Time spent to travel

[Nick Finnigan]

"Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In Denmark, the number of miles travelled by bicycle more than doubled
> between 1975 and 1988. About 18% of all trips are made by bike.

> One of the things they did in Denmark was to enact legislation forcing
> local authorities to provide safe cycle routes to schools. The result
> is that 50% of Danish children now cycle to school.

But how did the children get to school before, or
what percentage of children walk to school now?

> There are other success stories. Germany manages to have 10% of trips
> made by bicycle despite being one of the most car-friendly countries
> on earth. The Germans have the nous to realise that you can provide
> safe cycling facilities without penalising motorists.

I thought the way the Germans, Dutch and Danish provided
safe cycling facilities was by building more and better roads.

 

[Andy Leighton]

["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On 21 May 2004 01:56:36 -0700, Peter <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Mark South" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> In answer to your wish, Peter, bikes are easy to locate and cheap to buy.
>
> I've got nowhere to store it though, and it wouldn't be used much
> during the winter :-(.

In that case you may have to pay a bit more and get a folder. I would
think that even if you lived in the cupboard under the stairs you would
have room for a Brompton. As for not using it in the winter, why not?

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Johnny]

"Rachel Schaufeld" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > On 20 May 2004 05:01:07 -0700, Rachel Schaufeld
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > yeh yeh ok ok. All your arguments seem reasonably foolproof. But I
> > > don't understand why you have chosen to take part in this newsgroup.
> >
> > Which newsgroup? The thread is crossposted to four different groups.
> >
> > Colin
>
> I am on UK rec driving and I find crossposting confusing. Because it
> is! If I have an opinion on a specific topic I would select the one
> group where my opinion appears to have the closest relevance.
>
cross *replying* to all the groups the post you're replying to came from is
the only way you can be sure that your reply will get seen by the person to
whom you're replying. Cross *posting* is only done when someone goes out of
their way to add another newsgroup to the thread. The OP in this thread sent
to - uk.rec.cars.modifications , uk.transport - all the others have been
added later.

 

[Nick Finnigan]

"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.

>but here the comparison is biased
> because half of British cyclists are young males. Accounting for this

If forty-somethings are young.

> 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.

 

[Martin]

>>with most of
>>the risk being on the pavement cyclist, no lights, red light jumping
>>brigade

Oooh yes definately - some examples of idiots follow - I hesitate to call
them cyclists.

I threatened to hurt a cyclist who nearly ran me over while I was crossing
on the green man - he scarpered.

I brown trousered a nolight cyclist along with an XJS driver I was
following - overtaking a lorry and last moment - dark cyclist no lights no
reflector - half off his bike leaning over the verge - absolutely ****
scared. Further proof of stupidity - no lights a few days later when I saw
him again. The XJS driver also thought him stupid.

I remonstrated with a cyclist in our housing estate - dark no lights - I
told the moron the next driver could be the driver who killed him - abuse
followed - both ways - I laid it down - get lights or get killed.

I have had three other near accidents with moronic cyclists.

1) Nearly hit one cycling through town in a traffic jam on my side of the
road towards me - 10 mph for me - couldn't swerve - he pavemented.

2) Nearly hit unlit neighbours daughter main A road - night - I had poor
lights on my motorbike and did not seem them until very near - just missed
them.

3) Unlit bike on my side of road - similar to condition 1

In these cases a pedestrian would be fine as they are slower, more tucked in
or on pavements (all 3 above there were pavements)

It is so easy to avoid - I did for years, lights - I used to have two each
end - 1 set battery and 1 set dynamo, ride on the correct side of road.
Proof teenagers often have more sense than adults.

I see idiots quite regularly - this is depressing!

 

[[Not Responding]]

On Thu, 20 May 2004 03:26:36 +0100, Gawnsoft
<[email protected]> wrote:

snip
>
>So... shopping £ 100-150p.a (say £130 for ease of arithmetic)
>Cycle £ 30p.a.
>Busses £ 440p.a
>Plane/train/ ~£1000p.a
>hire car*
>Edi Taxis** £ 700
>
>*mainly weekend hires, and including fuel
>*nights out on town, i.e. excluding shopping
>
>
>Total £1600p.a
>
>As opposed to
>Car tax £ 155
>Insurance £ 350
>Maintenance £ 400
>Depreciation £ 600
>Fuel £ 450
>Cycle £ 30
>Busses £ 350
>Edi taxis £600
>Loss of interest on capital employed
> £ 60
>
>Total £ 2935p.a.
>
>

This month I have been mostly saving ukp 301.70 in transport costs
since getting shot of my (admittedly nice) car.

I now use a mix of buses, taxis and trains. It's a huge quality of
life improvement compared to traffic jamming in even a new luxury car.

I doubt I'll be getting another car - even when I can drive again.

 

[Jim Higgons]

"Nick Finnigan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jim Higgons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > In Denmark, the number of miles travelled by bicycle more than doubled
> > between 1975 and 1988. About 18% of all trips are made by bike.
>
> > One of the things they did in Denmark was to enact legislation forcing
> > local authorities to provide safe cycle routes to schools. The result
> > is that 50% of Danish children now cycle to school.
>
> But how did the children get to school before,

I don't know, but it isn't that relevant. Even here in Britain, 75% of
children used to cycle to school forty years ago. Now it's 2%.

> or
> what percentage of children walk to school now?

Dunno.

> > There are other success stories. Germany manages to have 10% of trips
> > made by bicycle despite being one of the most car-friendly countries
> > on earth. The Germans have the nous to realise that you can provide
> > safe cycling facilities without penalising motorists.
>
> I thought the way the Germans, Dutch and Danish provided
> safe cycling facilities was by building more and better roads.

No, it's largely by building more proper cycle paths away from roads,
and adding well separated paths alongside existing roads. The Dutch
have over 20,000km of proper car-free cycle paths, with only about
1,000km of cycle lanes. Segregation of modes of transport is the key.

Jim.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Jim Higgons wrote:

> it's largely by building more proper cycle paths away from roads,
> and adding well separated paths alongside existing roads. The Dutch
> have over 20,000km of proper car-free cycle paths, with only about
> 1,000km of cycle lanes. Segregation of modes of transport is the key.

Or not. In Germany they are now moving away from that, as a result of many
studies showing that risk is increased by many such facilities. The German
cycleways were conceived entirely for the benefit of car drivers, after all.

What is actually needed is for drivers to start driving with due care. Once
they do that, bicycle Bantustans become completely unnecessary.

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

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

 

[David Martin]

On 21/5/04 1:31 pm, in article [email protected], "Martin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>> with most of
>>> the risk being on the pavement cyclist, no lights, red light jumping
>>> brigade
>
> Oooh yes definately - some examples of idiots follow - I hesitate to call
> them cyclists.
>
> I threatened to hurt a cyclist who nearly ran me over while I was crossing
> on the green man - he scarpered.

Fair enough..

>
> I brown trousered a nolight cyclist along with an XJS driver I was
> following - overtaking a lorry and last moment - dark cyclist no lights no
> reflector - half off his bike leaning over the verge - absolutely ****
> scared. Further proof of stupidity - no lights a few days later when I saw
> him again. The XJS driver also thought him stupid.

Does the phrase 'driving so you can stop within the distance you can see to
be clear' ring any bells?

summary execution is not an appropriate response to riding without lights,
however silly it may be.


> I remonstrated with a cyclist in our housing estate - dark no lights - I
> told the moron the next driver could be the driver who killed him - abuse
> followed - both ways - I laid it down - get lights or get killed.

If you cannot see the road to be clear you shouldn't be travelling that
fast. You cannot assume all obstructions are lit or covered in reflective
bits.

> I have had three other near accidents with moronic cyclists.
>
> 1) Nearly hit one cycling through town in a traffic jam on my side of the
> road towards me - 10 mph for me - couldn't swerve - he pavemented.

There is one born every minute. Fortunately the worst he could do is add a
few dents to the car. Had he been driving he could kill people.

> 2) Nearly hit unlit neighbours daughter main A road - night - I had poor
> lights on my motorbike and did not seem them until very near - just missed
> them.

So you couldn't see the road to be clear but pressed on regardless at a
reckless (and only just wreckless) speed..

> 3) Unlit bike on my side of road - similar to condition 1

Driving too fast then. Couldn't see the road to be clear.

> In these cases a pedestrian would be fine as they are slower, more tucked in
> or on pavements (all 3 above there were pavements)

Cycling on pavements is illegal. You have absolutely no excuse for running
down an unlit cyclist [1]. You should be able to see the road to be clear.

> It is so easy to avoid - I did for years, lights - I used to have two each
> end - 1 set battery and 1 set dynamo, ride on the correct side of road.

Absolutely

> Proof teenagers often have more sense than adults.

I'd dispute that given what I have seen of teenagers

> I see idiots quite regularly - this is depressing!

So do I. The problem is that the ones in cars kill people.

...d

[1] I can think of a few circumstances where it would not be the drivers
fault.

a) pulling out in the path of a cyclist who is unlit so you cannot see them
coming.

b) where a cyclist joins the road immediately in front of the driver where
the road had previously been seen to be clear.

There are probably others but running down from behind when both vehicles
were travelling in a normal manner along the same road is always going to be
the fault of the driver behind.

 

[Peter Clinch]

Jim Higgons wrote:

> No, it's largely by building more proper cycle paths away from roads,
> and adding well separated paths alongside existing roads. The Dutch
> have over 20,000km of proper car-free cycle paths, with only about
> 1,000km of cycle lanes. Segregation of modes of transport is the key.

The safety of the cyclist in the NL has far more to do with the respect
accorded them by drivers (from a couple of visits this strikes me as a
helluva lot more than you get in the UK). Separate cycle tracks are,
rather like cycle helmets, something that is widely assumed to be a Very
Good Thing but appears less so when you actually start looking at the
numbers.

A particularly large problem arises from right of way conflicts between
cycle lanes and roads when (inevitably) they must cross, as accidents
tend to cluster around junctions and by separating cycles and motor
vehicles you usually tend to have a proliferation of junctions.

In the NL I would often be given way to by motorists at such junctions
even though the road markings clearly suggested they had priority. Fat
chance of that happening in the UK: it's the awareness of cyclists and
deference to their need for road space that makes the biggest
difference, not being on a separate track. There's no shortage of roads
shared by motor and cycle transport and you get treated better on those
too, at least in my (admittedly limited) experience.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Nick Finnigan]

"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]...
> > >
> > > In Denmark, the number of miles travelled by bicycle more than doubled
> > > between 1975 and 1988. About 18% of all trips are made by bike.
> >
> > > One of the things they did in Denmark was to enact legislation forcing
> > > local authorities to provide safe cycle routes to schools. The result
> > > is that 50% of Danish children now cycle to school.
> >
> > But how did the children get to school before,
>
> I don't know, but it isn't that relevant. Even here in Britain, 75% of
> children used to cycle to school forty years ago. Now it's 2%.

In terms of health, is it better to cycle 1 mile than walk?
Where did you find the 75% figure? Cycling to infant
school was virtually unheard of when I was a lad

> > I thought the way the Germans, Dutch and Danish provided
> > safe cycling facilities was by building more and better roads.
>
> No, it's largely by building more proper cycle paths away from roads,

A cycle path is also a road.

 

[PeterE]

Jim Higgons <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I don't know, but it isn't that relevant. Even here in Britain, 75% of
> children used to cycle to school forty years ago. Now it's 2%.

That looks like a rather dubious statistic to me - surely you mean 75% of
children used to cycle *or walk* to school. I went to school about forty
years ago (by bus) and I don't recall anything remotely like that proportion
cycling.

It was also a sign of a bygone era that they used to provide school buses to
take children home for lunch.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William
Pitt, 1783)

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

Martin wrote:

> I brown trousered a nolight cyclist [blah blah]

Have you ever brown trousered a deer or a cow? They, too, venture onto the
roads without lights. Cows in particular aparently make much more of a dent
in your car than a cyclist, so it may be worth looking out for them.

> I have had three other near accidents with moronic cyclists.

Really? And you've not modified your driving behaviour yet?

> In these cases a pedestrian would be fine as they are slower, more
> tucked in or on pavements (all 3 above there were pavements)

So it's acceptable in your view to skim by within a couple of inches of a
ped on a road with no lights or footway? Fascinating.

I have spent more on lights for my bikes than most people spend on the bikes
themselves, of course, but as has been pointed out elsewhere the penalty for
riding without lights is not summary execution.

Many of these tales remind me of the woman who was arguing with an Officer
of the Leur about who should pay to the damage caused to her car by driving
into a fallen tree. In the end the Constable in question adopted a rather
weary tone and informed her: "madam, when you hit a stationary object on the
road, it is generally considered to be your own fault."

<standard_disclaimer>
none of the above is to be taken as condoning Clueless Riding Behaviour; as
the previous post vivdly illustrates, the world is full of people just
waiting to wipe you out.
</standard_disclaimer>

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

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

 

[Ian G Batten]

In article <[email protected]>,
Jim Higgons <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't know, but it isn't that relevant. Even here in Britain, 75% of
> children used to cycle to school forty years ago. Now it's 2%.

I find that difficult to believe.

Infant school children --- those in the first three years --- would
account for over 25% of the school population of 1964. The leaving age
was fifteen, so there were only twelve years of compulsory education and
rates of ``staying on were low''. However, the birth rate rose
massively through the 1950s and early 1960s, peaking in about 1968, and
far more children were born in 1959 than in 1949.

Very few children aged seven or under would cycle to school in 1964. I
was at Infant and Junior school between 1969 and 1976 and I recall
precisely no-one cycling to school, so you'd need quite a strong
argument to show this assertion is untrue.

You are therefore implying that essentially everyone cycled to school
from the age of eight onwards. I was at Secondary school from 1976 to
1981 and recall almost no-one. People walked. Unless there was a
massive drop between 1964 and 1969 --- and you'd need to explain why ---
that figure seems wildly optimistic.

ian

 

[Martin]

>>> I brown trousered a nolight cyclist [blah blah]

>>Have you ever brown trousered a deer or a cow? They, too, venture onto
the
>>roads without lights. Cows in particular aparently make much more of a
dent
>>in your car than a cyclist, so it may be worth looking out for them.

Bit more visible than a suicide cyclist

>>Really? And you've not modified your driving behaviour yet?
**** - Please note riding the wrong way is stupid, as is middle of road with
no lights or reflectors.

>>So it's acceptable in your view to skim by within a couple of inches of a
>>ped on a road with no lights or footway? Fascinating.

They don't walk 3 foot out do they!

>>I have spent more on lights for my bikes than most people spend on the
bikes
>>themselves, of course, but as has been pointed out elsewhere the penalty
for
>>riding without lights is not summary execution.

Tell that to the idiots who ride on fast roads with no lights at night,
remember the pedestrians are on the pavement, decent cyclists are lit! Like
the one I see in the winter imitating a Christmas tree - very easy to see -
very responsible behaviour.

>><standard_disclaimer>
>>none of the above is to be taken as condoning Clueless Riding Behaviour;
as
>>the previous post vivdly illustrates, the world is full of people just
>>waiting to wipe you out.
>></standard_disclaimer>

I have no intention of squashing one but if they put themselves in danger
like this - I will not hold myself responsible.

 

[Martin]

>>> I brown trousered a nolight cyclist along with an XJS driver I was
>>> following - overtaking a lorry and last moment - dark cyclist no lights
no
>>> reflector - half off his bike leaning over the verge - absolutely ****
>>> scared. Further proof of stupidity - no lights a few days later when I
saw
>>> him again. The XJS driver also thought him stupid.

>>Does the phrase 'driving so you can stop within the distance you can see
to
>>be clear' ring any bells?

It was clear - nothing coming the other way apart from suicide idiot. merged
into the verge - walkers use the pavement

>>summary execution is not an appropriate response to riding without lights,
>>however silly it may be.

I hope not to be the one who does it - I expect cyclists to have some sense
(most do of course!!!!)

> I remonstrated with a cyclist in our housing estate - dark no lights - I
> told the moron the next driver could be the driver who killed him - abuse
> followed - both ways - I laid it down - get lights or get killed.

>>If you cannot see the road to be clear you shouldn't be travelling that
>>fast. You cannot assume all obstructions are lit or covered in reflective
>>bits.

{very big letters) I SAW HIM FIRST - I TOLD HIM OFF FOR BEING A
PRAT!!!(normal sized letters)

>>> 1) Nearly hit one cycling through town in a traffic jam on my side of
the
>>> road towards me - 10 mph for me - couldn't swerve - he pavemented.

>There is one born every minute. Fortunately the worst he could do is add a
>few dents to the car. Had he been driving he could kill people.

>> 2) Nearly hit unlit neighbours daughter main A road - night - I had poor
>> lights on my motorbike and did not seem them until very near - just
missed
>> them.

>So you couldn't see the road to be clear but pressed on regardless at a
>reckless (and only just wreckless) speed..

The whole family were thick!

>> 3) Unlit bike on my side of road - similar to condition 1

>Driving too fast then. Couldn't see the road to be clear.

AS ABOVE CYCLING ON WRONG SIDE OF ROAD AT NIGHT NO LIGHTS NO REFLECTORS IN
TRAFFIC - I HAD TO SWERVE LIKE THE REST OF THE TRAFFIC.

>>Cycling on pavements is illegal. You have absolutely no excuse for running
>>down an unlit cyclist [1]. You should be able to see the road to be clear.

They move static objects don't

> It is so easy to avoid - I did for years, lights - I used to have two
each
> end - 1 set battery and 1 set dynamo, ride on the correct side of road.

Absolutely
>>

We agree

>> I see idiots quite regularly - this is depressing!

>>So do I. The problem is that the ones in cars kill people.

Don't include me - near misses with these idiots scares everyone

>>There are probably others but running down from behind when both vehicles
>>were travelling in a normal manner along the same road is always going to
be
>>the fault of the driver behind.

Only had one near miss - as above the brain dead neighbours daughter

 

[[Not Responding]]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:16:18 +0000 (UTC), "Martin"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>> I brown trousered a nolight cyclist [blah blah]
>
>>>Have you ever brown trousered a deer or a cow? They, too, venture onto
>the
>>>roads without lights. Cows in particular aparently make much more of a
>dent
>>>in your car than a cyclist, so it may be worth looking out for them.
>
>Bit more visible than a suicide cyclist
>
>>>Really? And you've not modified your driving behaviour yet?
>**** - Please note riding the wrong way is stupid, as is middle of road with
>no lights or reflectors.

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.

>>>So it's acceptable in your view to skim by within a couple of inches of a
>>>ped on a road with no lights or footway? Fascinating.
>
>They don't walk 3 foot out do they!

Most *do*. The gutter and camber make the first couple of feet of road
difficult to walk on. 2 or 3 feet out is to be expected.

>>>I have spent more on lights for my bikes than most people spend on the
>bikes
>>>themselves, of course, but as has been pointed out elsewhere the penalty
>for
>>>riding without lights is not summary execution.
>
>Tell that to the idiots who ride on fast roads with no lights at night,
>remember the pedestrians are on the pavement, decent cyclists are lit! Like
>the one I see in the winter imitating a Christmas tree - very easy to see -
>very responsible behaviour.

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

>>><standard_disclaimer>
>>>none of the above is to be taken as condoning Clueless Riding Behaviour;
>as
>>>the previous post vivdly illustrates, the world is full of people just
>>>waiting to wipe you out.
>>></standard_disclaimer>
>
>I have no intention of squashing one but if they put themselves in danger
>like this - I will not hold myself responsible.
>

 

[Adrian]

Just zis Guy, you know? ([email protected]) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

>> I brown trousered a nolight cyclist [blah blah]

> Have you ever brown trousered a deer or a cow?

I don't think I've ever seen a cow or deer wearing trousers.

> Cows in particular aparently make much more of a dent in your car than
> a cyclist, so it may be worth looking out for them.

Indeed. There's also a lot more meat on a deer or a cow than your typical
cyclists, so they're far better to stock the freezer up with. Less
questions asked, too.

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 16:16:18 +0000 (UTC), "Martin"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>> I brown trousered a nolight cyclist [blah blah]

>> Have you ever brown trousered a deer or a cow? They, too, venture onto
>> the roads without lights. Cows in particular aparently make much more of a
>> dent in your car than a cyclist, so it may be worth looking out for them.

>Bit more visible than a suicide cyclist

Really? Are you sure of that? Have you checked? And deer; are they
more visible?

The problem is that on country roads a lot of people drive as if there
will never be anything in the road which is not either lit or
reflective. And most of the time there isn't. But sometimes there
is, and I would be surprised to find if even the modest speeds I do
when driving on such roads are trul;y within the limits I can really
see ot be clear.

>Please note riding the wrong way is stupid, as is middle of road with
>no lights or reflectors.

Ineed. But having noticed that it happens, failure to take account of
it looks like carelessness.

>>>So it's acceptable in your view to skim by within a couple of inches of a
>>>ped on a road with no lights or footway? Fascinating.

>They don't walk 3 foot out do they!

And that makes exactly what difference precisely?

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).

>> I have spent more on lights for my bikes than most people spend on the
>> bikes themselves, of course, but as has been pointed out elsewhere the penalty
>> for riding without lights is not summary execution.

>Tell that to the idiots who ride on fast roads with no lights at night,

I do. I also take note of the fact that some people do ride unlit at
night, and drive accordingly. Very few pedestrians are lit at night
either.

>remember the pedestrians are on the pavement, decent cyclists are lit! Like
>the one I see in the winter imitating a Christmas tree - very easy to see -
>very responsible behaviour.

And still just as likely to be SMIDSYd.

>I have no intention of squashing one but if they put themselves in danger
>like this - I will not hold myself responsible.

Nobody wants to kill a cyclist or pedestrian. Itdoesn't stop it
happening, with monotonous regularity. And most of the cyclists
killed or seriously injured are not at fault (a much greater
proportion of pedestrians are to blame for their own demise).

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

 

[Stuffed]

"Gawnsoft" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...

> >So my driving costs approx 2/3 to a half of your mix and match of cycling
> >walking and public transport, yet your option is cheaper?
>
> The travelling I do, and the cars I use are differnt from yours.

But you could quite easily pick up a banger in the 500 quid range, that
would be peanuts to insure and probably last a fair time, at least much
longer than 500 quid depreciation takes on a new car.

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. That's not to say everyone should be made to have a car of
course, but the cost argument is a weak one most of the time. Prefer not to
run a car, all good to you. Try to be smug about money saved? Doesn't work

>
> Classics tend to be less reliable, or take up more maintenance time
> and effort.
>
> Pricing your own time fiddling with oiling suspension grease nipples
> at zero is fair enough, if that's the thing that floats your boat and
> that you'd do as a hobby anyway.

3 or 4 hours a year greasing and changing oils? It's not a killer really,
you spend more time on the bog in a year! Classics can make good every day
cars, if you buy the right one, and look after it properly. Doesn't mean
having to get oily every weekend, and in fact, if you do, then you bought a
bad car, or have broke it playing

FYI, I do spend most of my time getting oily, but then, I do pick up the
bargain basement cars to play with, cause I find it fun
>
> (I've run things like classic Minis, and Clan Crusaders (whose hardtop
> doesn't even reach the top of a Golf GTI's steering wheel! They're
> fun, but modern cars tend to 'just work'.)

Thing is, when a modern car decides to 'not work' it can be a real bugger,
not to mention pricey. When one of my cars 'not works' it's likely to be a
very simple, cheap part, that even a garage will sort for pennies, compared
to the price of just having a diagnostic run on a new car!

I don't mind people not driving, and I do think too many people drive when
they don't need to, or could car share, or drive the wrong car for the
journeys they make. I just get sick of hearing the financial reasons, when
they're invariably based on what's wanted as opposed to needed in a car.