Cyclists carbon footprint
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: M25 north of Dartford crossing, fences and SPECS
Next: cheapest laptop battery camera battery camcorder battery
From: GT on 23 Jul 2010 11:52 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4pqdna-hVZw-OdTRnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message > news:i2c6j1$h15$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> 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. > > They do. Yeah - in Mario Kart on the Wii perhaps, but in the real world a car is about 5-6 feet wide, a bike is 2 feet max.
From: Adrian on 23 Jul 2010 11:55 The Peeler <peelingthe(a)invalid.admin> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>> That also takes into account the type of vehicle one is driving. >>>>My brother failed his motorcycle test because his motorcycle wasn't >>>>capable of maintaining a speed near the single carriageway legal >>>>limit. >>> They let him use a motorcycle that wasn't roadworthy for the test???? >>It was roadworthy. It just wasn't capable of 60mph. >> >>Since you can only take the test on a 125 with less than 15bhp, 60mph >>isn't that far below the maximum of most of those bikes. He's 6'5", and >>his bike was a 100cc. It's not difficult to see how 60 would have been >>ambitious, even before any loss of power through the bike being a bit >>aged. > So he should have passed. You'll excuse me for thinking that the examiner might have a slightly better grasp of the requirements than an anonymous morphing troll like you?
From: GT on 23 Jul 2010 11:51 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:mIydnY9VS8NXPtTRnZ2dnUVZ8iudnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4c498f60$0$22686$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:cpGdnZJvGoeLGNTRnZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d(a)bt.com... >>> >>> <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message >>> news:i2brj4$ubu$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:43:17 +0100 >>>> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>>>>> What a load of drivel. >>>>>> >>>>>> Stop bike. >>>>>> >>>>>> Get off and stand next to wall/bush. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let cars past. >>>>>> >>>>>> See , not hard is it? >>>>>> >>>>>> B2003 >>>>> >>>>>The only thing is that if you all-of-a-sudden stop, and get off you >>>>>bike, >>>> >>>> Why would you do a sudden stop? Stick your arm out so drivers know >>>> you're >>>> stopping and coast to a halt. >>> >>> Most car drivers don't know hand signals. >> >> You have to know them to pass the driving test, > > Are you quite sure about that? Yes >> so those car drivers without a driving license and insurance should be >> arrested and given a prison sentence. This does occasionally happen. >> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>> In an ideal world yes. In a narrow road that you might be puffing your >>>> way up for the next 10 minutes its only good manners to let other >>>> traffic >>>> pass. >>> >>> Why should people sitting in nice comfy overpowered cars get precedence >>> over people using muscle power? >> >> No one gets precedence over anyone else - there are rules governing road >> craft and conduct - everyone has to comply with the same rules. If a >> person sitting in a nice comfy car is driving too slowly, then they will >> fail their driving test and not be allowed to drive on the road >> unsupervised! > Indeed, but what about after they've passed their test? They are *supposed* to maintain a knowledge of the highway code and follow it at all times. This is of course a world of theory practiced by many, ignored by more.
From: GT on 23 Jul 2010 11:54 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i2c763$t2i$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Mike P" <privacy(a)privacy.net> wrote in message > news:i2c63a$92n$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:03:26 +0100 >> >> HC states..... >> >> "........pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass." >> >>> It should be interesting to see you try and wriggle out of that. >> >> Mileburner says >> >> "It is far better to wait until there is an appropriate shoulder, >> lay-bay, >> side exit etc. where you can stop and get out of the way and let them >> pass. Even better, just wait for the road to widen (or otherwise be safe >> to >> pass) and pull over and wave them past. Then there is no need to hold up >> the >> traffic or put anyone at risk" >> >> Now, where's the difference? >> >> *Safe to pass* being the main thing here.. > > ..."where it is safe"... > > But we are trying to explain the blatantly obvious to the terminally > thick. You are the thick one - the side of the road, leaning away from the traffic is the *safe* place. This has already been established and a few exceptions discussed. Why are you dredging this up again?
From: GT on 23 Jul 2010 11:56
"mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i2c7dg$u1g$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "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... I know that pure text always fails to convey emotion and can therefore be easily taken out of context, but this was a joke, right? |