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 11:46 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:5Mudnb9rUqNKBMzRnZ2dnUVZ8t-dnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "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? In some cities this is (was) the case. This has been mentioned a few times now by both me and someone else (I forget who).
From: GT on 29 Jul 2010 11:47 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:kPmdnYLDDtI4B8zRnZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "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. OK
From: Nick Finnigan on 29 Jul 2010 16:06 boltar2003(a)boltar.world wrote: > > 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. Except for Wellington Road North, Wellington Road South, Washway Road and most other multi-lane single carriageway A roads around Manchester.
From: mileburner on 29 Jul 2010 20:00 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c51781f$0$8924$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "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? Over a given amount of time - yes. Over a finite distance - no.
From: mileburner on 29 Jul 2010 20:04
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c51752e$0$8919$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.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. > > The *distance* of a journey does not change dependent on speed No kidding! - to argue > against that is just silly. I'm not really sure why you have said that? Said what? I > simply meant that at 30 you would arrive at a given destination sooner > than if you travel at 20. Not if 30 means you arrive at the next traffic queue earlier and therefore chug along stop start for longer. |