Why do pedestrians

On 12/07/2016 02:01, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 01:34:42 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/07/2016 15:15, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:27:57 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/07/2016 23:52, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 23:33:38 +0100, TMS320

If you were a good driver you would cope with it and move on.
You admit failing on both counts.

Informing someone that they suck educates them.

It is usually a sign that the informant is an even bigger pillock.

No, it means that they didn't make a mistake and the person they're
gesticulating at did. The person making the mistake will do it again
if they aren't told they did so, possibly with worse consequences
next time.

It seems a remarkable coincidence that such "educators" often tend to be
younger.

Not in my case. I often hoot at younger less experienced drivers who
can't be bothered using the indicator.

You do realise that the horn is not a carrier of telepathic messages?
But I used the word "tend". So presumably your physical age is much
greater than your mental age.

On 12/07/2016 09:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/07/2016 02:01, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 01:34:42 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/07/2016 15:15, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:27:57 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/07/2016 23:52, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 23:33:38 +0100, TMS320

If you were a good driver you would cope with it and move on.
You admit failing on both counts.

Informing someone that they suck educates them.

It is usually a sign that the informant is an even bigger pillock.

No, it means that they didn't make a mistake and the person they're
gesticulating at did. The person making the mistake will do it again
if they aren't told they did so, possibly with worse consequences
next time.

It seems a remarkable coincidence that such "educators" often tend to be
younger.

Not in my case. I often hoot at younger less experienced drivers who
can't be bothered using the indicator.

You do realise that the horn is not a carrier of telepathic messages?
But I used the word "tend". So presumably your physical age is much
greater than your mental age.



Not signalling is hard to convey by horn. I sometimes hoot or flash
people that have not cancelled their indicators when they should have.
This particularly applies to me as I once pulled out to the middle, as a
slow moving car came from my right while indicating left, she wasn't
actually turning, locked the wheels up on the wet road and slid into my
front wing. A fairly minor bump 35 years ago, but still an unnecessary
expense. I have ever since waited for at least three pointers that a
car is actually turning before I move out in front of it.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:12:14 +0100, MrCheerful wrote:

On 12/07/2016 09:48, TMS320 wrote:
On 12/07/2016 02:01, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 01:34:42 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/07/2016 15:15, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:27:57 +0100, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/07/2016 23:52, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 23:33:38 +0100, TMS320

If you were a good driver you would cope with it and move on.
You admit failing on both counts.

Informing someone that they suck educates them.

It is usually a sign that the informant is an even bigger pillock.

No, it means that they didn't make a mistake and the person they're
gesticulating at did. The person making the mistake will do it again
if they aren't told they did so, possibly with worse consequences
next time.

It seems a remarkable coincidence that such "educators" often tend to be
younger.

Not in my case. I often hoot at younger less experienced drivers who
can't be bothered using the indicator.

You do realise that the horn is not a carrier of telepathic messages?
But I used the word "tend". So presumably your physical age is much
greater than your mental age.

Not signalling is hard to convey by horn.

No, it's easy. A horn tells the driver they ****ed up. Their surroundings tell them what they ****ed up on. For example if you've just pulled in front of them, they'll realise either they got the priorities of the junction wrong, or lied about their intended direction.

I sometimes hoot or flash
people that have not cancelled their indicators when they should have.
This particularly applies to me as I once pulled out to the middle, as a
slow moving car came from my right while indicating left, she wasn't
actually turning, locked the wheels up on the wet road and slid into my
front wing. A fairly minor bump 35 years ago, but still an unnecessary
expense. I have ever since waited for at least three pointers that a
car is actually turning before I move out in front of it.

I don't. That was entirely her fault and you should have continued driving as you did before that. Drivers who lie then crash into you deserve points on their license.

--
"Why do the birds fly south to Africa in the autumn?"
"Because it's too far for them to walk."

On 09/07/2016 18:47, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 09:28:09 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

The requirement is that zigzags are comprised of 8 to 18 lines of 2m
long.

Oh really? https://goo.gl/maps/uiF9x3brRZz
I can see only 4 lines there, 3 on the middle bit.

Ok. Though there are 8 the other side. Perhaps the document I found were
guidelines, not obligatory. But it's also difficult to understand how
any road planner ever believed it sensible to put a zebra crossing on
the exit of a roundabout.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 21:29:14 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 09/07/2016 18:47, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 09:28:09 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

The requirement is that zigzags are comprised of 8 to 18 lines of 2m
long.

Oh really? https://goo.gl/maps/uiF9x3brRZz
I can see only 4 lines there, 3 on the middle bit.

Ok. Though there are 8 the other side. Perhaps the document I found were
guidelines, not obligatory. But it's also difficult to understand how
any road planner ever believed it sensible to put a zebra crossing on
the exit of a roundabout.

It's very common here, and moreso in France. But then the head of roads here is a woman! We've actually got a chicane on a blind bend with priority to UPHILL traffic!

--
What does a married man say after sex?
Don't tell my wife.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 21:29:14 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 09/07/2016 18:47, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 09:28:09 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

The requirement is that zigzags are comprised of 8 to 18 lines of 2m
long.

Oh really? https://goo.gl/maps/uiF9x3brRZz
I can see only 4 lines there, 3 on the middle bit.

Ok. Though there are 8 the other side. Perhaps the document I found were
guidelines, not obligatory. But it's also difficult to understand how
any road planner ever believed it sensible to put a zebra crossing on
the exit of a roundabout.

It is indeed very stupid, whenever someone turns right into that road, I see pedestrians worriedly looking towards them to see if they're stopping, then the car is stuck in the middle of the roundabout, holding up all three directions, while everyone crosses. the roundabout, blocking it up until everyone has crossed.

They won't remove it until someone gets run over. There was a similar one on a busier road nearby, which eventually was moved further away and a fence put in to make dumb ass pedestrians walk over to it.

--
A blonde is walking down a creek. While she's looking around she notices Judi walking along the other side of the creek. She yells to the other blonde. "Hey, how do I get to the other side?"
Judi replies, "You are on the other side!"

On 12/07/2016 21:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/07/2016 18:47, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 09:28:09 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

The requirement is that zigzags are comprised of 8 to 18 lines of 2m
long.

Oh really? https://goo.gl/maps/uiF9x3brRZz
I can see only 4 lines there, 3 on the middle bit.

Ok. Though there are 8 the other side. Perhaps the document I found were
guidelines, not obligatory. But it's also difficult to understand how
any road planner ever believed it sensible to put a zebra crossing on
the exit of a roundabout.


There are loads of them, and they cause quite a few minor shunts
actually on the roundabout.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 08:56:42 +0100, MrCheerful wrote:

On 12/07/2016 21:29, TMS320 wrote:
On 09/07/2016 18:47, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 09:28:09 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

The requirement is that zigzags are comprised of 8 to 18 lines of 2m
long.

Oh really? https://goo.gl/maps/uiF9x3brRZz
I can see only 4 lines there, 3 on the middle bit.

Ok. Though there are 8 the other side. Perhaps the document I found were
guidelines, not obligatory. But it's also difficult to understand how
any road planner ever believed it sensible to put a zebra crossing on
the exit of a roundabout.


There are loads of them, and they cause quite a few minor shunts
actually on the roundabout.

I imagine the same happens with those stupid multiple mini roundabouts. You're just negotiating one and trying to work out how the **** you get to the exit you want, when you find yourself in the middle of the next one.

--
"You, you, and you ... panic. The rest of you, come with me." - U.S. Marine Corp Gunnery Sgt.

On 12/07/2016 02:01, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 01:34:42 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 09/07/2016 15:15, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:27:57 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 08/07/2016 23:52, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 23:33:38 +0100, TMS320
wrote:

etc

And you think a probability is ok to walk in front of?

If you want certainty nothing would move on the roads.

I get certainty when crossing. I cross when: No car could reach
me. The cars that could reach me are slowing down (so clearly the
drivers have decided to let me cross).

Slowing down heh? How do you know it's because of you, rather than
for something that you haven't seen? So you do work with
probabilies.

It doesn't matter, if the car is slowing enough to stop before the
white lines, I can cross.

If you were a good driver you would cope with it and move on.
You admit failing on both counts.

Informing someone that they suck educates them.

It is usually a sign that the informant is an even bigger pillock.

No, it means that they didn't make a mistake and the person they're
gesticulating at did. The person making the mistake will do it again
if they aren't told they did so, possibly with worse consequences
next time.

It seems a remarkable coincidence that such "educators" often tend to be
younger.

Not in my case. I often hoot at younger less experienced drivers who
can't be bothered using the indicator.

Did you see the video of a driver crashing into van because the
desire to "inform" was more important than the need to slow down?

When did I say it took priority?

If I tried to get my every whim I would be dead. Whether
on foot, on a bicycle, in a car it is for exactly the same
purpose - a person travelling from one place to another.
Someone in a car merely introduces a physics issue. Some
people seem to think that if they are in a car then others
have some sort of moral obligation to keep out of the way.

They do. Just as a car should keep out of the way of a
lorry. The number of ****wit car drivers I see going round a
small 2 lane roundabout at the same time as a lorry, then are
surprised when it needs both lanes.

That's purely a physics matter.

And so is a nimble lightweight pedestrian avoiding a large fast
heavy car that can't change direction at the drop of a hat.

Try canoeing in the path of a car ferry and see who gets told
off for being an idiot.

That is also a physics matter.

And so are cars.

It's not the moral one - the general attitude of some lazy
pedestrians that they shouldn't even have to twitch a foot for a
real one.

Why should they waste time and fuel when the one on foot can wait 3
seconds?

You appear to be saying that a person going by car has the more
important journey.

No, just they're going faster. Why change the speed form 30 to 0 to 30
when you can change from 3 to 0 to 3?

And queues are getting longer (generally) because people
are buying bigger cars. What right do they have complain
about the road space taken that they need to get for their
extra metal?

Bigger cars don't make longer queues.

It's like boiling frogs - the effect real enough but it has
been developing sufficiently slowly that it is not immediately
noticeable.

The other day I was overtaken on my bicycle by an old Mini. It
did not have to cross the centre line.

It would if it gave you the ludicrous metre gap psycholists
want.

Oh? Were you there?

I know how big a mini is.

The next vehicle had to. Now, consider when there is another
car approaching: two old cars and everybody's happy; two modern
cars, one has to wait, the driver gets upset and the cyclist
gets the blame. Just one example.

Now go on the motorway and watch the old mini slowing the faster
cars down.

That's usually the driver, not the car. Besides, performance has
nothing to do with size inflation.

What is the maximum speed of an old mini? What is its 0-60 time?

Compare and contrast with an average modern family hatchback.

So what? There is nothing to stop a car the size of an old Mini having
modern performance.



I once had a 425cc 2CV that would have had 16hp (making about 25hp/ton)

before the compression dropped. I got as much performance out of it as a

lot of people deploy.

If you don't upgrade it, older cars are crap at accelerating and going
fast. My first car was a Rover Maestro. It wouldn't go over about 90
on the flat.

Watch it accelerate slower at junctions so two faster cars could
have got out at once.

I bet the reality is that more cars are getting driver side corner
damage than ever before. Yep, that would speed things up.

What on earth makes you think driver side corner damage is more
likely?

The extra width combined with extra front wheel overhang requires more
space to make a turn

But they tend to design them better as they're more expensive, so the
wheels turn sharper allowing a smaller turning circle.

Well, I suppose the extra ground clearance makes it easier to bump the
back wheels over the pavement.

Apparently rear
wheel drive also gives you an even tighter turning circle.

Not *even* tighter. Just tighter.

Meanwhile, less space is available due to the size
of the approaching cars. Performance does not increase junction
capacity,

Of course it does. If everybody goes faster, more cars pass the
junction per minute.

whereas size certainly reduces it. I am surprised you can't
recognise this.

Twice as fast and twice as big makes the junction capacity the same.

And if cars stayed the same size but went twice as fast, it would double
junction capacity.

But also, I haven't yet noticed my local supermarket selling pig wings.

On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 00:24:26 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 12/07/2016 02:01, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 01:34:42 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 09/07/2016 15:15, James Wilkinson wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 11:27:57 +0100, TMS320 wrote:

On 08/07/2016 23:52, James Wilkinson wrote:
Watch it accelerate slower at junctions so two faster cars could
have got out at once.

I bet the reality is that more cars are getting driver side corner
damage than ever before. Yep, that would speed things up.

What on earth makes you think driver side corner damage is more
likely?

The extra width combined with extra front wheel overhang requires more
space to make a turn

But they tend to design them better as they're more expensive, so the
wheels turn sharper allowing a smaller turning circle.

Well, I suppose the extra ground clearance makes it easier to bump the
back wheels over the pavement.

All cars should be able to clear kerbs. If they can't they're gonna hit those blasted speedbumps too.

Apparently rear
wheel drive also gives you an even tighter turning circle.

Not *even* tighter. Just tighter.

You mean there just isn't tight? I agree, cars are **** for turning. Rear wheel steer should be mandatory.

Meanwhile, less space is available due to the size
of the approaching cars. Performance does not increase junction
capacity,

Of course it does. If everybody goes faster, more cars pass the
junction per minute.

whereas size certainly reduces it. I am surprised you can't
recognise this.

Twice as fast and twice as big makes the junction capacity the same.

And if cars stayed the same size but went twice as fast, it would double
junction capacity.

Yes but small cars aren't so good at going fast. Unless it's an Ariel Atom.

But also, I haven't yet noticed my local supermarket selling pig wings.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/381...x2-940x627.jpg

--
The average lifespan of electronic devices is between zero and infinity, or 2 days after the warranty runs out, whichever comes first.