OT: Apologies

Just zis Guy said:

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

So what will you spend this year's budget on?

Remember, you have to spend all of your budget in year, otherwise you
get less next year. S'like the civil service really.

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy said:

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

So what will you spend this year's budget on?

Remember, you have to spend all of your budget in year, otherwise you
get less next year. S'like the civil service really.

In that case buy some very expensive, but totally useless, square wheels :-)

Pete
http:[email hidden]/Stuff

you know? said:

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....

I think I'll have to file a self-selecting self-assessed survey
answered predominantly by people in a different country that asks
merely about 'average income' with the chocolate beverage preparation
vessels in terms of usefulness to the question at hand.

I remain extremely sceptical that more than half of cyclists have
above average salaries. As noted, I'm willing to believe cyclists
have a higher average salary than the population as a whole, but I
doubt that most cyclists have above average salaries.

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

Ian Smith said:

I remain extremely sceptical that more than half of cyclists have
above average salaries. As noted, I'm willing to believe cyclists
have a higher average salary than the population as a whole, but I
doubt that most cyclists have above average salaries.

Particularly as John Caudwell has a very high income and high annual
mileage, I guess.

--
Ambrose

On 08 Jan 2006 19:00:44 GMT, Ian Smith <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I remain extremely sceptical that more than half of cyclists have
above average salaries. As noted, I'm willing to believe cyclists
have a higher average salary than the population as a whole, but I
doubt that most cyclists have above average salaries.

I'm not sure the difference makes a difference. FWIW I have an
above-average salary.

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

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

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Ian Smith said:

I remain extremely sceptical that more than half of cyclists have
above average salaries. As noted, I'm willing to believe cyclists
have a higher average salary than the population as a whole, but I
doubt that most cyclists have above average salaries.

Particularly as John Caudwell has a very high income and high annual
mileage, I guess.

And Madonna, Guy Ritchie, Sir Rocco Forte, Jeremy Paxman, Jeff Banks,
Paul Smith, Eric Clapton, Mick Jagger, Billy Connolly, Des Lynam, Jon
Snow......and David Cameron.

--
Tony

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

you know? said:

On 08 Jan 2006 19:00:44 GMT, Ian Smith <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I remain extremely sceptical that more than half of cyclists have
above average salaries. As noted, I'm willing to believe cyclists
have a higher average salary than the population as a whole, but I
doubt that most cyclists have above average salaries.

I'm not sure the difference makes a difference. FWIW I have an
above-average salary.

Of course it does. Very few people have above-average income (from
memory, 17% in the UK), because a very very few people have very very
large salaries.

To say more than half of cyclists have an above average income is a
very different statement than to say the average income of cyclists is
above the average for the population as a whole. One means that over
half of cyclists are drawn from the highest-earning 17% of the
population. The other can be satisfied drawing just one person (that
phone chappie, presumably) from the highest-earning 17%, while all the
rest have average income. Assuming a continuous distribution
resembling even remotely something like normal, I think the former
implies a much higher 'typical' income than the latter.

Depending what you mean by "makes a difference". If the sole purpose
of citing the statistic is to feel smug about riding a bike, no, it
probably doesn't make a difference.

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

Ian Smith said:

Of course it does. Very few people have above-average income (from
memory, 17% in the UK), because a very very few people have very very
large salaries.

The data:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/hbai/hbai2004/pdf_files/chapters/chapter_2_hbai05.pdf

"The income distribution was clearly skewed towards
the lower end and had a long tail at the upper end. On
a Before Housing Costs basis, over 60 per cent of
individuals had an equivalised household income that
was less than the national mean average."

pk

On 08 Jan 2006 21:27:48 GMT, Ian Smith <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure the difference makes a difference. FWIW I have an
above-average salary.

Quoted message said:

Of course it does. Very few people have above-average income (from
memory, 17% in the UK), because a very very few people have very very
large salaries.

You are hypothesising that cyclists incomes are distributed
differently from the population as a whole. Occam's Razor suggests
another interpretation.

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

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

you know? said:

On 08 Jan 2006 21:27:48 GMT, Ian Smith <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not sure the difference makes a difference. FWIW I have an
above-average salary.

Quoted message said:

Of course it does. Very few people have above-average income (from
memory, 17% in the UK), because a very very few people have very very
large salaries.

You are hypothesising that cyclists incomes are distributed
differently from the population as a whole. Occam's Razor suggests
another interpretation.

It's you that's claiming that cyclists have higher than average
incomes. How, precisely, do they manage that without having a
different distribution than the population as a whole?

All I am hypothesising (as I explicitly stated, but you have not
quoted) is that cyclists incomes are distributed in a continuous
function.

If you're going to criticise a post, you really should read all of it
(at teh moment you're looking very like you didn't bother).

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

Ian Smith said:

Depending what you mean by "makes a difference". If the sole purpose
of citing the statistic is to feel smug about riding a bike, no, it
probably doesn't make a difference.

I doubt the smugness factor would be changed by saying that average
cyclists's salary is higher than the average non-cyclists's salary, or
other roughly equivalent (and strictly true) versions. In fact, as shown
by this thread, many people barely realise there is a difference. So
although your nit-picking may give you some reason to feel smug about
yourself, it's not really much to get excited about.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

Tony Raven said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Ian Smith said:

I remain extremely sceptical that more than half of cyclists have
above average salaries. As noted, I'm willing to believe cyclists
have a higher average salary than the population as a whole, but I
doubt that most cyclists have above average salaries.

Particularly as John Caudwell has a very high income and high annual
mileage, I guess.

And Madonna, Guy Ritchie, Sir Rocco Forte, Jeremy Paxman, Jeff Banks,
Paul Smith,

^^^
Now that's a turn up for the books

Quoted message said:

Eric Clapton, Mick Jagger, Billy Connolly, Des Lynam, Jon
Snow......and David Cameron.

Leader of the opposition's not a very high salary.
--
Ambrose

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Quoted message said:

And Madonna, Guy Ritchie, Sir Rocco Forte, Jeremy Paxman, Jeff Banks,
Paul Smith,

^^^
Now that's a turn up for the books

Ermmm...the Paul Smith that doesn't have to beg for a living that is ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Eric Clapton, Mick Jagger, Billy Connolly, Des Lynam, Jon
Snow......and David Cameron.

Leader of the opposition's not a very high salary.

Still well above average though.

--
Tony

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

James Annan said:

Ian Smith said:

Depending what you mean by "makes a difference". If the sole purpose
of citing the statistic is to feel smug about riding a bike, no, it
probably doesn't make a difference.

I doubt the smugness factor would be changed by saying that average
cyclists's salary is higher than the average non-cyclists's salary, or
other roughly equivalent (and strictly true) versions.

Exactly, or as I said "no, it probably doesn't make a difference".

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

On 08 Jan 2006 22:56:27 GMT, Ian Smith <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It's you that's claiming that cyclists have higher than average
incomes. How, precisely, do they manage that without having a
different distribution than the population as a whole?

Elementary, Watson. Same distribution, with a higher mean.

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

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

you know? said:

On 08 Jan 2006 22:56:27 GMT, Ian Smith <[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It's you that's claiming that cyclists have higher than average
incomes. How, precisely, do they manage that without having a
different distribution than the population as a whole?

Elementary, Watson. Same distribution, with a higher mean.

So you are planning on the highest-earning cyclist earning more than
the highest-earning member of the population?

Besides which, my posting that you objected to remains entirely
correct even if they do have similar distributions, or identical
distribution across some part of the lower range, or whatever. I did
not assume any fundamental difference between cyclist and general
population distribution, and I don't know why you say it did. I even
explicitly stated what I was assuming about distribution in the
posting (in the second half - I remain of the opinion that you
probably didn't read that far).

I'd still be interested in seeing some survey that found most
cyclists in the UK have higher than average salaries.

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

Tony Raven said:

every other indicator of material
wealth except ownership of satellite TVs.

Aren't they still necessary for TdF coverage?

-dan

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

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

every other indicator of material
wealth except ownership of satellite TVs.

Aren't they still necessary for TdF coverage?

-dan

No. TdF comes on Freeview & Top-Up TV.

Cheers, helen s

wafflycat said:

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

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

every other indicator of material
wealth except ownership of satellite TVs.

Aren't they still necessary for TdF coverage?

No. TdF comes on Freeview & Top-Up TV.

Ownership of satellite TV is not considered an indicator of wealth where
I am moving to, as you can't get Freeview or Top-Up TV there. I would
say in my case that its an indicator that you are living in a place
where you can step out of the front door and find yourself in the middle
of fantastic cycling country, and I still want to keep up with the TdF.

--
JimP
--
"We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong" - Spike Milligan

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

Quoted message said:

wafflycat said:

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

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven <[email hidden]> writes:

> every other indicator of material
> wealth except ownership of satellite TVs.

Aren't they still necessary for TdF coverage?

No. TdF comes on Freeview & Top-Up TV.

Ownership of satellite TV is not considered an indicator of wealth where I
am moving to, as you can't get Freeview or Top-Up TV there. I would say in
my case that its an indicator that you are living in a place where you can
step out of the front door and find yourself in the middle of fantastic
cycling country, and I still want to keep up with the TdF.

Forgive me if I'm reading this wrong... but you seem to think that you need
a satellite for Freeview or Top-up TV, which you don't. I don't have
satellite, but do have Freeview & Top-up TV, as they come via a set-top box
plugged into normal arial. Top-Up TV is a an extra few channels for a small
subscription, activated via card in freeview box.

I have this and still live in the middle of fantastic cycling country and
keep up with the TdF 🙂

I am not, however, wealthy in monetary terms!

Cheers, helen s