I found it very interesting.

On the way to work on Thursday morning I saw a car nearly take out a bike after it tried to overtake it on a blind bend when there was a car coming in the opposite direction.

I get the feeling I'd have got more of a response on /b/.

>>2292
I did watch it and again found it interesting, just didn't have a lot to add to the conversation. Most people are alright but some people are just cunts whether they be drivers or cyclists. I'm sure we've had a couple threads on here with the opposing representatives of either method of transport basically calling each other wankers.
I did enjoy the prog though so cheers for posting it.

>>2293
>just didn't have a lot to add to the conversation
I suspect the intended audience was mainly those who either weren't in on the conversation or are only privy to one side. I see an awful lot of cyclists riding the gutter in traffic, and do wonder how many of them realise that if they do it next to a bus or HGV they're more or less invisible.

Cyclists are absolute cunts. The arrogant cunts think that they own the roads and if civilisation collapses, I will go out and stomp on their fucking heads.

>>2295
This is pretty much what I expected to happen to this thread. Yes some cyclists are cunts, so are some drivers so are quite a few people in general. I'd suggest the reason they're cunts isn't because they're cyclists but rather that they're just cunts in general.

>>2296
No mate, they are cunts because they have a stick up their collective arses. They think they are better than car owners and that if they get hit because they were stupid, it is somehow still car owners fault. They ride like they own the roads, running red lights, touching my fucking car, etc. The cunt with the glasses in the documentary needs someone to kick his fucking head in, you can smell his arrogance through the screen.

>>2297
Whilst running red lights and touching your car is unacceptable, the fact is they have to cycle aggressively to survive. Yes I know running red lights and leaning on other cars is not 'cycling aggressively' and is just silly.


Either way, both car drivers and bikers are at fault, bikers for rarely knowing or abiding by the rules of the road, and drivers for squeezing everything they can out of cyclists.

>>2298
Actually drivers also rarely know the rules of the road. I'm continually astounded by the number of people I hear saying that cyclists should stay on the pavement - something that has been illegal since 1835.

(Disclosure: I'm a fat bastard who drives but doesn't cycle. I also tend to give cyclists a wide berth.)

>>2297
As opposed to fucking cagers who drive like they own the road, ignoring speed limits (and then moaning about how they shouldn't be fined for that), getting pissed off at traffic wardens when they parked their shite-mobile where they shouldn't have and generally being entitled prissy pricks.

It really is fun to antagonistically generalize, isn't it?

I dunno, I cycle everywhere and drive a fair bit but I had to stop watching that documentary just from cringing at the smugness from some of the cyclists.
>>2297
Flying through red lights is a deathwish but if the traffic is clear, yeah I'll peddle through simply because I could get off, walk across the 10ft of road and that'd be perfectly legal, but also quite silly.
It's safer and more convenient that way. I can't accelerate at the speed of a car but once I get moving, the traffic behind can flow around me if they need to.

As for touching your car (i dunno why people get so out of shape about that), would you prefer it if I fucking keeled over, denting and scratching your body work rather than balancing myself with my hand on your precious bonnet?

Sage for having this thread a thousand times before.

Not sure if I imagined it, but I'm sure I read that some of the footage was staged.

>>2300
I am taxed to drive my car on the road, you are not so you can fuck off with your pooofcycle.

>>2302
I recall seeing most of it before on youtube.

>>2303
> I am taxed to drive my car on the road,
Now you're not even trying any more.

>>2305

Seconded. I was hoping to understand why touching somebody's car was such a fucking issue, given as it's probably covered in birdshit.

However, this thread is now dead.

>>2302 here again.

Found it:

>Footage passed off as genuine in cycling documentary was choreographed by a filmmaker with paid participants, it emerges

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2012/dec/13/war-britains-roads-fake

http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/that-war-on-britains-roads-the-statistics/

>>2301
Keel over anywhere you want mate. Don't you have legs to stand on? Don't touch my car, it is mine and that's that.

>>2307
Cry somewhere else. I have seen cunts that ride like the couriers. I have seen cunts that run red lights because "it is silly to wait for it". Good thing they are dying like flies.

>>2308
>Cry

u wot m8?

This documentary has been absolutely taken apart in the press as misrepresentative and sensationalist. And I don't even know what it's about - something to do with cyclists I suppose. On that basis I won't be watching it.

>>2308

> Don't touch my car, it is mine and that's that.

Aww..diddums.

Why? Or was your upbringing so brutally abusive that you treat a large vehicle equivalent to your dummy?

Fucking pleb.

>>2301
>I could get off, walk across the 10ft of road and that'd be perfectly legal, but also quite silly.
Or, you could do what everyone else does, and stop and wait for the light to go green. Perfectly legal, but not as silly or dangerous. You frequently don't know for certain that traffic is clear. In my area, almost every signalled junction has at least one approach that's not visible from at least one other. You keep pedalling through and you are almost certainly going to cause an accident.

According to statistics from TfL, 20% of serious injuries to cyclists in 2010 were self-inflicted. For red-light incidents, this rises to 25%.

>would you prefer it if I fucking keeled over, denting and scratching your body work
Yes, because then the driver can sue you.

There are bad cyclists and there are bad drivers. I have seen both, while driving and cycling.

As a cyclist, if you make a left turn without looking across your left side, especially when there's a cycle lane there, I'm going to bang on your window so you don't crush me. As a driver, if you're weaving in and out of the road to avoid parked cars, not using hand signals, or running red lights, I'm going to have something to say about that too.

Cyclists are as entitled to use the road as drivers, and both need to realise that means they are held accountable for any irresponsible road use. It's almost certainly not workable, but there should be a licence you need to cycle the roads. You do a Highway Code test, and if you break it out on the road, you get points on your license.

Just as an aside, I find the stick up their arse cyclists are by far the safest riders. The "one less car" lot are basically cycling activists, they will go out of their way to promote good, responsible cycling and they know road law better than most drivers, exactly so they can argue with them at times like this.

>>2312
As I said before, if I can see the road is clear, that I'm not inconveniencing anyone and there's no rozzers about, I'll be on my merry way. The rules which dictate crossing the road on foot are the same as those on a bicycle.
If I sit at the lights when it's unnecessary, I'm holding up all the traffic behind me while I get up to speed when they do go green.

Drivers just like scoffing "ugh, look at this guy, who does he think he is? disregarding the rules of the road! Bloody cyclists" while tutting and feeling a little frustrated. Most of the time they just don't understand the situation.

>Yes, because then the driver can sue you.
No insurance. Never heard of a cyclist being sued for something like that.
You're living on another planet!

>>2314
> The rules which dictate crossing the road on foot are the same as those on a bicycle.
I agree, for example, that setting off slightly early is often the lesser (and safer) of two evils given some driver's impatience and, by all means, make common sense decisions about your ride but that's simply not true unless you're pushing your bicycle and thus count as a pedestrian; it's just as improper to ride across zebra, pelican or puffin crossings as it is to ride on the pavement in general, for example.

More importantly, proper traffic signals (the round car kind) are just as mandatory for cyclists as they are for cars — not that those seem to give shit about using them properly either with their constant amber-gambling, mind.

>>2314
>As I said before, if I can see the road is clear
Which, in most urban situations, is almost never, but let's not let little things like facts get in the way, eh?

>The rules which dictate crossing the road on foot are the same as those on a bicycle.
Only if you get off the bicycle first. If you're on the bicycle, then the rules which dictate crossing the road by vehicle apply.

>No insurance.
So the money's coming out of your pocket, then. Of course, the driver would know who you are because s.170 RTA requires you to provide your details.

>>2315
The really fun thing is that at shared-use crossings where you can ride your bike, the red man is not binding on pedestrians but is on cyclists. It turns out that pretty much no rules whatsoever are actually binding on pedestrians, not even the "no pedestrians" sign. Motorways have a very particular legal framework which means they are technically not a public right-of-way.

>>2314
>>2315
I hope you get hit my a lorry. Absolute cunts.

>I am on a poofcycle, the rules don't apply to me.

>>2316
I may well be wrong, but I was under the impression that the little green/red men technically have no relevance for cyclists since any place which only has those isn't a crossing for cyclists anyway. A toucan crossing should have a separate bike light anyway, which is the binding one for cyclists.

>>2317
Diddums, darling.

>>2316
If I can't see 100%, then I don't go. It's that simple.
Maybe your view is restricted, sitting in your car, but mine certainly isn't.
I've broken enough bones through cycling and I don't fancy doing it again.

>>2315
I know you're right but still, slinging my leg over the top tube, walking 10ft then remounting when I could stay strapped in and do the same thing with the same level of care and observation means I probably won't be changing my ways any time soon.

>>2318
Apparently it turns out that at toucan crossings, the only thing that is binding is the presence of the green cycle light, which tells you that you can ride across it as opposed to having to dismount. Otherwise, the actual state of the lights is advisory.

>>2320
>Maybe your view is restricted, sitting in your car, but mine certainly isn't.
>I have no idea how sightlines work

>>2321
I know that perception of your surroundings is greatly limited when sitting in a car compared to being perched on a bike.
>sightlines
Like I said, If I'm not sure, I don't do it.
Keep trying to argue your point though.

>>2322
Oh, wow. I genuinely didn't know that. All that time I thought those hills and buildings were opaque to everyone, but it turns out that you can see through them when you're on a bike. Who'd have thought it, eh?

>>2323
Oh yeah, it gives me special powers, I can look left and right and often see hundreds of meters down a road! My perception completely unobscured by glass or struts holding up the roof, I hear the wind through the trees, the birds on the wing and the revving of engines. It's fantastic.

That magical extra level of perception also tells me you're a mentalist.

>>2324
>That magical extra level of perception also tells me you're a mentalist.
How did you guess? PS is this your card?

I just bought a bike since I totalled my car a few months back and I don't really need it to get to work. Plus I'm obese. Definitely could use the exercise.

Anyway, I'm staying on the path where I can. It's fuckin' stupid to put cyclists in the roads. A bicycle isn't going to kill anyone on a path, but a bike in the road is asking for trouble. I can easily slow down or dismount to avoid pedestrians, of whom there are few. Does anyone have a problem with me cycling conscientously on the path? Frankly I don't know why there are so many cyclists in the roads.

>>2411
>Does anyone have a problem with me cycling conscientously on the path?
No, but you won't, will you? In less than a month you'll be forcing pedestrians to jump out your way.

>>2411
>A bicycle isn't going to kill anyone on a path
Apart from pedestrians, obviously.

>>2411
You may well get fined. I realise riding on roads can be a bit scary but once you get used to it it's not so bad. Keep your wits about you and assume everyone else is an idiot who probably won't see you.

>>2412

Well, for the many years that I rode when I was younger, I rode concientiously.

>>2413

Oh, what? How? Do the math. Unless I smack into an OAP at full pelt, which I won't do, it's not physically possible.

>>2414

Again, I always used to ride on paths before the age if 26, when i got my license (lol) and only one person ever raised an objection. I'm going into London today though, which I expect will be full of nob coppas.

>>2413
>A bicycle isn't going to kill anyone on a path
You sound like an arrogant uninformed idiot.

A 17 year old girl was killed by a cyclist on the pavement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jul/09/ukcrime

If you can't cycle on the road leave your bike at home. Otherwise I hope you get the £500 fine or whatever it is.

Cyclist here. Feels good to get somewhere without farting CO2 everywhere. If you are really that obese and unfit that cycling for more than 5 minutes results in cardiac arrest then at least ride a motorbike or something. Cages are stupid unless you regularly give lifts to a lot of people or need to deliver heavy items. And don't get me started on taxi drivers, the cunts.

Just the other day some blind old twat pulled out in front of me on a roundabout, then honked as if I'm supposed to suddenly start giving way to the left. Bunch of useless wankers.

>>2417
>Cages
Well there goes any credibility you night have had.

It's not hard to not hit someone when you cycle on the path. Also if you live in an area where the police would actually fine someone for cycling on the pavement you're a fucking posho.

>>2419
It's easy to think that until some old lady steps out from a blind corner 2ft in front of your front wheel. You're as bad as shithead drivers if you ride on the pavement.

No cyclist without a deathwish doesn't cycle on the pavement at some point.

>>2421

That just isn't true. You're far safer either sticking to the road exclusively, or the pavement. Switching between the two is just asking to fall off into traffic or something equally disastrous.

If you have an understanding of the road, and you keep fully aware of your surroundings, you won't come to much harm on the road. You're more manoeuvrable than any other vehicle.

>>2422

It's perfectly possible to use the road and path in tandem. Just wait until it's safe to enter the road, when there are no cars coming.

>>2416

Firstly, the guy got fined even though he tried to avoid her, swerving to get out of her way and shouting at her when she was in the road. Secondly, she died from falling over and hitting her head; knocking someone down isn't a specifically bike-related threat. Most of the time, I don't ride my bike any faster than I can run, and when I can help it I usually run to and fro when I'm not on a bike, because walking bores me. The risk of knocking someone down is probably equal.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3313260.ece

Two people a year might die from cycles, but if those two people have to die to save a hundred and twenty lives, well, let them die.

Having said all that I did see a cyclist smack into a mother and child in as they were crossing the road. He barreled straight into them, even though they were plainly visible; then he blamed it on them. Prick. I should have punched his lights out. The problem is never with cycling on the path in general, it's with people cycling like pricks.

Pedestrians could help by being less fucking ignorant as well. The number of times you see them walking on the cycle path... Speaking of which, it would help if cycle paths were painted a colour that didn't look the same as the footpath under a sodium lamp. It's literally totally impossible to tell one from t'other of evening. That doesn't help.

>>2425
>I should have punched his lights out.

>>2427

It would've been out of character, but afterwards I was furious at myself for not at least sternly indicating my displeasure at his carelessness and ignorance.

>>2425
>Firstly, the guy got fined even though he tried to avoid her, swerving to get out of her way and shouting at her when she was in the road.
Are you reading the same story the rest of us are?

>>2420

>It's easy to think that until some old lady steps out from a blind corner 2ft in front of your front wheel.

If there's a blind corner 2ft in front of my front wheel I'm not exactly going to be going very fast and I'll be on the side of the pavement closest to the road so I can see as much as possible. I can either slam on the front brakes or swerve to the side and avoid the old lady (who in general don't suddenly pop around corners very fast, I'd be able to see them.

Also I can either ride on the pavement to work or try and navigate the middle of a busy and confusing junction with cars passing by very closely (because I'd have to be in the middle lane or risk getting splattered by a car turning left) at 40+mph.

All cyclists navigate the pedestrian crossings instead. Far safer. Fuck old ladies.

Last night I had a dream I was cycling on pedestrianised road up through Brighton in the aftermath of a riot. There were small groups of neon-jacketed policemen patrolling it but I was doing loads of awesome swerves and leaning heavily to the sides to avoid their swinging truncheons. I got some nasty bruises but they only knocked me off right near the end and I got away.
It was pretty cool.
sage for nothing.

>>2429

Yeah that's what it said in the article. He wasn't riding on the pavement; although it's a bit vague on the details, I think he tried to swerve onto the pavement to avoid her, and she did the same thing.

I don't know how valuable this will be to anyone, but I thought I'd offer the take of a pedestrian on the conversation thus far. As you can imagine I don't have much to comment on with regard to specific scenarios in road safety, and I haven't watched the documentary, but I still feel compelled to say that it's this weird passive aggression that keeps me buying a bus pass. I've thought a lot about this, and it depresses me, seeing motorists weaving around pedestrians, the masses of traffic and empty pavements, people sealed off in their own bubbles and becoming impatient with anything in the external world that they don't like.

If you've ever deliberately sped up to prove a point to someone who's pulled out at the wrong time, or came out from a corner, or is taking too long to cross a road, or if your life outdoors consists of driving from one place to the other and you're convinced by now that you have every right to leave your house with five minutes to spare and kick it above the speed limit to reach where ever you need to go, I'm talking about you. I can't think of anything more senseless than endangering someones, anyones, safety purely to reach a destination or even prove a point about right of way.

It's come to the point where I really resent any infrastructure which so heavily favours motor traffic. This is one of those issues that seems to really separate me from people, even present a disadvantage in everyday life. I understand that a lot of people will probably reply to this post telling me what a necessity it is to drive, but cities have only moved in this direction over the past few decades because so many have decided to purchase cars and a new system has been built around that. I feel like if I were to buy a car, I'd be contributing to something I don't want.

Anyway, I'll sage for a possible irrelevance seeing as I'm not technically on Britain's roads, but at the same time, I live in a small city with a lot of bad roads and a lot of bad motorists that rely on them. I'm in favour of things with rails.

[spoiler]I haven't mentioned cyclists in this post because bluntly, there are so few in my little town that it's difficult to comment.[spoiler]

What do you lads think of these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

The road in Brighton is wonderful, I think it should be expanded to the entire city centre. Makes the whole place a lot cosier, it seems to be better looked after, less cars being used, the cars that are used are more careful.

Overall it's bloody brilliant.

>>2434
I was down Exhibition Street just last week and my mate who works for the GLA was telling me all about it. I can definitely see the plus sides but I wouldn't like accidentally turning down one of them and being confronted with a street full of people. Turning off them onto a street is apparently a bit shit as well.

>>2433

Have you thought about joining me in Europe lad? Heh...there's only enough parking external to apartments for 1 flat in 10 to even think of owning a car. If you have access to parking, that is. It's dead brill.

>>2434

I fucking hate it.

>>2434

This is a really interesting concept but I think I'd need to see it in practice.

>>2436

I've tried to imagine what sort of environment would suit me best. Where in Europe do you live, if you don't mind me asking?

>>2433

You're not wrong. In the USA, and more so in the West than the East, cities have been designed to be occupied by motorists. The result is that the very infrastructure discourages cycling or pedestrianism. I've walked about in LA before... it's definitely not pedestrian-friendly.

In the UK, road layouts are higgledy-piggledy and have been mostly (poorly) adapted for cars. The transport network really is a mess; there is no optimum layout. In the US, if you have a car, at least the cities are layed out appropriately for the use of cars. UK roads aren't layed out optimally for anything.

My point is; cars aren't really very good. We drive them because we have to; really, it would be better if we didn't need them, and that requires the city to be designed around pedestrianism (or cycling). We really need new cities to be founded where people can live near (or in) where they work.

I work at sea. I commute once a month, join ship, and then live where I work for a month, and commute home at the end of it. Fucking. Bliss. Commuting is horrible and it ruins all the enjoyment of driving. Without commuting, a lot of the dread of the working day is gone. I have one three hour drive at the end of every month, and it's zero stress. Living where you work is great.

>>2432
>Yeah that's what it said in the article.
Except that's not what it said at all. In fact, it says the exact opposite - the judge told him off because he could have tried to avoid it but didn't.

>>2430
I'm not going to argue. You think you can mitigate the risks, I thought like that too but sooner or later you'll fuck up and someone will get hurt.

>>2438

+1 for this post.

Our and our U.s. cousin's obsession with the suburb and moving out of the city is at the core, although I'd argue that my generation, through gentrification and a fantasist obsession with industrial spaces/urbanism is actually largely staying within cities, and often using public transport/bikes/walking to get to work - the car is generally reserved for long journeys with the kids.

I really like driving.

I also really like cycling into cities

I also really hate all these fucking city cunts moving out and into areas they know fuck all about


t. countryside

Not a bad idea.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclists-dress-like-police-to-slow-drivers-down-8568155.html

>>2460
I wouldn't wear one personally but still pretty good.
I always notice drivers aren't as willing to 'chance it' when there's a popo car about.

>>2460
Enjoy your trip to court.

>>2460
Saw them a while ago.

My biggest problem with them is that out of all the different cyclists, those draped in hi-vis are usually the most arrogant twats. The people who wear these will be the most cuntiest twats of them all.

I swear these people think hi-vis means everyone must and will stop for them no matter what they do.

>>2460
> Equisafety pressed ahead with the design after being assured by Met commander Bob Broadhurst that it was not illegal.

>>2460

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/16/section/90

I'm a car driver, van driver, cyclist and motorcyclist. All the incidents i've ever had on the roads have been when I'm on a motorcycle or in a car. Cycling is surprisingly safe and easy. Car drivers are absolute cunts to each other and most of them just don't see motorcycles coming at all because they don't look in their mirrors or in the direction of their turn.

However, on a bicycle I think your slower speed generally makes you more visible and it's a lot easier to slow down and avoid cunts than it is on a motorcycle. Also, car drivers are wary of hurting cyclists - as evidenced by the 10 feet of space they leave around you when overtaking. They don't grant each other anything like as much consideration.

I can't speak for all cyclists or all drivers but that's my experience. Perhaps it's different if you're a super-fit cycle courier that weaves in and out of cars all day long, I don't know.

>>2467
>10 feet of space

haha, if only even half of drivers were this considerate.

>>2468
yeah you know the kind of twats, they sit on your tail and rev their engines at you, afraid to come past until the entire carriageway is clear, then they overtake so wide they end up in the oncoming lane before speeding off, slamming their breaks on for the traffic lights and repeating the entire process when you cycle up to the front of the queue of traffic. It's pretty funny when you consider they could just drive past at any time if they actually had any sense of awareness of the proportions of their vehicle.

People that don't understand the width of their car are annoying for everyone on the road actually - you know the types - mongoloid fuckwits that stop completely just because a bus coming the other way needs to move around a parked car. Rampant penis gobblers the lot of em.

>>2469
>mongoloid fuckwits that stop completely just because a bus coming the other way needs to move around a parked car
This is necessary though. I take the bus daily and the drivers get extremely angry when cars don't give them enough room. Often someone thinks they can squeeze past, finds they can't make it and has to reverse to let the bus through.

>>2467
>as evidenced by the 10 feet of space they leave around you when overtaking.

When I used to cycle to work I never went a day without a white van hurtling past me with 6 inches clearance.

>>2472
You had me at "white van".

>>2469
The fucking worst is when they do all that, get halfway past then go "OH SHIT! There's a traffic island!" and pull in, either right in front of you or actually squeeze you against the curb.
I know it's the drivers fault but are those random traffic islands actually worth it? They're a serious hazard for cyclists.

>>2474

It seems counter-intuitive, but you should move out to the right when the lane narrows. If it's unsafe for vehicles to pass you, then make it clear with your road position. Assume that if you're over to the left, motorists will take it as an invitation to pass you. If you think it's unsafe for them to do so, take as much room as you need to block the lane.


If you're riding in the gutter, it's easy for a motorist to under-estimate the width of their vehicle by a foot or two and put you in a sticky situation. If you're right in the middle of the lane then you might get honked or revved at, but at least you won't get mashed into a bollard.

I watched this a while ago
Fucking cyclists

I would like to shoot dead those pricks that shout at you when you're on a bike from the passenger window of a white van.

I can see the humour value in an objective sense, but that doesn't mean that they're not pricks that deserve to have their throats slit.

>>2530
What do they shout?

>>2531

Nice arse and show us yer tits luv I'd imagine.

Walking home in rain and high wind today. Someone was driving up my road at a slowish speed, but I didn't want to run out, so I waited. They flicked me the V and laughed for no other reason that I can discern other than that I waited for them.

I wasn't even looking into the car until I caught the gesture. Can one of you drivers explain this?

>>2549
>hurr durr look at that twat that isn't wasting fossil fuels, polluting the atmosphere or becoming unfit and obese, what a twat!

>>2550
> isn't wasting fossil fuels
the most fuel efficient speed is generally around 55mph

>>2551
Is that true? I would've expected it to be be much lower.

>>2551
It's because the manufacturers are tuning for the tests. The "extra-urban" efficiency standards are based on 90km/h, so they aim for peak fuel efficiency at that speed.

>>2553

No, it's based on complete ignorance of physics.

At a steady speed, nearly all of the engine's power goes to overcoming rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. Drag increases geometrically with speed, rolling resistance increases linearly.

The other important factor is braking. Every time you press the brake, you're converting the car's momentum into heat, so the energy is wasted. Stop-start traffic is therefore much less efficient than a steady pace. Likewise, whenever the engine is idling, the fuel needed to keep the engine ticking over is wasted, although this is becoming less relevant with stop-start engines.

There is a lower limit to efficient speed, because petrol engines are relatively inefficient at very low output, but it's far lower than is really practical to drive at - usually about 30mph for most cars, less for a car with a small and sophisticated engine. The advice to drive at 55mph is perfectly reasonable because it's about as slow as you can go on the motorway without being killed to death, but you'd be more efficient travelling at 45 or 35. Keen hypermilers often get double the rated fuel efficiency, simply by driving slowly and carefully.

This is very easy to confirm for yourself if your car is equipped with an instantaneous fuel consumption, as most modern cars are. At a steady 30mph at low revs, most cars will do over 100mpg.

I hit 69 mpg on tuesday in the sun (2002 Yaris). Beat that.

>>2557
That sounds much more like it, and confirms what I thought I had been noticing myself - I recently lost my job and money has been really tight so I've been driving 30-40mph when there's nothing behind me (I live in the middle of nowhere so that's most of the time). I'd been thinking the fuel was going further, but it's hard to be empirical about it.

>>2557
Another point is that different cars are designed to be most efficient at different speeds. A small hatchback generally will be most efficient at lower speeds than a large estate, because they are designed for different purposes.

>>2558
I'd rather do 1mpg than drive a shitty Yaris.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzE-IMaegzQ