UK MP's can claim 20p per mile for cycling



Admittedly, everything is dated 1 April, 2007, but the document really
is an official UK schedule of perks for members of parliament:

Car Mileage (per mile) 40p (for first 10,000 miles)
25p (after 10,000 miles)
Bicycle allowance (per mile) 20p
Motorcycle allowance 24p

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/M05.pdf

And here I thought that bicycles were immensely cheaper than cars!

Either parliament's bicyclists are grossly overpaid, or else members
who use cars and motorcycles are grossly underpaid.

I hope that it's just an example of the powerful UK bicycle lobby
flexing its muscle and delivering pure pork in order to encourage
pro-bicycle legislation.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Admittedly, everything is dated 1 April, 2007, but the document really
> is an official UK schedule of perks for members of parliament:
>
> Car Mileage (per mile) 40p (for first 10,000 miles)
> 25p (after 10,000 miles)
> Bicycle allowance (per mile) 20p
> Motorcycle allowance 24p
>
> http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/M05.pdf
>
> And here I thought that bicycles were immensely cheaper than cars!
>
> Either parliament's bicyclists are grossly overpaid, or else members
> who use cars and motorcycles are grossly underpaid.
>
> I hope that it's just an example of the powerful UK bicycle lobby
> flexing its muscle and delivering pure pork in order to encourage
> pro-bicycle legislation.


It's the standard revenue-approved mileage rate. Same applies to all
employers, not just private. It's the rate paid for travelling on work
business. There's nothing special about parliament in this regard (makes a
change...)

And yes, the bike one has been set a bit high to encourage their use as part
of green transport policies.

The other thing which came in at the same time was the rule which said
employers could provide bikes for their employees for commuting free of
tax - unlike company cars, which have quite a high tax burden (which is also
variable depending on economy, hence the popularity of diesels nowadays).

cheers,
clive

cheers,
clive
 
"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Admittedly, everything is dated 1 April, 2007, but the document
>> really
>> is an official UK schedule of perks for members of parliament:
>>
>> Car Mileage (per mile) 40p (for first 10,000 miles)
>> 25p (after 10,000 miles)
>> Bicycle allowance (per mile) 20p
>> Motorcycle allowance 24p
>>
>> http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/M05.pdf
>>
>> And here I thought that bicycles were immensely cheaper than cars!
>>
>> Either parliament's bicyclists are grossly overpaid, or else members
>> who use cars and motorcycles are grossly underpaid.
>>
>> I hope that it's just an example of the powerful UK bicycle lobby
>> flexing its muscle and delivering pure pork in order to encourage
>> pro-bicycle legislation.

>
> It's the standard revenue-approved mileage rate. Same applies to all
> employers, not just private. It's the rate paid for travelling on work
> business. There's nothing special about parliament in this regard
> (makes a change...)
>
> And yes, the bike one has been set a bit high to encourage their use
> as part of green transport policies.
>
> The other thing which came in at the same time was the rule which said
> employers could provide bikes for their employees for commuting free
> of tax - unlike company cars, which have quite a high tax burden
> (which is also variable depending on economy, hence the popularity of
> diesels nowadays).
>

Well, say a mile of cycling consumes 50 calories. Where can I buy 50
calories for 20p?

Economically, cyclists are underpaid.

Phil H
 
"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Well, say a mile of cycling consumes 50 calories. Where can I buy 50
> calories for 20p?


1kg of flour provides about 3600 calories.

IIRC it costs about 20p for 'value' brands, and still under a quid for
others.

So that's up to about a penny for your 50 calories.

A Mars bar is 230 calories or 294 depending on where I look.

Costs about 50p in an expensive newsagent, rather less in multipacks.

That's up to 11p, worst case.

I could probably show similar numbers for fatty foods - they'd come out the
same. Even decent food doesn't cost very much.

> Economically, cyclists are underpaid.


Calories are cheap (see eg the classic overweight poor diet person). You've
got to eat anyway, just eat a bit more.

Granted, trying to sustain cycling mileage on truffles is likely to prove
expensive - but there are other foods :)

cheers,
clive
 
On Dec 8, 10:09 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Admittedly, everything is dated 1 April, 2007, but the document really
> is an official UK schedule of perks for members of parliament:
>
> Car Mileage (per mile) 40p (for first 10,000 miles)
> 25p (after 10,000 miles)
> Bicycle allowance (per mile) 20p
> Motorcycle allowance 24p
>
> http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/M05.pdf
>
> And here I thought that bicycles were immensely cheaper than cars!
>
> Either parliament's bicyclists are grossly overpaid, or else members
> who use cars and motorcycles are grossly underpaid.
>
> I hope that it's just an example of the powerful UK bicycle lobby
> flexing its muscle and delivering pure pork in order to encourage
> pro-bicycle legislation.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel


By todays exchange rate, cyclists in Norway get 57p per mile for
cycling done in the service of work. Cars get 43p. An article in the
paper the other day said running a new car in Norway costs 78p per
mile. I wonder what it costs to run a bike?

I know a guy who flew to Trondheim, had a meeting for work, and rode
his bike the 540km home in the Tr-Oslo bike race. He got 195 quid for
his efforts!

Joseph
 
On Dec 9, 3:32 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 8, 10:09 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > Admittedly, everything is dated 1 April, 2007, but the document really
> > is an official UK schedule of perks for members of parliament:

>
> > Car Mileage (per mile) 40p (for first 10,000 miles)
> > 25p (after 10,000 miles)
> > Bicycle allowance (per mile) 20p
> > Motorcycle allowance 24p

>
> > http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/M05.pdf

>
> > And here I thought that bicycles were immensely cheaper than cars!

>
> > Either parliament's bicyclists are grossly overpaid, or else members
> > who use cars and motorcycles are grossly underpaid.

>
> > I hope that it's just an example of the powerful UK bicycle lobby
> > flexing its muscle and delivering pure pork in order to encourage
> > pro-bicycle legislation.

>
> > Cheers,

>
> > Carl Fogel

>
> By todays exchange rate, cyclists in Norway get 57p per mile for
> cycling done in the service of work. Cars get 43p. An article in the
> paper the other day said running a new car in Norway costs 78p per
> mile. I wonder what it costs to run a bike?
>
> I know a guy who flew to Trondheim, had a meeting for work, and rode
> his bike the 540km home in the Tr-Oslo bike race. He got 195 quid for
> his efforts!
>
> Joseph


Ooops. The 57p figure was a test project. I don't know what the
current rate is.

Joseph
 
On Dec 9, 3:38 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 3:32 pm, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 10:09 pm, [email protected] wrote:

>
> > > Admittedly, everything is dated 1 April, 2007, but the document really
> > > is an official UK schedule of perks for members of parliament:

>
> > > Car Mileage (per mile) 40p (for first 10,000 miles)
> > > 25p (after 10,000 miles)
> > > Bicycle allowance (per mile) 20p
> > > Motorcycle allowance 24p

>
> > > http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/M05.pdf

>
> > > And here I thought that bicycles were immensely cheaper than cars!

>
> > > Either parliament's bicyclists are grossly overpaid, or else members
> > > who use cars and motorcycles are grossly underpaid.

>
> > > I hope that it's just an example of the powerful UK bicycle lobby
> > > flexing its muscle and delivering pure pork in order to encourage
> > > pro-bicycle legislation.

>
> > > Cheers,

>
> > > Carl Fogel

>
> > By todays exchange rate, cyclists in Norway get 57p per mile for
> > cycling done in the service of work. Cars get 43p. An article in the
> > paper the other day said running a new car in Norway costs 78p per
> > mile. I wonder what it costs to run a bike?

>
> > I know a guy who flew to Trondheim, had a meeting for work, and rode
> > his bike the 540km home in the Tr-Oslo bike race. He got 195 quid for
> > his efforts!

>
> > Joseph

>
> Ooops. The 57p figure was a test project. I don't know what the
> current rate is.
>
> Joseph


I think it's 14p.

Joseph
 
"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Well, say a mile of cycling consumes 50 calories. Where can I buy 50
>> calories for 20p?

>
> 1kg of flour provides about 3600 calories.
>
> IIRC it costs about 20p for 'value' brands, and still under a quid for
> others.
>
> So that's up to about a penny for your 50 calories.
>
> A Mars bar is 230 calories or 294 depending on where I look.
>
> Costs about 50p in an expensive newsagent, rather less in multipacks.
>
> That's up to 11p, worst case.
>
> I could probably show similar numbers for fatty foods - they'd come
> out the same. Even decent food doesn't cost very much.
>
>> Economically, cyclists are underpaid.

>
> Calories are cheap (see eg the classic overweight poor diet person).
> You've got to eat anyway, just eat a bit more.
>
> Granted, trying to sustain cycling mileage on truffles is likely to
> prove expensive - but there are other foods :)
>

The point I was trying to make is that the fuel cost is probably (on
average) not a 2:1 ratio. For a car that does 35 mpg, the fuel cost is
probably less than 15p per mile. Of course this isn't the only expense
for driving a car. While you could find food this cheap to power your
bicycle, I don't think it's realistic to expect the cyclist to limit
themselves to it. I won't be carrying a supply of flour on my next long
ride, more like a $1.50 power bar.

Phil H
 
"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Well, say a mile of cycling consumes 50 calories. Where can I buy 50
>>> calories for 20p?

>>
>> 1kg of flour provides about 3600 calories.
>>
>> IIRC it costs about 20p for 'value' brands, and still under a quid for
>> others.
>>
>> So that's up to about a penny for your 50 calories.
>>
>> A Mars bar is 230 calories or 294 depending on where I look.
>>
>> Costs about 50p in an expensive newsagent, rather less in multipacks.
>>
>> That's up to 11p, worst case.
>>
>> I could probably show similar numbers for fatty foods - they'd come out
>> the same. Even decent food doesn't cost very much.
>>
>>> Economically, cyclists are underpaid.

>>
>> Calories are cheap (see eg the classic overweight poor diet person).
>> You've got to eat anyway, just eat a bit more.
>>
>> Granted, trying to sustain cycling mileage on truffles is likely to prove
>> expensive - but there are other foods :)
>>

> The point I was trying to make is that the fuel cost is probably (on
> average) not a 2:1 ratio. For a car that does 35 mpg, the fuel cost is
> probably less than 15p per mile. Of course this isn't the only expense for
> driving a car. While you could find food this cheap to power your bicycle,
> I don't think it's realistic to expect the cyclist to limit themselves to
> it. I won't be carrying a supply of flour on my next long ride, more like
> a $1.50 power bar.


I think I've pointed out that it's easy to find food much cheaper than your
15p per mile - way, way cheaper. Just because you choose to use an expensive
power bar to source your calories, doesn't mean that's the only way.
For business-length trips, which are likely to be short, you won't need any
special extra food - just a bit more pasta, maybe a couple more potatoes
with the meal?

And no, I wouldn't carry flour - instead, I'd use it as the ingredient in
other food to eat. Pancakes, scones, cake. You'll notice I mentioned a mars
bar too - a standard off-the shelf pre-packaged product.

Beans on toast - a cyclist's staple - comes to 2.5 - 3.5p per mile. (there's
a reason it's a cyclist's staple :) )

You may be confusing cycling for recreation with cycling for transport - the
20p/mile is for the latter, not the former. And there's no point in using
overpriced energy products for transport cycling - use real food instead.

(This all ignores the fact that food should be a pleasure. Burning calories
allows you to indulge that pleasure more - which means any extra money spent
is part of your personal leisure budget, not the transport one.)

cheers,
clive
 
Well, by my calculations it costs about twice per mile for bicycle
tires than it costs for car tires.

I figured 400 US dollars per 40,000 miles versus 60 US dollars per
3,000 miles.

Most bike parts like chains, tubes, cassettes, rims and the like wear
out MUCH faster than their counterparts in the motoring world where
weight is not an important consideration.

Bob -- I need to eat anyway -- Cooper
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:55:12 -0000, "Clive George"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...

>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Clive & Phil,
>
> In 1902, the rate was fifty miles for a dime, $0.002/mile maximum
> operating cost:
>
> http://www.nostalgic.net/index.asp?S=arc/pre1920/mitchbkad+1902.jpg
>

Carl, I've heard of being stuck in the 60s, but lately, you appear
to be stuck in the 19th century.

Phil H
 
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> There are many alternatives that have already been mentioned. Powerbars,
> an excellent and tasty riding food which I myself use and enjoy often*,
> are among the more expensive foods in terms of kcal/$. I use the phrase
> advisedly and non-pejoratively when I call it a premium food.
>
> *Powerbar is a generous sponsor of my cycling club. Their stuff rocks.
> Let there be no doubt. Also, Costco sells them for less than $1.50 ea in
> multi-packs.
>

The Powerbar "Harvest" bars are much more palatable than the "standard"
versions, in my opinion.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Localized intense suction such as tornadoes is created when temperature
differences are high enough between meeting air masses, and can impart
excessive energy onto a cyclist." - Randy Schlitter
 
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:17:41 -0800, "Phil Holman"
<piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:55:12 -0000, "Clive George"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...

>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Dear Clive & Phil,
>>
>> In 1902, the rate was fifty miles for a dime, $0.002/mile maximum
>> operating cost:
>>
>> http://www.nostalgic.net/index.asp?S=arc/pre1920/mitchbkad+1902.jpg
>>

> Carl, I've heard of being stuck in the 60s, but lately, you appear
>to be stuck in the 19th century.
>
>Phil H


Dear Phil,

Well, Jobst is fond of pointing out that not much new has been
invented in the bicycling world.

And I'm perfectly willing to go up to 1910 or so, if something looks
_really_ practical:

http://www.arikah.com/encyclopedia/images/3/3b/BicyclePlymouth.jpg

Lots more fun to look at than the double-diamond look-a-likes that the
racers are doomed to straddle!

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:17:41 -0800, "Phil Holman"
<piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:

>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:55:12 -0000, "Clive George"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...

>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Dear Clive & Phil,
>>
>> In 1902, the rate was fifty miles for a dime, $0.002/mile maximum
>> operating cost:
>>
>> http://www.nostalgic.net/index.asp?S=arc/pre1920/mitchbkad+1902.jpg
>>

> Carl, I've heard of being stuck in the 60s, but lately, you appear
>to be stuck in the 19th century.
>
>Phil H


Dear Phil,

Coincidence raises its familiarl head again . . .

The highwheeler on the right is apparently equipped with an early
version of a Powercrank, carelessly left in the upright position:

http://www.oldbike.com/Photo Gallery/bikers.jpg

:)

Actually, I'm baffled by the crank on the right.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:17:41 -0800, "Phil Holman"
> <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>
> >
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:55:12 -0000, "Clive George"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> Dear Clive & Phil,
> >>
> >> In 1902, the rate was fifty miles for a dime, $0.002/mile maximum
> >> operating cost:
> >>
> >> http://www.nostalgic.net/index.asp?S=arc/pre1920/mitchbkad+1902.jpg
> >>

> > Carl, I've heard of being stuck in the 60s, but lately, you appear
> >to be stuck in the 19th century.
> >
> >Phil H

>
> Dear Phil,
>
> Coincidence raises its familiarl head again . . .
>
> The highwheeler on the right is apparently equipped with an early
> version of a Powercrank, carelessly left in the upright position:
>
> http://www.oldbike.com/Photo Gallery/bikers.jpg
>
> :)
>
> Actually, I'm baffled by the crank on the right.
>

A close look suggests that
a) the cranks are not exactly parallel to each other - suggests that perhaps they can be turned/rotated independantly
from each other.
b) the cranks do not mount to the wheels but (possibly) 'lever' off a point on the front forks a little above the
fork/wheel joint.
c) the cranks end in small cogs (?) that mesh into larger cogs on the wheels.

Could the bike be powered by some sort of ratchet mechanism so the pedals move up-down over a limited arc rather than a
360 degree rotatory motion?

Mike
 
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:54:50 +1300, Mike <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:17:41 -0800, "Phil Holman"
>> <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:55:12 -0000, "Clive George"
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
>> >>>news:[email protected]...
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> Dear Clive & Phil,
>> >>
>> >> In 1902, the rate was fifty miles for a dime, $0.002/mile maximum
>> >> operating cost:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.nostalgic.net/index.asp?S=arc/pre1920/mitchbkad+1902.jpg
>> >>
>> > Carl, I've heard of being stuck in the 60s, but lately, you appear
>> >to be stuck in the 19th century.
>> >
>> >Phil H

>>
>> Dear Phil,
>>
>> Coincidence raises its familiarl head again . . .
>>
>> The highwheeler on the right is apparently equipped with an early
>> version of a Powercrank, carelessly left in the upright position:
>>
>> http://www.oldbike.com/Photo Gallery/bikers.jpg
>>
>> :)
>>
>> Actually, I'm baffled by the crank on the right.
>>

>A close look suggests that
>a) the cranks are not exactly parallel to each other - suggests that perhaps they can be turned/rotated independantly
>from each other.
>b) the cranks do not mount to the wheels but (possibly) 'lever' off a point on the front forks a little above the
>fork/wheel joint.
>c) the cranks end in small cogs (?) that mesh into larger cogs on the wheels.
>
>Could the bike be powered by some sort of ratchet mechanism so the pedals move up-down over a limited arc rather than a
>360 degree rotatory motion?
>
>Mike


Dear Mike,

Yes, they might wave up and down in back in an arc, acting as treadles
on the downstroke and freewheeling back up.

The position of the pedals behind the axle would be correct because
the inventors always aimed to seat the rider further back from the
tipping point.

If so, the gearing that's kinda-sorta visible would reverse the normal
pedal action--pushing down and backward would somehow spin the wheel
forward.

And the whole contraption could--alas for PowerCranks!--be linked so
that one arm descends as the other rises, and the photo just catches
them roughly half-way up and down. Something would have to raise the
pedal, since highwheelers didn't come with clipless pedals or toe
clips.

It may be a reasonably well-known design, just one that I've never
seen with its pedals in that position. There were lots of bizarre
mechanisms for gearing and handling the pedals on highwheelers, but
none that I've see so far in that odd position.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
On Dec 10, 3:54 pm, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 17:17:41 -0800, "Phil Holman"
> > <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:

>
> > ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > >> On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:55:12 -0000, "Clive George"
> > >> <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> > >>>"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
> > >>>news:[email protected]...

>
> > >> [snip]

>
> > >> Dear Clive & Phil,

>
> > >> In 1902, the rate was fifty miles for a dime, $0.002/mile maximum
> > >> operating cost:

>
> > >>http://www.nostalgic.net/index.asp?S=arc/pre1920/mitchbkad+1902.jpg

>
> > > Carl, I've heard of being stuck in the 60s, but lately, you appear
> > >to be stuck in the 19th century.

>
> > >Phil H

>
> > Dear Phil,

>
> > Coincidence raises its familiarl head again . . .

>
> > The highwheeler on the right is apparently equipped with an early
> > version of aPowercrank, carelessly left in the upright position:

>
> > http://www.oldbike.com/Photo Gallery/bikers.jpg

>
> > :)

>
> > Actually, I'm baffled by the crank on the right.

>
> A close look suggests that
> a) the cranks are not exactly parallel to each other - suggests that perhaps they can be turned/rotated independantly
> from each other.
> b) the cranks do not mount to the wheels but (possibly) 'lever' off a point on the front forks a little above the
> fork/wheel joint.
> c) the cranks end in small cogs (?) that mesh into larger cogs on the wheels.
>
> Could the bike be powered by some sort of ratchet mechanism so the pedals move up-down over a limited arc rather than a
> 360 degree rotatory motion?
>
> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Dear Mike,

Aha! It's a Springfield Roadster. The pedals did in fact wave up and
down behind the axle on hub-gearing, like treadles:

http://home.inreach.com/rhowehmd/catalogs/Springfield/index.html

http://www.oldspokeshome.com/images/user/museum0000000006.jpg

http://www.copakeauction.com/bicycles/2003-bicycles/012a.jpg

http://visitmt.com/pictures/big/3963s.jpg

http://www.macomb.k12.mi.us/wq/beck/1d.htm

Nice ad near bottom of sporting magazine:

http://www.cornellpubs.com/Templates/Merwin-Hulbert-1889.htm

It's related to Rourk's geared highwheeler:


http://books.google.com/books?id=d8...14tj&sig=atwMNiH4AgG-UW823h7cMGGAV7w#PPA73,M1

or http://tinyurl.com/35h9te

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
On Dec 19, 8:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Aha! It's a Springfield Roadster. The pedals did in fact wave up and
> down behind the axle on hub-gearing, like treadles:
>
> http://home.inreach.com/rhowehmd/catalogs/Springfield/index.html
>


Any idea what the phrase "Fish Telescope Tool Bag" from the second
image on the above link means? A carry-all for the items needed to
repair a device used to observer aquatic lifeforms? Perhaps the name
of an early rock band?
 
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:55:10 -0800 (PST), Brian Huntley
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Dec 19, 8:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Aha! It's a Springfield Roadster. The pedals did in fact wave up and
>> down behind the axle on hub-gearing, like treadles:
>>
>> http://home.inreach.com/rhowehmd/catalogs/Springfield/index.html
>>

>
>Any idea what the phrase "Fish Telescope Tool Bag" from the second
>image on the above link means? A carry-all for the items needed to
>repair a device used to observer aquatic lifeforms? Perhaps the name
>of an early rock band?


Dear Brian,

Alas, it's probably just a bicycle tool bag, shaped to open like a
telescope case and manufactured by the Fish Company, though there may
be more to it than that.

Highwheel riders hung bags like that behind them under the back of the
seat (see the first picture) or in front of them from the handelbar.

The side opening lets you slide out or replace a pouch of tools more
easily than opening the bag the long way and fumbling each tool out
individually. Metal versions with one end that popped open with a
latch were popular on many off-road motorcycles. Most users stuff more
and more extra tools into the pouch until it no longer fits into the
bag or can, whereupon they complain bitterly about poor design.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 

Similar threads