Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Rob Morley on 6 Dec 2009 09:00 On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 08:38:28 GMT Strangely Composed <here(a)there.nowhere> wrote: > Even if you assume cycling at walking pace the cyclist still has to > move the mass of the bike as well as him/herself, which will take > more energy. > > There is also additional energy required to overcome the friction > inherent in the mechanisms of the cycle. > > As cyclists tend to move faster than walkers other factors such as > overcoming wind resistance and kinetic energy conversion. > Just look at it the simple way - I can trundle down to Asda at 12mph on my bike, or I can run there at 12mph - one will get me there without a hair out of place, the other will see me gasping and soaked in sweat, so which do you think takes more effort?
From: mileburner on 6 Dec 2009 09:12 "Rob Morley" <nospam(a)ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:20091206140051.5185a3a8(a)bluemoon... > On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 08:38:28 GMT > Strangely Composed <here(a)there.nowhere> wrote: > >> Even if you assume cycling at walking pace the cyclist still has to >> move the mass of the bike as well as him/herself, which will take >> more energy. >> >> There is also additional energy required to overcome the friction >> inherent in the mechanisms of the cycle. >> >> As cyclists tend to move faster than walkers other factors such as >> overcoming wind resistance and kinetic energy conversion. >> > Just look at it the simple way - I can trundle down to Asda at 12mph on > my bike, or I can run there at 12mph - one will get me there without a > hair out of place, the other will see me gasping and soaked in sweat, > so which do you think takes more effort? You must be fit if you can run to ASDA at 12mph. I would be lucky to manage it at 7mph. I can cycle it at an average of 19mph though, or if it was a gentle relaxed ride 15mph, and still get there quicker than taking the car.
From: MasonS on 6 Dec 2009 09:18 On 6 Dec, 13:21, Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > In article <23235dc8-ba90-4d7a-b648-3ca741e4ff65@ > 33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, Mas...(a)BP.com says... > > > > > > > > > On 5 Dec, 23:31, Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > > > In article <0c2f34b5-12b2-4ab8-84aa-756320ec18a5 > > > @v19g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, Mas...(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 whch is a million > > > million, not the UK definition. > > > > -- > > > Conorwww.notebooks-r-us.co.uk > > > > I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. > > > Er, it's the other way round! > > You may want to do some research... > > -- > Conorwww.notebooks-r-us.co.uk > > I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The BRITISH billion is/was 1 million million. The US billion is 1000 million. "British prime minister Harold Wilson explained in a written answer to the House of Commons that UK government statistics would from then on use the short scale. Hansard, for the 20 December 1974, reported it: "Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop asked the Prime Minister whether he will make it the practice of his administration that when Ministers employ the word 'billion' in any official speeches, documents, or answers to Parliamentary Questions, they will, to avoid confusion, only do so in its British meaning of 1 million million and not in the sense in which it is used in the United States of America, which uses the term 'billion' to mean 1,000 million. The Prime Minister: No. The word 'billion' is now used internationally to mean 1,000 million and it would be confusing if British Ministers were to use it in any other sense. I accept that it could still be interpreted in this country as 1 million million and I shall ask my colleagues to ensure that, if they do use it, there should be no ambiguity as to its meaning." In oil finds the billion used is 1000 million barrels. If we baled the banks out to the tune of £850 billion quid and that is, as you contend, really £850, 000, 000, 000, 000, then we really *are* up sh1t creek! -- Simon Mason -- Simon Mason
From: Ian Dalziel on 6 Dec 2009 09:19 On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:12:08 GMT, Strangely Composed <here(a)there.nowhere> wrote: >If you're going to quibble... Ian Dalziel said: > >>>> Cycling does not require more energy than walking. >>>> >>>> >>>Even if you assume cycling at walking pace the cyclist still has to move >>>the mass of the bike as well as him/herself, which will take more >>>energy. >>> >>>There is also additional energy required to overcome the friction >>>inherent in the mechanisms of the cycle. >>> >>>As cyclists tend to move faster than walkers other factors such as >>>overcoming wind resistance and kinetic energy conversion. >>> >>> >> You're using the energy to *accelerate* the mass. Try this - a bike and >> a runner set off from the same point and accelerate to the same speed. >> Then, simultaneously, the runner stops running and the cyclist stops >> pedalling. Will they cover the same distance? > >That largely depends on whether or not the cyclist & runner accelerate >and decelerate at the same rate. If they do then they will cover the same >distance. > >If you assume the walker & cyclist are the same weight then the cyclist >has to use more energy to accelerate not only his own mass but the mass >of the cycle as well. Indeed. Then once he's accelerated, the effects of this "wheel" thing which you seem not to have heard of come into play. I think you'll find a rolling cycle does not decelerate at the same rate as a pedestrian. -- Ian D
From: MasonS on 6 Dec 2009 09:26
On 6 Dec, 13:22, Conor <co...(a)gmx.co.uk> wrote: > In article <9794ca9a-552a-4520-a03e-618921e70364 > @x16g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, Mas...(a)BP.com says... > > > Don't car drivers have to eat as well? > > Not to replace energy used to transport themselves. > > > Stop clutching at straws. > > You should. > > -- > Conorwww.notebooks-r-us.co.uk > > I'm not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally. I eat about 2500 calories a day and am around 12 stone. A lot of my fat car driving workmates eat *far* more than I do to maintain their 18 stone plus weight. This bulk, plus their 1.5 tonne cars needs a lot of fossil fuel energy to shift on top of their carbon footprint caused by all of the lorries shifting their pies and sausage rolls up and down the land. |