Are bikes the solution?

Gawnsoft [email hidden]
opined the following...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 26 May 2004 18:49:08 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote (more or less):

Btw - is tomorrow (or do I mean 'later today'?) a Critical
Mass-type day in Edinburgh?

It is / was, but I had a friend visiting so was unable
to make it. Ironically, I was travelling by car, and it
did occur to me that I might get caught in it from the
other side.

Maybe next month? Or if you just wish to meet, we could try
an arrange a
u.r.c (Edinburgh division) meet at some point. There do seem
to be enough of us!

Jon

On Fri, 28 May 2004 12:49:04 +0100, Dave J <[email hidden]> wrote
(more or less):

Quoted message said:

In MsgID<[email hidden]> within

uk.rec.driving said:

In "]news:[email hidden], Dave J
<[email hidden]> typed:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(or because of their incompetence) is causing me (and
themselves) to burn *even more* of this horrid fossil
fuel stuff, and to take *even longer* to get to our
destinations.

Urm, if you're going slower (within reason), then you're
burning less of the fossil fuel stuff.

No, you're burning it at a slower rate, but at a larger
amount per
mile. I am thinking here of 40 limits, where a sensible
person would be doing 45 and an idiot may do 35.
Definitely a drop in efficiency in most cars.

Air resistance increases with the square of the speed.

Rolling resistance only increases with the speed.

Over about 15-20mph (for typical car body shapes), the
increase in power required to overcome the increase in air
restance determines the fuel efficiency / unit distance.

If you're really interested I can post the resistance/speed
curves for a typical car onto the web.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

In MsgID<[email hidden]> within

uk.rec.driving said:

Quoted message said:

No, you're burning it at a slower rate, but at a larger
amount per
mile. I am thinking here of 40 limits, where a sensible
person would be doing 45 and an idiot may do 35.
Definitely a drop in efficiency in most cars.

Air resistance increases with the square of the speed.

Rolling resistance only increases with the speed.

Over about 15-20mph (for typical car body shapes), the
increase in power required to overcome the increase in air
restance determines the fuel efficiency / unit distance.

If you're really interested I can post the resistance/speed
curves for a typical car onto the web.

I am, but a URL would perhaps be preferable.

--
Dave Johnson - [email hidden]

On Sat, 29 May 2004 19:00:18 +0100, Dave J <[email hidden]> wrote
(more or less):

Quoted message said:

In MsgID<[email hidden]> within

uk.rec.driving said:

Quoted message said:

No, you're burning it at a slower rate, but at a larger
amount per
mile. I am thinking here of 40 limits, where a sensible
person would be doing 45 and an idiot may do 35.
Definitely a drop in efficiency in most cars.

Air resistance increases with the square of the speed.

Rolling resistance only increases with the speed.

Over about 15-20mph (for typical car body shapes), the
increase in power required to overcome the increase in air
restance determines the fuel efficiency / unit distance.

If you're really interested I can post the
resistance/speed curves for a typical car onto the web.

I am, but a URL would perhaps be preferable.

Only got it in a pre-web book, sorry.

--
Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk
links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk)
html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

Dave J said:

Quoted message said:

[snip criteria]

Quoted message said:

I don't believe Oxon remotely follow that.

And I think the Oxon. situation is the inevitable result
of a policy which was rushed through.

Quoted message said:

Yeah, that policy being "We hate cars, let's make it as
awkward as possible to use them"

Maybe, or maybe they had something else in mind, like the
French system where the vilage name sign is effectively a
50kph speed limit. Either way, the political intent is one
thing, the implementation another. Whatever the intent, the
implementation is almost certainly an example of the law of
unintended consequences, at least in places.

On the other hand, driving at 30mph through villages is such
a trivial imposition that I really have to wonder about the
state of mind of people who get so worked up about it...

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.ukOpen ↗

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

In article said:

kit [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

I think I'm right in saying that it's legal to cycle in
pedestrianised areas unless there are signs to say
otherwise. I may be wrong - it's largely academic for me,
as in Newcastle these areas mostly are out of bounds.

I wouldn't have thought so, simply because they are
"pedestrianised". This does imply, on foot, not on bike.

Cambridge (or at least some of its councillors)
distinguishes between a pedestrian area, where only
pedestrians are allowed, and a "pedestrianized" one, where
some motor vehicles are allowed but the roads are designed
to encourage the pedestrians to wander over them randomly to
slow down the motor traffic. In some but not all of the
"pedestrianized" areas bicycles are banned.

"Chris Malcolm" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But if you look at the larger picture of how much mpg the
car does at various speeds, which is simply a different
concept of efficiency, but as it happens the one which is
relevant here, you will find that the struggle against the
famous square law of aerodynamic resistance means that the
most efficient speed is at a much lower speed than the
speed at which the engine is running most efficiently.

The official model is at
naei.org.ukvehicle emissions v8.xlsOpen ↗ which
isn't as complicated as it first looked, and for petrol
cars between 1.4l and 2.0l we find under fuel (g/km) at
speed x (km/h)
1.16*(53.70-0.572*x+0.004*x^2+0.00000312*x^3+901/x) which
can be plotted using langara.bc.carOpen ↗
esource/GraphExplorer/ which shows a minimum around
80km/h, but is pretty flat between 60km/h and 100km/h

Just zis Guy said:

On the other hand, driving at 30mph through villages is
such a trivial imposition that I really have to wonder
about the state of mind of people who get so worked up
about it...

Is "pompous twit" the term you were looking for?

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
home.in.tum.deoe quotefixOpen ↗

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't think being a car driver, pedestrian, cyclist,
flying carpeteer, whatever has anything to do with it.

It's the duty of care which people owe to others.

Oh right, when I studied law, I was told (unless I wasn't
paying that much attention) that it was just the car driver
who owed the "duty of care", as they were the one in charge
of the lethal weapon.

Charley

On Fri, 28 May 2004 11:25:07 +0100, Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Ian G Batten said:

In large part, that is absolutely true. How many fat
people does one see (a) taking exercise and (b)
driving cars?

I see quite a few fat people taking exercise, especially
hillwalking.

I see plenty of people who would be consdiered fat &
therefore stupid, in Battenworld, orienteering. It's amazing
they don't get lost completely. How do they understand maps?

Colin

In article <[email hidden]>,

Peter Clinch said:

Some people enjoy eating more than they dislike the
consequences of being overweight

That's fine: they're not the people shouting that it's all
the government / evil food industry / orbital mind control
lasers fault. What's pathetic is the people who eat a lot,
claim they don't want to, get fat and blame everyone other
than themselves. But we've already done the ``in
uk.rec.cycling land, people aren't responsible for their own
actions other than car drivers who are all out to kill me
except when I'm the driver'' thing.

ian

In article <[email hidden]>,

Peter Clinch said:

Ian G Batten said:

That's fine: they're not the people shouting that it's
all the government / evil food industry / orbital mind
control lasers fault.

But you seem to have decided that far more people fit into
this category than is actually the case, which just paints
you as a bigoted ranter.

Does it? The people who enjoy eating more than they enjoy
being thin don't cross my consciousness, as they are neither
wanting regulation of food nor sympathy. They may be a small
portion of those who are overweight, they may be the
majority. They are no part of the people claiming it's
everyone else's fault.

Why is it that some things which people do through choice
--- such as, say, driving their car 100 yards to the shop
--- are presumed to be obviously wrong and easy to stop
doing, while other things --- eating too much, drinking
too much --- are presumed to be things outside their
rational control?

If you believe that people can and should reduce their
dependence on cars, it seems irrational to then allow them
to claim outside forces prevent them from engaging in some
personal reponsibility on other things.

ian

In article <[email hidden]>,

Chris Malcolm said:

fat. There have even been some medical studies made of
them, which have usually come to the conclusion that the
ills of the overweight are actually the ills of the
owverweight and underexercised.

Precisely so. Which would imply that another thing for
people who are unhealthy and overweight to do is to take
more exercise, not whine that the food industry is evil
(letter in the Graun yesterday or the day before compared
the food industry to criminals for their lack of social
responsibility).

But even _that_ is converted into ``someone else's fault''
as politicians talk about the need for ``a walking
strategy''. Yeah. First, you can either put your left foot
in front of your right foot, or your right foot in front of
your left foot.

I'm sure there are, whole percents of the population for
whom there are genuine reasons as to why they wish to
improve their fitness but cannot. However, in the vast
majority of case, it's because they eat too much and
exercise too little. That doesn't need government
strategies, wild accusations about the evils of the food
industry, complaints by parents about ITV advertising policy
(always a popular middle-class whinge, to which the answer
``don't watch it then'' appears unpopular) or any of the
rest of the blame-shifting: it needs people to exercise a
little more and eat a little less. Which they can do all on
their own. If they know they should eat a little less and
exercise a little more, but don't, how is that anyone's
fault but their own?

Anyway, I need to cycle home to cook dinner for the kids.

ian

In article <[email hidden]>,

Chris Malcolm said:

What is irrational about claiming that people can easily
be rational when they are not subject to powerful
irrational forces but they can't when they are? If none of
your teachers ever pointed this out to you,

Quoted message said:

among the most powerful we have. Consequently we will
have great

However, most people manage to avoid raping their
neighbours, so clearly those irrational parts can be brought
under rational control. People who can't don't tend to be
well-regarded by society.

ian

Colin Blackburn said:

I see plenty of people who would be consdiered fat &
therefore stupid, in Battenworld, orienteering. It's
amazing they don't get lost completely. How do they
understand maps?

They just eat the trees until they find their way out, I
guess.

Some of the skinniest, fittest people I've ever seen do
Elite course mountain marathons. I'd hardly say wanting to
go through hell[1] for a weekend puts you down as Obviously
Bright... ;-/

Pete.

[1] only colder and wetter, usually.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Colin Blackburn said:

On Fri, 28 May 2004 11:25:07 +0100, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ian G Batten said:

In large part, that is absolutely true. How many fat
people does one see (a) taking exercise and (b)
driving cars?

I see quite a few fat people taking exercise, especially
hillwalking.

Quoted message said:

I see plenty of people who would be consdiered fat &
therefore stupid, in Battenworld, orienteering. It's
amazing they don't get lost completely. How do they
understand maps?

Maybe we need to define the term 'fat' first. There are a
lot of people exercising and being active who could do with
losing one or two stone. Do you call them 'fat'? According
to BMI I could either lose a stone or gain one and still be
within a healthy range (even though I would _feel_ fat if I
gained one, and last time I was a stone lighter people
started force feeding me apple pie) (and I know BMI isn't a
very good measure but it does give an idea of the
acceptable range)

Roos

Ian G Batten wrote:
But we've already

Quoted message said:

done the ``in uk.rec.cycling land, people aren't
responsible for their own actions other than car
drivers who are all out to kill me except when I'm the
driver'' thing.

Perhaps you can reference the specific posts in which this
claim has been made.

Or, then again, perhaps you can't.

Ian G Batten said:

That's fine: they're not the people shouting that it's all
the government / evil food industry / orbital mind control
lasers fault.

But you seem to have decided that far more people fit into
this category than is actually the case, which just paints
you as a bigoted ranter.

Quoted message said:

But we've already done the ``in uk.rec.cycling land,
people aren't responsible for their own actions other than
car drivers who are all out to kill me except when I'm the
driver'' thing.

Have we? I seem to have missed it...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Ian G Batten said:

Does it?

Yes.

Quoted message said:

The people who enjoy eating more than they enjoy being
thin don't cross my consciousness, as they are neither
wanting regulation of food nor sympathy.

Yet if they happen to be fat you've decided they're stupid,
apropos of their waist measurement. Which is bigoted
ranting. You need to include a little more qualification in
your posts if you wish to avoid this sort of accusation.

Quoted message said:

overweight, they may be the majority. They are no part of
the people claiming it's everyone else's fault.

You just said fat, you didn't make much in the way of
qualification. You swept anyone fat into the same category
as poeple who /are/ fat and stupid and think it's the mind
control lasers' fault, because they weigh the same.

Quoted message said:

If you believe that people can and should reduce their
dependence on cars, it seems irrational to then allow them
to claim outside forces prevent them from engaging in some
personal reponsibility on other things.

They may need some help to do either/both. But in any case I
don't see how the above justifies assuming fat == stupid

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Ian G Batten said:

Why is it that some things which people do through choice
--- such as, say, driving their car 100 yards to the shop
--- are presumed to be obviously wrong and easy to stop
doing, while other things --- eating too much, drinking
too much --- are presumed to be things outside their
rational control?

Ah, I see your problem. Of course it's not your fault, it's
the fault of the schools who failed to give you a proper
education. What these idiots on whom we must blame your
extraordinary ignorance failed to hammer into your head is
the simple fact that the choices involved in driving or
walking 100 yards to the shop are well outside the
biological environment in which we (and our primate
ancestors) evolved, so that there are no particularly strong
instincts or feelings pushing us in one direction or the
other, whereas eating and drinking are so crucial to the
survival of all animal life that a billion years of
evolution have set the processes of eating and drinking
within a multitude of physiological, biochemical, and
neurological control mechanisms. What is more, in an animal
designed to take opportunistic advantage of all kinds of
different food sources and habitats, such as us, it is
essential to equip the species with a wide variety of
survival strategies, so that whatever circumstances we find
ourselves in, some of us will be better fitted than others
to survive them. So, for example, some of us are fitted to
be long distance runners (thin), and some of use are fitted
to be long distance swimmers (fat). It's part of our
evolutionary heritage, and one of the reasons we managed to
colonise the world from the tropics to the arctic, and did
so long before inventing the motor car.

Quoted message said:

If you believe that people can and should reduce their
dependence on cars, it seems irrational to then allow them
to claim outside forces prevent them from engaging in some
personal reponsibility on other things.

What is irrational about claiming that people can easily be
rational when they are not subject to powerful irrational
forces but they can't when they are? If none of your
teachers ever pointed this out to you,

among the most powerful we have. Consequently we will
have great

difficulty than we will have in behaving rationally with
respect to motor cars.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
["]http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]