From: GT on
"mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:i2qvcr$97d$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> GT wrote:
>> "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!
>
> So this congestion charge is all one big conspiricy huh?

Congestion charge is not a conspiracy, no. But its results have been
deliberately manipulated (in several ways) to suggest that it is solely
responsible for reduction in queues etc.


From: GT on
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:y9-dnS16BpdnoMzRnZ2dnUVZ8oCdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>
> "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.

To answer your question in a time-fixed statement is impossible. The direct
answer to your question is that he can see that they are green at the
moment... oh hang on... now they're red... and now green again. It was a
silly question!


From: GT on

"mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:i2qv5n$7bb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> news:4c4ddee1$0$12277$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>>
>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> Err, that's because it is not.
>>>>
>>>> However, if the time of a journey is dictated largely by slow moving or
>>>> stationary traffic queues, short bursts of 30mph between a stop-start
>>>> crawl can make little or no difference to the overall journey time.
>>>>
>>>> HTH

Nobody mentioned slow moving and stationary queues - lets not move the
goalposts! We were comparing journeys at 20mph vs 30mph. You said that 20mph
would be faster due to slowing down for junctions and lights and the
subsequent speeding up again. I disagreed and said that as you have to stop
at various obstacles anyway, then travelling at 30mph between those
obstacles will get you to your destination faster than if you travel at
20mph. You said it was blatantly obvious that 20mph would be faster than
30mph and I'm still waiting for you to explain this bizarre statement. Even
if you do introduce extra features into the question, like queues and
holdups, there is still no way that 20mph would get you there faster than
30mph, even if you only reach the magic 30mph for 10 seconds over a 1 day
journey.


From: GT on
"mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:i2qvfq$9e9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> GT wrote:
>> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:i2e3jh$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"? ;-)

No, that was my personal opinion. I can't talk for anyone else on this
matter. When I used the 'we' above it was in the context of a discussion and
I was summarising everyone elses position against your world.


From: GT on
"mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:i2r08v$hek$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> 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.

No matter how much mileburner wants to think the the middle of the road is
the best place to remain as a long queue of increasingly irate road users
builds up behind them, stopped at the side of the road, leaning away from
the traffic is simply much safer. Traffic would have to actually come within
2 inches of mounting the kerb to hit you!

> 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.

Or just pull over a bit further - or even stop at the side and lean away
from the traffic like a normal cyclist would do - see above and the other
dozens of posts from at various other contributors that suggest this!