Restaurant damaged by car.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Do escape lanes work?
Next: Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's 'war on motorists'
From: Adrian on 18 May 2010 10:21 "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted >> that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles. > Did *you* really think that a bicycle would do more damage to a brick > wall than a car? > > If everyone used bicycles, then very few people would make it to work. > Industry and commerce would completely fail and the economy would > collapse horribly. If you are able to go about your day on a bicycle, > then good for you, but it doesn't suit everyone: How do you propose that > I get my 2 children to school and then myself to work 40 miles away, on > a bicycle, in 40 minutes? By bus? By train? 'course the same laws of physics that say a ~1.5t car does more damage than a ~100kg bicycle might also have something to say about a ~10t bus. And remind me what a train weighs?
From: Adrian on 18 May 2010 10:24 boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:12:50 +0100 > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: >>"Stephen Bagwell" <stephenb1963uk(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:64e924ac-567f-416b-8535- f33a93475a9c(a)y12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com... >>> On 18 May, 07:38, "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOO!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >>>> >>>> news:d8bdc850-99ec-4854-8be9-11440c280fa7(a)m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>>> >>> How many less tonnes of carbon dioxide have been produced because of >>> Americans driving hybrid Toyota and Lexus cars? >> >>None. >> >>Where do people think the electricity comes from??? > > Some of it comes from regenerative braking , the energy which otherwise > would have just been lost as heat in the brakes. Depends how competent and alert the driver is, of course, as to how much they actually use the brakes. > Also they save fuel by switching the engine off when it would otherwise > be idling. As do many non-hybrids. Although, having said that, my car engine barely ever idles during my commute. Perhaps sometimes a more appropriate mode of transport could be chosen? > Though if they had diesel engines instead of petrol they'd be a lot > more efficient than they are at the moment. You seem to be forgetting the primary national markets of the current hybrids. And, of course, the "Is it or isn't it" over diesel vs petrol emissions.
From: GT on 18 May 2010 10:32 <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message news:hsu7hk$mvo$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > On Tue, 18 May 2010 15:12:50 +0100 > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: >>"Stephen Bagwell" <stephenb1963uk(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:64e924ac-567f-416b-8535-f33a93475a9c(a)y12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com... >>> On 18 May, 07:38, "Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOOO!!!...@drzoidberg.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>>> "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message >>>> >>>> news:d8bdc850-99ec-4854-8be9-11440c280fa7(a)m33g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... >>>> >>> >>> How many less tonnes of carbon dioxide have been produced because of >>> Americans driving hybrid Toyota and Lexus cars? >> >>None. >> >>Where do people think the electricity comes from??? > > Some of it comes from regenerative braking , the energy which otherwise > would > have just been lost as heat in the brakes. Also they save fuel by > switching > the engine off when it would otherwise be idling. Though if they had > diesel > engines instead of petrol they'd be a lot more efficient than they are at > the > moment. To answer those points directly: Regenerative braking simply 'reclaims' some of the electricity already used. An idling petrol / diesel engine uses barely any fuel at all - drivers who are concerned about the half thimble of fuel they might waste in 5 minutes of idling can use the little key just next to the steering wheel - a simple turn and the engine uses no fuel at all! Another point always omitted from these discussions is that people don't realise that electric car batteries have a finite lifetime (is it 2-3 years?) and can't just be thrown away like torch batteries. New batteries are expensive and have to be made at smokey factories and distributed using smelly lorries etc etc.
From: boltar2003 on 18 May 2010 10:35 On 18 May 2010 14:24:44 GMT Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Also they save fuel by switching the engine off when it would otherwise >> be idling. > >As do many non-hybrids. Although, having said that, my car engine barely >ever idles during my commute. Perhaps sometimes a more appropriate mode >of transport could be chosen? Well we all get stuck in traffic jams occasionally and an idling engine is doing zero mpg. BUt yes , non hybrids can do start-stop too but they can't trickle along on electric power that may have come via the regen braking. >> Though if they had diesel engines instead of petrol they'd be a lot >> more efficient than they are at the moment. > >You seem to be forgetting the primary national markets of the current >hybrids. And, of course, the "Is it or isn't it" over diesel vs petrol >emissions. Yes I know the yanks hate diesels and I can understand why. But going purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg diesel beats petrol every time. B2003
From: GT on 18 May 2010 10:36
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:85fm2jFgk9U10(a)mid.individual.net... > "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > >>>I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted >>> that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles. > >> Did *you* really think that a bicycle would do more damage to a brick >> wall than a car? >> >> If everyone used bicycles, then very few people would make it to work. >> Industry and commerce would completely fail and the economy would >> collapse horribly. If you are able to go about your day on a bicycle, >> then good for you, but it doesn't suit everyone: How do you propose that >> I get my 2 children to school and then myself to work 40 miles away, on >> a bicycle, in 40 minutes? > > By bus? By train? Unfortunately, not an option - they pollute the environment, take bloody ages and smell! Bus would take hours and about 3 changes (maybe 4) - my work isn't on a bus route and is in the next region. I looked into the train - I have to leave before 5am to get there for 9:30am. Plus I have to add a 20 minute walk at 1 end and a 30 minute walk at the other end. > 'course the same laws of physics that say a ~1.5t car does more damage > than a ~100kg bicycle might also have something to say about a ~10t bus. > And remind me what a train weighs? |