Simon Mason wrote:
> "Richard" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message
> >> It's not a fair comparison. The Sheffield stands would have been
> >> capital expenditure increasing provision above the current
> >> level.
> Yeah - that 35 quid per stand would have put Europe's largest
> company in serious financial difficulty!
It's still not a fair comparison, however grotesque it seems. The money
spent cleaning the cars was spent to restore property that had become
damaged while in the company car park. Of course, if your bike had also
been spattered with soot and the company had refused to put that right
too you would have had a point.
The money spent on the extra car park is not a valid comparison either,
however odious it seems. This was to replace an existing facility that
was being made temporarily unavailable. If they'd suddenly decided you
couldn't leave your bike where you leave it, and not provided an
equivalent somewhere else, again you would have had a point.
Of course, just because I don't accept your comparisons, that doesn't
mean I don't think they should spend real money on provision for
sustainable transport and start trying to discourage car use, because I
do.
When I was at GlaxoSmithKline many cagers were noisily upset about the
limited parking and the money that was being spent on cyclists. In a
newsletter to the BUG I outlined the economic, health and environmental
arguments that could be advanced to counter them. I also said not to
bother with any of that, and simply go "Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha."
--
Dave...