In article ,
says...
So? I've got a huge cock so I'm better than all of you.


And here it is

http://www.allfunpix.com/picspages/manwitha.html

In message , Robert Woolley
writes

Speed does kill. You don;t have to be a genius to understand that the
faster the speed of a vehicle, the longer it takes to stop. And the
faster it hits something else the greater the damage.
So as I have two cars, a little one for pottering around in,10+ years
old with brakes to match. Also a new car with all round disc brakes
and ABS. This car tends to far out brake the old car. Maybe, Both my
cars should have different speed limits then. Maybe all cars should
have different speed limits, maybe all drivers should have different
speed limits depending on their reaction times, maybe etc. etc. Maybe
one day, posters will realise that fixed speed limits are too high for
some vehicles and too low for others. Maybe the fixed speed posters,
when in an ambulance rushing them to hospital for emergency treatment
will ask the driver to slow down to the legal limit. Maybe pigs might
fly.
--
Clive

In article m, Martin
Underwood writes
Yes, the Magic Roundabout in Swindon is a pain in the bum: it's as if the
road designers decided to make it as tortuous as possible - being cynical, I
wonder if they decided to make it hazardous so as to keep the traffic speed
down: which is silly because the deliberate hazards distract the drivers'
attention from the hazards that they should be looking for - other road
users!

And then there's the roundabout in Hemel Hempstead. This started out as one
big 6-way roundabout. It worked fairly well.
[...]

Actually, if you study both these junctions and other places where ring
junctions (to give them the proper name) are installed (e.g. the
A13/A130 intersection), you'll see that the junction was trying to
handle too much traffic and snarling up.

The basic point behind a ring junction is to reduce the average
proportion of the roundabout that traffic has to go on, thus increasing
the throughput of the junction.

Consider a ring junction with 5 exits and assume that all 20 possible
flows see equal traffic (this is to aid the explanation; at a real site
you would of course take measurements). If you build it as a normal
roundabout, the average distance that a car travels around the
roundabout is half its circumference [1]. Thus the flow on the
roundabout has to be 2.5 times the flow coming in from each road [2].

If you replace it with a ring junction, the average distance a car
travels drops to 30% of the circumference [3] and the flow only has to
be 1.5 times the incoming flows [4]. Put another way, you gain 66%
capacity (though of course you then lose some because of the additional
needs to give way, but it's still a net win).

[1] 25% of the traffic goes 20% of the circumference, 25% goes 40%, 25%
goes 60%, and 25% goes 80%. That works out as an average of 50%.
[2] The section from road 4 to road 5 carries all the traffic entering
at road 4, 75% of that entering at road 3, 50% of that entering at road
2, and 25% of that entering at road 1. That's 100+75+50+25 = 250% of the
traffic entering at any one road.
[3] Now 25% goes 20% of the circumference clockwise, 25% goes 40% of the
circumference clockwise, 25% goes 20% anticlockwise, and 25% goes 40%
anticlockwise. That's an average of 30%.
[4] The section from road 4 to road 5 now carries (clockwise) 50% of the
traffic from road 4 and 25% of that from road 3, plus (anticlockwise)
50% of that from road 5 and 25% of that from road 1. Total 150%.

Moreover,
if you are turning right, you go clockwise round each mini roundabout but
*anti-clockwise* round the central roundabout, which feels very wrong:

Live with it. Any unfamiliar layout feels wrong; what do you think about
slip roads on the right instead of the left?

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

In article , Clive
writes
maybe all drivers should have different speed limits depending on their
reaction times, maybe etc. etc.

The other day some politician was proposing a system whereby your
personal speed limit was 90-5N mph, where N is the number of points
currently on your licence.

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

In article , Brian
Blandford writes
The whole thing looks like a scam to me. The best way of fooling the
cameras - which I know but will not reveal, as I support the concept of
congestion charging - requires no power from the battery.

The best way of avoiding the congestion charge is incredibly simple and
perfectly legal.

[I'm reminded for some reason of the US politician who got an incredible
reputation of being able to "fix" speeding tickets and thus was always
owed favours by the rest of the establishment. His method was really
simple: he paid them out of his own money - the political gains were
well worth the cost.]

--
Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address

"Clive D. W. Feather" wrote:
The other day some politician was proposing a system whereby your
personal speed limit was 90-5N mph, where N is the number of points
currently on your licence.

Works for me if enforceable. But I suspect it isn't enforceable, even
with speed limiters.

Colin McKenzie