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

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old Yesterday, 04:31 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 423
Default Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tescocar park

On 10/08/2020 15:55, TMS320 wrote:
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?


That's fine and answer a question about your approach to this.

There are only two possibilities.

1. You (correctly) do recognise that a raised centre of gravity reduces
stability but for reasons of your own, daren't admit it.

2. You (quite incorrectly) don't accept that a raised centre of gravity
reduces stability.

There are no other relevant possibilities.


Ads
  #132  
Old Yesterday, 04:34 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 423
Default Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tescocar park

On 10/08/2020 16:31, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2020 15:55, TMS320 wrote:
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?


That's fine and answer a question about your approach to this.


Typo.

That should have read: "That's fine and answers a question about your
approach to this."

Apologies.

There are only two possibilities.

1. You (correctly) do recognise that a raised centre of gravity reduces
stability but for reasons of your own, daren't admit it.

2. You (quite incorrectly) don't accept that a raised centre of gravity
reduces stability.

There are no other relevant possibilities.

  #133  
Old Yesterday, 05:14 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,608
Default Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tescocar park

On 10/08/2020 16:31, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2020 15:55, TMS320 wrote:
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?


That's fine and answer a question about your approach to this.

There are only two possibilities.

1. You (correctly) do recognise that a raised centre of gravity reduces
stability but for reasons of your own, daren't admit it.

2. You (quite incorrectly) don't accept that a raised centre of gravity
reduces stability.

There are no other relevant possibilities.


Then you are deaf, blind and stupid.
  #134  
Old Yesterday, 06:35 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
JNugent[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 423
Default Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tescocar park

On 10/08/2020 17:14, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/08/2020 16:31, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2020 15:55, TMS320 wrote:
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?


That's fine and answer a question about your approach to this.

There are only two possibilities.

1. You (correctly) do recognise that a raised centre of gravity
reduces stability but for reasons of your own, daren't admit it.

2. You (quite incorrectly) don't accept that a raised centre of
gravity reduces stability.

There are no other relevant possibilities.


Then you are deaf, blind and stupid.


*You're* the one who didn't know that raising centre of gravity reduces
stability, stupidly disputed it and is now floundering around,
desperately, searching for something... anything... to deflect attention
from those facts.
  #135  
Old Yesterday, 07:22 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,608
Default Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tescocar park

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

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.


Am I trolling? Do you think my reply to Nugent about pendulums (for the
second time, both ignored), was not reasonable enough?

  #136  
Old Yesterday, 07:33 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Pamela
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 512
Default Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tesco car park

On 14:24 10 Aug 2020, Simon Mason said:

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...cling-backpack
s?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.


What's the first word?

  #137  
Old Yesterday, 07:37 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Pamela
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 512
Default Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tesco car park

On 17:14 10 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:

On 10/08/2020 16:31, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2020 15:55, TMS320 wrote:
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?


That's fine and answer a question about your approach to this.

There are only two possibilities.

1. You (correctly) do recognise that a raised centre of gravity reduces
stability but for reasons of your own, daren't admit it.

2. You (quite incorrectly) don't accept that a raised centre of gravity
reduces stability.

There are no other relevant possibilities.


Then you are deaf, blind and stupid.


A couple of interesting research articles on cyclist stability which make
use of the inverted pendulum model are at pains to point out that constant
correction is required by the cyclist. It is this dynamic rather than the
static situation which gives rise to many of the problems from carrying a
shifting load on your back.

The raised CoG amplifies the problem. What Nugent has been saying seems
correct. I wonder why you persist in refusing it. Are you so concerned
about a loss of face that you won't admit the truth?
  #138  
Old Yesterday, 07:38 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Pamela
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 512
Default Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tesco car park

On 19:22 10 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:

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

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.


Am I trolling? Do you think my reply to Nugent about pendulums (for the
second time, both ignored), was not reasonable enough?


You are repeatedly deflecting from the issue Nugent is putting to you.
  #139  
Old Yesterday, 09:48 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,608
Default Exeter road rage driver banned for mowing down cyclist in Tescocar park

On 10/08/2020 19:37, Pamela wrote:
On 17:14 10 Aug 2020, TMS320 said:

On 10/08/2020 16:31, JNugent wrote:
On 10/08/2020 15:55, TMS320 wrote:
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?

That's fine and answer a question about your approach to this.

There are only two possibilities.

1. You (correctly) do recognise that a raised centre of gravity
reduces stability but for reasons of your own, daren't admit it.

2. You (quite incorrectly) don't accept that a raised centre of
gravity reduces stability.

There are no other relevant possibilities.


Then you are deaf, blind and stupid.


A couple of interesting research articles on cyclist stability which
make use of the inverted pendulum model are at pains to point out
that constant correction is required by the cyclist. It is this
dynamic rather than the static situation which gives rise to many of
the problems from carrying a shifting load on your back. The raised
CoG amplifies the problem.


You take the view that shifting is inevitable. You might have have that
problem but please don't reflect your inadequacy on others. Get a better
bag.

What Nugent has been saying seems correct.


It "seems". Is that all?

I wonder why you persist in refusing it. Are you so concerned about a
loss of face that you won't admit the truth?


Physics doesn't work by opinion poll.
 




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
Audi driver ‘deliberately aims car at cyclist at speed in road rage Bod[_5_] UK 2 August 6th 18 07:56 PM
Video of cyclist attacking a driver with acid (not road rage) MrCheerful UK 3 September 6th 17 01:00 AM
Driver threatens to break cyclist’s neck in bout of road rage near Richmond Park Bod[_5_] UK 3 August 25th 15 10:28 AM
Police hunt road rage cyclist after attack on bus driver Mrcheerful UK 1 July 17th 14 06:44 PM
Road rage bus driver faces jail for swerving in to cyclist Simon Mason[_4_] UK 59 January 28th 12 05:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.