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 22 Jul 2010 07:05 "Graham Harrison" <edward.harrison1(a)remove.btinternet.com> wrote in message news:lKidnQyyzvknjtXRnZ2dnUVZ8rqdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4c480a32$0$8953$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "FrengaX" <hnkjqrh02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >> news:434a3a89-0aa4-4601-9161-b43804fb9a64(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> On Jul 21, 3:02 pm, Jethro <krazyka...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Why restrict your pointless venom at cyclists? What is the similar >> effect of: >> - buses which crawl along/block the road with long queues of cars >> behind >> - milk floats (if such things exist any more) >> - temporary traffic lights left in place where there is no hazard on >> the road (apart from the lights themselves) >> - People who have accidents on the motorway and cause massive >> tailbacks >> - Gypsies who decide to descend on Appleby in their horse-drawn >> caravans, causing miles and miles of tailbacks on the A65 >> - etc >> >> I would stick my neck out and say that most of the drivers in this group >> agree with you, but the original question concerned a particular example >> of cyclist deliberately causing congestion, delay and frustration for >> many other people. Had he moved over or stopped for a short time (as the >> highway code suggests that road users should do when causing queues), >> then the problem would have been alleviated, but alas this rarely >> happens. >> > > Deliberately? The OP said "was too twisty and narrow to safely > overtake". Assume for one moment the cyclist had stopped to let the cars > pass; would that have been safe? Yes. > Unless the cyclist was able to get right off the road I would suggest it > would make little difference and that it might simply bring the queue to a > halt. I fail to see how a stationary object, stopped neatly at the side of the road cause everyone to stop. If the road is wide enough for normal traffic - lorries, buses etc, then there is plenty of room for a stream of cars to drive past a stationary bicycle. > There are roads round here that qualify for the OP description where it > would definitely be safer to continue until a safe pull off rather than > stop for the sake of stopping. But its not 'for the sake of stopping', its stopping to let other people go about their lives. And he can get a rest for a minute! > And, as for moving over (HC suggestion) I agree with you; I just wish that > all the juggernauts, tractors, 40 mph "Sunday drivers" would also read the > HC.
From: GT on 22 Jul 2010 07:06 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i29467$c7f$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > GT wrote: >> "FrengaX" <hnkjqrh02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >> news:434a3a89-0aa4-4601-9161-b43804fb9a64(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> On Jul 21, 3:02 pm, Jethro <krazyka...(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >>> Having just watched a number cars grinding up a hill near me (I was >>> walking) because a cyclist was at the head of the queue, and it was >>> too twisty and narrow to safely overtake, I started wondering about >>> the OVERALL effect cyclists have on carbon emissions. >> >> Why restrict your pointless venom at cyclists? What is the similar >> effect of: >> - buses which crawl along/block the road with long queues of cars >> behind >> - milk floats (if such things exist any more) >> - temporary traffic lights left in place where there is no hazard on >> the road (apart from the lights themselves) >> - People who have accidents on the motorway and cause massive >> tailbacks >> - Gypsies who decide to descend on Appleby in their horse-drawn >> caravans, causing miles and miles of tailbacks on the A65 >> - etc >> >> I would stick my neck out and say that most of the drivers in this >> group agree with you, but the original question concerned a >> particular example of cyclist deliberately causing congestion, delay >> and frustration for many other people. Had he moved over or stopped >> for a short time (as the highway code suggests that road users should >> do when causing queues), then the problem would have been alleviated, >> but alas this rarely happens. > > Keeping digging into your sad and sorry little hole knobster :-) Tell us, do you have a valid point relevant to this thread?
From: GT on 22 Jul 2010 07:09 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i297tj$a68$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Graham Harrison wrote: >>> How does a cyclist stopped at the side of the road put >>> anyone else at risk? >> >> It depends, surely. If he stops on a straight where drivers can see >> round him to pass safely all well and good. But if he stops on a >> bend where the drivers can't see and to pass means they have to pull >> into the oncoming lane the risk is of someone coming the other way. A >> bicycle (and a human for that matter) does have some width. > > Thank you Graham for explaining the blatently obvious to the terminally > thick. A stationary bicycle at the side of the road does not put anyone else at risk. This is blatantly obvious to anyone with half a grasp on reality and any basic spacial awareness!
From: GT on 22 Jul 2010 07:09 "Graham Harrison" <edward.harrison1(a)remove.btinternet.com> wrote in message news:nZudnQXM-9l7vNXRnZ2dnUVZ8l6dnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > >> How does a cyclist stopped at the side of the road put >> anyone else at risk? >> > > It depends, surely. If he stops on a straight where drivers can see > round him to pass safely all well and good. But if he stops on a bend > where the drivers can't see and to pass means they have to pull into the > oncoming lane the risk is of someone coming the other way. A bicycle > (and a human for that matter) does have some width. True, but not enough to prevent cars from passing on a normal road. They won't even need to cross the central line as you suggest. A cyclist stopped at the side of the road will tend to put down one foot, normally the left. This leans the cycle away from the flow of traffic and renders his width almost irrelevant. A stationary bicycle at the side of the road therefore does not put anyone else at risk.
From: GT on 22 Jul 2010 07:14
"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. > > Does all the extra carbon produced by cars having to crawl behind > cyclists cancel out, or exceed the carbon saved by the cyclist ? This has descended into an argument about whether the cyclist should have pulled over or not. With the exception of Chelsea's flight reference, I dont think anyone has actually agreed or disputed your actual question... I personally think that there are a number of road users who fail to follow the laws of the road and the recommendations in the highway code and as a result, they cause accidents (or 'deliberates', if Doug is reading this), queues, frustration and inconvenience for many other road users. Their actions directly contribute to pollution and congestion, but very very rarely is anything done about it either by the offender (pulling over) or the authorities (stop and 'educate'). |