Best way to travel 5 miles to a train station?

Porl wrote

Thank you. We try our best ;-)

Tony

 

Paul Weaver wrote:

Congratulations. You are only a few £100's Bn short of a balanced
budget but a good first try ;-)

Tony

 

Gonzalez opined the following...

I was under the impression that the reason kids bikes got away with it
was that they were ridden by kids, who were immune from prosecution.

Jon

 

Nurse, would you give the Older Gentleman his alzheimer's pills and
point him to the bit earlier in the thread where we covered this.

Thank you

Tony

 

What the hell was the point in that post? And what are you agreeing to? Are
you agreeing that he is, in fact, 'Velvet'?

For your and everyone elses benefit who accused me of being a troll. That
car is supremely ugly and at least some of it is down to designing it to
make it less harmful to pedestrians when they're hit by it - not that that's
an excuse.

To be serious for a minute. The motor industry is being asked to make their
cars slightly safer in circumstances which would be better avoided
altogether - i.e. car/human collisions. The hundreds of millions of pounds
and thousands of man-hours would be better spent improving education of
pedestrians and training of drivers; and improving road layouts where
necessary (no I'm not talking about speed bumps). Cars by their nature and
laws of physics are dangerous things and should be avoided by those not in
posession of an exo-skeleton. And how much difference to survivabilty does
it make? How much weight does it add to a car? If it adds wieght, how much
more efficent do the brakes have to be to stop the thing in the same
distance? If the design of A-pillars are changed for instance, how does that
effect the driver's view of the road. What about trucks and buses anyway;
what proportion of pedestrians are killed by these?

Basically, we can carry on making things 'safer' but there comes a point
when people have to take responsibility for their own lives and (dangerous
ground) their kids.

 

Paul Weaver opined the following...

But a real human being would leave the dead alone!

Seriously... the "idiot" has already paid the ultimate price for their
actions, calling them names is just pissing on a grave. Feel proud?

And while a cyclist doing stupid things rarely puts anyone else's life
at risk, a driver doing the same cannot be dismissed so easily, as they
are more likely to take out a few others at the same time.

Jon

 

Paul Weaver opined the following...

They do that? Most of the ones I see either leave a foot on the brake
(Facing downhill) or ride the clutch (Facing uphill). I had begun to
think that handbrakes were an optional extra.

While I do get wound up by cyclists that jump red lights, I've not
actually seen any that have inconvenienced anyone else yet.

Jon

 

The offence of cycling on the pavement is under Section 72 of the
Highways Act 1835 where it is an offence "If any persons shall wilfully
ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set
apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers; or shall wilfully
lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine or cattle or carriage
of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath, or
causeway; or shall tether any horse, ass, mule, swine or cattle, on any
highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon".
Carriages were extended in Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1988
to include "bicycles, tricycles, velocipedes and other similar machines"
Nowhere is there an exemption based on wheel size in this legislation.

Tony

 

Adrian opined the following...

Most cyclists who jump the reds do so in full knowledge that they are
red and do tend to look out for other road users.

Most car drivers on the other hand don't appear to notice cyclists. This
is the generous explanation, because the alternative is that they
deliberately leave no space while overtaking, cut us up at junctions and
generally behave as if we didn't exist.

Jon

 

serf opined the following...

Fruitarians (Nutcases for certain) do eat dead things. They limit
themselves to those things which have died naturally (usually through
windfall) or (IIRC) can be taken without causng harm to the plant. I
presume they are not milk drinkers even though there shouldn't really be
an issue there.

Jon

 

....and for the fact they are in charge of a ton of potentially lethal
machinery.

Tony

 

Yes, absolutely. Don't crash into anything - that's the key.

 

Would this be one of the footbridges that pedestrians in Milton Keynes
are too lazy too use and rather risk crossing NSL dual-carriageways
instead?

 

Easy (ish). Been there, done that. Completely seized a clutch whilst on a
tour of the Dolomites in a transit minibus. Downhill was fine, uphill less
so.

There are two tricks to starting off. One is to be pointing downhill, start
in neutral and then drop into gear when the vehicle is moving. The uphill
method is to turn off the engine. Put it in first and start it on the
starter motor to get it moving. Neither of these are particularly good for
the car but needs must.

The third alternative is to use a virtual downhill. There were 9 of us.
Eight got out to push as we had come to a halt facing up the hill at a
junction. At a suitable gap in the traffic the others pushed the van up to a
speed at which I could engage first gear. I then crawled as slow as I could
while they jumped back in and we could then drive off. The traffic cop was
so gobsmacked he hadn't picked his jaw up off the ground before we were out
of sight.

...d

 

Damn. Lock me up for dragging the sledge to the park last winter...

IIRC it also applies to wheelchairs and prams.

...d

 

Obviously a troll. Hook, line and sinkered a lot of people though.

Respect.

 

But if the worst happens, for whatever reason - is it unreasonable to
expect that measures have been put in place to try and minimise the
damage caused?

If it detracts from the cars looks, then yes, that is a shame, but are
you seriously suggesting such measures should be omitted just because it
makes the car less attractive??? (in your eyes, other's opinions may
differ) Since you appear to distinguish between that part of your post
and then 'but seriously' I can only deduce you were baiting, and you
deserve the responses you got.

Yes the money might be better spent in other ways, but let's face it,
that's not going to happen any time soon.

Banning bull bars would be a good start on the safety. They're
unnecessary in almost all cases and cause greatly increased damage to
the unfortunates that are hit by them.

 

Doesnt work when you've stalled and are facing up a 1 in 5 hill, and still
in gear. You cant budge the stick out of gear without pushing the car
forwards (which is pretty damn hard if you're on your own)

 

Yes, I tried the starter motor trick subsequently. Whilst pointing down
a very shallow gradient. It didn't work, in this instance it engaged
and then failed to budge any further, and wouldn't then disengage again.

Much remedial work ensued, including having a new clutch fitted, and
then going back several times and eventually explaining to the fitters
how the sodding clutch worked and how they should have known they were
attempting to adjust the cable tension at the wrong end of the cable
(where, coincidentally, there WAS no adjusting built in to it)...

Which, I have to say, was annoying yet very humorous. It's not often a
girly gets to put one over on 'the lads' when it comes to things
mechanical and *especially* cars.

 

Coming up the side of West 12 in Shepherds Bush, past pizza express, not
many pedestrians, then you are suddenly on the main (quite wide) pavement
with dozens of pedestrians. See it every day.

Either way no damage. The pedestrians are (well, should be, most seem to staunter
arround getting in my way) walking faster. In fact it's more likely that
the bike will cause the damage are pedestrians are more likely to notice a
large vehicle being driven by a twat then some twat on a bike.

Bet those 50 are the result of a driver who has lost control and has
driven onto the pavement