Sorry, hemlets again

Simon Brooke said:

I suspect that I'm in something of a minority here, but plenty of
cyclists have never owned a car.

I've never even had a driving lesson. I've never been keen to be in
charge of a couple of tons of metal, or to own such a financial
liability.

--
Keith Willoughby
Welcome to the police state - http://tinyurl.com/3cptb

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Dr Curious

(') said:

So that most cyclists who commute are indeed likely to have by-passed
the public transport option. As I suggested, and which was so
vigorously contested. They made a positive choice to move straight
from their cars onto bikes.

This is the most arrant nonsense. I bought my first car when I was
thirty-nine; up until then my bikes had been my primary mode of
personal transport. So far from moving 'straight from cars onto bikes'
I moved straight from, errm, walking onto bikes. I suspect that I'm in
something of a minority here, but plenty of cyclists have never owned a
car.

Well for what it's worth, I sold a car to be able to afford our tandem!
Was quite a few years ago mind you.

Cheers
John

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:56:27 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:07:46 GMT, Gawnsoft
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

I've started cycling with a woolly hat on - I figure it'll do about
the same job of mnor scrape prevention, without the head-size
increase, or giving me 'courage for my head'.

Is this a good time to repeat my "knitted acrylic balaclava saved my
life" anecdote?

Thought not.

Only if I get to tell my 'not wearing a helmet caused my death'
anecdote posthumously. Again.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 09:48:47 +0100, "Dr Curious"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

So that most cyclists who commute are indeed likely to have by-passed
the public transport option. As I suggested, and which was so vigorously
contested. They made a positive choice to move straight from their cars
onto bikes.

Ah, Curious has finally made the connection: they were never likely to
use the buses in the first place, so the idea that they uniquely have
cost the bus company a fare is an abstract and unlikely proposition.

That simply doesn't follow at all.

The fact that cycling commuters when abandoning their cars, chose to cycle
rather than use public transport doesn't mean that they couldn't have
done otherwise at the time. They simply chose not to do so. Just as others
abandoned their cars and instead chose to use buses instead. So cycling
commuters may have well have cost the bus company a fare, where public
transport in the form of buses was the only other viable alternative
at the time that they made their decision.

Furthermore nobody is suggesting that cyclists uniquely cost the bus
company a fare. Of course they don't. Tube and taxi passengers do as well.
But the point is that some cyclists both cost the bus company a fare, and
are competing with buses for road space in the vicinity of bus stops. And
are thus coming into direct conflict with buses.

Curious

Quoted message said:

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington

University

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

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Dr Curious

(') said:

So that most cyclists who commute are indeed likely to have by-passed
the public transport option. As I suggested, and which was so
vigorously contested. They made a positive choice to move straight
from their cars onto bikes.

This is the most arrant nonsense.

Quoted message said:

I suspect that I'm in something of a minority here,

Which makes it a very poor basis upon which to construct an argument
then.

Doesn't it?

Curious

Dr Curious said:

Quoted message said:

Ah, Curious has finally made the connection: they were never likely
to use the buses in the first place, so the idea that they uniquely
have cost the bus company a fare is an abstract and unlikely
proposition.

Quoted message said:

That simply doesn't follow at all.

Quoted message said:

The fact that cycling commuters when abandoning their cars, chose to
cycle rather than use public transport doesn't mean that they
couldn't have done otherwise at the time.

Is the wrong answer. Car drivers are notoriously reluctant to switch to
buses.

Quoted message said:

Furthermore nobody is suggesting that cyclists uniquely cost the bus
company a fare. Of course they don't. Tube and taxi passengers do as
well. But the point is that some cyclists both cost the bus company a
fare, and are competing with buses for road space in the vicinity of
bus stops. And are thus coming into direct conflict with buses.

Whereas car drivers are using up enormously more road space, directly
causing the congestion which makes bus drivers' lives more difficult and so
on.

No, I really can't see any merit in your argument.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr Curious said:

done otherwise at the time. They simply chose not to do so. Just as others
abandoned their cars and instead chose to use buses instead. So cycling

If by `chose' we exclude `lost driving license through illness or
convictions' and `fell on financial hard times' I would suggest that,
possibly excluding London, that is a tiny handful of people. That
drivers will use trains and trams but not buses is a commonplace of
transport planning.

ian

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dr Curious said:

Quoted message said:

Ah, Curious has finally made the connection: they were never likely
to use the buses in the first place, so the idea that they uniquely
have cost the bus company a fare is an abstract and unlikely
proposition.

Quoted message said:

That simply doesn't follow at all.

Quoted message said:

The fact that cycling commuters when abandoning their cars, chose to
cycle rather than use public transport doesn't mean that they
couldn't have done otherwise at the time.

Is the wrong answer. Car drivers are notoriously reluctant to switch to
buses.

Do you have any actual evidence for this claim?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Furthermore nobody is suggesting that cyclists uniquely cost the bus
company a fare. Of course they don't. Tube and taxi passengers do as
well. But the point is that some cyclists both cost the bus company a
fare, and are competing with buses for road space in the vicinity of
bus stops. And are thus coming into direct conflict with buses.

Whereas car drivers are using up enormously more road space, directly
causing the congestion which makes bus drivers' lives more difficult and

so

Quoted message said:

on.

But car drivers haven't yet exercised their option to bye-pass public
transport as have cyclists. Despite what you claim they could be
bus passengers in the future. And what's more cars don't normally try
overtake buses on the inside as they're approaching bus stops.
Also bus drivers will sympthise with car drivers to some extent
as they both suffer from congestion, whereas cyclist don't.

Quoted message said:

No, I really can't see any merit in your argument.

Possibly I haven't explained it properly

Curious

Quoted message said:

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Dr Curious said:

Quoted message said:

Is the wrong answer. Car drivers are notoriously reluctant to
switch to buses.

Quoted message said:

Do you have any actual evidence for this claim?

It's a scientific fact.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No, I really can't see any merit in your argument.

Quoted message said:

Possibly I haven't explained it properly

There may be other issues as well.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

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

Quoted message said:

Dr Curious said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is the wrong answer. Car drivers are notoriously reluctant to switch

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

buses.

Do you have any actual evidence for this claim?

Quoted message said:

But car drivers haven't yet exercised their option to bye-pass public
transport as have cyclists.

Do you have any actual evidence for this claim?

Yes. They're still driving their cars.

What more evidence do you need exactly?

Curious

Quoted message said:

John B

Dr Curious said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is the wrong answer. Car drivers are notoriously reluctant to switch to
buses.

Do you have any actual evidence for this claim?

Quoted message said:

But car drivers haven't yet exercised their option to bye-pass public
transport as have cyclists.

Do you have any actual evidence for this claim?

Quoted message said:

Also bus drivers will sympthise with car drivers to some extent
as they both suffer from congestion, whereas cyclist don't.

Tosh.

John B

Reply to Just zis Guy, you know?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Possibly I haven't explained it properly

There may be other issues as well.

Training for the Understatement Of The Week Award, Guy?

--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:30:58 +0100, Mark McN
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Possibly I haven't explained it properly

There may be other issues as well.

Training for the Understatement Of The Week Award, Guy?

I thought I'd essay a little irony :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Dr Curious said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dr Curious wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Ah, Curious has finally made the connection: they were never likely
> to use the buses in the first place, so the idea that they uniquely
> have cost the bus company a fare is an abstract and unlikely
> proposition.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That simply doesn't follow at all.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The fact that cycling commuters when abandoning their cars, chose to
cycle rather than use public transport doesn't mean that they
couldn't have done otherwise at the time.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Is the wrong answer. Car drivers are notoriously reluctant to switch to
buses.

Quoted message said:

Do you have any actual evidence for this claim?

When I worked in London I carried out a survey in my
office. Discovered that about 1/3 of those who drove to work would be
able to get there signficantly quicker by using the tube, about a
dozen. They all claimed that they drove because it was quicker than
public transport. But none of them switched, or even bothered to
experiemt, when I pointed out how much time they could save by using
the tube.

I did this because I went to work by tube, was offered a lift to save
me time by a friendly colleague, accepted the lift, found out that the
car took longer, and that my colleague would save even more time than
I did by using the tube. But despite the fuss he made about idiots
slowing him down while driving, he refused to save time by using the
tube.

--
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/]

Ian G Batten said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Dr Curious said:

F16 rifle i.e the automobile, in the hands of the few. Given the very

The F16 is a single engined supersonic fighter. I suggest you mean that
M16, aka Armalite, rifle, chambered in 5.56x45, designed by Eugene
Stoner.

I'd want to get in the way of one even less than a car, though.

A

Ian G Batten said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Just zis Guy said:

It's also worth pointing out that cyclists have above average
income and are more than averagely likely to own houses, cars
and just about anythign else apart from satellite TV - and I
bet that's changed now the Tour is on ITV2 :-)

What's odd is that ITV2 are still running their shatteringly
downmarket adverts through the TdF coverage.

Why odd? The audience size is still pretty small.

pk

PK said:

Ian G Batten said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Just zis Guy said:

It's also worth pointing out that cyclists have above average
income and are more than averagely likely to own houses, cars
and just about anythign else apart from satellite TV - and I
bet that's changed now the Tour is on ITV2 :-)

What's odd is that ITV2 are still running their shatteringly
downmarket adverts through the TdF coverage.

Why odd? The audience size is still pretty small.

Well, even if it's small, it still fits the cycling demographic. I
guess it makes sense for them to attract cyclists this way.

That reminds me, I was looking to find out about getting hold of
satellite channels from the other side of Europe for a
flatmate. Anyone got any good pointers where to look? I'll look
myself, too, but I guess there's someone who already knows their
stuff, so I may as well save the effort.

A

PK said:

Ian G Batten said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Just zis Guy said:

It's also worth pointing out that cyclists have above average
income and are more than averagely likely to own houses, cars
and just about anythign else apart from satellite TV - and I
bet that's changed now the Tour is on ITV2 :-)

What's odd is that ITV2 are still running their shatteringly
downmarket adverts through the TdF coverage.

Why odd? The audience size is still pretty small.

I read somewhere[1] in the last week that Channel 4 were pulling in a
million people for Tour highlights. That's pretty respectable.

[1] The Observer, possibly

--
Keith Willoughby
Welcome to the police state - http://tinyurl.com/3cptb

in message <[email hidden]>, Ian G Batten

(') said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Just zis Guy said:

It's also worth pointing out that cyclists have above average income
and are more than averagely likely to own houses, cars and just about
anythign else apart from satellite TV - and I bet that's changed now
the Tour is on ITV2
:-)

What's odd is that ITV2 are still running their shatteringly
downmarket adverts through the TdF coverage.

Yes. Interesting, the adverts which are run through the TdF. Most of
them are shatteringly poor (I watch little television and very little
commercial television, but I think of television advertising on the
whole as being slick, clever, and usually aimed at being aspirational).
And there's nothing targeted at the sort of people who ride bikes and
are interested in sport.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

' ' <------- this blank intentionally spaced left

In message <[email hidden]>, PK
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Ian G Batten said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Just zis Guy said:

It's also worth pointing out that cyclists have above average
income and are more than averagely likely to own houses, cars
and just about anythign else apart from satellite TV - and I
bet that's changed now the Tour is on ITV2 :-)

What's odd is that ITV2 are still running their shatteringly
downmarket adverts through the TdF coverage.

Why odd? The audience size is still pretty small.

Big for ITV2 though. I think it was one of their top-rated progs last
summer. And the breaks in the TDF programmes I've seen had ads for cars
(Ford, Mitsubishi, Peugeot etc), L'Oreal hair care products, Tesco...
these are premier league names in the advertising world - people who
spend serious money. I've no doubt they got the time cheaply compared to
ITV1 slots but they wouldn't bother even then if they didn't think the
audience was worth it. And the increased frequency of ad breaks during
the TDF programme suggests that ITV2 know this is a big opportunity to
bring in revenue so they're milking it for all it's worth.