F
Fod
Guest
On 27 May, 01:26, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Fod
>
>
>
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> > On May 26, 10:13 am, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> in message <[email protected]>, Fod
>
> >> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >> > On 25 May, 17:43, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> The costs of motoring are not only, or even mainly, the road network
> >> >> itself (we'd need most of it even if there were no private cars).
> >> >> They are the thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of serious
> >> >> injuries every year, all of them a drain on the NHS; the costs of
> >> >> congestion; the costs of pollution.
>
> >> >> Of course drivers are subsidised. Don't be silly.
>
> >> > as are cyclists and pedestrians using you logic...
>
> >> Hang on. I said (above, you can check it)
>
> > yes you did and you merely help to confirm what i said. Cheers ears.
>
> >> * 'They are the thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of serious
> >> injuries every year'
>
> > some of which are caused by pedestrians and cyclists - so far my
> > statement is correct.
>
> >> How many thousand deaths and injuries are caused every year by bicycles?
>
> > hard to tell with the current statistics. Bikes have been known to
> > kill pedestrians so its certainly a non zero figure. And thats all it
> > needs to be for them to have a cost....
>
> two deaths out of three thousand.
cool, you admit i'm correct.
> >> * 'the costs of congestion'
>
> >> Every bike on a congested street is saving one car on that congested
> >> street.
really? whats your source or is this just your home built logic.
Said cyclist is probably more likely to have been walking or using the
bus so by cycling they are causing more disruption/congestion.
>So you're replacing something which occupies about ten square
> >> metres of road space with something which occupies two.
if you give cyclists proper road space and only overtake when there is
room then cyclists can cause a lot of congestion dispite this smaller
footprint.
That's not a
> >> cost, that's a (big) saving, which benefits everyone including you.
>
> > cyclists can be part of that; you are traffic after all...
>
> So if I'm in front of you in the traffic jam you think I'd cause you less
> problems if I was in a 4x4 than on my bike, do you?
Possibly yes; depends on conditions. I've been stuck behind a bike in
traffic for long periods due to not having enough space to safetly
overtake. A 4x4 in front of me would be travelling faster so it would
cause less congestion. Its not the black and white fluffy argument
you are making out. Plus bikes not following rules of the road have
an additional disruptive impact on transport... ( not that all bikes
do this but some certainly do)
> >> * 'the costs of pollution'
>
> > how do you think bikes are made? magic non polluting fairys magic all
> > the parts into existance and then magic them away when its time to
> > dispose of the bike? Bikes have pollution costs ( smaller yes but all
> > i said was that cyclists also have costs using your logic)
>
> Every physical thing has some costs associated with making it and moving
> it. A grain of rice certainly is like a mountain in this respect.
cool you admit my point. This is refreshing; much better than Doug
who just keeps refusing to admit when he's wrong.
Fod
> in message <[email protected]>, Fod
>
>
>
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> > On May 26, 10:13 am, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> in message <[email protected]>, Fod
>
> >> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >> > On 25 May, 17:43, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >> The costs of motoring are not only, or even mainly, the road network
> >> >> itself (we'd need most of it even if there were no private cars).
> >> >> They are the thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of serious
> >> >> injuries every year, all of them a drain on the NHS; the costs of
> >> >> congestion; the costs of pollution.
>
> >> >> Of course drivers are subsidised. Don't be silly.
>
> >> > as are cyclists and pedestrians using you logic...
>
> >> Hang on. I said (above, you can check it)
>
> > yes you did and you merely help to confirm what i said. Cheers ears.
>
> >> * 'They are the thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of serious
> >> injuries every year'
>
> > some of which are caused by pedestrians and cyclists - so far my
> > statement is correct.
>
> >> How many thousand deaths and injuries are caused every year by bicycles?
>
> > hard to tell with the current statistics. Bikes have been known to
> > kill pedestrians so its certainly a non zero figure. And thats all it
> > needs to be for them to have a cost....
>
> two deaths out of three thousand.
cool, you admit i'm correct.
> >> * 'the costs of congestion'
>
> >> Every bike on a congested street is saving one car on that congested
> >> street.
really? whats your source or is this just your home built logic.
Said cyclist is probably more likely to have been walking or using the
bus so by cycling they are causing more disruption/congestion.
>So you're replacing something which occupies about ten square
> >> metres of road space with something which occupies two.
if you give cyclists proper road space and only overtake when there is
room then cyclists can cause a lot of congestion dispite this smaller
footprint.
That's not a
> >> cost, that's a (big) saving, which benefits everyone including you.
>
> > cyclists can be part of that; you are traffic after all...
>
> So if I'm in front of you in the traffic jam you think I'd cause you less
> problems if I was in a 4x4 than on my bike, do you?
Possibly yes; depends on conditions. I've been stuck behind a bike in
traffic for long periods due to not having enough space to safetly
overtake. A 4x4 in front of me would be travelling faster so it would
cause less congestion. Its not the black and white fluffy argument
you are making out. Plus bikes not following rules of the road have
an additional disruptive impact on transport... ( not that all bikes
do this but some certainly do)
> >> * 'the costs of pollution'
>
> > how do you think bikes are made? magic non polluting fairys magic all
> > the parts into existance and then magic them away when its time to
> > dispose of the bike? Bikes have pollution costs ( smaller yes but all
> > i said was that cyclists also have costs using your logic)
>
> Every physical thing has some costs associated with making it and moving
> it. A grain of rice certainly is like a mountain in this respect.
cool you admit my point. This is refreshing; much better than Doug
who just keeps refusing to admit when he's wrong.
Fod
