Preparedness for when

thriftwizard

GQ, you may need a bigger shed on your allotment...

Camper you can tow by bike!

nuatha

thriftwizard wrote: »

GQ, you may need a bigger shed on your allotment...

Camper you can tow by bike!

Northumberland is too hilly
Northumberland is too hilly
Northumberland is too hilly

But that is seriously tempting

jk0

That bike camper looks so cute, but 45kg though! Presumably that's without any of your camping gear in it.

[Deleted User]

Of course, you could also tow that mini camper behind a 125cc or larger motorcycle.

Frugalsod

jk0 wrote: »

That bike camper looks so cute, but 45kg though! Presumably that's without any of your camping gear in it.

Yes but the weight is not that much of a problem when you have wheels. Many cargo bikes can carry up to 150 Kg of gear, and that is for one person to cycle with. 45 Kg is lightweight by comparison.

GreyQueen

thriftwizard wrote: »

GQ, you may need a bigger shed on your allotment...

Camper you can tow by bike!

:T Oooooh, covetable!

I spent a big chunk of yestereve on the place with no name website, reading Shane's story about evacuating from New Orleans the day before the hurricane struck, with his wife driving their second car and him driving their two children, the youngest 3 months old.

I've read a few books about Hurricane Katrina, including a memoir from someone who was trapped in the Lower Ninth Ward, with her family, so wasn't coming to this stone cold. What struck me is his description of how, once they had decided to evacuate to family in Houston, it took two adults 12 hours to pack their two cars and two children.

He freely admits that they were disorganised, and even important things like his social security card were unfindable, but it still messes with my head that it took so long. And that they then, being so exhausted, had to sleep for a few hours before taking off in the early morning. This loss of hours in that situation nearly undid them.

It's chilling to read how tired they were, as a 5.5 hr journey in normal circs took 15.5 hrs in these ones and how they barely dared stop for more than fuel and comfort breaks as they realised traffic was solidifying only a few miles behind them in what he memorably describes as a 'freezing wave'.

One thing I have found credible to believe would happen, in some post-apocalyptic fiction, is that cars would be abandoned all over the place. In James Lovegrove's Untied Britain (excellent read) the M25 is effectively a ring of steel around London due to abandoned, fuelless cars, a perma-jam of rusting metal.

[Deleted User]

I think travel anywhere on the existing roadways system would be impossible as there would be derelict vehicles absolutely everywhere, the only ways to travel would be by air (if there was fuel available) by sea or river/canal if there was fuel available or if you had a sailing boat or on foot/horseback/bicycle and even then getting through the abandoned vehicles would be extremely hazardous as you'd not know who or what was in there. It always amazed me with the 'Survivors' programmes (the original ones) that the roads were deserted and travel was not impeeded in the initial aftermath and then travel with horse/ horse and cart was easily achieved afterwards. I still think the safest and possibly fastest (in the long run) way to travel would be on foot and away from the roads crosscountry.

GreyQueen

Yes, it was obviously a lot easier to film on empty roads than set-dress them with a lot of abandoned cars. I have the loan of series 3 of the original Survivors, so will watch that soon, have watched series 1 and 2 as library loans, don't remember watching them at the time the were broadcast, probably not chosen as suitable viewing by the parents.

One thing I find laughable is the idea that urban areas would be drivable/ habitable in a post SHTF + several years situation. In my job, I'm fielding reports of highway collapses, water main bursts, all sorts of infrastructural mayhem. There is a lot of work going on to keep the roads in a sufficient condition to be passable, even though we could all do with fewer potholes.

There are maritime divers inspecting the footings of the bridges, even though we're an awful long way inland. There is dredging going on, weirs, pumps, trees falling over rivers and being cut and hauled out, inspections of trees to pick up problems in hopes that they won't go BLAMM!! in the storms and all sorts of stuff which is largely unnoticed by Jo(e) Public.

In antiquity, people did not live in the part of the valley where the city has stood for a thousand years. Because it would have been a marsh. It would revert to its natural state without human intervention. If left untended, it would probably also become a malarial marsh, in the fullness of time. Lots of people don't understand that southern and south eastern England are perfectly acceptable habitats for the malaria-bearing mosquito, and it used to be a big problem here.

Perplexed_Pineapple

Loving the bike-camper combinations :cool:

Frugalsod wrote: »

Yes but the weight is not that much of a problem when you have wheels. Many cargo bikes can carry up to 150 Kg of gear, and that is for one person to cycle with. 45 Kg is lightweight by comparison.

Except on the hills. 45kg on a hill is still 45kg, wheels or not. Ideal for somewhere flat - I see they are made in Denmark, mostly flat so far as I remember.
I'd favour keeping it as light as possible - a bike with maybe some panniers would be enough to carry a lightweight shelter like a tarp or a small tent. The advantage of keeping the weght low would be if you had to go across country - farmers have an annoying habit of breaking the countryside up with hedges, fences, stiles and things like that. It could be a big advantage to be able to lift your transport over that sort of small obstruction. Roads might be blocked by abandoned cars or fallen trees and if going around wasn't possible, going over might avoid a long diversion. I know I can lift my pushbike over a stile or a low fence and if you were bugging out with a partner or older child you could work as a team to lift a bike over quite high fences or walls. Good luck doing that with a cargo bike or a folding camper :rotfl:

ETA - of course some are less able bodied and would probably be better sticking with a motorised solution.

nuatha

MrsLurcherwalker wrote: »

I think travel anywhere on the existing roadways system would be impossible as there would be derelict vehicles absolutely everywhere, the only ways to travel would be by air (if there was fuel available) by sea or river/canal if there was fuel available or if you had a sailing boat or on foot/horseback/bicycle and even then getting through the abandoned vehicles would be extremely hazardous as you'd not know who or what was in there. It always amazed me with the 'Survivors' programmes (the original ones) that the roads were deserted and travel was not impeeded in the initial aftermath and then travel with horse/ horse and cart was easily achieved afterwards. I still think the safest and possibly fastest (in the long run) way to travel would be on foot and away from the roads crosscountry.

When the original Survivors programme was made under half of the population had access to a privately owned car (approx 44% of households had a car) with 19 million cars registered (85 % households, 32 million cars in 2014) but there'd also been a serious decline in annual mileage in the early to mid 70s after the 70% increase in the cost of oil in 1973. In fact there were many experts suggesting this was the peak of private car ownership and that it was a waste or resources spending any more money on roads and car infrastructure.

It may be that the more remote rural areas would have few abandoned vehicles, but I would expect towns and villages to have completely blocked roads. It may be that one of the easiest ways to navigate distances inland would be by following railway tracks.
One option would be to return to the early railroads - horses towing wagons along the rails.