Perpetual motion at last?

The idea that electric cars are a panacea for conservation of energy and the environment is wishful thinking.

Any physicist will confirm that you cannot get something from nothing.

If electric cars are able to produce more, or even the same energy output unloaded that is put into them, then mankind would have at last achieved perpetual motion it seems to us.

These cars will need to be powered from either, oil, gas, coal or nuclear power stations. I think the Green movement must believe that renewables can achieve this sort of energy when it is becoming increasingly evident that it is pretty useless and needs massive subsidy to be pretty useless too.

Assuming then that we have not achieved perpetual motion, then we must accept that these cars, loaded, will lose much energy from friction and wind resistance and indeed the need to slow them more rapidly than to accelerate. Added to this is the effect of hill climbing where even more power is needed but is simply not returned, on descent, because energy is used to overcome gravity so that we are not too fast in descent; thus cannot use the energy consumed in the ascent.

So how does the cost of their manufacture, in terms of energy used, design and disposal, compare with current vehicles and how do they affect the environment when the energy source is considered?

Transport Policy By The People paper

PRESS RELEASE FROM DaFT

PUTTING TRANSPORT POLICY IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE

Embargoed until 00.01 on 1st April

Transport Secretary Richard 'Hamster' Hammond [shome mishtake surely] has announced another step forward in ending Whitehall's war on the motorist and towards putting transport policy in the hands of the people.

There will be a new reality TV show, "The Ex Factor" in which the public can vote for the policy that appeals the most.

It is named after 'Ex Mayor of London" Ken Livingstone, who will propose that any driver not slowing down and stopping to allow kids to play around in the street will face a penalty. The campaign, called 'Kick Racing Out Of Football" is the brainwave of the Mayor who introduced such innovations as The Mayor's Taxi Lane in London.

Also featuring will be 'Ex Transport Minister" Lord Prescott and Jeremy Clarkson. Clarkson will suggest that it should be made legal for drivers to shoot parking wardens. Prescott will suggest that it should be made legal for parking wardens, and in fact anybody else, to shoot Jeremy Clarkson.

Lady Pauline Prescott nearly became Prescott's "Ex-wife" after the noble Lord had entertained a charming civil servant in a road safety exercise where they took turns to act out the roles of crash test dummies and inflatable airbags. She will suggest that it should be made legal to shoot Lord Prescott, and will make the case for electrical hairdryer points outside parking spaces.

The final guest, Great Uncle Bulgaria Womble, will advocate a new form of eco-driving for Britain's crumbling roads. Potholes will be allowed to fester until at least 2 feet wide by 6 feet deep, at which point the Wombles will fill them with vandalised speed cameras, landfilled rubbish, etc.

The will save the UK an estimated £9.6 billion from the ten year road maintenance budget, local authorities millions in landfill charges, and drivers an arm and a leg in fines.

Drivers will be invited to race over the surface and compact the waste into the ground. There will be a new DaFT advertising campaign - 'Speed Fills'.

Members of the public will be able to vote for their favourite suggestion on a new hotline where charges will rise by 1p + inflation each second for every second on lhe line. All proceeds will go towards another reality show series where properties on the route of High Speed Rail 2 will be given a free makeover.

ENDS (unlike the war on the motorist)

DaFT - the Department for Advocating Flat-earth Transport

Great Monster House, More Sham Street, London SP1N 4PC.

Cameras kept. Fatals up 100%

This crash increased the road death in Lincolnshire to 8 this year compared with 4 over the same period last year. http://bit.ly/ewpn8F

Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership have been resolute in keeping speed cameras and promoting their coercive Speed Awareness Courses for money.

So please excuse us for announcing this statistic. Lincolnshire keep cameras and death goes up 100%.

A crash without 'speeding' flummoxes police.

This says it all. 'No-one knows how this accident happened'? Oh dear oh dear. 'If they weren't "speeding we are totally flummoxed" 

To which I wrote the following:

No sooner do I pen one letter in response to the 'speeding' issue do I read an astounding account of evidence submitted about a fatal crash that, because neither driver was 'speeding', no-one, not even the crash investigator, can give a reason for it.

The crash investigator even uses the term 'excessive speed' which I deplore because no such state exists in the Road Traffic Act. There is either 'speeding' or driving too fast which is reckless driving at any speed, often below the speed limit; as in this case it seems.

'Excessive speed' should never be used by officials because it muddies the water between 'speeding' that causes no accidents, like in this accident, and driving too fast which does.

If a driver loses control of his vehicle it is because of excessive speed whether 15 MPH or 40 MPH. Don't the Collision Investigation Units even understand that much?

I quote the following extract from my earlier post which was written before I had read this story:

'........not one accident is or can be caused by 'speeding'. By driving too fast, which is reckless driving at any speed, often below the limits too, does but not 'speeding'. No camera can see 'too fast'. They can only see driving above an arbitrary and unscientific number on a pole..............'

So the cause of the accident, if reported correctly by the Echo, could only be driving too fast for the bend, or the conditions PC Brown; no matter what the speed limit was.

And this tragic crash is why it is more important for drivers to drive to the road and conditions than to a speedo and for cameras. I am confident that PC Brown would not disagree with drivers driving to the conditions at all times.

Political menace......the push bike.

The RACF has commissioned a report which it claims is vital to road safety policy and that is to account for the 'antagonism that can seriously jeopardise road safety'. The report focuses on the attitudes of cyclists and drivers toward each other. See Item here  

Isn't it easy how something so apparently benign and constructive can actually be part of an already established attitude and policy? So let's look a bit deeper into their proposal to understand what is really behind it.

The reader can be forgiven for associating the RACF with the RAC.

They are two separate organisations. The RACF is not a pro-motoring group and in fact supports the prosecution of perfectly safe drivers by virtue of totally unscientific and arbitrary speed limits. Added to which they are not road safety or driving experts either. We can therefore be forgiven for asking what exactly is their CV to be making any statements on a life and death issue anyway?

But aren't they being totally fair and un-biased between driver and cyclists in their reports? Not exactly no! In fact they are all to the advantage of the cyclist by talking as though there were a level playing field. 

And thus how smoothly we are all lead to think of all road users as equal when in fact that is not the case at all. So let's look again at this:

What is cycling? Well to put it crudely, it is to put oneself into the path of rather heavy fast moving machinery and plant; usually operated by any Tom Dick and Harry. Would any sane and right minded person wish to do that?

But B.J. isn't the only politician who wants to show off his cycle clips credentials is he?

And then there is Councillor Jane (the cycle clips) Urqhart of Nottingham tram fame.

 
So where are all these people so wrong?

 
Why are politicians falling over themselves to show off their cycling credentials when to do it is so nuts, that to place oneself in so much danger, would be an offence under some elf'n safety rule if it were anything else wouldn't it?

The RACF has really commissioned an anti car anti driver report and that is because there is no level playing field. Cycling is done by a tiny minority RACF. Whereas everyone depends on the 30 million drivers of this country and the economy would collapse without them, no-one would miss cyclists at all.

The push bike is a political menace simply because any politician who rides one is in a minority and as I have demonstrated, has to be mad.

Cycling, used to pretend to all of us that it can be an alternative to the car, is not only a lie but a menace to the 30million drivers that need the politicians to support them.

So when the media start promoting this RACF anti car propaganda, they will in fact be promoting madness!

Right. I have a buckled wheel to repair.

2nd Driver Protest Weekend

The next private

and off duty driver protest is for the weekend starting 28th Jan.

Object: to show big business and thus the Government how drivers are a priority and not a luxury. Public transport even need us to make its links. The government can only do so much for us on fuel and taxes but it can make life a lot easier for drivers like, less fines, less punishment, less unnecessary slowing, no unnecessary speed limiting. Protest now on all driver grievances. How?

Simple: Just avoid for one weekend all those business, retail parks and city centres that depend on the driver for trade just for one weekend. It's that easy. Pass it on by twitter, email and F.B.

_displayNameOrEmail_ - _time_ - Remove

_text_

Sign in Recent Site Activity Terms Report Abuse Print page | Powered by Google Sites

Road Safety only if there's a few bob in it?

Road safety only if there's a few bob in it?

Here is an example of the typical pious but profiteering face of The Road Safety Industry if ever there were. Ex Sergeant Dave Kay, of Lincolnshire Police Road Safety Partnership, at one time acting chief copper there, clearly was on a good screw for doing life saving. Very pro prosecuting perfectly safe drivers too. This partnership actually denied to me the self evident, 'Reduce the need to overtake reduces the attempts and thus reduces the overtake accidents' and also 'The more a driver can see the better his driving and thus less night-time crashes' Here he is now, involved with two consultancy companies, still no doubt piously peddling his peculiar 'life saving' technique for money! K Consulting (Lincs Ltd) http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dave-kay/15/65a/b99 & Mannor Ltd http://www.freeindex.co.uk/profile(manorr-ltd)_273749.htm Ex acting head of Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership. Unless his customers are all cyclists or walk around for their business, can we note that Dapper Dave was all for prosecuting perfectly safe drivers for personal profit and gain; not to mention a good pension too? Not much change there then!!