Cyclists not using hand signals

A._Badger

rotate wrote: »

Perhaps Mr Flashman and his ilk will be perfect cyclists when petrol reaches £3+/litre in a couple of years.Or better still they can sit in their rusting cars making Brm Brm noises and thinking about how they are going to sort out all the cyclists who will be taking over the roads

Thank you for perfectly illustrating my earlier point about cyclists' habitual self-righteousness and sanctimoniousness.

janninew

rotate wrote: »

Perhaps Mr Flashman and his ilk will be perfect cyclists when petrol reaches £3+/litre in a couple of years.Or better still they can sit in their rusting cars making Brm Brm noises and thinking about how they are going to sort out all the cyclists who will be taking over the roads

Can you imagine if everybody stopped using cars and started cycling - would that be a good idea? How much do cyclists contribute to the economy and how much to car drivers contribute? If car drivers stopped using cars and stopped paying for petrol, vehicle excise duty etc the Government would have to claw back the missing money from somewhere! There is no way they give a stuff about the environment or people's health, they care about how much money they can take off us.

thelawnet

A._Badger wrote: »

Thank you for perfectly illustrating my earlier point about cyclists' habitual self-righteousness and sanctimoniousness.

I think it's a reaction to the dribbling morons saying they shouldn't be on the road.

thelawnet

janninew wrote: »

Can you imagine if everybody stopped using cars and started cycling - would that be a good idea? How much do cyclists contribute to the economy and how much to car drivers contribute?

Cyclists contribute a lot.

If you're talking about purely through the act of cycling along the road, not that much, but it's far from as simple as you imagine.

For instance it's unattractive for a motorist to shop in a town centre, because parking is likely to be expensive, scarce and/or time-consuming. On the other hand, cyclists are unlikely to want to cycle along a busy fast road to an out-of-town shopping centre.

In addition, because it's more convenient to do so, cyclists shop more often and therefore spend more overall than motorists.

You can read the study here: http://www.ocs.polito.it/biblioteca/mobilita/EconomicSignificance.pdf

If car drivers stopped using cars and stopped paying for petrol, vehicle excise duty etc the Government would have to claw back the missing money from somewhere! There is no way they give a stuff about the environment or people's health, they care about how much money they can take off us.

Well yes that's true. But it's rather unrealistic to suppose that driving would stop entirely.

60% of ALL journeys of 1 to 2 miles are currently made by car, which shows what a lot of stpid, selfish drivers there are in this country.

Go up to 2 to 5 miles and that figure jumps to 80%

Most of these journeys would be much better (quicker, better for personal health, congestion, society) completed by bicycle.

BUT even if that were so, 85% of total car MILEAGE is of journeys 5 miles or more. So even if you cut the journeys of under 5 miles by half, you'd only reduce fuel duty by around 5%, and VED not at all. In the Netherlands, where about 26% of journeys are done by bicycle (cf. less than 2% in the UK), and there is a large investment in cycling infrastructure, still 36% of journeys under 7.5km (just less than 5 miles) are by car.

It's a pretty ludicrous to argue that motorists need to keep driving everywhere in order to prop up the budget. If you are that concerned, just send the government a cheque....

janninew

Thanks for the info, haven't really got time to sit and read the report at the moment, its hard to read due to the size and colour of text, but I'll try later.

I'm not sure why you call motorists stupid and selfish for driving, they are paying for the privilege, have a licence and are entitled to drive on the roads. Insulting other road users does nothing for the debate, I agree fully with cycling (my husband cycles to work everyday) which has saved us money and helped his fitness levels, we aren't contributing as much to the economy now as we only have 1 car and don't use as much petrol. My husband cycling to work doesn't benefit the economy at all, he doesn't go shopping or spend money, just cycles to work and back.

custardy

janninew wrote: »

Can you imagine if everybody stopped using cars and started cycling - would that be a good idea? How much do cyclists contribute to the economy and how much to car drivers contribute? If car drivers stopped using cars and stopped paying for petrol, vehicle excise duty etc the Government would have to claw back the missing money from somewhere! There is no way they give a stuff about the environment or people's health, they care about how much money they can take off us.

isnt that the same argument smokers,drinkers etc use?
As a cyclist I run 2 cars(though not at the same time),3 bikes (which cost a fair bit to maintain due to the miles I do/fussiness of their owner)
I pay for gym and personal training sessions
I do various artial arts
I pay council tax etc
I am fit enough to go out and do loads of stuff with my boy etc

Or I could whine about the cost of running a car,make excuses and slate anyone who alternates from that choice.

custardy

thelawnet wrote: »

Cyclists contribute a lot.

If you're talking about purely through the act of cycling along the road, not that much, but it's far from as simple as you imagine.

For instance it's unattractive for a motorist to shop in a town centre, because parking is likely to be expensive, scarce and/or time-consuming. On the other hand, cyclists are unlikely to want to cycle along a busy fast road to an out-of-town shopping centre.

In addition, because it's more convenient to do so, cyclists shop more often and therefore spend more overall than motorists.

You can read the study here: http://www.ocs.polito.it/biblioteca/mobilita/EconomicSignificance.pdf



Well yes that's true. But it's rather unrealistic to suppose that driving would stop entirely.

60% of ALL journeys of 1 to 2 miles are currently made by car, which shows what a lot of stpid, selfish drivers there are in this country.

Go up to 2 to 5 miles and that figure jumps to 80%

Most of these journeys would be much better (quicker, better for personal health, congestion, society) completed by bicycle.

BUT even if that were so, 85% of total car MILEAGE is of journeys 5 miles or more. So even if you cut the journeys of under 5 miles by half, you'd only reduce fuel duty by around 5%, and VED not at all. In the Netherlands, where about 26% of journeys are done by bicycle (cf. less than 2% in the UK), and there is a large investment in cycling infrastructure, still 36% of journeys under 7.5km (just less than 5 miles) are by car.

It's a pretty ludicrous to argue that motorists need to keep driving everywhere in order to prop up the budget. If you are that concerned, just send the government a cheque....

fits me perfectly. often do daily shops on the way home through town on the bike.
Peckams deli being a regular stop :cool:
or do a big shop out of town in the car, when its bigger multipack stuff.

custardy

janninew wrote: »

Thanks for the info, haven't really got time to sit and read the report at the moment, its hard to read due to the size and colour of text, but I'll try later.

I'm not sure why you call motorists stupid and selfish for driving, they are paying for the privilege, have a licence and are entitled to drive on the roads. Insulting other road users does nothing for the debate, I agree fully with cycling (my husband cycles to work everyday) which has saved us money and helped his fitness levels, we aren't contributing as much to the economy now as we only have 1 car and don't use as much petrol. My husband cycling to work doesn't benefit the economy at all, he doesn't go shopping or spend money, just cycles to work and back.

so all your money is building up in your accounts nicely?

thelawnet

janninew wrote: »

Thanks for the info, haven't really got time to sit and read the report at the moment, its hard to read due to the size and colour of text, but I'll try later.

Here's the opening paragraph:

The bicycle has an economic value, although this comes in many shapes and sizes. This could include the New York manager who gains expensive travelling time as (s)he manoeuvres his/her bicycle through the busy city traffic; or the small farmer who, thanks to his/her bicycle, can transport his/her wares to the market in Dar es Salaam; or the ex-heart patient in Amsterdam who keeps his/her hard-won health with the help of his/her bicycle; or the City Council in South America searching for measures to combat air pollution, for which the bicycle could be an excellent alternative to the cars polluting the city. Whichever way you look at it, the bicycle has a high economic value. However, that value is often underestimated and seldom corroborated.

I'm not sure why you call motorists stupid and selfish for driving, they are paying for the privilege, have a licence and are entitled to drive on the roads.

There are lots of things we are entitled to do, it doesn't make them sociably desirable.

Insulting other road users does nothing for the debate, I agree fully with cycling (my husband cycles to work everyday) which has saved us money and helped his fitness levels, we aren't contributing as much to the economy now as we only have 1 car and don't use as much petrol. My husband cycling to work doesn't benefit the economy at all, he doesn't go shopping or spend money, just cycles to work and back.

Perhaps you should read that report....

You (or your husband) saving money, improving fitness and reducing congestion are all things that benefit the economy. It's not necessary to be directly burning petrol to help the economy. In fact, it's pretty obvious that money not spent on fuel can be spent on other things, which will perhaps benefit the economy more than sending $120/barrel off to the Saudi jihadists.

Harry_Flashman

thelawnet wrote: »

There are lots of things we are entitled to do, it doesn't make them sociably desirable.

Driving is very socially desirable. Life without it would be Hell.