OT: 20 & 30mph pollution differences

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 18:23:45 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Marc Brett said:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 16:38:13 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Tom Crispin wrote:
> Parks are there for recreational use, not as a motorists thoroughfare.
Explain why you think (if indeed you do think) that pedestrians and
cyclists can use the park recreationally as a thoroughfare, but
motorists can't.

It's the same reason that I do not allow horses to walk through my
living room to get to the back garden, but people, cats, and dogs are
welcome.

And that reason is?

The same reason you don't.

Tony Raven said:

Tom Crispin said:

Matt B said:

Tom Crispin wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:

You do know what a Strawman is, don't you?

You do know what a Troll is?

Yes, a lothsome pitiful creature with poor standards of hygene and
thus shunned by the rest of society. This causes psychological
distubances in the being which cause it to hate itself and all others.
A consequence of this is that this entity will twist the remarks of
others and question the clumsily manipulated remark.

These critters can be hideously difficult to shift. As slimy as an
eel they twist and turn at every rational argument, and when, at last,
you think you finally have them, they let off a stink as powerful as a
skunk. Rational dialogue fails to reform them and ignoring fails to
get rid of the problem.

It persists.

Wally said:

CoyoteBoy said:

Quoted message said:

Just anecdotal, but some years ago I drove across Mali in an old
Landrover. We were on dirt roads/no roads and took a week to cover a
couple of hundred miles mostly in low ratio. Very worried about
running out of fuel but turned out that consumption was almost
identical to if we'd cruised the same distance in top gear.

Thats because landies would struggle to be any less economical 🙂 But
in all seriousness in a low-range you're running the engine so
unloaded its barely trying.

I used to 'drive for economy' on my daily commute by trying to get into as
high a gear as I could, as often as I could. The car (2 litre) would
regularly manage 30-32mpg averaged over a full tank (includes some heavy
acceleration when overtaking and the like).

Then I did the IAM advanced driving course, and got into 'appropriate gear'
driving, which is, roughly, 2nd gear for 20mph, 3rd for 30, 4th for 40, and
5th for 50 and up. I still boot it for overtaking, but my fuel consumption
hasn't changed at all - still 30-32 on average.

Interestingly, on a recent 450 mile blast down the motorway at exactly 70mph
(or thereabouts, sort of, if you get my meaning), it returned just over
32mpg. A more sedate 100 miles of motorway at around 60mph, followed by 100
miles of Welsh A road, also at 60mph and occasionally 'sprited', returned
over 35mpg - the best it's ever done.

--
Wallywww.wally.myby.co.uk
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.

Modern cars are generally tuned to be most economical with "standard"
driving habits. Mine returns 17 when driving IAM style, ~20 when
thinking economically and 24 on a motorway run.

elyob said:

Hi,

Just about to respond to a letter in my local rag r.e. Richmond Park.
The writer claims that driving at 20mph creates more pollution, he
doesn't back it up and wondered if there is any evidence to the
contrary?

Many cars are at their most efficient (less pollutants per mile) at
about 40mph. It's a balance between many factors such as most efficient
rpm and throttle position, frictional and thermal losses and air
resistance. At 20mph it's possible that a lot more of the fuel energy
is going into the coolant and the exhaust rather than moving the car.

This has nothing to do with safety, of course, but there is some truth
in the writer's assertion.

Tom Crispin said:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:31:50 -0500, Tony Raven

Quoted message said:

You do know what a Troll is?

It persists.

It will as long as you keep giving it the oxygen it craves. Trust me,
the only way to get rid of trolls is to ignore them and they will
eventually lose interest in talking to themselves. Unfortunately quite a
few people here think trolls are redeemable by rational argument and
persist with Mormon zeal in trying to convert them. But all they are
doing is fortifying them and irritating the rest.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Tony Raven said:

Tom Crispin said:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:31:50 -0500, Tony Raven

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You do know what a Troll is?

Quoted message said:

It persists.

It will as long as you keep giving it the oxygen it craves. Trust me,
the only way to get rid of trolls is to ignore them and they will
eventually lose interest in talking to themselves. Unfortunately quite a
few people here think trolls are redeemable by rational argument and
persist with Mormon zeal in trying to convert them. But all they are
doing is fortifying them and irritating the rest.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

Please leave it alone, you would think on this thread alone it would
leave it's apologies for killer drivers, but no.

Tom Crispin said:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:23:23 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Quoted message said:

>> You do know what a Strawman is, don't you?
> I thought I did.
What is it then?

Is it a misspelling of straw man?

Please explain what a straw man is.

You seem to be the master of them, so you should know how to raise an
argument purporting to represent the view of your opponent. What you
still need to master though, is that when you set one up you need to
design it so that you can easily demolish it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Based on previous experience I rather assumed you
> wanted to exclude motorists from passing through, but allow others
> (pedestrians and cyclists). So I posed my first question. Your answer,
> and my understanding of a strawman, led me to ask the second question
> instead.
>
> So to clear it up, and to leave no question unanswered... Are you in
> favour anyone using parks as thoroughfares?
Your question does nothing to clear anything up.

No, but the idea of a question is that an answer is provided. If you
answer it, all will become apparent.

How?

Tom, you'll get a bad name for yourself, the urc bully will be after you
for deliberately prolonging this thread for longer than is necessary.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> If yes, who, as we know you
> don't think motorists should?
Strawman.

No, it's not. It is a perfectly legitimate question, if you answer
"yes" to the one before it.

But you've answered for me.

I made an assumption which you /seemed/ to be challenging, and which I
asked you to clarify. Are you now saying that I was right?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Let's put it another way: do you think that cyclists should be allowed
to use the park as a thoroughfare?

What do you think?

I told you what I thought.

Quoted message said:

Do you think that a legitimate use of a Royal Park
is for a cyclist to travel from one point to another as part of a
longer trip?

I do, but I was trying to find out what you thought. I also think that
that is a legitimate use for a pedestrian or a motorist.

Quoted message said:

Do you think that a legitimate use is as a rush hour relief route,
open to non-comercial motor traffic dawn - 10am and 4pm - dusk?

I don't understand that question. Is it currently open to motor
traffic? Are new hours proposed? What's the significance of the
"non-commercial motor" bit? But, if you mean "do I think that a
legitimate use of a Royal Park is for a motorist to travel from one
point to another as part of a longer trip?", then the answer is a
resounding "YES".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>> The Greenwich Cyclists' Campaign is to have the speed limit through
>>>> Greenwich Park lowered to 20 mph and overtaking prohibited.

...

Quoted message said:

>>>> This
>>>> limit would apply equally to cyclists, as do all speed limits in the
>>>> Royal Parks, including park vehicle roads where the limit is 5mph.
>>> Yes. Is the 5 mph strictly enforced?
>> Define strictly.
> There are unlikely ever to be any contraventions.
Then no.

So a guaranteed appropriate speed, rather than a partially effective
speed limit would be better.

Straw man.

No, I'm offering a potential /solution/ to the problem, rather than an
"out of the box" fix, which, it seems (from what I can actually gather
your "answers"😉, can never actually solve the problem.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> It's probably more strictly enforced than the average residential
>> street. I know that a lot of verbal warnings are issued to cyclists.
>> I have no idea what would happen to a park employee caught at 8mph.
> So, is that limit necessary, if yes, why, and how could it be enforced
> 100% then?
Silly question.

No, is the limit necessary? If it is then what is the consequence of
not enforcing it?

Straw man.

Tom, do /you/ know what a "straw man" is? Let me reword the questions.
Why is the limit necessary, and what would be the consequences of not
enforcing it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nothing, not even murder, can be enforced 100%.

Ah, you're getting close. A "speed limit" is notoriously difficult, to
enforce, and therefore unsustainable. Presumably the limit was set to
solve a problem. A solution which cannot work (because it cannot be
enforced 100%) isn't really a solution - is it. A real solution is
something which actually solves the original problem - sustainably.

And how do you propose that is achieved?

I don't. I'm pointing out that a speed limit is a sop, not a solution.

You'd be better off with a big sign such as (you'll need monospace type
to appreciate it to its full :-) ):

+---------------------------------------+
| |
| PLEASE RELAX AND TAKE EXTREME CARE |
| |
| This is a royal park, a public space, |
| children, dogs, cyclists, grown-ups |
| and even motorists will be tittying |
| about all over the place, probably |
| without looking where they are going, |
| or looking out for for the likes of |
| YOU, in your car, going too fast to |
| avoid them. |
| |
| Would you like your child, your |
| mother, or your grandmother to be |
| killed or maimed by some nutter |
| driving too fast to stop in time??? |
| |
| R E S P E C T |
| :-) |
| |
+---------------------------------------+

Then brightly painted cut-outs of a children, dogs, balls, grandmothers,
etc. randomly placed, peeping out from behind bushes and trees, etc.
The wardens could move these each time they patrolled past them, or when
the grass is mown.

A school, or cycling club, or whatever could help design and make the
cut-outs. They would need to be changed regularly to emphasise that
someone cares, and that the message is fresh.

Do you actually want a safe and friendly park, or do you want an excuse
to criticise/prosecute motorists?

--
Matt B

Tony Raven said:

Tom Crispin said:

Matt B said:

Tom Crispin wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Tom Crispin wrote:

You do know what a Strawman is, don't you?

You do know what a Troll is?

Isn't it someone like you, who deliberately posts inflammatory and
insulting remarks about another poster?

Or perhaps it is someone like you who attempts to distract attention
from a thought provoking idea or argument by attempting to smear or
defame the poster?

--
Matt B

Wally said:

5th for 50 and up. I still boot it for overtaking, but my fuel consumption
hasn't changed at all - still 30-32 on average.

I've tried driving my car with all sorts of styles, and it hasn't made a
scrap of difference to average fuel consumption. The only place where I
see a different fuel consumption is on a motorway (and we don't have
those where I live) - but when I do go somewhere where there's the
opportunity for a long motorway cruise, I get something like 4 mpg
better on average than normal day to day driving if I stick to a steady
70 mph. Go much faster, and fuel economy quickly begins to fall.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Niall Wallace said:

I am tempted to obtain a Polo bluemotion 1 and see if it will manage 70mpg
and then strip out all the extra weight I see in the sepc and see if it can
manage 100mpg. All with me driving.

For a steady cruise, the extra weight won't make a great deal of
difference. Weight makes the largest difference when accelerating. At
steady speed, I doubt the improvement in rolling friction from the
reduced weight will make a 30 mpg difference.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Tom Crispin said:

Tony Raven said:

Tom Crispin said:

Matt B wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:
>> Matt B wrote:
>>> Tom Crispin wrote:
You do know what a Strawman is, don't you?

You do know what a Troll is?

Yes, a lothsome pitiful creature with poor standards of hygene and
thus shunned by the rest of society. This causes psychological
distubances in the being which cause it to hate itself and all others.
A consequence of this is that this entity will twist the remarks of
others and question the clumsily manipulated remark.

Tom, be careful, that last sentence in particular, applies to many of
those who post to urc, especially /the/ bully.

Quoted message said:

These critters can be hideously difficult to shift. As slimy as an
eel they twist and turn at every rational argument, and when, at last,
you think you finally have them, they let off a stink as powerful as a
skunk. Rational dialogue fails to reform them and ignoring fails to
get rid of the problem.

Ah, you have him to a tee.

--
Matt B

Dylan Smith said:

Niall Wallace said:

I am tempted to obtain a Polo bluemotion 1 and see if it will manage
70mpg and then strip out all the extra weight I see in the sepc and see
if it can manage 100mpg. All with me driving.

For a steady cruise, the extra weight won't make a great deal of
difference. Weight makes the largest difference when accelerating. At
steady speed, I doubt the improvement in rolling friction from the
reduced weight will make a 30 mpg difference.

Seems they have also achieved it by throwing out stuff out like air
conditioning, central locking, electric wing mirrors etc. What a good
wheeze to get customers to pay more for a car by taking stuff out.

Or am I being too cynical?

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

POHB said:

"elyob" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Hi,

Just about to respond to a letter in my local rag r.e. Richmond Park.
The writer claims that driving at 20mph creates more pollution, he
doesn't back it up and wondered if there is any evidence to the
contrary?

Just anecdotal, but some years ago I drove across Mali in an old Landrover.
We were on dirt roads/no roads and took a week to cover a couple of hundred
miles mostly in low ratio. Very worried about running out of fuel but
turned out that consumption was almost identical to if we'd cruised the same
distance in top gear.

heh years back i had a old volvo which had a drink problem, and didn't
seem to matter how you drove it.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Tony Raven said:

Seems they have also achieved it by throwing out stuff out like air
conditioning, central locking, electric wing mirrors etc. What a good
wheeze to get customers to pay more for a car by taking stuff out.

Or am I being too cynical?

I guess their marketing folk going back to their previous ways, when
ISTM cars (especially VWs) were a base price followed by "oh, will sir
want the optional wheels? Yes, very good... and tyres on those too?"
and similar.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Tony Raven said:

Tom Crispin said:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:31:50 -0500, Tony Raven

Quoted message said:

You do know what a Troll is?

It persists.

It will as long as you keep giving it the oxygen it craves. Trust me,
the only way to get rid of trolls is to ignore them and they will
eventually lose interest in talking to themselves. Unfortunately quite a
few people here think trolls are redeemable by rational argument and
persist with Mormon zeal in trying to convert them. But all they are
doing is fortifying them and irritating the rest.

Over the past few months the understanding of the newsgroup readers has
improved quite a bit - to check this, look at any of the threads in which
TrollB appears; you will find that almost always when he posts, no one
replies. I don't know whether this is filtering or or good behaviour, but
in either case, it has improved the readability of the threads greatly.

Perhaps regular readers might continue to (gently) remind new posters that
yes, we know here's a Troll here, and we know he'll say anything to be
naughty, but the best thing is to do is ignore him, and he will eventually
go be naughty in front of someone else.

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:23:34 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Quoted message said:

Do you think that a legitimate use is as a rush hour relief route,
open to non-comercial motor traffic dawn - 10am and 4pm - dusk?

I don't understand that question. Is it currently open to motor
traffic? Are new hours proposed? What's the significance of the
"non-commercial motor" bit? But, if you mean "do I think that a
legitimate use of a Royal Park is for a motorist to travel from one
point to another as part of a longer trip?", then the answer is a
resounding "YES".

Your only rational question. The answer may interest others, however,
this will be my last reply to you.

The park is open to pedestrians and cyclists from 6am in the winter
and 5am in the summer.

The park officially closes at:
Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb - 6pm
March - 6.30 or 7.30 (change in line with clocks changing)
Oct - 6pm or 7pm (change in line with clocks changing)
Sept - 8pm
Apr - 8.30
May, Aug - 9pm
June, July - 9.30

The park is very often open well beyond these times.

At least one of the opening hours signs says simply "dawn to dusk".

Non-commercial motor traffic, with few exceptions, may enter the park
through Blackheath Gate and St Mary's Gate weekdays only from 7am. At
10am St Mary's Gate is locked with a yellow padlock, which allows the
fire brigade only emergency access. It used to be open to all
emergency vehicles, but the police were abusing the access, and the
park manager took the decision to prohibit it's use to the police as a
thoroughfare.

At 4pm weekdays St Mary's Gate is unlocked, and non-commercial motor
vehicles are allowed to use the park as a thoroughfare until the
park's official closing time.

http://greenwich2000.net/im/info/park-closed.jpg

In other words, the park road is used as a rush hour relief road for
non commercial motor traffic.

I know of two people who have been fined for driving a van through the
park. If the Park's Police see a commercial vehicle they will always
take action, unless it is authorised - e.g. delivering to the tea
shop.

Access to the park for all users is sometimes restricted at other
times, e.g. the London Marathon.

Greenwich Cyclists have called for a permanent closure of St Mary's
Gate, i.e. restricting motor access to the park for visitors through
Blackheath Gate only. Failing that, a speed restriction through the
park of 20mph in line with home and school zones. They have also
asked that overtaking be banned on the hill, and the two-way shared
use cycle path be changed to one-way and relocated from the west to
east side of the hill, i.e. only for cyclists travelling slowly
uphill.

Greenwich Park is owned by a charity, The Royal Parks' Foundation.
Between 1974 and 2004 the Royal Parks had their own police force, The
Royal Parks' Constabulary, however, since April 2004 their policing
has been the responsibility of an Operational Command Unit within the
Metropolitan Police, fully funded by the Royal Parks' Agency.

Tom Crispin said:

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:23:34 +0100, Matt B

matt.bourke'@nospam.london.com said:

Quoted message said:

Do you think that a legitimate use is as a rush hour relief route,
open to non-comercial motor traffic dawn - 10am and 4pm - dusk?

I don't understand that question. Is it currently open to motor
traffic? Are new hours proposed? What's the significance of the
"non-commercial motor" bit? But, if you mean "do I think that a
legitimate use of a Royal Park is for a motorist to travel from one
point to another as part of a longer trip?", then the answer is a
resounding "YES".

Your only rational question.

Eh?

Quoted message said:

The answer may interest others, however,
this will be my last reply to you.

Charmed, I'm sure ;-)

Quoted message said:

http://greenwich2000.net/im/info/park-closed.jpg

That's Greenwich Park, with which I am quite familiar, I've had occasion
to walk around the long way, back up the hill, after it has closed. I
thought we were talking about Richmond Park. In fact we /were/ talking
about Richmond Park, no wonder you got so confused, and even /shirty/ :-)

Quoted message said:

In other words, the park road is used as a rush hour relief road for
non commercial motor traffic.

Greenwich, yes.

--
Matt B

Peter Clinch said the following on 22/08/2007 12:02:

Quoted message said:

I guess their marketing folk going back to their previous ways, when
ISTM cars (especially VWs) were a base price followed by "oh, will sir
want the optional wheels? Yes, very good... and tyres on those too?"
and similar.

Certain, mainly German, brands still work like that. "Will sir want the
optional indicators? No? Very well, sir. Sorry sir, the fog-light
'off' switch is not available as an option" :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd said:

Certain, mainly German, brands still work like that. "Will sir want the
optional indicators? No? Very well, sir.

Sometimes though they make an error on the order and fit them anyway:
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/11/bmw.html

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

_ said:

Tony Raven said:

Tom Crispin said:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:31:50 -0500, Tony Raven

> You do know what a Troll is?
It persists.

It will as long as you keep giving it the oxygen it craves.

Well hello "_", we've missed your irrational and vitriolic attacks on me.

Now let's have a look at how many constructive posts you have made to
urc since you were humiliated by my exposure of your bigoted attack on
the rights of motorists to use our roads...

Ah, none. True to form then.

--
Matt B