From: boltar2003 on
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:44:12 +0100
"Mike P" <privacy(a)privacy.net> wrote:
>boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:03:26 +0100
>
>HC states.....
>
> "........pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass."
>
>> It should be interesting to see you try and wriggle out of that.
>
>Mileburner says
>
>"It is far better to wait until there is an appropriate shoulder, lay-bay,
>side exit etc. where you can stop and get out of the way and let them
>pass. Even better, just wait for the road to widen (or otherwise be safe to
>pass) and pull over and wave them past. Then there is no need to hold up the
>traffic or put anyone at risk"
>
>Now, where's the difference?

The difference is that he seems to think bikes take up as much room as
cars. If theres enough room to stand by the side of the road then theres enough
room for a bicycle to pull over , stop and let cars past.

B2003


From: mileburner on

"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
news:4c499ca3$0$22735$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...

>> It's a speed limit not a speed target.
>
> Wrong - its both as far as DSA and highway code are concerned!

My driving instructor told me the same. It's a speed limit not a speed
target, and I believed her, and now as a <ahem> more mature driver I agree
with her.

Also, the speed limit cannot be a target where it is not possible to drive
on that road at that target speed, or if you did, it would be utterly
reckless.

GT, are you studying for you driving test? You sound like my 17 year old
niece.


From: mileburner on

"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
news:4c496d79$0$22716$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Boltar's cycling advice is not really very good. I can't imagine why...
>
> And your road knowledge is very very very bad. We all know why!
Who is the "we"? are you and boltar the same person?


From: mileburner on

"Mike P" <privacy(a)privacy.net> wrote in message
news:i2c63a$92n$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:03:26 +0100
>
> HC states.....
>
> "........pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass."
>
>> It should be interesting to see you try and wriggle out of that.
>
> Mileburner says
>
> "It is far better to wait until there is an appropriate shoulder, lay-bay,
> side exit etc. where you can stop and get out of the way and let them
> pass. Even better, just wait for the road to widen (or otherwise be safe
> to
> pass) and pull over and wave them past. Then there is no need to hold up
> the
> traffic or put anyone at risk"
>
> Now, where's the difference?
>
> *Safe to pass* being the main thing here..

...."where it is safe"...

But we are trying to explain the blatantly obvious to the terminally thick.


From: mileburner on

"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
news:4c496d16$0$22721$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>
> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:i2bp07$ad9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message
>> news:i2bkgp$i15$1(a)speranza.aioe.org...
>>
>>> No it isn't. Cars have an optimum speed at which they use the least fuel
>>> for a given distance and its usually somewhere around the 50-60mph mark.
>>> Above and below that fuel economy starts to drop off a cliff. Thats what
>>> makes
>>> all these "green" initiatives by local councils slowing traffic down to
>>> 20mph
>>> such a joke. It just generates more CO2 and probably causes more bad
>>> driving
>>> when drivers get back onto a main road and floor it to make up lost
>>> time.
>>
>> OTOH the 20 mph limits encourage drivers to drive at a speed where they
>> are not continuously (and often aggressively) speeding up and slowing
>> down.
>>
>> In urban areas, how long can 30mph be maintained before reaching a set of
>> lights, pedestrian crossing or other give way, stop etc?
>
> For exactly the same distance as when driving at 20!

Minus the distance speeding up and slowing down...