Cycling KSI up by 19%

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 13:37:37 -0000, mileburner put finger to keyboard
and typed:


"Mark Goodge" wrote in message
shouse.net...

That's simply not true. I've been commuting to work by car for most of
my working life; doing that helps develop a very keen sense of how
even little things can affect overall journey time.

Like leaving 10 minutes earlier to beat the traffic.

If you start your journey as the traffic is building up, the later you leave
the journey, the longer it will take. Saving seconds by driving faster can
transfer into minutes off the journey, just leave earlier. It means that you
will not sit in so much traffic. It is not really the faster driving which
increases your overall average speed, but the volume of later traffic which
overall reduces it.

Absolutely; if it's possible to vary your start/finish time then
picking it to suit traffic conditions can make a huge difference. But
one of the reasons it makes a difference is because you can spend more
time travelling at, or close to, the legal limit as there's less other
traffic to hold you up.

Mark
--
Ian Jackson still hasn't apologised for telling lies. Is this the sort of person you want on the UK Usenet Committee?
Message-ID: e.net

In article , Phil W Lee
says...

"Just zis Guy, you know?" considered Sat, 07
Nov 2009 22:27:20 +0000 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 22:18:48 -0000, Conor wrote:

You advocate travelling at 50% below the posted limit.

Your inability to distinguish between advocacy and understanding is
noted.

Go easy on him.
He's unarmed in a battle of wits.

Ah yes. Someone dares to say something sensible about driving and
speed, and the car-haters are immediately all over him with petty
insults while very carefully avoiding actually addressing the point
(presumably because they know it's correct). Business as usual on URC
in other words.

However I notice that Mark Goodge is not receiving the usual "troll"-
type insults for posting sense about speed on URC (thereby harming the
anti-motorist effort). Presumably this is because the car-haters are
too scared of him since he has influence over parts of usenet, so
they're just going to quietly sulk instead (because again they know he's
right)? Pathetic, as ever.

Anyone who regularly drives at 50% of the speed limit with a long line
of traffic behind them is a complete ****wit who has no skill, no
consideration for others and completely the wrong attitude. If all the
effort that currently went into dealing with "speeders" went instead
into dealing with people with that kind of attitude, the roads would be
infinitely more pleasant for everyone (except the car-haters of course,
but who cares about them?)

On 6 Nov, 20:13, Judith M Smith wrote:
The most recent government statistics show that from last April to
June cycle deaths and total number of life-threatening injuries has
increased by 19 percent from what it was at the same time last year.

So lets be hearing the excuses.

Have I ever told you that I think cycling is quite dangerous?
You do rather come across with a rather pre-conceived pov - no different to
some of the car is king, restriction of speed is restriction of my rights
idiots or All men are rapists

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 00:01:38 -0000, "Adam Lea"
wrote:

OG wrote:
NM wrote:
On 7 Nov, 13:33, "thomas" wrote:
"Judith M Smith" wrote in
messagenews:2l09f5l96cgjm41afn3raus984fk5d735j@4a x.com... It would be
interesting to hear from the drivers who kill them
what they excuses are.

Any ideas?
?
***Plenty of car drivers are stupid enough to "sneak up" on the
side of a juggernaut -BANG - in a car new wing mirror - on a bike
death!

So why do it? Death wish perhaps!? (or is that the correct natural
presumption for cyclists?)


Ignorance most like; after all, the presumption is that cyclists
'belong' in the left hand gutter so it's not surprising that
inexperienced and unassertive cyclists end up there.

And that is where the cycle lanes tend to be.

other than the ones on pavements.
--
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:07:11 +0000, Tom Crispin put finger to keyboard
and typed:

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:58:14 -0000, Conor wrote:

In article , Tom Crispin
says...

To my mind, there is nothing wrong with driving at half the posted
limit.

Except for the long queue of people you're holding up, you selfish
****.

With the average speed of traffic being 12mph in London, driving at
15 in 30 zones and 10 in 20 zones might actually increase average
speeds.

That's an average speed consisting of the times when you are moving
and the times when you are stationary (eg, when waiting at traffic
lights). If you travel more slowly when you are moving, you'll still
spend the same amount of time stationary but you'll take longer
overall. So your average speed will be lower.


Not necessarily. Say it takes you 20 seconds to travel between traffic
lights and you have to wait 20 seconds for the lights to change before you
can set off again. If you drive slower and take 40 seconds to travel between
the lights then the waiting time at the lights is now zero so you are doing
the same average speed overall but having a smoother journey and likely
saving fuel overall.

On 8 Nov, 09:51, Keitht KeithT wrote:
Conor wrote:

A total of 47 riders were fined over that week for other cycling
offences.

AND THE TELLING BIT:

"Every officer who has taken part in the operation has commented on the
large number of cyclists without lights."

Go on, how many is 'every'?
--

One is enough

On 8 Nov, 10:47, "mileburner" wrote:
"Mark Goodge" wrote in message

house.net...



Indeed. That's where Tom Crispin is going wrong in his calculation.
The average speed in London is, indeed, low. But it's low because of
the amount of time when road conditions mean you can't travel as fast
as the law would permit if the road were empty and unobstructed. So
there's nothing a road user can do to increase that average (at least,
not legally) since you have to stop at red lights, wait in queues,
give way to other traffic at junctions etc. It is, however, possible
to reduce that average by failing to make the best use of times when
you are able to proceed at, or close to, the legal limit.

That is a joke.

If you drive as-fast-as-you-can, it makes very little difference to your
average speed. Yes you might get there an incy-wincy bit quicker there is no
denying that but the overall average is largely determined by slowing down,
stopping, giving way, and waiting. All those short blasts to 40, 50 or even
60 mph have very little impact on the overall journey time.

This is why I can do most urban journeys in traffic quicker on a bike.

Fine, if you can also carry several bags of shopping and not get
drenched in the rain at the same time.

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 15:48:54 -0000, Adam Lea put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Mark Goodge wrote:

That's an average speed consisting of the times when you are moving
and the times when you are stationary (eg, when waiting at traffic
lights). If you travel more slowly when you are moving, you'll still
spend the same amount of time stationary but you'll take longer
overall. So your average speed will be lower.


Not necessarily. Say it takes you 20 seconds to travel between traffic
lights and you have to wait 20 seconds for the lights to change before you
can set off again. If you drive slower and take 40 seconds to travel between
the lights then the waiting time at the lights is now zero so you are doing
the same average speed overall but having a smoother journey and likely
saving fuel overall.

If the lights are timed in such a way that by maintaining a consistent
speed between them you can avoid having to stop at all, then yes, that
works. But if they're not, then taking only 20 seconds to drive
between them could result in you arriving at the next set when they're
still green, while taking 40 seconds means you've missed the green and
arrive on the red.

Where "green waves" are in use, both in the UK and elsewhere, the
timing is usually set so that someone driving at the speed limit will
get through each time, but someone exceeding the limit will keep
having to stop. So, in practice, driving at the limit is the best
option when traffic conditions permit - if there is a green wave
you'll be able to flow with it, and if there isn't then you'll get
stopped randomly anyway so there's nothing to gain by slowing down.

Mark
--
Ian Jackson still hasn't apologised for telling lies. Is this the sort of person you want on the UK Usenet Committee?
Message-ID: e.net

"NM" wrote in message
...
On 8 Nov, 10:47, "mileburner" wrote:
"Mark Goodge" wrote in message

house.net...



Indeed. That's where Tom Crispin is going wrong in his calculation.
The average speed in London is, indeed, low. But it's low because of
the amount of time when road conditions mean you can't travel as fast
as the law would permit if the road were empty and unobstructed. So
there's nothing a road user can do to increase that average (at least,
not legally) since you have to stop at red lights, wait in queues,
give way to other traffic at junctions etc. It is, however, possible
to reduce that average by failing to make the best use of times when
you are able to proceed at, or close to, the legal limit.

That is a joke.

If you drive as-fast-as-you-can, it makes very little difference to your
average speed. Yes you might get there an incy-wincy bit quicker there is
no
denying that but the overall average is largely determined by slowing
down,
stopping, giving way, and waiting. All those short blasts to 40, 50 or
even
60 mph have very little impact on the overall journey time.

This is why I can do most urban journeys in traffic quicker on a bike.

Fine, if you can also carry several bags of shopping and not get
drenched in the rain at the same time.

I use the car for that, but at the same time, I don't really care if I am
sitting bumper to bumper for 20 minutes while it is peeing down.

mileburner wrote:
"Keitht" KeithT wrote in message
...
I'm sure that those who prefer to drive at 80+ on the motorways in tight
formation believe the car in front is holding them up deliberately, not
letting them pass despite being a few feet from the car in front and
flashing their lights.
It must be why they decide to try any other lane in order to go even
faster.

Having been hooted at yesterday for cycling at 29mph(ish) in a 30 mph
limit while negotiating a parked coach and traffic island and then the
driver attempting (very poorly) to carve me up afterwards I can only
assume it is sheer impatience and a lack of understanding that traffic can
be rather 'slow' in urban environments.

Another driver, a couple of minutes earlier, had lifted the throttle a wee
bit to to give me space to get past a similar chicane made of parked cars
and a traffic island. That one I waved 'thanks' to and I was only doing
about 20 mph at the time.

S'funny innit? You can be going hell-for-leather on a bike, close to the
speed limit and you will get some arse hounding you in a car behind for
presumably "holding them up". But you can drive the same route at the same
speed without any hassle.

And if you slow down, for junctions, roundabouts, pedestrians, crossings,
traffic lights etc. on a bike you will get hounded again by some arse in a
car, but if you do the same in a car, no one bothers.

The fact is, car drivers overall treat cyclists like ****.




I think I've worked out why the driver was in a hurry.
He was driving a big shiny SUV and was hoping to go past people quickly
so they thought it was of the BMW or Porche variety and not spot it was
a Hyundai. ;-)

--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle