On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:35:45 -0700 (PDT), allanbonnetracy
wrote:

Yet, like so many, I continue to use my car because of the safety
implications of cycling on busy roads.

I suppose it is trite, but if you switched to the bike you'd become
part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

I recommend the new Bikeability training schemes, these are designed
for adults as well as children. I find cycling in London very
liberating. A bloody sight better than the tube, anyway.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
- attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 12:06:30 -0700 (PDT), Neil Williams
wrote:

Might explain why the bodywork is made of tin foil, then... (but then
again that's a fairly standard Citroen thing )


Think yourself lucky that it isn't corrugated, as it was on early 2CVs
and on the H van.

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:23:18 +0100, "Colin McKenzie"
wrote:

A recent report says that it is worth spending up to £10,000 to turn just
one person into a regular cyclist.


A report written by cycling enthusiasts, no doubt.

I think it would be well worth giving cyclists an interest free loan
of £10,000 to help them to buy a car.

wrote

I don't know about reliability but there does seem to be a trend of
every
new electric train in this country using more power than its
predecessor.
In the case of the 377s significantly more. This is in stark contrast
to
cars which despite getting heavier year on year are still using less
fuel
with each generation. Whatever the train builders are concentrating
on in
their designs, energy efficiency doesn't seem to be it.

Note that train energy figures include Air Conditioning, the standard
car figures exclude it. I understand that bus and coach fuel usage is
increasing too.

--
Mike D

Recliner wrote

The infrastructure is needed for all those homes where the car
isn't
parked in the drive, and for neighbourhoods where the electrical
supply hasn't been sized to allow everyone to draw an extra 100amps
continuously (ie almost all of them).

Yes, that's a very good point. Imagine if every house in the street
was
charging its electric car(s) overnight -- it's pretty unlikely that
the
local sub-station and wiring could handle the load. It may be OK if
just
one or two houses use 13amp sockets, but not if the whole street is
doing it for hours on end.

Many neighbourhoods were sized on the basis of many night storage
heaters, remember them ?

So probably only little local difficulties until electrical cars reach
10 % or so.

--
Mike D

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

That can only be a good thing, because rail could never cope with more
than a tiny proportion of the passenger traffic that currently goes by
road. Rail has 6% of the surface passenger-km, roads 94%. So even if
rail doubled its market share to 12%, the roads would still take
88%. The chances of rail doubling its market share without massive
development of new lines are near-zero. Just look at the high cost of
Crossrail, and of high speed inter-city lines.

You really do demonstrate how clueless you are. Those percentages in
London are quite different. London travel-to-work by public transport
figures vary by borough around 50%, for example.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , () wrote:

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:10:08 +0100
Bruce wrote:
Not only will electric cars save CO2, but there will be a massive
reduction in other pollutants, notable particulates and oxides of
nitrogen. Many UK cities are already in breach of current legal
limits on those pollutants, and the limits are about to be tightened
further.

Hmm, now I wonder why that is. Could it be the popularity of diesel
engines in cars which were the ecomentalists engine of choice only a
few years ago?

What was it they all chanted? We shouldn't use nasty petrol engines
which give off tiny amounts of particulates and virtually no gases
other than CO2 and water vapour from their catalysed exhaust, no ,
lets use something which belches out buckets of filth even with
filters but outputs ever so slightly less CO2 per km. *sigh*

I see you have completely ignored oxides of Nitrogen, the main pollutant
exceedance problem, certainly where I am (central Cambridge). That it is a
NOx rather than a particulates problem is despite the preponderance of
diesels (mainly buses) in the pollution generation compared to the general
case.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

"James Farrar" wrote in message
. 1.4
Steve Fitzgerald ] wrote in
:

In message op.uyjjm50pby8eno@sheepdog, Colin McKenzie
writes

The replacement for 73 stock is already out for tender.

That's a bit early, isn't it? If the modernisation programme is over
budget, deferring this build would be one way to spread the cost.

IIRC the 73 stock went into service in 1975, so its replacements
shouldn't be needed until 2015.

It's (currently!) designated 13 Tube Stock so that's about right.

Is there a public source for that?

http://www.tubelines.com/news/releas.../20070115.aspx says that
"Tube Lines is committed to introducing a new rolling stock fleet by
2014", hence the Font Of All Knowledge is calling it 2014 stock:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_tube_stock

I notice the press release says, "Requesting expressions of
interest from manufacturers is the first stage of the procurement
process leading to selection and contract award by Tube Lines,
anticipated at the end of 2008". Well, that's not happened yet, so
I guess the in-service date is also slipping.

I think the 2009 stock was ordered in about April 2003, and it took
more than six years for the first train to enter late night
service. I assume the full 2009 stock service won't be till 2011.
On that basis, if the new Picc stock really is ordered this year,
the 1973 TS will probably still be in daily use when it's 40 years
old in 2015.

And? The 1967 TS is already 42 years old and has been in full service for
over 41 years. It seems pretty fresh to me, unlike the ageing standard
stock of my youth.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:23:18 +0100, "Colin McKenzie"
wrote:

A recent report says that it is worth spending up to £10,000 to turn
just one person into a regular cyclist.

A report written by cycling enthusiasts, no doubt.

I think it would be well worth giving cyclists an interest free loan
of £10,000 to help them to buy a car.

Only if they are never in a hurry travelling in London. I cycle there
quite a bit these days. Cycling is faster than public transport or a car
for my regular journeys (King's Cross to and from Westminster and
Westminster to and from East Putney). The other advantage over the tube
from East Putney in the morning is that I get a seat. :-)

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Aug 12, 9:23*pm, "Colin McKenzie" wrote:

It really isn't all that dangerous, even when it's frightening. I doubt *
Ireland (if you're there) is much different from the UK, where government *
figures show cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.

It can still be unpleasant having a lorry zoom past a couple of feet
from you, however often you cycle, and however good your awareness
etc.

Segregation doesn't work, for the same reason that annoys you about white *
paint. It reduces the chances of rare collisions (being hit from behind *
between junctions) but greatly increases the chance of being hit at *
junctions, which is much more likely to start with. This is because to be *
seen by drivers you need to be where they're looking, which is on the main *
carriageway.

Or completely segregated Dutch-style. I found this a lot more
pleasant as a cyclist than riding on a busy road, personally - and the
cycle paths are, unlike in the UK, largely up to standard and pleasant
to use. As a UK example, while the Milton Keynes Redways have some
major design flaws (some of which, e.g. blind bends, results in them
actually being quite a lot less safe than they nominally should be),
they're in my view generally nicer than cycling on 70mph dual
carriageways. Though a set of good Kevlar tyres is a must.

The priority over sideroads is a difficult one, though. I suppose
traffic lights would have to be used, as the culture of cars-have-
priority is difficult to change.

Neil