BBC Have Your Say
Paul Boyd
about cycling, but some of the comments from drivers are really quite
scary! There is a cycling reference in the accompanying article though.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm
"Have Your Say" here:-
<http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3685&edition=1&ttl=20071016101451>
--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
spindrift
> This is about 20mph limits in urban areas, rather than specifically
> about cycling, but some of the comments from drivers are really quite
> scary! There is a cycling reference in the accompanying article though.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm
>
> "Have Your Say" here:-
>
> --
> Paul Boydhttp://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
"Cyclists don't pay road tax"
"I blame the immigrants"
That's enough of that.
Paul Boyd
> "Cyclists don't pay road tax"
Did you see the "Do you think you own the roads? Yes - we pay road
tax!" one.
Oh dear!
Martin Dann
> This is about 20mph limits in urban areas, rather than specifically
> about cycling, but some of the comments from drivers are really quite
> scary! There is a cycling reference in the accompanying article though.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm
>
> "Have Your Say" here:-
> <http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3685&edition=1&ttl=20071016101451>
They also have one about there being too many blobs of fat in the
country, at the same time an "MP" wants to mandate hellmets.
JNugent
> This is about 20mph limits in urban areas, rather than specifically
> about cycling, but some of the comments from drivers are really quite
> scary! There is a cycling reference in the accompanying article though.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm
>
> "Have Your Say" here:-
> <http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3685&edition=1&ttl=20071016101451>
There is so much confused reporting and comment on this topic.
Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media) make
it clear what IS being proposed?
d...@telent.net
> There is so much confused reporting and comment on this topic.
>
> Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
> blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media) make
> it clear what IS being proposed?
I'm assuming that was a rhetorical question. The media lives by driving
eyeballs to their advertisers, they don't make money by printing the truth.
_
Why not?
Average speed is usually much less...
Zog The Undeniable
Ironically, the MP who is usually behind such campaigns IS a blob of fat.
Paul Boyd
> They also have one about there being too many blobs of fat in the
> country, at the same time an "MP" wants to mandate hellmets.
Or this morning's news headline at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7047244.stm - "Obesity 'not
individuals' fault'"
What? Someone else is forcing the burger and crisps and "diet" coke
down their throats?
Paul Boyd
> There is so much confused reporting and comment on this topic.
That does seem to apply to the BBC site generally though these days,
unfortunately. My pet hate is where the report has something like "Bert
Smith has stated that blah-de-blah". Who the f*** is Bert Smith? Some
bloke passing in the street or someone with some authority on the matter
being discussed?
As for the specific HYS, yup - people are confused! There's one guy who
says that he won't be out of second gear at 20mph, and an inadvertent
sneeze means he's doing 50. Several people say that modern cars can't
drive at 20mph. Jeez - and these people are on the roads? I don't know
if my 12 year old Mondeo counts as modern or not, but it can reasonably
happily do 20mph in 4th once it's warmed up.
Adam Lea
> Martin Dann said the following on 16/10/2007 17:39:
>
> > They also have one about there being too many blobs of fat in the
> > country, at the same time an "MP" wants to mandate hellmets.
>
> individuals' fault'"
>
> What? Someone else is forcing the burger and crisps and "diet" coke
> down their throats?
>
> --
> Paul Boydhttp://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
There is more too it than that. One important consideration is the
amount of food someone needs to eat to maintain a certain weight, and
the amount of food their appetite is telling them to eat. I have been
thin all my life, I eat reasonably healthy but still eat fatty, sugary
foods occasionally. I have seen people go to all you can eat places
and have three full sized meals in one sitting. Me, on the other hand
would throw up if I attempted such a thing, because my appetite is
suppressed much sooner. Hence my equilibrium weight hovers around the
10.5-11 stone level, whereas others who have to eat more to feel full
would hover around the 15-16 stone level.
I did try to bulk up once with a combination of weight training and
forcing myself to eat more. I got to a little over 12 stone but
couldn't, no matter how hard I tried, get any bigger. This was because
the number of calories required for me to gain significantly more
weight was in excess of the number of calories I could actually eat in
a day. If I can hit a plateau like that whilst trying to gain weight
then maybe certain fat people have an analogous issue when it comes to
losing weight.
Paul Boyd
> There is more too it than that
I know - I was being partially glib. However, an obviously grossly
overweight person stuffing Big Macs down themselves washed down with
coke isn't doing themselves any favours.
By the way, I've been 6ft for a goodly number of years, and was around
10 stone through my student days. Then I got up to around 11st and sat
there for a while. In my mid-30's something caught up, and at 41 I've
been around 13.5-14st for about 5 years. None of my dietary or exercise
habits have changed - the weight just suddenly caught up!
...and I do stuff Big Macs down myself on occasion :-)
David Lloyd
wrote:
Because the average speed would then be even lower, the traffic
density along urban main roads would go up, leading to more frequent
grid-lock. Also, when travelling at lower speeds, drivers can find
more distractions to occupy themselves, rather than having to pay full
attension to their driving. What I think you will end up with is a lot
more lower speed collisions with bicycles, parked vehicles and road
furniture.
David Lloyd
Dylan Smith
> As for the specific HYS, yup - people are confused! There's one guy who
> says that he won't be out of second gear at 20mph, and an inadvertent
> sneeze means he's doing 50. Several people say that modern cars can't
> drive at 20mph. Jeez - and these people are on the roads? I don't know
> if my 12 year old Mondeo counts as modern or not, but it can reasonably
> happily do 20mph in 4th once it's warmed up.
This makes me boggle, too. I think there should be a section in the
driving test where the speedometer is covered up, and the candidate must
remain within +-10% of the speed specified by the examiner.
I can drive very, very close to the speed I intend to go at by just
looking out of the window and listening to the sound my car's
transmission is making. In fact, once you've had a car for a week or so,
any driver of average competence should be able to make a *close*
estimate of their speed from the sound of the transmission and how fast
objects outside are going past. It just isn't that hard. You don't need
to stare at the speedometer, and anyone who does needs remedial
training.
--
From the sunny Isle of Man.
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Mark McNeill
This has come up in various x-posted hooleys with driving-related
newsgroups: one argument often advanced against speed limits is the
distraction of glancing regularly at the speedo in order to be certain
of driving under the limit. There are a couple of obvious responses to
that ;-) of which the above observation is one. Funny that
cyclist/motorists like me can keep a car under 50mph by judging the
engine noise, yet Proper Drivers such as one finds in uk.transport
can't.
It's in the news as well:
http://www.newcarnet.co.uk/Auto_news.html?id=7291
from which we can conclude that my three-year-old car is In Fact a
rackety old banger. ;-)
--
Mark, UK
"Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty."
David Hansen
<siri...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote this:-
>> > Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
>> > blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media) make
>> > it clear what IS being proposed?
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> Average speed is usually much less...
>
>Because the average speed would then be even lower,
Would it? By how much?
Given that motor vehicles spend a considerable time in/approaching
queues and the like in many urban areas I doubt if the average speed
would change by very much. What would change with a vigourously
enforced 20mph speed limit would be the maximum speeds.
>the traffic density along urban main roads would go up,
Why?
>Also, when travelling at lower speeds, drivers can find
>more distractions to occupy themselves, rather than having to pay full
>attension to their driving. What I think you will end up with is a lot
>more lower speed collisions with bicycles, parked vehicles and road
>furniture.
Evidence for this, such as figures from other places which have such
speed limits?
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
_
I rather think whjat will result will be another equilibrium, where the
average speed is the same, the number of motorcars is less, and the number
of cyclists is greater.
A draw-win-win situation.
David Lloyd
> On 17 Oct, 08:11, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>
> > Or this morning's news headline athttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7047244.stm- "Obesity 'not
> > individuals' fault'"
>
> > What? Someone else is forcing the burger and crisps and "diet" coke
> > down their throats?
>
> amount of food someone needs to eat to maintain a certain weight, and
> the amount of food their appetite is telling them to eat. I have been
> thin all my life, I eat reasonably healthy but still eat fatty, sugary
> foods occasionally. I have seen people go to all you can eat places
> and have three full sized meals in one sitting. Me, on the other hand
> would throw up if I attempted such a thing, because my appetite is
> suppressed much sooner. Hence my equilibrium weight hovers around the
> 10.5-11 stone level, whereas others who have to eat more to feel full
> would hover around the 15-16 stone level.
>
People don't have to eat until they feel full. I think I'm right in
saying the only two times in the last year that I've eaten to my
capacity were last Christmas and a visit to my local indian restaurant
in May. That is not to say that my capacity is large, even going by
the mountain of pasta I can shovel away.
I remember one slimming technique that Paul Mckenna recommended was
for people to learn to leave something on their plate, which is sooo
against the British attitude.
David Lloyd
David Lloyd
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:34:08 -0700 someone who may be David Lloyd
>
> >> > Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
> >> > blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media) make
> >> > it clear what IS being proposed?
>
> >> Why not?
>
> >> Average speed is usually much less...
>
> >Because the average speed would then be even lower,
>
> Would it? By how much?
>
If you reduce the top figures of any sample, all else being equal, the
average (mean) for that sample will be reduced. It's basic maths.
> Given that motor vehicles spend a considerable time in/approaching
> queues and the like in many urban areas I doubt if the average speed
> would change by very much. What would change with a vigourously
> enforced 20mph speed limit would be the maximum speeds.
>
> >the traffic density along urban main roads would go up,
>
> Why?
>
When a vehicle approaches a lower speed limit it is required to slow
down. Any vehicle behind arrives at the same point later, so begins to
slow down later. This delay between two vehicles slowing down results
in the distance between the two vehicles being reduced. Extend this
over a series of vehicles and it can be seen that the line of traffic
will occupy a shorter distance in the lower speed limit zone than when
in the higher speed limit. As the number of vehicle in the line of
traffic has not changed with the shortening of the distance between
the front and the back of the line of traffic, the traffic density has
increased.
> >Also, when travelling at lower speeds, drivers can find
> >more distractions to occupy themselves, rather than having to pay full
> >attension to their driving. What I think you will end up with is a lot
> >more lower speed collisions with bicycles, parked vehicles and road
> >furniture.
>
> Evidence for this, such as figures from other places which have such
> speed limits?
>
I'm not saying that I agree with everything that is said on this link,
but it does show that the side effects that I talked about have been
thought about before.
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/dangers.html
As to the consequences - I was just expressing an opinion, as
indicated by the phrase 'What I think'.
Personally, I would support a 20mph limit through housing estates,
where one can reasonably be expected to see kids playing in the
street. However, I think it can be acheived through thoughtful
engineering of the street scene, not through detection and
enforcement. If what I believe about urban main roads is true,
limiting these to 20mph will be counterproductive.
David Lloyd
David Hansen
<siri...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote this:-
>> >Because the average speed would then be even lower,
>>
>> Would it? By how much?
>>
>
>If you reduce the top figures of any sample, all else being equal, the
>average (mean) for that sample will be reduced. It's basic maths.
It may be basic maths. However, more advanced maths recognises that
all else is most unlikely to be equal. Reducing peak speeds has the
effect of reducing stop/start conditions and promoting more steady
speeds. The end result is an average speed much the same or a little
higher than before. The most well known example in the UK is the
M25, but there are other examples.
>When a vehicle approaches a lower speed limit it is required to slow
>down. Any vehicle behind arrives at the same point later, so begins to
>slow down later. This delay between two vehicles slowing down results
>in the distance between the two vehicles being reduced. Extend this
>over a series of vehicles and it can be seen that the line of traffic
>will occupy a shorter distance in the lower speed limit zone than when
>in the higher speed limit.
Such a simple model may well work for discrete vehicles which are
relatively widely spaced, trains on open line being an example.
However, it doesn't work in crowded networks.
>> Evidence for this, such as figures from other places which have such
>> speed limits?
>>
>
>I'm not saying that I agree with everything that is said on this link,
>but it does show that the side effects that I talked about have been
>thought about before.
>
>http://www.safespeed.org.uk/dangers.html
Excellent. No further comment necessary.
>Personally, I would support a 20mph limit through housing estates,
>where one can reasonably be expected to see kids playing in the
>street.
Such areas are best as Home Zones. That leaves the larger roads.
spindrift
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:34:45 -0700 someone who may be David Lloyd
Oh good grief, not those safespeed nutjobs, David - Smith's "proof"
that drivers are distracted by cameras is some scientific research.
Carried out by Smith.
Sitting in his garage with a stopwatch.
The man's a gibbering baboon, read the forum on that wacko site for
the biggest collection of raving loons this side of Bedlam- calling
traffic wardens nazis and so on.
Alternatively, do me a favour and pop over to the forum where Smith
claims "independent scientific experts" have examined Smith's work and
praised it.
Ask Smith for these "independent experts" names....
Peter Clinch
> Oh good grief, not those safespeed nutjobs, David - Smith's "proof"
<snip>
Like he said "no further comment necessary". Irony-o-meter on the blink
today? Closet Septic? ;-)
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
David Hansen
<newt...@hotmail.com> wrote this:-
>Alternatively, do me a favour and pop over to the forum where Smith
>claims "independent scientific experts" have examined Smith's work and
>praised it.
Mr Smith rapidly dropped discussing such issues with people on an
open forum. He appears to prefer to be in control of the discussion,
either through using a relatively one-way medium like the mass media
or on a bit of web space where he can delete any postings he doesn't
like.
spindrift
> spindrift wrote:
> > Oh good grief, not those safespeed nutjobs, David - Smith's "proof"
>
> <snip>
>
> Like he said "no further comment necessary". Irony-o-meter on the blink
> today? Closet Septic? ;-)
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
Closet American?
Peter Clinch
> On 17 Oct, 14:12, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Closet Septic? ;-)
> Closet American?
Rhyming slang: think septic as in "tank". Typically someone who isn't
too good at irony, typically registering 100 or more uS[1].
Pete.
[1] the Micro-Scharf, the millionth part of the ISO unit of complete
inability to do irony, where 1 S is measured against the reference
standard Scharf when he's talking about e.g. the problem with arguments
(and their proponents) about crash helmets and dynamo lighting.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
David Lloyd
>
> >> >Because the average speed would then be even lower,
>
> >> Would it? By how much?
>
> >If you reduce the top figures of any sample, all else being equal, the
> >average (mean) for that sample will be reduced. It's basic maths.
>
> It may be basic maths. However, more advanced maths recognises that
> all else is most unlikely to be equal. Reducing peak speeds has the
> effect of reducing stop/start conditions and promoting more steady
> speeds. The end result is an average speed much the same or a little
> higher than before. The most well known example in the UK is the
> M25, but there are other examples.
M25 might be a good example of free flowing traffic in a congested
area, resulting from a reduced speed limit, but I don't think you can
apply the same technique to a neighbourhood high street. The M25 does
not have pedestrian crossings nor junctions where other cars are
turning off to the left or right in front of you, forcing you to slow
down.
>
> >When a vehicle approaches a lower speed limit it is required to slow
> >down. Any vehicle behind arrives at the same point later, so begins to
> >slow down later. This delay between two vehicles slowing down results
> >in the distance between the two vehicles being reduced. Extend this
> >over a series of vehicles and it can be seen that the line of traffic
> >will occupy a shorter distance in the lower speed limit zone than when
> >in the higher speed limit.
>
> Such a simple model may well work for discrete vehicles which are
> relatively widely spaced, trains on open line being an example.
> However, it doesn't work in crowded networks.
>
> >> Evidence for this, such as figures from other places which have such
> >> speed limits?
>
> >I'm not saying that I agree with everything that is said on this link,
> >but it does show that the side effects that I talked about have been
> >thought about before.
>
> >http://www.safespeed.org.uk/dangers.html
>
> Excellent. No further comment necessary.
>
> >Personally, I would support a 20mph limit through housing estates,
> >where one can reasonably be expected to see kids playing in the
> >street.
>
> Such areas are best as Home Zones.
I've heard about them, and agree with them, but I've not seen any
employed in my area.
>That leaves the larger roads.
For larger roads, I'd still like it to be proved that any schemes
could have a significant benefit before they are deployed. Around here
they have had a spate of turning everything from 40mph to 30mph,
despite being dual carriage way. This was a reaction to boy racers
speeding. They continue to speed, but everyone else is held up.
David Lloyd
Paul Boyd
> M25 might be a good example of free flowing traffic in a congested
> area, resulting from a reduced speed limit, but I don't think you can
> apply the same technique to a neighbourhood high street. The M25 does
> not have pedestrian crossings nor junctions where other cars are
> turning off to the left or right in front of you, forcing you to slow
> down.
No, it has idiots changing lanes in front of you 10 yards before their
turning forcing you to slow down!
But you're right generally though - I've never done the M25 in rush
hour, but at other times the reduced speed limit does tend to keep
things trundling along, which is much better than sitting stationary on
the M4 for the best part of three hours!
Paul Boyd
> Funny that
> cyclist/motorists like me can keep a car under 50mph by judging the
> engine noise, yet Proper Drivers such as one finds in uk.transport
> can't.
I wonder if it's because cyclists are more used to being aware of what's
going on around them for their own safety, and transfer that awareness
to driving their cars?
> from which we can conclude that my three-year-old car is In Fact a
> rackety old banger. ;-)
Oh 'eck - what does that make my 12 year old car then???
Martin Dann
> On 17 Oct, 09:57, Adam Lea <asr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 17 Oct, 08:11, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>>
>>> Or this morning's news headline athttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7047244.stm- "Obesity 'not
>>> individuals' fault'"
>>> What? Someone else is forcing the burger and crisps and "diet" coke
>>> down their throats?
>> There is more too it than that. One important consideration is the
>> amount of food someone needs to eat to maintain a certain weight, and
>> the amount of food their appetite is telling them to eat. I have been
>> thin all my life,
> People don't have to eat until they feel full. I think I'm right in
> saying the only two times in the last year that I've eaten to my
> capacity were last Christmas and a visit to my local indian restaurant
> in May. That is not to say that my capacity is large, even going by
> the mountain of pasta I can shovel away.
If you have not eaten for a long time (more than about six hours) the
body goes into a kind of famine mode, where it tries to retain as much
energy as possible, and slows you down. ]
Once you start eating after this, your appetite turns on, and your brain
will try to make you eat as much as possible.
If you stop eating before you feel full, then after a short while you
should feel ok.
As some dietitians say, eat little often.
Martin.
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>As some dietitians say, eat little often.
At least I'm half right in my eating habits (the often half).
Simon Brooke
('not.t...@noparticularplacetogo.com') wrote:
> Paul Boyd wrote:
>
>> This is about 20mph limits in urban areas, rather than specifically
>> about cycling, but some of the comments from drivers are really quite
>> scary! There is a cycling reference in the accompanying article though.
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm
>>
>> "Have Your Say" here:-
>>
<http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3685&edition=1&ttl=20071016101451>
>
> There is so much confused reporting and comment on this topic.
>
> Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
> blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media) make
> it clear what IS being proposed?
I am, and have been for some time; and now, I'm glad to say, the government
agrees.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
A message from our sponsor: This site is now in free fall
JNugent
> in message <5dadnWORIfg...@pipex.net>, JNugent
> ('not.t...@noparticularplacetogo.com') wrote:
>
>
>>Paul Boyd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This is about 20mph limits in urban areas, rather than specifically
>>>about cycling, but some of the comments from drivers are really quite
>>>scary! There is a cycling reference in the accompanying article though.
>>>
>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm
>>>
>>>"Have Your Say" here:-
>>>
>
> <http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3685&edition=1&ttl=20071016101451>
>
>>There is so much confused reporting and comment on this topic.
>>
>>Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
>>blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media) make
>>it clear what IS being proposed?
> I am, and have been for some time; and now, I'm glad to say, the government
> agrees.
I don't think the government does agree with what you claim to have
suggested. Well, not unless they are proposing a 20 limit on (say) the
Westway flyover, the Cromwell Road Extension, Eastern Avenue, Great
North Way and the Brentwood Bypass.
AIUI, what is being proposed is the creation of more 20mph limits
within networks of side streets. That needn't inconvenience many
(though it will undoubtedly inconvenience some)
A 20 limit on all main roads through an urban area would be a
different thing entirely. I don't think "the government" would be
foolish enough to reduce the limit in Hendon Way or Great North Way
from 50 to 20.
Simon Brooke
Lloyd ('siri...@yahoo.co.uk') wrote:
> On 17 Oct, 12:02, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:34:08 -0700 someone who may be David Lloyd
>> <sirius...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote this:-
>>
>> >> > Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
>> >> > blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media)
>> >> > make it clear what IS being proposed?
>>
>> >> Why not?
>>
>> >> Average speed is usually much less...
>>
>> >Because the average speed would then be even lower,
>>
>> Would it? By how much?
>
> If you reduce the top figures of any sample, all else being equal, the
> average (mean) for that sample will be reduced. It's basic maths.
No, actually, it's not. The average of
[18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18]
is greater than the average of
[35, 30, 10, 12, 5, 0, 20, 15, 12, 5]
As you lower average speed, flow becomes more laminar and less turbulent
and average speed can actually rise. I.e. you don't spend time in traffic
jams. That's basic maths.
>> Given that motor vehicles spend a considerable time in/approaching
>> queues and the like in many urban areas I doubt if the average speed
>> would change by very much. What would change with a vigourously
>> enforced 20mph speed limit would be the maximum speeds.
>>
>> >the traffic density along urban main roads would go up,
>>
>> Why?
>
> When a vehicle approaches a lower speed limit it is required to slow
> down. Any vehicle behind arrives at the same point later, so begins to
> slow down later. This delay between two vehicles slowing down results
> in the distance between the two vehicles being reduced. Extend this
> over a series of vehicles and it can be seen that the line of traffic
> will occupy a shorter distance in the lower speed limit zone than when
> in the higher speed limit.
Only if their average speed is lower, or if the flow is turbulent. Basic
maths, you know.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
:: Wisdom is better than weapons of war ::
:: Ecclesiastes 9:18 ::
Andy Morris
>
> Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
> blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media) make
> it clear what IS being proposed?
I would, with exceptions for thru roads with no pedestrian traffic.
--
Andy Morris
AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem
Roger Merriman
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:10:39 +0100, JNugent wrote:
>
> > Paul Boyd wrote:
> >
> >> This is about 20mph limits in urban areas, rather than specifically
> >> about cycling, but some of the comments from drivers are really quite
> >> scary! There is a cycling reference in the accompanying article though.
> >>
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm
> >>
> >> "Have Your Say" here:-
> >> <http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3685&edition=1&ttl
> >> =20071016101451>
> >
> > There is so much confused reporting and comment on this topic.
> >
> > Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
> > blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media) make
> > it clear what IS being proposed?
>
> Why not?
>
> Average speed is usually much less...
true even on a good clear days tends to be lower, lot of it is waiting
for lights or what not.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Steph Peters
>There is more too it than that. One important consideration is the
>amount of food someone needs to eat to maintain a certain weight, and
>the amount of food their appetite is telling them to eat. I have been
>thin all my life, I eat reasonably healthy but still eat fatty, sugary
>foods occasionally. I have seen people go to all you can eat places
>and have three full sized meals in one sitting. Me, on the other hand
>would throw up if I attempted such a thing, because my appetite is
>suppressed much sooner.
Childhood training can overcome instinctive appetites. My parents were of
the 'think of the starving kids in Africa so finish everything on your
plate' school. If the food was something I liked, then I ate everything I
was given, whether still hungry or not. Years of this type of treatment
stopped me from knowing when I am full while eating - the feeling of
fullness does not develop until maybe half an hour after finishing - and a
mild feeling of guilt if I leave food. The end result was adult weight
twice that given by most ideal height to weight tables. I'm doing something
about it now, and am about halfway to my target i.e. I've lost a quarter of
the body weight I started with. But I still don't have an instinctive
knowledge of how much to eat to get full; I have to make a conscious
assessment of portion sizes, to the extent of weighing some things.
--
Steph Peters
Chorlton Wanderers Cycling Group
Monthly slow and easy rides from South Manchester
http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/cycling/chwan.htm
Tony Raven
says...
>
> Or this morning's news headline at
>
> What? Someone else is forcing the burger and crisps and "diet" coke
> down their throats?
>
Yes, their grandparents are:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1759971.ec
e
--
Tony
" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell
Tony Raven
siri...@yahoo.co.uk says...
> People don't have to eat until they feel full. I think I'm right in
> saying the only two times in the last year that I've eaten to my
> capacity were last Christmas and a visit to my local indian restaurant
> in May. That is not to say that my capacity is large, even going by
> the mountain of pasta I can shovel away.
>
Being full is not a good indicator anyway. Your stomach expands or
contracts over time to deal with the average volume its receiving. Many
years ago my SO and I arrived in the US for a month. Being
inexperienced at the time, we found ourselves stuffed full after the
salad and faced with the main course and host who were paying and
expecting us to eat it. By the end of the month we could polish off
starters, salad, main course and dessert without problems. We then flew
on to Japan where food was expensive and portions small. We starved for
the next month out of necessity while our stomachs readjusted. When we
left Japan a couple of years later, even English portions seemed large
until once again our stomachs had readjusted.
Paul Boyd
> <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1759971.ece>
"Your weakness for cream cakes could be a misguided biological survival
strategy beyond your control."
That sounds like a good excuse for another cream cake :-)
Peter Clinch
> As some dietitians say, eat little often.
Depends on the person, both physiologically and psychologically, IME.
My problems keeping the lid on weight gain are typically
over-enthusiastic snacking: once I start, I tend to carry on (and I can
carry on for quite a stretch). I find it much easier just to do without
than to eat a little bit and stop. Roos is quite the opposite, and she
needs regular (but small) carb infusions to keep going, eating little
and often, where I can just run off stored fat all day and then eat at
least twice as much as would make her ill (and we're a fairly similar
size and weight).
The fate of G&B chocolate bars in our house is a good case in point. I
buy them, and have to hide them because if they're there Ross will start
eating them, where I can resist as long as the seal isn't broken. But
once a bar is open she can make it last for days where it's bloody hard
work for me to get to double figures of minutes.
IMHO the reason there are so many different diets is that different
people respond better and worse to the fuel-management systems each one
uses. If I tried to eat like Roos outside of main meals I'd be a
balloon and if she tried to eat like me she'd be alternately ill from
over-eating and then dysfunctional from lack of readily available
energy... As with so many things, horses for courses.
Pete.
Dave Larrington
Zog The Undeniable <hroth...@yahoo.com> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:
> Martin Dann wrote:
>> Paul Boyd wrote:
>>> This is about 20mph limits in urban areas, rather than specifically
>>> about cycling, but some of the comments from drivers are really
>>> quite scary! There is a cycling reference in the accompanying
>>> article though. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm
>>>
>>> "Have Your Say" here:-
>>> <http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3685&edition=1&ttl=20071016101451>
>>
>>
>> country, at the same time an "MP" wants to mandate hellmets.
>
> Ironically, the MP who is usually behind such campaigns IS a blob of
> fat.
Zog, your lack of cake disturbs me ;-)
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Barley, barley, barley, world cruise. You never see a farmer on
a bike.
David Lloyd
> in message <1192624485.012519.7...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, David
>
>
>
>
>
> Lloyd ('sirius...@yahoo.co.uk') wrote:
>
> > If you reduce the top figures of any sample, all else being equal, the
> > average (mean) for that sample will be reduced. It's basic maths.
>
> No, actually, it's not. The average of
>
> [18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18]
>
> is greater than the average of
>
>
>
I said 'all else being equal', and then you try to disprove the
statement by giving an example of a sample where all else is not held
equal. So what does that prove?
Taking your second set [35, 30, 10, 12, 5, 0, 20, 15, 12, 5] and
reducing the top figures to 20, whilst holding everything else - [20,
20, 10, 12, 5, 0, 20, 15, 12, 5] results in a fall in the average,
which is what I said.
David Lloyd
David Lloyd
> in message <1192624485.012519.7...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, David
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 17 Oct, 12:02, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:34:08 -0700 someone who may be David Lloyd
> >> <sirius...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote this:-
>
> >> >> > Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
> >> >> > blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media)
> >> >> > make it clear what IS being proposed?
>
> >> >> Why not?
>
> >> >> Average speed is usually much less...
>
> >> >Because the average speed would then be even lower,
>
> >> Would it? By how much?
>
> > If you reduce the top figures of any sample, all else being equal, the
> > average (mean) for that sample will be reduced. It's basic maths.
>
> No, actually, it's not. The average of
>
> [18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18]
>
> is greater than the average of
>
> [35, 30, 10, 12, 5, 0, 20, 15, 12, 5]
>
> As you lower average speed, flow becomes more laminar and less turbulent
> and average speed can actually rise. I.e. you don't spend time in traffic
> jams. That's basic maths.
>
an example where everything is allowed to vary. What does that prove?
>
>
>
> >> Given that motor vehicles spend a considerable time in/approaching
> >> queues and the like in many urban areas I doubt if the average speed
> >> would change by very much. What would change with a vigourously
> >> enforced 20mph speed limit would be the maximum speeds.
>
> >> >the traffic density along urban main roads would go up,
>
> >> Why?
>
> > When a vehicle approaches a lower speed limit it is required to slow
> > down. Any vehicle behind arrives at the same point later, so begins to
> > slow down later. This delay between two vehicles slowing down results
> > in the distance between the two vehicles being reduced. Extend this
> > over a series of vehicles and it can be seen that the line of traffic
> > will occupy a shorter distance in the lower speed limit zone than when
> > in the higher speed limit.
>
> Only if their average speed is lower, or if the flow is turbulent. Basic
> maths, you know.
>
I've already stated that I believe the average speed would be impacted
if this was applied to urban main roads, as opposed to side streets.
David Lloyd
Roger Merriman
> Martin Dann wrote:
>
> > As some dietitians say, eat little often.
>
> Depends on the person, both physiologically and psychologically, IME.
>
> My problems keeping the lid on weight gain are typically
> over-enthusiastic snacking: once I start, I tend to carry on (and I can
> carry on for quite a stretch). I find it much easier just to do without
> than to eat a little bit and stop. Roos is quite the opposite, and she
> needs regular (but small) carb infusions to keep going, eating little
> and often, where I can just run off stored fat all day and then eat at
> least twice as much as would make her ill (and we're a fairly similar
> size and weight).
>
> The fate of G&B chocolate bars in our house is a good case in point. I
> buy them, and have to hide them because if they're there Ross will start
> eating them, where I can resist as long as the seal isn't broken. But
> once a bar is open she can make it last for days where it's bloody hard
> work for me to get to double figures of minutes.
>
> IMHO the reason there are so many different diets is that different
> people respond better and worse to the fuel-management systems each one
> uses. If I tried to eat like Roos outside of main meals I'd be a
> balloon and if she tried to eat like me she'd be alternately ill from
> over-eating and then dysfunctional from lack of readily available
> energy... As with so many things, horses for courses.
>
> Pete.
sounds very much like Sa and I, she can just have small amounts all day,
where as i find it hard to do that, and end up with x amount of meals.
not helped by the fact that i still do eat like a man who was doing 3 to
4 hours of physical work every day.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Roger Merriman
might well be worth extended the variable speed limits to the M4 or at
least parts any way.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Roger Merriman
> in message <5dadnWORIfg...@pipex.net>, JNugent
> ('not.t...@noparticularplacetogo.com') wrote:
>
> > Paul Boyd wrote:
> >
> >> This is about 20mph limits in urban areas, rather than specifically
> >> about cycling, but some of the comments from drivers are really quite
> >> scary! There is a cycling reference in the accompanying article though.
> >>
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7046200.stm
> >>
> >> "Have Your Say" here:-
> >>
>
<http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3685&edition=1&ttl=
20071016101451>
> >
> > There is so much confused reporting and comment on this topic.
> >
> > Very clearly, no-one sensible can possibly be arguing for a 20mph
> > blanket limit "in urban areas", so why don't they (and the media) make
> > it clear what IS being proposed?
>
> I am, and have been for some time; and now, I'm glad to say, the government
> agrees.
certinaly i would agree with it around the area i live now, at the
moment we have a 20 zone for the trunk road as it passes hampton, yet
the roads off it are 30...
the 20zone going too fast sign is on all the time.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Roger Merriman
> Response to Dylan Smith:
> > On 2007-10-17, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
> > > As for the specific HYS, yup - people are confused! There's one guy who
> > > says that he won't be out of second gear at 20mph, and an inadvertent
> > > sneeze means he's doing 50. Several people say that modern cars can't
> > > drive at 20mph. Jeez - and these people are on the roads? I don't know
> > > if my 12 year old Mondeo counts as modern or not, but it can reasonably
> > > happily do 20mph in 4th once it's warmed up.
> >
> > This makes me boggle, too. I think there should be a section in the
> > driving test where the speedometer is covered up, and the candidate must
> > remain within +-10% of the speed specified by the examiner.
> >
> > I can drive very, very close to the speed I intend to go at by just
> > looking out of the window and listening to the sound my car's
> > transmission is making. In fact, once you've had a car for a week or so,
> > any driver of average competence should be able to make a *close*
> > estimate of their speed from the sound of the transmission and how fast
> > objects outside are going past. It just isn't that hard. You don't need
> > to stare at the speedometer, and anyone who does needs remedial
> > training.
>
>
> This has come up in various x-posted hooleys with driving-related
> newsgroups: one argument often advanced against speed limits is the
> distraction of glancing regularly at the speedo in order to be certain
> of driving under the limit. There are a couple of obvious responses to
> that ;-) of which the above observation is one. Funny that
> cyclist/motorists like me can keep a car under 50mph by judging the
> engine noise, yet Proper Drivers such as one finds in uk.transport
> can't.
>
get a number of the 50mph average speed zones along the M4, i've allways
just let the car cruise along at 45ish. saves having to keep a eye on
the speed. i do notice how some dive a lot faster then brake just before
the camera, which i assume doesn't work.
>
> It's in the news as well:
>
> http://www.newcarnet.co.uk/Auto_news.html?id=7291
>
>
> from which we can conclude that my three-year-old car is In Fact a
> rackety old banger. ;-)
roger
David Lloyd
wrote:
> Adam Lea <asr...@yahoo.co.uk> ofhttp://groups.google.comwrote:
I suppose this goes to show that social programming is a big factor.
Parents have a lot to answer for in ruining their kids' lives. You
seem to have your head on your shoulders, taking positive steps. Good
luck to you.
David Lloyd
Nick Kew
Steph Peters <ur...@sandbenders.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Childhood training can overcome instinctive appetites.
Or cultivate them.
> My parents
> were of the 'think of the starving kids in Africa so finish
> everything on your plate' school.
Ditto. I still find it offensive to see food left on the plate.
But it's worse than that. The other thing I learned was to
"stoke up", because there was sometimes no knowing how long
one would have to wait for the next mouthful. That one's
hard to unlearn!
Furthermore, when not at home, cost was a major issue.
If something had been paid for, I'd continue stuffing even
when consciously very full, to save up against the next meal.
When you're a child or a twentysomething, you can get away
with that kind of thing, but I still catch myself doing it,
e.g. when a restaurant serves complimentary bread, or lunch
at home when the evening meal is going to be late.
> The end result was adult weight twice that given by most
> ideal height to weight tables.
Did you attain that as a young adult? Sounds more than
conventional middle-age spread.
--
Nick Kew
Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/
Alan Braggins
>On 17 Oct, 19:35, Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>> in message <1192624485.012519.7...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, David
>> Lloyd ('sirius...@yahoo.co.uk') wrote:
>>
>> > If you reduce the top figures of any sample, all else being equal, the
>> > average (mean) for that sample will be reduced. It's basic maths.
>>
>> No, actually, it's not. The average of
>> [18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18]
>> is greater than the average of
>
>I said 'all else being equal', and then you try to disprove the
>statement by giving an example of a sample where all else is not held
>equal. So what does that prove?
That your "all else being equal", while true, was irrelevent to the real
world where all else isn't equal, and context matter?
Rob Morley
> I said 'all else being equal', and then you try to disprove the
> statement by giving an example of a sample where all else is not held
> equal. So what does that prove?
That a reasonable person doesn't think that all else is equal.
>
> Taking your second set [35, 30, 10, 12, 5, 0, 20, 15, 12, 5] and
> reducing the top figures to 20, whilst holding everything else - [20,
> 20, 10, 12, 5, 0, 20, 15, 12, 5] results in a fall in the average,
> which is what I said.
>
Take the simple scenario of car waiting to pull out at a junction - if
the traffic on the other road is going more slowly then the car won't
have to wait so long to pull out, so its average speed will be higher.
Rob Morley
p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk says...
> Martin Dann wrote:
>
> > As some dietitians say, eat little often.
>
> Depends on the person, both physiologically and psychologically, IME.
>
> My problems keeping the lid on weight gain are typically
> over-enthusiastic snacking: once I start, I tend to carry on (and I can
> carry on for quite a stretch). I find it much easier just to do without
> than to eat a little bit and stop. Roos is quite the opposite, and she
> needs regular (but small) carb infusions to keep going, eating little
> and often, where I can just run off stored fat all day and then eat at
> least twice as much as would make her ill (and we're a fairly similar
> size and weight).
>
> The fate of G&B chocolate bars in our house is a good case in point. I
> buy them, and have to hide them because if they're there Ross will start
> eating them, where I can resist as long as the seal isn't broken. But
> once a bar is open she can make it last for days where it's bloody hard
> work for me to get to double figures of minutes.
>
> IMHO the reason there are so many different diets is that different
> people respond better and worse to the fuel-management systems each one
> uses. If I tried to eat like Roos outside of main meals I'd be a
> balloon and if she tried to eat like me she'd be alternately ill from
> over-eating and then dysfunctional from lack of readily available
> energy... As with so many things, horses for courses.
>
gatherers, where the females would collect roots and berries all day
snacking as they went, while the males would go off hunting for days at
a time only eating when they made a kill.
Peter Clinch
> I wonder how much of that is a gender thing. We evolved as hunter
> gatherers, where the females would collect roots and berries all day
> snacking as they went, while the males would go off hunting for days at
> a time only eating when they made a kill.
I would think that would lead to cultural rather than hard-wired
differences. if you're hunting Big Game or lots of small stuff (i.e.,
fishing) would alter that balance significantly, and AFAIK there's no
particular difference in the design of the digestive system between genders.
Simon Brooke
In the real world, all other things aren't equal. Traffic flow on a road
exhibits turbulent behaviour, and the faster the maximum speed for a given
road capacity the more likely you are to get congestion at pinch points
which propagates back down the stream. Decreasing the maximum speed often
does increase both the average speed and the throughput.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundum variat.
Steph Peters
wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:05:24 +0100
>Steph Peters <ur...@sandbenders.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> My parents
>> were of the 'think of the starving kids in Africa so finish
>> everything on your plate' school.
>Ditto. I still find it offensive to see food left on the plate.
In situations where I choose what to put on the plate, then I do try to
avoid this. But where I'm not in charge, then I've learned that it is not
merely OK to leave some, it's a good thing to do.
>But it's worse than that. The other thing I learned was to
>"stoke up", because there was sometimes no knowing how long
>one would have to wait for the next mouthful. That one's
>hard to unlearn!
Yeah, I got that one too.
>> The end result was adult weight twice that given by most
>> ideal height to weight tables.
>Did you attain that as a young adult? Sounds more than
>conventional middle-age spread.
Attained almost that by about 24. Since then middle age spread has added no
more than 5% extra.
Adam Lea
> In article <1192621064.457418.285...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> sirius...@yahoo.co.uk says...
My stomach definitly has an upper limit to what it can process in a
day, no matter how much I have tried to train it to accept more. I
couldn't get above about 4000 cals/day, and that was only achievable
by eating 6-8 times/day. Even with a sedentary job, no cycling and my
only significant exercise being weight training 3 times/week I only
just peaked at a little over 12 stone.
Marc Brett
> David Lloyd ('siri...@yahoo.co.uk') wrote:
>> On 17 Oct, 19:35, Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
>>> As you lower average speed, flow becomes more laminar and less turbulent
>>> and average speed can actually rise. I.e. you don't spend time in
>>> traffic jams. That's basic maths.
Pretty advanced maths, actually.
>> I said 'all else being equal', and you try to disprove it by quoting
>> an example where everything is allowed to vary. What does that prove?
>
>In the real world, all other things aren't equal. Traffic flow on a road
>exhibits turbulent behaviour, and the faster the maximum speed for a given
>road capacity the more likely you are to get congestion at pinch points
>which propagates back down the stream. Decreasing the maximum speed often
>does increase both the average speed and the throughput.
Oddly enough, the same equations (Navier-Stokes) can be used to describe
both highway traffic flows and the behaviour of supersonic gasses in a
wind tunnel, including the pressure waves and shock waves which
propagate backwards through traffic, and can be used to explain odd
phenomena like traffic jams on motorways which persist long after the
original obstruction has been removed.
Tony Raven
ur...@sandbenders.demon.co.uk.invalid says...
> >Did you attain that as a young adult? Sounds more than
> >conventional middle-age spread.
> Attained almost that by about 24. Since then middle age spread has added no
> more than 5% extra.
A friend of mine wonderfully described it as reaching that age where you
broad mind and narrow waist swap places.
Mark
wrote:
Unless the traffic is passing the junction at that time.
M
Simon Brooke
('nos...@ntlworld.com') wrote:
> In article <5nohu1F...@mid.individual.net>, Peter Clinch
> p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk says...
>> Martin Dann wrote:
>>
>> > As some dietitians say, eat little often.
>>
>> Depends on the person, both physiologically and psychologically, IME.
>>
>> IMHO the reason there are so many different diets is that different
>> people respond better and worse to the fuel-management systems each one
>> uses. If I tried to eat like Roos outside of main meals I'd be a
>> balloon and if she tried to eat like me she'd be alternately ill from
>> over-eating and then dysfunctional from lack of readily available
>> energy... As with so many things, horses for courses.
>>
> I wonder how much of that is a gender thing. We evolved as hunter
> gatherers, where the females would collect roots and berries all day
> snacking as they went, while the males would go off hunting for days at
> a time only eating when they made a kill.
It also depends on age. I hit six foot three at age fifteen, but didn't get
to nine stone until I was thirty, and didn't hit ten until I was forty -
and that despite a very healthy appetite all my days. Now, in my fifties,
it's a struggle to keep my weight under thirteen stone, and I certainly
can't any longer eat what I like when I like. I don't think the amount of
exercise I take has changed radically over that time, but some time in my
early forties my metabolism did change quite dramatically. I see a lot of
other people, too, suddenly putting on weight in middle age - so if you're
not yet forty, watch out!
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If Python is executable pseudocode,
;; then Perl is executable line noise
-- seen on Slashdot.
Adam Lea
> in message <MPG.2181343cb02a1dc698b...@news.individual.net>, Rob Morley
>
>
>
>
>
> ('nos...@ntlworld.com') wrote:
> > In article <5nohu1Fjce2...@mid.individual.net>, Peter Clinch
> > p.j.cli...@dundee.ac.uk says...
> >> Martin Dann wrote:
>
> >> > As some dietitians say, eat little often.
>
> >> Depends on the person, both physiologically and psychologically, IME.
>
> >> IMHO the reason there are so many different diets is that different
> >> people respond better and worse to the fuel-management systems each one
> >> uses. If I tried to eat like Roos outside of main meals I'd be a
> >> balloon and if she tried to eat like me she'd be alternately ill from
> >> over-eating and then dysfunctional from lack of readily available
> >> energy... As with so many things, horses for courses.
>
> > I wonder how much of that is a gender thing. We evolved as hunter
> > gatherers, where the females would collect roots and berries all day
> > snacking as they went, while the males would go off hunting for days at
> > a time only eating when they made a kill.
>
> It also depends on age. I hit six foot three at age fifteen, but didn't get
> to nine stone until I was thirty, and didn't hit ten until I was forty -
> and that despite a very healthy appetite all my days. Now, in my fifties,
> it's a struggle to keep my weight under thirteen stone, and I certainly
> can't any longer eat what I like when I like. I don't think the amount of
> exercise I take has changed radically over that time, but some time in my
> early forties my metabolism did change quite dramatically. I see a lot of
> other people, too, suddenly putting on weight in middle age - so if you're
> not yet forty, watch out!
>
You sound a bit like my parents :)
When I was 10, they said "you'll fill out when you are a teenager"
When I reached 15, they said "you'll fill out in your late teens"
When I reached 18, they said "you'll fill out in your 20's"
When I reached early 20's, they said "you'll fill out when you get to
30"
I'm 30 in three months, they now say "you'll fill out in middle age"
Hmm.
Sandy Morton
> When I was 10, they said "you'll fill out when you are a teenager"
A friend of mine who was addicted to the cancer sticks from age 12
was told that they would stunt his growth. He's 6 foot 3.
David Lloyd
"Sandy Morton" <sa...@millport.net> wrote in message
news:4f34e6b...@millport.net...
David Lloyd
Paul Boyd
> I'm 30 in three months, they now say "you'll fill out in middle age"
Yeah, but you will :-)
Dave Larrington
Sandy Morton <sa...@millport.net> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
That's me, that is...
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Three blind mice, see how they run. Is this /really/ the best
way to test shampoo?