Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Derek Geldard on 7 Dec 2009 14:54 On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:50:41 +0000, Tom Crispin <kije.remove(a)this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote: >Fool! We are talking about a global issue here, not a London smog >problem. CO2 is colourless, as are many other Greenhouse gasses. >Particulates are part of the problem, and is probably the most easy >part of the whole problem to solve. Britain has certainly done much >to reduce particulates in London over the past 50 or 60 years. So, a classical Gass no less. Derek
From: DavidR on 7 Dec 2009 15:05 "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote > DavidR <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote: >> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote >> > DavidR <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote: >> >> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote >> >> > MasonS(a)BP.com <MasonS(a)BP.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Look at the advert at the bottom right of this page. >> >> >> How much would the driver of this car pay? >> >> >> Should he be allowed on the roads having paid no VED? >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.swldxer.co.uk/zmotormouth.jpg >> >> > >> >> > That's the car that emits less CO2 than the equivalent number of >> >> > cyclists you mean? >> >> >> >> Yep, all these cars carrying 5 people all in suspended animation are >> >> common >> >> as muck round these parts. >> > >> > I see that logic still escapes the average cyclist. >> >> and reality escapes Steve Firth. > > What's "real" about sticking your head in the sand as you have been? So you're tellling me that Fiestas are regularly to be seen carrying 5 people that have managed to stop all bodily functions? Ah well, I stand corrected. > Still good to see you hypocritically resorting to ad hominem. Makes a > change from tu quoque, I suppose. Did you have some particularly good bottles last night?
From: DavidR on 7 Dec 2009 15:22 "The Medway Handyman" <davidlang(a)nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote > 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. You can't think of any scientific measure other than comparing speed? You miss your calling as a science adviser to the shower that claim to be the Government.
From: DavidR on 7 Dec 2009 15:35 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote > > Right. We're no "cleaner" than we were in the '50s, when we used to get > thick polluted fogs in London regularly, largely caused by the widespread > burning of fossil fuels for power, heating, public transport... Don't get confused (as the media does) by the distinction between toxic pollutants and CO2.
From: Happi Monday on 7 Dec 2009 15:35
mileburner wrote: > Maybe not, I am living in cuckoo land :-) We had noticed (I had, anyway) |