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 08:26 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i29cm1$gjg$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4c482a41$0$8912$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> >> The car driver is always wrong, isn't he? > > The car driver usually has a limited understanding of cycling. GT and > Boltar are examples of that. What exactly is so complex about cycling that you think makes you an elite road user. Aside from pedaling, there should be no physical attributes that differentiate cycling from driving a car. The discussion here is about road craft and road ettiquette. The drivers among us have a license to prove that they know the rules and regulations, there are a few cyclists out there and in here that do not have that knowledge. Unfortunately this discussion centres around a slow moving cyclist who failed to move over to let a queue of cars past. > Its his fault that there is a >> bicycle in the road, managing 8mph up a hill, refusing to move over, >> deliberately riding in the middle of the lane to prevent cars from >> passing him. > > If he was not there, there would be no other road user in front of him. > > Its the drivers fault that he finds this frustrating and that he would >> prefer to drive nearer to 30, 50 or 60mph. > > The state of mind of the driver, is down to the driver. > > Its the drivers fault that he >> needs to get to work, or home to his family and finds the unneccessary >> delay annoying. > > You got it, it's down to the driver. They *chose* to drive, now they have > to learn to share the roads with others. If they are annoyed, they should > do something else or look at another method of transport. You say that the car driver should learn to share the road with others - I think you mean that the cyclist should learn to share the road with the other users - he is the one failing to pull over to let the other road users continue on their way. > Its the drivers fault that there is a wall at the side of the >> road. Its the drivers fault... > > Whine whine whine. It is you who is whining, we are simply stating facts about road craft that an obvious number of cyclists do not obey.
From: mileburner on 22 Jul 2010 08:34 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c4825ec$0$8910$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "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. So lets get this straight. The road is too narrow and twisty to safely overtake but if the cyclist lets them overtake it is safe. There is a contradiction buried in there somewhere. Can anyone spot it? >> 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. If. yes *if* the road is wide enough, but if the road is not wide enough... Jeeze <swoon> fuckwittery at its finest <sigh>.
From: GT on 22 Jul 2010 08:44 "mileburner" <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote in message news:i29dsr$qbv$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message > news:4c4825ec$0$8910$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> "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. > > So lets get this straight. The road is too narrow and twisty to safely > overtake but if the cyclist lets them overtake it is safe. There is a > contradiction buried in there somewhere. Can anyone spot it? Only you can so badly misunderstand this - there is a difference between overtaking something that is moving along (albeit slowly) in the centre of a lane and driving past something that is stationary at the side of the road - can you spot that difference? The difference is that to *overtake*, a vehicle has to accellerate past the other vehicle and pull onto the other side of the road for a period of time to do so. To drive past a stationary object at the side, there is no need to accellerate (necessarily) and no need to pull onto the other side of the road, or perhaps only by an inch or two. >>> 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. > > If. yes *if* the road is wide enough, but if the road is not wide > enough... And there are very very very few roads that aren't wide enough for a car to pass a narrow stationary object at the side of the road! > Jeeze <swoon> fuckwittery at its finest <sigh>. Indeed you are!
From: Graham Harrison on 22 Jul 2010 09:33 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c4826e7$0$8965$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "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. > Round here we have a good few roads which are wide enough for two cars, need a bit of concentration for a car and bus/lorry to pass and come to a temporary halt while two lorries squeeze past one another. They don't have pavements or even verges. My view is that on such a road (and I took the OP to be describing something of the sort) there isn't space for a bike and two cars to pass, even if the bike is stopped in the manner you describe. Hence it would keep the traffic moving (albeit slowly) if the cyclist continued to a place where he can actually exit the carriageway to allow the following traffic to pass.
From: Graham Harrison on 22 Jul 2010 09:44
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c4825ec$0$8910$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "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. > > Here's a road http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=s&hl=en&q=castle+cary&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Castle+Cary&gl=uk&ei=V0lITNCDKpP60wTbsL2zDQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CB8Q8gEwAA I'm not sure how clever that URL is so you may need to swing the view round to face north where you will see a "transit tipper". As you can see, it fills one side of the road. Now swing around to face south and tell me if there was a bicycle stopped by the side of the road would there be space for two cars to pass at the same point as the stopped cyclist? I can tell you that if the buses that run on that road meet (and the timetable is such that they do) they have to inch past rather carefully. Cyclists (and tractors and HGVs and.....) should pull up (and off the carriageway) to allow faster traffic to pass, but only where it's safe. The road pictured in the URL is straight so it would be safe to stop (safer in the entrance seen when looking north). But if it was bent in such a way that sight lines were obstructed (as in the OP description) I would argue the cyclist should continue to the next lay by or entrance before stopping. |