SA - Road safety program launched with a focus on cyclists

[Dorfus Dippintush]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Patrick Turner wrote:
>
>> In today's SMH, an article appeared about powered bicycles.
>> These have always been around, but were usually hoorid noisy dirty
>> fumy two stoke gizmos that worked on the tyre to add 200 watts to your
>> own power.
>>
>> But todays gizmo had an electric chargable device, very quiet, which
>> is lifted off/onto the bike
>> and so fat guys get up hills but don't stop pedling entirely.
>>
>> Maybe that's a winner. Good for when I am 90.
>
> Pat, are you aware that rechargable electric vehicles, whilst being quiet
> and non-smelly in use, actually contribute more to greenhouse gases than
> petrol engined vehicles of similar power? It's because they're (mostly)
> powered by coal.
>
> I'd cite you some sites but you'd only refuse to read them and yell
> buuull-shiiiit.
>
> Theo
>
>

There are some positives to coal.

The pollution from power stations is kept in one place where it there is
some control over the emissions, unlike car and motor bike engines .

Coal has always been unleaded.

We don't send our best men overseas to fight wars for coal.

Coal spilled into water doesn't form a slick that kills all the
wildlife in the area.

Dorfus

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> Pat, are you aware that rechargable electric vehicles, whilst being
>> quiet and non-smelly in use, actually contribute more to greenhouse
>> gases than petrol engined vehicles of similar power? It's because
>> they're (mostly) powered by coal.

> There are some positives to coal.
>
> The pollution from power stations is kept in one place where it there
> is some control over the emissions, unlike car and motor bike engines

> Coal has always been unleaded.
>
> We don't send our best men overseas to fight wars for coal.
>
> Coal spilled into water doesn't form a slick that kills all the
> wildlife in the area.

Hehe.
And 70% of all greenhouse gases produced by Australians is from coal. Less
than 8% is from internal combustion engined vehicles. A 4 cylinder Toyota
Camry produces 4600 kg of greenhouse gases to travel 20,000 kms, an electric
only car charged from your coal-fired home electric supply will produce 4900
kg. Your electric hot water system produces....., well, you really don't
want to know.

Theo

 

[Dorfus Dippintush]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
>>> Pat, are you aware that rechargable electric vehicles, whilst being
>>> quiet and non-smelly in use, actually contribute more to greenhouse
>>> gases than petrol engined vehicles of similar power? It's because
>>> they're (mostly) powered by coal.
>
>> There are some positives to coal.
>>
>> The pollution from power stations is kept in one place where it there
>> is some control over the emissions, unlike car and motor bike engines
>
>> Coal has always been unleaded.
>>
>> We don't send our best men overseas to fight wars for coal.
>>
>> Coal spilled into water doesn't form a slick that kills all the
>> wildlife in the area.
>
> Hehe.
> And 70% of all greenhouse gases produced by Australians is from coal. Less
> than 8% is from internal combustion engined vehicles. A 4 cylinder Toyota
> Camry produces 4600 kg of greenhouse gases to travel 20,000 kms, an electric
> only car charged from your coal-fired home electric supply will produce 4900
> kg. Your electric hot water system produces....., well, you really don't
> want to know.
>
> Theo
>
>

You're mixing your comparisons. I can do that too.

What percentage of petrol powers heavy industry? If you want to blow out
a power stations budget try running it on oil for a couple of hours. A
power station operator would rather have a boiler off than run it on oil.

It's all very well talking about the fuel efficiency of a Toyota Camry
but if I stand on the side of the road all I see is lot's of big trucks
and four wheel drives going by. (I live in the country.)

The pollution caused by coal powered vehicles on our roads in Australia
is almost zero. (Probably zero but I imagine there's a keen nutter out
there somewhere driving around in a steam engine.)

Dorfus

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Dorfus Dippintush wrote:

> What percentage of petrol powers heavy industry? If you want to blow
> out a power stations budget try running it on oil for a couple of
> hours. A power station operator would rather have a boiler off than
> run it on oil.

I was talking about green house emissions, you're talking about cost.

> It's all very well talking about the fuel efficiency of a Toyota Camry
> but if I stand on the side of the road all I see is lot's of big
> trucks and four wheel drives going by. (I live in the country.)

As do I. The entire combustion engine fleet produces less than 8% of the
country's pollution, and coal fired power stations more than 70%. It's just
that you see the trucks and 4WDs going by, and not the power stations.

> The pollution caused by coal powered vehicles on our roads in
> Australia is almost zero. (Probably zero but I imagine there's a keen
> nutter out there somewhere driving around in a steam engine.)

There's a whole bunch of elderly people zooming about in those gopher
things, including my mother-in-law, those things _are_ coal-powered. My
house is also coal-powered, but I don't have an electric HWS. Heck, I even
have a coal-powered TV.

Theo

 

[Dorfus Dippintush]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
>
>> What percentage of petrol powers heavy industry? If you want to blow
>> out a power stations budget try running it on oil for a couple of
>> hours. A power station operator would rather have a boiler off than
>> run it on oil.
>
> I was talking about green house emissions, you're talking about cost.
>
>> It's all very well talking about the fuel efficiency of a Toyota Camry
>> but if I stand on the side of the road all I see is lot's of big
>> trucks and four wheel drives going by. (I live in the country.)
>
> As do I. The entire combustion engine fleet produces less than 8% of the
> country's pollution, and coal fired power stations more than 70%. It's just
> that you see the trucks and 4WDs going by, and not the power stations.
>
>> The pollution caused by coal powered vehicles on our roads in
>> Australia is almost zero. (Probably zero but I imagine there's a keen
>> nutter out there somewhere driving around in a steam engine.)
>
> There's a whole bunch of elderly people zooming about in those gopher
> things, including my mother-in-law, those things _are_ coal-powered. My
> house is also coal-powered, but I don't have an electric HWS. Heck, I even
> have a coal-powered TV.
>
> Theo
>
>

As a concerned citizen you should immediately disconnect your house from
the power grid and use only carbon free fuels.

Dorfus

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> There's a whole bunch of elderly people zooming about in those gopher
>> things, including my mother-in-law, those things _are_ coal-powered.
>> My house is also coal-powered, but I don't have an electric HWS.
>> Heck, I even have a coal-powered TV.

> As a concerned citizen you should immediately disconnect your house
> from the power grid and use only carbon free fuels.

According to the carbon trading scheme I need just 55 trees to neutralise my
carbon impact on the planet. I had about 800 when I moved in but planted
another 250 just to make sure. You wanna rent some?

Theo

 

[EuanB]

EuanB wrote:
>
> Patrick Turner Wrote:
> > In Sydney at Turramurra, a posh suburb where I grew up there were ZERO
> > bike paths
>
> Percieved risk rarely equates with actual risk.
>
> Copenhagen's transport department has recently released a report
> showing that cycle paths increased percieved safety for cyclists but
> increase road risk.
>
> You can read all about it here *http://tinyurl.com/3dlkbm*
>
> These are facts Pat. Not theories, not opinions, facts.
>
> --
> EuanB


Buull shiiit

Really? There's heaps of evidence that the facts I've cited are as stated. Where's your evidence to the contray?

You are a fool.

 

[John Pitts]

On 2007-08-29, EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Patrick Turner Wrote:
>> Buull shiiit
>
> Really? There's heaps of evidence that the facts I've cited are as
> stated. Where's your evidence to the contray?
>
> You are a fool.

Euan (and Theo), I'm curious. Why are you bothering? He's obviously
not listening...

--
John
I'm burned around the edges but I'm tender in the middle.
- Adrian Belew

 

[Aeek]

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:47:48 +0800, Dorfus Dippintush
<[email protected]> wrote:

>As a concerned citizen you should immediately disconnect your house from
>the power grid and use only carbon free fuels.

kinda hard to ride the bicycle and eat no carbon based foods for fuel.

 

[Patrick Turner]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> Patrick Turner wrote:
> > EuanB wrote:
>
> >> Patrick Turner Wrote:
> >>> In Sydney at Turramurra, a posh suburb where I grew up there were
> >>> ZERO bike paths
>
> >> Percieved risk rarely equals actual risk.
>
> > You have not answered all the questions I have raised so clearly.
>
> That could be because all your uqestions were directed at me. Why would Euan
> answer them? Why would I?
>
> Theo

I address all my posts to the group, but my posts may
speak directly to the guy to whom I have based by reply on for the
group.

ALL questions I may ask are directed at the group.
If nobody anwers them, it often means that everyone in the group is
A, possibly arrogant, lazy egotistical and offended,
B, plain dumb,
C, has not got the time, or only answers questions if it makes the
questioner look very ill informed,
or as part of a general sadistic tendency.

Have I left anything out Theo? anyone else have a clue?

In other groups, people are only too happy to try to fully answer
questions as fully as possible, and with the truth, and if that isn't
the case,
I point it all out them wherever possible. Its called debating.
And they have to proove they have read reports about cycling which they
want me to read.
Nobody has, so far.
And they have to mount a persuasive argument.
If need be, I persist with questions and if not answered and I prove
them wrong, too bad.
Many folks don't like retracting statements when the
errors they have made are explained and proven. Too bad.

The longer you fail to provide answers, the more everyone reading here
will think the worst
of you.

Theo said he'd like to see cycle paths ripped up and grassed over.

He doesn't seem to care that a huge number of cyclists would be very
offended if
this was to occur, and afaiac, Theo's attitude is one of a
reckless trouble making vandal with ZERO credibility.

Of course Theo won't answer my questions.

Just why would he answer me if it makes him look like an arseole to so
many people?

Patrick Turner.

 

[Patrick Turner]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> Patrick Turner wrote:
>
> > In today's SMH, an article appeared about powered bicycles.
> > These have always been around, but were usually hoorid noisy dirty
> > fumy two stoke gizmos that worked on the tyre to add 200 watts to your
> > own power.
> >
> > But todays gizmo had an electric chargable device, very quiet, which
> > is lifted off/onto the bike
> > and so fat guys get up hills but don't stop pedling entirely.
> >
> > Maybe that's a winner. Good for when I am 90.
>
> Pat, are you aware that rechargable electric vehicles, whilst being quiet
> and non-smelly in use, actually contribute more to greenhouse gases than
> petrol engined vehicles of similar power? It's because they're (mostly)
> powered by coal.
>
> I'd cite you some sites but you'd only refuse to read them and yell
> buuull-shiiiit.
>
> Theo

The man who cycles to work on an electric bike which was described in
SMH
generates a tiny amount of carbon to charge the batteries, and get to
work.

But he saves an ENORMOUS amount of carbon if the bike is used to replace
the SUV.

Theo is heavilly into producing his own special brand of ********.

Theo never reads reports he expects others to read, and never
understands
anything he reads, and thus cannot quote correctly and convincingly from
what little he does read.

The average person in a western nation wasteful economy needs around
0.7kW of power supplied to him
365days a year, 24 hours a day, on average. I know this by reading my
electricity bills.
This does not include transportation energy anywhare and everywhere.

If I used 200 watts for 2 hours a day to charge the bike, its not a huge
deal,
only 0.4kwh out of a total of 17kwh.

But surely 0.4kwh is less damaging to the Earth than 2 hours of SUV use,
and I have not factored i transport to energy used per hour by anyone.

Patrick Turner.

 

[Patrick Turner]

Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> >> There's a whole bunch of elderly people zooming about in those gopher
> >> things, including my mother-in-law, those things _are_ coal-powered.
> >> My house is also coal-powered, but I don't have an electric HWS.
> >> Heck, I even have a coal-powered TV.
>
> > As a concerned citizen you should immediately disconnect your house
> > from the power grid and use only carbon free fuels.
>
> According to the carbon trading scheme I need just 55 trees to neutralise my
> carbon impact on the planet. I had about 800 when I moved in but planted
> another 250 just to make sure. You wanna rent some?

Just watch out for bushfires.

In 2002, AND 2003, the fires in Canberra added an enormous amount of
tree
carbon to the air.

Fires are becoming more common as the planet warms.

>
> Theo

Noboby wants to deal and trade with someone so inconsistent as Theo
who says electric bicycles don't reduce carbon emissions
even though I pointed out that a fat guy biking to work on a thimblefull
or electric power saves a huge amount of carbon if he isn't in his car.

In 40 years, when Theo's trees all start dying and falling over, they'll
rot,
and release their carbon.

In 400 years, PERHAPS when we have genetically modified our species to
put up
with the heat and gross environmental degradation, we may be doing too
little too late.

Humans won't be around forever. The history of species shows species
come, species go,
and so shall we.

The only way to remove carbon is to bury it, and leave it buried,
preferably chemically bound to something stable, like calcioum and
oxygen,
ie, CaCO3.

But mankind is addicted to digging things up....

Patrick Turner.

 

[Patrick Turner]

EuanB wrote:
>
> Patrick Turner Wrote:
> > EuanB wrote:
> > >
> > > Patrick Turner Wrote:
> > > > In Sydney at Turramurra, a posh suburb where I grew up there were
> > ZERO
> > > > bike paths
> > >
> > > Percieved risk rarely equates with actual risk.
> > >
> > > Copenhagen's transport department has recently released a report
> > > showing that cycle paths increased percieved safety for cyclists but
> > > increase road risk.
> > >
> > > You can read all about it here *http://tinyurl.com/3dlkbm*
> > >
> > > These are facts Pat. Not theories, not opinions, facts.
> > >
> > > --
> > > EuanB
> >
> >
> > Buull shiiit
>
> Really? There's heaps of evidence that the facts I've cited are as
> stated. Where's your evidence to the contray?
>
> You are a fool.

It appears you have not read the reports you expect me to read.
You cannot quote from them, have learnt nothing from them
and all you can do is call someone a fool.

You have not replied to all the concerns I have raised.

Patrick Turner.


> --
> EuanB

 

[Patrick Turner]

John Pitts wrote:
>
> On 2007-08-29, EuanB <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Patrick Turner Wrote:
> >> Buull shiiit
> >
> > Really? There's heaps of evidence that the facts I've cited are as
> > stated. Where's your evidence to the contray?
> >
> > You are a fool.
>
> Euan (and Theo), I'm curious. Why are you bothering? He's obviously
> not listening...

I'm listening alright John.

I raise very fair questions, and then all i hear is silence or insults
from guys who should know that neither wins any argument or gains any
respect.

YOU are no better, because you have not answered any questions either,
and agree with the insults, and have nothing to contribute to the
subject.

Patrick Turner.



>
> --
> John
> I'm burned around the edges but I'm tender in the middle.
> - Adrian Belew

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:17:50 -0000
John Pitts <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Euan (and Theo), I'm curious. Why are you bothering? He's obviously
> not listening...

Euan's an educator, he's trying to educate. Theo's just a stirrer.

Zebee
- owner of functioning killfile, makes it easier to cope

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:55:29 +1000
Aeek <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:47:48 +0800, Dorfus Dippintush
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>As a concerned citizen you should immediately disconnect your house from
>>the power grid and use only carbon free fuels.
>
> kinda hard to ride the bicycle and eat no carbon based foods for fuel.

Especially as the carbon foods are lighter and that's important!

Zebee

 

[Bean Long]

Patrick Turner wrote:

> The average person in a western nation wasteful economy needs around
> 0.7kW of power supplied to him
> 365days a year, 24 hours a day, on average. I know this by reading my
> electricity bills.

Patrick "Mr Average" Turner !

--
Bean

"I've got a bike
You can ride it if you like
It's got a basket
A bell that rings
And things to make it look good
I'd give it to you if I could
But I borrowed it" Pink Floyd

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

 

[Bean Long]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:17:50 -0000
> John Pitts <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Euan (and Theo), I'm curious. Why are you bothering? He's obviously
>> not listening...
>
> Euan's an educator, he's trying to educate. Theo's just a stirrer.
>
> Zebee
> - owner of functioning killfile, makes it easier to cope

Ouch... my thread is getting overstretched! I need a 19 inch screen just
to see the whole thread in T'bird! This is becoming an enormous waste of
carbon! Could everyone who wants to contribute to this thread please do
so by sending msgs with black background and white txt (ala
www.blackle.com), in order to save energy!?



--
Bean 'takin' the ****'

Remove "yourfinger" before replying

 

[Plodder]

"Patrick Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Theo Bekkers wrote:
>>
>> Patrick Turner wrote:
>> > EuanB wrote:
>>
>> >> Patrick Turner Wrote:
>> >>> In Sydney at Turramurra, a posh suburb where I grew up there were
>> >>> ZERO bike paths
>>
>> >> Percieved risk rarely equals actual risk.
>>
>> > You have not answered all the questions I have raised so clearly.
>>
>> That could be because all your uqestions were directed at me. Why would
>> Euan
>> answer them? Why would I?
>>
>> Theo
>
> I address all my posts to the group, but my posts may
> speak directly to the guy to whom I have based by reply on for the
> group.
>
> ALL questions I may ask are directed at the group.
> If nobody anwers them, it often means that everyone in the group is
> A, possibly arrogant, lazy egotistical and offended,
> B, plain dumb,
> C, has not got the time, or only answers questions if it makes the
> questioner look very ill informed,
> or as part of a general sadistic tendency.
>
> Have I left anything out Theo? anyone else have a clue?

<SNIPPED THE LAST PART OF PATRICK'S POST>

D: Don't care to spend much time answering someone who's catchcry is 'buull
shiiit' to rational evidence that runs counter to his emotive opinion.
E: Got quickly fed up with responding to someone who has been a cyclist for
a long time (credit!) but who prefers to keep cycling the same way as many
years ago and wants infrastructure money spent simply to avoid having to
change their own habits or the habits of others.

nuff...

me

 

[Theo Bekkers]

John Pitts wrote:
>> Patrick Turner Wrote:

>>> Buull shiiit

> Euan (and Theo), I'm curious. Why are you bothering? He's obviously
> not listening...

Yeah, we know. I'm loth to let him dribble on uncontested with his stupid
concepts and opinions.

Theo