Effect of cats eyes on tyres
bolta...@boltar.world
still make quite a large thumping noise so they must still be causing a
fair amount of distortion in the tyre. Has anyone ever measured how they
might affect tyre life or even cause blow outs?
B2003
Adrian
saying:
> I know they're supposed to squash down when you drive over them but they
> still make quite a large thumping noise so they must still be causing a
> fair amount of distortion in the tyre.
I'd doubt it. Not compared to the contact patch moving as the tyre
revolves.
> Has anyone ever measured how they might affect tyre life or even cause
> blow outs?
If you're that worried about it, don't drive over them.
bolta...@boltar.world
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>bolta...@boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying:
>
>> I know they're supposed to squash down when you drive over them but they
>> still make quite a large thumping noise so they must still be causing a
>> fair amount of distortion in the tyre.
>
>I'd doubt it. Not compared to the contact patch moving as the tyre
>revolves.
You could say the same about a nail.
>If you're that worried about it, don't drive over them.
Quelle surprise - a standard issue stupid response from you.
Try changing lanes without driving over any of them when doing 70.
B2003
Adrian
saying:
>>> I know they're supposed to squash down when you drive over them but
>>> they still make quite a large thumping noise so they must still be
>>> causing a fair amount of distortion in the tyre.
>>I'd doubt it. Not compared to the contact patch moving as the tyre
>>revolves.
> You could say the same about a nail.
Stand on a cat's eye barefoot.
Now stand on a nail barefoot.
>>If you're that worried about it, don't drive over them.
> Quelle surprise - a standard issue stupid response from you.
>
> Try changing lanes without driving over any of them when doing 70.
Not that difficult.
pete
Indeed! Maybe not the case for lorry drivers, but for car drivers ISTM
if you can't or don't have the awareness to avoid them
there are probably other aspects of the road you're not paying
attention to, as well.
Adrian
like they were saying:
>>>>If you're that worried about it, don't drive over them.
>>> Quelle surprise - a standard issue stupid response from you.
>>>
>>> Try changing lanes without driving over any of them when doing 70.
>> Not that difficult.
> Indeed! Maybe not the case for lorry drivers, but for car drivers ISTM
> if you can't or don't have the awareness to avoid them there are
> probably other aspects of the road you're not paying attention to, as
> well.
It's Bloater. That goes without saying.
Brimstone
"Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8bnkbo...@mid.individual.net...
You took the words right out of my mouth.
bolta...@boltar.world
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>bolta...@boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying:
>
>>>> I know they're supposed to squash down when you drive over them but
>>>> they still make quite a large thumping noise so they must still be
>>>> causing a fair amount of distortion in the tyre.
>
>>>I'd doubt it. Not compared to the contact patch moving as the tyre
>>>revolves.
>
>> You could say the same about a nail.
>
>Stand on a cat's eye barefoot.
>Now stand on a nail barefoot.
We're not talking about feet. We're talking about a car tyre suddenly being
deformed at a small point of contact at high speed.
>>>If you're that worried about it, don't drive over them.
>
>> Quelle surprise - a standard issue stupid response from you.
>>
>> Try changing lanes without driving over any of them when doing 70.
>
>Not that difficult.
Sure, if you swerve between 2 of them suddenly. Most of us don't drive
like that but you're such an arsehole I wouldn't put it past you.
B2003
bolta...@boltar.world
pete <no_one_...@notthisaddress.com> wrote:
>Indeed! Maybe not the case for lorry drivers, but for car drivers ISTM
>if you can't or don't have the awareness to avoid them
>there are probably other aspects of the road you're not paying
>attention to, as well.
Ah , and we're joined by another boaster by implication. So you think you
can void touching any catseyes with any wheel while doing 70 without doing
a fast swerve into the next lane? You're either Lweis Hamilton or a liar.
And I reckon Hamitlon has better things to do than post on here.
B2003
bolta...@boltar.world
"Brimstone" <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You took the words right out of my mouth.
Thats probably not all you had to remove given how much sucking up you do.
B2003
Nightjar
> I know they're supposed to squash down when you drive over them but they
> still make quite a large thumping noise so they must still be causing a
> fair amount of distortion in the tyre.
It is a design feature, so you know you are crossing the line they mark.
> Has anyone ever measured how they
> might affect tyre life or even cause blow outs?
The Highways Agency did extensive testing on the performance, longevity
and effects of different forms of reflective roads studs about 10 years ago.
Colin Bignell
bolta...@boltar.world
"Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>> I know they're supposed to squash down when you drive over them but they
>> still make quite a large thumping noise so they must still be causing a
>> fair amount of distortion in the tyre.
>
>It is a design feature, so you know you are crossing the line they mark.
Maybe. Or maybe just a consequence of the way they're designed. Personally
I think reflective lines on the road would do a far better job.
>The Highways Agency did extensive testing on the performance, longevity
>and effects of different forms of reflective roads studs about 10 years ago.
Did they publish the results?
B2003
Adrian
saying:
> Ah , and we're joined by another boaster by implication. So you think
> you can void touching any catseyes with any wheel while doing 70 without
> doing a fast swerve into the next lane? You're either Lweis Hamilton or
> a liar. And I reckon Hamitlon has better things to do than post on here.
What's the separation between cat's eyes? 10m? How wide are they? 100mm
at most?
You do the math.
bolta...@boltar.world
Ok - 70mph is 31 m/s so that will be 3 cats eyes a second passing under
your car. So unless you can move the wheels from one side of the cats eyes
to the other in 1/3rd of second or less you're going to run over one of them.
And then you'll have to do the same for the other set of wheels too.
Anything else?
B2003
Nightjar
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:12:52 +0100
> "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>> bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>>> I know they're supposed to squash down when you drive over them but they
>>> still make quite a large thumping noise so they must still be causing a
>>> fair amount of distortion in the tyre.
>> It is a design feature, so you know you are crossing the line they mark.
>
> Maybe. Or maybe just a consequence of the way they're designed.
As I said, it is a design feature. The idea has been further developed
into corrugated lines to mark road edges, particularly on motorways.
> Personally
> I think reflective lines on the road would do a far better job.
They reflect back significantly less light than either cats eyes or
reflective road studs and do not lend themselves to active features,
such as temperature indicating or self-powered cats eyes.
>> The Highways Agency did extensive testing on the performance, longevity
>> and effects of different forms of reflective roads studs about 10 years ago.
>
> Did they publish the results?
Probably.
Colin BIgnell
bolta...@boltar.world
"Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>As I said, it is a design feature. The idea has been further developed
>into corrugated lines to mark road edges, particularly on motorways.
Its a feature that should be been put out to grass then IMO. I'm quite
capable of seeing a white line and don't need some tyre shredding device to
point them out to me.
>> Personally
>> I think reflective lines on the road would do a far better job.
>
>They reflect back significantly less light than either cats eyes or
>reflective road studs and do not lend themselves to active features,
>such as temperature indicating or self-powered cats eyes.
Maybe, but most of europe seems to manage quite nicely without any sort of
reflective device down the road surface and having driven quite extensively
there I can't say I've ever missed having cats eyes. If someone can't see the
white lines at night perhaps its time to get their headlamps and/or eyes
checked.
B2003
Mortimer
news:i36hv5$vq4$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
When the white paint has worn thin, or when the road is wet and hence the
whole surface and not just the white line is equally reflective, cat's eyes
are very useful. It is not the road directly in front of you (within
headlamp range) that you need to see: it's for the road beyond your beam
that cat's eyes come into their own.
I like the self-illuminating ones which use LEDs: they display the course of
the white line far beyond the range that headlights (especially dipped) can
illuminate either a white line or even a reflective cat's eye.
Coloured ones (red between L1 and hard shoulder, green at entry/exit slip
road, amber between L3 and central reservation) are very useful to confirm
at night which lane you are in, to prevent you straying onto the hard
shoulder thinking that you are moving from L2 to L1.
I hadn't realised that most of Europe doesn't use cat's eyes. Is Percy
Shaw's invention only found in the UK?
Adrian
saying:
> I hadn't realised that most of Europe doesn't use cat's eyes.
I'm not sure it's true.
> Is Percy Shaw's invention only found in the UK?
Definitely not.
bolta...@boltar.world
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Mortimer" <m...@privacy.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>saying:
>
>> I hadn't realised that most of Europe doesn't use cat's eyes.
>
>I'm not sure it's true.
Well I've not come across them in france, spain, belgium or holland. Its
been a while since I've driven in germany but I don't recall them there
either.
B2003
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i367od$gj4$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
like a prat as you do all the time.
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i367ib$gc8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
your wheels are.
pete
It's hardly a case of swerving. More like planning the maneouvre
before you start and having the time and space to complete it
satisfactorily. You know where your wheels are and you see the
cats eyes coming up. It's a simple case of just easing the steering
so the nearside wheels cross the lane at a slight angle to the white
line between the first and second CE, then having the car half way
over for the next gap in the cats eyes and keeping the same line of
steering so the offside wheels go through the gap between the third
and fourth. Takes a couple of seconds, 2 small changes in direction
(the second to straighten up) . You're in control the whole time,
you only move into space you can see and can commit sooner, or
abort just as easily at any point.
Nightjar
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:06:06 +0100
> "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>> As I said, it is a design feature. The idea has been further developed
>> into corrugated lines to mark road edges, particularly on motorways.
>
> Its a feature that should be been put out to grass then IMO. I'm quite
> capable of seeing a white line
Even in fog, which is what cats eyes were initially designed for?
> and don't need some tyre shredding device to
> point them out to me.
If your tyres can be shredded by a 6mm high device that has been
designed to be driven over, I suggest you change them for something better.
>
>>> Personally
>>> I think reflective lines on the road would do a far better job.
>> They reflect back significantly less light than either cats eyes or
>> reflective road studs and do not lend themselves to active features,
>> such as temperature indicating or self-powered cats eyes.
>
> Maybe, but most of europe seems to manage quite nicely without any sort of
> reflective device down the road surface
That will comes as something of a surprise to the EU, which produced a
CE Mark Directive covering reflective road studs as long ago as 1989.
Colin Bignell
Phil Bradshaw
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:06:06 +0100
> "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>>As I said, it is a design feature. The idea has been further developed
>>into corrugated lines to mark road edges, particularly on motorways.
>
> Its a feature that should be been put out to grass then IMO. I'm quite
> capable of seeing a white line
In all conditions? Have you never driven in rain or fog in hours of
darkness?
> and don't need some tyre shredding device
> to point them out to me.
>
You have evidence that cat's eyes shred tyres?
Do tell.
oldMaxim
>
> I like the self-illuminating ones which use LEDs: they display the course of
> the white line far beyond the range that headlights (especially dipped) can
> illuminate either a white line or even a reflective cat's eye.
>
....Ginger Toms.... my personal favourite!
Nightjar
It is a long time since I drove on a motorway at night. Do they still
use blue for service area exits?
> I hadn't realised that most of Europe doesn't use cat's eyes. Is Percy
> Shaw's invention only found in the UK?
SFAIK only the UK and Ireland, but you will find the much cheaper raised
reflective studs used in other parts of Europe, although not in anything
like the quantity you see in Britain.
Colin Bignell
Nightjar
Surely you should be aiming for the studs, to help keep them clean?
Colin Bignell
Mortimer
news:vYydnbYliKxAW8rR...@giganews.com...
> Mortimer wrote:
>> Coloured ones (red between L1 and hard shoulder, green at entry/exit slip
>> road, amber between L3 and central reservation) are very useful to
>> confirm at night which lane you are in, to prevent you straying onto the
>> hard shoulder thinking that you are moving from L2 to L1.
>
> It is a long time since I drove on a motorway at night. Do they still use
> blue for service area exits?
When did they use blue studs for service area exits? Certainly not since I
started driving in 1980 and I don't remember seeing anything in the HC from
before that (where I first learned about red studs on the hard shoulder and
green ones on slip roads). I'll check next time I'm on a motorway at night
but I'm almost certain that they use green studs for service areas, as for
any other entry/exit slip roads.
Adrian
saying:
>> It is a long time since I drove on a motorway at night. Do they still
>> use blue for service area exits?
> When did they use blue studs for service area exits? Certainly not since
> I started driving in 1980 and I don't remember seeing anything in the HC
> from before that (where I first learned about red studs on the hard
> shoulder and green ones on slip roads). I'll check next time I'm on a
> motorway at night but I'm almost certain that they use green studs for
> service areas, as for any other entry/exit slip roads.
Blue studs are for police slips.
Mortimer
You mean for the raised ramps beside the hard shoulder where police cars
wait when they are monitoring the speed of passing traffic, ready to chase
after offenders?
Well I never knew that. Next time I see one of those I'll have to try to see
whether there are blue cat's eyes where it joins the hard shoulder. I can't
say I've ever noticed blue cat's eyes anywhere, but maybe by chance I've
been in Lane 2 or looking ahead of me rather than to the side when I've
passed a police layby.
Adrian
saying:
>> Blue studs are for police slips.
> You mean for the raised ramps beside the hard shoulder where police cars
> wait when they are monitoring the speed of passing traffic, ready to
> chase after offenders?
and the occasional "sneak round a complex m'way interchange" type
junction.
bolta...@boltar.world
pete <no_one_...@notthisaddress.com> wrote:
>> Sure, if you swerve between 2 of them suddenly. Most of us don't drive
>> like that but you're such an arsehole I wouldn't put it past you.
>
>It's hardly a case of swerving. More like planning the maneouvre
>before you start and having the time and space to complete it
>satisfactorily. You know where your wheels are and you see the
Plan the maneouvre? Oh give it up FFS. At 70 mph on the motorway you'll
have an average of 2 or 3 cats eyes a second passing under your car. What
exactly are you going to plan?
>cats eyes coming up. It's a simple case of just easing the steering
>so the nearside wheels cross the lane at a slight angle to the white
>line between the first and second CE, then having the car half way
>over for the next gap in the cats eyes and keeping the same line of
>steering so the offside wheels go through the gap between the third
>and fourth. Takes a couple of seconds, 2 small changes in direction
>(the second to straighten up) . You're in control the whole time,
>you only move into space you can see and can commit sooner, or
>abort just as easily at any point.
What a load of pretentious crap.
B2003
bolta...@boltar.world
"Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:06:06 +0100
>> "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>>> As I said, it is a design feature. The idea has been further developed
>>> into corrugated lines to mark road edges, particularly on motorways.
>>
>> Its a feature that should be been put out to grass then IMO. I'm quite
>> capable of seeing a white line
>
>Even in fog, which is what cats eyes were initially designed for?
Umm , yes. If the fog was so thick I couldn't see the road in front of my car
I would stop anyway.
>> and don't need some tyre shredding device to
>> point them out to me.
>
>If your tyres can be shredded by a 6mm high device that has been
>designed to be driven over, I suggest you change them for something better.
Don't be an ass. I'm not talking about 1 doing it , I'm talking about the
cumulative effect over years of driving. Its no different to driving over
anything else lying on the road except normally there isn't junk every 10m.
>> Maybe, but most of europe seems to manage quite nicely without any sort of
>> reflective device down the road surface
>
>That will comes as something of a surprise to the EU, which produced a
>CE Mark Directive covering reflective road studs as long ago as 1989.
Well you go find out for us where in europe they're used because I've not
seen them though admittedly I haven't driven everywhere in every country in
the EU.
B2003
bolta...@boltar.world
Phil Bradshaw <bradsh...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:06:06 +0100
>> "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>>>As I said, it is a design feature. The idea has been further developed
>>>into corrugated lines to mark road edges, particularly on motorways.
>>
>> Its a feature that should be been put out to grass then IMO. I'm quite
>> capable of seeing a white line
>
>In all conditions? Have you never driven in rain or fog in hours of
>darkness?
All of the above. Along with 300 million other europeans who seem to manage
without cats eyes on every major highway.
>> and don't need some tyre shredding device
>> to point them out to me.
>>
>You have evidence that cat's eyes shred tyres?
>Do tell.
Anything raised that a tyre runs over at high speed will have a cumulative
damage effect on the tyre. Running over a cats eye at high speed is no
different to running over a pebble. On its own it'll do very little. Over
many years after driving over hundreds or thousands of them it'll probably
mean getting new tyres a lot sooner than you would otherwise.
B2003
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i38m96$mh7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:06:40 GMT
> pete <no_one_...@notthisaddress.com> wrote:
>>> Sure, if you swerve between 2 of them suddenly. Most of us don't drive
>>> like that but you're such an arsehole I wouldn't put it past you.
>>
>>It's hardly a case of swerving. More like planning the maneouvre
>>before you start and having the time and space to complete it
>>satisfactorily. You know where your wheels are and you see the
>
> Plan the maneouvre? Oh give it up FFS. At 70 mph on the motorway you'll
> have an average of 2 or 3 cats eyes a second passing under your car. What
> exactly are you going to plan?
When to move the steering wheel.
>
>>cats eyes coming up. It's a simple case of just easing the steering
>>so the nearside wheels cross the lane at a slight angle to the white
>>line between the first and second CE, then having the car half way
>>over for the next gap in the cats eyes and keeping the same line of
>>steering so the offside wheels go through the gap between the third
>>and fourth. Takes a couple of seconds, 2 small changes in direction
>>(the second to straighten up) . You're in control the whole time,
>>you only move into space you can see and can commit sooner, or
>>abort just as easily at any point.
>
> What a load of pretentious crap.
>
Again you demonstrate your incompetence.
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i38met$mpt$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:26:40 +0100
> "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>>bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:06:06 +0100
>>> "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>>>> As I said, it is a design feature. The idea has been further developed
>>>> into corrugated lines to mark road edges, particularly on motorways.
>>>
>>> Its a feature that should be been put out to grass then IMO. I'm quite
>>> capable of seeing a white line
>>
>>Even in fog, which is what cats eyes were initially designed for?
>
> Umm , yes. If the fog was so thick I couldn't see the road in front of my
> car
> I would stop anyway.
And what about when the fog isn't that thick and you can see some of the
road in front but visibility is considerably less than on a bright summers
day?
>>> and don't need some tyre shredding device to
>>> point them out to me.
>>
>>If your tyres can be shredded by a 6mm high device that has been
>>designed to be driven over, I suggest you change them for something
>>better.
>
> Don't be an ass. I'm not talking about 1 doing it , I'm talking about the
> cumulative effect over years of driving. Its no different to driving over
> anything else lying on the road except normally there isn't junk every
> 10m.
>
Wrong again. Cat's eye's compress into their seating when run over.
One also has to ask why you're habitually driving along with one set of
wheels on the lane marking?
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i38mlp$n54$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:52:42 +0100
> Phil Bradshaw <bradsh...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:06:06 +0100
>>> "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>>>>As I said, it is a design feature. The idea has been further developed
>>>>into corrugated lines to mark road edges, particularly on motorways.
>>>
>>> Its a feature that should be been put out to grass then IMO. I'm quite
>>> capable of seeing a white line
>>
>>In all conditions? Have you never driven in rain or fog in hours of
>>darkness?
>
> All of the above. Along with 300 million other europeans who seem to
> manage
> without cats eyes on every major highway.
>
>>> and don't need some tyre shredding device
>>> to point them out to me.
>>>
>>You have evidence that cat's eyes shred tyres?
>>Do tell.
>
> Anything raised that a tyre runs over at high speed will have a cumulative
> damage effect on the tyre. Running over a cats eye at high speed is no
> different to running over a pebble.
Since when have pebbles been made of rubber which compress into their
seating in the road surface?
> On its own it'll do very little. Over
> many years after driving over hundreds or thousands of them it'll probably
> mean getting new tyres a lot sooner than you would otherwise.
>
To which the solution is obvious. Drive with all wheels in the lane, not on
the makings.
Easy innit?
bolta...@boltar.world
"Brimstone" <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Umm , yes. If the fog was so thick I couldn't see the road in front of my
>> car
>> I would stop anyway.
>
>And what about when the fog isn't that thick and you can see some of the
>road in front but visibility is considerably less than on a bright summers
>day?
Then you drive slower.
>> cumulative effect over years of driving. Its no different to driving over
>> anything else lying on the road except normally there isn't junk every
>> 10m.
>>
>Wrong again. Cat's eye's compress into their seating when run over.
For pities sake man, what do you think compresses then??? Or did you think
they see a car coming and duck!
>One also has to ask why you're habitually driving along with one set of
>wheels on the lane marking?
*sigh*
I just can't be bothered anymore.
B2003
Nightjar
> "Nightjar <"cpb"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote in message
> news:vYydnbYliKxAW8rR...@giganews.com...
>> Mortimer wrote:
>>> Coloured ones (red between L1 and hard shoulder, green at entry/exit
>>> slip road, amber between L3 and central reservation) are very useful
>>> to confirm at night which lane you are in, to prevent you straying
>>> onto the hard shoulder thinking that you are moving from L2 to L1.
>>
>> It is a long time since I drove on a motorway at night. Do they still
>> use blue for service area exits?
>
> When did they use blue studs for service area exits? Certainly not since
They were part of a motorway design specification I have from the 1960s,
which is probably when I remember them from. I said it was a long time
since I drove on motorways at night.
Colin Bignell
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i38vak$3c4$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 11:48:17 +0100
> "Brimstone" <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Umm , yes. If the fog was so thick I couldn't see the road in front of
>>> my
>>> car
>>> I would stop anyway.
>>
>>And what about when the fog isn't that thick and you can see some of the
>>road in front but visibility is considerably less than on a bright summers
>>day?
>
> Then you drive slower.
>
>>> cumulative effect over years of driving. Its no different to driving
>>> over
>>> anything else lying on the road except normally there isn't junk every
>>> 10m.
>>>
>>Wrong again. Cat's eye's compress into their seating when run over.
>
> For pities sake man, what do you think compresses then??? Or did you think
> they see a car coming and duck!
So if they're made of rubber and the tyre is made of rubber which both
compress when in contact with something else, what makes you think that the
cat's eye's will have any effect on the tyre?
>>One also has to ask why you're habitually driving along with one set of
>>wheels on the lane marking?
>
> *sigh*
>
> I just can't be bothered anymore.
>
Ah, that'll be a "Bugger I didn't think of that one".
Nightjar
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:26:40 +0100
> "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>> bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:06:06 +0100
>>> "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>>>> As I said, it is a design feature. The idea has been further developed
>>>> into corrugated lines to mark road edges, particularly on motorways.
>>> Its a feature that should be been put out to grass then IMO. I'm quite
>>> capable of seeing a white line
>> Even in fog, which is what cats eyes were initially designed for?
>
> Umm , yes. If the fog was so thick I couldn't see the road in front of my car
> I would stop anyway.
Is stopping on the highway in seriously reduced visibility a good idea?
In any case, that is not always an option, like the London bus drivers
being guided by the conductor carrying a torch during the 1953 smog.
Nevertheless, the cats eyes would be the last thing to become invisible
in thick fog, as Percy Shaw intended.
>
>>> and don't need some tyre shredding device to
>>> point them out to me.
>> If your tyres can be shredded by a 6mm high device that has been
>> designed to be driven over, I suggest you change them for something better.
>
> Don't be an ass. I'm not talking about 1 doing it , I'm talking about the
> cumulative effect over years of driving. Its no different to driving over
> anything else lying on the road except normally there isn't junk every 10m.
Again, if your tyres cannot cope with minor height variations - 6mm is
less then many surface imperfections - then you ought to buy better tyres.
>
>>> Maybe, but most of europe seems to manage quite nicely without any sort of
>>> reflective device down the road surface
>> That will comes as something of a surprise to the EU, which produced a
>> CE Mark Directive covering reflective road studs as long ago as 1989.
>
> Well you go find out for us where in europe they're used because I've not
> seen them though admittedly I haven't driven everywhere in every country in
> the EU.
I suggest you need to be more observant in future, although the
continentals tend to use them to mark particular hazards, rather than as
general supplements to line markings. I suspect it is mainly down to
cost. Cats eyes cost about £10 each, plus installation, while simple
reflective studs are around £1.50-£1.85, again plus installation. With
around 350-700 studs per km, it would not be cheap to fit them to all of
the 1 million + kms of roads in France, for example.
Colin Bignell
Colin Bignell
bolta...@boltar.world
"Brimstone" <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> For pities sake man, what do you think compresses then??? Or did you think
>> they see a car coming and duck!
>
>So if they're made of rubber and the tyre is made of rubber which both
>compress when in contact with something else, what makes you think that the
>cat's eye's will have any effect on the tyre?
Thats impressive stupidity even for you. You admit the tyre compresses yet
in the same sentence you ask why I think there'll be any effect. Do you ever
engage your brain before you type?
>>>One also has to ask why you're habitually driving along with one set of
>>>wheels on the lane marking?
>>
>> *sigh*
>>
>> I just can't be bothered anymore.
>>
>Ah, that'll be a "Bugger I didn't think of that one".
Arguing with you really is validation for the well known saying of never
argue with an idiot.
B2003
bolta...@boltar.world
"Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>> Well you go find out for us where in europe they're used because I've not
>> seen them though admittedly I haven't driven everywhere in every country in
>> the EU.
>
>I suggest you need to be more observant in future, although the
>continentals tend to use them to mark particular hazards, rather than as
>general supplements to line markings. I suspect it is mainly down to
Oh right, so you have a weak attempt at being patronising then basically
admit I'm right. Nice going genius.
B2003
Mortimer
news:NoSdnbdNLqbzacrR...@bt.com...
>
> <bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
> news:i38mlp$n54$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:52:42 +0100
>> Phil Bradshaw <bradsh...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:06:06 +0100
>>>> "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>>>>>As I said, it is a design feature. The idea has been further developed
>>>>>into corrugated lines to mark road edges, particularly on motorways.
>>>>
>>>> Its a feature that should be been put out to grass then IMO. I'm quite
>>>> capable of seeing a white line
>>>
>>>In all conditions? Have you never driven in rain or fog in hours of
>>>darkness?
Even in good visibility at night, you can see cat's eyes, even when
illuminated by the periphery of the dipped beam outside the visible pool of
light, far beyond the distance where you can see the white lines. The
contrast between a bright cat's eye and the dark road surface is much
greater than between a dimly-lit white line and the road surface. This
allows you to drive faster (drive within the distance that you can see to be
clear) while still being able to deduce where the road goes and whether it
bends.
But the best solution is solar powered self-illuminating cat's eyes because
these are not dependent on how far ahead your headlights light up the road.
Very useful on roads such as the A46 between Bath and M4 J18 or the many
bends on the B4015 between Stadhampton and the A4074.
>> All of the above. Along with 300 million other europeans who seem to
>> manage
>> without cats eyes on every major highway.
Have we established yet which European countries have just white lines and
no reflective studs (cat's eyes)?
>>>> and don't need some tyre shredding device
>>>> to point them out to me.
>>>>
>>>You have evidence that cat's eyes shred tyres?
>>>Do tell.
>>
>> Anything raised that a tyre runs over at high speed will have a
>> cumulative
>> damage effect on the tyre. Running over a cats eye at high speed is no
>> different to running over a pebble.
>
> Since when have pebbles been made of rubber which compress into their
> seating in the road surface?
In fairness, a cat's eye is probably comparatively rigid, even though it's
made of (hard) rubber, when hit at 70 mph. Think of the thump that you hear
if you do happen to run over one.
But think of the effect of a poor road surface: there are some trunk roads
(I know of the A64 on parts of the Malton bypass) which have an appalling
surface with patches of missing tarmac and an array of stones which are
raised above the level of the rest of the surface. And think of concrete
roads with tar at the join between each concrete section: I wonder what the
cumulative effect is of the repeated thump-thump as you go over each of
those joins.
>> On its own it'll do very little. Over
>> many years after driving over hundreds or thousands of them it'll
>> probably
>> mean getting new tyres a lot sooner than you would otherwise.
>>
> To which the solution is obvious. Drive with all wheels in the lane, not
> on the makings.
In other words, don't stray out of the lane onto the lane markings, and when
deliberately changing lanes try to do so at a sharp enough angle that all
four wheels go between the cat's eyes. Easier said than done to miss the
cat's eyes with the back wheels as well as the front ones: I probably manage
it about 75% (but not 100%) of the time.
Clive George
> Anything raised that a tyre runs over at high speed will have a cumulative
> damage effect on the tyre. Running over a cats eye at high speed is no
> different to running over a pebble. On its own it'll do very little. Over
> many years after driving over hundreds or thousands of them it'll probably
> mean getting new tyres a lot sooner than you would otherwise.
What's the limiting factor for tyre life? Is it state of the carcass, or
amount of rubber?
The existence of reliable remoulds, and the fact that people generally
replace tyres because they're too worn rather than carcass failure
indicates the latter is probably the answer.
This tells us that the damage from cats eyes you're worried about is
pretty much irrelevant.
BTW you should read the Crow Road. As well as being a good book, it's
got some stuff relevant to this thread.
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i39488$b13$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 13:00:33 +0100
> "Brimstone" <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> For pities sake man, what do you think compresses then??? Or did you
>>> think
>>> they see a car coming and duck!
>>
>>So if they're made of rubber and the tyre is made of rubber which both
>>compress when in contact with something else, what makes you think that
>>the
>>cat's eye's will have any effect on the tyre?
>
> Thats impressive stupidity even for you. You admit the tyre compresses yet
> in the same sentence you ask why I think there'll be any effect. Do you
> ever
> engage your brain before you type?
It's you that needs to use your brain.
Since both the tyre and the cat's eye are designed to alter shape upon
impact what makes you think that the tyre is suffering damage? Do you have
any reliable evidence that tyres do suffer damage as a result of coming into
contact with cat's eyes?
>>>>One also has to ask why you're habitually driving along with one set of
>>>>wheels on the lane marking?
>>>
>>> *sigh*
>>>
>>> I just can't be bothered anymore.
>>>
>>Ah, that'll be a "Bugger I didn't think of that one".
>
> Arguing with you really is validation for the well known saying of never
> argue with an idiot.
>
So in the absence of a reasonable explanation to my question you have to
descend to pathetic attempts at insult. That says far more about you than it
does me.
Adrian
they were saying:
> Since both the tyre and the cat's eye are designed to alter shape upon
> impact...
Not to mention that the tyre alters shape all the time it's rotating.
bolta...@boltar.world
"Brimstone" <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It's you that needs to use your brain.
>
>Since both the tyre and the cat's eye are designed to alter shape upon
>impact what makes you think that the tyre is suffering damage? Do you have
>any reliable evidence that tyres do suffer damage as a result of coming into
>contact with cat's eyes?
Go and drive your car over a rocky mountain track at 70mph and see how long
your tyres last. After all, they're just altering shape arn't they as they
go over the rocks?
>So in the absence of a reasonable explanation to my question you have to
>descend to pathetic attempts at insult. That says far more about you than it
>does me.
Ask a reasonable question, not some idiotic straw man , and you might get
a reasonable argument. Otherwise insults are all you deserve.
B2003
Adrian
saying:
>>Since both the tyre and the cat's eye are designed to alter shape upon
>>impact what makes you think that the tyre is suffering damage? Do you
>>have any reliable evidence that tyres do suffer damage as a result of
>>coming into contact with cat's eyes?
> Go and drive your car over a rocky mountain track at 70mph and see how
> long your tyres last. After all, they're just altering shape arn't they
> as they go over the rocks?
Hmm. Remind me what your reply was when I suggested that you try standing
on a cat's eye and a nail barefoot?
Phil Bradshaw
> On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:52:42 +0100
> Phil Bradshaw <bradsh...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:06:06 +0100
>>> "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>>>>As I said, it is a design feature. The idea has been further developed
>>>>into corrugated lines to mark road edges, particularly on motorways.
>>>
>>> Its a feature that should be been put out to grass then IMO. I'm quite
>>> capable of seeing a white line
>>
>>In all conditions? Have you never driven in rain or fog in hours of
>>darkness?
>
> All of the above. Along with 300 million other europeans who seem to
> manage without cats eyes on every major highway.
Major highways? Europe aside (a strawman), you ought to try some rural A
roads in this country such conditions.
>
>>> and don't need some tyre shredding device
>>> to point them out to me.
>>>
>>You have evidence that cat's eyes shred tyres?
>>Do tell.
>
> Anything raised that a tyre runs over at high speed will have a cumulative
> damage effect on the tyre. Running over a cats eye at high speed is no
> different to running over a pebble. On its own it'll do very little. Over
> many years after driving over hundreds or thousands of them it'll probably
> mean getting new tyres a lot sooner than you would otherwise.
>
You call that evidence? There's probably far more damage done to tyres by
things in the road that don't deform like cat's eyes. Maybe you are
forgetting about the characteristics of radial ply tyres...
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i399fi$j0b$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:35:14 +0100
> "Brimstone" <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>It's you that needs to use your brain.
>>
>>Since both the tyre and the cat's eye are designed to alter shape upon
>>impact what makes you think that the tyre is suffering damage? Do you have
>>any reliable evidence that tyres do suffer damage as a result of coming
>>into
>>contact with cat's eyes?
>
> Go and drive your car over a rocky mountain track at 70mph and see how
> long
> your tyres last. After all, they're just altering shape arn't they as they
> go over the rocks?
Are the rocks deforming as the tyre passes over them?
>>So in the absence of a reasonable explanation to my question you have to
>>descend to pathetic attempts at insult. That says far more about you than
>>it
>>does me.
>
> Ask a reasonable question, not some idiotic straw man , and you might get
> a reasonable argument. Otherwise insults are all you deserve.
>
Since you inferred that you driver over cat's eyes a lot it was a reasonable
question. Do you now wish to withdraw your original comment that cat's eyes
cause damage to car tyres?
Nightjar
I have no doubt you are right in saying you have not seen them.
Colin Bignell
Nightjar
...
> In fairness, a cat's eye is probably comparatively rigid, even though it's
> made of (hard) rubber, when hit at 70 mph. Think of the thump that you hear
Part of the design is to store water in the body, which is forced out to
wash the lenses when you drive over the cats eye. Apparently, a lot of
the noise comes from that happening.
Colin Bignell
Ian Dalziel
wrote:
> Running over a cats eye at high speed is no different to running over a pebble.
A rubber, springloaded, retractable pebble, that is.
Get a lot of them down your way, do you?
--
Ian D
john wright
>
>>
>> I like the self-illuminating ones which use LEDs: they display the course of
>> the white line far beyond the range that headlights (especially dipped) can
>> illuminate either a white line or even a reflective cat's eye.
>>
>
> ....Ginger Toms.... my personal favourite!
I've personally gone off Ginger Toms since one ran over my keyboard as I
was reading a message in uk.transport and lost it for me. Bugger me if I
couldn't find it again no matter what I did with Thunderbird.
--
John Wright
Blasphemy - a victimless crime.
bolta...@boltar.world
"Brimstone" <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
><bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
>news:i399fi$j0b$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:35:14 +0100
>> "Brimstone" <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>It's you that needs to use your brain.
>>>
>>>Since both the tyre and the cat's eye are designed to alter shape upon
>>>impact what makes you think that the tyre is suffering damage? Do you have
>>>any reliable evidence that tyres do suffer damage as a result of coming
>>>into
>>>contact with cat's eyes?
>>
>> Go and drive your car over a rocky mountain track at 70mph and see how
>> long
>> your tyres last. After all, they're just altering shape arn't they as they
>> go over the rocks?
>
>Are the rocks deforming as the tyre passes over them?
Quite possibly they sink down under the weight. Besides which is the initial
impact that will do most of any damage that occurs.
>> Ask a reasonable question, not some idiotic straw man , and you might get
>> a reasonable argument. Otherwise insults are all you deserve.
>>
>Since you inferred that you driver over cat's eyes a lot it was a reasonable
>question. Do you now wish to withdraw your original comment that cat's eyes
>cause damage to car tyres?
No. And everyone drives over cats eyes when they change lanes though it
wouldn't surprise me to find that you just sit in L2 for your entire
journey.
B2003
bolta...@boltar.world
"Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere> wrote:
>> Oh right, so you have a weak attempt at being patronising then basically
>> admit I'm right.
>
>I have no doubt you are right in saying you have not seen them.
Then show us where they are. Google streetview is only a mouseclick away
for you. Go find some and prove me wrong.
B2003
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i3bauf$d7f$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 16:00:14 +0100
> "Brimstone" <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>><bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
>>news:i399fi$j0b$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:35:14 +0100
>>> "Brimstone" <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>It's you that needs to use your brain.
>>>>
>>>>Since both the tyre and the cat's eye are designed to alter shape upon
>>>>impact what makes you think that the tyre is suffering damage? Do you
>>>>have
>>>>any reliable evidence that tyres do suffer damage as a result of coming
>>>>into
>>>>contact with cat's eyes?
>>>
>>> Go and drive your car over a rocky mountain track at 70mph and see how
>>> long
>>> your tyres last. After all, they're just altering shape arn't they as
>>> they
>>> go over the rocks?
>>
>>Are the rocks deforming as the tyre passes over them?
>
> Quite possibly they sink down under the weight. Besides which is the
> initial
> impact that will do most of any damage that occurs.
Indeed it is, but if the ground is soft enough for the stones to sink in
under the weight of the car then there's the possibility that the car will
get bogged in..
>>> Ask a reasonable question, not some idiotic straw man , and you might
>>> get
>>> a reasonable argument. Otherwise insults are all you deserve.
>>>
>>Since you inferred that you driver over cat's eyes a lot it was a
>>reasonable
>>question. Do you now wish to withdraw your original comment that cat's
>>eyes
>>cause damage to car tyres?
>
> No. And everyone drives over cats eyes when they change lanes though it
> wouldn't surprise me to find that you just sit in L2 for your entire
> journey.
>
The fact that you only talk in terms of motorways and other multi lane roads
says much about how much driving you really do.
bolta...@boltar.world
"Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>The fact that you only talk in terms of motorways and other multi lane roads
>says much about how much driving you really do.
Well generally you don't change lanes on single lane A roads unless you're
overtaking do its not really an issue on those sorts of roads is it? FFS.
B2003
Adrian
saying:
>>The fact that you only talk in terms of motorways and other multi lane
>>roads says much about how much driving you really do.
> Well generally you don't change lanes on single lane A roads unless
> you're overtaking do its not really an issue on those sorts of roads is
> it? FFS.
Dear gawd...
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i3bf9p$jbe$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Oh shit, you just did!!
bolta...@boltar.world
What the hell are you on about you sad old twat? The whole point of this
discussion has been about driving over them while changing lanes at high
speed. Does your brain have a flat battery or something?
B2003
bolta...@boltar.world
. Adrian jumps on the bandwagon once more. Please tell him to find his own
one.
B2003
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i3bfom$jvc$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
There is nothing to that effect in your OP.
>Does your brain have a flat battery or something?
>
Seeing as you can't remember your own posts it's obviously you who needs
recharging. Go and sit down and have a nice cup of tea or coffee or whatever
your prefer (like most children, that'll probably be coke or some other
crap).
bolta...@boltar.world
"Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> What the hell are you on about you sad old twat? The whole point of this
>> discussion has been about driving over them while changing lanes at high
>> speed.
>
>There is nothing to that effect in your OP.
Its rather a given don't you think? Or did you think I was talking about
them causing damage in situations where you DON'T drive over them??
Jeeesus christ... unbelievable.
B2003
Mortimer
news:8bstpj...@mid.individual.net...
> bolta...@boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
>>>The fact that you only talk in terms of motorways and other multi lane
>>>roads says much about how much driving you really do.
>
>> Well generally you don't change lanes on single lane A roads unless
>> it? FFS.
>
> Dear gawd...
Why the exasperation? Boltar made a perfectly valid point that it is far
more common to cross a line which has cat's eyes in it on a dual carriageway
or motorway because it is so much easier to overtake when you don't have to
take into account oncoming traffic as well. On a typical single-carriageway
A road with bends every so often, I may overtake once few miles (assuming
that I come up behind traffic that is going slowly to justify overtaking and
assuming that there is a safe straight bit of road with no oncoming
traffic). On a motorway or dual carriageway I may overtake several times a
mile if I come up behind cars that are doing as little as 5 mph less than
I'd like to do.
So it seems sensible that most of the discussion and examples relate to the
circumstance where overtaking is most common, while not excluding the
single-carriageway situation even though overtaking (and therefore crossing
the line) is less likely.
Adrian
saying:
> So it seems sensible that most of the discussion and examples relate to
> the circumstance where overtaking is most common, while not excluding
> the single-carriageway situation even though overtaking (and therefore
> crossing the line) is less likely.
And overtaking is the only time you'd cross the centre-line on a bendy
single carriageway, is it?
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i3bi9k$noj$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I was talking about driving over cat's eyes, the type of road is beside the
point. You've simply tried to set some goalposts dancing.
> Jeeesus christ... unbelievable.
>
Indeed you are, but not in a nice way.
Mortimer
Apart from turning right into a side road.
I may move from one side to the other of my side of a single carriageway to
maximise visibility on bends, but I wouldn't let my right tyres cross the
line in doing this - apart from accidentally if I slightly misjudge things!
Adrian
saying:
>> And overtaking is the only time you'd cross the centre-line on a bendy
>> single carriageway, is it?
> Apart from turning right into a side road.
>
> I may move from one side to the other of my side of a single carriageway
> to maximise visibility on bends, but I wouldn't let my right tyres cross
> the line in doing this
Really? Why on earth not? Clear road permitting, of course.
If nobody else is using it, you might as well.
bolta...@boltar.world
You do it far less on a single lane road unless you're the sort of
driver who drifts all over the place.
This argument is getting down to the hair on a picked nit splitting stage and
its beginning to bore me , so feel free to have last word and lets call it a
day on this one.
B2003
Mr. Benn
news:i3bp84$2bd$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
That's the reason why he and Adrian have both been in my killfile for the
past few months. They argue for the sake of it not because they're
genuinely interested in debating something. I just can't be bothered with
the pedantic tossers.
bolta...@boltar.world
"Mr. Benn" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>That's the reason why he and Adrian have both been in my killfile for the
>past few months. They argue for the sake of it not because they're
>genuinely interested in debating something.
It does seem to be the case doesn't it.
B2003
Adrian
saying:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 14:29:21 +0100
Oh, the irony...
john wright
One reason - the Scuffers might stop you if they happen to see you!
Happened to me once, but with three dogs in the car they all started to
bark. Of course I made no attempt to stop them either....
Nightjar
I'm not so insecure as to feel the need to justify a statement I have made.
Colin Bignell
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i3bp84$2bd$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i3br0l$4vi$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Nick Finnigan
> "Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8bstpj...@mid.individual.net...
>> bolta...@boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
>> saying:
>>
>>>> The fact that you only talk in terms of motorways and other multi lane
>>>> roads says much about how much driving you really do.
>>
>>> Well generally you don't change lanes on single lane A roads unless
>>> you're overtaking so its not really an issue on those sorts of roads is
>>> it? FFS.
>>
>> Dear gawd...
>
> Why the exasperation? Boltar made a perfectly valid point that it is far
> more common to cross a line which has cat's eyes in it on a dual
> carriageway or motorway because it is so much easier to overtake when
> you don't have to take into account oncoming traffic as well. On a
> typical single-carriageway A road with bends every so often, I may
> overtake once few miles (assuming that I come up behind traffic that is
> going slowly to justify overtaking and assuming that there is a safe
> straight bit of road with no oncoming traffic). On a motorway or dual
> carriageway I may overtake several times a mile if I come up behind cars
> that are doing as little as 5 mph less than I'd like to do.
You don't overtake several times a mile with a 5mph difference.
Only a small minority of cars on a motorway will change lanes as often as
once a mile. Most of them only about twice a journey.
Mortimer
news:i3c5ql$13j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Mortimer wrote:
> You don't overtake several times a mile with a 5mph difference.
> Only a small minority of cars on a motorway will change lanes as often as
> once a mile. Most of them only about twice a journey.
Yes, but I try to obey proper lane discipline and get over into the left
lane when there's a long (maybe 15 second) gap before the next vehicle that
will require me to overtake. If I'm in L2 overtaking a group of lorries and
one decides to pull out into L2 and try to occupy the bit of road I'm
travelling, I'll be straight into L3 (assuming it's safe to do so). Once
that has happened several times, you've got your "overtaking several times
in a mile".
Nick Finnigan
>
> Yes, but I try to obey proper lane discipline and get over into the left
> lane when there's a long (maybe 15 second) gap before the next vehicle
> that will require me to overtake. If I'm in L2 overtaking a group of
> lorries and one decides to pull out into L2 and try to occupy the bit of
> road I'm travelling, I'll be straight into L3 (assuming it's safe to do
> so). Once that has happened several times, you've got your "overtaking
> several times in a mile".
Even then ... assuming the lorries are 20% slower than you, in the time
that you travel 1 mile you have only gained 350 yards on the first one you
passed. There must have been 2 x several lorries in lane 1 in that 350
yards, and nothing at all in lane 2 and lane 3. It's not impossible, but...
bolta...@boltar.world
Nick Finnigan <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:
> You don't overtake several times a mile with a 5mph difference.
Lots of people do.
>Only a small minority of cars on a motorway will change lanes as often as
>once a mile. Most of them only about twice a journey.
Are you a member of the MLOC? Because thats their typical behaviour. Sit
in the middle lane and don't budge no matter what.
B2003
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i3dtvd$e4j$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:51:26 +0100
> Nick Finnigan <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:
>> You don't overtake several times a mile with a 5mph difference.
>
> Lots of people do.
>
I'm sure someone can do the maths.
bolta...@boltar.world
Because there are lines of traffic all with slightly different speeds and
you hop from one to the other. You've obviously never driven on the M25
recently have you. But then your mobility scooter probably isn't up to the
job anyway.
B2003
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i3duqk$gao$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
bolta...@boltar.world
"Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
><bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
>news:i3duqk$gao$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 09:57:12 +0100
>> "Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>><bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
>>>news:i3dtvd$e4j$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:51:26 +0100
>>>> Nick Finnigan <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> You don't overtake several times a mile with a 5mph difference.
>>>>
>>>> Lots of people do.
>>>>
>>>I'd be interested to learn how they manage to do that.
>>>
>>>I'm sure someone can do the maths.
>>
>> Because there are lines of traffic all with slightly different speeds and
>> you hop from one to the other. You've obviously never driven on the M25
>> recently have you. But then your mobility scooter probably isn't up to the
>> job anyway.
>>
>It's obvious you haven't done the maths.
Its obvious you can't do maths. At 60mph thats a mile a minute. How long does
it take to pass a car length at 5mph which is a very fast walking pace. 3
seconds? Say 15-20 seconds to pass a car plus the gap between it and the next
on a busy road and its perfectly possible to pass several in the space of
a mile.
B2003
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i3e0fl$jei$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
bolta...@boltar.world
"Brimstone" <brimston...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Its obvious you can't do maths. At 60mph thats a mile a minute. How long
>> does
>> it take to pass a car length at 5mph which is a very fast walking pace. 3
>> seconds? Say 15-20 seconds to pass a car plus the gap between it and the
>> next
>> on a busy road and its perfectly possible to pass several in the space of
>> a mile.
>>
>And how many cars travel at 55 mph or less in the middle lane?
Depends on where and when. On motorways around london in the rush hour you'll
be lucky if you hit 45.
B2003
Brimstone
<bolta...@boltar.world> wrote in message
news:i3e37i$nin$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
three/four lanes how many opportunities are there for overtaking?
Mortimer
news:T9CdnYxfR54ZEsfR...@bt.com...
>
> And how many cars travel at 55 mph or less in the middle lane?
Maybe not many cars, but plenty of speed-limited HGVs.
Nick Finnigan
> On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:51:26 +0100
> Nick Finnigan <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:
>> You don't overtake several times a mile with a 5mph difference.
>
> Lots of people do.
No, they don't.
>> Only a small minority of cars on a motorway will change lanes as often as
>> once a mile. Most of them only about twice a journey.
>
> Are you a member of the MLOC?
No.
Because thats their typical behaviour. Sit
> in the middle lane and don't budge no matter what.
Well spotted.
Nick Finnigan
In a minute at 5mph you cover about 150 yards. You could /pass/ several
cars, but you won't /overtake/ several cars, involving several lane changes
and the possibility of driving over several cats' eyes.
Mortimer
> bolta...@boltar.world wrote:
> In a minute at 5mph you cover about 150 yards. You could /pass/ several
> cars, but you won't /overtake/ several cars, involving several lane
> changes and the possibility of driving over several cats' eyes.
On a quiet motorway where you can change lane at will without having to wait
for a gap, would it take significantly longer to do L1-L2-L1 than to stay in
L2, assuming that your speed and the speed of the vehicle you are overtaking
are the same in both cases?
Anyway, the precise figures are less important that the point that I was
trying to make: that on a dual carriageway where you only have to consider
whether there's traffic coming from behind, it is easier to overtake and you
are more likely to risk doing it even where the speed of the car in front is
not much less that yours, whereas on a single carriageway road you tend to
only overtake if the car in front is doing quite a lot less than you want
to, and you have to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic, so you need more
justification to make the risk of overtaking worth while.