Re: Are cyclists allowed to race on public roads?

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by RipVanWinkle, May 18, 2005.

  1. On Sun, 29 May 2005 13:00:42 +0100, "JNugent"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >> Nugent is a militant cager: he refuses to admit that any utility
    >> journey could possibly be practical by bike, let alone being more
    >> practical than by car.


    >That, of course, is more of Chapman's usual made-up-on-the-spot absolute
    >tripe.


    So you say. But do carry on as normal, it is very funny seeing your
    "you can't do that on a bike" claims shot down by people doing just
    what you claim is impossible.

    >I have no objection whatsoever to cyclists (as long as they obey the law, of
    >course, and as long as they do not unlawfully endanger my family and me when
    >we are in our majority-time mode of pedestrian).


    You're at much greater risk in the latter mode form fellow cagers,
    don't worry.

    >That is not to say that
    >a bike approaches providing the utility that a car does. The very idea is
    >absurd and can only appear in any sense realistic to a fantasist.


    So you say.

    I have a Brompton. I can ride to the station in about five minutes
    less than it is possible to drive it, fold the bike (car park fee is
    many pounds per day, people pay it day after day), get a train to
    Didcot at a peak speed of 125mph, ride form the station to the office
    in less time than it takes the shuttle bus service to get there and
    without having to wait for the bus, and end to end the journey is
    quicker and cheaper than driving.

    But of course there is no way a bike could approach the utility of a
    car.

    In my previous job I was 7.5 miles from the office, cycling was
    reliably ten minutes quicker than driving due to traffic. But of
    course there is no way a bike could approach the utility of a car.

    For short journeys I think the car is hard-pressed ever to match the
    utility of the bike, in fact.

    >> There are militants on both sides. Militant cagers are the ones
    >> complaining about fuel duty.


    >Anyone sane (and with a sense of fair play) should complain about it. It is
    >simply unfair.


    So you say. About the same level in France, I noticed earlier this
    year, and they don't seem to mind. Unfair in what way I wonder? Oh
    yes: unfair in the way that it requires those who cause most of the
    congestion and most of the deaths on the roads to cover enough of the
    costs that we might one day end the subsidy which private motoring
    received from general taxation for a century. That kind of unfair.

    >> Remember the fuel blockades? If that's not militant I
    >> don't know what is.


    >Well-justified.


    LOL! Start them again, then. I loved them!

    >> When was the last time a group of cyclists tried
    >> to bring the country to its knees?


    >That's more difficult to exemplify, but maybe the last "Critical Mass"
    >meeting perhaps?


    Not even close. Cagers have their own Critical Mass on the streets of
    my town every single working day!


    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
     


  2. On Sun, 29 May 2005 12:50:41 +0100, "JNugent"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >>> It's certainly a shame about the excessively high tax (by any
    >>> standards) on fuel.


    >> Any standards? No, only by the standards of militant cagers, I think.
    >> None of the political parties are committed to doing away with it, and
    >> the price of fuel in France recently seemed to be about the same.


    >370% (or theareabouts) taxation on a commodity (seen by the sane majority as
    >an essential commodity) is not excessively high taxation?


    Clearly not, as road revenues only just meet the lowest estimates of
    the cost of private motoring to the economy and there is no evidence
    that fuel duty is reducing the mileage driven by more than a small
    amount.


    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
     
  3. On 29 May 2005 08:18:36 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]> wrote in
    message <[email protected]>:

    >>>Excellent. So - these handcycles and adult trikes - they're easily and
    >>>readily available for "beer money", are they? Wonderful.


    >> Have you *any* idea how much a car adapted for hand control costs?
    >> Any idea at all?


    >The specific example I raised - my father - doesn't need hand controls. But
    >he would need a more specialist cycle.


    Not really, a trike is hardly specialist, they are readily available
    second-hand for less than the premium an automatic transmission might
    cost on a typical car.

    >Besides, never heard of Motability?


    A friend of mine works for this lot:
    http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_mobility/documents/page/dft_mobility_027699.hcsp

    And my dad is disabled and has an adapted car (wheelchair hoist in the
    back).


    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
     
  4. On Sun, 29 May 2005 03:41:33 +0100, Lum <[email protected]> wrote
    in message <[email protected]>:

    >> I do find that of the things which suddenly, irritatingly and
    >> unpredictably require me to have cash, parking is - well, not even on
    >> the list, as I'm always expecting it. Shops that don't take plastic?
    >> Annoying. Parking machines? No bother, we keep some coins in the
    >> car.


    >I used to keep coins in the car. My car was then broken into at 3 in the
    >morning to get my £1.20 tunnel money. From investigating the damage it
    >seems they took a screwdriver and a hammer and bent in all the metal around
    >the lock barrel until it fell out, then removed it and pulled the release
    >mechanism manually.


    So the problem is not one of money, but one of car crime. I have been
    a bit more fortunate; someone screwdrivered the lock of one of my cars
    years ago, but actually I've on occasion left the keys in the door and
    the car (and keys) have still been there in the morning. I recommend
    moving...

    >>>Oh and today I went to a Maplin in Essex to buy a 19p part. I paid 60p in
    >>>parking charges (I didn't know there would be parking charges at a retail
    >>>park) which left me with 15p in change so I had to buy the part on credit
    >>>card.


    >> A journey for a single part? Sounds like a distress purchase to me.


    >There is no local Maplin, however there is one en route to the customer I
    >was visiting that day, so I popped in on the way back. The part in question
    >was a replacement power plug for my laptop, having nearly exhausted the
    >battery in it with the days work.


    This is getting a bit pointless, I think. The fact is, if you build
    your life around the assumption that every journey will be by car,
    there will be lots of attendant costs. I opt out of much of that by
    using a bike.

    >> I think anybody who travels regularly on a train will be familiar with
    >> [Bromptons].


    >I generally avoid trains (see another bit of this thread for my reasons for
    >that) but on the few I've been on recently, I've never seen one. Perhaps
    >it's a London thing?


    It's a rail commuter thing, there are more rail commuters per head in
    the South-East for sure.

    >>>> a Queen's Award in 1992. There were folding bikes before then.
    >>>Which were generally regarded as being bulky, clumsy and unreliable.

    >> Or Moultons :)

    >who?


    Oh do keep up at the back! ;-) http://www.alexmoulton.co.uk/

    The same Alex Moulton who designed the suspension for the Mini.

    >>>> Not cheap? It depends what you mean. Mine cost me about a third of
    >>>> the annual costs of the second car we used to run (a six-year-old
    >>>> Honda Civic).


    >>>1/3 of the cost of running a Civic? bloody hell that's more expensive than
    >>>I imagined!


    >> Yep. That's the capital cost. How many brand new cars can you buy
    >> for that, I wonder?


    >Oh, that's the purchase price, I thought you were talking about running
    >costs.


    Heh! Not as such. My recumbent is the most expensive bike to run
    I've ever owned, that costs me about £200 in parts per year (chains
    and tyres) for about 4,000 miles travelled. My touring bike cost me a
    fraction of that, and I guess the Brom should be cheap, too.

    >>>I'm struggling to run one vehicle right now, certainly not taking on a
    >>>Brompton unless I get a desk-job close to where I live.


    >> Suit yourself. I save so much money not running a second car I can
    >> afford to buy at least one decent bike a year on the strength of it.


    >I don't run a second car anyway. I need the first car for work though.


    Ah, well, that's "for some values of need", innit? ;-)

    >>>In my last desk-job, expensive things left on or near a desk had a high
    >>>tendency to walk, this included personal property as well as company
    >>>assets


    >> Sounds like a crap job. I have my own office with separate aircon :)


    >Must me nice to be rich and able to afford these fancy bicycles and
    >expensive crappy train journeys.


    Speak for yourself. My train journey is neither expensive nor crappy.


    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
     
  5. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    JNugent wrote:
    >
    > 370% (or theareabouts) taxation on a commodity (seen by the sane majority as
    > an essential commodity) is not excessively high taxation?
    >


    OTOH in the US where tax is much lower the consequence seems to be to
    compensate with big engined low mpg cars and driving further so that
    motoring costs end up the same. Recent price hikes from world oil
    prices have suddenly made people there think a lot more about the
    necessity of journeys and the fuel economy of their cars which IMO is a
    good thing.

    --
    Tony

    "A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought" Lord
    Peter Wimsey (Dorothy L. Sayers)
     
  6. JNugent

    JNugent Guest

    Tony Raven wrote:

    > JNugent wrote:


    >> 370% (or theareabouts) taxation on a commodity (seen by the sane
    >> majority as an essential commodity) is not excessively high taxation?


    > OTOH in the US where tax is much lower the consequence seems to be to
    > compensate with big engined low mpg cars and driving further so that
    > motoring costs end up the same. Recent price hikes from world oil
    > prices have suddenly made people there think a lot more about the
    > necessity of journeys and the fuel economy of their cars which IMO is
    > a good thing.


    You are probably a couple of decades behind the times.

    European and Asian (sized) cars are nowadays big sellers in the USA.
     
  7. On Sun, 29 May 2005 13:07:19 +0100, "JNugent"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >>>> A poor student friend of mine rides a bike that cost her absolutely
    >>>> nothing. She could afford that pretty easily.


    >>> Well, that's great ad I'm not about to knock it.
    >>> Anyone can afford a car at the same price, of course.


    >> Indeed. Availability might be more of a problem, though. As might
    >> running costs (the rider was probably planning on eating anyway).


    >Quite right. And while we're not in point-scoring mode, we both know that
    >getting bikes for free isn't all that common either, don't we?


    Really? If you say so. Let's set a series of price bands in £100
    increments, starting form zero, and see how far up we get before we
    hit, say, the 85th centile of cost of bikes vs. cars. New or used,
    not fussed.

    >> Do remind me to tell the manufacturers exhibiting at the Mobility
    >> Roadshow that their products haven't caught on. It's a paralympic
    >> sport, now, I think.


    >So is archery. But it's still possible to walk down the street with no
    >expectation of being hit by an arrow.


    Ah so you are saying that the fact you don't get hit by arrows in the
    street is evidence that archery hasn't "caught on"? I dispute your
    criteria. As it happens my friend who works for the mobility advice
    service is an archer (he is not disabled).

    >> Why should the population of the UK cover their transport needs using


    >... machines which limit their movements to few miles ( a few tens of miles
    >at absolute most) per journey?


    LOL! Not seen the stats for all-modes average journey length, have
    you?

    This is far too easy, you could try a bit harder!

    >>> Toddlers and babes in arms, of course, are much better suited to

    >> Bike trailers, kiddie seats, trailer bikes, childback tandems etc.


    >See, now you're slipping back into your Hansen-esque fantasies. Those
    >circus-type modes of transport will *never* be accepted as suitable by
    >parents concerned for the welfare and safety of their children.


    So you say. The difference here is that I have transported my
    children (safely) by bike, so I know what I'm talking about. Speaking
    as a parent concerned about the safety of my children I am under no
    illusions: the major threat to their long-term health and safety is
    motor traffic and excessive reliance on it.

    >Even in some
    >fantasy situation where private driving was forbidden, most would prefer to
    >wait for the bus, or hire a taxi, rather than expose their most precious
    >possessions to such unnecessary danger.


    The first premise of your fantasy situation removes the unnecessary
    danger. Your failure to recognise this obvious truth probably
    explains why you are wrong about so many other things.


    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
     
  8. On Sun, 29 May 2005 13:23:21 +0100, "JNugent"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >[snipped: GC's misattributions, the bit where that was pointed out to him
    >and the bit where he tried to wriggle out of it:]


    Or rather the bit where my reply came above the text to which it was
    replying. But hey, style-over-substance, better than addressing the
    issues, eh?

    >>> There are plenty of people who can drive without difficulty.but who
    >>> find cycling impossible. When I suffered from a slipped disc
    >>> (recovering nicely, thank you), I was one of them.


    >> Really? I would be unable to ride my bicycle with a slipped disc?


    >Were you always that bad at English Language comprehension?


    I was merely pointing out that (as several times in the recent past)
    your assumption is coloured by the limited subset of bikes you have
    seen. My bike is fully compatible with lower back problems.

    >We are all well aware that you have something approaching Kryptonian super
    >powers (to judge from your postings about your prowess in towing tons of
    >supplies behind a bike), so how could anyone imagine for one moment that a
    >little thing like a slipped disc [painful, BTW, I genuinely hope you never
    >suffer from it] would slow you down?


    I suffered back problems for years, actually, but you miss the point:
    the problem is not my superhuman powers, but your comprehensive
    ignorance of the incredible variety of cycles on offer these days.


    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
     
  9. On Sun, 29 May 2005 13:09:11 +0100, "JNugent"
    <[email protected]rve.co.uk> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >*Totally* incorrect and inaccurate attributions.


    So you say. The fact that the quoted text applied both to the PP's
    text above (and clearly shown as such by double quote delimiters) and
    your text below (clearly shown as such by single quote delimiters)
    should not, after all, get in the way of your evading the point at
    issue.


    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
     
  10. On Sun, 29 May 2005 13:28:40 +0100, "JNugent"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >>> Can you say "hyperbole"?


    >> No, but unlike you he can recognise reality. We have a family who
    >> drive less than 250 yards to school entirely


    >The PP is more than capable of responding - intelligently, in his case - for
    >himself.


    You want a private discussion? Take it offline. This is a public
    forum, an open Usenet group.

    >But OK, do you really believe that all children who are driven to school are
    >all fat and with (increased) health problems?


    Do you sincerely believe that the modern trend for driving children
    everywhere instead of having them walk or cycle has had no influence
    on the spiraling rates of childhood obesity?

    >If not, what accounts for the fact that some (a very few) do have those
    >problems, but most don't?


    The problem is much less prevalent in those who partake in "active
    travel". Hence all the current active travel initiatives.

    >> because of fear of
    >> traffic. Or are you denying that a culture of low physical activity
    >> is unrelated to the growth in childhood obesity?


    >Are you seriously claiming that being driven to school (I was "driven" to
    >grammar school, BTW, even though we didn't have a car - figure that one out)
    >is the same thing as "a culture of low physical activity"?


    >*Seriously*?


    Yes. And the Government agree. There is also evidence that building
    physical activity into your daily regime through active travel is
    beneficial even in those who are otherwise fit.


    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
     
  11. bossman jay

    bossman jay Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Sun, 29 May 2005 13:28:40 +0100, "JNugent"
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > <[email protected]>:


    >>Are you seriously claiming that being driven to school (I was "driven" to
    >>grammar school, BTW, even though we didn't have a car - figure that one
    >>out)
    >>is the same thing as "a culture of low physical activity"?

    >
    >>*Seriously*?

    >
    > Yes. And the Government agree. There is also evidence that building
    > physical activity into your daily regime through active travel is
    > beneficial even in those who are otherwise fit.


    But a 5 to 10 minute walk once a day is not going to turn any of our fat
    kids into athletes. Bear in mind that a 10 minute walk will burn off barely
    100 calories, less than is in a bag of low fat crisps.

    There is much more to blame for kids' poor health than this.
     
  12. On Sun, 29 May 2005 14:30:46 +0100, "JNugent"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >> OTOH in the US where tax is much lower the consequence seems to be to
    >> compensate with big engined low mpg cars and driving further so that
    >> motoring costs end up the same.


    >You are probably a couple of decades behind the times.
    >European and Asian (sized) cars are nowadays big sellers in the USA.


    You think so? The last figures I saw were from 2004 and the average
    fuel consumption of *new* US cars was increasing, unique among
    industrialised nations, due to the ever-increasing popularity of SUVs,
    now making up 48% of new vehicle sales.


    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
     
  13. %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) writes:

    > Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> Meanwhile, back in the real world, the requirement for an audible
    >> warning is fulfilled by the use of the rider's voice.

    >
    > And the requirement for the pedestrian to have a rebuttal is fulfilled
    > by my fist.


    So, if I've got this right, if I were passing you on the Taff Trail, a
    muli use path, and called out (as is my habit) "Bike passing you to your
    right. Thank you", you'd punch me?
     
  14. On Sun, 29 May 2005 14:35:28 GMT, "bossman jay" <[email protected]>
    wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >>>Are you seriously claiming that being driven to school (I was "driven" to
    >>>grammar school, BTW, even though we didn't have a car - figure that one
    >>>out) is the same thing as "a culture of low physical activity"?


    >> Yes. And the Government agree. There is also evidence that building
    >> physical activity into your daily regime through active travel is
    >> beneficial even in those who are otherwise fit.


    >But a 5 to 10 minute walk once a day is not going to turn any of our fat
    >kids into athletes. Bear in mind that a 10 minute walk will burn off barely
    >100 calories, less than is in a bag of low fat crisps.


    that's 5 to 10 minutes twice a day, there ;-)

    No, on its own, it doesn't make all the difference. Active travel is
    about establishing habits. The same kids that walk or cycle to school
    will be the ones who walk or cycle to play with friends, and so on.

    The fact remains, there is at least one study which showed that - even
    among otherwise fit people - active travel produced health benefits.


    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
     
  15. Steve Firth wrote:
    >
    >
    > If I get a chance I'll not only fist a pavement cyclist
    >


    You could just hit him no need to take his shorts off.
     
  16. JNugent

    JNugent Guest

    Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

    > <[email protected]> wrote:


    >>> OTOH in the US where tax is much lower the consequence seems to be
    >>> to compensate with big engined low mpg cars and driving further so
    >>> that motoring costs end up the same.


    >> You are probably a couple of decades behind the times.
    >> European and Asian (sized) cars are nowadays big sellers in the USA.


    > You think so? The last figures I saw were from 2004 and the average
    > fuel consumption of *new* US cars was increasing, unique among
    > industrialised nations, due to the ever-increasing popularity of SUVs,
    > now making up 48% of new vehicle sales.


    That may or may not be the case.

    What is indisputable is that real terns increases in oil prices (but not
    petrol taxes) *have* led to more widespread use of European- and Asian-sized
    cars in the USA.

    MPVs are a side-issue.
     
  17. JNugent

    JNugent Guest

    bossman jay wrote:

    > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:


    >> "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote:


    >>> Are you seriously claiming that being driven to school (I was
    >>> "driven" to grammar school, BTW, even though we didn't have a car -
    >>> figure that one out) is the same thing as "a culture of low physical
    >>> activity"?


    >>> *Seriously*?


    >> Yes. And the Government agree. There is also evidence that building
    >> physical activity into your daily regime through active travel is
    >> beneficial even in those who are otherwise fit.


    > But a 5 to 10 minute walk once a day is not going to turn any of our
    > fat kids into athletes. Bear in mind that a 10 minute walk will burn
    > off barely 100 calories, less than is in a bag of low fat crisps.
    >
    > There is much more to blame for kids' poor health than this.


    Ssshh!

    He'd rather live in his fantasy world.
     
  18. JNugent wrote:
    > 370% (or theareabouts) taxation on a commodity (seen by the sane majority as
    > an essential commodity) is not excessively high taxation?


    Since the tax rate is not high enough to make people go to any
    inconvenience to avoid it, it can't be excessive by any sensible
    measure. When people start trading down from 4x4s to minis, and turn
    off their engines when stopped for more than 30 secs or so, and start
    thinking about commuting weekly instead of daily, and walk or cycle
    short journeys, so that motor traffic starts decreasing year on year -
    then you might have an argument that the tax is excessive. But only might.

    > What is taxed at higher rate than that (apart, perhaps, from tobacco)?


    What other fuel, pre-tax, is so cheap per kilojoule?

    Colin McKenzie
     
  19. On Sun, 29 May 2005 16:25:42 +0100, "JNugent"
    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >>> You are probably a couple of decades behind the times.
    >>> European and Asian (sized) cars are nowadays big sellers in the USA.


    >> You think so? The last figures I saw were from 2004 and the average
    >> fuel consumption of *new* US cars was increasing, unique among
    >> industrialised nations, due to the ever-increasing popularity of SUVs,
    >> now making up 48% of new vehicle sales.


    >That may or may not be the case.


    >What is indisputable is that real terns increases in oil prices (but not
    >petrol taxes) *have* led to more widespread use of European- and Asian-sized
    >cars in the USA.


    You think so? The trend has been pretty much flat since the mid
    1980s, following a period of sharp improvement, so it sounds like you
    are the one a couple of decades out of date.

    >MPVs are a side-issue.


    Really? I wonder why the US EPA gives them such prominence in its
    publication "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends,
    1975 through 2004".

    "For model year 2004, light trucks are projected to account for 48
    percent of all light-duty vehicles. After over two decades of steady
    growth, the market share for light trucks has been about half of the
    overall light-duty vehicle market since 2002. Most of this growth in
    the light truck market has been led by the increase in the popularity
    of sport utility vehicles (SUVs), which now account for more than one
    fourth of all new light-duty vehicles."

    "Model year 2004 light-duty vehicles are estimated to be heavier and
    more powerful than in 2003. This continues a twenty-plus year trend of
    increasing vehicle weight and power due to ongoing technological
    innovations commercialized by vehicle manufacturers in response to
    consumer demands"

    So, contrary to your statement, current trends are for heavier
    vehicles and more SUVs.


    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
     
Loading...
Loading...