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 12:00 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i2c6sl$rve$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "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. No, just influenced by all the studying and texts sitting around as my wife has just completed 18 months of driving instructor training. I learned quite a bit! On this particular speed limit issue: One person failed a driving test this morning for not driving up to the 30 limit, but instead he hung around 20 and cause a queue behind him. Serious fault = fail! my wife actually got a similar fault on her instructor test - she failed to overtake a lorry, doing around 55-60 on a dual carriageway. Her reasoning was that it was 'sleating' and she was exiting the road in less than half a mile - the examinor said that she was 'failing to make good progress' and she was marked down for not driving up to the 70 limit and passing the lorry.
From: Brimstone on 23 Jul 2010 12:28 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c49ba95$0$22726$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "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. Where in the HC does it mention anything about failing to make progress or minimum speeds except in those locations where minimum speeds signs are on display?
From: Brimstone on 23 Jul 2010 12:30 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c49bb38$0$22726$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "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? Because you obviously don't understand what constitutes a safe place.
From: DavidR on 23 Jul 2010 17:36 <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote > "DavidR" <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote: >> >>The loss of mechanical efficiency from using a lower gear is probably >>cancelled out by the reduction in aerodynamic loss. The biggest effect is > > 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. This assumption has always carrried the whiff of propaganda. People probably see this from their on board readout but it is untestable except under controlled conditions. It isn't credible. > Thats what makes > all these "green" initiatives by local councils slowing traffic down to > 20mph such a joke. It just generates more CO2 Only if this, in the absence of any other restriction, causes longer journey times. There is a plausible mechanism where one of the components of fuel consumption rises as speed drops - the energy to operate air conditioning and the modern heavy electrical loads is time dependant rather than speed dependant.
From: DavidR on 23 Jul 2010 18:07
<boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message news:i2bkbl$hqp$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:43:40 +0100 > "DavidR" <curedham(a)4bidden.org.uk> wrote: >>"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c4826e7$0$8965 >>> >>> A stationary bicycle at the side of the road therefore does not put >>> anyone >>> else at risk. >> >>The condition of being stationary at the side of the road is not usually a >>problem. It is the change from being moving to becoming stationary that >>can >>be difficult. >> >>If there is no room to be overtaken, there is no room to perform the act >>of >>stopping unless there is a passing place with adequate surface and lead >>in. > > What a load of drivel. > > Stop bike. > > Get off and stand next to wall/bush. > > Let cars past. > > See , not hard is it? If you say so. You can sit there typing away with no grasp of the dynamics but I am certainly not going to make a sudden stop unless I can do it off the driving line. In the other position, I would rather keep moving slowly than have a cyclist force me to stop. |