"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make the provision for Bicycles on Trains Free an

[Simon Dean]

Clive George wrote:

>
> Thing is the extremes you mention are just that : extremes. The majority
> of people using their cars aren't using it out of necessity, even though
> they think they might be. People make a lot of fuss about having no
> choice - like I said to Simon, they did have a choice, it's just that
> they didn't choose to consider it.

Ugh. whatever.

 

[Simon Dean]

Ian Smith wrote:

> Indeed, just as you have chosen to build your life around an
> assumption of unconstrained car use. Back to how this started - I
> think society is going to need to do something serious about that
> soon, though 'soon' in this context is such that I think it's still a
> decade off.
>

I still disagree with that. I've made whatever choices I've had to in
life to try and maintain some degree of sanity. That to me is a need,
but if you want to call it a choice, fine, and I chose a car because
it's the most economical mode of transport for me given the current
circumstances. And I stress that, the current circumstances.

Im not adverse to public transport, cycling, or walking, I never have
been, but the situation has to be right.

As for what needs to be done, yes, I agree something needs to be done.

But it's not just cars. It's people. We lack housing. House prices have
sky rocketed, and they continue to do so because apparently we build
less houses than there is demand.

Solutions to our problems?

Euthenasia. Many people want to do, why not? It would solve shortages in
houses, problems on the road, a full NHS, less money would need to be
spent on looking after the elderly.

Stop letting in so many people to the country. We don't have the
infrastructure to cope.

Once house prices come into check, I dunno whether that would actually
enable people to start buying places closer to work. I mean, you hear
about the ambulance technicians who have their jobs that they wouldn't
change for the world, but they just can't afford local housing? So they
drive in every week? There's obviously something wrong there. There's
also loads of people still living at home with their parents...

Promote working from home...

Promote flexible working...

Make "green" cars more affordable (green cars are beyond the reach of
ordinary folk).

Speaking of green, why do police come and crush those mini bikes, or
untaxed cars? They've cost the planet lots of resources to produce.
We're talking about green and recycling, why aren't they being sold on?

Lets get more people off the roads too - the criminals, the drug
dealers, the accident prone, the incompetent - Im sure there's a few
million there...

How about promoting car sharing? There's this website called liftshare!

Better transport links, so trains actually get to places before 9am with
decent bus links to the local communities?


Bikes are in there, but I'll leave that upto someone else about how to
promote bike - and no demote car use...

Cya
Simon

 

[Clive George]

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

> Promote working from home...
>
> Promote flexible working...

Especially for those whose jobs can cope with it - education of management
may be required.

> Speaking of green, why do police come and crush those mini bikes, or
> untaxed cars? They've cost the planet lots of resources to produce. We're
> talking about green and recycling, why aren't they being sold on?

There's an oversupply of cars at the moment - see the price of second hand
ones. Removing a few from the pile won't make any difference to that.
Crushing makes a much more impressive statement than simply selling on -
since it's intended to be a deterrent, this is important.

> How about promoting car sharing? There's this website called liftshare!

Are you on it? With your regular commute, you would seem ideal to provide
lifts to people, maybe with some informal petrol money swapping - you did
say cash was tight, so this would seem a good way to help with this.

> Better transport links, so trains actually get to places before 9am with
> decent bus links to the local communities?

Re the 9am thing - once again, that's just your management being ****.

(I take it you're not good and/or valued enough to have room to
negotiate...)

> Bikes are in there, but I'll leave that upto someone else about how to
> promote bike - and no demote car use...

This is uk.rec.cycling - promoting bikes is what goes on here. The rest is
probably OT. You could always start a new thread in uk.transport, which is
probably a more relevant newsgroup for what you want to discuss. (but don't
crosspost to this ng...)

cheers,
clive

 

[Simon Dean]

Clive George wrote:

> (Normally posting something like the above would be followed swiftly by
> him claiming not to be a troll, and that people's views should be
> challenged and he should be listened to and not ignored by the evil urc
> clique. I wonder if he'll do the same again?)
>
> cheers,
> clive

I havent seen anything troll like in his behaviour. He's having a
discussion. It might not be on topic, but I don't think he, (or me)
bought up car use... It was already there...

Cya
Simon

 

[Clive George]

"Simon Dean" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George wrote:
>
>> (Normally posting something like the above would be followed swiftly by
>> him claiming not to be a troll, and that people's views should be
>> challenged and he should be listened to and not ignored by the evil urc
>> clique. I wonder if he'll do the same again?)
>
> I havent seen anything troll like in his behaviour. He's having a
> discussion. It might not be on topic, but I don't think he, (or me) bought
> up car use... It was already there...

Mmm, right. Guess I must have missed his posting history since he started
here. He's not interested in discussing bikes at all, yet continues to post
here. I wonder why?

clive

 

[Simon Dean]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:45:05 +0000, Simon Dean <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Simon Dean <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Ian Smith wrote:
>>>>> which
>>>>> enables you to pursue your genealogy and whatnot recreation. You've
>>>>> decided the value to you of your car use is worth the small cost to
>>>>> you and the larger cost to global society.
>>>> I have taken the most economically, socially, and mentally rewarding
>>>> method of transport for me at the current time.
>>> "For me" - I think that's what I've been saying for the last n posts -
>>> you've chosen a lifestyle that benefits from unconstrained car use.
>> That's fundamentally different to your previous point... Previously
>> you've said I've chosen car use.
>
> You have.
>
>> I chose a lifestyle, well, I still say I need a lifestyle cos I'd like
>> to see anybody function happily on two hours spare time an evening, so
>> yes, I choose a lifestyle that demands car use.
>
> So it's a choice.
>
> I function on a little less than that, I think. What difference does
> that make?

We're all different. Like how some of us demand more sleep than
others... It's not a choice to sleep longer, but a need. Just like some
of us need more time of an evening.

>
>> Don't judge everybody on your standards...
>
> Which is pretty rich when you've just laid down your decision that
> life's not worth living unless you get two hours spare time every day
> as being a universal standard that everyone requires ("I'd like to see
> ANYBODY ..." my emphasis).

Ok, sometimes I say the wrong words... My best way of explaining my
situation, you're your own boss, Im my own boss. You and Me, we're both
intelligent, and we make the choices we need in life to function, hence
that "line in the sand" I talked about in another post.

We do what we have to survive, and Im not going to argue for excessive
car use where there are viable alternatives, and Im not going to argue
against public transport or cycling. You do what you want/need to do,
within reason.

We all have our own needs, our own requirements, and it is up to us to
meet those the best and most practical ways we know how.... to be
continued...

>
> I'm yet to see where I've made a judgement. Perhaps you coudl remind
> me?
>

.... continued ... without someone bleating down your neck how you've
chosen something, or you're destroying the environment, without the
accusations that you're ignoring the alternative, or that you need to do
this, or you could do this, or why don't you do that. Maybe not
judgements par se. You've been trying to get me to commit to saying that
my car use is out of want rather than any particular need ... that then
reinforces the stereotypical notion that drivers are selfish, only out
for number one, we sit in a bubble in our own world protected,
destroying the environment.

And all I say is, we're not all the same, we don't want to rape the
environment, at least come and meet me and understand my life before you
start any psychobabble and start saying I have choices...

If I say I need a car for my job, that should be the end of it. Of
course, whether I actually need *my* job is another matter... which is
why I say, it's circumstances.

If there's only one viable choice out of a possible ten due to odd
circumstances, is it still a choice?

Cya
Simon

 

[Simon Dean]

Clive George wrote:

>
> This is uk.rec.cycling - promoting bikes is what goes on here. The rest
> is probably OT. You could always start a new thread in uk.transport,
> which is probably a more relevant newsgroup for what you want to
> discuss. (but don't crosspost to this ng...)
>
> cheers,
> clive

And before anyone calls me a troll... to reiterate my position... I
never start a thread, I only respond to accusations about car drivers
where I feel justified... I like to promote fairness, tolerance and
understand. I feel we all have a lot to offer each other, but feel on
occasion there's a lot of bias here about the stereotypical car driver.
Hell though, I hate the stereotypical car driver

And I apologise for the number of posts...

Cya
Simon

 

[Simon Dean]

Clive George wrote:

> Mmm, right. Guess I must have missed his posting history since he
> started here. He's not interested in discussing bikes at all, yet
> continues to post here. I wonder why?
>
> clive

Maybe he's a closet cyclist, like me.

I used to cycle all the time to school when I was younger. My parents
made me sell it to get a car. I actually wanted both, but there you go.
I liked that bike. Never be another one like it, and I can't remember
what the hell it was.

But even back then, I was petrified to ride on the road. Thought I
looked like a twit with a helmet on... I recognise the good they do, but
I'm very self concious. There's a lot of things I "can't do".

I desperately want to get another bike, I know friends who have bikes
etc, and I think it would be a good thing and would help with fitness.

But Im still petrified about riding on the road.

And I still hate hats.

Cya
Simon

 

[Clive George]

"Simon Dean" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Clive George wrote:
>
>> Mmm, right. Guess I must have missed his posting history since he started
>> here. He's not interested in discussing bikes at all, yet continues to
>> post here. I wonder why?
>
> Maybe he's a closet cyclist, like me.

Maybe. You've made more effort than him though.

> I used to cycle all the time to school when I was younger. My parents made
> me sell it to get a car. I actually wanted both, but there you go. I liked
> that bike. Never be another one like it, and I can't remember what the
> hell it was.

I blame the parents Fortunately mine were never that foolish - I always
had the bike, and if I couldn't afford both, I'd keep the bike.

> But even back then, I was petrified to ride on the road. Thought I looked
> like a twit with a helmet on... I recognise the good they do, but I'm very
> self concious. There's a lot of things I "can't do".
>
> I desperately want to get another bike, I know friends who have bikes etc,
> and I think it would be a good thing and would help with fitness.
>
> But Im still petrified about riding on the road.
>
> And I still hate hats.

Excellent, something we _can_ help you with

You don't need a helmet for cycling. Maybe an idea if you're doing stuff
where you plan to fall off (eg MTB where if you don't fall off you're not
trying hard enough), but for regular use, they don't actually help.

(beware : helmets are the topic of major disagreement and flame wars. There
are people who say you simply must wear the things, but you can guess my
opinion of them...)

Riding on the road : it's not that hard. How good are you at book learning?
Go to your local library, and pick up a copy of Cyclecraft by John Franklin.
It's the definitive book on how to ride on the roads. If you read it and put
it's principles into practice, you'll be fine (and doing a lot better than
many riders :-( )

Basic things to remember :
People don't actually _want_ to run you over. It's messy and might dent the
car.
Make yourself visible, so people get the opportunity to not run you over.
Cowering in the gutter means people will try and slip past, and they might
get it wrong. If you're further out, they have to explicitly manoeuvre past
you, and if they're doing that, they'll give you more space. Obviously wear
appropriate lights/reflectives/whatever too.
Junctions, etc - you can drive a car. Just do the same on the bike - ie
observe, position appropriately, signal, etc.
Speed is your friend in traffic - the lower the speed difference between you
and motor traffic, the easier it is. Those of us who've been riding since
schooldays have an advantage here, but if you try, you'll get fitter

Getting a bike - ask for advice. It needn't be that much - even though some
people here have very flash kit, it's not necessary, and we probably know
how to get a decent bike for not much money at all (S/H is key).

Yes, it would help with fitness. This is a good thing.

cheers,
clive

 

[Anthony Jones]

Simon Dean wrote:
> But even back then, I was petrified to ride on the road. Thought I
> looked like a twit with a helmet on... I recognise the good they do, but
> I'm very self concious. There's a lot of things I "can't do".

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

Anthony

 

[Alan Holmes]

"Erik Sandblom" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Den 2007-02-12 23:58:39 skrev Simon Dean <[email protected]>:
>>
>>> When do the trains run to these stations?
>>
>> Right... I already answered that question....
>>
>> The one to work gets there at 9.05.... there isn't one earlier...
>
>
> This might not work for you, but I find the combination of bicycle and
> public transportation is very effective and cheap. You can cycle 5km in 15
> minutes, and 10km in half an hour.

True, 12 mph is not difficult, so if the OP lives just 12 miles from work,
he would probably complete the total journey in less time than messing about
with trains or buses.

Alan

 

[Alan Holmes]

"Simon Dean" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Simon Dean wrote on 12/02/2007 22:58 +0100:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How far is are the train stations from home/work? Not bus, train.
>>>
>>> About 2 miles from work...
>>>
>>> Half a mile from home...
>>>
>>
>> So three minutes by bicycle to the station from home and 10 minutes from
>> the station to work at a speed that would not even break a sweat in an
>> unfit cyclist.
>>
>
> Except you've conveniently snipped and missed the bit that the train
> arrives at the station at 9.05am... which is after my work start time...
>
> So still not possible

You could explain to your employer what the problems are, and arrage to
start a little later, and catch up in the evening by working a bit later!

Alan

 

[Alan Holmes]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Simon Dean wrote on 13/02/2007 06:59 +0100:
>>
>> Except you've conveniently snipped and missed the bit that the train
>> arrives at the station at 9.05am... which is after my work start time...
>>
>> So still not possible
>>
>
> Have you tried negotiating with your boss to arrive at 9:15 and leave 15
> minutes later? I doubt given your job that any sensible boss would have
> any objection?

You bounder, I've just said that!

Alan

 

[Alan Holmes]

"Simon Dean" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> Simon Dean wrote on 13/02/2007 06:59 +0100:
>>>
>>> Except you've conveniently snipped and missed the bit that the train
>>> arrives at the station at 9.05am... which is after my work start time...
>>>
>>> So still not possible
>>>
>>
>> Have you tried negotiating with your boss to arrive at 9:15 and leave 15
>> minutes later?
>
> Do you think Im intelligent? Do you give me any credit?
>
> If it's not happening, it's because it's not allowed...
>
>> I doubt given your job that any sensible boss would have any objection?
>
> Well, you make a glaringly obvious assertion there.

That you have a sensible boss?

Alan

 

[Alan Holmes]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:38:39 +0000, Simon Dean
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Ian Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Simon Dean <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Marz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As you say, most people choose not to be inconvenienced by PT. They
>>>>> choose the luxury of taking the car and the privlege of driving over
>>>>> the inconvenience of waiting for a bus. But now you've shifted from
>>>>> necessity to acceptable possibility.
>>>> Im sure a lot of people are in my position...
>>>>
>>>> We wouldn't mind taken public transport, or riding a bike, but:
>>>
>>> ... you've decided not to be inconvenienced by PT.
>>
>>Bullcrap!
>>
>>And as I already said, I NEED a car for my job.
>
> Well, then, if you do not like owning a car, change your job.

To what?

Road sweeping?

Alan

 

[Alan Holmes]

"Matt B" <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Daniel Barlow wrote:
>> Matt B wrote:
>>>> I'm not free to have my house burglary in Manchester investigated by
>>>> Strathclyde police just because I don't like the local service. Nor
>>>> can
>>>> I register with a GP or an NHS dentist in Liverpool if I live in
>>>> London. Heck, I can't even get my bins emptied by Westminster if I
>>>> live
>>>> in Camden. I DEMAND MY FREE CHOICE OF PUBLIC AMENITY PROVISION
>>> Eh? How do those points relate to ones right to drive? The road is
>>> there - you can walk on it, cycle on it, why not be allowed to drive on
>>> it?
>>
>> You are allowed to drive on it - subject to various constraints such as
>> a requirement to demonstrate your competence at doing so (driving
>> licence) and to have made provision for some of the foreseeable effects
>> on other people if you should hit them while doing so (insurance). This
>> may have escaped your notice, judging by the tenor of some of your posts
>> ;-)
>
> So we agree then! Good Motoring is a matter for free choice.

Not neccessarily, if you live where I live, there is little public
transport, of course I could always opt to travel by taxi, but in that case
it would be much more economical to own my own car and use that.

Alan

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:41:58 +0000, Simon Dean <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:

> > I'm yet to see where I've made a judgement. Perhaps you coudl
> > remind me?
>
> ... continued ... without someone bleating down your neck how you've
> chosen something,

You have chosen. You've agreed you've chosen - you said it was
physically possible to do without the car, but you've chosen not to
(for reasons of economy to you, and the quantity of free time you
desire).

> or you're destroying the environment,

I don't think I've said that.

> without the accusations that you're ignoring the alternative,

You are (or at least, have discarded the alternatives).

> or that you need to do this, or you could do this, or why don't you
> do that. Maybe not judgements par se.

Exactly. I think it's actually called discussion. So far (if it's
any comfort) you're actually showing signs of maintaining rationality
longer than most of the I-drive-because-there's-no-alternative
apologists that show up. IMO.

> You've been trying to get me to commit to saying that
> my car use is out of want rather than any particular need.

Not really. I think you said that some time ago - you use it because
you believe it's your most economical mode, and you've chosen to
continue with the job you have but impose a requirement on yourself of
at least two hours free time per day. Neither of those fall into
'need' in my judgement.

In my experience, the people that actually need a motor vehicle for
their jobs (say, ambulance drivers, firemen, delivery drivers)
generally get one provided, often finely liveried. My job
occasionally requires use of a motor vehicle. I don't announce that
because my job needs a car I'll drive mine to work every day. When it
does, I normally drive one of the company vehicles, with 'site
inspection services' emblazoned down the side.

> If I say I need a car for my job, that should be the end of it.

No, this is a discussion group. If you say _anything_ here, it's up
for discussion. If you don't want it discussed, don't say it.

> If there's only one viable choice out of a possible ten due to odd
> circumstances, is it still a choice?

That depends on the value of 'viable'. I think you've all but
admitted that there are other options that I (and a good number of
other people) consider viable. As such, yes, I think it's still a
choice.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 13 Feb, Simon Dean <[email protected]> wrote:

> that then reinforces the stereotypical notion that drivers are
> selfish, only out for number one, we sit in a bubble in our own
> world protected, destroying the environment.

As an aside, I recently administered a travel survey at my place of
work. We were doing a relocation, and asked all staff "when we move
to XYZ, how do you expect to travel to work?"

The majority were going to drive, unsurprisingly. What was surprising
was that about half of the respondents that indicated driving didn't
simply do so, but added a to some degree defensive comment - "I'd love
to cycle but..." or "I can't walk because..." or "I'd need to get up
at x am to get the train" or some such. However, not one single
person that indicated cycle, train, bus or walk added any similar
comment.

So, whether cyclists have the notion or not, it seems a sizeable
proportion of motorists are at least somewhat defensive about their
choices.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[raisethe]

MattB's 'flame wars' or whatever they are called are like the dreadful
reality tv shows which you know are **** but you have to keep watchin'
for another 5 minutes, then another, until suddenly an hour or two has
gone by.

Please don't make any more posts on this topic, I want to use whats
left of my 2 hours free time to watch some rubbish telly.

To draw a line under this area, here are the key points.

1) Most people choose to travel by cars rather than other forms of
transport because they think this method is best for themselves /
their family.

2) Cars emit nasty fumes and block up roads to prevent other
travellers from progressing expeditiously.

3) Fuel should be taxed to whatever level is required to reduce miles
driven and hence emissions to a level which is acceptable.

4) Car drivers should endure road pricing to whatever level is
required to reduce congestion to the required level.

5) Harmful emissions caused by other human consumption (such as
domestic heating or apples that have been transported from South
Africa) should be subjected to the emissions tax on an equitable basis
as that on fuel.

6) Cycling rules.

Thank you. Goodnight.

 

[Simon Dean]

Ian Smith wrote:

>
> That depends on the value of 'viable'. I think you've all but
> admitted that there are other options that I (and a good number of
> other people) consider viable. As such, yes, I think it's still a
> choice.
>

Exactly. You consider it viable, but I don't. Im in a different
situation to you in a number of ways you can't appreciate, yet you're
discussing how viable another course of action is for me because it's OK
for you.

It's taken a long time for me to prove you are using your own
experiences and knowledge to critique others.

ie, "In my experience, the people that actually need a motor vehicle for
their jobs (say, ambulance drivers, firemen, delivery drivers)
generally get one provided"

Well, I have no desire in justifiying my needs to you, but I will
enlighten your misconception that the world isn't as rosy as you think.
Employers don't safeguard and bend over backwards to help their staff at
all costs.

A lot of employers make the rules, are inflexible, they don't have
company cars and expect employees to use their own vehicles for frequent
travel. There are many people in that situation.

Cya
Simon