Better-off more likely to cycle

[Paul Rudin]

"Blonde" <[email protected]> writes:

> Interesting. From experience, cycling is BIG thing in Hull but is
> certainly perceived to be something that is mostly done by people on
> low incomes, and who are non-car owners...


Yer - spend all of your meagre income on some crappy, blinged-up Capri
(or whatever today's equivalent is). If someone doesn't do likewise it
must be because they can't afford it, innit? :\

 

[cmj]

Blonde wrote:

> a very different attitude in Hull than there is here in Leeds to
> cycles, people's perception of cyclists and the percieved reasons why
> you might use a bike rather than a car to get about. Cycling was very
> definitely seen as something one didn't choose to do for any other
> reason other that that one could not afford to get about in any other
> way. Whether or not that was actually true, I don't know, but that was
> definitely the prevailing attitude to cycling.

Whats the view of cyclists in Leeds? Is it like that in Hull (you must
be poor if you cycle) or that in York (well, people cycle in York - tho
if this weekend is anything to go by, perhaps we need james bond style
bikes that are also boats).

Cheers

Chris

 

[cmj]

wafflycat wrote:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6260803.stm
> "Cycling is more popular among wealthier families, government figures
> suggest."

There might be some of the perception of cycling in this too. The
"poor" won't want to cycle "because people will think we are poor and
we can't even afford a car".

 

[Terry]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Matt B) wrote:

> Terry wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] (Matt B) wrote:
> >
> > Wouldn't it be even cheaper to leave motoring taxes as they are and
> > pass a law that forces 'the poor' to buy bicycles?
>
> What would they buy them with?

I wasn't really serious. I was taken by your comment that "The poor
cannot afford to cycle" as a) it suggests that you haven't read or
understood the BBC article, and b) almost invariably when people talk
about helping the poor what they really intend is to help themself.

The BBC article only says that cycling is 'more popular' basing its
claim on a comparison of average mileage. It's a leap of imagination to
infer that "the poor cannot afford to cycle".

Nor is there any logic in the suggestion that lowering car costs will
increase cycling ownership amongst "the poor" and there's definitely
nothing in the BBC article to support such an odd claim.

 

[Tim Dunne]

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message

> Ah yes, TrollB, the local troll. Please don't feed the troll.

I know I shouldn't reply but I find the willfull idiocy of Twatt B totally
infuriating.

Tim
--
Sent from Birmingham, UK... Check out www.nervouscyclist.org
'I find sometimes it’s easy to be myself, but sometimes I find it’s
better to be somebody else.' - Dave Matthews 'So Much To Say'
My 'reply to' address is valid, mail to the posting address is dumped

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

Burbage wrote:
> Nigel Cliffe wrote:
>> I think this is the paper the BBC are referring to:
>>
>> http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_614106.pdf
>>
>
> Well done! I don't approve of witchcraft, so I won't ask how you found
> it.

One search of the DFT website. I cannot remember the search term, but it
was simple.

No unicyclists were harmed in the search.



> The trend's even worse than I guessed. Grim news indeed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Burbage

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[Tony Raven]

Tim Dunne wrote on 16/01/2007 00:24 +0100:
>
> I know I shouldn't reply but I find the willfull idiocy of Twatt B totally
> infuriating.
>

I don't. He sits unnoticed in my kill file until willfull idiots drag
him out and reply to him.


--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Matt B3]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Tim Dunne wrote on 16/01/2007 00:24 +0100:
>>
>> I know I shouldn't reply but I find the willfull idiocy of Twatt B
>> totally infuriating.
>>
>
> I don't. He sits unnoticed in my kill file until willfull idiots drag
> him out and reply to him.

Please learn how to use your 'killfile' more effectively then. Don't
pretend you don't want to see what I have to say when it is easy to
filter-out content containing my views.

If you want to preserve your fossilised views and preconceptions that is
your call. Please don't attempt to suppress valid discussion here with
your constant ejaculations of offensive witterings.

--
Matt B

 

[Clive George]

"Matt B3" <"matt.bourke"@nospam3.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Have a look for "nym morphing" on google groups and be reminded just how
much of a ****** you are.

clive

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Matt B3" <"matt.bourke wrote:
> If you want to preserve your fossilised views and preconceptions that
> is your call. Please don't attempt to suppress valid discussion here
> with your constant ejaculations of offensive witterings.

Please don't attempt to suppress valid conversation here with your constant
ejaculations about the perceived over regulation of motor vehicles and the
mental gymnastics which imply that it affects cyclists.

A

 

[Aloysius Cholmondeley Featherstonehawe]

Matt B3 wrote:

>
> Please learn how to use your 'killfile' more effectively then. Don't
> pretend you don't want to see what I have to say when it is easy to
> filter-out content containing my views.

Another nom de plume. Another entry in the kill-file.

You are the irritating child in an otherwise well-behaved class, who
always wants to be noticed.

In a litter of puppies, you are the one that humps the owner's leg.

You are the irritating drunk that insists on bellowing his bar-room
arguments down the ears of those who have already indicated that they
are not interested.

 

[Erik Sandblom]

Den 2007-01-14 21:01:21 skrev Matt B <[email protected]>:
>
> One of the surest ways to increase cycling 'take-up' would be to reduce
> the tax on car use


An even surer way would be the Cyclescheme thing where you get a bike
tax-free. Another better way would be to raise the basic allowance (the
amount you can earn without paying tax).

Erik Sandblom

--
Oil is for sissies

 

[Matt B]

Erik Sandblom wrote:
> Den 2007-01-14 21:01:21 skrev Matt B <[email protected]>:
>>
>> One of the surest ways to increase cycling 'take-up' would be to
>> reduce the tax on car use
>
> An even surer way would be the Cyclescheme thing where you get a bike
> tax-free.

That only works for the better off. Once a hard-up family have bought
the 'season tickets' required to use a car (ownership tax, insurance,
maintenance, etc.) they cannot justify leaving it at home. This is the
same for all forms of transport, if I buy a train season ticket I won't
then regularly go by bus.

> Another better way would be to raise the basic allowance (the
> amount you can earn without paying tax).

Not necessarily better. That would still leave us with the regressive
car taxes. The only way to make them fair is to abolish them.

--
Matt B

 

[Will Cove]

"Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]> wrote in
newsp.tmbnj5rizubk0m@toshiba:

> An even surer way would be the Cyclescheme thing where you get a bike
> tax-free.

That won't work for the many who're on or close to the national minimum
wage. The salary sacrifice won't be allowed because it would reduce their
residual wages to below the NMW.

 

[Blonde]

cmj wrote:

> Whats the view of cyclists in Leeds? Is it like that in Hull (you must
> be poor if you cycle) or that in York (well, people cycle in York - tho
> if this weekend is anything to go by, perhaps we need james bond style
> bikes that are also boats).


Probably somehwre between the two 'extremes'. The thing is, it really
depends on one's social circle too. The people I knew in Hull did not
cycle for sport but only to get around because they did not own a car.
I knew only one other person in Hull who had a car. I owned a car yet
when I took up cycling I began to cycle as much as possible rather than
drive and I also cycled for pleasure/sport which my friends there
simply did not 'get'.

I now do not have a car anymore and of the people I know in Leeds, I am
one of two people I know who have no car, but since taking up cycling a
few years ago, my social life revolves around cycling and so of course
I now know a lot more cyclists who do cycle for pleasure and sport and
not purley for utility reasons.

 

[Blonde]

cmj wrote:
> wafflycat wrote:
>
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6260803.stm
> > "Cycling is more popular among wealthier families, government figures
> > suggest."
>
> There might be some of the perception of cycling in this too. The
> "poor" won't want to cycle "because people will think we are poor and
> we can't even afford a car".

It's very odd, but when I was better off and lived in Hull I had a car
but I didn't cycle - I took it up whilst still in Hull, but then left
Hull, moved to Leeds with a less well paid job (dont ask) and I am now
skint, yet I cycle every day to work and for fun (if you can call audax
fun ;- ) !!!) at weekends. As you can see, I freely admit that I AM
'poor' too! Does this make me some kind of skint/cycling freak?

 

[Buck]

On 2007-01-19 10:39:33 +0000, Will Cove <[email protected]> said:

> "Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]> wrote in newsp.tmbnj5rizubk0m@toshiba:
>
>> An even surer way would be the Cyclescheme thing where you get a bike
>> tax-free.
>
> That won't work for the many who're on or close to the national minimum
> wage. The salary sacrifice won't be allowed because it would reduce
> their residual wages to below the NMW.

A grant scheme would be good.

--
Three wheels good, two wheels ok

www.catrike.co.uk

 

[Will Cove]

Buck <[email protected]> wrote in
news:2007011914225850073-SPAMTRAPian@trikesandstuffDOTcoDOTuk:

>>> An even surer way would be the Cyclescheme thing where you get a bike
>>> tax-free.
>>
>> That won't work for the many who're on or close to the national minimum
>> wage. The salary sacrifice won't be allowed because it would reduce
>> their residual wages to below the NMW.
>
> A grant scheme would be good.

Employers are free under the cycle to work scheme to lend bikes free of
charge. However, understandably, most won't unless the employees sacrifice
some of their salaries to compensate.

However, a grant scheme would be good, but perhaps too expensive. If HMG
wants to get people out of their cars and onto bikes, how about a scheme to
provide a tax-free, interest-free, bike-purchase loan for anyone who
undertakes to commute by bike, with repayments equal to what it would cost
to drive to work. During the loan period, the person is no worse off
because what would have been spent on running the car instead pays off the
bike loan. At the end of the loan period, the person is better off to the
tune of one used steed and a better life-expectancy, and HMG can laud it
about reduced carbon footprint.

Just a thought ...