Games Lanes

On Jul 28, 4:21*pm, Judith wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 06:13:11 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks wrote:

snip

There are very good reasons why speed limits apply to cars and not
bicycles.

OK I will bite - unless you are just commenting on the fact that cyclists would
have struggled to manage 5 or 10 mph when speed limits were introduced.

PEOPLE CAN RUN FASTER THAN THAT!!!!!! WHAT WOULD THE POINT HAVE BEEN
OF CYCLING AT ALL?!?!?!??! GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT
JUDITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People's momentum is as important as their speed per se. That is why
lorries have lower speed limits than cars. Since cyclists have such
lower mass than cars, they can have much higher speed limits, or
effectively no speed limits since they can't get that fast anyway. If
you had something that was, say, a tenth of the weight of a cyclist,
then I wouldn't see any issue with allowing it to travel in excess of
90mph on any road. The damage it could do even at that speed would be
negligent.

Any driver who doesn't like speed limits can always start cycling
anyway, and that would be no bad thing. Unless you're Nugent and you
want all cyclists to be lined up and executed by firing squad. He has
never explained just why he thinks that's such a good idea. It's clear
that he posts here for all the wrong reasons at any rate. And of
course he constantly dodges difficult questions.

On 28/07/2012 23:39, M Wicks wrote:
On Jul 28, 4:21 pm, Judith wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 06:13:11 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks wrote:

snip

There are very good reasons why speed limits apply to cars and not
bicycles.

OK I will bite - unless you are just commenting on the fact that cyclists would
have struggled to manage 5 or 10 mph when speed limits were introduced.

PEOPLE CAN RUN FASTER THAN THAT!!!!!! WHAT WOULD THE POINT HAVE BEEN
OF CYCLING AT ALL?!?!?!??! GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT
JUDITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People's momentum is as important as their speed per se.

Again, please, in English this time.

That is why
lorries have lower speed limits than cars.

Not in city streets, they don't.

Try again?

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, M Wicks drooled

On Jul 28, 4:21Â*pm, Judith wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 06:13:11 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks
wrote:

snip

There are very good reasons why speed limits apply to cars and not
bicycles.

OK I will bite - unless you are just commenting on the fact that
cyclists would have struggled to manage 5 or 10 mph when speed limits
were introduced.

PEOPLE CAN RUN FASTER THAN THAT!!!!!! WHAT WOULD THE POINT HAVE BEEN OF
CYCLING AT ALL?!?!?!??! GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT
JUDITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People's momentum is as important as their speed per se. That is why
lorries have lower speed limits than cars. Since cyclists have such
lower mass than cars, they can have much higher speed limits, or
effectively no speed limits since they can't get that fast anyway. If
you had something that was, say, a tenth of the weight of a cyclist,
then I wouldn't see any issue with allowing it to travel in excess of
90mph on any road. The damage it could do even at that speed would be
negligent

You stupid ****.

How much mass does a bullet have?

How much mass does a boxer's hand have?

Neither have much, both move quickly, both do a lot of damage.

Take your ****wittery elsewhere you utter idiot


--
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten (c) George Carlin

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:02:29 +0000 (UTC), Barb Dwyer wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, M Wicks drooled

People's momentum is as important as their speed per se. That is
why lorries have lower speed limits than cars. Since cyclists have
such lower mass than cars, they can have much higher speed limits,
or effectively no speed limits since they can't get that fast
anyway. If you had something that was, say, a tenth of the weight
of a cyclist, then I wouldn't see any issue with allowing it to
travel in excess of 90mph on any road. The damage it could do even
at that speed would be negligent

You stupid ****.

How much mass does a bullet have?

Much less than a tenth of a cyclist. Are you going to assure us that
it goes no faster than 90mph? Or alternatively do you want to
explain why it is that you think it's M Wicks that's the stupid one?

You will also observe that the statement made was not that momentum
is all that matters, but rather that it is as important as speed.

Shape, size, hardness etc. may also be significant in consequences of
an impact, and various other factors will be significant in
determining likelihood of an impact, and that is not precluded by the
statements you've taken exception to.

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"Barb Dwyer" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, M Wicks drooled

On Jul 28, 4:21 pm, Judith wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 06:13:11 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks
wrote:

snip

There are very good reasons why speed limits apply to cars and not
bicycles.

OK I will bite - unless you are just commenting on the fact that
cyclists would have struggled to manage 5 or 10 mph when speed limits
were introduced.

PEOPLE CAN RUN FASTER THAN THAT!!!!!! WHAT WOULD THE POINT HAVE BEEN OF
CYCLING AT ALL?!?!?!??! GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT
JUDITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People's momentum is as important as their speed per se. That is why
lorries have lower speed limits than cars. Since cyclists have such
lower mass than cars, they can have much higher speed limits, or
effectively no speed limits since they can't get that fast anyway. If
you had something that was, say, a tenth of the weight of a cyclist,
then I wouldn't see any issue with allowing it to travel in excess of
90mph on any road. The damage it could do even at that speed would be
negligent

You stupid ****.

How much mass does a bullet have?

How much mass does a boxer's hand have?

Neither have much, both move quickly, both do a lot of damage.

Take your ****wittery elsewhere you utter idiot


I think that rather neatly closes the argument. Well done!

On 29/07/2012 09:17, Partac wrote:


"Barb Dwyer" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, M Wicks drooled

On Jul 28, 4:21 pm, Judith wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 06:13:11 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks
wrote:

snip

There are very good reasons why speed limits apply to cars and not
bicycles.

OK I will bite - unless you are just commenting on the fact that
cyclists would have struggled to manage 5 or 10 mph when speed limits
were introduced.

PEOPLE CAN RUN FASTER THAN THAT!!!!!! WHAT WOULD THE POINT HAVE BEEN OF
CYCLING AT ALL?!?!?!??! GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT
JUDITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

People's momentum is as important as their speed per se. That is why
lorries have lower speed limits than cars. Since cyclists have such
lower mass than cars, they can have much higher speed limits, or
effectively no speed limits since they can't get that fast anyway. If
you had something that was, say, a tenth of the weight of a cyclist,
then I wouldn't see any issue with allowing it to travel in excess of
90mph on any road. The damage it could do even at that speed would be
negligent

You stupid ****.

How much mass does a bullet have?
How much mass does a boxer's hand have?

Neither have much, both move quickly, both do a lot of damage.

Take your ****wittery elsewhere you utter idiot


I think that rather neatly closes the argument. Well done!

Yes, subtlety will always win the day.

--
Moving things in still pictures

On 29/07/2012 09:17, Ian Smith wrote:

Barb Dwyer wrote:
M Wicks drooled

People's momentum is as important as their speed per se. That is
why lorries have lower speed limits than cars. Since cyclists have
such lower mass than cars, they can have much higher speed limits,
or effectively no speed limits since they can't get that fast
anyway. If you had something that was, say, a tenth of the weight
of a cyclist, then I wouldn't see any issue with allowing it to
travel in excess of 90mph on any road. The damage it could do even
at that speed would be negligent

You stupid ****.
How much mass does a bullet have?

Much less than a tenth of a cyclist. Are you going to assure us that
it goes no faster than 90mph? Or alternatively do you want to
explain why it is that you think it's M Wicks that's the stupid one?

You will also observe that the statement made was not that momentum
is all that matters, but rather that it is as important as speed.

Shape, size, hardness etc. may also be significant in consequences of
an impact, and various other factors will be significant in
determining likelihood of an impact, and that is not precluded by the
statements you've taken exception to.

You've made the mistake of taking M Wicks seriously. The PP (who seems to be
a custom-construction in order to fight idiocy with fire) has not.

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks wrote:

On Jul 28, 4:21*pm, Judith wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 06:13:11 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks wrote:

snip

There are very good reasons why speed limits apply to cars and not
bicycles.

OK I will bite - unless you are just commenting on the fact that cyclists would
have struggled to manage 5 or 10 mph when speed limits were introduced.

PEOPLE CAN RUN FASTER THAN THAT!!!!!! WHAT WOULD THE POINT HAVE BEEN
OF CYCLING AT ALL?!?!?!??! GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT
JUDITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !


A residential area - with roads going past schools has been designated as a
maximum speed of 20mph. This is presumably to protect the residents, the kids
playing in the street and the school kids outside of the school. (Note: I am
not saying if I agree with such limits or not).

If cyclists insist on riding through such areas at 20 or 25 mph - just because
the limits do not apply to cyclists - do you think that that is acceptable
behaviour?

Sorry to try and nail you down - but you seem to have no opinions of your own.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:17:00 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:02:29 +0000 (UTC), Barb Dwyer wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 15:39:22 -0700, M Wicks drooled

People's momentum is as important as their speed per se. That is
why lorries have lower speed limits than cars. Since cyclists have
such lower mass than cars, they can have much higher speed limits,
or effectively no speed limits since they can't get that fast
anyway. If you had something that was, say, a tenth of the weight
of a cyclist, then I wouldn't see any issue with allowing it to
travel in excess of 90mph on any road. The damage it could do even
at that speed would be negligent

You stupid ****.

How much mass does a bullet have?

Much less than a tenth of a cyclist. Are you going to assure us that
it goes no faster than 90mph? Or alternatively do you want to
explain why it is that you think it's M Wicks that's the stupid one?

You will also observe that the statement made was not that momentum
is all that matters, but rather that it is as important as speed.

Shape, size, hardness etc. may also be significant in consequences of
an impact, and various other factors will be significant in
determining likelihood of an impact, and that is not precluded by the
statements you've taken exception to.



Do you think it is socially and morally acceptable for cyclists to exceed
20mph speed limits for example outside schools because they know that the speed
limits do not apply to them? Most cyclists in the cycling newsgroup appear not
to want to answer that question for some reason or other.

Can you please?

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 10:18:26 +0100, Grim Reaper wrote:

Do you think it is socially and morally acceptable for cyclists to
exceed 20mph speed limits for example outside schools because they know
that the speed limits do not apply to them? Most cyclists in the
cycling newsgroup appear not to want to answer that question for some
reason or other.

Can you please?

If it is safe to do so why not. As you have stated already speed limits
do not apply to cycles. There is also no legal requirement to have a
speedo or computer fitted. So how would we know anyway. If there is an
accident as a result of the speed then it probably wasn't safe and should
be dealt with using appropriate extant laws.

If it's kicking out time then obviously it won't be safe to do so due to
the rather lemming like nature of children. In general though it will
probably be difficult to achieve due to traffic calming measures.

--
davethedave