The new U.S. Embassy in London

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.

Do your brakes, in addition to stopping the wheel rotation, also drive pylons into the ground to keep your wheels planted at the exact spot they stopped on?

If you keep your brakes on, the acceleration at the beginning and end of the car's movement will increase significantly, as the wheels overcome and then get overcome by the static friction of the rubber on the road. If your wheels can rotate, as soon as the impacting car touches you, your car will start accelerating, and assuming that you don't slam on the brakes after impact, the stopping acceleration will be no more than what you normally experience.

Actually, that's a good analog. You currently have the ability to stop your car fairly fast or fairly slowly. Do you stop your car as quickly as you can? If not, why not? Is it because it puts more strain on your body?

Keep in mind that directly following the accident the driver may be incapacitated. The car may roll if the parking brake is not applied.
I think this is the only reason to justify the rule.

There is no added benefit *during* the accident.

I'm with Doug on this one.

No brakes == quicker acceleration when hit from behind == whiplash.

Brakes == slower acceleration when hit from behind == slightly less chance of whiplash.

-ml

Has nobody here ever played pool?

Freeze two pool balls together. If you hit the first (car) correctly it stays where it is and the second (you) takes off, no brakes involved at all.

In reality the car and you have very different masses, and responses to the momentum imparted. The only way not to get hurt is not to get hit.

No brakes == quicker acceleration when hit from behind == your body is moving with the vehicle and your head stays safely against the headrest for a longer period of time while the energy of the striking vehicle is absorbed by pushing your vehicle.

Brakes == slower acceleration when hit from behind == your head presses against the headrest for a brief second then the energy is transferred to your body and your head whips forward and you get extreme whiplash or eat the steering wheel.

Good luck with your reasoning, but I'm taking my foot off the brake and probably even hitting the gas. Why don't you just whip that sucker into reverse and put the pedal down so you can have even less chance of whiplash?

Might the whiplash occur not when you accelerate, but when you suddenly decelerate when hitting the car in front of you?

My point exactly. Whiplash shouldn't caused by acceleration (unless you're moving in the wrong direction). It's generally caused by sudden deceleration, causing the head to whip forward.

If there's a car directly in front of you, it probably doesn't matter what you do either way.

Funny, because I always thought whiplash occurred when the vehicle moved quickly forward, moving parts of you with it and leaving other parts (your head) behind.

I've been at the front of a 4-car sequential collision. It would have been 5 or six had I not left enough space in front of me to the next car, unlike the douche bags behind me.

No. Whiplash is caused by sudden forward acceleration. Your body accelerates, but your head doesn't, your neck muscles can't absorb the strain and your neck vertebrae don't bend that way. Acceleration in the other direction is less troublesome because your neck is designed to bend in the direction that your head moves in that circumstance, the motion being stopped when your chin hits your chest. Maybe you'll break your jaw, but your neck will remain undamaged. And, if your brakes are on, your car will be going slower when it hits the [hypothetical] car in front of you, thus reducing the impact.

But that's all irrelevant in any case. The original question was is it better to use the brakes or not. I'll try to make it really simple here.

The more brakes you have on at the time of impact, the less the car will move. The less the car moves, the less you move. The less you move, the less damage you will sustain.

It's A, B, C. Simple (very simple) Newtonian physics.

tanstaafl.

Damn, Doug. How's your neck? I mean, you moved all the way from Alaska to Mexico. It's amazing your head is still attached.

I don't know the answer, but it seems to me that there's an easy test for this: in collisions where a moving car has rear-ended a stationary one, do the occupants of the moving car ever get whiplash? If so, large negative accelerations can cause it (and thus you should ease off the brakes); if not, only large positive accelerations can cause it (and thus you should keep them jammed-on).

Peter

Only to Americans - this is how we drive in the UK. Use the handbrake when stopped in traffic where there is any slight incline, at junctions and traffic lights. It is as taught this way with IAM (Institute of Advanced Motorists) and Police driver training too (friends who drive police cars both use the handbrake - and their training is strict). It is just a better method, there is no advantage of not using the handbrake in this way apart from less effort and not appearing a newb to Americans.

SWMBO frequently asserts that it isn't!

tanstaafl.

Not only to americans...

In my opinion, it would take longer to get moving if you use the handbrake than using just the regular brakes. What about owners of the new Passat, what do they do? The new Passat doesn't have a normal handbrake, but an electro-mechanical brake operated by a switch. I know it will release if you have the seat belt fastened and you depress the accelerator (don't know about manual transmission, I have DSG transmission), but I would guess that would wear it out fairly quickly

Stig.

America doesn't make up the whole rest of the world. I think what you're describing is perfectly valid, but it might be a UK-specific thing, or otherwise limited to the UK and a number of other countries. But it's not universal minus America. Besides, in America, I don't think anyone learns how to drive in a manual car. I'd be interested in finding out what percentage of drivers (in Canada and the US) even know how to drive manual, but I'm guessing it's probably below 25%.

Yeah, its easy to think so, but its not the case. I'm doing the same thing with my feet as you, just releasing the handbrake with my left hand at the same time. It all happens concurrently, so its not slower at all. In fact, it makes it easy to dial in a few revs before I let the clutch up (and drop the handbrake at the same time) if I want to move quickly. You can only do things like that on a completely flat road if you don't handbrake.


Hmm, yeah those are all Auto's or DSG type cars though. When you lift off the brake they must engage drive so you can't roll backwards (they probably creep forwards too, right?). That way you are not ever freewheeling when you get off the brake like you would be in a manual car with the clutch down (or out of gear). So the control is always there and its okay to just use the foot brake.

You need to shift the car into 1st before you release the hand brake. That's two actions, though I suppose you could have the car already in first while stopped, sitting there holding down the clutch. When I'm stopped I'm not in gear.

No, but the occupants of the stationary vehicle do, 100% of the time. Or so lawyers and popular television would have us all believe.

No, you don't. If you let out the clutch slightly so it just starts to engage before you release the brake, you wouldn't slide back.



No, they're not. All the new Passats, automatic, DSG or manual transmission, have the same parking brake.

But, anyway, I think we just have to agree to disagree on this matter...

Stig

I was taught to use the handbrake and if I'm stopped for more than 10 seconds, I do. Sitting riding the clutch will only wear it out. Plus if you get hit from behind you're less likely to plough into the car in front.

Why would you be riding the clutch while stopped? You don't have to hold the clutch if you're in neutral. Where, IMO, you should be if you're stopped and not just about to launch. When you're coming to a stop you'll have to shift anyway, instead of putting it into first (which I've never heard of anyone doing while the car is moving), drop it in neutral and leave it there. Your foot brake will hold the car in place while you're stopped. When it's time to go, one fluid action should put you in gear, clutch and accelerate. Get used to it and your car won't even move an inch in the wrong direction.

I understand whiplash to be a sudden jerk of the head in a rearward direction, caused by a sudden forward acceleration of the body (supported by the seat) while the head was unsupported, hence the fitment of adjustable headrests in modern vehicles to restrict rearward motion of the head.

Re: shifting into 1st while moving
In 'not so modern' gearboxes where there are no synchros for 1st gear (and also for worn synchros) it can be difficult to get into gear if the car is stopped.

I agree with you, though. Just thought I'd drop that tid-bit.

I always found that when I couldn't get it into first while stopped that letting out the clutch pedal while in neutral usually helped. Of course, that probably has something to do with synchros, so probably irrelevant.

Ok here is my new reasoning as to why British stop lights go yellow both ways.

Early stop lights needed to be switched.

A simple 4 pole rotary switch driven by a clock motor could control an entire intersection's worth of lights. Connect the n/s red lights and the e/w green lights to the first pole, all yellow to the second, the e/w red and n/s green to the third, and all the yellow again to the forth.

It sort of fits the tech available when stop lights of this type were invented.

Except that they go: Red, Red+Amber, Green, Amber, ...

Speaking of light rotation, there's an intersection near me whose right-turn-only lane light does this:

1. Light is green (90 seconds)
2. Light turns yellow (8 seconds)
3. Light turns red (2 seconds)
4. Light turns to a green arrow (90 seconds)

(times approximate)

I can't tell you how many times I've arrived at that light and had to come to a complete stop, only to immediately go again, just because some schmo couldn't be bothered to program it reasonably.

If there actually are people driving left-to-right across the intersection, then it (obviously) stays red for longer. But that's relatively infrequent and people blow through the light all the time because it's just insane for the transition between "you can go" and "you can go" to be to come to a stop. So not only does this irritate the piss out of me, it's dangerous, too.

… although my name's not Bamber …

Definitely with Hussein on this. I have various police Roadcraft training and IAM, and the benefits to using the handbrake are as follows:

Reduction of whiplash injuries if your car is rear-ended as car will not accelerate as fast when hit
Reduction in knock-on collisons if your car is rear-ended
Reduction in accidents from drivers accidentally letting their foot slip off the brake pedal
Reduction in wear to the clutch as even when it is held in, there is incremental drag
Reduction in brake light glare for the driver in front
Shorter pull-away time, as your engine can be at optimum revs before releasing the brake
Less leg strain - long periods in stop go traffic where the left leg is always pressing the pedal result in reduced blood flow and in extreme cases can lead to or exacerbate DVT

There were others as well, but I can't remember them all. These ones make it obvious to me why using the handbrake is a positive benefit.

So, if the new American embassy was involved in a RTA should they apply the handbrake or not?

There will be a special Embassy Safety Administration who will strip-search the other drivers.