Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Peter Grange on 5 Dec 2009 19:15 On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 23:31:27 -0000, Conor <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >In article <0c2f34b5-12b2-4ab8-84aa-756320ec18a5 >@v19g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, MasonS(a)BP.com says... > >> Sadly though the world's current oil consumption is 86 million barrels >> *a day", so your 2.5 billion barrels cited above will only last around >> a *month* not 79 years. >> The entire known world oil reserves will last about 36 years at >> *current* consumption levels. > >Err, it was the global definition of a billon which is a million >million, not the UK definition. The UK definition of a billion was a million million, we seem to have adopted the American billion, which is a thousand million. -- Pete
From: The Medway Handyman on 5 Dec 2009 19:15 MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 5 Dec, 19:50, Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: >> In article <72d485a6-6a6e-477f-b740- >> 239f03483...(a)v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, Mas...(a)BP.com says... >> >>> That's another debate altogether. Even if true, it makes sense to >>> make whatever oil we have got left last as long as possible. >>> As someone said "When it's gone, it's gone". >> >> They've recently found a 2 billion barrel oilfield off the coast of >> Brazil in September which followed a 500 million barrel field they >> found in the Gulf of Mexico earlier that month. So in those two >> fields alone, there's roughly 79 years worth of oil in those two >> fields alone based on pre-recession global consumption rates. >> >> -- >> Conorwww.notebooks-r-us.co.uk >> >> I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. > > Nice to see you are looking after our grandchildren. > > Sadly though the world's current oil consumption is 86 million barrels > *a day", so your 2.5 billion barrels cited above will only last around > a *month* not 79 years. > The entire known world oil reserves will last about 36 years at > *current* consumption levels. We're doomed Captain Mainwaring. doomed. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: The Medway Handyman on 5 Dec 2009 19:17 MasonS(a)BP.com wrote: > On 5 Dec, 21:02, "PeterE" <pe...(a)xyzringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: >> <Mas...(a)BP.com> wrote in message >> >> news:0c2f34b5-12b2-4ab8-84aa-756320ec18a5(a)v19g2000vbk.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >>> The entire known world oil reserves will last about 36 years at >>> *current* consumption levels. >> >> Which is about the same ratio as it was at the time of the 1973 oil >> crisis. > > Luckily my esteemed colleagues keep finding it and cyclists like me > keep saving it and all we get is abuse from the people who we are > saving it for! So are you one of the idiots fudging the figures to 'prove' climate change & keep your job safe? -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist
From: Peter Grange on 5 Dec 2009 19:18 On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 14:51:46 -0800 (PST), NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote: >On 5 Dec, 22:36, Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 21:25:05 -0000, "mileburner" >> >> >> >> <milebur...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> >"The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message >> >news:kMxSm.12217$Ym4.1027(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... >> >> mileburner wrote: >> >>> "The Medway Handyman" <davidl...(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in >> >>> messagenews:uUpSm.11996$Ym4.7207(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... >> >> >>>> You have well & truly overstepped the mark pal. >> >> >>> Don't you see the irony? >> >> >>> Someone who fiddles their own tax who complains about those who do >> >>> not pay the tax they are not subjected to. >> >> >> Once again you acuse me of tax fraund on a public forum. >> >> >If you *really* think you are the only person who is "someone". >> >> >Here's a few questions... >> >> >Have you ever taken cash for a job and not declared it? >> >> Frought with danger that. >> A true story from a few years ago:- >> A friend was wanting to build an extension. A local architect who did >> extensions was asked round to the house to look at what might be done. >> After a discussion about what was possible, my friend and his wife >> were standing in the kitchen talking to the architect chappie. "If we >> were to use your services, what sort of cost would we be talking >> about?" says my friend. >> "Well," he says. "it's not a big job so I don't think we need to worry >> about the VAT too much, if you could pay cash, (knowing wink) you're >> not a tax inspector are you (ho ho)" >> "No," says my friend, trying not to laugh "I'm not a tax inspector". >> >> His wife was though. > >So you are saying that she admitted she was a tax inspextor and >insisted on paying the VAT or did she just shut up and let her husband >handle it? IIRC, they didn't use him because someone else had a better plan for their extension. Which wasn't really the point of the story, but what would you know. -- Pete
From: DavidR on 5 Dec 2009 19:35
"Conor" <conor(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote > In article <hfe63g$6ql$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, mileburner says... > >> While out on my bike today, I was thinking to myself, I wonder what the >> vehicle emissions are on my bikes and what the VED would be if there was >> any. I came to the conclusion that the emissions are nil and the VED >> would >> be zero. >> > So you're a clueless cyclist. I'll give you a lesson. > > When you cycle, you exert energy over and above that of a person who is > driving a car or walking. Cycling does not require more energy than walking. > That additional energy is converted from food. > Someone who cycles needs to intake more calories than someone who is > walking or driving. Can you support that? A fit person is to be able to use calories faster but average food intake needs to be compared. > In addition to that, you are also breathing more > heavily and thus exhaling higher levels of CO2. Then you're a clueless ex-lorry driver. It's impossible to emit more or less C in the form of CO2 than the amount of C that's put in the tank. |