Cyclist casualties up 9% in London.

On Jun 1, 10:39*am, Tom Crispin wrote:

I expect the next time I top it up will be on 27 July when I'll be in
Luxembourg. Diesel is E1.15 there; a smidgen over a pound per litre.

Do you think that you're the only person ever to have visited (or passed
through) Luxembourg?

No. But I don't expect that everyone knows the price of diesel in
Luxembourg in pounds.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I managed a stunning 40mpg out of a 2.2l petrol engine today by
driving on the autobahn at 56mph behind HGVs.
I might be able to make it into Austria on cheap fuel I bought in the
UK!

--
Simon Mason

On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 12:01:15 -0700 (PDT), Simon Mason
wrote:

On Jun 1, 10:39*am, Tom Crispin wrote:

I expect the next time I top it up will be on 27 July when I'll be in
Luxembourg. Diesel is E1.15 there; a smidgen over a pound per litre.

Do you think that you're the only person ever to have visited (or passed
through) Luxembourg?

No. But I don't expect that everyone knows the price of diesel in
Luxembourg in pounds.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I managed a stunning 40mpg out of a 2.2l petrol engine today by
driving on the autobahn at 56mph behind HGVs.
I might be able to make it into Austria on cheap fuel I bought in the
UK!

I once managed an incredible 997.8 miles on a single 72L tank of
diesel - I bottled the 1000 miles attempt at Corley Services on the M6
on my way home from Scotland.

A friend asked me how I managed such a distance. My reply was, "I
drove like a c*nt". And it was true. Slipstreaming HGVs for nearly
1000 miles on Britain's busiest roads at under 60mph was ****ish
driving, even if it did increase my fuel efficiency by 25%.

On Jun 1, 8:59*pm, Tom Crispin wrote:

I managed a stunning 40mpg out of a 2.2l petrol engine today by
driving on the autobahn at 56mph behind HGVs.
I might be able to make it into Austria on cheap fuel I bought in the
UK!

I once managed an incredible 997.8 miles on a single 72L tank of
diesel - I bottled the 1000 miles attempt at Corley Services on the M6
on my way home from Scotland.



I think my next car will have to be a Diesel, petrol in Europe is far
too expensive now and to think I was filling up with 102 RON petrol
this time last year.

--
Simon Mason

On Jun 1, 9:38*am, "Nightjar \"cpb\"@" "insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 01/06/2011 07:16, Doug wrote:

On May 31, 9:45 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere *wrote:
'''
You aren't. You need to get off your backside and do some real research.

On your behalf? You must be joking!

No need for that. I've already done the research, which is how I found
the reports in Hove Public Library.

Which you are unable to support here.

You have the information necessary to verify the information, if you
really want to. You are simply hiding behind your strawman argument.

Again, either put up or shut up.

My source is verifiable. You just can't do it from the comfort of your
armchair. There is no way that I can change whether the owners of the
copyright have decided to make it available online to the public for
free. The same would apply if I quoted from a British or ISO Standard.

Its simple really. Put up or shut up!

I have put up. The fact that you cannot be bothered to check on sources
that are not online is your problem, not mine.

No its your problem because you can't be bothered to verify your own
claim online.

Would you also deny a
British or ISO Standard simply because they are never published online
and can only be bought at very high prices or, sometimes, be inspected
in a Public Library reference section?

You have failed to put up an online verifiable source.
...

I do not judge the views of public protesters. I do, however, criticise
anti-social behaviour by them.

So you are judging their behaviour. Its still judging.

If Chief Police Officers went around throwing things through windows, I
would criticise them. However, if they decide that there is a speed,
higher than the speed limit, below which prosecution need not be
automatic, in order to comply with Human Rights legislation, then I have
no information with which to challenge that.

You could still have an opinion, which you seem to be holding back on.

I was brought up only to hold an opinion on something if I could put
forward a convincing argument for both sides. Otherwise, I keep an open
mind. Lacking the information I need to form an opinion on this matter,
I am keeping an open mind. I accept that may be an alien concept to you.

But you don't have an open mind about public protesters and you seem
to lack any argument in favour of them.

I don't recall the name, but that is something you probably can find out
from the comfort of your own armchair. However, the Home Office
published proposals today for zero tolerance on speed limits, which I am
sure will please you.

Yeh! Proposals. I have seen lots of those over the years but with very
little action to back them up. Of course, if speedometers are as
reliable as you say zero tolerance would be entirely feasible. Would
that please you too?

It wouldn't really matter to me one way or the other.

You don't mind zero tolerance enforcement of motorists?
...

Why does an aid I use to keep within the law need to be automatic?

If it was it would ensure that you didn't speed at all. As it is,
suddenly entering a 30mph limit from a 60mph limit relies entirely on
human intervention, which is notoriously unreliable.

Using a driving aid that limits my speed is both a lot more reliable and
safer than trying to keep to a set speed by constantly referring to a
speedometer.

Possibly but it doesn't prevent you from exceeding speed limits.
...



"ACPO Guidelines on speeding, and the UK law regarding prosecution.
Vehicle construction and use regulations require a vehicle speedometer
accuracy to be in the range of -0-+10%. The implications are that it
must never under-read - for obvious reasons - but may over-read. As
the cost of manufacturing a speedometer with -0% error would be very
costly they all over-read by a few percent without exception. Even if
speed is measured correctly the display may not be accurate, so a
speedometer error is allowed. Because of this, the Association of
Chief Police Officers (ACPO) have an official formula for calculating
a speeding offence. It allows a leeway of 10% plus 2mph. In reality,
most speed traps are triggered at higher speeds than this because if
they were set bang-on those guidelines, the sheer amount of paperwork
generated would overrun the police speeding departments."

http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_...ge/The_Law.htm

So police allow drivers to exceed speed limits because of difficulties
with speedometers, as I claimed previously.

Both you and the writer of that article are wrong.

Oh really? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

There is a link to the guidelines below. Read them for yourself.

The reasons given in
the ACPO guidleines are to ensure a proportional response to the crime,
consistency within different police areas and transparency about
enforecement action. There is absolutely no mention of speedometer
inaccuracy. The permitted tolerance is not really difficult to achieve..
What would be difficult would be making a speedo that always gave an
accurate reading, while staying within the tolerance.

Evidence?

Here are the guidleines in full:

http://www.pepipoo.com/files/ACPO/AC...guidelines.htm

The guidelines are not zero tolerance and they allow for a margin of
error, such as an unenforced 34mph in a 30mph zone. Why do you think
this is?
...

We seem to have reached out limit on this one and must agree to
disagree, as usual, unless you care to delete some of YOUR text.

As you are the one who thinks that messages should not be trimmed, you
really ought to use a newsreader that does not limit message lengths.

However, in the spirit of equality, I have trimmed out older comments
from both of us. Here is one of the bits your newsreader appears to have
truncated:

It is unilateral editing of my text with an ulterior motive I am
opposed to.

* I have also pointed out that I do not encourage people to
* break the law.
*
* Are you also claiming you never break the law yourself and indeed are
* perfect in that respect, despite your speed limiter not being
* automatic? All it would take is as moment's inattention on your part..

It would require me to be moving into a slower speed limit and to fail
to see two speed limit signs on posts by the side of the road and
usually one painted on the road surface as well. That would require a
lot more than a moment's inattention on my part. It would need to be
nearer half a minute without looking ahead properly and, probably, no
slowing traffic ahead of me. That simply isn't going to happen, no
matter how many straws you clutch at.

Interesting that you are claiming to be absolutely perfect in never
exceeding speed limits. I wonder how many people would agree with
you?

Doug.

On 02/06/2011 05:27, Doug wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:38 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 01/06/2011 07:16, Doug wrote:

On May 31, 9:45 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
'''
You aren't. You need to get off your backside and do some real research.

On your behalf? You must be joking!

No need for that. I've already done the research, which is how I found
the reports in Hove Public Library.

Which you are unable to support here.

You have the information necessary to verify the information, if you
really want to. You are simply hiding behind your strawman argument.

Again, either put up or shut up.

My source is verifiable. You just can't do it from the comfort of your
armchair. There is no way that I can change whether the owners of the
copyright have decided to make it available online to the public for
free. The same would apply if I quoted from a British or ISO Standard.

Its simple really. Put up or shut up!

I have put up. The fact that you cannot be bothered to check on sources
that are not online is your problem, not mine.

No its your problem because you can't be bothered to verify your own
claim online.

Would you also deny a
British or ISO Standard simply because they are never published online
and can only be bought at very high prices or, sometimes, be inspected
in a Public Library reference section?

You have failed to put up an online verifiable source.
...

I do not judge the views of public protesters. I do, however, criticise
anti-social behaviour by them.

So you are judging their behaviour. Its still judging.

If Chief Police Officers went around throwing things through windows, I
would criticise them. However, if they decide that there is a speed,
higher than the speed limit, below which prosecution need not be
automatic, in order to comply with Human Rights legislation, then I have
no information with which to challenge that.

You could still have an opinion, which you seem to be holding back on.

I was brought up only to hold an opinion on something if I could put
forward a convincing argument for both sides. Otherwise, I keep an open
mind. Lacking the information I need to form an opinion on this matter,
I am keeping an open mind. I accept that may be an alien concept to you.

But you don't have an open mind about public protesters and you seem
to lack any argument in favour of them.

I don't recall the name, but that is something you probably can find out
from the comfort of your own armchair. However, the Home Office
published proposals today for zero tolerance on speed limits, which I am
sure will please you.

Yeh! Proposals. I have seen lots of those over the years but with very
little action to back them up. Of course, if speedometers are as
reliable as you say zero tolerance would be entirely feasible. Would
that please you too?

It wouldn't really matter to me one way or the other.

You don't mind zero tolerance enforcement of motorists?
...

Why does an aid I use to keep within the law need to be automatic?

If it was it would ensure that you didn't speed at all. As it is,
suddenly entering a 30mph limit from a 60mph limit relies entirely on
human intervention, which is notoriously unreliable.

Using a driving aid that limits my speed is both a lot more reliable and
safer than trying to keep to a set speed by constantly referring to a
speedometer.

Possibly but it doesn't prevent you from exceeding speed limits.
...



"ACPO Guidelines on speeding, and the UK law regarding prosecution.
Vehicle construction and use regulations require a vehicle speedometer
accuracy to be in the range of -0-+10%. The implications are that it
must never under-read - for obvious reasons - but may over-read. As
the cost of manufacturing a speedometer with -0% error would be very
costly they all over-read by a few percent without exception. Even if
speed is measured correctly the display may not be accurate, so a
speedometer error is allowed. Because of this, the Association of
Chief Police Officers (ACPO) have an official formula for calculating
a speeding offence. It allows a leeway of 10% plus 2mph. In reality,
most speed traps are triggered at higher speeds than this because if
they were set bang-on those guidelines, the sheer amount of paperwork
generated would overrun the police speeding departments."

http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_...ge/The_Law.htm

So police allow drivers to exceed speed limits because of difficulties
with speedometers, as I claimed previously.

Both you and the writer of that article are wrong.

Oh really? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

There is a link to the guidelines below. Read them for yourself.

The reasons given in
the ACPO guidleines are to ensure a proportional response to the crime,
consistency within different police areas and transparency about
enforecement action. There is absolutely no mention of speedometer
inaccuracy. The permitted tolerance is not really difficult to achieve.
What would be difficult would be making a speedo that always gave an
accurate reading, while staying within the tolerance.

Evidence?

Here are the guidleines in full:

http://www.pepipoo.com/files/ACPO/AC...guidelines.htm

The guidelines are not zero tolerance and they allow for a margin of
error, such as an unenforced 34mph in a 30mph zone. Why do you think
this is?
...

We seem to have reached out limit on this one and must agree to
disagree, as usual, unless you care to delete some of YOUR text.

As you are the one who thinks that messages should not be trimmed, you
really ought to use a newsreader that does not limit message lengths.

However, in the spirit of equality, I have trimmed out older comments
from both of us. Here is one of the bits your newsreader appears to have
truncated:

It is unilateral editing of my text with an ulterior motive I am
opposed to.

I have also pointed out that I do not encourage people to
break the law.

Are you also claiming you never break the law yourself and indeed are
perfect in that respect, despite your speed limiter not being
automatic? All it would take is as moment's inattention on your part.

It would require me to be moving into a slower speed limit and to fail
to see two speed limit signs on posts by the side of the road and
usually one painted on the road surface as well. That would require a
lot more than a moment's inattention on my part. It would need to be
nearer half a minute without looking ahead properly and, probably, no
slowing traffic ahead of me. That simply isn't going to happen, no
matter how many straws you clutch at.

Interesting that you are claiming to be absolutely perfect in never
exceeding speed limits. I wonder how many people would agree with
you?

Doug.


Yet again Doug claims that only his sources are factual, what a surprise?

On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 00:36:31 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

I filled up my car today - I think that it was the first time since
November 2010. It cost £100.04 for a tank of diesel.
Shocking!

Your reaction does not surprise me at all.

The next day I topped up my Oyster Card by £50.

£50 is 15 return trips to London Bridge, 229 miles, so £100 will take
me 458 miles; that compares with 750 miles on £100 of diesel.

Motoring is clearly too cheap.

On 02/06/2011 11:44, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 00:36:31 +0100,
wrote:

I filled up my car today - I think that it was the first time since
November 2010. It cost £100.04 for a tank of diesel.
Shocking!

Your reaction does not surprise me at all.

The next day I topped up my Oyster Card by £50.

£50 is 15 return trips to London Bridge, 229 miles, so £100 will take
me 458 miles; that compares with 750 miles on £100 of diesel.

Motoring is clearly too cheap.

Feel free to send a cheque for the balance to:

Rt Hon George Osborne MP
The Treasury
Whitehall
London SW1.

Write it now. Don't delay. Repeat at frequent intervals.

On 02/06/2011 11:44, Tom Crispin wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 00:36:31 +0100,
wrote:

I filled up my car today - I think that it was the first time since
November 2010. It cost £100.04 for a tank of diesel.
Shocking!

Your reaction does not surprise me at all.

The next day I topped up my Oyster Card by £50.

£50 is 15 return trips to London Bridge, 229 miles, so £100 will take
me 458 miles; that compares with 750 miles on £100 of diesel.

Motoring is clearly too cheap.

If only fuel were the sole cost involved in motoring, eh?

On 02/06/2011 05:27, Doug wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:38 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 01/06/2011 07:16, Doug wrote:

On May 31, 9:45 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
'''
You aren't. You need to get off your backside and do some real research.

On your behalf? You must be joking!

No need for that. I've already done the research, which is how I found
the reports in Hove Public Library.

Which you are unable to support here.

You have the information necessary to verify the information, if you
really want to. You are simply hiding behind your strawman argument.

Again, either put up or shut up.

My source is verifiable. You just can't do it from the comfort of your
armchair. There is no way that I can change whether the owners of the
copyright have decided to make it available online to the public for
free. The same would apply if I quoted from a British or ISO Standard.

Its simple really. Put up or shut up!

I have put up. The fact that you cannot be bothered to check on sources
that are not online is your problem, not mine.

No its your problem because you can't be bothered to verify your own
claim online.

Are you really unable to understand that not everything is available online?


Would you also deny a
British or ISO Standard simply because they are never published online
and can only be bought at very high prices or, sometimes, be inspected
in a Public Library reference section?

You have failed to put up an online verifiable source.

Try answering the question. Would you deny a British or ISO standard
simply because they are never published online?

...

I do not judge the views of public protesters. I do, however, criticise
anti-social behaviour by them.

So you are judging their behaviour. Its still judging.

If Chief Police Officers went around throwing things through windows, I
would criticise them. However, if they decide that there is a speed,
higher than the speed limit, below which prosecution need not be
automatic, in order to comply with Human Rights legislation, then I have
no information with which to challenge that.

You could still have an opinion, which you seem to be holding back on.

I was brought up only to hold an opinion on something if I could put
forward a convincing argument for both sides. Otherwise, I keep an open
mind. Lacking the information I need to form an opinion on this matter,
I am keeping an open mind. I accept that may be an alien concept to you.

But you don't have an open mind about public protesters and you seem
to lack any argument in favour of them.

I can put a strong argument for or against any political stance. I
learned that ability as a child, tasked with swaying the minds of voters
being given a free lift to the polling station. While it was
unacceptable for the adult driving to express any views, very few
objected to a small child asking for a better future. That, IMO,
entitles me to hold views on politics. However, I don't recall censoring
anyone for their political views, although I might point out what I see
as errors in them.

I could even put forward a convincing argument for the anti-social
behaviour of many protestors, although I would need to be an arrogant,
self-centred, self-important and self-righteous person to believe it.

I don't recall the name, but that is something you probably can find out
from the comfort of your own armchair. However, the Home Office
published proposals today for zero tolerance on speed limits, which I am
sure will please you.

Yeh! Proposals. I have seen lots of those over the years but with very
little action to back them up. Of course, if speedometers are as
reliable as you say zero tolerance would be entirely feasible. Would
that please you too?

It wouldn't really matter to me one way or the other.

You don't mind zero tolerance enforcement of motorists?

For myself, no, but I do think it might be unfair on those who have no
access to the technology I use.

...

Why does an aid I use to keep within the law need to be automatic?

If it was it would ensure that you didn't speed at all. As it is,
suddenly entering a 30mph limit from a 60mph limit relies entirely on
human intervention, which is notoriously unreliable.

Using a driving aid that limits my speed is both a lot more reliable and
safer than trying to keep to a set speed by constantly referring to a
speedometer.

Possibly but it doesn't prevent you from exceeding speed limits.

The way I use it, it can do exactly that.

...



"ACPO Guidelines on speeding, and the UK law regarding prosecution.
Vehicle construction and use regulations require a vehicle speedometer
accuracy to be in the range of -0-+10%. The implications are that it
must never under-read - for obvious reasons - but may over-read. As
the cost of manufacturing a speedometer with -0% error would be very
costly they all over-read by a few percent without exception. Even if
speed is measured correctly the display may not be accurate, so a
speedometer error is allowed. Because of this, the Association of
Chief Police Officers (ACPO) have an official formula for calculating
a speeding offence. It allows a leeway of 10% plus 2mph. In reality,
most speed traps are triggered at higher speeds than this because if
they were set bang-on those guidelines, the sheer amount of paperwork
generated would overrun the police speeding departments."

http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_...ge/The_Law.htm

So police allow drivers to exceed speed limits because of difficulties
with speedometers, as I claimed previously.

Both you and the writer of that article are wrong.

Oh really? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

There is a link to the guidelines below. Read them for yourself.

The reasons given in
the ACPO guidleines are to ensure a proportional response to the crime,
consistency within different police areas and transparency about
enforecement action. There is absolutely no mention of speedometer
inaccuracy. The permitted tolerance is not really difficult to achieve.
What would be difficult would be making a speedo that always gave an
accurate reading, while staying within the tolerance.

Evidence?

Here are the guidleines in full:

http://www.pepipoo.com/files/ACPO/AC...guidelines.htm

The guidelines are not zero tolerance and they allow for a margin of
error, such as an unenforced 34mph in a 30mph zone. Why do you think
this is?

The answer is in the document and it has nothing to do with speedometer
error.

...

We seem to have reached out limit on this one and must agree to
disagree, as usual, unless you care to delete some of YOUR text.

As you are the one who thinks that messages should not be trimmed, you
really ought to use a newsreader that does not limit message lengths.

However, in the spirit of equality, I have trimmed out older comments
from both of us. Here is one of the bits your newsreader appears to have
truncated:

It is unilateral editing of my text with an ulterior motive I am
opposed to.

There is no ulterior motive in any of the trimming I do. It is either to
meet the demands of good usenet practice or to remove political cant
that is unrelated to the subject in hand.


I have also pointed out that I do not encourage people to
break the law.

Are you also claiming you never break the law yourself and indeed are
perfect in that respect, despite your speed limiter not being
automatic? All it would take is as moment's inattention on your part.

It would require me to be moving into a slower speed limit and to fail
to see two speed limit signs on posts by the side of the road and
usually one painted on the road surface as well. That would require a
lot more than a moment's inattention on my part. It would need to be
nearer half a minute without looking ahead properly and, probably, no
slowing traffic ahead of me. That simply isn't going to happen, no
matter how many straws you clutch at.

Interesting that you are claiming to be absolutely perfect in never
exceeding speed limits. I wonder how many people would agree with
you?

I can't claim that. I did exceed one about 40 years ago, but that was a
genuine mistake about the limit on the road. I didn't expect a
semi-rural dual carriageway to have a 30mph limit. It was only when I
noticed a lack of repeater signs on the street lamps that I twigged.

I also would not claim that my ability to keep a vehicle to a set speed
could possible match that of a speed limiter built into the vehicle, so
my speed may, inadvertantly, at times, have been a mph or two more than
I intended. Given that the manufacturers always set speedometers to
over-read to stay within the permitted tolerances, I cannot say whether
I went above the actual speed I was trying to maintain.

Colin Bignell