Cyclists carbon footprint
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: M25 north of Dartford crossing, fences and SPECS
Next: cheapest laptop battery camera battery camcorder battery
From: JNugent on 26 Jul 2010 11:54 boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > On 26 Jul 2010 10:33:11 GMT > Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were >> saying: >> >>>>> If theres no central reservation yes. Feel free to argue the point. >>>> You either don't know what a dual carriageway is or are just plain >>>> wrong. No "argue the point" needed. >>> Don't even start with some BS about a 4 lane road being a single >>> carraigeway simply because its a continuous strip of tarmac. >> Count the carriageways. There's a clue in the name. It's not particularly >> subtle. > > You're right, its not. Theres one for one direction and one for the other. > Whether theres a bit of grass or 2 white lines down the middle makes not > a jot of difference. In the UK, it makes a practical difference to the level of safety, and (currently) a legal difference to the maximum speed limit. Single-carriageway (no matter how many lanes): 60. Dual-carriageway (no matter how many or how few lanes - even where only one in either direction): 70.
From: GT on 26 Jul 2010 15:08 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i2e1fi$vto$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "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. OK, here's a quote. "I'm sorry to tell you that you have failed". This quote is taken from a driving test the other day in which a student was failed for doing 20 in a 30 zone and "failing to make progress". If you can fail your driving test for it, then using the road in this manner is driving without due care and attention at the very least!!
From: GT on 26 Jul 2010 15:10 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i2e1s3$2kf$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "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? Not my point of view matey - its the DSA and the highway code!
From: GT on 26 Jul 2010 15:15 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i2e37o$ce8$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "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. Lets consider a 2 mile journey. This journey involves 3 sets of traffic lights. Your world of the blatantly obvious: A car sets off from 0mph, after 3 second it reaches 20mph - in your world you carry on at 20mph for a minue, until you have to slow down (another 5 seconds) to 0 for some lights... and so on. My world of the blatantly obvious: A car sets off from 0mp, after 3 seconds it reaches 20mph, but instead of staying at that speed, it continues up to 30mph where it continues for just 40 seconds before it has to stop for some lights etc etc. Can you please explain for me, in simple terms - as I clearly don't understand - how exactly is 20mph faster than 30mph? I think I'll leave you to re-read that and come back to us with why 30mph is slower than 20mph. No one can argue that it takes time to speed up and slow down, but if you are speeding up to 30 and slowing down from 30, then your journey will be over sooner than if you only speed up to 20 - where is the confusion?
From: GT on 26 Jul 2010 15:17
"mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i2e3jh$ehn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "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. I think she is rattled! |