Cars are definitely faster - not.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

RAC report quoted on BBC today:

"The average distance travelled by UK workers is 8.5 miles - 17% longer

than

Quoted message said:

a decade ago."

[...]

"The main reason given for using the car to drive to work was that it was quicker than other
options."

8.5 miles in 45 minutes - average 11.3mph. I average between 18.5 and

21mph

Quoted message said:

cycling to work.

Another excuse demolished. Next?

To be fair you are a 'fit_bastard' [tm] riding a performance enhancing bike -- at the cost, of
course, of your immortal soul. {nb -- fit in the sense of athletically capable and not in any modern
day parlance associated

It would be better to destroy the argument using the typical performance of an average 'old_git'
[tm], 'fat_git' [tm] or of, say, a 'fatbirdonabike' [tm waffles] -- all of whom could probably match
or exceed 11.3 mph assuming the cars were not clagging up the road too much.

But, Tom Cager asks, 'your not allowing for the time it takes to shower and change. Haa. Got
you there'.

Answers suggesting that you don't even break sweat at 11.3 mph will not be considered reasonable.

T

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:28:21 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? scrawled: ) 8.5 miles in 45 minutes -
average 11.3mph. I average between 18.5 and 21mph ) cycling to work.

When I worked at one end of the north-east Oxford ring road from where I was living, I would
routinely pass cars as I approached the roundabout north of Summertown. What worries me is that
people in the cars weren't thinking:

That cyclist is beating me. Perhaps driving isn't the fastest option after all, me being so
very, very fat.

but rather:

Gosh, we need another lane!

I'm back on ukrc. This is because I have no job. Anyone want to employ an obstreperous
doctoral student?

J-P
--
Andy Mueller-Maguhn has been talking to AOL about children's internet access and filtering same. It
was all going well, lots of agreement about unsuitable content, and then someone suggested filtering
adverts and "it all went quiet"...

j-p.s' email hidden in said:

obstreperous doctoral student?

Sounds like someone training to look at womens' bits. Oh, sorry, that's obstetrics. Easy
mistake to make.

love and (?) from Rich x

--
Two cannibals eating a clown. One says to the other, "Does this taste funny to you?" To reply
replace the obvious bit with "richard"

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

But, Tom Cager asks, 'your not allowing for the time it takes to shower and change. Haa. Got
you there'.

Answers suggesting that you don't even break sweat at 11.3 mph will not be considered reasonable.

*If* a sweat was broken then the answer is that the driver presumably showered before leaving
home---a driver asking such a question must care about showering to think it so important---and
therefore the time the cyclist takes to shower at work is no more or less than the driver
showering at home.

Changing, I'd suggest, does, if one cycles in non-work clothes, add a little time but most cycling
clothes are pretty quick to get on and off---unless you get the wrong percentage of lycra---so the
additional time is minimal as more time will be spent besuiting oneself, again something the driver
will have spent time doing at home.

Colin

Just zis Guy said:

RAC report quoted on BBC today:

"The average distance travelled by UK workers is 8.5 miles - 17% longer than a decade ago."

[...]

"The main reason given for using the car to drive to work was that it was quicker than other
options."

8.5 miles in 45 minutes - average 11.3mph. I average between 18.5 and 21mph cycling to work.

Another excuse demolished. Next?

No thats not quite right 45 mins per day = 22.5 mins per journey so its 22.6 not 11.3

Cheers Michael

--
Michael Kent

There are only 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary,... and those that
don't Remove Shaggy's best friend to reply

"Tony W" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

8.5 miles in 45 minutes - average 11.3mph. I average between 18.5 and

21mph

Quoted message said:

cycling to work. Another excuse demolished. Next?

Quoted message said:

To be fair you are a 'fit_bastard' [tm] riding a performance enhancing bike -- at the cost, of
course, of your immortal soul.

I maintain the same average on the wedgie at risk solely to my mortal head
:-)

Quoted message said:

But, Tom Cager asks, 'your not allowing for the time it takes to shower

and

Quoted message said:

change. Haa. Got you there'.

And to Tom Smellybastard Cager I answer: I was planning to shower anyway - weren't you? And actually
I don't have a shower at work, I use other methods to assure personal freshness.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

"Michael Kent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

No thats not quite right 45 mins per day = 22.5 mins per journey so its

22.6

Quoted message said:

not 11.3

You could read it either as 8.5 miles RT, 45 minutes overall, or 8.5 miles each way, 45 mins each
way journey time.

I live in Reading and work in Henley. Most of the journey is along a free-flowing A road with
congestion for only a short distance at each end. Typical time by car: 35 minutes. Typical time by
bike: 25 minutes.

I think they answer "it's quicker" because they can't bring themselves to tick "I'm an idle fat git
who doesn't give a toss about the environment" when asked for their reasons. It's like the reasons
for not using trains, none of which bear any relation to any train I've used in the last five years.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

Colin Blackburn said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

But, Tom Cager asks, 'your not allowing for the time it takes to shower and change. Haa. Got you
there'.

Answers suggesting that you don't even break sweat at 11.3 mph will not be considered reasonable.

*If* a sweat was broken then the answer is that the driver presumably showered before leaving
home---a driver asking such a question must care about showering to think it so important---and
therefore the time the cyclist takes to shower at work is no more or less than the driver
showering at home.

Changing, I'd suggest, does, if one cycles in non-work clothes, add a little time but most cycling
clothes are pretty quick to get on and off---unless you get the wrong percentage of lycra---so the
additional time is minimal as more time will be spent besuiting oneself, again something the driver
will have spent time doing at home.

You could always wear your b*b sh*rts as pajamas and even changing time would be the same.
--
remove remove to reply

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:MPG.198714323654de01989b2d@localhost...

Quoted message said:

*If* a sweat was broken then the answer is that the driver presumably showered before leaving
home---a driver asking such a question must care about showering to think it so important---and
therefore the time the cyclist takes to shower at work is no more or less than the driver
showering at home.

Changing, I'd suggest, does, if one cycles in non-work clothes, add a little time but most cycling
clothes are pretty quick to get on and off---unless you get the wrong percentage of lycra---so the
additional time is minimal as more time will be spent besuiting oneself, again something the
driver will have spent time doing at home.

Is correct -- but I was hoping for some more 'tangential' answers.

Motorists often discount the time taken parking and walking from the car park.

Cyclists are fully awake, endorphins running, up and at the challenges of the day.

You save all that boring gym work.

You save money/congestion/the environment/your health.

You get a tan without needing to spend a fortune on 2 weeks on the Costa Packet.

You save on suncream when on the Costa Packet 'cos you've already got a tan.

You save lots of time during the day because you can bounce up the stairs three at a time.

The lovely Emma in accounts thinks you've got a nice bum.

When the boss needs someone in Manchester that afternoon you can't go because the car is at
home (phew).

T

you know? said:

RAC report quoted on BBC today:

"The average distance travelled by UK workers is 8.5 miles - 17% longer than a decade ago."

[...]

"The main reason given for using the car to drive to work was that it was quicker than other
options."

8.5 miles in 45 minutes - average 11.3mph. I average between 18.5 and 21mph cycling to work.

Another excuse demolished. Next?

Average figures are very misleading. I suspect that very short journeys that take a very long time
are distorting the average figure.

To be honest, where I live (rural Hampshire, with my parents) a car is essential to live a normal
life, and after paying tax and insurance etc. for the year (£2 a day for me) *not* using it daily
makes very poor financial sense. The bonus of being able to pop out at lunchtime to do my own thing
rather than sit in the office is also important to
me.

THAT SAID, for the very short journeys the people are *mad* as I expect a lot of them could walk to
work and take only a little longer.

Gareth (two cars, each do less than 20mpg!)

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

The lovely Emma in accounts thinks you've got a nice bum.

How do you know that?

Colin

Gonzalez said:

You could always wear your b*b sh*rts as pajamas and even changing time would be the same.

Would sleeping in b*b sh*rts not make you an easy target though...?

eat

--
Latest photo collection added 17-July-03: photos.eatnet.org.ukphotos.eatnet.org.ukOpen ↗ scot-rail | scotland's online
railway community @ groups.yahoo.comscot railOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "Tony" == Tony W <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

But, Tom Cager asks, 'your not allowing for the time it takes to shower and change. Haa. Got
you there'.

The obvious response is: it's question of showering before travelling to work or on arriving; makes
no difference to total time.

Quoted message said:

Answers suggesting that you don't even break sweat at 11.3 mph will not be considered
reasonable.

Depends how hot it is :-)

"Colin Blackburn" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:MPG.19873a8329d610e4989b30@localhost...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

The lovely Emma in accounts thinks you've got a nice bum.

How do you know that?

"Gareth Attrill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Average figures are very misleading. I suspect that very short journeys that take a very long time
are distorting the average figure.

Distorting? Why would short journeys in heavily congested areas distory the figures any more than
long journeys on ungongested roads? That's what averages are about: extremes become less significant
the more data there is.

Another RAC comment:

"The average amount spent on travel is £3,500"

I can feel a Trice comin on :-D

Quoted message said:

To be honest, where I live (rural Hampshire, with my parents) a car is essential to live a
normal life

Hmmm. I'm guessing that few people would die without one, but rural PT is close enough to
non-existent (thanks, Maggie) that it would certainly be inconvenient.

Quoted message said:

after paying tax and insurance etc. for the year (£2 a day for me) *not* using it daily makes very
poor financial sense.

Is the real reason for many people. The problem for PT has always been that their cost must be
recovered entirely from per-journey charges, whereas most of the cost of depreciation, excise duty,
servicing and such is a fixed cost, making the marginal cost lower in comparison. You can only
realise the full saving of travelling by other means if you can actually reduce your cage count.
This is a good reason for making as much of the cost as possible marginal - so, migrate VED to fuel
duty, migrate company car taxation to road pricing and per-day workplace parking taxation and so on.

The bonus of being able to pop out at lunchtime

Quoted message said:

to do my own thing rather than sit in the office is also important to
me.

I do that by bike :-)

Quoted message said:

THAT SAID, for the very short journeys the people are *mad* as I expect a lot of them could walk
to work and take only a little longer.

or cycle and take /less/ time :-)

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

Just zis Guy said:

Another RAC comment:

"The average amount spent on travel is £3,500"

I can feel a Trice comin on :-D

See below ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To be honest, where I live (rural Hampshire, with my parents) a car is essential to live a
normal life

Hmmm. I'm guessing that few people would die without one, but rural PT is close enough to
non-existent (thanks, Maggie) that it would certainly be inconvenient.

Well, I'm in semi-rural Hampshire too and we did the sums several years ago. I suppose it must
depend upon *exact* location but we manage quite nicely without a four wheel box. Tell a lie, I'm
after a cargo trailer for the hack bike.

The savings, which are considerable, did help fund the trice :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

after paying tax and insurance etc. for the year (£2 a day for me) *not* using it daily makes
very poor financial sense.

Is the real reason for many people.

...or an 'excuse' for not looking at alternatives.

Quoted message said:

The bonus of being able to pop out at lunchtime

Quoted message said:

to do my own thing rather than sit in the office is also important to
me.

I do that by bike :-)

Ditto.

John B

Just zis Guy, you know? tried to scribble ...

Quoted message said:

RAC report quoted on BBC today:

"The average distance travelled by UK workers is 8.5 miles - 17% longer than a decade ago."

[...]

"The main reason given for using the car to drive to work was that it was quicker than other
options."

8.5 miles in 45 minutes - average 11.3mph. I average between 18.5 and 21mph cycling to work.

Another excuse demolished. Next?

Why an excuse ? In my situation the car _is_ quicker than a cycle and is way more convenient. I
only travel about 5 miles to work, but have to do it twice a day. In the am (5.30 ish) I use the
car, in the pm (2.30 ish) I use the bicycle. I guess it's about 10 minutes by car and about 20
minutes by bike. It also takes me longer to get ready to ride the bike than it does to get ready to
drive the car.

Mind, the road is a main road almost all the way, with a couple of 'ring road' roundabouts to
negotiate, and the bike is a mountain bike so isn't particularly fast on the road. There are no
shortcuts I can take to minimise the cycling time.

In my previous job I worked from home but the journey from home to the office was about 113 miles,
so couldn't be undertaken regularly or reliably any other way than by car.

--
Digweed

Digweed .. ;\) said:

Quoted message said:

Another excuse demolished.

Why an excuse ?

Excuse because, as posted, the average speed achieved is less than that attainable by even a trundly
cyclist. It is the nature of averages that some poeple are faster and some slower. It is the nature
of averages that some journey will be longer than average and some shorter.

I wonder how many of those commutes are under 5 miles? That seems to me to be a magic number below
which even the unfit could easily cycle.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ [currently
offline awaiting ADSL transfer to new ISP]

In article <[email hidden]>, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

It's like the reasons for not using trains, none of which bear any relation to any train I've used
in the last five years.

My main reason for not using the tube to get to work is the expense.

The last time I might have commuted to work by train, I lived in Surbiton and worked in Basingstoke.
I'm sure that although it probably took longer to drive - my journey could be more than 100 minutes
each way and was rarely less than 60, it would have cost much more to take the train each day.

--
congokid Eating out in London? Read my tips... congokid.comcongokid.comOpen ↗