Are bikes the solution?

Andy Hewitt [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Actually, it's not impossible to eliminate emissions, it's just not cost
effective.

<pedant>
How do you eliminate emissions (Things that are emitted), without
turning off the engine?
</pedant>

Quoted message said:

FWIW, catalysts are nothing more than a convenient way to reduce
emissions at a very localised level. However, we now have chemicals in
use that we *know* are poisonous/carcenogenic - i.e. benzine, instead of
the ones that simply *might* have been poisonous, but nobody had any
hard facts to prove - i.e. lead.

Lead has a dirty habit of accumulating in the body. Exposure to benzene
presents a short-term risk. It either has an effect or it doesn't.
Exposure to lead leads <he he> to a compound risk that increases with
exposure. Lead can also be found in other places (Water pipes of most of
Edinburgh) which were harder to deal with.

Quoted message said:

It is in fact possible to produce a car that has emissions that are not
toxic without a cat fitted at all.

Hydrogen fuel cells? Switching from fossil fuels does seem to be a good
way to do it. The byproducts of alcohol combustion are far less nasty
than those of petrochemicals.

Quoted message said:

I have a bit of knowledge of Honda cars, and IMHO they are the pinnacle
of engine design, and have some of the cleanest engines around.

In 1972 they designed, and used in mass production an engine (CVCC) that
produced emissions to exceed the Californian regulations of the time. It
didn't have a cat fitted.

In 1991 they produced a derivative of the VTEC engine (VTEC-E) that
produced gasses that were cleaner than *any* other car with a cat
fitted. Indeed, the EU regulations that followed meant they had to fit a
cat, which actually *increased* the poisonous emissions from this
engine.

Anything to declare sir?

I did once hear a dirty rumour that the patents on a number of
alternative power systems for cars were held by the likes of BP (Now
incidentally... Beyond Petroleum). I'd love to dismiss it as a
conspiracy theory, but it just seems too likely.

Jon

In article <[email hidden]>,=20
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I can't help but think that idiots would assume if lanes are marked peopl=

e

Quoted message said:

will believe that they're wide enough to pass
=20
Perhaps it would be best to remove the markings altogether in this instan=

ce?

Quoted message said:

It's been tried in some parts, and I believe it has been successful.
=20
=20

You fail to understand the real reason for "cycle farcilities".
Tey are there ...
1) To show how " green" the council is , and to to collect EU money for=20
every yard of farcility provided ( to spend on roads)
2)To have a sink to put labour against in the budget. "lay cycle=20
farcility =A3XXXXX" ... " relay cycle farcility 'cos we got it wrong
=A3XXXXX" ..... Claim to EU for cycle farcility twice =A3XXXXX times 2=
"
"removal of cycle farcility in the name of " traffic speeding "=A3XXXXX" =
=20
, re implementation of "cycle farcility =A3XXXXX" =20

Total cost.. Whatever we can justify

Peter said:

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will pollution be effected?

Well, quite a few cyclists are vegetarians, so I suppose they'll fart.

Some of the more exhuberent may cycle fast, and start sweating, leading to
a potential build up of BO.

I'm sure that we'll all be able to do our bit to ensure that pollution
levels stay the same! :-p

Regards,

Pete.

Dave J said:

In MsgID<[email hidden]> within uk.rec.driving,

scott said:

Now if you drive down there you either have to have one wheel in the
cycle lane or be partially in the opposite lane of traffic. How
exactly are you meant to drive or cycle any differently because of
the painted cycle lane lines?

It can be argued that if the road space is genuinely limited (either
by geography or council stingyness) that is better to have cycle lanes
wide enough to cycle safely regardless of the fact that a car won't
quite fit on its designated section.

The result of it is that car drivers are forcibly made aware of the
fact that there is insufficient room to drive past a cycle without
slowing down, and to not try to overtake whilst something is passing
in the opposite direction.

The result of the cycle lane being slightly too narrow for the
pushbike would be for the drivers to assume that there was adequate
room and to fail to slow down at all.

Just a thought..

Hmm, but from my experience on that road both as a cyclist and a driver, the
behaviour of drivers hasn't changed. You have to drive along with one wheel
in the cycle lane (otherwise you hit oncoming cars), and then when you get
to a bike you wait for a gap coming the other way and pull around it. This
is exactly the same as what happened before.

Andy Hewitt said:

Bought her a shiny new bike on Saturday, crashed it on Sunday. We did
a lovely few miles on Saturday too. Went for a slightly shorter run on
Sunday, [1] and found this (from where we were standing) steep but
short looking slope. Turned out not to be so short a slope though,
and I had to watch as Em went hurtlign down the slope, ignoring my
'USE THE BRAKES' being yelled at her. I got down the slope to find
her in a bit of a dusty heap. She'd forgotten that I'd told her to
use the back brake first, and grabbed a handful of front brake.

Weeeelllll.... when we got Pete's new bike I checked the brakes and they
were fine, but first time he tried to stop on a slope they did nowt. Turns
out his hands are not quite strong enough. The shop spent about 2 hours
fettling them (new cables, Kool-Stop pads, all sorts) before he could stop
confidently on a decent slope.

So maybe the brakes are not working as progressively as they should.

Or maybe Em needs to get used to V-brakes, on accounta they work rather
better than the old-fashioned sort :-)

Michael has been trained to use the front brake for stopping and the rear
brake for "drag" on slow hills (to avoid cooking the front), and both for
emergency stops.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

If cycling were taken up in signifcant numbers, the level of pollution would
most likely be reduced due to significantly fewer motor vehicles on the
roads.

CO2 would increase, as would Methane and sulphur dioxide as you munched
your way through extra veggies for enmergy.
--
The poster formerly known as Skodapilot.
http://www.bouncing-czechs.com

scott said:

I wonder if on average people eat more if they cycle rather than
drive?

A brief glimpse at the waistlines in your High Street on a Saturday will
tell you that no, cyclists do not eat more than average, they just burn it
off rather than converting it to fat :-)

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

AndyMorris said:

Quoted message said:

That may be now, but I'm not entirely convinced that life would be
much better if hordes of cyclists were to take to the road, given
my experience doing the London to Brighton ride.

Quoted message said:

An exceptional case, imagine that many people trying to get from
London to Brighton by car in one day.

You don't need to imagine: look at the coast roads on an average bank
holiday.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Jon Senior said:

Andy said:

It's even worse than that for cars. Catalystic converters are one of
the biggest loads of [censored] there are for reducing emissions.

Quoted message said:

I can't help feeling that you've missed the point of Cat converters
here.

Andy knows the point of Cats. They are there to level the playng field for
the big car makers who could not meet the emissions standards without
bolting lumps of precious metals to their cars. Honda made an engine whose
measured emissions were essentially the same before and after fitting of a
cat. What they should have done was legislate an emissions standard, not
legislate one of the ways of achieving that standard.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To cap it all, there is more pollution caused in simply finding the
precious metals used in the cat than it will ever save in its entire
life on the car, and that's even before we go into the pollution
caused during manufacture.

Quoted message said:

This I agree with entirely. Although precious metal (singular) since
when I learnt about them, the catalyst was platinum. ISTR that they
can be recycled, but presume that the cost is higher than simply
using raw materials.

IOW, we are merely exporting our pollution.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Just zis Guy said:

scott said:

I wonder if on average people eat more if they cycle rather than
drive?

A brief glimpse at the waistlines in your High Street on a Saturday
will tell you that no, cyclists do not eat more than average, they
just burn it off rather than converting it to fat :-)

But isn't it dangerous for car drivers to gaze around them when careering
along the High Street at 40mph on a Saturday morning? They'll probably clout
a cyclist and say "I didn't see you".

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When the roads (I assume that you mean the traffic on the roads...)
are at a standstill, it is hard to see how they present a danger to a
right-thinking cyclist.

CONGESTION IS GOOD.

Cycling between lanes of standstill or crawling traffic is actually quite
hazardous for a cyclist due to obscured turning vehicles, hidden peds, and the
risk of doors being opened.

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

CONGESTION IS GOOD.

Unless you're in an ambulance in need of urgent care... (for example)

Cyclists can get off and lift their bikes onto the pavement to get out of its
way. Can motorists do the same with their cars?

They don't seem to have any problem down my way, judging from the
number of cars on the pavement. They've obviously picked them up and
carried them there as they constantly tell us they never drive on the
pavement.

--
Dave...

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Brimstone" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

It seems to me that it would be better if we had a rule of through
traffic having priority over cross traffic. That way turning traffic
(cyclists and
motor vehicles) would have to give way to through traffic (i.e.
cyclists on
a cycle path or pedestrians on the footpath).

I think it would be alot safer, and wouldn't cause much
inconvienience to anyone.

The rule already exists, it's just that most car drivers are too arrogant

to

Quoted message said:

observe it.

Does it?

I don't believe you are obliged to give way to pedestrians unless they are
in the road [1] - and cyclists on segregated cycleways are usually (but not
always) made to give way (I don't think there is a general rule for this).

The general rule is to give way when crossing a (dashed) white line.
Generally this is when turning onto or off a main (through) road.
Cycle paths along side roads usually have dashed white lines
across them at junctions, meaning the cyclists give way;
sometimes there are several white lines across the sideroad.

Just zis Guy said:

scott said:

I wonder if on average people eat more if they cycle rather than
drive?

A brief glimpse at the waistlines in your High Street on a Saturday will
tell you that no, cyclists do not eat more than average, they just burn it
off rather than converting it to fat :-)

Personally I suspsect that they eat more than average and they burn it off...

Adrian Boliston said:

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When the roads (I assume that you mean the traffic on the roads...)
are at a standstill, it is hard to see how they present a danger to a
right-thinking cyclist.

CONGESTION IS GOOD.

Cycling between lanes of standstill or crawling traffic is actually quite
hazardous for a cyclist due to obscured turning vehicles, hidden peds,

Obscured turning vehicles, hidden peds? My head is comfortably above
the roof of most cars, and I can see peds as they dart injudiciously
between vehicles in good time. I'm extra careful when overtaking
buses, vans, etc, when I can't see.

In article <[email hidden]>,

scott said:

I wonder if on average people eat more if they cycle rather than drive?

I eat more if I *don't* do adequate exercise.

So long as the body is fit & healthy, it tells me how much to eat.
Deprive it of exercise and that natural regulation goes, so I overeat.

--
Nick Kew

Nick's manifesto: http://www.htmlhelp.com/~nick/

[email hidden] (Andy Hewitt) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Not too bad, thankfully, a few bruises and a nasty graze on her right
thigh, but she managed to walk back home. I also managed to get her back
on the bike on the way back too [2].

Excellent. It's important to get them back on quickly. When my
daughter was small she just needed a cuddle and a tear wipe and she'd
be straight back on. My son was much more easily deterred and would
sometimes take some cajoling.

--
Dave...

In MsgID<[email hidden]> within uk.rec.driving,

scott said:

Hmm, but from my experience on that road both as a cyclist and a driver, the
behaviour of drivers hasn't changed. You have to drive along with one wheel
in the cycle lane (otherwise you hit oncoming cars), and then when you get
to a bike you wait for a gap coming the other way and pull around it. This
is exactly the same as what happened before.

My point was that cycle lanes wide enough for safe cycling underline
the fact that your behaviour is correct, and may imprint it on some
people who tend to play sardines with cyclists as they overtake.

Cycle lanes that have been made narrower because the road is narrow
have the opposite effect.

--
Dave Johnson - [email hidden]

"scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Peter said:

If the roads are full of cyclists then how will pollution be effected?
When I see a cyclist I quite often slow up and then acclerate past
them when it's safe. When a whole stream of cars do this then the
pollution is going to increase a lot.

More than the pollution saved by that person cycling rather than driving?

Quoted message said:

Would cyclists just make the roads dangerous and bring them to a stand
still?

If there were a lot more cyclists then there would be a valid argument for
building more dedicated cycle paths that were separate from the road. And
there would be fewer cars.

Yes, but there won't be any fewer lorries and vans. To create a cycle
path you usually need to either narrow the road, or narrow the
pavement. If the roads are narrow then it's going to make it hard for
lorries etc.

Also, cycle lanes will get congested. How would you overtake in a
cycle lane? If there's an old granny in front of you doing 10mph
you're gonna be stuck until you can go onto the road.

If you consider the amount of space needed then it will also probably
be more. Imagine 5 bikes, in length they're going to take up more
space than a car with 5 people in (at least when moving).

"scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porter said:

"scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If there were a lot more cyclists then there would be a valid
argument for building more dedicated cycle paths that were separate
from the road.

I disagree with this - cyclists have (quite properly) a right to use
the road. Dedicated cycle paths are more dangerous (I'm sure Guy or
someone can point you to a reference here). So why have dedicated
cycle lanes?

I was just thinking about the pollution argument of cars having to go around
bikes on the road. If there were enough bikes then the cars and bikes could
be separated, hence removing the need for cars to navigate their way around
bikes and vice-versa.

How could they be separated? We're talking about 4 lanes of traffic,
a cycle lane and car lane on both sides of the road. It's gonna need
a lot more space (on most roads).