The Guardian in favour of cycling - again

[bugbear]

O.K. We already knew about
Zoe Williams and Matt Seaton.

This article is (IMHO)
more important, since it's the tale
of a slob (see rest of columns)
finding that cycling is healthy
*and* it's useful.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1705496,00.html

BugBear

 

[sothach]

bugbear wrote:

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1705496,00.html

Nice article popularising pavement cycling...., that's what you get
when you let car drivers loose on bikes, I suppose.

 

[davek]

sothach wrote:
> Nice article popularising pavement cycling...., that's what you get
> when you let car drivers loose on bikes, I suppose.

Except that she says quite explicitly that she is not a driver.

Of course, we can't condone the illegal use of the pavement - she really
ought to find a quiet road to practise on - but we can put it in some
kind of perspective and consider how much of an actual danger she is to
pedestrians compared to cars.

d.

 

[Clive George]

"sothach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> bugbear wrote:
>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1705496,00.html
>
> Nice article popularising pavement cycling...., that's what you get
> when you let car drivers loose on bikes, I suppose.

"to a non-driver"

cheers,
clive

 

[sothach]

davek wrote:
> sothach wrote:
> > Nice article popularising pavement cycling...., that's what you get
> > when you let car drivers loose on bikes, I suppose.
>
> Except that she says quite explicitly that she is not a driver.

Yeah, I really should've read all the article before accusing someone
of anti-social practices, I guess...

> Of course, we can't condone the illegal use of the pavement - she really
> ought to find a quiet road to practise on - but we can put it in some
> kind of perspective and consider how much of an actual danger she is to
> pedestrians compared to cars.

No, I'm ok with pavement cycling, especially in cases like this, and
for young kids: making beginners and kids learn on the roads, mixing it
with 4x4s and trucks and all that is not likely to lead to an increased
uptake in cycling. If people cycle on the pavement in a safe and
responsible manner, that should be ok, if they cycle (or inline-skate,
run, push prams) in a manner likely to discommode or injure others,
then book 'em.

A good principle for any road or path should be that no person/vehicle
should travel at speeds more than say 10% of the traffic stream average
(this has been suggested for the German autobahns) and there should be,
as in California, a strict hierarchy of priority, from pedestrian >
bike > motor.

 

[sothach]

Clive George wrote:
> "sothach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > bugbear wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1705496,00.html
> >
> > Nice article popularising pavement cycling...., that's what you get
> > when you let car drivers loose on bikes, I suppose.
>
> "to a non-driver"

Well, she would say that, wouldn't. She's hardly gonna say "to a
dangerous terrorist", not in public anyway
(yeah, yeah, mea culpa, my bad, carpa diem, jew et mein doigt)

 

[Jim Ley]

On 10 Feb 2006 03:24:49 -0800, "sothach" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>A good principle for any road or path should be that no person/vehicle
>should travel at speeds more than say 10% of the traffic stream average
>(this has been suggested for the German autobahns) and there should be,
>as in California, a strict hierarchy of priority, from pedestrian >
>bike > motor.

So little old ladies should be banned from most footways around me?
That seems a litle unfair to ban people who can't walk fast simply
because cyclists have pushed up the average so much...

Jim.

 

[David Martin]

Jim Ley wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2006 03:24:49 -0800, "sothach" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >A good principle for any road or path should be that no person/vehicle
> >should travel at speeds more than say 10% of the traffic stream average
> >(this has been suggested for the German autobahns) and there should be,
> >as in California, a strict hierarchy of priority, from pedestrian >
> >bike > motor.
>
> So little old ladies should be banned from most footways around me?
> That seems a litle unfair to ban people who can't walk fast simply
> because cyclists have pushed up the average so much...

Where did you get that from? if your lol can maintain 10% over the
average speed of the traffic stream then she is surely not going to
have problems keeping up with cyclists.

You can walk as slow as you like.. It would also ban those pesky
joggers who just barge their way through whoever is on the pavement ;-)

...d

 

[Richard]

David Martin wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:
>
>>On 10 Feb 2006 03:24:49 -0800, "sothach" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>A good principle for any road or path should be that no person/vehicle
>>>should travel at speeds more than say 10% of the traffic stream average
>>>(this has been suggested for the German autobahns) and there should be,
>>>as in California, a strict hierarchy of priority, from pedestrian >
>>>bike > motor.
>>
>>So little old ladies should be banned from most footways around me?
>>That seems a litle unfair to ban people who can't walk fast simply
>>because cyclists have pushed up the average so much...
>
>
> Where did you get that from? if your lol can maintain 10% over the
> average speed of the traffic stream then she is surely not going to
> have problems keeping up with cyclists.

Depends if it's banning those who are more than 10% /over/ the traffic
stream average, or more than 10% /different to/ the traffic stream
average. The OP's 'of' the TSA is ambiguous, and TBH I read it the same
as Jim at first.

R.

 

[Jim Ley]

On 10 Feb 2006 03:57:38 -0800, "David Martin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Where did you get that from? if your lol can maintain 10% over the
>average speed of the traffic stream then she is surely not going to
>have problems keeping up with cyclists.

Different interpretation of the original phrase... I like the idea
though now it's the other way around in my head. What happens if
you're on a country lane that regularly has sheep driven[1] down it,
does that suppress the average speed? and how do you know unless you
see the sheep?

Jim.

[1] To remove any confusion, driven as in forced to travel down it,
not stuck in the back of a mini.

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Jim Ley wrote:
>
> [1] To remove any confusion, driven as in forced to travel down it,
> not stuck in the back of a mini.

Which reminds me of a joke (only works verbally, in England):

Q: How do you get two whales in a Mini?

A: Just go straight up the M54/M56/M4.

Fangyouverymuch,I'mhereallweek. Unfortunately for you.

IGMC
--
Ambrose

 

[sothach]

Richard wrote:

> Depends if it's banning those who are more than 10% /over/ the traffic
> stream average, or more than 10% /different to/ the traffic stream
> average. The OP's 'of' the TSA is ambiguous, and TBH I read it the same
> as Jim at first.

Yer, dats wot i did mean - the high standards of scholarship in (on?)
this NG are appreciated almost always by this alliterate barsteward.

The TSA idea was mooted in Germany as to what to do about the so-called
'Drengler' - these are - as often as not BMW - drivers who hare up
behind anyone in the overtaking lane of an Autobahn, and try and
intimidate them out of the way, sometimes as in a recent case, killing
them in the process. One suggestion was to measure speeds on a stretch
and set the max speed M25-style as something like 110% the average
speed - I guess there might have been an upper limit, though maybe not.

 

[sothach]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:
> >
> > [1] To remove any confusion, driven as in forced to travel down it,
> > not stuck in the back of a mini.
>
> Which reminds me of a joke (only works verbally, in England):
>
> Q: How do you get two whales in a Mini?
>
> A: Just go straight up the M54/M56/M4.

Speaking of driving livestock:

Q: What did St. Patrick say as he was driving the snakes out of
Ireland?

A: You alright in the back there, lads?

 

[Richard]

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> Jim Ley wrote:
>
>>
>> [1] To remove any confusion, driven as in forced to travel down it,
>> not stuck in the back of a mini.
>
>
> Which reminds me of a joke (only works verbally, in England):

<on a ship, chugging down the Irish sea>

"Off the starboard bow you can see porpoises, and off the port bow you
can see Wales."

R.

 

[David Martin]

Jim Ley wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2006 03:57:38 -0800, "David Martin"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Where did you get that from? if your lol can maintain 10% over the
> >average speed of the traffic stream then she is surely not going to
> >have problems keeping up with cyclists.
>
> Different interpretation of the original phrase... I like the idea
> though now it's the other way around in my head. What happens if
> you're on a country lane that regularly has sheep driven[1] down it,
> does that suppress the average speed? and how do you know unless you
> see the sheep?

A: Open the sunroof - oops wrong joke..

If you had to take teh mean speed of the entire journey then life would
get excessively complex. Mean speed of traffic immidiately preceeding
and following would make more sense.

...d

 

[Tony Raven]

David Martin wrote:
>
>> Different interpretation of the original phrase... I like the idea
>> though now it's the other way around in my head. What happens if
>> you're on a country lane that regularly has sheep driven[1] down it,
>> does that suppress the average speed? and how do you know unless you
>> see the sheep?
>
> A: Open the sunroof - oops wrong joke..
>

Wales, where men are men and sheep are nervous ;-)


> If you had to take teh mean speed of the entire journey then life would
> get excessively complex. Mean speed of traffic immidiately preceeding
> and following would make more sense.
>

And since they can't even enforce it on the roads where the speed limits
are fixed and clearly displayed what practical difference do they think
it will actually make to have some vague "average plus 10%" on the
pavements?


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[David Martin]

Tony Raven wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
> >
> >> Different interpretation of the original phrase... I like the idea
> >> though now it's the other way around in my head. What happens if
> >> you're on a country lane that regularly has sheep driven[1] down it,
> >> does that suppress the average speed? and how do you know unless you
> >> see the sheep?
> >
> > A: Open the sunroof - oops wrong joke..

> Wales, where men are men and sheep are nervous ;-)

Q: How do you get two giraffes in a mini?

...d

 

[Tony Raven]

David Martin wrote:
>
> Q: How do you get two giraffes in a mini?
>

http://www.wind-up-call.co.uk/ ?


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, David
Martin ('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> David Martin wrote:
>> >
>> >> Different interpretation of the original phrase... I like the idea
>> >> though now it's the other way around in my head. What happens if
>> >> you're on a country lane that regularly has sheep driven[1] down
>> >> it,
>> >> does that suppress the average speed? and how do you know unless
>> >> you see the sheep?
>> >
>> > A: Open the sunroof - oops wrong joke..
>
>> Wales, where men are men and sheep are nervous ;-)
>
> Q: How do you get two giraffes in a mini?

Nonononononono....

Q: How do you get four elephants into a mini?
A: two in the back and two in the front.
Q: How do you get four giraffes into the mini?
A: you can't, it's too full of elephants.
Q: What's the only thing in the world more difficult than getting an
elephant pregnant in a mini?
A: getting a pregnant elephant out of a mini.
Q: How do elephants hide in the cherry trees?
A: paint their toenails pink.
Q: How do elephants get down from the cherry trees?
A: sit on a leaf and wait 'till autumn.
Q: How do you know if elephants are coming down from the trees?
A: autumn comes early.
Q: How do you know if there's an elephant in your refrigerator?
A: footprints in the butter.
Q: How do you know if there's two elephants in your refrigerator?
A: footprints in the margarine, too.
Q: How do you know if there's three elephants in your refrigerator?
A: you can't get the bl**dy door shut.

I can keep it up all night...

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
; ... of course nothing said here will be taken notice of by
; the W3C. The official place to be ignored is on www-style or
; www-html. -- George Lund

 

[Alan J. Wylie]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:58:23 +0000, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> said:

> Q: How do you get four elephants into a mini?
> A: two in the back and two in the front.
> Q: How do you get four giraffes into the mini?
> A: you can't, it's too full of elephants.

Q: How do you get two whales in a mini?
A: National Route 4

(Ob:Cycling - this joke brought to you courtesy of Sustrans)

> Q: How do elephants hide in the cherry trees?
> A: paint their toenails pink.

Q: Why do elephants paint the soles of their feet yellow?
A: So that they can hide upside-down in bowls of custard.

--
Alan J. Wylie http://www.wylie.me.uk/
"Perfection [in design] is achieved not when there is nothing left to add,
but rather when there is nothing left to take away."
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery