Your rants here.

kingstongraham

Tashman wrote:

People not holding doors when you're following them down a corridor. FFS have a bit of awareness and look over your shoulder as you pass through the door!

I think they do that to try and stop you following them.

dinyull

Tashman wrote:

People not holding doors when you're following them down a corridor. FFS have a bit of awareness and look over your shoulder as you pass through the door!

This. And people not saying thank you or acknowledging when you do so. Usually middle aged women chatting away on their mobile or to their teenage kids. Ignorant f*ckers.

Tashman

KingstonGraham wrote:

Tashman wrote:

People not holding doors when you're following them down a corridor. FFS have a bit of awareness and look over your shoulder as you pass through the door!

I think they do that to try and stop you following them.

yup, sprung.

rower63

All of these things cause me, on a regular basis, to have to suppress the urge to kill:

Cyclists who, 50 metres out, slow to a crawl to match their arrival time at the stop line to expected green-light time
Peds who, halfway across a ped crossing, veer diagonally off the crossing in the direction they want to head, increasing their time on the road by 41.42% from that point
Peds who, part way across a crossing, deliberately slow down to ensure you have to stop when there had been plenty of time for both to continue without impediment
People in a queue who don’t move forward when those in front of them do (this and next one not restricted to cycling)
People in a queue who use all available remaining queuing space not imagining there might be others behind them

timothyw

rower63 wrote:

All of these things cause me, on a regular basis, to have to suppress the urge to kill:

Cyclists who, 50 metres out, slow to a crawl to match their arrival time at the stop line to expected green-light time

Where's the cut off? Are you allowed to pootle up to the lights if you've just seen them turn red and so know there is plenty of time?

I do that all the time...

kingpinsam

TimothyW wrote:

rower63 wrote:

All of these things cause me, on a regular basis, to have to suppress the urge to kill:

Cyclists who, 50 metres out, slow to a crawl to match their arrival time at the stop line to expected green-light time

Where's the cut off? Are you allowed to pootle up to the lights if you've just seen them turn red and so know there is plenty of time?

I do that all the time...

You should continue at full speed until the last possible moment and then do a near emergency stop, unclip gracefully and reset to push off again immediately. It unsettles the peds waiting to cross as they don't think you're going to stop mind; you see some of them getting their RLJ scowls ready

hopkinb

rower63 wrote:

All of these things cause me, on a regular basis, to have to suppress the urge to kill:

Cyclists who, 50 metres out, slow to a crawl to match their arrival time at the stop line to expected green-light time

Ooops... :oops:

smokey_bacon

rower63 wrote:

All of these things cause me, on a regular basis, to have to suppress the urge to kill:


Peds who, halfway across a ped crossing, veer diagonally off the crossing in the direction they want to head, increasing their time on the road by 41.42% from that point

You have data for this dont you???

rower63

Smokey Bacon wrote:

rower63 wrote:

All of these things cause me, on a regular basis, to have to suppress the urge to kill:


Peds who, halfway across a ped crossing, veer diagonally off the crossing in the direction they want to head, increasing their time on the road by 41.42% from that point

You have data for this dont you???

no data, just a bit of trigonometry

vpnikolov

kingpinsam wrote:

TimothyW wrote:

rower63 wrote:

All of these things cause me, on a regular basis, to have to suppress the urge to kill:

Cyclists who, 50 metres out, slow to a crawl to match their arrival time at the stop line to expected green-light time

Where's the cut off? Are you allowed to pootle up to the lights if you've just seen them turn red and so know there is plenty of time?

I do that all the time...

You should continue at full speed until the last possible moment and then do a near emergency stop, unclip gracefully and reset to push off again immediately. It unsettles the peds waiting to cross as they don't think you're going to stop mind; you see some of them getting their RLJ scowls ready

I do that on a regular basis (unintentionally). :oops: It's like scaring sheep.

itboffin

Smokey Bacon wrote:

rower63 wrote:

All of these things cause me, on a regular basis, to have to suppress the urge to kill:


Peds who, halfway across a ped crossing, veer diagonally off the crossing in the direction they want to head, increasing their time on the road by 41.42% from that point

You have data for this dont you???

yep my money is on some form of chart / graph

Man Of Lard

My money is on using Pythagoras on a right angled triangle where the two sides comprising the right angle are of unit length (100%) thus the path taken by the pedestrian is √(100²+100²), which I think you'll find makes the path 141.42% of the straight line path if the pedestrian had used the crossing, so a path 41.42% longer.

Although the OR (original ranter) has assumed they deviated at a 45° angle - if the angle was 30° then the excess path would be lower...

fat_tail

Man Of Lard wrote:

My money is on using Pythagoras on a right angled triangle where the two sides comprising the right angle are of unit length (100%) thus the path taken by the pedestrian is √(100²+100²), which I think you'll find makes the path 141.42% of the straight line path if the pedestrian had used the crossing, so a path 41.42% longer.

Although the OR (original ranter) has assumed they deviated at a 45° angle - if the angle was 30° then the excess path would be lower...

for a right angle triangle with corners A, B and C where B is the right angle then the distance |AC| < |AB| + |CB| most surely as you have shown by Pythagoras. AC = 1.4142 and AB = 1 adn BC = 1

dhope

fat_tail wrote:

Man Of Lard wrote:

My money is on using Pythagoras on a right angled triangle where the two sides comprising the right angle are of unit length (100%) thus the path taken by the pedestrian is √(100²+100²), which I think you'll find makes the path 141.42% of the straight line path if the pedestrian had used the crossing, so a path 41.42% longer.

Although the OR (original ranter) has assumed they deviated at a 45° angle - if the angle was 30° then the excess path would be lower...

for a right angle triangle with corners A, B and C where B is the right angle then the distance |AC| < |AB| + |CB| most surely as you have shown by Pythagoras. AC = 1.4142 and AB = 1 adn BC = 1

All very long winded ways of saying sqrt of 2

fat_tail

dhope wrote:

fat_tail wrote:

Man Of Lard wrote:

My money is on using Pythagoras on a right angled triangle where the two sides comprising the right angle are of unit length (100%) thus the path taken by the pedestrian is √(100²+100²), which I think you'll find makes the path 141.42% of the straight line path if the pedestrian had used the crossing, so a path 41.42% longer.

Although the OR (original ranter) has assumed they deviated at a 45° angle - if the angle was 30° then the excess path would be lower...

for a right angle triangle with corners A, B and C where B is the right angle then the distance |AC| < |AB| + |CB| most surely as you have shown by Pythagoras. AC = 1.4142 and AB = 1 adn BC = 1

All very long winded ways of saying sqrt of 2

much more general than that

imatfaal

fat_tail wrote:

dhope wrote:

fat_tail wrote:

Man Of Lard wrote:

My money is on using Pythagoras on a right angled triangle where the two sides comprising the right angle are of unit length (100%) thus the path taken by the pedestrian is √(100²+100²), which I think you'll find makes the path 141.42% of the straight line path if the pedestrian had used the crossing, so a path 41.42% longer.

Although the OR (original ranter) has assumed they deviated at a 45° angle - if the angle was 30° then the excess path would be lower...

for a right angle triangle with corners A, B and C where B is the right angle then the distance |AC| < |AB| + |CB| most surely as you have shown by Pythagoras. AC = 1.4142 and AB = 1 adn BC = 1

All very long winded ways of saying sqrt of 2

much more general than that

From observation last night and this morning I believe the suicide-peds take a path which describes an arc rather than merely a straight line at an angle to the crossing. As a first order estimation that would be a 57percent increase in distance

rower63

imatfaal wrote:

fat_tail wrote:

dhope wrote:

fat_tail wrote:

Man Of Lard wrote:

My money is on using Pythagoras on a right angled triangle where the two sides comprising the right angle are of unit length (100%) thus the path taken by the pedestrian is √(100²+100²), which I think you'll find makes the path 141.42% of the straight line path if the pedestrian had used the crossing, so a path 41.42% longer.

Although the OR (original ranter) has assumed they deviated at a 45° angle - if the angle was 30° then the excess path would be lower...

for a right angle triangle with corners A, B and C where B is the right angle then the distance |AC| < |AB| + |CB| most surely as you have shown by Pythagoras. AC = 1.4142 and AB = 1 adn BC = 1

All very long winded ways of saying sqrt of 2

much more general than that

From observation last night and this morning I believe the suicide-peds take a path which describes an arc rather than merely a straight line at an angle to the crossing. As a first order estimation that would be a 57percent increase in distance

Ah yes. Once they're off the crossing they're no longer protected by the Highway Code, and of course they're fair game, so the path takes the form of a chase curve, which is a bit more complicated

veronese68

Am I the only one that underestimated Rower's level of geekery and thought he'd plucked a number out of thin air? :oops:

rick_chasey

Yes.

asprilla

Zwift doesn't support Windows 32bit. Grrrr.

imatfaal

Asprilla wrote:

Zwift doesn't support Windows 32bit. Grrrr.

Just proof that N+1 applies to computers too

asprilla

imatfaal wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Zwift doesn't support Windows 32bit. Grrrr.

Just proof that N+1 applies to computers too

Didn't want to be carting my new laptop up to the loft all the time and sorting out power cables. I wanted to use my old laptop and leave it in situ. It's fine with Trainer Road.

I suppose I can move to x64, but it means downloading the iso, creating the media and then finding my Win7 licence key. That's a full evening's work.

itboffin

Asprilla wrote:

Zwift doesn't support Windows 32bit. Grrrr.

does anything

I have one old laptop running windows 10 32bit it's destined to be turned into a virtual machine then retired from windoze duties

cruff

Asprilla wrote:

imatfaal wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

Zwift doesn't support Windows 32bit. Grrrr.

Just proof that N+1 applies to computers too

Didn't want to be carting my new laptop up to the loft all the time and sorting out power cables. I wanted to use my old laptop and leave it in situ. It's fine with Trainer Road.

I suppose I can move to x64, but it means downloading the iso, creating the media and then finding my Win7 licence key. That's a full evening's work.

It is if you do it in that order, waiting for each task to complete and going back in time to a broadband link from 1998

asprilla

It's the finding the licence key that will take time. However, I've just read that it might not be required if I'm overwriting a valid Winstall.

wolfsbane2k

Lovely day for a ride out, and I've spent it all in bed with man flu.
Bloody virus carriers, aka kids.

DrLex

Asprilla wrote:

It's the finding the licence key that will take time. However, I've just read that it might not be required if I'm overwriting a valid Winstall.

Try the absurdly-named utility Magical Jellybean?

asprilla

DrLex wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

It's the finding the licence key that will take time. However, I've just read that it might not be required if I'm overwriting a valid Winstall.

Try the absurdly-named utility Magical Jellybean?

Excellent find. However, it turns out that since November MS have been uploading a 'hardware profile' for your device and they use that to activate any free upgrades or reinstalls so you don't need your key.

New OS was installed in 2 hrs including finding a USB key. Updates are taking longer.

rower63

Veronese68 wrote:

Am I the only one that underestimated Rower's level of geekery and thought he'd plucked a number out of thin air? :oops:

I must admit to being gratified that the bait was taken and played with a bit...

DrLex

Asprilla wrote:

DrLex wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

It's the finding the licence key that will take time. However, I've just read that it might not be required if I'm overwriting a valid Winstall.

Try the absurdly-named utility Magical Jellybean?

Excellent find. However, it turns out that since November MS have been uploading a 'hardware profile' for your device and they use that to activate any free upgrades or reinstalls so you don't need your key.

New OS was installed in 2 hrs including finding a USB key. Updates are taking longer.

Wunderbar! Hopefully the installation was a fire-and-forget operation; hateful when it needs a click or choice every 10 minutes or so.