Don't be Anti, be Pro

The other view point said:

Why are so many cyclists anti other road users?

It doesnt help the cause. If they were to put as much effort in
promoting cycling etc as they do in hating other road users, i'm sure
there would be progress.

I'm sure there would. So tell us about a recent cycle ride you went on
and enjoyed.

-dan

In article <[email hidden]>, The
other view point, there is one you know...
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Why are so many cyclists anti other road users?

It doesnt help the cause. If they were to put as much effort in
promoting cycling etc as they do in hating other road users, i'm sure
there would be progress.

And cycling is not the greenest for getting around, green than a car,
yes...Try walking,

Then add the cost for the extra time spent getting anywhere. Your time
may not be worth anything, but for most people it's a fairly important
factor. Cycling also consumes less food energy per mile than walking.

"The other view point, there is one you know..."
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Why are so many cyclists anti other road users?

It doesnt help the cause. If they were to put as much effort in
promoting cycling etc as they do in hating other road users, i'm sure
there would be progress.

And cycling is not the greenest for getting around, green than a car,
yes...Try walking, that's the greenest.

I Thought that cycling was more energy efficient per km travelled than even
walking.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

Daniel Barlow said:

The other view point said:

Why are so many cyclists anti other road users?

Quoted message said:

It doesnt help the cause. If they were to put as much effort in
promoting cycling etc as they do in hating other road users, i'm sure
there would be progress.

I'm sure there would. So tell us about a recent cycle ride you went on
and enjoyed.

-dan

It was about 12 miles, along the cycle path with my children (quite
good the cycle paths along the coast, doing well around here for
them), yes we had bells, helmets and a puncture repair kit, yes
pedestrians are a pain on cycle paths, but if we tink the bell gently
(20 mtrs or so) they move over.

Only had a mile on the roads, but they have speed bumps so alls
well ;-)

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, The
other view point, there is one you know...
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Why are so many cyclists anti other road users?

Quoted message said:

It doesnt help the cause. If they were to put as much effort in
promoting cycling etc as they do in hating other road users, i'm sure
there would be progress.

Quoted message said:

And cycling is not the greenest for getting around, green than a car,
yes...Try walking,

Then add the cost for the extra time spent getting anywhere. Your time
may not be worth anything, but for most people it's a fairly important
factor. Cycling also consumes less food energy per mile than walking.

Time is relevant only to the individual, maybe that's why they use the
car?

Maybe cyclists have more time than drivers!

Driving consumes less food energy per mile than walking.

Adrian Boliston said:

"The other view point, there is one you know..."<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Why are so many cyclists anti other road users?

Quoted message said:

It doesnt help the cause. If they were to put as much effort in
promoting cycling etc as they do in hating other road users, i'm sure
there would be progress.

Quoted message said:

And cycling is not the greenest for getting around, green than a car,
yes...Try walking, that's the greenest.

I Thought that cycling was more energy efficient per km travelled than even
walking.

cheers adrianwww.boliston.co.uk

It is, but not greener :-)

maybe a child's scooter in adult size would be the better one, cheaper
to make

"The other view point, there is one you know..."
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Why are so many cyclists anti other road users?

It doesnt help the cause. If they were to put as much effort in
promoting cycling etc as they do in hating other road users, i'm sure
there would be progress.

And cycling is not the greenest for getting around, green than a car,
yes...Try walking, that's the greenest. But be careful of the cyclists
on the pavements and not stopping at crossings though ;-)

I think you'll find that many who post here on the newsgroup are motorists
as well as cyclists (as well as pedestrians). The cyclists I know are
distinctly *not* anti-motorist (or anti-pedestrian) but most certainly are
anti-petrol-headed-tosspot behaviour by too many in charge of a motor
vehicle.

The other view point said:

Adrian Boliston said:

"The other view point, there is one you
know..."<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Why are so many cyclists anti other road users?

Quoted message said:

It doesnt help the cause. If they were to put as much effort in
promoting cycling etc as they do in hating other road users, i'm sure
there would be progress.

Your experience is different to mine. Most cyclists are also "other road
users" on occasion.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And cycling is not the greenest for getting around, green than a car,
yes...Try walking, that's the greenest.

I Thought that cycling was more energy efficient per km travelled than
even walking.

cheers adrianwww.boliston.co.uk

It is, but not greener :-)

By what measure?

Quoted message said:

maybe a child's scooter in adult size would be the better one, cheaper
to make

Cheaper to make implies greener?

It seems like you're thinking about it in terms of energy for materials and
manufacture? Assuming a bike is well used I'd imagine it has very little
impact over its lifetime compared to the alternatives.

--
Jim

"The other view point, there is one you know..."
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, The
other view point, there is one you know...
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Why are so many cyclists anti other road users?

Quoted message said:

It doesnt help the cause. If they were to put as much effort in
promoting cycling etc as they do in hating other road users, i'm sure
there would be progress.

Quoted message said:

And cycling is not the greenest for getting around, green than a car,
yes...Try walking,

Then add the cost for the extra time spent getting anywhere. Your time
may not be worth anything, but for most people it's a fairly important
factor. Cycling also consumes less food energy per mile than walking.

Time is relevant only to the individual, maybe that's why they use the
car?

Maybe cyclists have more time than drivers!

Driving consumes less food energy per mile than walking.

Food is more or less carbon neutral, whereas driving is most certainly not.
I get this stupid argument from car driving workmates that I breathe out
more CO2 than they do sitting in their cars! The same carbon atom I breathe
out simply goes round and round the ecosphere, whereas their exhaust is
emitting carbon atoms that have been locked underground for millions of
years.

If I took your advice and walked the 12 mile round trip to work I would have
to get up at 0330 all year round, set off at 0400 and walk at my top speed
of 4 mph for 3 hours non stop. I would get to work at 0700, do an 8 hour
shift, leave at 1500 and not get home until 1800. Every day would be 6 hours
of solid high speed walking. Ridiculous.

I'd have an hour to eat my tea, then get into bed for 1930, to get my 8
hours in. At present I get up at 0545 and get home at 1545.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

In article <1180181694.657652.210640
@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, The
other view point, there is one you know...
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Why are so many cyclists anti other road users?

Quoted message said:

It doesnt help the cause. If they were to put as much effort in
promoting cycling etc as they do in hating other road users, i'm sure
there would be progress.

Quoted message said:

And cycling is not the greenest for getting around, green than a car,
yes...Try walking,

Then add the cost for the extra time spent getting anywhere. Your time
may not be worth anything, but for most people it's a fairly important
factor. Cycling also consumes less food energy per mile than walking.

Time is relevant only to the individual, maybe that's why they use the
car?

Maybe cyclists have more time than drivers!

I work beside a friend who lives along the road. I can get to
work quicker on the bike than he can in his car. I've raced him
a few times, we have strict rules i.e. no breaking the law as in
speeding for him and going through red lights for us both.

Quoted message said:

Driving consumes less food energy per mile than walking.

Unless you are using a car that burns vegetable oil. :-)

--
Cheers
the.Mark

On 26/05/2007 14:29, Simon Mason said,

Quoted message said:

Food is more or less carbon neutral, whereas driving is most certainly not.
I get this stupid argument from car driving workmates that I breathe out
more CO2 than they do sitting in their cars!

Not to mention the sheer amount of energy and emissions required to make
the car in the first place, compared to that required to make a bike...

Apparently it is better for the environment for me to throw away my 11
year old car that spends it's time sitting on my drive (about 3000 miles
a year) and buy a brand new car. Never worked that one out myself!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Am Sat, 26 May 2007 14:35:14 +0100 schrieb the.Mark:

Quoted message said:

In article <1180181694.657652.210640
@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, The
other view point, there is one you know...
[email hidden] says...

> Why are so many cyclists anti other road users?

> It doesnt help the cause. If they were to put as much effort in
> promoting cycling etc as they do in hating other road users, i'm sure
> there would be progress.

> And cycling is not the greenest for getting around, green than a car,
> yes...Try walking,

Then add the cost for the extra time spent getting anywhere. Your time
may not be worth anything, but for most people it's a fairly important
factor. Cycling also consumes less food energy per mile than walking.

Time is relevant only to the individual, maybe that's why they use the
car?

Maybe cyclists have more time than drivers!

I work beside a friend who lives along the road. I can get to
work quicker on the bike than he can in his car. I've raced him
a few times, we have strict rules i.e. no breaking the law as in
speeding for him and going through red lights for us both.

I think the limit up to which the bike is faster than a car in urban areas,
is in average around 5 miles - if I remember correctly the findings of a
research project about that topic. This takes into account the time that
the car driver needs to find a place to park and to walk to the
destination.

Andreas

Paul Boyd said:

On 26/05/2007 14:29, Simon Mason said,

Quoted message said:

Food is more or less carbon neutral, whereas driving is most certainly not.
I get this stupid argument from car driving workmates that I breathe out
more CO2 than they do sitting in their cars!

Not to mention the sheer amount of energy and emissions required to make
the car in the first place, compared to that required to make a bike...

Apparently it is better for the environment for me to throw away my 11
year old car that spends it's time sitting on my drive (about 3000 miles
a year) and buy a brand new car. Never worked that one out myself!

--
Paul Boydhttp://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

That argument is usually only valid in situations where a more
"average"
mileage - more than 10k/year, probably - is done. Studies have
suggested
80% of the lifetime energy consumed by a car is in fuel costs. For
your
car, because of the lower mileage, this is no longer true, and it
makes
sense to run the car for longer. It probably won't be as worn out as
a
car that's done 2-3x the mileage in the same period, either.

My car is similar - will be 11yo in December. It has 71K miles on the
clock,
though at the moment I think I do about 5K miles/year. I may consider
a
larger (but as fuel efficient, hybrid) vehicle as a replacement. One
problem
is when I take the car on the back of the car and drive at motorway
speeds
I am averaging 36mpg. I would typically expect that to be more like
50mpg.
In a larger car I could have the bike slung in the back and fuel
economy would
not suffer.

Simon

On Sat, 26 May 2007 13:45:38 +0100, "wafflycat"

w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

I think you'll find that many who post here on the newsgroup are motorists
as well as cyclists (as well as pedestrians). The cyclists I know are
distinctly *not* anti-motorist (or anti-pedestrian) but most certainly are
anti-petrol-headed-tosspot behaviour by too many in charge of a motor
vehicle.

Speak for yourself.

When I'm walking I'm anti motorist.

When I'm cycling I'm anti motorist.

When I'm driving I'm anti *other* motorist.

At least I'm consistent.

Simon Mason wrote on 26/05/2007 14:29 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Food is more or less carbon neutral, whereas driving is most certainly not.

Driving certainly isn't but food isn't that carbon neutral either.
Fertiliser manufacture is a big source of CO2 emissions and by the time
you've added on the agricultural machinery fuel consumption to grow and
harvest it and the transport to get it to the shops its a long way from
neutral. IIRC it works out somewhere around 10% of the emissions of a
typical car per mile (excluding the CO2 from the foodstuff digestion as
that has come from the atmosphere in the first place).

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Am Sat, 26 May 2007 14:35:14 +0100 schrieb the.Mark:

Quoted message said:

In article <1180181694.657652.210640
@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

On 26 May, 12:30, Rob Morley <[email hidden]> wrote:
> In article <[email hidden]>, The
> other view point, there is one you know...
> [email hidden] says...
>
> > Why are so many cyclists anti other road users?
>
> > It doesnt help the cause. If they were to put as much effort in
> > promoting cycling etc as they do in hating other road users, i'm sure
> > there would be progress.
>
> > And cycling is not the greenest for getting around, green than a car,
> > yes...Try walking,
>
> Then add the cost for the extra time spent getting anywhere. Your time
> may not be worth anything, but for most people it's a fairly important
> factor. Cycling also consumes less food energy per mile than walking.

Time is relevant only to the individual, maybe that's why they use the
car?

Maybe cyclists have more time than drivers!

I work beside a friend who lives along the road. I can get to
work quicker on the bike than he can in his car. I've raced him
a few times, we have strict rules i.e. no breaking the law as in
speeding for him and going through red lights for us both.

I think the limit up to which the bike is faster than a car in urban areas,
is in average around 5 miles - if I remember correctly the findings of a
research project about that topic. This takes into account the time that
the car driver needs to find a place to park and to walk to the
destination.

Andreas

There is a car park where we work.
--
Cheers
the.Mark

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Mason wrote on 26/05/2007 14:29 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Food is more or less carbon neutral, whereas driving is most certainly
not.

Driving certainly isn't but food isn't that carbon neutral either.
Fertiliser manufacture is a big source of CO2 emissions and by the time
you've added on the agricultural machinery fuel consumption to grow and
harvest it and the transport to get it to the shops its a long way from
neutral. IIRC it works out somewhere around 10% of the emissions of a
typical car per mile (excluding the CO2 from the foodstuff digestion as
that has come from the atmosphere in the first place).

I used to have an allotment and used no artificial fertilisers on it. I
suppose even that wasn't perfect either as the seed had to be transported by
lorry.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net

Tony Raven said:

Simon Mason wrote on 26/05/2007 14:29 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Food is more or less carbon neutral, whereas driving is most certainly
not.

Driving certainly isn't but food isn't that carbon neutral either.
Fertiliser manufacture is a big source of CO2 emissions and by the time
you've added on the agricultural machinery fuel consumption to grow and
harvest it and the transport to get it to the shops its a long way from
neutral. IIRC it works out somewhere around 10% of the emissions of a
typical car per mile (excluding the CO2 from the foodstuff digestion as
that has come from the atmosphere in the first place).

And beef cattle farts are adding considerably to global warming, not to
mention the wasteful use of protein feeding them, cutting down rain
forest to grow it (and them) etc etc

On 2007-05-26, Simon Proven <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]

Quoted message said:

My car is similar - will be 11yo in December. It has 71K miles on the
clock, though at the moment I think I do about 5K miles/year. I may
consider a larger (but as fuel efficient, hybrid) vehicle as a
replacement.

Not much point in a hybrid unless you drive in towns a lot where the
regenerative braking does save some fuel. But who wants to drive around
in towns.

Quoted message said:

One problem is when I take the car on the back of the car and drive at
motorway speeds I am averaging 36mpg.

I would typically expect that to be more like 50mpg. In a larger car
I could have the bike slung in the back and fuel economy would not
suffer.

Large diesels these days can do at least 45-50mpg at 80mph.