Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tesco car park

On 09/08/2020 23:28, Pamela wrote:
On 13:41 9 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 6:26:45 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 14:11 7 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 1:26:32 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

Maybe it follows that these lesser cyclists shouldn't be allowed to
cycle on the road with a rucksack.

How would you police a ban on rucksacks?

If hypothetically rucksacks were banned then it would be easier to spot
a cyclist with a rucksack than a driver using a mobile phone.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/fashio...backpacks?imag
e=5f20059067c4d52938b5914c

Very nice for commuting to the office but we were talking about supermarket
groceries.

Just as an example, for two of us, we generally bring home four shopping
bags full, sometimes five. They are not only only bulky but heavy as
well. There is no way that anyone could safely transport that amount and
weight of goods on a bicycle.

Maybe in of those circus-clown bike-trailers you sometimes (but rarely) see.

On 09/08/2020 23:34, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2020 21:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/08/2020 19:08, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2020 16:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/08/2020 16:02, JNugent wrote:

The argument is about you failing to give your working. I have told
you about inverted pendulums. Look that up.

Do you know what an axiom is? Look it up if you don't.

You haven't stated an axiom.

I didn't say I had.

Here is an axiom. You are a fool.

On 09/08/2020 23:52, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/08/2020 23:34, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2020 21:07, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/08/2020 19:08, JNugent wrote:
On 09/08/2020 16:27, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/08/2020 16:02, JNugent wrote:

The argument is about you failing to give your working. I have told
you about inverted pendulums. Look that up.

Do you know what an axiom is? Look it up if you don't.

You haven't stated an axiom.

I didn't say I had.

Here is an axiom. You are a fool.

You are getting more desperate with each post.

You just aren't up to this. Live with it.

On Sunday, August 9, 2020 at 11:28:56 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 13:41 9 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 6:26:45 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 14:11 7 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 1:26:32 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

Maybe it follows that these lesser cyclists shouldn't be allowed to
cycle on the road with a rucksack.

How would you police a ban on rucksacks?

If hypothetically rucksacks were banned then it would be easier to spot
a cyclist with a rucksack than a driver using a mobile phone.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/fashio...backpacks?imag
e=5f20059067c4d52938b5914c

Very nice for commuting to the office but we were talking about supermarket
groceries.

I thought you wanted to make *all* rucksacks illegal - even for schoolkids and office workers?

On 10:58 10 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Sunday, August 9, 2020 at 11:28:56 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 13:41 9 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 6:26:45 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 14:11 7 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 1:26:32 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

Maybe it follows that these lesser cyclists shouldn't be allowed
to cycle on the road with a rucksack.

How would you police a ban on rucksacks?

If hypothetically rucksacks were banned then it would be easier to
spot a cyclist with a rucksack than a driver using a mobile phone.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/fashio...ng-backpacks?i
mag e=5f20059067c4d52938b5914c

Very nice for commuting to the office but we were talking about
supermarket groceries.

I thought you wanted to make *all* rucksacks illegal - even for
schoolkids and office workers?

Please cite where that was proposed.

On 04/08/2020 13:02, Pamela wrote:
On 08:14 4 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:
On 03/08/2020 23:51, JNugent wrote:

If the effective centre of gravity of a bicycle and its rider is
raised, eg, by placing a heavy load high up, perhaps by the
wearing of a loaded backpack, what effect does that have on its
stability? Does it:

(a) decrease stability, or

(b) increase stability, or

(c) have no effect on stability?

You're doing is the equivalent of saying that the sun rises over
one horizon and sets over another. When asked why? you then ask
"are you claiming it doesn't do this?" when the answer you should
be giving has something to do with orbit and rotation.

You claim a). Now show your working.

You must have enough of a technical background to know full well
Nugent is right but you're seeking to drag this out. Yup, you're
trolling.

I have enough technical knowledge to know it's not that simple. Why are
you so ready to suck up to Nugent when he never backs up his claims?

On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 12:42:04 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 10:58 10 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Sunday, August 9, 2020 at 11:28:56 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 13:41 9 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 6:26:45 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 14:11 7 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 1:26:32 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

Maybe it follows that these lesser cyclists shouldn't be allowed
to cycle on the road with a rucksack.

How would you police a ban on rucksacks?

If hypothetically rucksacks were banned then it would be easier to
spot a cyclist with a rucksack than a driver using a mobile phone.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/fashio...ng-backpacks?i
mag e=5f20059067c4d52938b5914c

Very nice for commuting to the office but we were talking about
supermarket groceries.

I thought you wanted to make *all* rucksacks illegal - even for
schoolkids and office workers?

Please cite where that was proposed.

QUOTE:

Maybe it follows that these lesser cyclists shouldn't be allowed to cycle on
the road with a rucksack.

On 10/08/2020 14:24, Simon Mason wrote:
On Monday, August 10, 2020 at 12:42:04 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 10:58 10 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:
On Sunday, August 9, 2020 at 11:28:56 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 13:41 9 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:
On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 6:26:45 PM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
On 14:11 7 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:
On Friday, August 7, 2020 at 1:26:32 PM UTC+1, Pamela
wrote:

Maybe it follows that these lesser cyclists shouldn't
be allowed to cycle on the road with a rucksack.

How would you police a ban on rucksacks?

If hypothetically rucksacks were banned then it would be
easier to spot a cyclist with a rucksack than a driver
using a mobile phone.

https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/fashio...c4d52938b5914c


Very nice for commuting to the office but we were talking about
supermarket groceries.

I thought you wanted to make *all* rucksacks illegal - even for
schoolkids and office workers?

Please cite where that was proposed.

QUOTE:

Maybe it follows that these lesser cyclists shouldn't be allowed to
cycle on the road with a rucksack.

If the idea was to fly, someone would need to show there is a problem
using science and statistics. But then, as has been made plain over the
last few months, the government (like some posters) only knows how to
kneejerk.

On 10/08/2020 14:00, TMS320 wrote:

On 04/08/2020 13:02, Pamela wrote:
On 08:14Â* 4 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:
On 03/08/2020 23:51, JNugent wrote:

If the effective centre of gravity of a bicycle and its rider is
raised, eg, by placing a heavy load high up, perhaps by the
wearing of a loaded backpack, what effect does that have on its
stability? Does it:

(a) decrease stability, or

(b) increase stability, or

(c) have no effect on stability?

You're doing is the equivalent of saying that the sun rises over
one horizon and sets over another. When asked why? you then ask
"are you claiming it doesn't do this?" when the answer you should
be giving has something to do with orbit and rotation.

You claim a). Now show your working.

You must have enough of a technical background to know full well
Nugent is right but you're seeking to drag this out. Yup, you're
trolling.

I have enough technical knowledge to know it's not that simple. Why are
you so ready to suck up to Nugent when he never backs up his claims?

Don't *you* support the thesis that a higher centre of gravity reduces
stability (ceteris paribus, of course)?

If not, why not?

On 10/08/2020 15:18, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2020 14:00, TMS320 wrote:

I have enough technical knowledge to know it's not that simple. Why
are you so ready to suck up to Nugent when he never backs up his claims?

Don't *you* support the thesis that a higher centre of gravity reduces
stability (ceteris paribus, of course)?

Sigh.

For a car or table that is stable when upright, yes, a lower CogG for a
given base allows it to tip to a greater angle before it falls over.
This is easy to calculate and demonstrate practically.

For a compound inverted pendulum (ie, a person on foot, running, on a
bike etc), it might, it might not. For the purposes of discussion we can
make it simpler and consider a simple inverted pendulum having a point mass.

If not, why not?

You genuinely don't get it. You make a claim, it's your call.

OK, let's try to make it simpler for you. Which is likely to be better -
the rider down in a triathlon tuck or the rider on a sit up and beg?

You can even do your own experiment. Get a pen and balance it vertically
on your palm. Impossible, isn't it? Now get a broom and do the same. Try
it head up and head down. Which is easier?