A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old September 9th 17, 12:02 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle

On 08/09/2017 23:43, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:37:52 +0100
TMS320 wrote:

On 08/09/17 16:58, Bod wrote:

Another thing that many idiots do, is to build wooden houses in the
middle of forests in areas that are prone to wildfires and then
wonder why their houses get burnt down.

Many of these houses are burnt down on a yearly basis in parts of
America and Australia etc.


But they're cheap and easy to rebuild. It might be a good thing if we
got out of the sentimentality of the slow to build, overpriced brick
rabbit hutches we have in this country.


Scandiwegians seems to do OK with wooden houses. I suspect there's a
tendency to think they don't fare well in our lovely maritime climate,
but modern materials and techniques seem to work pretty well, and with
less environmental impact too. We should remember when discussing
forest fires that they are usually a natural and necessary part of the
ecology of the areas that they affect.


Shakespeare's Birthplace (Henley St, Stratford) is timber-framed, and
seems to be still in good condition. I expect that the thatched roof
needs constant attention, but timber can be a durable building material,
as you suggest.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Ads
  #42  
Old September 9th 17, 06:59 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bret Cahill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 875
Default No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle

I have a friend on the Gulf of Mexico side of the peninsula.
They have 500 mies to drive to be safe from Irma.

Quite a job on a bike, as I'm sure you will agree.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

I doubt the intelligence of people who *choose* to live in an
area where hurricanes are a regular occurrence.

What, the WHOLE of the sub-tropical area around the Gulf of Mexico
and the Carribean?

It should be unpopulated wilderness, should it?

I said those who "choose" to.

The whole of the population of the Caribbean, Mexico and the Central
American states, plus Texas, Lousiana, Mississippi, Alabama,
Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas?

What, ALL of them?

Can you not understand the word "choose"?
Are you silly enough to want to move to a well known hurricane area
to live? Perhaps you would prefer to choose a home on a flood plain
for your home?
There are many that choose to live in these volatile areas for tax
avoidance reasons, ie..greed, in which case I find it hard to drum up
any sympathy for them. The same applies to the thousands who *choose*
to go on holiday in the hurricane seasons. Fools, that's what they
are.


You have the weirdest of ideas about the people who live around the
Gulf. And their reasons for living there.

Oh dear, you have a comprehension problem. Let me try to simplify the
word *choose*; *choose* means you have a *choice* where to live.
This discludes people who cannot *choose*, meaning that they do *not*
have a *choice*.
People who *choose* to live in an area where they have seasonal
hurricanes are either stupid or ignorant of the dangers.

Just to be clear. I DO feel sorry for the people who have no *choice*,
ie; the ones who are natives and born there who do not have the means to
move to a safer district.

They can walk!

You too have a comprehension problem. If they can't afford move, walking
won't help them.


Moving isn't expensive if you do it yourself.


Travel light. Virgin America Airlines openly mocks those who think they need to carry a lot of baggage.


Bret Cahill

  #43  
Old September 9th 17, 07:15 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bod[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,516
Default No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle

On 09/09/2017 00:02, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2017 23:43, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:37:52 +0100
TMS320 wrote:

On 08/09/17 16:58, Bod wrote:

Another thing that many idiots do, is to build wooden houses in the
middle of forests in areas that are prone to wildfires and then
wonder why their houses get burnt down.

Many of these houses are burnt down on a yearly basis in parts of
America and Australia etc.

But they're cheap and easy to rebuild. It might be a good thing if we
got out of the sentimentality of the slow to build, overpriced brick
rabbit hutches we have in this country.


Scandiwegians seems to do OK with wooden houses.Â* I suspect there's a
tendency to think they don't fare well in our lovely maritime climate,
but modern materials and techniques seem to work pretty well, and with
less environmental impact too.Â* We should remember when discussing
forest fires that they are usually a natural and necessary part of the
ecology of the areas that they affect.


Shakespeare's Birthplace (Henley St, Stratford) is timber-framed, and
seems to be still in good condition. I expect that the thatched roof
needs constant attention, but timber can be a durable building material,
as you suggest.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Is it in the middle of wildfire prone forest (which was my point)?.....NO.
  #44  
Old September 9th 17, 09:47 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle

On 09/09/2017 07:15, Bod wrote:

On 09/09/2017 00:02, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2017 23:43, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:37:52 +0100
TMS320 wrote:
On 08/09/17 16:58, Bod wrote:

Another thing that many idiots do, is to build wooden houses in the
middle of forests in areas that are prone to wildfires and then
wonder why their houses get burnt down.
Many of these houses are burnt down on a yearly basis in parts of
America and Australia etc.


But they're cheap and easy to rebuild. It might be a good thing if we
got out of the sentimentality of the slow to build, overpriced brick
rabbit hutches we have in this country.


Scandiwegians seems to do OK with wooden houses.Â* I suspect there's a
tendency to think they don't fare well in our lovely maritime climate,
but modern materials and techniques seem to work pretty well, and with
less environmental impact too.Â* We should remember when discussing
forest fires that they are usually a natural and necessary part of the
ecology of the areas that they affect.


Shakespeare's Birthplace (Henley St, Stratford) is timber-framed, and
seems to be still in good condition. I expect that the thatched roof
needs constant attention, but timber can be a durable building
material, as you suggest.


Is it in the middle of wildfire prone forest (which was my point)?.....NO.


What does that have to with the durability of timber-based buildings in
Europe (including the British Isles) and on the majority of the North
American continent? I was responding to the sensible points made by Rob
Morley.

In any case, and bearing in mind that your objection was to wooden
houses ... in areas prone to wildfires", you must surely be aware that
building houses of brick, or even natural stone, in such locations does
not protect the occupants, the contents of the buildings or their structure.

Once again, your policy seems to be that there are large parts of the
Earth's surface where humans should not inhabit. And you haven't even
started on places prone to earthquake yet. Should Los Angeles be
permanently evacuated too?
  #45  
Old September 9th 17, 09:52 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bod[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,516
Default No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle

On 09/09/2017 09:47, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2017 07:15, Bod wrote:

On 09/09/2017 00:02, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2017 23:43, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:37:52 +0100
TMS320 wrote:
On 08/09/17 16:58, Bod wrote:

Another thing that many idiots do, is to build wooden houses in the
middle of forests in areas that are prone to wildfires and then
wonder why their houses get burnt down.
Many of these houses are burnt down on a yearly basis in parts of
America and Australia etc.


But they're cheap and easy to rebuild. It might be a good thing if we
got out of the sentimentality of the slow to build, overpriced brick
rabbit hutches we have in this country.


Scandiwegians seems to do OK with wooden houses.Â* I suspect there's a
tendency to think they don't fare well in our lovely maritime climate,
but modern materials and techniques seem to work pretty well, and with
less environmental impact too.Â* We should remember when discussing
forest fires that they are usually a natural and necessary part of the
ecology of the areas that they affect.


Shakespeare's Birthplace (Henley St, Stratford) is timber-framed, and
seems to be still in good condition. I expect that the thatched roof
needs constant attention, but timber can be a durable building
material, as you suggest.


Is it in the middle of wildfire prone forest (which was my
point)?.....NO.


What does that have to with the durability of timber-based buildings in
Europe (including the British Isles) and on the majority of the North
American continent? I was responding to the sensible points made by Rob
Morley.

In any case, and bearing in mind that your objection was to wooden
houses ... in areas prone to wildfires", you must surely be aware that
building houses of brick, or even natural stone, in such locations does
not protect the occupants, the contents of the buildings or their
structure.

Once again, your policy seems to be that there are large parts of the
Earth's surface where humans should not inhabit. And you haven't even
started on places prone to earthquake yet. Should Los Angeles be
permanently evacuated too?

Er, where have I mentioned "permanent evacuation"?
  #46  
Old September 9th 17, 10:09 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle

On 09/09/2017 09:52, Bod wrote:
On 09/09/2017 09:47, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2017 07:15, Bod wrote:

On 09/09/2017 00:02, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2017 23:43, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:37:52 +0100
TMS320 wrote:
On 08/09/17 16:58, Bod wrote:

Another thing that many idiots do, is to build wooden houses in the
middle of forests in areas that are prone to wildfires and then
wonder why their houses get burnt down.
Many of these houses are burnt down on a yearly basis in parts of
America and Australia etc.

But they're cheap and easy to rebuild. It might be a good thing if we
got out of the sentimentality of the slow to build, overpriced brick
rabbit hutches we have in this country.

Scandiwegians seems to do OK with wooden houses.Â* I suspect there's a
tendency to think they don't fare well in our lovely maritime climate,
but modern materials and techniques seem to work pretty well, and with
less environmental impact too.Â* We should remember when discussing
forest fires that they are usually a natural and necessary part of the
ecology of the areas that they affect.

Shakespeare's Birthplace (Henley St, Stratford) is timber-framed,
and seems to be still in good condition. I expect that the thatched
roof needs constant attention, but timber can be a durable building
material, as you suggest.


Is it in the middle of wildfire prone forest (which was my
point)?.....NO.


What does that have to with the durability of timber-based buildings
in Europe (including the British Isles) and on the majority of the
North American continent? I was responding to the sensible points made
by Rob Morley.

In any case, and bearing in mind that your objection was to wooden
houses ... in areas prone to wildfires", you must surely be aware that
building houses of brick, or even natural stone, in such locations
does not protect the occupants, the contents of the buildings or their
structure.

Once again, your policy seems to be that there are large parts of the
Earth's surface where humans should not inhabit. And you haven't even
started on places prone to earthquake yet. Should Los Angeles be
permanently evacuated too?

Er, where have I mentioned "permanent evacuation"?


That's why I am asking you.

Your view seems to be that no-one should live in the sub-tropics or
anywhere subject to huricane or wildfire. That latter rules out southern
California on its own, but then there's the little matter of the San
Andreas Fault.

Really, the only safe place, with relative geological stability, low
susceptibility to violent storms and plenty of rainwater to keep down
the risk of woldfire, is Lancashire, isn't it?

  #47  
Old September 9th 17, 10:20 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bod[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,516
Default No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle

On 09/09/2017 10:09, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2017 09:52, Bod wrote:
On 09/09/2017 09:47, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2017 07:15, Bod wrote:

On 09/09/2017 00:02, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2017 23:43, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:37:52 +0100
TMS320 wrote:
On 08/09/17 16:58, Bod wrote:

Another thing that many idiots do, is to build wooden houses in the
middle of forests in areas that are prone to wildfires and then
wonder why their houses get burnt down.
Many of these houses are burnt down on a yearly basis in parts of
America and Australia etc.

But they're cheap and easy to rebuild. It might be a good thing
if we
got out of the sentimentality of the slow to build, overpriced brick
rabbit hutches we have in this country.

Scandiwegians seems to do OK with wooden houses.Â* I suspect there's a
tendency to think they don't fare well in our lovely maritime
climate,
but modern materials and techniques seem to work pretty well, and
with
less environmental impact too.Â* We should remember when discussing
forest fires that they are usually a natural and necessary part of
the
ecology of the areas that they affect.

Shakespeare's Birthplace (Henley St, Stratford) is timber-framed,
and seems to be still in good condition. I expect that the thatched
roof needs constant attention, but timber can be a durable building
material, as you suggest.

Is it in the middle of wildfire prone forest (which was my
point)?.....NO.

What does that have to with the durability of timber-based buildings
in Europe (including the British Isles) and on the majority of the
North American continent? I was responding to the sensible points
made by Rob Morley.

In any case, and bearing in mind that your objection was to wooden
houses ... in areas prone to wildfires", you must surely be aware
that building houses of brick, or even natural stone, in such
locations does not protect the occupants, the contents of the
buildings or their structure.

Once again, your policy seems to be that there are large parts of the
Earth's surface where humans should not inhabit. And you haven't even
started on places prone to earthquake yet. Should Los Angeles be
permanently evacuated too?

Â*
Er, where have I mentioned "permanent evacuation"?


That's why I am asking you.

Your view seems to be that no-one should live in the sub-tropics or
anywhere subject to huricane or wildfire. That latter rules out southern
California on its own, but then there's the little matter of the San
Andreas Fault.

Really, the only safe place, with relative geological stability, low
susceptibility to violent storms and plenty of rainwater to keep down
the risk of woldfire, is Lancashire, isn't it?

I've nothing against wooden houses and have never said they are a bad
idea, just not very sensible to build one in a wildfire prone forest.
BTW, I live in a wooden house.
  #48  
Old September 9th 17, 10:33 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bod[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,516
Default No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle

On 09/09/2017 10:20, Bod wrote:
On 09/09/2017 10:09, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2017 09:52, Bod wrote:
On 09/09/2017 09:47, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2017 07:15, Bod wrote:

On 09/09/2017 00:02, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2017 23:43, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:37:52 +0100
TMS320 wrote:
On 08/09/17 16:58, Bod wrote:

Another thing that many idiots do, is to build wooden houses in
the
middle of forests in areas that are prone to wildfires and then
wonder why their houses get burnt down.
Many of these houses are burnt down on a yearly basis in parts of
America and Australia etc.

But they're cheap and easy to rebuild. It might be a good thing
if we
got out of the sentimentality of the slow to build, overpriced
brick
rabbit hutches we have in this country.

Scandiwegians seems to do OK with wooden houses.Â* I suspect
there's a
tendency to think they don't fare well in our lovely maritime
climate,
but modern materials and techniques seem to work pretty well, and
with
less environmental impact too.Â* We should remember when discussing
forest fires that they are usually a natural and necessary part
of the
ecology of the areas that they affect.

Shakespeare's Birthplace (Henley St, Stratford) is timber-framed,
and seems to be still in good condition. I expect that the
thatched roof needs constant attention, but timber can be a
durable building material, as you suggest.

Is it in the middle of wildfire prone forest (which was my
point)?.....NO.

What does that have to with the durability of timber-based buildings
in Europe (including the British Isles) and on the majority of the
North American continent? I was responding to the sensible points
made by Rob Morley.

In any case, and bearing in mind that your objection was to wooden
houses ... in areas prone to wildfires", you must surely be aware
that building houses of brick, or even natural stone, in such
locations does not protect the occupants, the contents of the
buildings or their structure.

Once again, your policy seems to be that there are large parts of
the Earth's surface where humans should not inhabit. And you haven't
even started on places prone to earthquake yet. Should Los Angeles
be permanently evacuated too?
Â*
Er, where have I mentioned "permanent evacuation"?


That's why I am asking you.

Your view seems to be that no-one should live in the sub-tropics or
anywhere subject to huricane or wildfire. That latter rules out
southern California on its own, but then there's the little matter of
the San Andreas Fault.

Really, the only safe place, with relative geological stability, low
susceptibility to violent storms and plenty of rainwater to keep down
the risk of woldfire, is Lancashire, isn't it?

I've nothing against wooden houses and have never said they are a bad
idea, just not very sensible to build one in a wildfire prone forest.
BTW,Â* I live in a wooden house.

"House losses and unnecessary deaths will continue to increase in
Australia if we keep building homes in bushfire-prone areas."

http://theconversation.com/which-hom...e-season-20072
  #49  
Old September 9th 17, 10:53 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Bod[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,516
Default No Fuel Shortages Or Bottlenecks Evacuating By Bicycle

On 09/09/2017 10:33, Bod wrote:
On 09/09/2017 10:20, Bod wrote:
On 09/09/2017 10:09, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2017 09:52, Bod wrote:
On 09/09/2017 09:47, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2017 07:15, Bod wrote:

On 09/09/2017 00:02, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2017 23:43, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:37:52 +0100
TMS320 wrote:
On 08/09/17 16:58, Bod wrote:

Another thing that many idiots do, is to build wooden houses
in the
middle of forests in areas that are prone to wildfires and then
wonder why their houses get burnt down.
Many of these houses are burnt down on a yearly basis in parts of
America and Australia etc.

But they're cheap and easy to rebuild. It might be a good thing
if we
got out of the sentimentality of the slow to build, overpriced
brick
rabbit hutches we have in this country.

Scandiwegians seems to do OK with wooden houses.Â* I suspect
there's a
tendency to think they don't fare well in our lovely maritime
climate,
but modern materials and techniques seem to work pretty well,
and with
less environmental impact too.Â* We should remember when discussing
forest fires that they are usually a natural and necessary part
of the
ecology of the areas that they affect.

Shakespeare's Birthplace (Henley St, Stratford) is timber-framed,
and seems to be still in good condition. I expect that the
thatched roof needs constant attention, but timber can be a
durable building material, as you suggest.

Is it in the middle of wildfire prone forest (which was my
point)?.....NO.

What does that have to with the durability of timber-based
buildings in Europe (including the British Isles) and on the
majority of the North American continent? I was responding to the
sensible points made by Rob Morley.

In any case, and bearing in mind that your objection was to wooden
houses ... in areas prone to wildfires", you must surely be aware
that building houses of brick, or even natural stone, in such
locations does not protect the occupants, the contents of the
buildings or their structure.

Once again, your policy seems to be that there are large parts of
the Earth's surface where humans should not inhabit. And you
haven't even started on places prone to earthquake yet. Should Los
Angeles be permanently evacuated too?
Â*
Er, where have I mentioned "permanent evacuation"?

That's why I am asking you.

Your view seems to be that no-one should live in the sub-tropics or
anywhere subject to huricane or wildfire. That latter rules out
southern California on its own, but then there's the little matter of
the San Andreas Fault.

Really, the only safe place, with relative geological stability, low
susceptibility to violent storms and plenty of rainwater to keep down
the risk of woldfire, is Lancashire, isn't it?

I've nothing against wooden houses and have never said they are a bad
idea, just not very sensible to build one in a wildfire prone forest.
BTW,Â* I live in a wooden house.

"House losses and unnecessary deaths will continue to increase in
Australia if we keep building homes in bushfire-prone areas."

http://theconversation.com/which-hom...e-season-20072

If you want further proof:

https://www.theguardian.com › World › Cities › Canada
16 May 2016 - Most of Fort McMurray was spared destruction, but 2,400
homes fell to the fire, ... The US Forest Service recently released a
detailed report and map of the ... burned for four days straight,
destroying most of the city's wooden buildings
  #50  
Old September 9th 17, 06:08 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peeler[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 600
Default Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson" LOL), the Sociopathic Attention Whore

On Sat, 09 Sep 2017 14:59:06 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

Travel light. Virgin America Airlines openly mocks those who think they
need to carry a lot of baggage.


Until airlines stop ****ing about with 2 hour checkins, checks for
weapons, and having to print your return ticket while you're on holiday,
I will never use an airline.


Your psychiatrist might perhaps be interested to hear that, idiot!

--
More of Scottish ****** Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL)
sociopathic "life":
"I go commando. Underpants are for people suffering from anal seepage."
MID:
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fuel Joy Beeson Techniques 1 October 5th 16 05:22 PM
A bicycle's "fuel" efficiency! [email protected][_2_] Social Issues 4 October 13th 09 11:50 PM
Rocket fuel Steve Racing 10 October 3rd 06 07:37 PM
I Like Rocket Fuel Tyler Hamillton Racing 0 April 19th 05 04:07 AM
OT - water shortages 2004 dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers UK 7 November 3rd 03 12:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.