From: GT on
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> news:4c514a08$0$14321$c3e8da3(a)
>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
>> news:QuudnQdsl7XloMzRnZ2dnUVZ8omdnZ2d(a)
>>> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:i2qs3d$hec$1(a)
>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:SPqdnfINtp9vLdPRnZ2dnUVZ7o2dnZ2d(a)
>>>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4c4eafe1$0$15827$c3e8da3(a)
>>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ie-dnekxsYZ-M9PRnZ2dnUVZ8r6dnZ2d(a)
>>>>>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4c4eacf6$0$15866$c3e8da3(a)
>>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:s4ednS8HDJPnNtPRnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d(a)
>>>>>>>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:4c4ea046$0$15829$c3e8da3(a)
>>>>>>>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:7ZKdnZ9Q97VadtDRnZ2dnUVZ7tOdnZ2d(a)
>>>>>>>>>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:4c4dea37$0$26079$c3e8da3(a)
>>>>>>>>>>>> "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?
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>> I gave you a link to the online highway code.
> No, you gave me a link to which is the government
> portal. One then has to search for what one wants. (The previous
> arrangement where the HC had its own web space and domain name was much
> easier.)
>> If you refuse to click on it, then perhaps you should just open the copy
>> that you learned before your driving test. You do know the highway code,
>> right?
> I asked for a link to the specific clause you were quoting regarding
> failing to make progress. You have yet to provide it.
> That is, I want to you to back up your statement with some evidence.

I did - check back for the posts regarding the 2 driving tests - one fail
and one minor.

From: GT on
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> news:4c514b63$0$14288$c3e8da3(a)
>> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)> wrote in message
>> news:i2qtim$rv0$1(a)
>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:VK6dndNIEaTHMdPRnZ2dnUVZ7sadnZ2d(a)
>>>> <boltar2003(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:i2m9n0$5j0$1(a)
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>*automatically* as soon as the central reservation appears. I seem to
>>>>>>remember that there has to be a 'dual carriageway' sign before the
>>>>>>actually goes up to 70, despite the fact that the driver can clearly
>>>>>>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.
>>>> A good question, especially as we now have one sign with two meanings.
>>>> For those who started driving more recently, the current NSL sign
>>>> (white disc with a black diagonal bar) original meant "No Speed Limit".
>>> Indeed, but it the world of boltar and GT that would mean that any road
>>> user would need to accelerate to infinity otherwise they would failing
>>> to make progress. It needed capping because many drivers saw No Speed
>>> Limit as an excuse to drive as fast as they liked with no regard for
>>> safety.
>> When you misquote things like this, you just end up looking silly - its
>> the DSA's rules, not mine! I think you will find that when you sat your
>> driving test, it was a DSA examiner that sat beside you, not me or
>> Bolter!. If you want to drive around ignoring all the rules of the road,
>> then please just stay away from my children as they walk to school, you
>> lunatic!
>>> And for those with knowledge as limited as GT and boltar, the NSL also
>>> varies depending on the type of vehicle you are driving.
>> My knowledge is limited to that of the highway code and DSA. What more
>> 'knowledge' do we need when discussing road laws and road craft in a
>> driving group?
> How about that knowledge of good driving which is not contained in the HC?
> Now, how about that link to the clause in the Highway Code which says that
> going too slowly is an offence?

See other post.

From: GT on
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> news:4c514d12$0$14303$c3e8da3(a)
>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
>> news:y9-dnS16BpdnoMzRnZ2dnUVZ8oCdnZ2d(a)
>>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>>> news:4c4ea9fe$0$15854$c3e8da3(a)
>>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:beadnQD0fLE5BtPRnZ2dnUVZ8iidnZ2d(a)
>>>>> "Derek C" <del.copeland(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:e057a689-fb6a-4647-b423-0dd9d36d2400(a)
>>>>>> 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!
> No it wasn't. What about sightlines? How many roads do you know where it's
> possible to see the next set of traffic lights from a mile or two away?

Why would you want to see the next set of lights from a mile or two away? A
few hundred yards is far enough and for that, just pick a city!

From: GT on
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote in message
> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> news:4c5150fe$0$14268$c3e8da3(a)
>> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)> wrote in message
>> news:i2r08v$hek$1(a)
>>> GT wrote:
>>>> "Jethro" <krazykara0(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:6842a0c5-6d67-4d78-a6b5-7ce0b485caa7(a)
>>>>> 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!
> Just because other motorists suggest it doesn't make it safe for the
> cyclist.

You have that back-to-front. People saying something doesn't make it safe,
people are suggesting it *because* it is a safe place.

From: mileburner on

<boltar2003(a)> wrote in message
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:49:59 +0100
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)> wrote:
>>> Maybe, but I still don't think 10mph will make any difference at those
>>> sorts of speeds.
>>It is less likely that a collision will happen if the closing speed is
>>since there will be more time for the overtaking car to complete its
>>manoeuvre and pull back in.
> Ultimately it makes little odds because on most single lane A roads the
> traffic
> will be stuck doing 40mph behind an HGV and on multi lane roads you
> shouldn't
> need to overtake anyway and should never do so into the oncoming traffic
> if
> you value your life. Plus its illegal anyway - they always have no
> overtaking
> lines down the centre.

That will be the solid white lines which (in my estimation 9 out of 10)
drivers will ignore if the vehicle in front is moving "too slowly". Clarkson
was recorded "white lining" for Top Gear. I have even seen a police car do
it (without sirens and lights).

But to go back to the original point, increasing the traffic speed,
increases the distance required to overtake. Also, it is fairly common for
drivers to overtake directly into oncoming traffic anyway, if they think
that the road is wide enough to allow 3 vehicles at once side by side in the
hope that the oncoming traffic will shift over to accommodate.