The dangers of coasting downhill not in gear

On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 18:30:10 +0100, Simon Jester wrote:

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 5:55:29 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:


One marvels that the OP has not stood his ground, particularly as his
posting the story in the first place can only have been his attempt at
some sort of exposé on how poor driving skills are among the population
in general (which would include himself).

Most drivers consider themselves to be above average and rate other drivers as below average.

Do they? After 19 years of driving, I consider myself better than most. But I didn't think that for the first few years. Didn't stop me driving faster than everyone else though, which I still do.

--
Barber: "Your hair is getting grey."
Customer: "Try cutting a little faster."

On 21/08/2016 18:30, Simon Jester wrote:

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 5:55:29 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

One marvels that the OP has not stood his ground, particularly as his
posting the story in the first place can only have been his attempt at
some sort of exposé on how poor driving skills are among the population
in general (which would include himself).

Most drivers consider themselves to be above average and rate other drivers as below average.

If that oft-quoted factoid is accurate, it can only be so because there
is no objective way of assessing standards of driving (other than via
the practical driving test and in whether or not a driver obeys the law).

And this is because despite what some like to believe, there is no
official body of knowledge to do with driving. There are no Chairs of
Driving Skills at any of our universities and no way for anyone to know
how good (or otherwise) they may be at driving. In such circumstances,
it should not come as a surprise that some elect to simply view
themselves as the arbiter of knowledge and skill.

The difference is below average cyclists will only hurt themselves , below average motorists will hurt others.

The old ones are sometimes the best, aren't they?

x-post reset.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2016 09:51:18 +0100, NY wrote:

"MrCheerful" wrote in message
...

the steering will not lock unless the key is actually removed.

I do wonder whether he may have done this as a bit of extra bravado...

PS or non PS will often have the same lock to lock. If a PS system has no
power input it will always be very heavy, draining all the fluid will make
it much lighter.

Ah, that's two opposing explanations I've heard for heavy steering on PS
with no power input: higher gearing (ie fewer lock-to-lock turns) and fact
that you are compressing fluid you as you turn the wheels. Some people in
this group have said that PS cars have fewer turns of the wheel lock to
lock, and other say it's usually the same (or very similar). My experience
with the two versions of Golf Mark II that I test drove were that the
gearing was very similar.

Agreed - although it appears less as you can turn it so easily.

--
Her voice had that tense grating quality, like a first-generation thermal paper fax machine that needed a band tightened.

On 21/08/2016 18:32, Simon Jester wrote:

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 5:57:55 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

No cyclist involved, apparently.

I assunmed that SM had meant to post to uk.transport (the only place it
could really be relevant, other than uk.rec.driving) and so assisted him
with a helpful cross-post.

This from the person who kept snipping UK.RAILWAY from a discussion about level crossings on UK.TRANSPORT because it was a 'train spotters group'.

There are long-running disputes on uk.railway between two groups of
posters. One group can fairly be described as interested in the
transport aspects of the railways. The other group (and judging from the
number of posts, their subjects and reactions to them) are the
trainspotters. For that latter group, everything is subservient to railways.

HTH.

x-post reinstated, just as it will be for all discussions about motor
vehicles rather than about bicycles.

On 21/08/2016 18:32, Simon Jester wrote:
On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 5:57:55 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

No cyclist involved, apparently.

I assunmed that SM had meant to post to uk.transport (the only place it
could really be relevant, other than uk.rec.driving) and so assisted him
with a helpful cross-post.

This from the person who kept snipping UK.RAILWAY from a discussion about level crossings on UK.TRANSPORT because it was a 'train spotters group'.

There are long-running disputes on uk.railway between two groups of
posters. One group can fairly be described as interested in the
transport aspects of the railways. The other group (and judging from the
number of posts, their subjects and reactions to them) are the
trainspotters. For that latter group, everything is subservient to railways.

HTH.

x-post reinstated, just as it will be for all discussions about motor
vehicles rather than about bicycles.

On 20/08/2016 20:38, AnthonyL wrote:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 20:06:06 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 20/08/2016 16:13, Recliner wrote:
AnthonyL wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 16:09:06 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 18/08/2016 15:47, Alycidon wrote:

Terrible tragedy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cDonald-s.html


Whether or not coasting saves fuel I am very sceptical that any modern
car cannot negotiate a downhill run with its brakes. I certainly
remember it being essential to put my Dad's old Austin 12 into the
right gear and I'm fairly sure my early Morris Minor suffered brake
fade on steep slopes - but a Seat Ibiza? Even fully laden.

Now if the guy was trying to see how the car would go out of gear and
without touching the brakes on a nice hill - I might believe that - or
else Seat brakes are crap.

Let's not forget that the driver was a 21 year old bloke in a car full of
his (younger) mates. That's not the demographic which typically exhibits
the best example of skilled driving.

Exactly.

I agree and that is my point, but all the blame and subsequent
discussion here seems to be directed to the 'coasting' issue downhill
in a fully laden car. The coasting is a red-herring in my view.

The OP was not even trying to get at the truth.

He was simply trying to counter posts in uk.rec.cycling about the
patently terrible behaviour of (many/most) cyclists in the UK by
pointing at a terrible motor vehicle collision as though it was either
common or somehow relevant to the terrible behaviours of British chavs
on bikes.

But because the post was purely about driving, it was OT in uk.r.c and
more on-topic here in uk.t.

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 6:40:24 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

There are long-running disputes on uk.railway between two groups of
posters. One group can fairly be described as interested in the
transport aspects of the railways. The other group (and judging from the
number of posts, their subjects and reactions to them) are the
trainspotters. For that latter group, everything is subservient to railways.


And you are still in the group that would require trains to come to a halt at level crossings until the driver operates a 'manual device?'

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
The difference is below average cyclists will only hurt themselves, below
average motorists will hurt others.

A below average cyclist (eg one who suddenly veers into the middle of the
road or shoots through a red light into the path of traffic that has the
right of way) has the potential of being responsible for many injuries if
traffic has to brake hard to avoid hitting the cyclist or to swerve to avoid
doing so, and in doing so hits or is hit by other vehicles. That would
probably be recorded as being a motorist's fault, and the cyclist, if not
injured and not restrained by passers-by, would probably leave the scene
without even being recorded officially as the cause.

Cars have the potential to cause a lot more damage or injury, but cyclists
are not completely harmless and immune from being responsible for damage or
injury.

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 7:08:11 PM UTC+1, NY wrote:

A below average cyclist (eg one who suddenly veers into the middle of the
road or shoots through a red light into the path of traffic that has the
right of way) has the potential of being responsible for many injuries if
traffic has to brake hard to avoid hitting the cyclist or to swerve to avoid
doing so, and in doing so hits or is hit by other vehicles.

Can you provide examples of this happening?

Maybe next time you flush your toilet the water will undergo cold fusion and set off a chain reaction in the atmosphere where all Hydrogen undergoes fusion and destroys all life on earth.

On Sunday, 21 August 2016 18:36:17 UTC+1, James Wilkinson wrote:
After 19 years of driving, I consider myself better than most. But I didn't think that for the first few years. Didn't stop me driving faster than everyone else though, which I still do.

40 years no claims - £150 for insurance on a 2.2l.