OT: Apologies

Matt B said:

Just zis Guy said:

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 17:08:10 +0000 (UTC), "Peter B"
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

All he's done is whinge on about the cost of motoring (and I'm a
motorist of
36 years, prolly longer than Troll B has been alive) and complain that
cyclists, apparently, pay nothing, he's like a spoilt kid.

And anyway, the solution is blindingly obvious: ride the bike more,
and laugh at how you are putting one over on The System :-D

Except, of course, you aren't if you are also a motorist.

It's the same as protesting about the rail fare increase by buying a
rail season ticket and 'putting one over' /them/ by cycling instead.

Not really, the standing cost of the rail ticket is everything, with a
car there is still fuel and maintenance costs. I fully accept that once
you've paid the overhead its cheap, but you'd still save by cycling.

I did it once, had a car that went only 2000 miles a year, before I
realised that hiring one would probably be cheaper.

Hmmm...must run a straw poll to see how many people here do not a) have
a car license, b) have no access to a car (self/wife etc) c) have access
and use it.

I don't reckon there's many in a).

Tosspot said:

Hmmm...must run a straw poll to see how many people here do not a) have
a car license, b) have no access to a car (self/wife etc) c) have access
and use it.

b-ish. I own one, but it's SORN'd and sitting in the driveway since
October, waiting for those round tuits needed for repair or disposal.
When I needed to be travelling between London, Brum and Sheffield many
times with much baggage over the hols, a hire car was cheaper than
MOTing/taxing/etc.

R.

Tosspot said:

Matt B said:

Just zis Guy said:

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 17:08:10 +0000 (UTC), "Peter B"
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

> All he's done is whinge on about the cost of motoring (and I'm a
> motorist of
> 36 years, prolly longer than Troll B has been alive) and complain that
> cyclists, apparently, pay nothing, he's like a spoilt kid.

And anyway, the solution is blindingly obvious: ride the bike more,
and laugh at how you are putting one over on The System :-D

Except, of course, you aren't if you are also a motorist.

It's the same as protesting about the rail fare increase by buying a
rail season ticket and 'putting one over' /them/ by cycling instead.

Not really, the standing cost of the rail ticket is everything, with a
car there is still fuel and maintenance costs. I fully accept that once
you've paid the overhead its cheap, but you'd still save by cycling.

Part of the 'standing cost' of a car is the compulsory insurance.
Depending on the car you have and your circumstances that may tip the
balance. I agree of course, the less mileage you do the less fuel duty
you pay.

Quoted message said:

I did it once, had a car that went only 2000 miles a year, before I
realised that hiring one would probably be cheaper.

Yes I had a colleague who found it cheaper to take a taxi or hire a car
or van as necessary - rather than own a car.

Quoted message said:

Hmmm...must run a straw poll to see how many people here do not a) have
a car license, b) have no access to a car (self/wife etc) c) have access
and use it.

I don't reckon there's many in a).

From what I've seen most here have the privilege of being able to
afford to cycle as well as run a car.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

Hmmm...must run a straw poll to see how many people here do not a) have
a car license, b) have no access to a car (self/wife etc) c) have access
and use it

and d) have access to a car but don't use it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't reckon there's many in a).

From what I've seen most here have the privilege of being able to
afford to cycle as well as run a car.

surely that is 'afford to run a car as well as cycle'. Damn near
everyone can afford to cycle. It is after all a fixed cost of a few
pounds for minimal equipment. A car is far more expensive. At the
school my kids go to, I'd reckon that only about 50% of families have
access to a car.

...d

David Martin said:

Matt B said:

Quoted message said:

Hmmm...must run a straw poll to see how many people here do not a) have
a car license, b) have no access to a car (self/wife etc) c) have access
and use it

and d) have access to a car but don't use it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't reckon there's many in a).

From what I've seen most here have the privilege of being able to
afford to cycle as well as run a car.

surely that is 'afford to run a car as well as cycle'. Damn near
everyone can afford to cycle. It is after all a fixed cost of a few
pounds for minimal equipment. A car is far more expensive. At the
school my kids go to, I'd reckon that only about 50% of families have
access to a car.

Maybe, but given a choice between bike or car most would choose a car
first, and most would sacrifice many other things in the struggle to
afford a car. A bike is then a luxury.

--
Matt B

Tosspot said:

Hmmm...must run a straw poll to see how many people here do not a) have
a car license, b) have no access to a car (self/wife etc) c) have access
and use it.

I don't reckon there's many in a).

Have clean licence to Cat C. Have no car. Have never owned car. Did have
access to work vehicles (Vans)[1], currently have access to father's
car. Will soon be back to bike as sole form of transport.

Jon

[1] Managed to minimise usage of vans to the extent of borrowing an
8-Freight to transport things.

Tosspot said:

Hmmm...must run a straw poll to see how many people here do not a) have
a car license, b) have no access to a car (self/wife etc) c) have access
and use it.

I'm a c) with four cars (bit like bikes really). So presumably TrollB
will get the f out my way when he sees me coming because I've paid a
lot more "road tax" than him and have priority.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tony Raven said:

Tosspot said:

Hmmm...must run a straw poll to see how many people here do not a)
have a car license, b) have no access to a car (self/wife etc) c) have
access and use it.

I'm a c) with four cars (bit like bikes really).

Quoted message said:

So presumably TrollB
will get the f out my way when he sees me coming because I've paid a
lot more "road tax" than him and have priority.

I hope you are not suggesting that I (Matt B not TrollB) have /ever/
claimed that those who pay any (or more) road tax have any more right to
use the roads in any way shape or form than those who pay none (or less)
road tax because I have NOT.

--
Matt B

Matt B said:

David Martin wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...Damn near everyone can afford to cycle. It is after all a fixed
cost of a few pounds for minimal equipment. A car is far more
expensive. At the school my kids go to, I'd reckon that only about
50% of families have access to a car.

Maybe, but given a choice between bike or car most would choose a car
first, and most would sacrifice many other things in the struggle to
afford a car. A bike is then a luxury.

In a way I agree, but not entirely. With money in excess of need, but
without a car, I would say yes. However, if there is no car and no
money, then a bike becomes better and not a luxury. Iyswim.

I think bikes are percieved as a 'toy' rather than a real means of
transport. I'm going to get flamed to hell for that but still.

Also I note that a 'cheap runner' is bloody cheap these days, a few
hundred squids. 140 odd for Tax. Say the same for insurance (assume 3rd
party good record), its of the order of 10-15 squids a week before you
start it. That is *very* cheap transport.

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

Quoted message said:

Matt B said:

David Martin wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

...Damn near everyone can afford to cycle. It is after all a fixed
cost of a few pounds for minimal equipment. A car is far more
expensive. At the school my kids go to, I'd reckon that only about
50% of families have access to a car.

Maybe, but given a choice between bike or car most would choose a car
first, and most would sacrifice many other things in the struggle to
afford a car. A bike is then a luxury.

In a way I agree, but not entirely. With money in excess of need, but
without a car, I would say yes. However, if there is no car and no money,
then a bike becomes better and not a luxury. Iyswim.

I think bikes are percieved as a 'toy' rather than a real means of
transport. I'm going to get flamed to hell for that but still.

Dunno why you should be flamed for that statement - it's mostly true. It's
even worse over in the states. Obviously it's complete [censored], which is why
the more of us are out there riding our bikes not as toys the better - help
shift this perception.

I've got a simple way of dealing with most of those who think a bike is a
luxury and a car is a necessity - pity them. They are fools.

cheers,
clive

Clive George said:

"Tosspot" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I think bikes are percieved as a 'toy' rather than a real means of
transport. I'm going to get flamed to hell for that but still.

Dunno why you should be flamed for that statement - it's mostly true.
It's even worse over in the states. Obviously it's complete [censored], which
is why the more of us are out there riding our bikes not as toys the
better - help shift this perception.

Not forgetting the fact that cyclists on average have above average
salaries, home ownership rates and every other indicator of material
wealth except ownership of satellite TVs.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

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

Quoted message said:

Not forgetting the fact that cyclists on average have above average
salaries, home ownership rates and every other indicator of material
wealth except ownership of satellite TVs.

<shows ignorance> Why would anyone want their TV to be in orbit? </shows
ignorance>
Mind you I don't have above average income either, sort of treading middle
ground :-)
--
Pete
http:[email hidden]/Stuff

Tony Raven said:

Not forgetting the fact that cyclists on average have above average
salaries,

Ere... who's getting the rest of my salary then?[1]

Jon

[1] Actually unemployed right now, but of my own choosing!

Jon Senior said:

Tony Raven said:

Not forgetting the fact that cyclists on average have above average
salaries,

Ere... who's getting the rest of my salary then?[1]

Jon

[1] Actually unemployed right now, but of my own choosing!

ITYM Differently Employed.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Jon Senior said:

Tony Raven said:

Not forgetting the fact that cyclists on average have above average
salaries,

Ere... who's getting the rest of my salary then?[1]

Very few people have above average salaries, of course (the figure
17% is nagging at me, but might be wrong).

I'd be surprised if the average cyclist has above average salary,
though it may be true that a cyclist is more likely to have an above
average salary than a non-cyclist, or that average salary for cyclists
is higher than average salary for non-cyclists (or indeed, for the
population as a whole). Is there a source for the assertion?

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

Ian Smith said:

Jon Senior said:

Tony Raven said:

Not forgetting the fact that cyclists on average have above average
salaries,

Ere... who's getting the rest of my salary then?[1]

Very few people have above average salaries, of course (the figure
17% is nagging at me, but might be wrong).

I'd be surprised if the average cyclist has above average salary,
though it may be true that a cyclist is more likely to have an above
average salary than a non-cyclist, or that average salary for cyclists
is higher than average salary for non-cyclists (or indeed, for the
population as a whole). Is there a source for the assertion?

I believe it was an AA survey (which you would not expect to come out
favourably towards cyclists) but Guy will probably be along soon to
confirm it.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tosspot said:

I did it once, had a car that went only 2000 miles a year, before I
realised that hiring one would probably be cheaper.

A friend of mine, who didn't cycle, simply used buses when convenient,
and when they weren't, which was often, took a taxi or hired a car. He
claimed to have worked out all the costs and that he was saving money
by not owning a car. He persisted in this belief for the ten years
during which I knew him.

Quoted message said:

Hmmm...must run a straw poll to see how many people here do not a) have
a car license, b) have no access to a car (self/wife etc) c) have access
and use it.

No car licence, but do have a motorcycle licence.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 11:23:06 +0100, Tosspot <[email hidden]>
said in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

the standing cost of the rail ticket is everything, with a
car there is still fuel and maintenance costs. I fully accept that once
you've paid the overhead its cheap, but you'd still save by cycling.

I pay £900 per year for my season ticket, and bought a Brompton (which
I think I might have mentioned in passing) for around a grand with
accessories, and I'm still over £1000 in pocket over the annual
savings on running the second car we sold a few years back. And
that's without factoring in the cost of the gym membership I no longer
need.

This year I won't need to buy another Brompton (don't tell Herself
this) so I should be quids in :-)

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On 05 Jan 2006 21:09:12 GMT, Ian Smith <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I'd be surprised if the average cyclist has above average salary,
though it may be true that a cyclist is more likely to have an above
average salary than a non-cyclist, or that average salary for cyclists
is higher than average salary for non-cyclists (or indeed, for the
population as a whole). Is there a source for the assertion?

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/oct01.htm was the first I
saw, but there was an AA survey specific to the UK which I will find
again Any Minute Now....

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

This year I won't need to buy another Brompton (don't tell Herself
this) so I should be quids in :-)

Nononono, of course you dont *need* another Brompton, you *want* another
Brompton. Maybe a Moulton. Or a Windcheetah. Or a KMX-X !