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 20:04 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c517566$0$8908$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "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! Read what, some other posts? From who?
From: mileburner on 29 Jul 2010 20:05 "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. Ahh you mean tucked up in bed!
From: boltar2003 on 30 Jul 2010 04:41 On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:06:52 +0100 Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >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. Well excuse me for not visiting that northern shithole recently to check. B2003
From: Brimstone on 30 Jul 2010 06:04 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c529d73$0$12309$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:9P-dnR81TPbZVszRnZ2dnUVZ8t2dnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> But, as I've been trying to impress on you, what a DSA examiner says has >> no bearing on day to day driving. > > Unfortunately, this is true, but as I have said a few times - I think it > should. It seems daft to have a set of road laws and regulations that > apply during a driving test of competance, but don't apply to the other > drivers on the road (or at least are not enforced). The level of driving > skill, or more accurately, 'road and lane awareness' needs to be vastly > improved in this country, but I have only 1 idea as to how we can do this: > repeat driving tests every 10 years when the driving licence is up for > renewall is the only option I can think of. > Retesting would not solve the problem since most people can drive to a suitable standard if they choose to. What would have a better effect, I believe, is to teach trainee drivers why the rules, written and unwritten, are there which would lead to understanding and, in time, a better standard of compliance. A test for the proper attitude would also be a useful idea.
From: GT on 30 Jul 2010 06:15
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2d2dnQPvFZ8nPs_RnZ2dnUVZ8r-dnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4c529d73$0$12309$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:9P-dnR81TPbZVszRnZ2dnUVZ8t2dnZ2d(a)bt.com... > >>> But, as I've been trying to impress on you, what a DSA examiner says has >>> no bearing on day to day driving. >> >> Unfortunately, this is true, but as I have said a few times - I think it >> should. It seems daft to have a set of road laws and regulations that >> apply during a driving test of competance, but don't apply to the other >> drivers on the road (or at least are not enforced). The level of driving >> skill, or more accurately, 'road and lane awareness' needs to be vastly >> improved in this country, but I have only 1 idea as to how we can do >> this: repeat driving tests every 10 years when the driving licence is up >> for renewall is the only option I can think of. >> > Retesting would not solve the problem since most people can drive to a > suitable standard if they choose to. > > What would have a better effect, I believe, is to teach trainee drivers > why the rules, written and unwritten, are there which would lead to > understanding and, in time, a better standard of compliance. A test for > the proper attitude would also be a useful idea. Sounds good in theory, but given that people can 'fake' good driving in order to get through a test, then they can probably fake a good attitude. Unfortunately, I don't think any of these things are going to happen in our lifetimes. |