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: JNugent on 18 May 2010 14:11 Doug wrote: > I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted > that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles. > > Maybe motorists are looking to go into the demolition business > judging by how many buildings they are trying to demolish these days. > The latest example is here... > > "Denby Pottery restaurant crash driver released > > No-one was in the restaurant at the time > > An 18-year-old, who was arrested after the car he was driving crashed > into the restaurant at Denby Pottery, has been released on bail..." > > More with pic: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/8687737.stm Are you sure it wasn't an example of performance art, on a level with Banksy-styled criminal dam... er... I mean graffiti?
From: BrianW on 18 May 2010 15:54 On May 18, 6:02�am, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote: > I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted > that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles. I don't, Doug. I haven't seen enough evidence to support such an assertion. Any chance you could post some examples, so I can consider it further?
From: Adrian on 18 May 2010 16:10 BrianW <brianwhitehead(a)hotmail.com> 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. > I don't, Doug. I haven't seen enough evidence to support such an > assertion. Any chance you could post some examples, so I can consider > it further? How about we do a real-life comparison test? Would that satisfy you? I'll drive a car into a solid wall, whilst Duhg rides a bike into a similar building. 'course, for a fair test, it'd have to be from the same speed - as high as possible, ideally. Duhg - what speed can you manage on your bike? We can find a really steep hill if it's a help. Hell, I'll even source a car, if somebody promises to video the result and put it on YouTube.
From: boltar2003 on 19 May 2010 05:23 On 18 May 2010 14:37:46 GMT Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were >saying: > >>>> 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 > >is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague generalisations. So which bit of the fact that diesels almost always have better mpg than petrol engines for a given engine size and vehicle weight is confusing you? B2003
From: boltar2003 on 19 May 2010 05:24
On Tue, 18 May 2010 18:35:06 +0100 "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague generalisations. >> >> Well if his statement is wrong, then perhaps you could explain exactly how >> petrol is more efficient than diesel? >Firstly, it will be necessary to define what is meant by "efficient". The general meaning of "efficient" for internal combustion engines is the amount of fuel it uses to do a given task. Unless you have a new one for us... B2003 |