Cheapo bike



H

half_pint

Guest
"Tim Hall" <[email protected]uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 19:11:23 -0000, "half_pint"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <brakes>
> >
> >Some of this low wear may be due to the way I ride, I basically avoid
> >having to brake, ie I time my approach to traffic lights, and basically
> >ignore
> >pesestrian crossings.

>
> ****wit.
>
> >I also take to the pavement if the all else fails.

>
>
> ****wit.



Interesting arguement.

Plonk.
>
> Tim
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
Gene Nygaard [email protected] opined the following...
> No--he originally talked about "heaviness"--a word whose ambiguities
> have more to do with vagueness, in contract to "weight" where we often
> run into individually clearer, yet separate and distinct different
> meanings.


"separate and distinct different meanings". In other words, without
clarification, there is ambiguity. <pedant>I think that "separate and
distinct different" might count as over-qualification</pedant>.

> I didn't check this, but have a vague recollection of half_pint
> agreeing with your characterization of the quantity under
> consideration as force due to gravity.


That was the context of the discussion. Since in that context, the only
other definition that would have made sense was weight meaning "mass"
there was a serious ambiguity present.

Also note that all the other definitions that you supplied were
clarified by some form of qualifying prefix, such as "draw" or
"molecular".

I personally would choose to refer to mass as "mass", and a force as
"force", rather than using a special word for a specific force. Half-wit
wished to use weight. So I asked that he qualify that usage.

> The units used weren't much help either. Many people fail to properly
> identify pounds force, to distinguish them from normal pounds as units
> of mass.


Euw! If you're going to wax lyrical about correct and incorrect use of
units and terminology, you could at least do so with SI units.

> I posted it right where I wanted to post it. Your redundancy comments
> are what I was specifically taking issue with.


Then your language was as ambiguous as half-wit's. See above for the
reasoning.

Jon
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> Interesting arguement.
>
> Plonk.


You're kill-filing someone? After the relentless gibberish you've posted
in other threads, you have the temerity to kill-file anyone?

And since you won't be reading any of Tim's posts, I'll explain why I
suspect he called you a ****wit.

Whenever you run a red light (Pedestrian crossings do count here!), you
give cyclists a bad reputation and you break the law. Whenever you hop
onto the pavement (While still riding) you give cyclists a bad
reputation and you break the law.

Consequently, when someone like me, who doesn't run reds & doesn't ride
on the pavement admonishes some **** in a car for stopping in the ASL
box, I get an earful about "bloody cyclists think they don't have to
follow the rules".

If you want to get there faster; cycle harder. Don't make life more
difficult for the rest of us.

Jon
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Gene Nygaard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Richard <[email protected]> wrote in message

news:<[email protected]>...
> > Gene Nygaard wrote:
> >
> > > Weight is a force when people talk about "draw weight" of a bow--but
> > > that force has nothing to do with gravity.

> >
> > IBTD. A bow's "draw-weight" is the force on the archer's fingertips,
> > usually specified at a particular draw length - and is expressed in
> > units of mass that would provide that "draw-weight" force due to

gravity.
> >
> > R.

>
> Fools who don't understand that pounds force exist are damn near as
> dumb as the idiots who insist pounds are never units of mass.
>
> The proper SI units for draw weight are newtons.
>
> That "draw weight" does not depend on the local acceleration of
> gravity. The units you use might depend on some arbitrary "standard"
> acceleration of gravity--note that this is not the local acceleration
> of gravity--but that doesn't mean that "draw weight" itself has
> anything to do with gravity. Your bow will have the same "draw
> weight" (in any of the units ever used for this purpose) on Mars that
> it has on Earth--but it would take more mass there to exert the same
> force due to gravity.



Actually it appears we are in agreement, my previous post may have
indicated otherwise, (or not), my opologies if it does, it all comes
down to context and defintions.

>
> Gene Nygaard
 
G

Gene Nygaard

Guest
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 00:53:32 -0000, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:

>Gene Nygaard [email protected] opined the following...
>> Fools who don't understand that pounds force exist are damn near as
>> dumb as the idiots who insist pounds are never units of mass.

>
>"pounds force"? You a merkin by any chance? Besides, I don't recalling
>reading anyone here claiming that pounds are not a unit of mass (Not an
>SI one, but still mass). The problem was with regard to the use of
>"weight" to describe mass and "weight" to desribe the force of gravity
>due to mass.
>
>Have you read the thread? Do you understand what the argument is? Or did
>you just grep the contents of a news server and then lauch off into your
>personal crusage?
>
>Jon


Good grief. Just go look at what you wrote, in what I quoted in my
first reply in this particular thread.

If what you said is what you intended to say, all my comments stand.

If not, it is you who needs to learn to read his own postings better.

Gene Nygaard

Gene Nygaard
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> > Interesting arguement.
> >
> > Plonk.

>
> You're kill-filing someone? After the relentless gibberish you've posted
> in other threads, you have the temerity to kill-file anyone?


Yes I do, gibberish is one thing, plain foul language and abuse is another.
And in my opinion my posts are not jibberish, you may disagree but if you
get abusive I will bin you.

>
> And since you won't be reading any of Tim's posts, I'll explain why I
> suspect he called you a ****wit.
>
> Whenever you run a red light (Pedestrian crossings do count here!), you
> give cyclists a bad reputation and you break the law. Whenever you hop
> onto the pavement (While still riding) you give cyclists a bad
> reputation and you break the law.



I only run red lights when it is safe for me to do so, and it causes no
inconvienience to other.

>
> Consequently, when someone like me, who doesn't run reds & doesn't ride
> on the pavement admonishes some **** in a car for stopping in the ASL
> box, I get an earful about "bloody cyclists think they don't have to
> follow the rules".


I am not familiar with the term "ASL box".
If you had hopped onto the pavement would you would his stopping
in the ALS box inconvienence you?

>
> If you want to get there faster; cycle harder. Don't make life more
> difficult for the rest of us.


I cycle to from A to B as safely and as easilly as possible if that means
breaking the rules I will break them.

Most of the rules are designed solely for motorists, not cyclists so
why should I give a dam about them.

Following the letter of the law will, in my opinion vastly increase
your chances of an accident.

For instance when you stop at a red light you have to start cycling
again in a much narrowed road with two lanes of traffic trying to
squeeze past, forcing you into the gutter. One wobble when you hit
a sunked drain could result in you being crushed.
So no thank you.
If I can get on the pavement and nip through at a pedestrian crossing
I will take that option.

Following the rules going round a roundabout did not stop some
blind idiot cutting me up and almost killing me.

I would rather break the rules and be alive than follow the rules
and end up crushed under the wheels of some **** motorists car.

I would much rather take control of my own safty than leave
it to some unknown idiot in a car.


>
> Jon
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> I only run red lights when it is safe for me to do so, and it causes no
> inconvienience to other.


But it does cause inconvenience to others. If you are seen to do it, it
encourages drivers to break the law, with far more significant
consequences. As a cyclist you are bound by the same laws.

> I am not familiar with the term "ASL box".
> If you had hopped onto the pavement would you would his stopping
> in the ALS box inconvienence you?


ASL = Advanced Stop Line. They seem to be breeding in most cities now,
and Edinburgh council has committed to having them at every set of
traffic lights by 2006. They constitute a pair of stop lines with a
cycle lane that passes through the first. Cars are obliged to stop at
the first one, leaving a box at the front of the junction for cyclists.

This ensures that cyclists going straight on are not caught out by cars
turning left, and allows them to occupy a good road position from the
start.

> I cycle to from A to B as safely and as easilly as possible if that means
> breaking the rules I will break them.


Generally, when you break the rules, you lower your safety. If you are
riding on the pavement then cars will pay less attention to you, so you
are in danger when you get back on the road.

> Most of the rules are designed solely for motorists, not cyclists so
> why should I give a dam about them.


Wrong. The rules are designed for road users. As a cyclist, you are a
road user.

> Following the letter of the law will, in my opinion vastly increase
> your chances of an accident.
>
> For instance when you stop at a red light you have to start cycling
> again in a much narrowed road with two lanes of traffic trying to
> squeeze past, forcing you into the gutter. One wobble when you hit
> a sunked drain could result in you being crushed.


Which is why ASLs are a good thing. In the absence of one, you can
either start slightly ahead of the cars by being forward of the line, or
you can start further back where you have the space. When starting, do
not ride in or near the gutter. You shouldn't be taking a line where you
are likely to find a sunken drain. If you ride further out in the road
then no one can "squeeze" past you until you let them.

> So no thank you.
> If I can get on the pavement and nip through at a pedestrian crossing
> I will take that option.


How about buying a copy of Cyclecraft or googling for past threads on
the subject on u.r.c. and learning how to control other traffic when
riding. Then you won't have to take that option and you'd be far more
likely to survive as a cyclist.

> Following the rules going round a roundabout did not stop some
> blind idiot cutting me up and almost killing me.


True. Although the more you can control other drivers, the fewer such
incidents you will have. I still get a number of near misses every week,
but that number is significantly reduced from when I used to ride in the
gutter and tried to keep out of the way. It's possible that drivers have
suddenly become more curteous, but it's a little unlikely.

> I would rather break the rules and be alive than follow the rules
> and end up crushed under the wheels of some **** motorists car.


But those of us that follow the rules are still alive. You are defending
yourself against a problem that does not exist and making life harder
for everyone else. The more that drivers see cyclists obeying the rules
of the road, the more respect they are likely to give us.

> I would much rather take control of my own safty than leave
> it to some unknown idiot in a car.


Which is why you need to ride assertively, not on the pavements.

Jon
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
Gene Nygaard [email protected] opined the following...
> Good grief. Just go look at what you wrote, in what I quoted in my
> first reply in this particular thread.


"Or mass, as is the preferred terminology of most scientists. In the
context of a discussion of "falling due to gravity" the qualification of
"weight" is unnecessary and makes you appear to be ignorant of the
correct terms."

OK. I could probably have been more coherent. In the prior posts I was.
In fact, two posts prior to that one I gave a pretty similar description
of the difference between mass and weight to those that you posted.
Given that context, the point I was trying to make was that using an
abiguous term such as weight in a discussion where either was valid was
dangerous.

> If what you said is what you intended to say, all my comments stand.
>
> If not, it is you who needs to learn to read his own postings better.


So read the previous postings. Or correct someone without letting loose
the insults. When you wade in halfway through a discussion and start
calling people idiots without apparently having read the rest of the
discussion, you will get grief for it.

Jon
 
R

Richard Bates

Guest
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 10:50:15 -0000, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:

>half_pint [email protected] opined the following...


>ASL = Advanced Stop Line. They seem to be breeding in most cities now,
>and Edinburgh council has committed to having them at every set of
>traffic lights by 2006. They constitute a pair of stop lines with a
>cycle lane that passes through the first. Cars are obliged to stop at
>the first one, leaving a box at the front of the junction for cyclists.
>
>This ensures that cyclists going straight on are not caught out by cars
>turning left, and allows them to occupy a good road position from the
>start.


They also encourage the potentially dangerous habit of riding along
the left hand side of other traffic. What do you do if you are about
to reach the ASL box when the lights turn green and a car wishing to
turn left is oblivious to your presence?

>> For instance when you stop at a red light you have to start cycling
>> again in a much narrowed road with two lanes of traffic trying to
>> squeeze past, forcing you into the gutter. One wobble when you hit
>> a sunked drain could result in you being crushed.


No you don't. When you stop at a red light, take the lane. Slap bang
in the centre, or even to the right of centre. If it means that you
get stuck behind a few cars then so be it. There is no need to stop on
the left with the gutter-****. Cars don't do it and neither should
bikes.


--
Amazon: "If you are interested in 'Asimov's I-Robot',
you may also be interested in 'Garfield - The Movie'.
... erm, how do they figure that one out?
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
Richard Bates [email protected] opined the following...
> They also encourage the potentially dangerous habit of riding along
> the left hand side of other traffic. What do you do if you are about
> to reach the ASL box when the lights turn green and a car wishing to
> turn left is oblivious to your presence?


Unless you (Possibly technically breaking the law!) ride up the right
hand side of the left hand lane of cars.

I only ride up the left if I know the lights well enough to know that I
have time. I generally tend to overtake the cars on the right to reach
the ASL box.

Jon
 
T

Tim Hall

Guest
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 00:53:32 -0000, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:


<weight, mass ect ect>
>Have you read the thread? Do you understand what the argument is? Or did
>you just grep the contents of a news server and then lauch off into your
>personal crusage?
>


I think it's the latter, searching for mentions of weight and mass.
He then leaps in with his two cents, complete with his own diplomatic
posting style.


We still remember him fondly on umra.

Tim
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> > I only run red lights when it is safe for me to do so, and it causes no
> > inconvienience to other.

>
> But it does cause inconvenience to others. If you are seen to do it, it
> encourages drivers to break the law, with far more significant
> consequences. As a cyclist you are bound by the same laws.
>
> > I am not familiar with the term "ASL box".
> > If you had hopped onto the pavement would you would his stopping
> > in the ALS box inconvienence you?

>
> ASL = Advanced Stop Line. They seem to be breeding in most cities now,
> and Edinburgh council has committed to having them at every set of
> traffic lights by 2006. They constitute a pair of stop lines with a
> cycle lane that passes through the first. Cars are obliged to stop at
> the first one, leaving a box at the front of the junction for cyclists.
>
> This ensures that cyclists going straight on are not caught out by cars
> turning left, and allows them to occupy a good road position from the
> start.
>
> > I cycle to from A to B as safely and as easilly as possible if that

means
> > breaking the rules I will break them.

>
> Generally, when you break the rules, you lower your safety. If you are
> riding on the pavement then cars will pay less attention to you, so you
> are in danger when you get back on the road.
>
> > Most of the rules are designed solely for motorists, not cyclists so
> > why should I give a dam about them.

>
> Wrong. The rules are designed for road users. As a cyclist, you are a
> road user.
>
> > Following the letter of the law will, in my opinion vastly increase
> > your chances of an accident.
> >
> > For instance when you stop at a red light you have to start cycling
> > again in a much narrowed road with two lanes of traffic trying to
> > squeeze past, forcing you into the gutter. One wobble when you hit
> > a sunked drain could result in you being crushed.

>
> Which is why ASLs are a good thing. In the absence of one, you can
> either start slightly ahead of the cars by being forward of the line, or
> you can start further back where you have the space. When starting, do
> not ride in or near the gutter. You shouldn't be taking a line where you
> are likely to find a sunken drain. If you ride further out in the road
> then no one can "squeeze" past you until you let them.
>
> > So no thank you.
> > If I can get on the pavement and nip through at a pedestrian crossing
> > I will take that option.

>
> How about buying a copy of Cyclecraft or googling for past threads on
> the subject on u.r.c. and learning how to control other traffic when
> riding. Then you won't have to take that option and you'd be far more
> likely to survive as a cyclist.
>
> > Following the rules going round a roundabout did not stop some
> > blind idiot cutting me up and almost killing me.

>
> True. Although the more you can control other drivers, the fewer such
> incidents you will have. I still get a number of near misses every week,
> but that number is significantly reduced from when I used to ride in the
> gutter and tried to keep out of the way. It's possible that drivers have
> suddenly become more curteous, but it's a little unlikely.
>
> > I would rather break the rules and be alive than follow the rules
> > and end up crushed under the wheels of some **** motorists car.

>
> But those of us that follow the rules are still alive. You are defending
> yourself against a problem that does not exist and making life harder
> for everyone else. The more that drivers see cyclists obeying the rules
> of the road, the more respect they are likely to give us.
>
> > I would much rather take control of my own safty than leave
> > it to some unknown idiot in a car.

>
> Which is why you need to ride assertively, not on the pavements.
>
> Jon
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> > I only run red lights when it is safe for me to do so, and it causes no
> > inconvienience to other.

>
> But it does cause inconvenience to others. If you are seen to do it, it
> encourages drivers to break the law, with far more significant
> consequences. As a cyclist you are bound by the same laws.


I don't see how it encourage motorists to break the law they do that
all the time anyway.

>
> > I am not familiar with the term "ASL box".
> > If you had hopped onto the pavement would you would his stopping
> > in the ALS box inconvienence you?

>
> ASL = Advanced Stop Line. They seem to be breeding in most cities now,
> and Edinburgh council has committed to having them at every set of
> traffic lights by 2006. They constitute a pair of stop lines with a
> cycle lane that passes through the first. Cars are obliged to stop at
> the first one, leaving a box at the front of the junction for cyclists.



I don't believe I have ever seen one!!!
Anyway I always pass standing traffic and sit in front of it if it
is possible to do so safely.

>
> This ensures that cyclists going straight on are not caught out by cars
> turning left, and allows them to occupy a good road position from the
> start.
>
> > I cycle to from A to B as safely and as easilly as possible if that

means
> > breaking the rules I will break them.

>
> Generally, when you break the rules, you lower your safety. If you are
> riding on the pavement then cars will pay less attention to you, so you
> are in danger when you get back on the road.
>
> > Most of the rules are designed solely for motorists, not cyclists so
> > why should I give a dam about them.


I am on little danger on the pavement and I take great care when returning
to the road, I do not rely on motorists seeing me, I will not re enter
unless
there is a large gap available'.

>
> Wrong. The rules are designed for road users. As a cyclist, you are a
> road user.
>
> > Following the letter of the law will, in my opinion vastly increase
> > your chances of an accident.
> >
> > For instance when you stop at a red light you have to start cycling
> > again in a much narrowed road with two lanes of traffic trying to
> > squeeze past, forcing you into the gutter. One wobble when you hit
> > a sunked drain could result in you being crushed.

>
> Which is why ASLs are a good thing. In the absence of one, you can
> either start slightly ahead of the cars by being forward of the line, or
> you can start further back where you have the space. When starting, do
> not ride in or near the gutter. You shouldn't be taking a line where you
> are likely to find a sunken drain. If you ride further out in the road
> then no one can "squeeze" past you until you let them.



But u do risk being intimidated and some cars may try to force
a way past.

>
> > So no thank you.
> > If I can get on the pavement and nip through at a pedestrian crossing
> > I will take that option.

>
> How about buying a copy of Cyclecraft or googling for past threads on
> the subject on u.r.c. and learning how to control other traffic when
> riding. Then you won't have to take that option and you'd be far more
> likely to survive as a cyclist.
>
> > Following the rules going round a roundabout did not stop some
> > blind idiot cutting me up and almost killing me.

>
> True. Although the more you can control other drivers, the fewer such
> incidents you will have. I still get a number of near misses every week,
> but that number is significantly reduced from when I used to ride in the
> gutter and tried to keep out of the way. It's possible that drivers have
> suddenly become more curteous, but it's a little unlikely.
>
> > I would rather break the rules and be alive than follow the rules
> > and end up crushed under the wheels of some **** motorists car.

>
> But those of us that follow the rules are still alive. You are defending
> yourself against a problem that does not exist and making life harder
> for everyone else. The more that drivers see cyclists obeying the rules
> of the road, the more respect they are likely to give us.
>


I cant say I agree there will be bad motorists whatever cyclists do.

> > I would much rather take control of my own safty than leave
> > it to some unknown idiot in a car.

>
> Which is why you need to ride assertively, not on the pavements.


If I feel it is better/safer to use the pavement I will, I can't recall
and pedrestrians ever complaining, they are not usually bothered
by it unless they are exceptionally petty.
>
> Jon
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> I don't see how it encourage motorists to break the law they do that
> all the time anyway.


Because they view cyclists as people who only use the road when it suits
them and thus treat them with little or no respect. It also (As many
have justified to me) encourages them to occupy ASL boxes since
"cyclists don't follow the rules, why should I?".

> I don't believe I have ever seen one!!!
> Anyway I always pass standing traffic and sit in front of it if it
> is possible to do so safely.


Where do you live? I thought they were an Edinburgh thing until I
encountered them elsewhere. I've seen them in every city I've been to in
the last year or so.

A few posts previously you said you jumped onto the pavement to avoid
sitting in front of traffic.

> I am on little danger on the pavement and I take great care when returning
> to the road, I do not rely on motorists seeing me, I will not re enter
> unless
> there is a large gap available'.


Actually, you are statistically in greater danger on the pavement. If
you have to wait to rejoin the traffic then you have gained nothing, as
you could have have remained in the flow of traffic in the first place.

> But u do risk being intimidated and some cars may try to force
> a way past.


Intimidation is very easy to get around. When they beep the horn, wave
(Whole hand, not a single digit). It's very rare that someone will
actually try to hit you, they'll just beep the horn. Other than being
irritating, it doesn't do you any harm. I get a few prats a month who do
something like this, but I'd rather that the prat was getting wound up
and concentrating on me, than ignoring me altogether.

A car can only force past if you let them. If you cannot ride in a
position where they can only overtake by crossing the central line, then
the road is probably wide enough to let them past safely.

> I cant say I agree there will be bad motorists whatever cyclists do.


Yes, and they should be ostracised, rather than encouraged. Every time I
see a motor vehicle enter an ASL when they had no cause to do so, I make
a point of explaining it to them (Especially if they are bus / taxi /
other "professional" drivers). I try to do the same to cyclists who jump
reds, but the last one I spoke to gave me an earful for it "What f*cking
business is it of yours anyway? Why should I f*cking care?" (I'm sure
that students were supposed to be the intellectual cream of society!).

> If I feel it is better/safer to use the pavement I will, I can't recall
> and pedrestrians ever complaining, they are not usually bothered
> by it unless they are exceptionally petty.


The pavement is more suited to pedestrians. The quanitity of "street
furniture" inhibits your sight lines and prevents sensible lines from
being taken. Pedestrians have a habit of meandering which makes it
harder to overtake and your overall speed must be slower (Certainly, I
couldn't ride the pavements as fast as I can the roads!). There is a
risk from driveways and you lose priority at junctions. In all, while
you may have the illusion of safety, the reality is far from it.

And I read that as "unless they are exceptionally pretty" and wondered
why you went out of your way to harass pretty pedestrians. It struck me
as a somewhat unusual chat up technique.

Jon
 
A

Alan Braggins

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Jon Senior wrote:
>Gene Nygaard [email protected] opined the following...
>> Fools who don't understand that pounds force exist are damn near as
>> dumb as the idiots who insist pounds are never units of mass.

>
>"pounds force"? You a merkin by any chance? Besides, I don't recalling
>reading anyone here claiming that pounds are not a unit of mass (Not an
>SI one, but still mass).


Pounds are a unit of mass, and a unit of weight. Because they have the
same name, it is sometimes necessary to specify which one you mean.
The corresponding units of weight and mass are the poundal and the slug.
(A poundal is that force that accelerates a mass of one pound at one
foot per second squared, a slug is the mass that a force of one pound
accelerates at one foot per second squared.)
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
Alan Braggins [email protected] opined the following...
> Pounds are a unit of mass, and a unit of weight. Because they have the
> same name, it is sometimes necessary to specify which one you mean.
> The corresponding units of weight and mass are the poundal and the slug.
> (A poundal is that force that accelerates a mass of one pound at one
> foot per second squared, a slug is the mass that a force of one pound
> accelerates at one foot per second squared.)


How many cubits can I get per nano-slug? ;-)

Jon (Born too late to consider imperial measurements to be anything but
outdated!)
 
H

half_pint

Guest
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> half_pint [email protected] opined the following...
> > I don't see how it encourage motorists to break the law they do that
> > all the time anyway.

>
> Because they view cyclists as people who only use the road when it suits
> them and thus treat them with little or no respect. It also (As many
> have justified to me) encourages them to occupy ASL boxes since
> "cyclists don't follow the rules, why should I?".
>
> > I don't believe I have ever seen one!!!
> > Anyway I always pass standing traffic and sit in front of it if it
> > is possible to do so safely.

>
> Where do you live? I thought they were an Edinburgh thing until I
> encountered them elsewhere. I've seen them in every city I've been to in
> the last year or so.
>


Nottingham and I don't recall seeing any.

> A few posts previously you said you jumped onto the pavement to avoid
> sitting in front of traffic.


If that is a practical option, not possible at some big busy
junctions.
>
> > I am on little danger on the pavement and I take great care when

returning
> > to the road, I do not rely on motorists seeing me, I will not re enter
> > unless
> > there is a large gap available'.

>
> Actually, you are statistically in greater danger on the pavement. If
> you have to wait to rejoin the traffic then you have gained nothing, as
> you could have have remained in the flow of traffic in the first place.


Some cycle path are "on the pavement" so you have to rejoin.

>
> > But u do risk being intimidated and some cars may try to force
> > a way past.

>
> Intimidation is very easy to get around. When they beep the horn, wave
> (Whole hand, not a single digit). It's very rare that someone will
> actually try to hit you, they'll just beep the horn. Other than being
> irritating, it doesn't do you any harm. I get a few prats a month who do
> something like this, but I'd rather that the prat was getting wound up
> and concentrating on me, than ignoring me altogether.
>
> A car can only force past if you let them. If you cannot ride in a
> position where they can only overtake by crossing the central line, then
> the road is probably wide enough to let them past safely.
>
> > I cant say I agree there will be bad motorists whatever cyclists do.

>
> Yes, and they should be ostracised, rather than encouraged. Every time I
> see a motor vehicle enter an ASL when they had no cause to do so, I make
> a point of explaining it to them (Especially if they are bus / taxi /
> other "professional" drivers). I try to do the same to cyclists who jump
> reds, but the last one I spoke to gave me an earful for it "What f*cking
> business is it of yours anyway? Why should I f*cking care?" (I'm sure
> that students were supposed to be the intellectual cream of society!).
>
> > If I feel it is better/safer to use the pavement I will, I can't recall
> > and pedrestrians ever complaining, they are not usually bothered
> > by it unless they are exceptionally petty.

>
> The pavement is more suited to pedestrians. The quanitity of "street
> furniture" inhibits your sight lines and prevents sensible lines from
> being taken. Pedestrians have a habit of meandering which makes it
> harder to overtake and your overall speed must be slower (Certainly, I
> couldn't ride the pavements as fast as I can the roads!). There is a
> risk from driveways and you lose priority at junctions. In all, while
> you may have the illusion of safety, the reality is far from it.


Sometime a hop onto the pavement can avoid a very busy (hence
dangerous)junction at rush hour(s) I rejoin at a pedestrian crossing
further down the road. Its quicker and safer. I have not killed
a pedesrian yet!!

>
> And I read that as "unless they are exceptionally pretty" and wondered
> why you went out of your way to harass pretty pedestrians. It struck me
> as a somewhat unusual chat up technique.
>
> Jon
 
P

Paul - xxx

Guest
half_pint vaguely muttered something like ...
> "Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote


>> Where do you live? I thought they were an Edinburgh thing until I
>> encountered them elsewhere. I've seen them in every city I've been to in
>> the last year or so.
>>

>
> Nottingham and I don't recall seeing any.


You don't look at the road much then .. They're all over. [1]

Trouble is, I think, that many other road users, some bus drivers included,
don't actually know what the ASL markings are actually for, and drive up to
them, thus negating any benefit to cycliss whilst at the same time reducing
their chances of seeing the lights quite so easily.

The normal stop line allows a normally seated driver to get a reasonably
clear view of both sets of lights. If they move forward slightly (and yes,
I have checked in a car) then there is the possibility that the nearest
lightbox is at too acute an angle to be seen properly, so they have to crane
ther necks or watch the other lights across the junction. In Nottingham this
can be quite confusing as there are many 'odd' junctions and so many
roadworks lately it seems like almost every junction changes almost every
week.

[1] Well, all over, at the appropriate places .. ;)
--
Paul ...
http://www.4x4prejudice.org/index.php
"A ****** is a ******, no matter what mode of transport they're using."
(8(|) Homer Rules !!!
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 17:42:41 -0000, "half_pint"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>I don't see how it encourage motorists to break the law they do that
>all the time anyway.


Exhibit A: Transport Research Laboratory research report 549, 2003

"A key finding which should be noted was that, when commenting on the
scenarios it was usually the behaviour of the cyclist that was
criticised – no matter how small the misdemeanour. Few links were made
between the cyclist’s behaviour and any external influences that could
be affecting their choice of behaviour; i.e. the respondents’ comments
indicated that they thought the cyclist’s actions were inherent and
dispositional behaviours. In contrast, the motorists’ misdemeanours
were excused or justified in terms of the situational influences. As
this tendency seemed to continue across the groups and the individual
depth interviews and was unprompted, it is unlikely that group
dynamics had any significant effect on this finding. [...] This aligns
with the psychological prediction of targeting of members of an ‘out
group’"

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/Bloody_cyclists

Guy
--
"then came ye chavves, theyre cartes girded wyth candels
blue, and theyre beastes wyth straynge horn-lyke thyngs
onn theyre arses that theyre fartes be herde from myles
around." Chaucer, the Sheppey Tales
 
A

Alan Braggins

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, Jon Senior wrote:
>Alan Braggins [email protected] opined the following...
>> Pounds are a unit of mass, and a unit of weight. Because they have the
>> same name, it is sometimes necessary to specify which one you mean.
>> The corresponding units of weight and mass are the poundal and the slug.
>> (A poundal is that force that accelerates a mass of one pound at one
>> foot per second squared, a slug is the mass that a force of one pound
>> accelerates at one foot per second squared.)

>
>How many cubits can I get per nano-slug? ;-)


$ units
1991 units, 71 prefixes, 32 nonlinear units

You have: nanoslug
You want: cubit
Unknown unit 'cubit'
You want: metre
conformability error
1.4593903e-08 kg
1 m

>Jon (Born too late to consider imperial measurements to be anything but
>outdated!)


Sadly outdated engineering drawings don't always get entirely replaced,
and sometimes people have to work on things older than they are.