Time spent to travel



"PeterE" <peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 May 2004 22:42:38 +0100, "PeterE"
> > <peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > <[email protected]>:
> >
> >>>> IMO, anyone can afford a car, and anyone can afford to travel as
> >>>> far in a car as but public transport, if they are willing to use
> >>>> something less fashionable.
> >
> >>> And comfortable. And provided they are able-bodied. And not
> >>> epileptic or diabetic.
> >
> >> Eh? I know plenty of wheelchair users and Type A diabetics who drive.
> >
> > I know plenty of wheelchair users who drive as well, but few of them
> > have the option of using an "unfashionably old" car. My mum was very
> > pleased that the VAT free status of adapted vehicles allowed her to
> > afford a new car - just.
> >
> > Diabetics have been subject to driving and insurance restrictions in
> > the past. This may have changed, or may depend on type of diabetes.
> > I know one diabetic who has been advised to give up and not even think
> > about driving again, but her insulin-dependent diabetes is poorly
> > controlled for some reason.
>
>
> As wheelchair users have been driving cars for many years presumably
adapted
> vehicles filter down through the second-hand market just as standard ones
> do. I don't know, but I can imagine them being actively advertised through
> disability support groups.

a lot of disabled drivers, certainly those who get the mobility component of
DLA never actually own a car -motability schem cars are lease cars

i'm not sure what happens to them when the lease is up

- some i'm sure get out into the normal car market - especially those which
are relatively unmolested - like the manual zafira my dear departed dad
drove on a motability lease , or those motability cars where the disabled
person is the passnger and their other half / offspring/ best firend is the
nominated driver

even a hand control equipped car is relatively easily modified back to
standard - when it isappears into the marketplace as a normal automatic car

>
> As long as it is properly controlled, insulin-dependent diabetics are
> permitted to drive, although, as you say, they may suffer an insurance
> loading. I know two people well who come into that category, one of whom,
> although now retired, previously did very high business mileages.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.682 / Virus Database: 444 - Release Date: 11/05/2004
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 21 May 2004 23:05:55 +0100, "PeterE"
> <peter@xyz_ringtail.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >As wheelchair users have been driving cars for many years presumably
adapted
> >vehicles filter down through the second-hand market just as standard ones
> >do. I don't know, but I can imagine them being actively advertised
through
> >disability support groups.
>
> You just keep on imagining there and maybe it will end up happening.
> Disability adaptations tend to be quite specific. I recommend you
> visit the disability roadshow some time.

it depends

most young and /or fit paraplegics could jump from their 'chair into one
another's hand control equipped cars and drive them

however the more complex someone's needs the more complex the adaptions the
more specifci the car




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.682 / Virus Database: 444 - Release Date: 11/05/2004
 
"Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/Wardlaw.on.Barnes.html
> > >
> > > (Dated 2001)
> > >
> > > > while in Great Britain, an hour of average cycling incurs 2.5 times
> > > > the risk of death when driving,
> > >
> > > GB cycling person year was 5.3 hours, compared with 137 driving.
> > > Deaths were 130 compared with 1100. Looks like 3 times.
> >
> > Wardlaw was writing in August 2001. Clearly he was *not* basing his
> > figures on 2001 stats.
>
> In the years just before 2001, cycling time was rising
> faster than driving time, and fatalites falling faster, so
> it could have been more than 3 times.

I really don't see the point in speculating about how somebody else
worked out a particular figure, especially when the difference between
2.5 and 3 doesn't seem that big a deal.

> > > >but here the comparison is biased
> > > > because half of British cyclists are young males. Accounting for this
> > >
> > > If forty-somethings are young.
> >
> > I suspect Wardlaw was referring to the fact that about 45% of cycling
> > in the UK is done by males under the age of 18.
>
> Not according to Transport Trends.

I've never seen Transport Trends - how are their stats collated? The
National Travel Survey finds that 45% of miles cycled are done by
males aged 17 or under.

> Does he give any supporting figures?

I've already posted the link to Wardlaw's missive - if he gives
supporting figures, you will find them either there, or (more likely)
in his 2000 BMJ paper.

> > > > bias suggests that British cyclists face risks no greater than the
> > > > European average for car occupants, or for US car occupants.
> > >
> > > That's still 3 times the risk for British drivers then (per hour).
> > >
> > > There seems to be an implication that deaths per cycling-hour
> > > are not much different in Europe to Britain.
> >
> > How do you work that out?
>
> UK cyclist risk is similar to European average.
> The only country where cyclists are quoted to be much safer
> than drivers is France, which has above average driver risk.
>
> > Even if this were true as an average, obviously there would be some
> > countries doing better than us, and others doing worse.
>
> Probably, but no such comparisons were given.

I'd say it's more than probable, given the wide divergences in other
transport and safety stats among the European countries.

Jim.
 
"Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I'll be happy to confirm that the figure is "clearly wrong" just as
> soon as you (or anyone else) produces some "authoritative" figures
> demonstrating the fact.

The National Travel Survey for 2001 quotes the figures for 75/76.
Females aged 5-10: 18 miles cycling per year
Males aged 5-10: 32 miles cycling per year

That is not consistent with large numbers cycling to school.
 
"Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > Not according to Transport Trends.
>
> I've never seen Transport Trends - how are their stats collated? The
> National Travel Survey finds that 45% of miles cycled are done by
> males aged 17 or under.

TT looks over several years of NTS.

Which part of NTS claims 45% ?
 
>>I have lived in a village and had to walk along roads with no
>>footways. The way some people drive is f***ing terrifying. Come to
>>think of it, it may well be worth walking further out in order to be
>>more easily seen - it works for cyclists (see Cyclecraft).

Won't be me - you often see people in villages so you drive accordingly.
 
>>As you say, it is stupid. But that doesn't make it any less idiotic to
>>drive so uselessly that you're in danger of killing someone. As Guy
>>says, there's plenty of valid reasons for someone or something to be
>>in the road.

Please note - I have not hurt or hit any cyclists, these are a couple of
near misses - where some less observant drivers would hit them!

>>"Decent cyclists are lit". True. Guy is, I suspect, addressing it to
>>motorists because they are the ones that tend to do the killing.

Yep I know the sort - the ones so busy not watching the road they hit
things, the ones who never go over 40mph - or below it in small villages,
the ones who get camerad in villages because they are travelling in a daze
at their fixed speed.

These people never seem to notice what is happening!

Fastish (non-boy racers) drivers rarely tend to have problems because they
are always expecting the unexpected.

As to pedestrians - a Goth on the way home from work is barely visible at
night so he tends to pull in tight whenever he hears a car, most people at
that time of year who are walking down lanes carry torches or are brightly
dressed. Only plonkers are the Goth and a woman walking down the middle of
the road shouting at cars (multiple people mentioned her!!!!!) - but never
saw her again!!
 
>>You could sit there, as a group of pheasants pass the time of day waiting
for
>>the glorious 12th to start, but I would always give them a blast of the
horn,
>>move forwards, flash the lights. Even then there's always one that doesn't
>>know
>>what to do. I often wish I wasn't an animal lover, but can't summon the
>>callousness to run down a creature just because it is a tad too stupid to
save
>>itself. Not that it makes any real odds, but hey...

Aghhh the suicide birds - one year they were manic and getting squashed left
right and centre - Darwinism????

One group I thought had cleared but bump I ran one over - it ran under the
car wheel!!!!

Rabbits and headlights!

Horrible I had a rabbit run under a front wheel on a bike - horrible - I
could not serve out of the way
 
"Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > >
> > > A cycle path is also a road.
> >
> > Is it heck as like.
> >
> > Everybody these days distinguishes between the two
>
> The Law doesn't.
> A route with a Right of Way for Vehicles is a road.

So is a footpath.

So why don't you include cycle tracks, bridleways and footpaths when
you quote road length statistics, as you have done often in the past?

Because you, like me, the DfT and everybody else, know exactly what
the word "road" means in current English usage. And a cycle path ain't
a road, except in some pedantic legal sense.

> > (see, for example, rule 46 of the Highway Code).
>
> Which also uses the vague term 'pavement'.

What's vague about the term "pavement"? It may be vague legally, but
the HC is not a statement of law, and everybody knows what a pavement
is.

Jim.
 
"Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> So why don't you include cycle tracks, bridleways and footpaths when
> you quote road length statistics, as you have done often in the past?

I include whatever is included by the authorities,
which tends to be those roads that they maintain.

Where does it say cycle tracks are excluded?
 
On Mon, 24 May 2004 10:16:07 +0100, "Martyn Hodson"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>most young and /or fit paraplegics could jump from their 'chair into one
>another's hand control equipped cars and drive them
>however the more complex someone's needs the more complex the adaptions the
>more specifci the car

A friend of mine works for the Mobility Advice and Vehicle Information
Service <url:http://www.dft.gov.uk/access/mavis> (MAVIS - a backronym
if ever I saw one!).

Some of the adaptations are very clever indeed.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Sun, 23 May 2004 20:21:31 +0100, [email protected] (Steve
Firth) wrote in message <1ge99he.1ar4fjrcz5bz9N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>:

>> AIUI the greater part of recent improvements in France is due to
>> tougher enforcement, full stop.

>By human beings, not by robot fund raisers.

Ooh look, everybody, it's the old "speed-cameras-are-fund-raisers"
canard! Haven't seen that one in the wild for some weeks!

>I appreciate the fact that les flics patrol the autoroutes, I wonder why
>we never see police cars patrolling our motorways anymore? Ah yes,
>because stupid people think that you can replace policemen with cameras.

Ooh look, everybody, it's the old "speed-cameras-replace-traffic-plod"
canard! Haven't seen that one in the wild for some weeks!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
"Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I'll be happy to confirm that the figure is "clearly wrong" just as
> > soon as you (or anyone else) produces some "authoritative" figures
> > demonstrating the fact.
>
> The National Travel Survey for 2001 quotes the figures for 75/76.
> Females aged 5-10: 18 miles cycling per year
> Males aged 5-10: 32 miles cycling per year
>
> That is not consistent with large numbers cycling to school.

You can't infer anything about the behaviour of 7-11 year olds in 1971
by looking at the behaviour of 5-10 year olds in 1975/76.

You chose not to add:-

Females aged 11-17: 56 miles cycling per year
Males aged 11-17: 226 miles cycling per year

Those figures are perfectly consistent with large numbers cycling to
school in 1975/76, never mind 1971.

Since most of this sub-thread seems to have been fuelled by anecdotal
evidence, I may as well add that the large comprehensive I attended,
which was built in the late '60s, had absolutely huge bikesheds,
probably big enough for all 1,500 pupils to use. Though largely empty
by the time I went there in the mid-'80s, some people I know who
attended the school about ten years earlier (i.e. my brother and
sister) assure me that the sheds were much used in their day (and I
assume they mean for keeping bikes in!)

Jim.
 
"Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > I'll be happy to confirm that the figure is "clearly wrong" just as
> > > soon as you (or anyone else) produces some "authoritative" figures
> > > demonstrating the fact.
> >
> > The National Travel Survey for 2001 quotes the figures for 75/76.
> > Females aged 5-10: 18 miles cycling per year
> > Males aged 5-10: 32 miles cycling per year
> >
> > That is not consistent with large numbers cycling to school.
>
> You can't infer anything about the behaviour of 7-11 year olds in 1971
> by looking at the behaviour of 5-10 year olds in 1975/76.
>
> You chose not to add:-
>
> Females aged 11-17: 56 miles cycling per year
> Males aged 11-17: 226 miles cycling per year

Because you mentioned junior school children.

> Those figures are perfectly consistent with large numbers cycling to
> school in 1975/76, never mind 1971.

No. They are only consistent with a fair proportion
of Secondary School boys cycling to school.
 
Apparently on date Mon, 24 May 2004 11:03:25 +0000 (UTC), "Martin"
<[email protected]> said:

>>>You could sit there, as a group of pheasants pass the time of day waiting
>for
>>>the glorious 12th to start, but I would always give them a blast of the
>horn,
>>>move forwards, flash the lights. Even then there's always one that doesn't
>>>know
>>>what to do. I often wish I wasn't an animal lover, but can't summon the
>>>callousness to run down a creature just because it is a tad too stupid to
>save
>>>itself. Not that it makes any real odds, but hey...
>
>Aghhh the suicide birds - one year they were manic and getting squashed left
>right and centre - Darwinism????
>
>One group I thought had cleared but bump I ran one over - it ran under the
>car wheel!!!!

Jesus, you mean you ran a bird over? Well I draw the line at that.

>Rabbits and headlights!
>
>Horrible I had a rabbit run under a front wheel on a bike - horrible - I
>could not serve out of the way

You should look at how you drive / cycle if you find you're killing things and
are unhappy about it.
 
"Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > >
> > > > I'll be happy to confirm that the figure is "clearly wrong" just as
> > > > soon as you (or anyone else) produces some "authoritative" figures
> > > > demonstrating the fact.
> > >
> > > The National Travel Survey for 2001 quotes the figures for 75/76.
> > > Females aged 5-10: 18 miles cycling per year
> > > Males aged 5-10: 32 miles cycling per year
> > >
> > > That is not consistent with large numbers cycling to school.
> >
> > You can't infer anything about the behaviour of 7-11 year olds in 1971
> > by looking at the behaviour of 5-10 year olds in 1975/76.
> >
> > You chose not to add:-
> >
> > Females aged 11-17: 56 miles cycling per year
> > Males aged 11-17: 226 miles cycling per year
>
> Because you mentioned junior school children.

Many of whom are age 11, none of whom are age 5 or 6, so why only give
the figure for 5-10 year olds?

It's very noticeable from the figures that school children cycle a lot
more as they get older, which is precisely what we'd expect. In
1975/76, cycle usage dropped off sharply after school leaving age,
with 16-20 year olds only cycling about half as much as 11-15 year
olds (see http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/pdf/dft_transstats_pdf_505587.pdf).

> > Those figures are perfectly consistent with large numbers cycling to
> > school in 1975/76, never mind 1971.
>
> No. They are only consistent with a fair proportion
> of Secondary School boys cycling to school.

The figures I gave (reinforced by the new info above) are consistent
with very large numbers of secondary school boys, moderately high
numbers of secondary school girls and all junior school children, and
only very small numbers of primary school children cycling to school.

Which adds up to a lot.

Jim.
 
"Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > Because you mentioned junior school children.
>
> Many of whom are age 11, none of whom are age 5 or 6, so why only give
> the figure for 5-10 year olds?

Bcause there were no figures excluding those age 5 or 6,
and less than 20% should be aged 11.
>
> It's very noticeable from the figures that school children cycle a lot
> more as they get older, which is precisely what we'd expect. In
> 1975/76, cycle usage dropped off sharply after school leaving age,
> with 16-20 year olds only cycling about half as much as 11-15 year
> olds (see
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/pdf/dft_transstat
s_pdf_505587.pdf).
>

>
> The figures I gave (reinforced by the new info above) are consistent
> with very large numbers of secondary school boys, moderately high
> numbers of secondary school girls

Does 'moderately high' mean 'more than 50%' ?

>and all junior school children, and

Female 5-10 yos did 18 miles a year. Even if that was all
done by 7-10 yos that is 27 miles a year, or 260 yards
per school day. You believe that the average distance
from junior school in the '70s was less than 140 yards,
and everyone living less than 100 yards away cycled?
 
>>>Horrible I had a rabbit run under a front wheel on a bike - horrible - I
>>>could not serve out of the way

>>You should look at how you drive / cycle if you find you're killing things
and
>>>are unhappy about it.

It was a proper bike - one with an engine!!

And rabbits swerve to be run over
 
"Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > >
> > > Because you mentioned junior school children.
> >
> > Many of whom are age 11, none of whom are age 5 or 6, so why only give
> > the figure for 5-10 year olds?
>
> Bcause there were no figures excluding those age 5 or 6,
> and less than 20% should be aged 11.

But the figures indicate that those 11 year olds would be the ones
most likely to cycle - by a large margin. You can't just ignore them,
while including 5 and 6 year olds who didn't even go to junior school.

> > It's very noticeable from the figures that school children cycle a lot
> > more as they get older, which is precisely what we'd expect. In
> > 1975/76, cycle usage dropped off sharply after school leaving age,
> > with 16-20 year olds only cycling about half as much as 11-15 year
> > olds (see
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/pdf/dft_transstat
> s_pdf_505587.pdf).
> >
> >
> > The figures I gave (reinforced by the new info above) are consistent
> > with very large numbers of secondary school boys, moderately high
> > numbers of secondary school girls
>
> Does 'moderately high' mean 'more than 50%' ?

No, I'd say "moderately high" would be anything over about 10%, with
50% being very high.

> >and all junior school children, and
>
> Female 5-10 yos did 18 miles a year. Even if that was all
> done by 7-10 yos that is 27 miles a year, or 260 yards
> per school day. You believe that the average distance
> from junior school in the '70s was less than 140 yards,
> and everyone living less than 100 yards away cycled?

Since I don't believe that all 7 year olds at any one time went to
junior school in the 1970s, but that about half of 11 year olds did,
the question does not arise. Moreover, I do not believe that all the
children who cycled to school did so every single day, or even that
they attended school every single day, both of which your calculations
imply.

Jim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
Re: Time spent to travel
Replies
0
Views
327
UK and Europe
VeloBlogger
V
R
  • Locked
Wonder if it's going to be 3 quid well spent
Replies
3
Views
569
UK and Europe
Chris Bardell
C
sheenaan
Award for green travel
Replies
0
Views
561
UK and Europe
sheenaan
sheenaan
miolanet
Anyone planning to travel to Europe or France this summer ? ...
Replies
0
Views
2K
UK and Europe
miolanet
miolanet
J
Patek Philippe Complicated Travel 18kt Yellow Gold Mens Watch 5110G
Replies
0
Views
448
UK and Europe
[email protected]
J
Top Bottom Back