Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: JNugent on 6 Dec 2009 19:08 Ian Dalziel wrote: > On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 08:37:43 -0800 (PST), "MasonS(a)BP.com" > <MasonS(a)BP.com> wrote: > >> On 6 Dec, 16:26, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: >>> "Mas...(a)BP.com" <Mas...(a)BP.com> considered Sun, 6 Dec 2009 04:33:34 >>> -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: >>>> �5 a gallon is about �1-10 a litre. I just bought some 95% water >>>> called beer and it cost me �3 a litre. >>>> Petrol is dirt cheap considering its journey to your tank. >>> Which proves that if you derive your cycling calories from beer, you >>> may well be paying more duty that the motorist.- Hide quoted text - >> I have probably paid for the M25 on my own then! >> Pauwel Kwak was �6.50 a litre in Waitrose and 97 RON only �1.20 a >> litre earlier on today. > > Tastes much nicer, though - trust me on this. I've never heard of "Pauwel Kwak", but from the context, assume that it is some particularly upmarket bottled beer aimed squarely at the Waitrose shopper. The majority of the price of a litre is production an distribution costs, with a hefty dose of vanity charge on top of those and the tax. There is tax within that price, but not as much as some seem to think (though I'd agree that it is still too much). Petrol is actually cheaper than you thought - it's price is probably a little less than �1.50 a gallon (about 33p a litre). The rest is tax - the vast majority.
From: Steve Firth on 6 Dec 2009 19:03 DavidR <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote: > The fascinating thing about the Top Gear race across London when Hammond > cycled and Clarkson went by boat. Clarkson turned up hot & bothered just > from climbing a few steps whereas Hammond still looked as fresh as a daisy. Youmust have seen a different version of the programme to me. Because I recall the version where Hammond f'ed and blinded his way aross London getting extremely stressed and angry. While he did this other cyclists in shot were seen breaking almost every traffic law going. When they got to Docklands Hammond was sweating like a pig, a pig being roasted in an oven.
From: The Medway Handyman on 6 Dec 2009 19:40 DavidR wrote: > "Strangely Composed" <here(a)there.nowhere> wrote >> If you're going to quibble... DavidR said: >>> "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. >>> >> 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. > > Oh, really? When I get on a bike I somehow make do with the same > engine as when I walk yet manage to go further & faster. In > accordance with Newton's laws it suggests the machine is more > efficient. Perhaps you know otherwise? Typical cyclists bollox. To compare cyclists to walkers is not a scientific comparison. Walkers proceed at approx 4 mph, cyclists at 12 mph. Cyclists could not sustain such a low speed, walkers could not sustain such a high speed without running. -- Dave - The Tax Paying Motorist -- Q. Why don't they put pockets in lycra cycling shorts? A. Because cyclists never put their hands in their pockets.
From: Steve Firth on 6 Dec 2009 20:08 JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: > "Morte Subite"? > > "Imminent Death"? Yes, it's one of the better ones. Certainly the most common.
From: Tom Crispin on 7 Dec 2009 00:59
On 6 Dec 2009 21:53:59 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: [Snip - much twaddle] >We KNOW that we're much "cleaner" now than we were then. No we are not. We are spewing ever increasing amounts of Greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. |