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 07:59 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:iumdne_lI_H59szRnZ2dnUVZ8qidnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "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. Yes you may make better progress, but you will not be able to travel a greater *distance* at a higher speed.
From: GT on 29 Jul 2010 08:07 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i2rq4o$oeq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "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. No he hasn't - see GTs other post that includes the link to the online highway code. What GT actually said is that he can't be bothered trawling through the highway code right now to prove a point that has been proven in 2 quotes from a DSA examiners on 2 separate driving tests. You seem to have managed to ignore that part!
From: GT on 29 Jul 2010 08:22 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:_sCdnaQ0oday98zRnZ2dnUVZ8oydnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4c515c5c$0$14274$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:q-adnXYutvuhzMzRnZ2dnUVZ8sednZ2d(a)bt.com... >>> >>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message >>> news:4c514a08$0$14321$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>>> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:QuudnQdsl7XloMzRnZ2dnUVZ8omdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>>>> >>>>> "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. >>>> I gave you a link to the online highway code. >>> >>> No, you gave me a link to www.direct.gov.uk 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. > As I've said before, what one can fail a driving test for is not > necessarily in the Highway Code as a "do not" nor is it an offence. So > kindly stop wriggling and link to your source which shows that driving > slowly is against the Highway Code and/or is an offence. I have never cited a specific entry in the highway code - it was brimstone who said "You've cited a specific entry in the Highway Code. Can you provide a direct link to it or not?", 27/07/2010 10:48. I have never cited a specific entry in the highway code. As I did mention (in passing) the highway code, I have provided you with a link to it. You then complained that I had given you a new link, rather than the old link that will soon be taken down! I have given 'my source' as you call it many times already - the 2 separate quotes from the DSA examiners. Why are you so hung up on finding it in the highway code - I already said that moving over to let faster vehicles pass is not my point of view, but that of the DSA. I have given you 2 instances of driving tests (1 fail, 1 marked down) for the 'driving too slowly' as you put it. The DSA refer to this as 'failing to make progress'. If it is a regulation that must be met in order to be certified as a profficient driver, then surely failing to do so after passing the test is at least bad driving, maybe even driving without due care and attention - do you really want to promote this? No doubt you will snip all the relevant parts out of this post and then ask for a link to the highway code again!
From: GT on 29 Jul 2010 08:23 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Gr6dncavbp2F9szRnZ2dnUVZ8jSdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4c515cbd$0$14322$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:V_GdnROxh64Tz8zRnZ2dnUVZ7tKdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>> >>> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message >>> news:4c514d12$0$14303$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>>> "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! >>> 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! > There was nothing about wanting to see them, the comment was, " If you go > faster, you have a better chance of getting to the traffic lights while > they are still on green." Not exactly - the point was that if you go at the speed limit, then in some cities, you will arrive at the next set of lights when they are at green. > Hence my question, "How do you know they're on green at the moment?" Hence the answer already given before now - because in some cities this is how the timings work.
From: GT on 29 Jul 2010 08:33
"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. The *distance* of a journey does not change dependent on speed - to argue against that is just silly. I'm not really sure why you have said that? I simply meant that at 30 you would arrive at a given destination sooner than if you travel at 20. This statement holds regardless of how many sets of lights and junctions along the way as all bottle-neck points would be in the same place. In fact if the city has times lights, then the 30 journey would actually have to stop less. |