On 23 Oct, 13:06, Adrian wrote:
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

I made a perfectly reasonable point about when use of indicators might
make a difference to a cyclist.

Which revealed more about your incompetence than your insight.

Your and Boltar's responses have basically been on the lines of cyclists
shouldn't be on the road

Boltar's may have been - I wouldn't know, he's a long-term resident of my
killfile - but if you really think that's what I've been saying, then
your comprehension skills are on a par with your cycling skills.

I won't waste any more time on this.

shrug Your loss. Let's hope it's not your life that you lose when you
continue to insist on hugging the gutter and riding up the inside of HGVs
at traffic lights because you MUST be at the front of the queue.

From decades of cycling experience (and survival) I politely pointed
that it is helpful to cyclists if vehicles use indicators correctly.
To justify your suggestion that use of indicators makes no difference,
you have heaped abuse on me. Kindly desist.

MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

I made a perfectly reasonable point about when use of indicators
might make a difference to a cyclist.

Which revealed more about your incompetence than your insight.

Your and Boltar's responses have basically been on the lines of
cyclists shouldn't be on the road

Boltar's may have been - I wouldn't know, he's a long-term resident of
my killfile - but if you really think that's what I've been saying,
then your comprehension skills are on a par with your cycling skills.

I won't waste any more time on this.

shrug Your loss. Let's hope it's not your life that you lose when you
continue to insist on hugging the gutter and riding up the inside of
HGVs at traffic lights because you MUST be at the front of the queue.

From decades of cycling experience (and survival) I politely pointed
that it is helpful to cyclists if vehicles use indicators correctly.

Nobody has said otherwise, if you bother extracting your head from your
arse long enough to actually read what has been written.

To justify your suggestion that use of indicators makes no difference,

My suggestion that IN THIS INSTANCE it was unlikely that indicators would
have made a difference, since somebody had clearly ****ed-up major league
with or without them being used...

Anybody with a lonely working neuron and a quarter of a clue doesn't rely
on the other idiots on the road indicating correctly, helpful though it
undoubtedly is. As a result, they don't put themselves in stupid
situations where they become reliant on a lack of indication being
correct.

Meanwhile, you made out that you had absolutely no choice but to cycle
down the left of traffic waiting at traffic lights, and it weally, weally
wouldn't be your fault if that resulted in your suicide.

shrug I'm starting to hope it does.

you have heaped abuse on me. Kindly desist.

Kindly **** off, as you've already promised you would, you sanctimonious
bore.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Boltar wrote:

On Oct 23, 12:40 am, wrote:

The problems are lack of mirror coverage of their near sides made worse by
high driving positions and lack of any or adequate under-run protection.

The high driving positions are due to the large engine that has to be
accomodated at the front. You can't put the cab in front of it because
of length restrictions , or rather you could, but then the trailer
would have to be shorter reducing the max load.

They could put the engine on top of the cab.

That would make the transmission a bit complicated, though.

tom

--
Virtually everything you touch has been mined. -- Prof Keith Atkinson

On Oct 23, 3:25 pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
They could put the engine on top of the cab.

That would make the transmission a bit complicated, though.

Would probably look quite good though I suppose in theory they
could have the engine offset to one side and have a one person only
cab on the other side at the same level. Though I suspect HGV drivers
actually like their high up view lording it over the rest of us

B2003

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 04:45:52AM -0700, John B wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:27=A0pm, David Cantrell wrote:
Route 38 had a better service before it went all bendy. By which I mean
there were more seats (which were more comfortable) and a more frequent
service, with journey times being about the same. There was also less
fare-dodging.
But more standing capacity with bendies, right? Which is the important
thing when the issue is bus-you-can-get-on vs bus-you-can't.

I don't recall seeing a 38 that was so rammed that people couldn't get on -
neither pre- nor post-bendification. Certainly not two of them in a
row (and two RMs have about the same capacity as one Bendy). Although
sometimes you might have to *horror* go upstairs.

Occasionally I use the number 8. They're quite often full with many
people standing downstairs, but with plenty of seats available upstairs.
I conclude that most people are stupid cattle.

Aye, fair; while it's true that Inner London voted for Ken this time
round, and that Outer London reliably swings Tory, I do accept it
makes more sense for the outer boroughs to be included in the
administrative unit. It's kind-of annoying that their vote dictates
what happens on issues like bendies and pedestrianisation in the
centre, which is of peripheral interest to them at best

It's not of peripheral interest though, because an awful lot of us in
the outer boroughs work in the inner boroughs or at least travel through
them. The vast majority of my use of public transport in London is
either inside zone 1, or on the journey from home to zone 1. It's very
much in my interests for inner London to have good transport even though
I live in one of the outer boroughs. I believe that inner London would
have better transport if Bendy buses were to be got rid of.

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

PLEASE NOTE: This message was meant to offend everyone equally,
regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, politics, choice
of beer, operating system, mode of transport, or their editor.

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 05:20:43AM -0700, John B wrote:
On Oct 22, 12:52=A0pm, Adrian wrote:
They don't. The vast majority are just as heavily affected - perhaps even
more so, when it comes to transport decisions - than those who live more
centrally. Many of those who live centrally could easily walk or cycle to
work (or for leisure/shopping/etc) should buses & tubes not be available
or viable. Those who live further out can't.
For rail and tube transport, you're right. For bus transport, I
disagree - there are very few people who live in outer London boroughs
and commute into the centre via bus; buses are a way of getting people
between parts of outer London, of getting people between parts of
inner London

Lots of us in outer London will travel inwards by train or tube and
then use a bus for the last bit of the journey. There's also quite
a lot of people who use the bus to get from outer to inner London - to
hubs like Brixton, from where they transfer to the Victoria line.

And I, for example, find it more convenient, once I've got to Victoria
or London Bridge on the train, to use a bus for the last bit of my journey
to work instead of using two tubes.

There's a reason why major railway stations often have a bus station
attached to them y'know!

--
David Cantrell | A machine for turning tea into grumpiness

Just because it is possible to do this sort of thing
in the English language doesn't mean it should be done

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:54:00AM -0700, wrote:
On Oct 22, 8:20=A0am, MIG wrote:
And experience of a whole load of other blocked junctions, blocked
crossings and uncomfortable journeys.
Its a fair point, but how is that going to improve when they have to
run 40% more buses to get even vaguely the same capacity on the
routes?

Because a bendy bus has to move as one unit. When two buses replace
one, they can move independently.

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

Eye have a spelling chequer / It came with my pea sea
It planely marques four my revue / Miss Steaks eye kin knot sea.
Eye strike a quay and type a word / And weight for it to say
Weather eye am wrong oar write / It shows me strait a weigh.

On 23 Oct, 15:17, Adrian wrote:
MIG gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

I made a perfectly reasonable point about when use of indicators
might make a difference to a cyclist.
Which revealed more about your incompetence than your insight.
Your and Boltar's responses have basically been on the lines of
cyclists shouldn't be on the road
Boltar's may have been - I wouldn't know, he's a long-term resident of
my killfile - but if you really think that's what I've been saying,
then your comprehension skills are on a par with your cycling skills.
I won't waste any more time on this.
shrug Your loss. Let's hope it's not your life that you lose when you
continue to insist on hugging the gutter and riding up the inside of
HGVs at traffic lights because you MUST be at the front of the queue.
From decades of cycling experience (and survival) I politely pointed
that it is helpful to cyclists if vehicles use indicators correctly.

Nobody has said otherwise, if you bother extracting your head from your
arse long enough to actually read what has been written.

To justify your suggestion that use of indicators makes no difference,

My suggestion that IN THIS INSTANCE it was unlikely that indicators would
have made a difference, since somebody had clearly ****ed-up major league
with or without them being used...

Anybody with a lonely working neuron and a quarter of a clue doesn't rely
on the other idiots on the road indicating correctly, helpful though it
undoubtedly is. As a result, they don't put themselves in stupid
situations where they become reliant on a lack of indication being
correct.

Meanwhile, you made out that you had absolutely no choice but to cycle
down the left of traffic waiting at traffic lights, and it weally, weally
wouldn't be your fault if that resulted in your suicide.

shrug I'm starting to hope it does.

you have heaped abuse on me. *Kindly desist.

Kindly **** off, as you've already promised you would, you sanctimonious
bore.

I apologise for boring you by responding in a normal, polite way to
your posting. One knows where one is with Boltar, but I won't make
the same mistake with you again.

Colin McKenzie gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

The queue exists because more cars are trying to get through than one
cycle of the lights can accommodate. I filter on my bike to ensure that
I only have to wait one cycle. It may not be necessary to go all the way
to the front - but there may be no other gaps in the queue.

So, when you start to approach the back of the queue, you make sure it's
clear to do so, move to the right hand edge of the lane, and pass to the
right of any left-turning lanes.

If the traffic starts moving before you've got to the front of the lane,
then it's not an issue, because they won't be going far/fast, and you can
move back to the primary position or wherever you prefer fairly easily,
before repeating it at the next lights...

No squeezing through two-foot gaps (although any vaguely competent
drivers will have left much larger gaps than that anyway).
No diving into oncoming traffic.
Nothing but safe and seamless advance planning and manouvering.

No problems.

Boltar wrote:
On Oct 23, 10:29 am, MIG wrote:
If the cement truck was indicating, I might hold back in that
situation, but otherwise I'd try to get to the front. So indicating

Whats the point of going to the front of a queue anyway? Unless its
really busy traffic they'll all overtake you in seconds as soon as the
light changes so what have you gained?

Maybe - but at the next queue the bike will pass again and probably stay
in front this time. Equally often, you're straight into the next queue.

The queue exists because more cars are trying to get through than one
cycle of the lights can accommodate. I filter on my bike to ensure that
I only have to wait one cycle. It may not be necessary to go all the way
to the front - but there may be no other gaps in the queue.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.