Cyclist nearly wipes out Clarkson.



Conor wrote:
> Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
> Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
>
> What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
> and insured.


I don't think testing and licencing would have done anything to improve
his aim. Some things we're just born with,


--
If it's stupid and it works, it ain't stupid
 
Eugenio Mastroviti wrote:
> Conor wrote:
>> Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
>> Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
>>
>> What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
>> and insured.

>
> I don't think testing and licencing would have done anything to
> improve his aim. Some things we're just born with,


But hopefully more practice will leave him better prepared for his next
encounter with Clarkson.
 
"Conor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Tony W says...
> >
> > "Conor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
> > > Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
> > >
> > > What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
> > > and insured.

> >
> > Clearly he was tested and licensed as required by law.
> >
> > What evidence do you wish to submit to suggest that he wasn't insured?
> >

> The lack of compulsory need.


On that basis clearly my house and its contents are also uninsured, as is my
life, my health, my travel, etc. etc

--
Pete
http://uk.geocities.com/[email protected]/P
 
Peter wrote:
>
> Staight after nearly hitting me I
> saw him swerving between people, and I could hear his tyres slipping
> slightly. Crazy cycling. I suppose I should be greatful that he
> wasn't driving a car.
>


I doubt you will find anyone on urc that would condone that sort of
behaviour.



--
Tony

"Don't argue the matter, the difficulties will argue for themselves"
-W.S. Churchill
 
JohnB wrote:
> Conor wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Tony W says...

>
>>> What evidence do you wish to submit to suggest that he wasn't
>>> insured?
>>>

>> The lack of compulsory need.

>
> Err, Conor, you really aren't *that* thick are you?


***DING***

--
Alex

Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.sffh.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk
 
In article <[email protected]>, JohnB wrote:
>Conor wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Tony W says...

>
>> > What evidence do you wish to submit to suggest that he wasn't insured?
>> >

>> The lack of compulsory need.

>
>Err, Conor, you really aren't *that* thick are you?


What evidence do you wish to submit to suggest that Conor isn't really
that thick?
 
Conor wrote:
> Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
> Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
>
> What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
> and insured.
>


Anyone see how close Clarkson got to wiping out that cyclist on Top Gear
tonight (by stepping into his path without looking)?

What an excellent example of why Clarkson needs to be tested, licenced
and insured.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
 
"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, JohnB wrote:
> >Conor wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Tony W says...

> >
> >> > What evidence do you wish to submit to suggest that he wasn't

insured?
> >> >
> >> The lack of compulsory need.

> >
> >Err, Conor, you really aren't *that* thick are you?

>
> What evidence do you wish to submit to suggest that Conor isn't really
> that thick?


Is there any?

Pete
 
JLB wrote:

> What an excellent example of why Clarkson needs to be tested, licenced
> and insured.


....and restrained

--
Laissez Faire Economics is the theory that if each acts like a vulture,
all will end as doves.
 
Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, JohnB wrote:
>
>>Conor wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Tony W says...

>>
>>>>What evidence do you wish to submit to suggest that he wasn't insured?
>>>>
>>>
>>>The lack of compulsory need.

>>
>>Err, Conor, you really aren't *that* thick are you?

>
>
> What evidence do you wish to submit to suggest that Conor isn't really
> that thick?


The lack of a compulsory requirement to be thick ?

--
Tony

"Don't argue the matter, the difficulties will argue for themselves"
-W.S. Churchill
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Clarkson then tries to blame the cyclist for his own failings (ie
> relying on not hearing a car == it is safe to step out without looking)
>
>

Which actually goes someway to back up my opinions of the "iPod/Cell
phone" generation and quiet cars.

I like my cars to make some noise from the engine/exhaust, because too
many pedestrians (Clarkson included in this case) lead their lives
walking without due care and attention, and step out infront of
vehicles, blaming the vehicle controller when they almost get hit.
--
Carl Robson
"Sorry Sir the meatballs are orf"
(The poster formerly known as Skodapilot)
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
 
On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:12:17 +0100, Sleeker GT Phwoar
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>I like my cars to make some noise from the engine/exhaust, because too
>many pedestrians (Clarkson included in this case) lead their lives
>walking without due care and attention, and step out infront of
>vehicles, blaming the vehicle controller when they almost get hit.


Whereas, as a frequent user of inherently silent vehicles as well as
being a sufferer from tinnitus with a family history of deafness, I
recognise that pedestrians may well step off the pavement, and try to
make allowances.

I still get ****** off when they do it, mind...


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> On Mon, 30 May 2005 15:12:17 +0100, Sleeker GT Phwoar
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >I like my cars to make some noise from the engine/exhaust, because too
> >many pedestrians (Clarkson included in this case) lead their lives
> >walking without due care and attention, and step out infront of
> >vehicles, blaming the vehicle controller when they almost get hit.

>
> Whereas, as a frequent user of inherently silent vehicles as well as
> being a sufferer from tinnitus with a family history of deafness, I
> recognise that pedestrians may well step off the pavement, and try to
> make allowances.
>
> I still get ****** off when they do it, mind...
>


Exactley, I realise it, so I make sure that I'm driving something that
gives them as much heads up as possible. I'm doing them a favour.

It is isn't overly loud compared to a standard system. It uses exactley
the same ammount of silencers and is the same size bore as a standard
system, but it loses one de-resonator. It isn't much louder, but is a
lot deeper, but I have been told by the upstairs offices at work, it
causes enough vibration to be be felt through the desk, and feels
particularly worse in the toilet.



--
Carl Robson
"Sorry Sir the meatballs are orf"
(The poster formerly known as Skodapilot)
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
 
Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:


> Exactley, I realise it, so I make sure that I'm driving something that
> gives them as much heads up as possible. I'm doing them a favour.
>
> It is isn't overly loud compared to a standard system. It uses exactley
> the same ammount of silencers and is the same size bore as a standard
> system, but it loses one de-resonator. It isn't much louder, but is a
> lot deeper, but I have been told by the upstairs offices at work, it
> causes enough vibration to be be felt through the desk, and feels
> particularly worse in the toilet.


Interesting; how is this doing a favour to people in the office upstairs
or in the toilet?

Is it doing the same "heads up" favour, for example, to people sleeping
at home (because they work different shifts than you) as you drive past?

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
>
>
> > Exactley, I realise it, so I make sure that I'm driving something that
> > gives them as much heads up as possible. I'm doing them a favour.
> >
> > It is isn't overly loud compared to a standard system. It uses exactley
> > the same ammount of silencers and is the same size bore as a standard
> > system, but it loses one de-resonator. It isn't much louder, but is a
> > lot deeper, but I have been told by the upstairs offices at work, it
> > causes enough vibration to be be felt through the desk, and feels
> > particularly worse in the toilet.

>
> Interesting; how is this doing a favour to people in the office upstairs
> or in the toilet?


It isn't doing them any favours, that is just an interesting aside to
harmonics, but then they aren't the air heads who will walk out in front
of me. Mind you, it is far quieter than the MDs Ruff 911, or the
technical directors 550 Modena, they can be heard from the main building
about 200 metres away. You know when it is time to get your feet off the
desk and look like you are working, a very good early warning system.

> Is it doing the same "heads up" favour, for example, to people sleeping
> at home (because they work different shifts than you) as you drive past?
>
>

Actually, in motion it is no louder than a normal factory exhaust, but
just at a deeper pitch. Inside the house it can barely be heard, the
building at work is two story glass fronted and so resonates at a
different frequency to a normal brick built house, on the street, it is
the deeper tone that alerts people that it is there that stands out.
--
Carl Robson
"Sorry Sir the meatballs are orf"
(The poster formerly known as Skodapilot)
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
 
"Conor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Anyone see how close that lycra loonie cyclist got to wiping out
| Clarkson on Top Gear tonight?
|
| What an excellent example of why cyclists need to be tested, licenced
| and insured.
|
|
|
| --

Hello,

have you noticed they all talk with the same "whine" type noise on TopGear !
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> You either work in the Motor Factors trade, or are stupid enough to be led
> by those who do. Do you wear Burberry perchance?
>


Answers are,
1)No
2)No
and
3)No

I bought the replacement stainless system because it was available at 1
days delivery notice.
Toyota wanted £100 more for a mild steel one, with minimum 6 weeks
delivery wait, and no garauntee that it would be on that shipment, as
they only get one bulk order of parts for older cars, and special orders
get added to the bulk order. If it didn't make that on, it would be on
the next one. I had a split in the exhaust as a built in flexi section.

The mid and tail boxes are the same size and shape. The pipework is the
same ID, the only difference between them is, the pipework and boxes are
stainless, and the de-resonator box is missing from the system. It has
one 4" tail pipe, rather than 2x2" tail pipes, but that is effectively a
welded trim on the back of the box with single 3" outlet, so that
wouldn't affect tone or volume much. Given the choice, I would have gone
with a single 3" or factory style dual 2" backbox, but they only offer
one tail pip style for each system they make.

I did look at standard Jetex/Walker/Timax (etc) type pattern
replacements, but apparently nobody makes an off the shelf non-upgrade
system, becuase of the low volume of cars made (less than 10,000) and
the weird position of the CAT in the system.
--
"Sorry Sir, the meatballs are Orf"
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com
 
Sleeker GT Phwoar wrote:
> It has
> one 4" tail pipe, rather than 2x2" tail pipes, but that is effectively a
> welded trim on the back of the box with single 3" outlet, so that
> wouldn't affect tone or volume much.


Not necessarily volume, but that'll be your likely source of tone change.

And please don't try to justify a "rood boyee" exhaust on the grounds of
increased safety for other road users. They are nothing more and nothing
less than a "look-at-me" extra, regardless of the car that they're
fitted to. If you really want a loud rumbly exhaust, get a car that wont
make people laugh when they try to place the sound. ;-)

Jon
 
Jon Senior wrote:

> And please don't try to justify a "rood boyee" exhaust on the grounds of
> increased safety for other road users. They are nothing more and nothing
> less than a "look-at-me" extra, regardless of the car that they're
> fitted to. If you really want a loud rumbly exhaust, get a car that wont
> make people laugh when they try to place the sound. ;-)


Oi mate! You've reversed over your dustbin again...

...d