CFLs and UHF interference

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:57:47 +0100 someone who may be The Natural Philosopher wrote this:-

One of the reasons it would reduce emissions is by reducing congestion.

[:Jerry:]

That just proves that you know f*ck all...

That just proves that you know f*ck all...

Or that you are just clueless....

[:Jerry:]

Yes, especially with fucktards like you who can't drive, I though you said that you had driven in the USA - think about it, and you claim that you can't cope with the M25....

[:Jerry:]

The trouble with that article is that it doesn't actually categorise what level of accidents they were, just saying something like "They show that during 2007 the fire service was summoned to 75 traffic collisions. This was a significant jump from 2006, which saw fire-fighters tackle 54 collisions. And the figures for 2000 show there were just 31 traffic collisions that the service was called to." is totally meaning less without doing so, considering that the Fire and Rescue service could get called out for anything from split chemicals (possibly even a split battery) to a 100 vehicle pile up were every vehicle needed cutting open. Then we get this cracker, "But Fraser Pearson, spokesman for Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue, noted that fire-fighters were not called to all collisions.", trying to imply that the road could be even worse, I hope the junior hack who obviously wrote the article doesn't expect the Fire and Rescue service be called out to every case were there has been not injury never mind rescue needed?!...

[Rod]

Precisely. At a particular garage, I was told they expected 90% (or somewhere around there) of drivers almost never to use the parking brake at all. (That was *their* observation - I am just passing it on.)

(On a RHD model, you have to raise your right leg. :-) )

[Rod]

... was written by a BFP journo.

However, the perception of people in the area is that the M40 (in S Bucks) has become much more dangerous year on year.

[:Jerry:]

Every road has, it's due to the never ever increasing amount of traffic on roads designed for (probably) 50pc less traffic (and the road is still many times safer than any A or B road), perception is one thing, hard figures is another - a 5pc increase in accidents sounds bad until one compares that figure with the fact that the traffic level has increased by 15pc or what ever.

[dennis]

Don't waste your time TNP is a speeder and will say anything to justify his better driving ability and ability to drive faster, safer than everyone else.

[Rod]

On what basis do you claim that? Rightly or wrongly, much local opinion appears more focussed on things like changes to junction designs, effects of roadworks and other factors.

[Bob Martin]

I've driven automatics for 99% of the last 50 years and they change up more or less when I want them to. It's all a matter of throttle control.

[Rod]

Around here (and, I am sure in mahy other parts of the world), "enforcing" speed limits has been done by much speed hump building. While I do not have any figures to report, my instinct suggests that a vehicle being driven at, say, a fairly steady 30 or 40 mph would probably use considerably less fuel than one being repeatedly braked, eased over a hump, manically accelerated for a few tens of metres, and repeated up and down roads and hills.

(This is NOT to suggest driving at 40mph in an area which should be

30mph - or even 20mph - it is purely a question on fuel consumption.)

[Mark]

What bike is this and how old? All the new/newish bikes I have seen recently only have normal/main beam. However this only includes examples from a few manufacturers.

I was told by a salesman that all bikes legally sold in the UK now do not have an off switch. Maybe I shouldn't have believed him?

[Huge]

CVTs do not change up or down. Which bit of "continuous" is it that has passed you by?

[Huge]

The only way I could have operated the parking brake in the Dodge Caravan I drove in the USA once was to have had another joint surgically inserted into my left shin. They're an effing stupid idea. That'll be why :Jerkoff: likes them.

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:32:26 +0100 someone who may be Rod wrote this:-

Enforcing speed limits can be done in a variety of ways, of which this is just one.

[Rod]

So perhaps:

Actually enforcing speed limits *could* be a fuel/emission saving measure. In reality, badly thought through implemntation sometimes/often/always [1] cause an increase in fuel usage/emissions.

[1] Choose one.

Another exmaple very close to me. Major hill out of town. Became largely

30 mph and rigorously enforced often by mobile speed traps. Result - huge queues and very slow moving traffic. Change to 40 (yes - it is very rare to hear of an increase these days) and traffic improves considerably. Again, I strongly suspect that the 30mph limit, enforced, actually caused more fuel usage/emissions than the current 40 mph.

[:Jerry:]

So don't drive the vehicle, you would need another complete leg (never mind a another joint) to stand on if you found yourself in court after having caused an accident.

[Mortimer]

Sorry if the terms "change up/down" misled you into thinking that I was referring to a conventional gearbox with discrete ratios. I know that CVT is continuous. Perhaps I should said "change to a lower/higher ratio"; if not, what term should I have used?

[Mark]

I think the CO2 argument against mandatory daytime lights is irrelevant. The safety impact on vulnerable road users is the real point.

[Huge]

That's because it's something done by politicians. Things done by politicians nearly always have the opposite effect to that ostensibly desired.