Cyclists carbon footprint
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: M25 north of Dartford crossing, fences and SPECS
Next: cheapest laptop battery camera battery camcorder battery
From: GT on 29 Jul 2010 08:34 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i2rqa5$p74$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "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? Oh dear - read before replying!
From: GT on 29 Jul 2010 08:36 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:0YOdnWVkDMl89szRnZ2dnUVZ7vudnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "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. Ah, so your moving the goalposts again. The discussion was about a safe place, not a safe *feeling* place. That is different gether altomatter. I think we have to get off the bike completely and climb over the wall for that! ;-)
From: GT on 29 Jul 2010 08:46 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i2rqfu$pko$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:iumdne_lI_H59szRnZ2dnUVZ8qidnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message >> news:i2ro27$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. Don't you mean you *will* be able to travel a greater distance at a higher speed?
From: Brimstone on 29 Jul 2010 11:10 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c5172b4$0$8919$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "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. So you're referring to a number of sets of traffic lights set up to work in sequence rather than a random set of lights?
From: Brimstone on 29 Jul 2010 11:13
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c5175ca$0$8954$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:0YOdnWVkDMl89szRnZ2dnUVZ7vudnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> "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. > > Ah, so your moving the goalposts again. The discussion was about a safe > place, not a safe *feeling* place. I used my experience as an illustration of why a cyclist might not stop at a place that a following car driver might consider suitable. If it doesn't look safe to the cyclist he's not going to stop. |