@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
I think if Sunak had become PM before partygate erupted he'd have done quite well - the problem is that he's sat around and gone at the worst possible time.
Thing is you often only get one chance. He took his (Truss's downfall) but he has inherited a shitty stick and no toilet paper to wipe it off.
He will lead the Tories to defeat, no question. And then he will swan off elsewhere leaving a country in the hands of the Labour party to try to rescue things like the NHS, schools etc. And in 4 or 8 years time the Tories will have reinvented themselves and gulled the country again that they really DO care about the common man...
He didn’t take his chance, he engineered it.
You think so? I think Truss was her own downfall. As luckyguy says, at least she had a plan. She failed to sell that plan, or to explain how it would be paid for.
I know it’s an unpopular view, but IMHO the Sunakites in the PCP, and their friends in the press, had decided in advance that they weren’t accepting the result of the leadership election. That was clear from the discussions during the campaign, and I suggested as such on this very forum.
From the Sunak/Truss debate during the Tory leadership election.
“So I don’t think the responsible thing to do right now is to launch into some unfunded spree of borrowing and more debt, that will just make inflation worse, it will make the problem longer.” To put Sunak’s warnings into context, the Bank of England had not yet made its alarming prediction that there would be a recession stretching across five quarters around the corner, and that inflation could reach 13.3% this winter. Back in the July debate, Truss replied: “Let’s be clear – we have inflation because of our monetary policy, because we haven’t been tough enough on the monetary supply, that’s the way I would address that issue.” “Liz, we have to be honest – borrowing your way out of inflation isn’t a plan – it’s a fairy tale,” Sunak hit back."
He was right and didn't change his mind as her regime imploded. Should he have accepted her mad ideas just because she got the majority of Tory members votes? She brought about her own demise,
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
Cars are ace. I love them. I genuinely love my new T6.1 Transporter. But I love my Nukeproof Scout hardtail as well, and I'm going to love my cargo ebike just as much. We don't have to chose one over the other, but use them together in the most eco friendly way. Demonising car owners just creates enemies, same as demonising cyclists does. Horses for courses and all that!
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
Brilliant post - we need to increase cycling much more than 100%.
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
It's all so much slush though. A lot of young heterosexual men are anxious about girls. Paradoxically, the best remedy to this is not to worry about it and focus on developing yourself, which will help you become a more rounded, interesting and, therefore attractive, person.
Maybe the competition is fiercer now - hard to imagine my Mum settling for my Dad had she been born into my generation - but that's just tough. All this talk about women's special privileges and place in society is unlikely (but not impossible) to be a hit with the ladies. Far be it for me to say what women want, but they're unlikely to want a smelly, whiney, unambitious, broke, man. But, at the end of the day, most people find a someone.
There’s actually a lot of science on the effects of ‘dating apps’. What’s happening, is that 20% of men are getting 90% of the women, and 80% of the men are fighting over 10% of the women.
Funnily enough, a society where 70% of young men are involuntarily single, ends up with some form of a revolution.
Those studies are interesting, and I do think they actually have interesting things to say about the nature of human sexual politics. I have never used them, but I have friends who have. They report that it's really not the be all and end all of modern 'dating'. A good chunk of people will still meet socially, or through work or education.
Interestingly, Christian friends report the exact opposite problem. If the women don't get married straight after Uni, all the half-decent men have been bagged meaning that there is apparently a surfeit of eligible 20-somethings.
Nonetheless, I think the point stands, you've got to become a person that someone would want to be with. In fact, my characterisation of an undesirable man is probably desirable to someone, just those men are probably not interested in someone who would want to be with them.
I do think there is an issue with a lack of male role models for young men (a gap ruthlessly exploited by unsavoury men). Some of the best advice I ever got was from an older friend at Uni who told me, after a fairly pathetic whine from myself was 'Sometimes a girl likes you, and sometimes a girl doesn't.' It was actually very calming to my (late) teenage angst.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
Not 1% of cars, 1% of car miles. Which leads to almost no-one actually selling their car. Except for maybe an alcoholic international travel writer who realises that keeping a car parked in Zone 1 is a pain in the arse.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
If we can't induce any more demand, why do you want to spend £1 trillion on new roads?
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
Cars are ace. I love them. I genuinely love my new T6.1 Transporter. But I love my Nukeproof Scout hardtail as well, and I'm going to love my cargo ebike just as much. We don't have to chose one over the other, but use them together in the most eco friendly way. Demonising car owners just creates enemies, same as demonising cyclists does. Horses for courses and all that!
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
I think if Sunak had become PM before partygate erupted he'd have done quite well - the problem is that he's sat around and gone at the worst possible time.
Thing is you often only get one chance. He took his (Truss's downfall) but he has inherited a shitty stick and no toilet paper to wipe it off.
He will lead the Tories to defeat, no question. And then he will swan off elsewhere leaving a country in the hands of the Labour party to try to rescue things like the NHS, schools etc. And in 4 or 8 years time the Tories will have reinvented themselves and gulled the country again that they really DO care about the common man...
He didn’t take his chance, he engineered it.
You think so? I think Truss was her own downfall. As luckyguy says, at least she had a plan. She failed to sell that plan, or to explain how it would be paid for.
I know it’s an unpopular view, but IMHO the Sunakites in the PCP, and their friends in the press, had decided in advance that they weren’t accepting the result of the leadership election. That was clear from the discussions during the campaign, and I suggested as such on this very forum.
From the Sunak/Truss debate during the Tory leadership election.
“So I don’t think the responsible thing to do right now is to launch into some unfunded spree of borrowing and more debt, that will just make inflation worse, it will make the problem longer.” To put Sunak’s warnings into context, the Bank of England had not yet made its alarming prediction that there would be a recession stretching across five quarters around the corner, and that inflation could reach 13.3% this winter. Back in the July debate, Truss replied: “Let’s be clear – we have inflation because of our monetary policy, because we haven’t been tough enough on the monetary supply, that’s the way I would address that issue.” “Liz, we have to be honest – borrowing your way out of inflation isn’t a plan – it’s a fairy tale,” Sunak hit back."
He was right and didn't change his mind as her regime imploded. Should he have accepted her mad ideas just because she got the majority of Tory members votes? She brought about her own demise,
The problem is Truss was right too. They were both right.
You can't borrow your way out of the problem.
And monetary supply was a problem and monetary policy would be needed to be changed to end it.
Truss's demise happened with alarming news that if her policies continued base rate could end up being 5%
Base rate now is 5%
And Sunak is still borrowing, just as Truss would have.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
BR is a bit sensitive this morning after a mishap yesterday.
Teenage boys are swinging right. But of course they are
There is only so many times the Left can say "You are "toxic" simply by virtue of being male", until the toxic males will retort, "Fuck that I'll be a conservative, then"
The same will happen to white people under Woke-ism. Every time the Woke Left brands white people as intrinsically racist, and benefiting from White Privilege, white people will slowly shift culturally right. Which does NOT regard them as intrinsically evil
Trump could win in 2024 because of this. Continental Europe is already headed that way
You're wasting your breath.
They don't understand. They don't even want to listen.
Well, when the entire western world is governed by populist Far Right governments that shoots migrants in the water and puts lefties in prison camps on the Isle of Lewis we can at least say We tried to warn you
That's exactly where we are heading at the moment.
If you're not willing to deliver mainstream solutions then you're an enabler of that.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
Guessing this is sarcasm?
Of course I do, they're great. Convenient, practical, efficient and they work. They're the best and most efficient form of transportation that exists.
I also like bikes, they're fun recreationally too.
The thing is that bikes are not an alternative to cars, in the same way as chocolate cake is not an alternative to a balanced diet.
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
BR is a bit sensitive this morning after a mishap yesterday.
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
It's all so much slush though. A lot of young heterosexual men are anxious about girls. Paradoxically, the best remedy to this is not to worry about it and focus on developing yourself, which will help you become a more rounded, interesting and, therefore attractive, person.
Maybe the competition is fiercer now - hard to imagine my Mum settling for my Dad had she been born into my generation - but that's just tough. All this talk about women's special privileges ...
Women's what??
Could you list them out please? Because we still get largely ignored by men, underpaid for the work we do and in some cultures as regarded as little better than slaves or wombs for producing more boys. I have not even got started on misogyny and violence against us or the medical profession's lack of interest in our general health...
... and place in society is unlikely (but not impossible) to be a hit with the ladies. Far be it for me to say what women want, but they're unlikely to want a smelly, whiney, unambitious, broke, man. But, at the end of the day, most people find a someone.
Smelly and whiny are down near the bottom of the list as are sexist and violent idiots. Not speaking for others but my list was simple - someone who shared some interests with me, was fun, intelligent and clean.
Apologies, I was responding to Leon's point (he provided a list) that women have a more privileged place in society, suggesting that men who bang on about that do not generally do well with women. It certainly was not meant to be an agreement with his point!
Teenage boys are swinging right. But of course they are
There is only so many times the Left can say "You are "toxic" simply by virtue of being male", until the toxic males will retort, "Fuck that I'll be a conservative, then"
The same will happen to white people under Woke-ism. Every time the Woke Left brands white people as intrinsically racist, and benefiting from White Privilege, white people will slowly shift culturally right. Which does NOT regard them as intrinsically evil
Trump could win in 2024 because of this. Continental Europe is already headed that way
Middle-class black and Asian people as well.
Which is why I find Sadiq Khan's platform so interesting, particularly given the high admiration for Andrew Tate (who I don't agree with, by the way) amongst young black and Asian men.
We assume London is a liberal "Labour" city.
What if at some point in the next 10 years we find out it really isn't?
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
It's all so much slush though. A lot of young heterosexual men are anxious about girls. Paradoxically, the best remedy to this is not to worry about it and focus on developing yourself, which will help you become a more rounded, interesting and, therefore attractive, person.
Maybe the competition is fiercer now - hard to imagine my Mum settling for my Dad had she been born into my generation - but that's just tough. All this talk about women's special privileges and place in society is unlikely (but not impossible) to be a hit with the ladies. Far be it for me to say what women want, but they're unlikely to want a smelly, whiney, unambitious, broke, man. But, at the end of the day, most people find a someone.
There’s actually a lot of science on the effects of ‘dating apps’. What’s happening, is that 20% of men are getting 90% of the women, and 80% of the men are fighting over 10% of the women.
Funnily enough, a society where 70% of young men are involuntarily single, ends up with some form of a revolution.
Those studies are interesting, and I do think they actually have interesting things to say about the nature of human sexual politics. I have never used them, but I have friends who have. They report that it's really not the be all and end all of modern 'dating'. A good chunk of people will still meet socially, or through work or education.
Interestingly, Christian friends report the exact opposite problem. If the women don't get married straight after Uni, all the half-decent men have been bagged meaning that there is apparently a surfeit of eligible 20-somethings.
Nonetheless, I think the point stands, you've got to become a person that someone would want to be with. In fact, my characterisation of an undesirable man is probably desirable to someone, just those men are probably not interested in someone who would want to be with them.
I do think there is an issue with a lack of male role models for young men (a gap ruthlessly exploited by unsavoury men). Some of the best advice I ever got was from an older friend at Uni who told me, after a fairly pathetic whine from myself was 'Sometimes a girl likes you, and sometimes a girl doesn't.' It was actually very calming to my (late) teenage angst.
Somewhat ironically, if Christian Dating apps had been a thing two decades ago, I’d have likely married much earlier than I did. I married at 37.
Teenage boys are swinging right. But of course they are
There is only so many times the Left can say "You are "toxic" simply by virtue of being male", until the toxic males will retort, "Fuck that I'll be a conservative, then"
The same will happen to white people under Woke-ism. Every time the Woke Left brands white people as intrinsically racist, and benefiting from White Privilege, white people will slowly shift culturally right. Which does NOT regard them as intrinsically evil
Trump could win in 2024 because of this. Continental Europe is already headed that way
You're wasting your breath.
They don't understand. They don't even want to listen.
Well, when the entire western world is governed by populist Far Right governments that shoots migrants in the water and puts lefties in prison camps on the Isle of Lewis we can at least say We tried to warn you
That's exactly where we are heading at the moment.
If you're not willing to deliver mainstream solutions then you're an enabler of that.
Yes exactly
Every time a Tory or Labour government denied us a promised EU referendum, on Maastricht, the Constitutilon, Lisbon, ANYTHING, they shoved us closer to the cliff edge marked ACTUAL BREXIT, as they gave the voters no choice and no say. So in the end the voters pushed the nuclear button, as the only one available
Ditto migrants. Every time liberals congratulate themselves on making any solution to the dinghy people impossible - Rwanda, tow backs, mass deportations - they push us closer to a moment when voters will ask some Ultra-Farage to come up with a more drastic answer
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
Guessing this is sarcasm?
Of course I do, they're great. Convenient, practical, efficient and they work. They're the best and most efficient form of transportation that exists.
I also like bikes, they're fun recreationally too.
The thing is that bikes are not an alternative to cars, in the same way as chocolate cake is not an alternative to a balanced diet.
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
BR is a bit sensitive this morning after a mishap yesterday.
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
It's all so much slush though. A lot of young heterosexual men are anxious about girls. Paradoxically, the best remedy to this is not to worry about it and focus on developing yourself, which will help you become a more rounded, interesting and, therefore attractive, person.
Maybe the competition is fiercer now - hard to imagine my Mum settling for my Dad had she been born into my generation - but that's just tough. All this talk about women's special privileges and place in society is unlikely (but not impossible) to be a hit with the ladies. Far be it for me to say what women want, but they're unlikely to want a smelly, whiney, unambitious, broke, man. But, at the end of the day, most people find a someone.
There’s actually a lot of science on the effects of ‘dating apps’. What’s happening, is that 20% of men are getting 90% of the women, and 80% of the men are fighting over 10% of the women.
Funnily enough, a society where 70% of young men are involuntarily single, ends up with some form of a revolution.
Those studies are interesting, and I do think they actually have interesting things to say about the nature of human sexual politics. I have never used them, but I have friends who have. They report that it's really not the be all and end all of modern 'dating'. A good chunk of people will still meet socially, or through work or education.
Interestingly, Christian friends report the exact opposite problem. If the women don't get married straight after Uni, all the half-decent men have been bagged meaning that there is apparently a surfeit of eligible 20-somethings.
Nonetheless, I think the point stands, you've got to become a person that someone would want to be with. In fact, my characterisation of an undesirable man is probably desirable to someone, just those men are probably not interested in someone who would want to be with them.
I do think there is an issue with a lack of male role models for young men (a gap ruthlessly exploited by unsavoury men). Some of the best advice I ever got was from an older friend at Uni who told me, after a fairly pathetic whine from myself was 'Sometimes a girl likes you, and sometimes a girl doesn't.' It was actually very calming to my (late) teenage angst.
Somewhat ironically, if Christian Dating apps had been a thing two decades ago, I’d have likely married much earlier than I did. I married at 37.
Years ago I had a colleague, ex-MP as a matter of fact, who would ask of his younger (male) colleagues "how old are you now dear boy?" and when told always followed up with "a very good age indeed" no matter what the reply was.
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
Indeed. You tell someone often enough they are sexist, they'll give up fighting you and say, well, I guess I am then.
Or, it becomes totally meaningless and they stop listening to you, which means genuine sexism escapes censure and thus gets worse.
Which is arguably what's happening with a rise in misogynistic attitudes in young men.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
If we can't induce any more demand, why do you want to spend £1 trillion on new roads?
Because we haven't invested in capacity in a generation and over that generation our population has grown by 20%. Hence the shortage of capacity.
The bullshit notion of induced demand was the excuse to stop investing in new roads in 1997 and 26 years later we have ten million extra people loving here and 90% of our transportation miles are still by cars. Almost exactly the same as 26 years ago.
And 90% of 68 million people is more than 90% of 58 million people.
It is population growth that needs capacity not induced demand.
Plus of course new motorways that link places directly that currently aren't linked directly would REDUCE demand for going via places people don't want to go. As I've said my first new motorway for the North West would be an M580. This would mean that cars wanting to go from anywhere around the North East of Liverpool to anywhere around the North East (or further East) of Manchester no longer need to go South to the M62 then North through Manchester when they have no bloody desire to be driving in Manchester anyway.
Sunak's wealth is an issue, all the focus groups make this quite clear.
Sadly this is probably true, yet Starmer is almost certainly not having to choose the cheaper options in his food shop either.
We are a weird country. We laud success and then try to drag successful people down.
I was ready to consider Sunak's wealth as a plus because I thought he was less likely to be attracted to dodgy decisions for personal gain. I now don't think that, because I still think he's very interested in accumulating wealth (perhaps that's not his wife's), and because I get the impression that No. 10 is just a stepping stone on the way to being a California 'tech-bro', or toward getting some other gig (Worldbank, IMF etc.), and that sort of person cannot really be trusted to factor the interests of the good people of Slough and Hartlepool into their decisions.
I think it was Tony Blair who was shocked to discover the real world impact of changes to booking appointments to the GP to be within 48 hours, meant that GP's simply would refuse to book appointments for longer than that. It was a simple example of a PM being out of touch - no surprise as he would not be using a GP.
All PM's struggle to understand the lives of those at the bottom. Sunak is no exception but he has made gaffs that make it seem so much worse (petrol station etc). It IS an issue in the way that it wasn't for Cameron. Cameron, I think, was seen as an upper middle class type - well off enough to use private schools for the kids, but still using the NHS and having to think about money (even if that was just the 'impression' given. I'm not even sure that the Cornwall surfing holidays were that fake - Rock and Padstow simply crawls with those types for 8 weeks a year.
People liked Rishi when the free money was coming. Paid to stay at home? Cheers! Now the bill is coming in (inflation, tax rises, general economic malaise) and none of it affects him - he's stupidly well off. He is, I think, a reasonable person. Johnson was an arse, Truss deluded - he's better than those two for sure. But right now the country doesn't want a Tory governing, especially as the current mob have no ideas left, and the country is on the whole sick of them.
Agree with all this. I do believe Truss and Sunak share the same small state ideology. Sunak is nowhere as deluded as Truss, and is better for it. But Truss never really demonstrated how bankrupt that ideology is because she crashed and burned first. Meanwhile Sunak
Pull the other one with this small state stuff - how much has Sunak shrunk the state by?
Not much because Sunak isn't a deluded idiot like Truss. But his lack of interest in the services the government does or doesn't provide and focus on culture wars doesn't help him I think. He would be better to be the technocrat people thought they were getting when he replaced Truss, when he was reasonably popular.
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
It's all so much slush though. A lot of young heterosexual men are anxious about girls. Paradoxically, the best remedy to this is not to worry about it and focus on developing yourself, which will help you become a more rounded, interesting and, therefore attractive, person.
Maybe the competition is fiercer now - hard to imagine my Mum settling for my Dad had she been born into my generation - but that's just tough. All this talk about women's special privileges and place in society is unlikely (but not impossible) to be a hit with the ladies. Far be it for me to say what women want, but they're unlikely to want a smelly, whiney, unambitious, broke, man. But, at the end of the day, most people find a someone.
And there we are again. It’s the man’s fault for being a “smelly, whiney, unambitious, broke man”. We see this all the time on PB. A total inability to grasp that, actually, there may be a real problem in the way western society is increasingly structured - sometimes deliberately, sometimes by sheer bad luck - against men
Would you ever write a comment blaming “smelly, whiney, unambitious broke women” or “smelly, whiney, unambitious broke Indians”?
No, you absolutely would not, yet men are fair game. Consider that
I've never had a problem with women.
But then I ignore all the propaganda and politics and just treat them with respect, and get to know them as individuals, whilst also making it clear I'm a red-blooded male and am sexually attracted to them. Same rules apply: they need to be intelligent, fun, attractive, sexy and interesting.
David Baddiel is writing on this at the moment. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
Guessing this is sarcasm?
Of course I do, they're great. Convenient, practical, efficient and they work. They're the best and most efficient form of transportation that exists.
I also like bikes, they're fun recreationally too.
The thing is that bikes are not an alternative to cars, in the same way as chocolate cake is not an alternative to a balanced diet.
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
Not for 83% of us
More importantly, about 1 in 5 households in Hillingdon (and Havering) manage without any car or van at all. Even in Rishi's Richmondshire, it's 1 in 8.
So, no- cars are not required. They might be useful, but they're not required. "I want" isn't the same as "I need", as granny used to say.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
Guessing this is sarcasm?
Of course I do, they're great. Convenient, practical, efficient and they work. They're the best and most efficient form of transportation that exists.
I also like bikes, they're fun recreationally too.
The thing is that bikes are not an alternative to cars, in the same way as chocolate cake is not an alternative to a balanced diet.
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
Not for 83% of us
What you are failing to get I feel is that the vast majority of people just don't want to cycle. I am a prime example you could take every car off the road and I still wouldn't get on a bike. All you would be doing is restricting where I can go. Sorry cars are better and I am saying that as a non driver currently. Public transport is not a solution either because it rarely goes where I want at a time I want it too.
Biggest problem men have with women actually is that we're generally a bit aspergy and crap at listening / empathy. Indeed, some even consider it a bit wet / unmanly.
Bit weird. Feeling someone gets you - who is also self-confident in themselves at the same time - is always attractive.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
Guessing this is sarcasm?
Of course I do, they're great. Convenient, practical, efficient and they work. They're the best and most efficient form of transportation that exists.
I also like bikes, they're fun recreationally too.
The thing is that bikes are not an alternative to cars, in the same way as chocolate cake is not an alternative to a balanced diet.
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
Not for 83% of us
More importantly, about 1 in 5 households in Hillingdon (and Havering) manage without any car or van at all. Even in Rishi's Richmondshire, it's 1 in 8.
So, no- cars are not required. They might be useful, but they're not required. "I want" isn't the same as "I need", as granny used to say.
Which is bollocks, I lived in slough almost 40 years....in all that time I had precisely 2 jobs in slough, I worked in wantage,epsom,reading,farnborough apart from that. Public transport was only viable for reading. None of those places was cyclable to. Just because you live in an urban area does not mean you will find a job in that urban area
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
Guessing this is sarcasm?
Of course I do, they're great. Convenient, practical, efficient and they work. They're the best and most efficient form of transportation that exists.
I also like bikes, they're fun recreationally too.
The thing is that bikes are not an alternative to cars, in the same way as chocolate cake is not an alternative to a balanced diet.
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
Not for 83% of us
More importantly, about 1 in 5 households in Hillingdon (and Havering) manage without any car or van at all. Even in Rishi's Richmondshire, it's 1 in 8.
So, no- cars are not required. They might be useful, but they're not required. "I want" isn't the same as "I need", as granny used to say.
Which is bollocks, I lived in slough almost 40 years....in all that time I had precisely 2 jobs in slough, I worked in wantage,epsom,reading,farnborough apart from that. Public transport was only viable for reading. None of those places was cyclable to. Just because you live in an urban area does not mean you will find a job in that urban area
Giuliani is not having a good week. (Somewhat NSFW)
Rudy Giuliani's former assistant, Noelle Dunphy, who accused the former NY mayor of sexual abuse, harassment and wage theft, has filed a series of transcripts of audio files and ... wow. https://twitter.com/seth_hettena/status/1686750210180198400
@Unpopular - I was not getting at you, just wondering what the list of advantages are I understood that you were replying to Leon. I am sorry my reply was not clearer
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
Guessing this is sarcasm?
Of course I do, they're great. Convenient, practical, efficient and they work. They're the best and most efficient form of transportation that exists.
I also like bikes, they're fun recreationally too.
The thing is that bikes are not an alternative to cars, in the same way as chocolate cake is not an alternative to a balanced diet.
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
Not for 83% of us
More importantly, about 1 in 5 households in Hillingdon (and Havering) manage without any car or van at all. Even in Rishi's Richmondshire, it's 1 in 8.
So, no- cars are not required. They might be useful, but they're not required. "I want" isn't the same as "I need", as granny used to say.
Eh? Not sure I can be arsed to go into this debate again by saying that because only 80% of people have one they are not required.
You don't know what life experience the 20% have, and they borrow/hitch a ride with others regularly, let alone know what it'd be like if no-one had one.
So, if Leon is right both Brexit and the Conservative Party might well be saved by Andrew Tate watching incels coming onto the electoral register. Vote Tory, otherwise SKS will ensure you never get a girlfriend!
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
Guessing this is sarcasm?
Of course I do, they're great. Convenient, practical, efficient and they work. They're the best and most efficient form of transportation that exists.
I also like bikes, they're fun recreationally too.
The thing is that bikes are not an alternative to cars, in the same way as chocolate cake is not an alternative to a balanced diet.
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
Not for 83% of us
More importantly, about 1 in 5 households in Hillingdon (and Havering) manage without any car or van at all. Even in Rishi's Richmondshire, it's 1 in 8.
So, no- cars are not required. They might be useful, but they're not required. "I want" isn't the same as "I need", as granny used to say.
Which is bollocks, I lived in slough almost 40 years....in all that time I had precisely 2 jobs in slough, I worked in wantage,epsom,reading,farnborough apart from that. Public transport was only viable for reading. None of those places was cyclable to. Just because you live in an urban area does not mean you will find a job in that urban area
So, if Leon is right both Brexit and the Conservative Party might well be saved by Andrew Tate watching incels coming onto the electoral register. Vote Tory, otherwise SKS will ensure you never get a girlfriend!
... but don't the figures also show that girls don't like the Tories much?
It is unsurprising that men are rejecting a liberal progressive politics which ensures: women live longer, do better in school, do better at university, are more likely to go to university, are increasingly dominating the major professions (doctors, lawyers etc) and yet still get special privileges from society - women only shortlists, art prizes just for being women, affirmative female-friendly action in media/business/everywhere. And at the same time society says to men: Nah, you will never have sex. Because you are awkward and “toxic” what woman would ever want you?
I mean, what sane young man would support this? Does it further his chances in life? No it does not
It's all so much slush though. A lot of young heterosexual men are anxious about girls. Paradoxically, the best remedy to this is not to worry about it and focus on developing yourself, which will help you become a more rounded, interesting and, therefore attractive, person.
Maybe the competition is fiercer now - hard to imagine my Mum settling for my Dad had she been born into my generation - but that's just tough. All this talk about women's special privileges ...
Women's what??
Could you list them out please? Because we still get largely ignored by men, underpaid for the work we do and in some cultures as regarded as little better than slaves or wombs for producing more boys. I have not even got started on misogyny and violence against us or the medical profession's lack of interest in our general health...
... and place in society is unlikely (but not impossible) to be a hit with the ladies. Far be it for me to say what women want, but they're unlikely to want a smelly, whiney, unambitious, broke, man. But, at the end of the day, most people find a someone.
Smelly and whiny are down near the bottom of the list as are sexist and violent idiots. Not speaking for others but my list was simple - someone who shared some interests with me, was fun, intelligent and clean.
Apologies, I was responding to Leon's point (he provided a list) that women have a more privileged place in society, suggesting that men who bang on about that do not generally do well with women. It certainly was not meant to be an agreement with his point!
I'm assuming the reference to "smelly" meant "smells bad or overpowering"? I mean, some people can smell quite nice.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
Guessing this is sarcasm?
Of course I do, they're great. Convenient, practical, efficient and they work. They're the best and most efficient form of transportation that exists.
I also like bikes, they're fun recreationally too.
The thing is that bikes are not an alternative to cars, in the same way as chocolate cake is not an alternative to a balanced diet.
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
Not for 83% of us
More importantly, about 1 in 5 households in Hillingdon (and Havering) manage without any car or van at all. Even in Rishi's Richmondshire, it's 1 in 8.
So, no- cars are not required. They might be useful, but they're not required. "I want" isn't the same as "I need", as granny used to say.
Which is bollocks, I lived in slough almost 40 years....in all that time I had precisely 2 jobs in slough, I worked in wantage,epsom,reading,farnborough apart from that. Public transport was only viable for reading. None of those places was cyclable to. Just because you live in an urban area does not mean you will find a job in that urban area
Sorry what point are you trying to make here? 80% of slough needs a car?
No. What I am saying is that Bart's claim,
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
is demonstrably untrue. Plenty of functioning adults manage their lives perfectly well without driving a car, ever. On the latest stats, about 1 in 4 adults in England don't have a driving licence.
That's not the case for everyone, sure. I'm not arguing for no cars at all anywhere, and you'd have to get pretty fringe to get that view.
What I do think is that cars can be excellent servants, but appalling masters. If we try to put sufficient road and parking space in urban areas, we cut them in pieces and often kill the things that make them good places to live. By making roads less safe and public transport less viable, we (and this includes me) make life demonstrably worse for the 1 in 4 adults who don't drive and the young people who struggle to be independently mobile.
And the evidence is that, if you create safe networks for walking and cycling, properly away from motorised traffic, people do use them as a serious way of getting bits of their daily business done. Which is good for everyone.
@MattW is the acknowledged expert on cycling infrastructure. I’m sure his predictions that cycling can be expected to triple in coming years is right.
I’m hopeful about Birmingham and Nottingham too.
I remember when I posted that it was a shame that cities outside London lacked cyclehire schemes and I was denounced as a cappuccino supping metro elitist.
A small, but very useful scheme - Brompton offer cycle hire
I'm seeing on the trains an increasing number of people who've obviously hired one (the colour scheme is quiet, but noticeable) for a day out - train out to somewhere in the country side, unfold and ride.
For those who don't know them, Brompton folding bikes are allowed on all trains because they are so compact. They are, in addition, very rideable, compared to other small wheel bikes.
Bromptons are very cool, as well as a British manufacturing success story.
I have a single speed titanium one with flat bars because that's just how I roll.
They are not particularly 'rideable' because of a very short mechanical trail distance of 27mm. A normal bicycle has 40-65mm and therefore much stronger castering action. I have ridden mine over 60km in one ride though.
What's the verdict on cargo ebikes? I'm tempted by something like a Tern or the cheaper Radwagon. Where we live, it'd make sense for me, rather than use the Transporter for a 10 minute drive to town. It'd be a crime to use my hardtail with panniers.
Terns are I think well-thought of and robust, if somewhat expensive at £3-4k+. ie about 12-18 months of running costs for a small 2nd car.
You can find E-Cargo bikes from about £1500, or secondhand, and they hold their value well.
What is your annual running cost, btw? *innocent face*
Okay, I’ll bite.
I’ve previously lived in places where work and home were 400m apart, and home was 100m from the station. Brilliant. No need for a car, take a taxi or rent one when required.
Right now, I live 25km from work, and the journey is pretty much impossible by anything other than car. It’s 20m in the car, or nearly 2h by public transport (walk, bus, train, train, walk, boat, walk).
The problem I have, is trying to fit one-size-fits-all solutions into a diverse population. People will change jobs, and transport methods that worked with old job no longer work with new job. Not just jobs either, people have regular appointments with schools, shops, social events, that can change over time.
Having a car is a sunk cost; not just for the car, but for insurance, VED, servicing etc. Owning a house is an even bigger sunk cost; it’s often easier to accept an hour’s commute than to commit to spending five figures on moving house, even assuming that a similar house near new job can be purchased for similar money to the one you have already.
Once you have a car the marginal cost of a single extra journey is tiny, compared to the cost of a bus or train journey for more than one person. If you’re on your own, the cost is about the same, but the difference in time and exposure to the weather is significantly different.
The impression given by those wanting to increase cycling, is that it starts with a dislike of cars. Now, there’s silly drivers and silly cyclists out there, and the cyclists are in the more vulnerable position if there’s a collision between the two. I can understand that it makes sense to separate the traffic where possible, but most of the suggestions start with reducing the space available for cars, rather than first increasing the space for other transport methods and letting the change happen organically.
Many people have no choice but to drive, they might have a complex schedule that involves getting the kids to school, going to work, running errands for their employer, picking up kids and going to activities etc, or they might just be like me, who’d rather spend 40m a day driving than 4h on public transport. I do occasionally take the public transport to work, if we went for beers afterwards and I took a taxi home.
The personal motor car is possibly the greatest invention of the 20th century, in terms of the freedom it gives people to move around, to seek work, to better themselves, to spend more time with those they love.
It comes across that there’s a concerted effort to regress on personal car ownership, for a wide range of different ideological positions. Whether it’s the cycling lobby, the bus lobby, the train lobby, the Uber lobby, the car-as-a-service lobby, or the environmental lobby, is almost irrelevant; the aim is to leave fewer people with the option to just jump in their own car and enjoy the freedom of the road.
I agree with your entire post - just swap out "car" for "bicycle".
The key reason that people don't cycle in the UK is that they are scared of getting hit by a car. The "freedom" to cycle around has been eroded by a constant threat of injury or death.
And car ownership is closely related to wealth. The poor have no choice but to cycle, walk or use public transport. What of their "freedom"?
Cars are late to this game. People were walking, and then cycling, around our towns and cities long before motorists came along. In the 1950s there was 8x as much cycling as there is now.
For the vast majority of people, having their own car was massive progress over bikes and horses. Owning a car was aspirational, people with cars are mobile and can go from any major city to another within a day, unbeholden to anyone except themselves.
I’m all in favour of better roads for those who want to cycle, but most of the cycling campaigners start from the premise that less road should be given over to cars, and work backwards from there.
Fewer drivers = more road.
No, more road = more road.
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
I've been meaning to ask you. Do you like cars?
Guessing this is sarcasm?
Of course I do, they're great. Convenient, practical, efficient and they work. They're the best and most efficient form of transportation that exists.
I also like bikes, they're fun recreationally too.
The thing is that bikes are not an alternative to cars, in the same way as chocolate cake is not an alternative to a balanced diet.
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
Not for 83% of us
More importantly, about 1 in 5 households in Hillingdon (and Havering) manage without any car or van at all. Even in Rishi's Richmondshire, it's 1 in 8.
So, no- cars are not required. They might be useful, but they're not required. "I want" isn't the same as "I need", as granny used to say.
Eh? Not sure I can be arsed to go into this debate again by saying that because only 80% of people have one they are not required.
You don't know what life experience the 20% have, and they borrow/hitch a ride with others regularly, let alone know what it'd be like if no-one had one.
I went a year without a car, in Havering as it happens. It was occasionally inconvenient but most of the time no big deal. I hired a car for a weekend away, borrowed one occasionally (I had an arrangement whereby I was on someone else's insurance) but that car wasn't very nearby so it was only worth it if I was going somewhere worthwhile.
Most of the time I could walk, cycle and use public transport with minimal inconvenience. The one type of journey that was really difficult to make (as I have said before) was to a destination outside London not served by train (almost everywhere, basically) that wasn't far enough to be worth the cost/hassle of hiring a car - typically a day out in the country somewhere on a nice day.
So anyhoo, while you minted wastrels are going on about your "car" thingies, here is my route home tonite. All times perturbed to avoid identification
Return journey (elapsed) 6:45 taxi from office to station A 7:15 arrive at A. bus replacement service to other station B 7:30 arrive at B. Train cancelled, catch next train to station C 8:00 arrive at C. Train cancelled, wait for train to D
Return journey (estimated outstanding) 8:45 catch train to D 9:30 arrive at D. catch taxi to home. 10:00 arrive at home.
Total travel cost,including outbound leg is more than £100. And next week I get to do it again... 😀
Comments
90% of transportation miles are taken by drivers and that is consistent in pretty much all countries across Europe. This includes cyclists and public transportation.
You can't induce demand much beyond 90%. And even if cycling in this country were to double and all of those extra cycling miles were removed from driving miles, you'd be removing less than 1% of cars from the road. Which would be entirely negated by population growth being over 1% per annum.
“So I don’t think the responsible thing to do right now is to launch into some unfunded spree of borrowing and more debt, that will just make inflation worse, it will make the problem longer.”
To put Sunak’s warnings into context, the Bank of England had not yet made its alarming prediction that there would be a recession stretching across five quarters around the corner, and that inflation could reach 13.3% this winter.
Back in the July debate, Truss replied: “Let’s be clear – we have inflation because of our monetary policy, because we haven’t been tough enough on the monetary supply, that’s the way I would address that issue.”
“Liz, we have to be honest – borrowing your way out of inflation isn’t a plan – it’s a fairy tale,” Sunak hit back."
He was right and didn't change his mind as her regime imploded. Should he have accepted her mad ideas just because she got the majority of Tory members votes? She brought about her own demise,
But it is good to see you posting again
Interestingly, Christian friends report the exact opposite problem. If the women don't get married straight after Uni, all the half-decent men have been bagged meaning that there is apparently a surfeit of eligible 20-somethings.
Nonetheless, I think the point stands, you've got to become a person that someone would want to be with. In fact, my characterisation of an undesirable man is probably desirable to someone, just those men are probably not interested in someone who would want to be with them.
I do think there is an issue with a lack of male role models for young men (a gap ruthlessly exploited by unsavoury men). Some of the best advice I ever got was from an older friend at Uni who told me, after a fairly pathetic whine from myself was 'Sometimes a girl likes you, and sometimes a girl doesn't.' It was actually very calming to my (late) teenage angst.
You can't borrow your way out of the problem.
And monetary supply was a problem and monetary policy would be needed to be changed to end it.
Truss's demise happened with alarming news that if her policies continued base rate could end up being 5%
Base rate now is 5%
And Sunak is still borrowing, just as Truss would have.
Do you like cars?
https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2023-08-02/moment-car-slides-down-verge-after-trying-to-undertake-bin-lorry
If you're not willing to deliver mainstream solutions then you're an enabler of that.
Of course I do, they're great. Convenient, practical, efficient and they work. They're the best and most efficient form of transportation that exists.
I also like bikes, they're fun recreationally too.
The thing is that bikes are not an alternative to cars, in the same way as chocolate cake is not an alternative to a balanced diet.
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
Why am not surprised that it was a 4x4 driver?
We assume London is a liberal "Labour" city.
What if at some point in the next 10 years we find out it really isn't?
Every time a Tory or Labour government denied us a promised EU referendum, on Maastricht, the Constitutilon, Lisbon, ANYTHING, they shoved us closer to the cliff edge marked ACTUAL BREXIT, as they gave the voters no choice and no say. So in the end the voters pushed the nuclear button, as the only one available
Ditto migrants. Every time liberals congratulate themselves on making any solution to the dinghy people impossible - Rwanda, tow backs, mass deportations - they push us closer to a moment when voters will ask some Ultra-Farage to come up with a more drastic answer
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-66113646
Which is arguably what's happening with a rise in misogynistic attitudes in young men.
https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2023-07-27/suv-gets-stuck-in-sand-after-driver-mistakes-beach-for-free-parking
The bullshit notion of induced demand was the excuse to stop investing in new roads in 1997 and 26 years later we have ten million extra people loving here and 90% of our transportation miles are still by cars. Almost exactly the same as 26 years ago.
And 90% of 68 million people is more than 90% of 58 million people.
It is population growth that needs capacity not induced demand.
Plus of course new motorways that link places directly that currently aren't linked directly would REDUCE demand for going via places people don't want to go. As I've said my first new motorway for the North West would be an M580. This would mean that cars wanting to go from anywhere around the North East of Liverpool to anywhere around the North East (or further East) of Manchester no longer need to go South to the M62 then North through Manchester when they have no bloody desire to be driving in Manchester anyway.
But then I ignore all the propaganda and politics and just treat them with respect, and get to know them as individuals, whilst also making it clear I'm a red-blooded male and am sexually attracted to them. Same rules apply: they need to be intelligent, fun, attractive, sexy and interesting.
David Baddiel is writing on this at the moment. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.
So, no- cars are not required. They might be useful, but they're not required. "I want" isn't the same as "I need", as granny used to say.
Bit weird. Feeling someone gets you - who is also self-confident in themselves at the same time - is always attractive.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/census/maps/choropleth/housing/number-of-cars-or-vans/number-of-cars-3a/no-cars-or-vans-in-household?lad=E06000039
20 percent of households in Slough.
(Somewhat NSFW)
Rudy Giuliani's former assistant, Noelle Dunphy, who accused the former NY mayor of sexual abuse, harassment and wage theft, has filed a series of transcripts of audio files and ... wow.
https://twitter.com/seth_hettena/status/1686750210180198400
You don't know what life experience the 20% have, and they borrow/hitch a ride with others regularly, let alone know what it'd be like if no-one had one.
I'll have chocolate cake because its nice, or ride a bike because its fun. But you absolutely need your balanced diet/car because they are required.
is demonstrably untrue. Plenty of functioning adults manage their lives perfectly well without driving a car, ever. On the latest stats, about 1 in 4 adults in England don't have a driving licence.
That's not the case for everyone, sure. I'm not arguing for no cars at all anywhere, and you'd have to get pretty fringe to get that view.
What I do think is that cars can be excellent servants, but appalling masters. If we try to put sufficient road and parking space in urban areas, we cut them in pieces and often kill the things that make them good places to live. By making roads less safe and public transport less viable, we (and this includes me) make life demonstrably worse for the 1 in 4 adults who don't drive and the young people who struggle to be independently mobile.
And the evidence is that, if you create safe networks for walking and cycling, properly away from motorised traffic, people do use them as a serious way of getting bits of their daily business done. Which is good for everyone.
Most of the time I could walk, cycle and use public transport with minimal inconvenience. The one type of journey that was really difficult to make (as I have said before) was to a destination outside London not served by train (almost everywhere, basically) that wasn't far enough to be worth the cost/hassle of hiring a car - typically a day out in the country somewhere on a nice day.
I saved a lot of money in the process.
Return journey (elapsed)
6:45 taxi from office to station A
7:15 arrive at A. bus replacement service to other station B
7:30 arrive at B. Train cancelled, catch next train to station C
8:00 arrive at C. Train cancelled, wait for train to D
Return journey (estimated outstanding)
8:45 catch train to D
9:30 arrive at D. catch taxi to home.
10:00 arrive at home.
Total travel cost,including outbound leg is more than £100. And next week I get to do it again... 😀