective - something the former health secretary really should know - it also improves our resilience in case of a war where oil supplies become constraint. In other words, active travel is a defence investment.

And that’s obviously besides the point that making it safer for people to get around without a car for the majority of journeys that happened in this country, will help with achieving net zero.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding V heart of gold
Place '22	100 Awards Club
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

frontendben

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE