From: GT on
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> news:4c49ba95$0$22726$c3e8da3(a)
>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
>> news:mIydnY9VS8NXPtTRnZ2dnUVZ8iudnZ2d(a)
>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>>> news:4c498f60$0$22686$c3e8da3(a)
>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:cpGdnZJvGoeLGNTRnZ2dnUVZ8vednZ2d(a)
>>>>> <boltar2003(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:i2brj4$ubu$1(a)
>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:43:17 +0100
>>>>>> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)> 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
>>>>>> 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,
>>>>>>>side exit etc. where you *can* stop and get out of the way and let
>>>>>>>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?

See other post.

From: Brimstone on

"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
> news:G-edncLf38jxe9DRnZ2dnUVZ7vmdnZ2d(a)
>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>> news:4c4ddd69$0$12311$c3e8da3(a)
>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:GPOdnZRirvBOX9TRnZ2dnUVZ8ludnZ2d(a)
>>>> Is it an argument if one of the parties grounds are so detached from
>>>> reality as to be fanciful?
>>> It doesn't matter how detached from reality he/she is, if someone is
>>> using the public roads, they should follow the rules.
>> Indeed. Can you please show me where in the rules that one must travel at
>> or about the speed limit?
> Did you not see the other post?
'fraid not.

From: Brimstone on

"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
> news:FqCdnUmuLrZNe9DRnZ2dnUVZ8lGdnZ2d(a)
>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>> news:4c4ddd83$0$12278$c3e8da3(a)
>>> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:i2e1s3$2kf$1(a)
>>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>>>> news:4c49ba53$0$22739$c3e8da3(a)
>>>>> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:i2c6v5$s8k$1(a)
>>>>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4c496d79$0$22716$c3e8da3(a)
>>>>>>> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)> 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!
>> Where in the highway code?
> Check the DSA gov website - you'll find it - look under "making good
> progress"
Got a link?

From: Brimstone on

"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message

>> Did you not see the other post?
> 'fraid not.
Have now.

From: Derek C on
On Jul 26, 8:15 pm, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote:
> "mileburner" <milebur...(a)> wrote in message
> news:i2e37o$ce8$1(a)
> > "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote in message
> >news:4c49bbb0$0$22726$c3e8da3(a)
> >> "mileburner" <milebur...(a)> wrote in message
> >>news:i2c7dg$u1g$1(a)
> >>> "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote in message
> >>>news:4c496d16$0$22721$c3e8da3(a)
> >>>> "mileburner" <milebur...(a)> wrote in message
> >>>>news:i2bp07$ad9$1(a)
> >>>>> <boltar2...(a)> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:i2bkgp$i15$1(a)
> >>>>>> 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?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

If you go faster, you have a better chance of getting to the traffic
lights while they are still on green.