Cyclists carbon footprint
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: M25 north of Dartford crossing, fences and SPECS
Next: cheapest laptop battery camera battery camcorder battery
From: Brimstone on 29 Jul 2010 07:52 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i2ro27$g1u$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4c514e53$0$14271$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> >> 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. > > Point of order. You made that bit up. If I am wrong about that please post > the message ID or a Google link and I will apologise and bow to your > superior knowledge. But I would wager you are not going to be posting any > message ID or url because YOU MADE IT 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. > > The dispute was that you claimed that you could travel the same *distance* > at 30mph, as you can at 20mph. You can't because you will need to speed up > and slow down, possibly with regularity. Not always, there are occasions when travelling slower than normal allows one to make better progress.
From: mileburner on 29 Jul 2010 07:53 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:FcednfYGbPX-98zRnZ2dnUVZ8vGdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message >> >> See other post. > Done. How about that link to the clause in the Highway Code which says > that going too slowly is an offence? GT has already told us he cannot post links.
From: Brimstone on 29 Jul 2010 07:54 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c515d0a$0$14293$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4Madnc2E08Z6zszRnZ2dnUVZ8oydnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message >> news:4c5150fe$0$14268$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>> "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! >> >> 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. When I worked on the railway I had to stand at the side of the track while trains went past at 125 mph. Whilst I undoubtedly was in a safe place that doesn't mean I always *felt* safe.
From: GT on 29 Jul 2010 07:56 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i2roge$i0n$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4c5150fe$0$14268$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message >> news:i2r08v$hek$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> GT wrote: >>> >>> 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! > > Point one, there is not always a kerb. Point two, traffic does actually > hit kerbs. And passing traffic coming within inches is by no means very > safe. > >>> 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! > > Given the choice, I would rather follow the advice of the highway code and > pull over at the earliest convenient place. I see no point in us carrying this on - I will be quiet now - our points are well and truly posted!
From: mileburner on 29 Jul 2010 07:56
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c5168e6$0$8955$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message > news:i2ro5i$gme$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message >> news:4c514ec1$0$14318$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> >>> 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. >> >> That will be the "Everyone Else Knows" argument... > > Yes - you should be familiar with it as you use it all the time. > Difference is that you don't have any support! It is fortunate for you, that you lack the competence to be able to back that up too. >> I am always dubious of anyone who claims to speak on behalf of everyone >> else. > > Then don't believe my summary - just read all the other posts for > yourself. No point shouting back some nonsense about... "please miss, he > said 'we', but I don't believe him and I refuse to everyone else who says > the same thing, 'cos I'm always right". What other posts? |