Cyclists carbon footprint
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: M25 north of Dartford crossing, fences and SPECS
Next: cheapest laptop battery camera battery camcorder battery
From: mileburner on 24 Jul 2010 02:33 "The Peeler" <peelingthe(a)invalid.admin> wrote in message news:vnkk469fd1v65aevr62lppkhqtr9k3gphj(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's a speed limit not a speed target. >>>>>> >>>>>>Wrong - its both as far as DSA and highway code are concerned! >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. The words "speed target" are in neither. >>>> >>>>Check again! not that exact phrase, but same meaning. >>> >>> Why don't you quote it, then? >> >>Because I don't have it to hand and can't be bothered! > > Because it doesn't exist. Because GT makes it up... I doubt if the HC and the advice offered by the DSA, was ever intended to justify aggressive driving and GT has fallen into the trap of thinking the advise offered does that and the law is, what he wants it to be. If you want to spout deluded interpretation from official sources you really need to quote the wording.
From: mileburner on 24 Jul 2010 02:40 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c49ba53$0$22739$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:i2c6v5$s8k$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >> "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? > I was simply referring to anyone in this *driving* group who knows how to > drive properly. So you are trying to drum up allies for you bizarre points of view?
From: mileburner on 24 Jul 2010 02:54 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:FtSdnfBN5NA-XtTRnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "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. Indeed, the side of the road, leaning away from the traffic (with a bicycle or not) is not really a safe place. Tucked up in bed at home with a cup of Horlicks is a safe place but not the side of the road. Saying that, if the road is wide enough it may be safe (ish) to pull over at the side to allow other vehicles to pass. It is a judgement call. And the person who makes that call is the one pulling over. As a cyclist I do it a lot. Pull over, slow down, big wave of the arm to indicate to the traffic behind to pass, pull back into position and on you go. However, there are a minority of drivers who get angered with the fact that you did not get out of the way even when there was no safe(ish) place to go. If you do try to get out of the way when there is not enough space, there are a lot more drivers who will reward you by missing you by inches, at speed as they try to squeeze though the smallest of gaps. This confirms the side of the road is *not* a safe place.
From: mileburner on 24 Jul 2010 03:03 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c49bbb0$0$22726$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "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? If you ever actually drove a vehicle of any kind whatsoever you will realise that it takes longer, and a further distance to reach a higher speed. And having attained that higher speed, it takes longer and more distance to slow down again than it would from a lower speed. (I can't believe I need to explain this) However, if you want to be pedantic, there was an assumption in my text that the vehicle would need to slow down and stop for inconveniences such as a set of lights, pedestrian crossing or other give way, stop etc? But I figured that it was blatantly bleedin' obvious.
From: mileburner on 24 Jul 2010 03:09
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c496beb$0$22745$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > Never been disputed by me. No one has ever suggested (refering to the OP) > that the cyclist should have just stopped in the middle of the road where > he was as soon as someone arrived behind him - we have all said that he > should have pulled in to the side of the road. We have also all said that > this should be at the earliest convenience. The argument seems to be that > you think that he didn't need to pull over at all and the car drivers > should be more patient and just wait until the cyclist has finished his > journey. This stance is wrong and the above proves it. When you have been proved that you are entirely wrong, you have the stupidity to re-invent the argument. The use of "we" merely shows that you are desperately trying to convince yourself that your views are popular. Perhaps you should start saying what you think and stop arguing against what you seem to think other people seem to think. |