Games Lanes

In message , The Main Man
writes
Large cities have a significant number of suitable existing facilities
and the population base to actual make long term use of those facilities
built for the games.

Cloud cuckoo land. Those paying for it - the taxpayers - will get sweet
FA out of it except more bills.

The legacy effect is real, most cities end up with new useful sports
facilities (Los Angeles in 1984 was an exception, it used only existing
venues) for example Ajax played in the 1928 Olympic stadium until 1996,
the White City stadium built for the 1908 London Olympics was in use as
a greyhound track and for other sporting activities until 1984.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Dunbar

On 27/07/2012 23:00, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:48:01 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 27/07/2012 22:42, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:38:38 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 27/07/2012 19:32, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:11:08 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 27/07/2012 18:04, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:56:25 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 27, 2:32 pm, M Wicks wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:29 pm, "John Benn" wrote:



"M Wicks" wrote in message

...

Absolutely. Road narrowings etc are done to force drivers to keep to
the speed limit, and the speed limit is there for everyone's safety.
It's very simple so why do people like Nugent seem to find it so
difficult to grasp? Are they perhaps trying to muddy the waters
because they're too arrogant to stick to the speed limit? It beggars
belief that anyone could value their precious time above the safety of
others, but that is what appears to be happening here.

If you don't want to be fined and have roads narrowed, just obey the
law. I really don't see why anyone would have a problem with that.
Those who seek to prove that exceeding the speed limit is somehow not
dangerous are just doing so because they want to go as fast as they
like at the expense of others. It's despicable.

Nothing to say, Nugent? There's a surprise. I've got your number,
haven't I? When you speed, do you think about the danger that you are

Hello Mr Wicks. Doing much at the weekend?

I won't be speeding, that's for sure. How about you? Why don't you and
the other trolls just STOP SPEEDING and pretending that going too fast
is safe?

Hello it's Cretin Wicks again, Please explain how driving past a
primary school at 0300 when there are no light in the building and
there are no cars or minibuses in the car park needs to be at 20 mph?

Many schools have temporary speed restrictions outside, but it would
not be value for money to install temporary restrictions outside every
school.

The length of a school is generally no more than 500m. Can you tell me
how much time is lost slowing from 30mph to 20mph, keeping at 20mph
for 500m, then accelerating back to 30mph, compared with passing a
school at a constant 30mph?

And at 03:00, what point is there in doing so?

I am not a traffic planner, but I would expect it is something to do
with the cost of installing temporary restrictions outweighs the
benefits.

How long did you say you's waste at 3am slowing to pass a school?

And, perhaps more to the point, how often do you pass a school at 3am?

Every time I am out as late as 03:00.

There is a school (with a frontage about 300 yards* long) a few doors from my
property.

The local authority have never been stupid enough to install a 24hr 20mph
speed limit there (it's 40, 24/7/365).



[* This is Britain. We measure travel distance in miles and yards. Not metres
or multiples. What *were* you "thinking" of, using metres and miles per hour
in the same "thought"?]

Trying to baffle the ignorant. It worked.

I knew you had baffled yourself. I was pointing out that you hadn't baffled
anyone else.

I wasn't baffled.

Of *course* you were.

You've already admitted that it worked.

Don't back-pedal. It's undignified.

In message , Phil W Lee
writes
Brett Dunbar considered Sat, 28 Jul 2012
00:52:35 +0100 the perfect time to write:

The legacy effect is real, most cities end up with new useful sports
facilities (Los Angeles in 1984 was an exception, it used only existing
venues) for example Ajax played in the 1928 Olympic stadium until 1996,
the White City stadium built for the 1908 London Olympics was in use as
a greyhound track and for other sporting activities until 1984.

Look at more recent venues (since they turned the games into a huge
advertising event) and you'll see a different story.

No you won't, Atlanta for example uses the stadium for baseball, the odd
shape of the stadium was so that it could be converted. The only games
which didn't leave a legacy of new facilities was Los Angeles.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Dunbar

On Jul 27, 3:40*pm, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 05:54:20 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks wrote:

snip

Absolutely. Road narrowings etc are done to force drivers to keep to
the speed limit, and the speed limit is there for everyone's safety.
It's very simple so why do people like Nugent seem to find it so
difficult to grasp? Are they perhaps trying to muddy the waters
because they're too arrogant to stick to the speed limit? It beggars
belief that anyone could value their precious time above the safety of
others, but that is what appears to be happening here.

You are talking about Numb-nuts Mason here.

He thought it was great to ride his push bike at more than 20mph in a 20mph
speed limit as "the limit did not apply to cyclists".

Absolutely no consideration for the other people using the road.

He was not breaking the law. He was safe. But he was also riding a
bicycle, which of course is unforgivable as far as you're concerned.

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

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.

Phil W Lee wrote:

Brett Dunbar wrote:

The only games which didn't leave a legacy of new facilities was
Los Angeles.

And Athens, and Beijing. . .

http://www.oobject.com/category/12-e...olympic-sites/

On 28/07/2012 01:07, JNugent wrote:
On 27/07/2012 23:00, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:48:01 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 27/07/2012 22:42, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:38:38 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 27/07/2012 19:32, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:11:08 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 27/07/2012 18:04, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:56:25 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 27, 2:32 pm, M Wicks wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:29 pm, "John Benn" wrote:



"M Wicks" wrote in message

...


Absolutely. Road narrowings etc are done to force drivers to
keep to
the speed limit, and the speed limit is there for everyone's
safety.
It's very simple so why do people like Nugent seem to find
it so
difficult to grasp? Are they perhaps trying to muddy the waters
because they're too arrogant to stick to the speed limit? It
beggars
belief that anyone could value their precious time above the
safety of
others, but that is what appears to be happening here.

If you don't want to be fined and have roads narrowed, just
obey the
law. I really don't see why anyone would have a problem with
that.
Those who seek to prove that exceeding the speed limit is
somehow not
dangerous are just doing so because they want to go as fast
as they
like at the expense of others. It's despicable.

Nothing to say, Nugent? There's a surprise. I've got your
number,
haven't I? When you speed, do you think about the danger
that you are

Hello Mr Wicks. Doing much at the weekend?

I won't be speeding, that's for sure. How about you? Why don't
you and
the other trolls just STOP SPEEDING and pretending that going
too fast
is safe?

Hello it's Cretin Wicks again, Please explain how driving past a
primary school at 0300 when there are no light in the building and
there are no cars or minibuses in the car park needs to be at
20 mph?

Many schools have temporary speed restrictions outside, but it
would
not be value for money to install temporary restrictions outside
every
school.

The length of a school is generally no more than 500m. Can you
tell me
how much time is lost slowing from 30mph to 20mph, keeping at 20mph
for 500m, then accelerating back to 30mph, compared with passing a
school at a constant 30mph?

And at 03:00, what point is there in doing so?

I am not a traffic planner, but I would expect it is something to do
with the cost of installing temporary restrictions outweighs the
benefits.

How long did you say you's waste at 3am slowing to pass a school?

And, perhaps more to the point, how often do you pass a school at
3am?

Every time I am out as late as 03:00.

There is a school (with a frontage about 300 yards* long) a few
doors from my
property.

The local authority have never been stupid enough to install a 24hr
20mph
speed limit there (it's 40, 24/7/365).



[* This is Britain. We measure travel distance in miles and yards.
Not metres
or multiples. What *were* you "thinking" of, using metres and miles
per hour
in the same "thought"?]

Trying to baffle the ignorant. It worked.

I knew you had baffled yourself. I was pointing out that you hadn't
baffled
anyone else.

I wasn't baffled.

Of *course* you were.

You've already admitted that it worked.

Don't back-pedal. It's undignified.

Unless you're baffling for Britain, of course! Then it's entirely
appropriate.

--
Moving things in still pictures

On 27/07/2012 23:00, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:48:01 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 27/07/2012 22:42, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 22:38:38 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 27/07/2012 19:32, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 18:11:08 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 27/07/2012 18:04, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:56:25 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On Jul 27, 2:32 pm, M Wicks wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:29 pm, "John Benn" wrote:



"M Wicks" wrote in message

...

Absolutely. Road narrowings etc are done to force drivers to keep to
the speed limit, and the speed limit is there for everyone's safety.
It's very simple so why do people like Nugent seem to find it so
difficult to grasp? Are they perhaps trying to muddy the waters
because they're too arrogant to stick to the speed limit? It beggars
belief that anyone could value their precious time above the safety of
others, but that is what appears to be happening here.

If you don't want to be fined and have roads narrowed, just obey the
law. I really don't see why anyone would have a problem with that.
Those who seek to prove that exceeding the speed limit is somehow not
dangerous are just doing so because they want to go as fast as they
like at the expense of others. It's despicable.

Nothing to say, Nugent? There's a surprise. I've got your number,
haven't I? When you speed, do you think about the danger that you are

Hello Mr Wicks. Doing much at the weekend?

I won't be speeding, that's for sure. How about you? Why don't you and
the other trolls just STOP SPEEDING and pretending that going too fast
is safe?

Hello it's Cretin Wicks again, Please explain how driving past a
primary school at 0300 when there are no light in the building and
there are no cars or minibuses in the car park needs to be at 20 mph?

Many schools have temporary speed restrictions outside, but it would
not be value for money to install temporary restrictions outside every
school.

The length of a school is generally no more than 500m. Can you tell me
how much time is lost slowing from 30mph to 20mph, keeping at 20mph
for 500m, then accelerating back to 30mph, compared with passing a
school at a constant 30mph?

And at 03:00, what point is there in doing so?

I am not a traffic planner, but I would expect it is something to do
with the cost of installing temporary restrictions outweighs the
benefits.

How long did you say you's waste at 3am slowing to pass a school?

And, perhaps more to the point, how often do you pass a school at 3am?

Every time I am out as late as 03:00.

There is a school (with a frontage about 300 yards* long) a few doors from my
property.

The local authority have never been stupid enough to install a 24hr 20mph
speed limit there (it's 40, 24/7/365).



[* This is Britain. We measure travel distance in miles and yards. Not metres
or multiples. What *were* you "thinking" of, using metres and miles per hour
in the same "thought"?]

Trying to baffle the ignorant. It worked.

I knew you had baffled yourself. I was pointing out that you hadn't baffled
anyone else.

I wasn't baffled.

It appears to be your permanent state...

--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

In message , Phil W Lee
writes
Brett Dunbar considered Sat, 28 Jul 2012
11:47:53 +0100 the perfect time to write:

In message , Phil W Lee
writes
Brett Dunbar considered Sat, 28 Jul 2012
00:52:35 +0100 the perfect time to write:

The legacy effect is real, most cities end up with new useful sports
facilities (Los Angeles in 1984 was an exception, it used only existing
venues) for example Ajax played in the 1928 Olympic stadium until 1996,
the White City stadium built for the 1908 London Olympics was in use as
a greyhound track and for other sporting activities until 1984.

Look at more recent venues (since they turned the games into a huge
advertising event) and you'll see a different story.

No you won't, Atlanta for example uses the stadium for baseball, the odd
shape of the stadium was so that it could be converted. The only games
which didn't leave a legacy of new facilities was Los Angeles.

And Athens, and Beijing. . .

No both of those built fairly extensive facilities, LA was unique in
only using existing venues. All other games left at least some new
facilities. Many stadiums have seen decades of use.

The legacy from Beijing includes: from 2009 the China Open has been held
at the Olympic Green Tennis Centre (which got a new centre court in
2011). Four universities had new gymnasiums built. The National Aquatics
Centre remains in use as a public swimming pool, part of which has been
converted into a water park. The National Stadium while it doesn't have
a permanent use seems to be fairly profitable at running various one-off
events.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/
Brett Dunbar

On 27 July, 18:04, Bertie Wooster wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 09:56:25 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:





On Jul 27, 2:32*pm, M Wicks wrote:
On Jul 27, 2:29*pm, "John Benn" wrote:

"M Wicks" wrote in message

....

Absolutely. Road narrowings etc are done to force drivers to keep to
the speed limit, and the speed limit is there for everyone's safety.
It's very simple so why do people like Nugent seem to find it so
difficult to grasp? Are they perhaps trying to muddy the waters
because they're too arrogant to stick to the speed limit? It beggars
belief that anyone could value their precious time above the safety of
others, but that is what appears to be happening here.

If you don't want to be fined and have roads narrowed, just obey the
law. I really don't see why anyone would have a problem with that.
Those who seek to prove that exceeding the speed limit is somehow not
dangerous are just doing so because they want to go as fast as they
like at the expense of others. It's despicable.

Nothing to say, Nugent? There's a surprise. I've got your number,
haven't I? When you speed, do you think about the danger that you are

Hello Mr Wicks. *Doing much at the weekend?

I won't be speeding, that's for sure. How about you? Why don't you and
the other trolls just STOP SPEEDING and pretending that going too fast
is safe?

Hello it's Cretin Wicks again, Please explain how driving past a
primary school at 0300 when there are no light in the building and
there are no cars or minibuses in the car park needs to be at 20 mph?

Many schools have temporary speed restrictions outside, but it would
not be value for money to install temporary restrictions outside every
school.

How much is the cost of putting up an additional sign that the 20mph
limit is only valid between, say 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. on school days?
There might also be a benefit in motorists respecting the speed limit
signs a bit more.

The length of a school is generally no more than 500m. Can you tell me
how much time is lost slowing from 30mph to 20mph, keeping at 20mph
for 500m, then accelerating back to 30mph, compared with passing a
school at a constant 30mph?