IT’S A FORTRESS WITH A FUCKING MOAT.



WTF, America?

That's roughly how all the existing residents of the area live anyway...

If it does end up looking like that, and they actually plant some trees and grass, it'll be a major improvement over how the space looks today.

Don't know exactly where it's going to be but Nine Elms isn't exactly replete with architectural treasures. The thing that sounds interesting is the focus on energy efficiency.

I quite like the old one, it'll be much nicer without the barriers.

I don't think that building represents America at all.



There, much better.

What happened to KFC?

Seriously. When I was in London recently, I was amazed at how many KFCs I saw.

I thought all buildings in London were fortresses with moats. Tower of London, The Queen's Castle etc etc.. geez we we're just trying to fit in.

Screw the fortress, I want that with chips and mushy peas...

And PFCs and HFCs and a zillion other fried chicken places. We must be addicted to the stuff. Enjoy London?

London was huge fun, yes!

Do tell us more, please!

I'm sure others are probably also keen to hear how things went, and where you went, while you were in the UK.

Cheers

The short answer is that we spent two full days running around London and seeing things, mostly via train and tube. The highlights were Westminster Abbey, the Tower of London, and the Eye. The long answer will have to wait for when I can get all our photos posted and tagged.

Some livejournal posts were made here:
http://tfabris.livejournal.com/61480.html
http://tfabris.livejournal.com/61825.html
http://tfabris.livejournal.com/62626.html

http://vixyish.livejournal.com/757830.html

So, how does having a traffic light that turns yellow before green help with the traffic. Is it to cut down on the honking at the idiots who arn't paying attention if the light suddenly shifted red to green?

Edit: Or is there a required drag race leaving every intersection?

I suppose that if people really wanted to conserve fuel, they could shut off their engines during the red light, and the yellow could let them know when it's time to restart the engine.

I'd be worried about causing too much wear and tear on the engine (and the starter motor), but the CarTalk guys said that modern cars are actually just fine in that regard and that you could actually save a bit of fuel that way.

That's probably not the reason for it. More likely it's just to improve traffic flow just a bit, allowing people to get moving more quickly after the light changes.

That's exactly how hybrid cars and some pseudo-hybrids work. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to discover that most of the fuel savings in a hybrid is due to the engine not idling.

I think I read somewhere that the cut-off point at which it makes sense to shut the motor off while stopped is something like 15 seconds.
That is, if you will be stopped longer than 15 seconds it makes sense to shut off your motor and restart.

I'm sure the hyper-miler forums are full of such information.

I've also heard that a good portion of the mpg gains that the hybrid cars provide is due to good aerodynamics.

As for the traffic signals using yellow before green- it's obviously a plot by the manufacturers of yellow lights to get more hours on the ones in service so they'll be replaced more often.

Manual transmissions are more common in the UK then they are in the US, so the yellow warning light also helps people to know when to shift back into gear. I found myself frequently eyeing the other directions light when on my motorcycle for this exact reason.

As for hybrids, not many completely shut down the gas engine. Toyotas are the ones that usually do, while Hondas tend not to. Most of the savings comes in not needing to use gas to get the car moving initially, as the electric motors are far more efficient in this area (due to torque). Since most hybrids also capture energy when braking, stop and go traffic can be handled by just the electric motor.

There are quite a few cars appearing now that turn off the engine when you apply the parking brake and then restart it when you release it again.

This explains it reasonably well.

One thing I find annoying about traffic lights is that people don't seem to know how to use them. For example, there is a crossroads near my house that is traffic light controlled. Often there is a fair amount of traffic stacked up on it, especially around kicking-out time at the local school, comprised mainly of mothers picking up their little darlings and shunting them the half-mile to home, rather than letting them walk like we did when I were a lad. And drastically increasing the risk of injury, as they're far more likely to be hit by a car/involved in an accident due to the traffic than getting into trouble on a short walk home minus said traffic, but that's by the by...

Anyway, these mothers (and by this I mean they are actual mothers, of course ) stack up on the lights, and as far as I can tell watch the car in front, not the pretty coloured lights. So, the first car in the queue waits for the lights to change, processed the information that the light is now green, releases the handbrake, puts the car in gear, little throttle, ease in the clutch, and look! - We're moving. Fine.

The next person is staring intently at the back of the car in front. When it starts to move, handbrake off, shift gear, throttle, clutch, etc. You get the idea. Anyway, this propagates down the line until the lights finally go red again, having allowed four or five cars to pass through.

Now, how hard is it to do what I do, and most of the people I know who drive a lot? Watch the lights, NOT the car in front. Keep an eye on it, sure, in case they suddenly do something surreal, but use the lights correctly as a signal for brake, gears, throttle, clutch, then balance it on the clutch and begin rolling as soon as the car in front does. Then everyone starts moving more or less at the same time, and a dozen cars or more go through before the lights change. How hard is that? Eh? Eh?

OK, fair enough, sometimes you find the light is around the corner, obstructed by a truck, being covered by a rogue rhino, something like that, and you can't see it from further back in the queue. But even there you can usually watch cars that are more forward in the traffic than the one immediately in front and be ready when it moves.

It's as bad as people not knowing how to use roundabouts. And don't get me started on traffic lights on roundabouts...

Argh!

Anyway, I've just come back via that junction and I needed to vent, as it took me fifteen minutes to go three hundred meters in a not very crowded town.

pca

Yeah. I call it the accordion effect and I very much hate it.

You use your handbrake while stopped at a traffic light? Weird. I put the gear shift into first gear and hold the clutch and brake pedals down with my feet. On particularly long lights, I'll put the car in neutral and let up on the clutch. But I've never even considered using my handbrake, or considered that anyone else might.

Well, to be accurate I personally only* use it on hills, and then usually only if I'm there for a while, otherwise using behavior such as what you describe. But you can certainly tell from the way the car in front moves off whether they've just released the handbrake, and most of the people in situations like the above do.

pca

* Or in empty car parks covered in snow, mud, or other low-coefficient-of-static friction surfaces at 2AM

I believe in Ireland it is taught and tested this way. One must remain in control of ones car at all times.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8539682.stm

It's taught in the UK and you will fail a driving test for repeatedly failing to set the handbrake when you should have. Basically if you are stopped long enough to think "Should I use my hand brake?" then you should.

A few reasons:

1) Your car won't move regardless of what happens with your feet, eg. if you are hit from the rear at a junction you are less likely to be shunted into crossing traffic, or if (say) you get leg cramp and let go of the brake you won't roll and crush a pedestrian who was crossing between cars.

2) You don't dazzle the car behind with your brake lights.

3) Holding the brake pads onto a hot disc can transfer pad material and cause uneven wear. (possibly BS)

edit: I personally use it all the time because as mentioned it also allows you to set the clutch at the same time as releasing the brake, meaning you can move away much quicker.

Always with the handbrake, its a habit that I find more comfortable, don't get the slight 'freewheeling' as you move from the brake to accelerator for more control and a faster/easier getaway.

But also when I was first in a queue at a junction in my Skoda and hit from behind by a dozy idiot on the phone in his BMW, I wasn't punted into the traffic.

Its actually a requirement here on learning and is marked on at the driving test. Every American I've driven around thinks its crazy though.

I was always taught that holding the hand brake at any point other than parking the car (or in an emergency or doing fancy tricks for TV) was simply a newbie/learning move. The handbrake (parking/emergency brake) has very little stopping power when compared to the front/rear discs when power is applied through the hydraulic system.

On hills I just use the normal brake and leave the car in neutral. When it's time to go, I use the clutch and the accelerator. The car doesn't drop back. Well, it did when I was first learning (see above).

Every car I've ever owned has been manual and I don't have any plans to change that so long as they're available. I suppose this may change if/when moving onto a different power plant such as electric.

Add another one to your list.

When I was in drivers' ed, I was actually told that if I notice that a car is going to rear-end me that I should let up on the brakes so as to reduce any chance of whiplash. Honestly, I don't think either one of those arguments is very compelling.

And I have to agree with Bruno that using the handbrake seems like a very amateur move: one you'd expect to see from someone just learning to drive. That said, I do use it on occasion. My driveway is fairly steep and fairly short, so there are instances when I pull in behind the wife's car that I have to get so close that I fear that the few inches of roll might actually be enough to run into it.

??

Letting up on the brakes would increase your chance of whiplash.

Imagine that your brakes were so good that your car was completely immovable. If someone hit you from behind, it would crunch your car but you, personally, would not be affected.

Now imagine that your car weighs only 100 pounds with no brakes, and someone hits you from behind. Your car will accelerate nearly instantaneously to the speed of the vehicle that hit you, incurring very high G forces, in all likelihood breaking your neck.

tanstaafl.

I think your model of energy transfer needs some work. The energy that is not absorbed by the car itself on impact gets transferred to the objects in the vehicle. With either scenario, the same amount of energy is getting absorbed. The variable is time. If the vehicle is held stationary, all of that energy is absorbed immediately. If the vehicle can move, the same energy can be absorbed over a longer period of time.

an over-simplified example: Would you rather be tackled by an NFL linebacker while standing waist-deep in water or dried concrete?

No, I think not. The only thing that matters in this scenario is whether you (the driver) remain stationary or accelerate. If you remain stationary, you don't care how much energy transfer takes place, since none of the energy is being transferred to you.

If the car accelerates suddenly (taking you with it, of course) then some of that energy is being transferred to you.

Not having your brakes on at the time of collision might reduce the damage to your car (some of the energy transfer would go into kinetic energy of velocity of your car rather than being dissipated by crushing the back of the car) but since you (the driver) would also absorb some of that velocity, it would increase the damage to you.

tanstaafl.