SA - Road safety program launched with a focus on cyclists

Aeek wrote:

The main path from Belconnen to the Lake has a shared section from
Bindubi to the stock crossing.
Never had any issues with the occasional horse rider I've met there.
Droppings are also common around Curtin.

What? Are you suggesting that there's a lot of horse**** in Canberra? Who'd
a thought. :-)

Theo

Patrick Turner wrote:
EuanB wrote:

Patrick Turner Wrote:
In Sydney at Turramurra, a posh suburb where I grew up there were
ZERO bike paths

Percieved risk rarely equals actual risk.

You have not answered all the questions I have raised so clearly.

That could be because all your uqestions were directed at me. Why would Euan
answer them? Why would I?

Theo

Patrick Turner wrote:

In today's SMH, an article appeared about powered bicycles.
These have always been around, but were usually hoorid noisy dirty
fumy two stoke gizmos that worked on the tyre to add 200 watts to your
own power.

But todays gizmo had an electric chargable device, very quiet, which
is lifted off/onto the bike
and so fat guys get up hills but don't stop pedling entirely.

Maybe that's a winner. Good for when I am 90.

Pat, are you aware that rechargable electric vehicles, whilst being quiet
and non-smelly in use, actually contribute more to greenhouse gases than
petrol engined vehicles of similar power? It's because they're (mostly)
powered by coal.

I'd cite you some sites but you'd only refuse to read them and yell
buuull-shiiiit.

Theo

Theo Bekkers wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:

In today's SMH, an article appeared about powered bicycles.
These have always been around, but were usually hoorid noisy dirty
fumy two stoke gizmos that worked on the tyre to add 200 watts to your
own power.

But todays gizmo had an electric chargable device, very quiet, which
is lifted off/onto the bike
and so fat guys get up hills but don't stop pedling entirely.

Maybe that's a winner. Good for when I am 90.

Pat, are you aware that rechargable electric vehicles, whilst being quiet
and non-smelly in use, actually contribute more to greenhouse gases than
petrol engined vehicles of similar power? It's because they're (mostly)
powered by coal.

I'd cite you some sites but you'd only refuse to read them and yell
buuull-shiiiit.

Theo



There are some positives to coal.

The pollution from power stations is kept in one place where it there is
some control over the emissions, unlike car and motor bike engines .

Coal has always been unleaded.

We don't send our best men overseas to fight wars for coal.

Coal spilled into water doesn't form a slick that kills all the
wildlife in the area.

Dorfus

Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote:

Pat, are you aware that rechargable electric vehicles, whilst being
quiet and non-smelly in use, actually contribute more to greenhouse
gases than petrol engined vehicles of similar power? It's because
they're (mostly) powered by coal.

There are some positives to coal.

The pollution from power stations is kept in one place where it there
is some control over the emissions, unlike car and motor bike engines

Coal has always been unleaded.

We don't send our best men overseas to fight wars for coal.

Coal spilled into water doesn't form a slick that kills all the
wildlife in the area.

Hehe.
And 70% of all greenhouse gases produced by Australians is from coal. Less
than 8% is from internal combustion engined vehicles. A 4 cylinder Toyota
Camry produces 4600 kg of greenhouse gases to travel 20,000 kms, an electric
only car charged from your coal-fired home electric supply will produce 4900
kg. Your electric hot water system produces....., well, you really don't
want to know.

Theo

Theo Bekkers wrote:
Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote:

Pat, are you aware that rechargable electric vehicles, whilst being
quiet and non-smelly in use, actually contribute more to greenhouse
gases than petrol engined vehicles of similar power? It's because
they're (mostly) powered by coal.

There are some positives to coal.

The pollution from power stations is kept in one place where it there
is some control over the emissions, unlike car and motor bike engines

Coal has always been unleaded.

We don't send our best men overseas to fight wars for coal.

Coal spilled into water doesn't form a slick that kills all the
wildlife in the area.

Hehe.
And 70% of all greenhouse gases produced by Australians is from coal. Less
than 8% is from internal combustion engined vehicles. A 4 cylinder Toyota
Camry produces 4600 kg of greenhouse gases to travel 20,000 kms, an electric
only car charged from your coal-fired home electric supply will produce 4900
kg. Your electric hot water system produces....., well, you really don't
want to know.

Theo



You're mixing your comparisons. I can do that too.

What percentage of petrol powers heavy industry? If you want to blow out
a power stations budget try running it on oil for a couple of hours. A
power station operator would rather have a boiler off than run it on oil.

It's all very well talking about the fuel efficiency of a Toyota Camry
but if I stand on the side of the road all I see is lot's of big trucks
and four wheel drives going by. (I live in the country.)

The pollution caused by coal powered vehicles on our roads in Australia
is almost zero. (Probably zero but I imagine there's a keen nutter out
there somewhere driving around in a steam engine.)

Dorfus

Dorfus Dippintush wrote:

What percentage of petrol powers heavy industry? If you want to blow
out a power stations budget try running it on oil for a couple of
hours. A power station operator would rather have a boiler off than
run it on oil.

I was talking about green house emissions, you're talking about cost.

It's all very well talking about the fuel efficiency of a Toyota Camry
but if I stand on the side of the road all I see is lot's of big
trucks and four wheel drives going by. (I live in the country.)

As do I. The entire combustion engine fleet produces less than 8% of the
country's pollution, and coal fired power stations more than 70%. It's just
that you see the trucks and 4WDs going by, and not the power stations.

The pollution caused by coal powered vehicles on our roads in
Australia is almost zero. (Probably zero but I imagine there's a keen
nutter out there somewhere driving around in a steam engine.)

There's a whole bunch of elderly people zooming about in those gopher
things, including my mother-in-law, those things _are_ coal-powered. My
house is also coal-powered, but I don't have an electric HWS. Heck, I even
have a coal-powered TV.

Theo

Theo Bekkers wrote:
Dorfus Dippintush wrote:

What percentage of petrol powers heavy industry? If you want to blow
out a power stations budget try running it on oil for a couple of
hours. A power station operator would rather have a boiler off than
run it on oil.

I was talking about green house emissions, you're talking about cost.

It's all very well talking about the fuel efficiency of a Toyota Camry
but if I stand on the side of the road all I see is lot's of big
trucks and four wheel drives going by. (I live in the country.)

As do I. The entire combustion engine fleet produces less than 8% of the
country's pollution, and coal fired power stations more than 70%. It's just
that you see the trucks and 4WDs going by, and not the power stations.

The pollution caused by coal powered vehicles on our roads in
Australia is almost zero. (Probably zero but I imagine there's a keen
nutter out there somewhere driving around in a steam engine.)

There's a whole bunch of elderly people zooming about in those gopher
things, including my mother-in-law, those things _are_ coal-powered. My
house is also coal-powered, but I don't have an electric HWS. Heck, I even
have a coal-powered TV.

Theo



As a concerned citizen you should immediately disconnect your house from
the power grid and use only carbon free fuels.

Dorfus

Dorfus Dippintush wrote:
Theo Bekkers wrote:

There's a whole bunch of elderly people zooming about in those gopher
things, including my mother-in-law, those things _are_ coal-powered.
My house is also coal-powered, but I don't have an electric HWS.
Heck, I even have a coal-powered TV.

As a concerned citizen you should immediately disconnect your house
from the power grid and use only carbon free fuels.

According to the carbon trading scheme I need just 55 trees to neutralise my
carbon impact on the planet. I had about 800 when I moved in but planted
another 250 just to make sure. You wanna rent some?

Theo

Patrick Turner Wrote:
EuanB wrote:

Patrick Turner Wrote:
In Sydney at Turramurra, a posh suburb where I grew up there were
ZERO
bike paths

Percieved risk rarely equates with actual risk.

Copenhagen's transport department has recently released a report
showing that cycle paths increased percieved safety for cyclists but
increase road risk.

You can read all about it here *http://tinyurl.com/3dlkbm*

These are facts Pat. Not theories, not opinions, facts.

--
EuanB


Buull shiiit

Really? There's heaps of evidence that the facts I've cited are as
stated. Where's your evidence to the contray?

You are a fool.


--
EuanB