Conor wrote: > In article <hd4aar$bf...@news.eternal-september.org>, mileburner says... >> "Conor" <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:MPG.255fb7e8ed5b2c59898ff@news.eternal-september.org... >>> In article <0ojaf5h4uqcndlk76pgaeh8nj76nu8v...@4ax.com>, Peter Grange >>> says...
>>>> Of course, that's absolutely typical of all cycling in the UK. >>> Riding the wrong way up one way streets, jumping lights, riding on the >>> pavement, riding up the wrong side of the road, cutting up >>> vehicles...yep it is although usually at lower speeds. >> Some LA's have been encouraging riding the wrong way up one way streets by >> creating contraflow cycle lanes.
> So in that case, they're cycling in their own lanes in a permissable > direction.
>> Pavement riding is also encouraged by shared pedestrian/cyclist paths.
> See above.
>> Toucan crossings also encourage cyclists to behave like pedestrians.
Conor wrote: > In article <9rbbf5dqcptau5terofh2o287num87p...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin > says...
>> Or if the road is sufficiently wide. How easy would it be, for >> example, to overtake a car doing 35mph on the nearside lane of a clear >> five lane motorway?
> Tom finally admits his argument is bollox.
>> Certainly a competent motorist would have little difficulty.
> Many accidents have been caused by old twats travelling at 35MPH on free > flowing motorways.
Nope, major fail, it's the one behind that is assuming that the minimum speed is 90mph and also failing to observe the traffic correctly.
Mark Goodge wrote: > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:43:51 +0000, John Wright <""john\"@no spam > here.com"> put finger to keyboard and typed:
>> Mark Goodge wrote: >>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:07:11 +0000, Tom Crispin put finger to keyboard >>> and typed:
>>>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:58:14 -0000, Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In article <tsdaf5po7c9fgmpts2gl26k4tgpp1n8...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin >>>>> says...
>>>>>> To my mind, there is nothing wrong with driving at half the posted >>>>>> limit. >>>>> Except for the long queue of people you're holding up, you selfish cunt. >>>> With the average speed of traffic being 12mph in London, driving at 15 >>>> in 30 zones and 10 in 20 zones might actually increase average speeds. >>> That's an average speed consisting of the times when you are moving >>> and the times when you are stationary (eg, when waiting at traffic >>> lights). If you travel more slowly when you are moving, you'll still >>> spend the same amount of time stationary but you'll take longer >>> overall. So your average speed will be lower. >> Average speeds are often very different what you think they might be. On >> a car I travel in which spends most of its time in national speed limit >> areas and dual carraigeways, the trip computer tells me the average >> speed over the last few thousand miles is 34 mph.
> Indeed. That's where Tom Crispin is going wrong in his calculation. > The average speed in London is, indeed, low. But it's low because of > the amount of time when road conditions mean you can't travel as fast > as the law would permit if the road were empty and unobstructed. So > there's nothing a road user can do to increase that average (at least, > not legally) since you have to stop at red lights, wait in queues, > give way to other traffic at junctions etc. It is, however, possible > to reduce that average by failing to make the best use of times when > you are able to proceed at, or close to, the legal limit.
Its all very interesting, and something that I've thought about for many years. I think I've posted in the past about going from Assen to Zeebrugge at what seemed like lunatic speeds (on a motorbike) of around 125 mph. (and being overtaken several times by another motorbike with a bigger engine and a smaller fuel tank :-)) The overall average was around 60mph - probably the highest I've ever got.
Simply driving fast does very little as I think these statements attest to! Not many people understand this.
If you do *any* journey, any time spent stopped - whether at traffic lights, road works or give way signs ruins ones average speed.
The same applies to trains - the more stops they make the slower the average and vice versa. In this context the Highland Chieftain train from Kings Cross to Inverness (and back) is I think the second fastest train between Edinburgh and London simply because there are very few stops.
Interestingly I have a Garmin eMap GPS which does these calculations for me. Way out of date (last made years ago) but still very valuable to me whether walking, bicycling or moving by any other form of transport as long as I can keep it in batteries... (I did clock the Highland Chieftain at 132 mph once not far from York using this)
--
I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore
Phil W Lee wrote: > Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> considered Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:23:46 -0000 the > perfect time to write:
>> In article <cp5cf5hu1jieus34gb9arcde9hdvge8...@4ax.com>, Phil W Lee >> says... >>> Unless there's a posted minimum speed limit, "I just wanted to save >>> fuel" or "I prefer to drive slowly" are both perfectly acceptable >>> explanations. >> You would be charged with DWDC
> Cite?
> Just one case will do, where the only "offence" was traveling at a > low, legal speed. > BTW, I don't doubt that the occasional twit might have tried it, but > I'd expect it to be thrown out, probably before reaching court, but > certainly when it got there.
You're sort of asking for an anecdote here. I was once hitch hiking from one place to another when I was a student, and got a lift from a van, which then proceeded down the M6 at a stately 30mph. Not too long after we got stopped by the police for moving too slowly. I think they found other things wrong with it at the same time since they didn't allow it to go any further.
That was the first time I got a lift in a Police car (there was another occasion as well but nothing to do with this context :-) )
--
I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore
> On 6 Nov, 20:13, Judith M Smith <judithmsm...@live.co.uk> wrote: >> The most recent government statistics show that from last April to >> June cycle deaths and total number of life-threatening injuries has >> increased by 19 percent from what it was at the same time last year.
>> So lets be hearing the excuses.
>> Have I ever told you that I think cycling is quite dangerous?
> No off-road cycling is not particularly dangerous. It is the roads > they are compelled to use which are particularly dangerous, mainly due > to the very high speed limits which a majority of drivers frequently > exceed and the derisory punishments handed out when drivers kill or > injure cyclists.
Your postings suggest that you believe that when a cyclist is injured or killed following collision with a car, it is always the fault of the car driver, which I am sure is not the case.
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:20:50 -0000, Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <mgsbf55rkaeldqt162tfsmo00jsaq6s...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin >>says...
>>> >Many accidents have been caused by old twats travelling at 35MPH on >>> >free >>> >flowing motorways.
>>> Cites?
>>15 years of driving up and down them.
> Cripes. 15 years! Come back after another 15 & I've still got more > experience than you, sonny.
AIUI, 32 is the age where a man knows absolutely everything about the world. Much younger and he has not had the experience, much older and he starts to forget.
> Conor wrote: >> In article <9rbbf5dqcptau5terofh2o287num87p...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin >> says...
>>> Or if the road is sufficiently wide. How easy would it be, for >>> example, to overtake a car doing 35mph on the nearside lane of a clear >>> five lane motorway?
>> Tom finally admits his argument is bollox.
>>> Certainly a competent motorist would have little difficulty.
>> Many accidents have been caused by old twats travelling at 35MPH on free >> flowing motorways.
> Nope, major fail, it's the one behind that is assuming that the minimum > speed is 90mph and also failing to observe the traffic correctly.
AIUI, being able to stop within the distance you see clear, does not apply on motorways.
Instead, a half second gap is generally good form, anything more is holding up the traffic.
Just wait 'til Monday, an early morning frost is due. I'll bet that it is the M1 and the M11 southbound which have the pile ups, obviously caused by drivers travelling "too slow".
> Indeed. That's where Tom Crispin is going wrong in his calculation. > The average speed in London is, indeed, low. But it's low because of > the amount of time when road conditions mean you can't travel as fast > as the law would permit if the road were empty and unobstructed. So > there's nothing a road user can do to increase that average (at least, > not legally) since you have to stop at red lights, wait in queues, > give way to other traffic at junctions etc. It is, however, possible > to reduce that average by failing to make the best use of times when > you are able to proceed at, or close to, the legal limit.
That is a joke.
If you drive as-fast-as-you-can, it makes very little difference to your average speed. Yes you might get there an incy-wincy bit quicker there is no denying that but the overall average is largely determined by slowing down, stopping, giving way, and waiting. All those short blasts to 40, 50 or even 60 mph have very little impact on the overall journey time.
This is why I can do most urban journeys in traffic quicker on a bike.
> I'm sure that those who prefer to drive at 80+ on the motorways in tight > formation believe the car in front is holding them up deliberately, not > letting them pass despite being a few feet from the car in front and > flashing their lights. > It must be why they decide to try any other lane in order to go even > faster.
> Having been hooted at yesterday for cycling at 29mph(ish) in a 30 mph > limit while negotiating a parked coach and traffic island and then the > driver attempting (very poorly) to carve me up afterwards I can only > assume it is sheer impatience and a lack of understanding that traffic can > be rather 'slow' in urban environments.
> Another driver, a couple of minutes earlier, had lifted the throttle a wee > bit to to give me space to get past a similar chicane made of parked cars > and a traffic island. That one I waved 'thanks' to and I was only doing > about 20 mph at the time.
S'funny innit? You can be going hell-for-leather on a bike, close to the speed limit and you will get some arse hounding you in a car behind for presumably "holding them up". But you can drive the same route at the same speed without any hassle.
And if you slow down, for junctions, roundabouts, pedestrians, crossings, traffic lights etc. on a bike you will get hounded again by some arse in a car, but if you do the same in a car, no one bothers.
The fact is, car drivers overall treat cyclists like shit.
Dave S. wrote: > "Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message > news:625f9c91-fd0b-4624-b791-c65ec806fcd0@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> On 6 Nov, 20:13, Judith M Smith <judithmsm...@live.co.uk> wrote: >>> The most recent government statistics show that from last April to >>> June cycle deaths and total number of life-threatening injuries has >>> increased by 19 percent from what it was at the same time last year.
>>> So lets be hearing the excuses.
>>> Have I ever told you that I think cycling is quite dangerous?
>> No off-road cycling is not particularly dangerous. It is the roads >> they are compelled to use which are particularly dangerous, mainly due >> to the very high speed limits which a majority of drivers frequently >> exceed and the derisory punishments handed out when drivers kill or >> injure cyclists.
> Your postings suggest that you believe that when a cyclist is injured or > killed following collision with a car, it is always the fault of the car > driver, which I am sure is not the case.
There is a sort of proposal about that would make car insurers responsible for injuries to cyclists automatically. This does not in any way imply fault however!
--
I'm not apathetic... I just don't give a sh** anymore
In article <h7gcf5h4uj4nlp82q88ui31fmvoe0gp...@4ax.com>, Phil W Lee says...
> Damn, are the police aware of your distorted view of the road traffic > acts?
They agree with me. People being pulled for driving too slowly has been widely documented on the various TV reality programmes.
> I think you'll find that any accidents caused to vehicles traveling > slowly are squarely the fault of idiots driving into the back of them > (or into the back of those who correctly slow down for them).
Wrong. Thankyou for demonstrating you have no clue.
In article <i15df5der7li2v4lr9uc7m5nol61j32...@4ax.com>, Peter Grange says...
> Cripes. 15 years! Come back after another 15 & I've still got more > experience than you, sonny.
Err, in that 15 years, I was doing 2000 miles PER WEEK just working. Some years my total personal and work mileage racked up to more than 125,000 miles per annum. Assuming you're not a long distance driver and do average mileage, please feel free to come back to me when you're 167 and tell me you've more experience - that's assuming I stop driving altogether from now on.
> Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> considered Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:23:46 -0000 the > perfect time to write:
> >In article <cp5cf5hu1jieus34gb9arcde9hdvge8...@4ax.com>, Phil W Lee > >says...
> >> Unless there's a posted minimum speed limit, "I just wanted to save > >> fuel" or "I prefer to drive slowly" are both perfectly acceptable > >> explanations.
> >You would be charged with DWDC
> Cite?
> Just one case will do, where the only "offence" was traveling at a > low, legal speed. > BTW, I don't doubt that the occasional twit might have tried it, but > I'd expect it to be thrown out, probably before reaching court, but > certainly when it got there.
"Driving too slow is also dangerous. If you get caught by one of the increased number of speed cameras, then you could also be hit with a minimum fine of £60 and have three penalty points added to your licence."
Phil W Lee wrote: > Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> considered Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:23:46 -0000 the > perfect time to write:
>> In article <cp5cf5hu1jieus34gb9arcde9hdvge8...@4ax.com>, Phil W Lee >> says... >>> Unless there's a posted minimum speed limit, "I just wanted to save >>> fuel" or "I prefer to drive slowly" are both perfectly acceptable >>> explanations. >> You would be charged with DWDC
> Cite?
> Just one case will do, where the only "offence" was traveling at a > low, legal speed.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:17:27 -0000, Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote: >> You mistakenly attributed your admission to me >No I didn't.
OK, so you *deliberately* misattributed your own admission to me. Clearly you are not in one of your reasonable moods at the moment, so it's time to leave you to it. Bye.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:16:55 -0000, Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote: >In article <i15df5der7li2v4lr9uc7m5nol61j32...@4ax.com>, Peter Grange >says...
>> Cripes. 15 years! Come back after another 15 & I've still got more >> experience than you, sonny.
>Err, in that 15 years, I was doing 2000 miles PER WEEK just working. >Some years my total personal and work mileage racked up to more than >125,000 miles per annum. >Assuming you're not a long distance driver and do average mileage, >please feel free to come back to me when you're 167 and tell me you've >more experience - that's assuming I stop driving altogether from now on.
I was doing more than the average driver but I would estimate not 2k miles a week. If I'd known it was important I'd have kept better records. My driving experience was over a longer period though so it's probably broader than yours, if not as deep. I've been doing quite a few cycling miles over an even longer period too, so I think I can comment on cycling matters. How does your experience rack up there?
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: >Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> considered Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:08:50 -0000 the >perfect time to write:
>>In article <o2jbf5p6nb1md8ud45klmoi1p1spoe4...@4ax.com>, Phil W Lee >>says...
>>> Conor <co...@gmx.co.uk> considered Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:58:14 -0000 the >>> perfect time to write:
>>> >In article <tsdaf5po7c9fgmpts2gl26k4tgpp1n8...@4ax.com>, Tom Crispin >>> >says...
>>> >> To my mind, there is nothing wrong with driving at half the posted >>> >> limit.
>>> >Except for the long queue of people you're holding up, you selfish cunt.
>>> If you're incapable of performing a safe overtake, then you shouldn't >>> be driving at all.
>>And the whole point being made is that quite often, no such opportunity >>presents itself. For example, on the A614 from Howden to Bridlington on >>a Friday night, Saturday and Sundays (plus bank holidays) until 2pm from >>and again on the A614 from Bridlington to Howden on Saturday and Sunday >>evenings (plus bank holidays) from 4pm-7pm April until September
>Then learn to relax, take it easy, and be thankful that it's not a >tractor in front, going even slower. >Or a tricycle.
Last October, out on the bike, a tractor pulling a carnival float pulled out some distance in front of me. Caught it up, then did around 30 mph all the way back to town. Dunno what all the fuss is about ;-)
|
