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 29 Jul 2010 00:19 GT wrote: > "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! Not "we"? ;-)
From: mileburner on 29 Jul 2010 00:32 GT wrote: > "Jethro" <krazykara0(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message > news:6842a0c5-6d67-4d78-a6b5-7ce0b485caa7(a)q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> Having just watched a number cars grinding up a hill near me (I was >> walking) because a cyclist was at the head of the queue, and it was >> too twisty and narrow to safely overtake, I started wondering about >> the OVERALL effect cyclists have on carbon emissions. > > I've just noticed that the OP was walking - this means there was a > pavement and therefore room to stop at the side of the road, leaning > away from the traffic and allow the faster traffic to clear!! Just an > observation, no need for us to start the debate all over again - I > think we covered every point possible already! Logic does not follow. While I do not dispute that there *may* have been a footpath simply because somone was walking it does not mean that there *was* a footpath or a pavement by the side of the road. Besides, I can think of places and situations where it would be suicidal to pull over to let traffic pass without a safe area to do so. No matter how much GT wants to think that the kerbs edge is safe for a cyclist to wait at, if you combine it with a narrow road, two-way traffic and larger vehicles the kerb-side is the very last place you want to be. Example I had an aggregate lorry coming up behind me moving quite fast. Checking the road ahead was clear I pulled over and waved him by. He passed nice and wide but quite fast. He was being tailgated by another aggregate lorry who passed a lot closer. He also was being tailgated by another aggregate lorry who passed so close that I do not think he saw me at the side of the road, and neither did the car following him. I wished at that point I had not let the first one pass and if I do that again I will make sure there is somewhere safe to do so before pulling over.
From: Brimstone on 29 Jul 2010 04:36 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i2qs3d$hec$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:SPqdnfINtp9vLdPRnZ2dnUVZ7o2dnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message >> news:4c4eafe1$0$15827$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:ie-dnekxsYZ-M9PRnZ2dnUVZ8r6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>>> >>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message >>>> news:4c4eacf6$0$15866$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:s4ednS8HDJPnNtPRnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message >>>>>> news:4c4ea046$0$15829$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:7ZKdnZ9Q97VadtDRnZ2dnUVZ7tOdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:4c4dea37$0$26079$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:FqCdnUmuLrZNe9DRnZ2dnUVZ8lGdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:4c4ddd83$0$12278$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>>>>>>>>>> "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! >>>>>>>>>> Where in the highway code? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Check the DSA gov website - you'll find it - look under "making >>>>>>>>> good progress" >>>>>>>> Got a link? >>>>>>> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=DSA.gov >>>>>> You've cited a specific entry in the Highway Code. Can you provide a >>>>>> direct link to it or not? >>>>> >>>>> I've already said elsewhere that I can't be bothered trawling through >>>>> it all. As I have also already said, the quote I gave earlier is from >>>>> a DSA driving examiner when failing a student on his driving test. If >>>>> you need more help, please take it up with the DSA and stop shooting >>>>> the messenger (me)! >>>> What you have failed to understand is that just because one can fail a >>>> driving test for failing to do something, that doesn't mean it's in the >>>> Highway Code nor that it is an offence. >>>> >>>> Therefore, until you either provide a link to the relevant page of the >>>> HC or confirm that your talking bollocks I'll keep shooting. >>> >>> ... blanks ! >> So where's the link? > > Psst. He made it up, again :-( Indeed. Still it's nice that he's got a hobby.
From: Brimstone on 29 Jul 2010 04:38 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c4ea9fe$0$15854$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:beadnQD0fLE5BtPRnZ2dnUVZ8iidnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> "Derek C" <del.copeland(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:e057a689-fb6a-4647-b423-0dd9d36d2400(a)q2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... >> >>> If you go faster, you have a better chance of getting to the traffic >>> lights while they are still on green. >> >> How do you know they're on green at the moment? > > As posted already, in some cities, the lights are timed to increase > traffic flow - as one set of lights changes to green the traffic > accellerates up to the speed limit and the lights down the road are timed > so that as the traffic arrives at the speed limit, the lights change to > green. Of course, if there is a slow moving vehicle holding everyone up > and illegally refusing to yield, then this system falls down around its > feet! > > I also read that lots of these timings were changed a few months before > London brought in congestion charging - this was to falsly increase the > congestion and then after the congestion charging was introduced, they put > the timings back and claimed that congestion charging was a winner! All of which may or may not be true, but it doesn't answer my question.
From: boltar2003 on 29 Jul 2010 04:46
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:40:28 +0100 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: ><boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message >news:i2m9n0$5j0$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 10:34:57 +0100 >> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: >>>Having said this, I'm not sure if the national 60 limit increases to 70 >>>*automatically* as soon as the central reservation appears. I seem to >>>remember that there has to be a 'dual carriageway' sign before the limit >>>actually goes up to 70, despite the fact that the driver can clearly see >>>that the carriageway has split in two. >> >> I wonder why they bother with the 60/70 difference. A head on with a >> closing >> speed of 120 isn't going to be any more survivable than one at 140. > >You seem to have overlooked the fact that at lower speeds, a head-on is less >likely to occur. Maybe, but I still don't think 10mph will make any difference at those sorts of speeds. B2003 |