Moderation in everything?

Including moderation! :D

Depends on your definition of walking distance I suppose but I reckon some areas of Huddersfield you could have to walk a mile or two.

Of course for many people these days walking distance is less than 50m, probably due to their car use: viscious circle!

RE: Lindley – Fair do’s then, my experience is limited to the Midlands, South West and South East, never been to Huddersfield.

The rest of your post is spot on, we have a transport network that cannot cope with the demands being placed on it, particularly in urban areas. The cheapest solution is to limit car use, levelling swathes of urban areas is going to be a bit more difficult I would think!

and it influences my behaviour

There are lots of things I like and don’t like about people (physically, emotionally and mentally). The trick is not to let this influence your behaviour, and if you catch yourself doing it pull yourself up on it. It’s difficult and I’m not always successful, but being aware of your own bias and failings is pretty important IMO.

Surely everyone judges everyone on a daily basis don’t they?

There’s a difference between judging someone and being judgemental though. It’s like stereotyping then recognising you are stereotyping and being aware that you may be wrong. Being judgemental I would say is acting on your judgement without being aware of the full facts. I.e. assuming all overweight people are overweight because they’re lazy and then treating them all with the same disdain because of that assumption.

My helmet has saved me from a few similar impacts, also it’s getting towards Autumn so the conkers/acorns falling from the trees will hurt without appropriate protection.

have a tab at the pub

No pints, wine or mixers though, think of the weight savings of spirits compared to the larger volume stuff.

As the overwieght populace increase the skinny will become the “outgroup”, it’s all swings and roundabouts…

Camo16 is right though.

Take a credit/debit card? You could drill holes out of it too, just make sure you don’t drill through the chip and it should be fine!

Sorry piemonster :oops:

In my defence I would like to say I was empathising with car owners, I don’t own one myself so can safely say in my personal circumstances that bikes (n+1) are a far higher priority than cars, and yes I probably could buy a car with the money I spent on my bikes (although it would be a bit of rubbish one!), wouldn’t be able to run the thing though… :-)

There’s a bit of an economic disparity between most peoples bikes and cars too. Cars are likely to be the second biggest purchase of most peoples lives (the first being a house/flat or whatever) so when they get damaged it’s bound to hurt a bit more.

Having said that, many car owners seem to park in stupid places with no concept of the size of their vehicles and then expect them to have some kind of forcefield around them preventing damage!

As long as electric cars need to be plugged in to charge there’s going to be massive resistance (pun intended) for many reasons.

There is potential for wireless charging, just drive the car over an inductive loop style arrangement and it charges automatically, a few new developments I’ve worked on have these built in to the car parks to future proof them (retrofitting is expensive). Don’t ask me how it works though, looks like magic to me…

can you see what i see? kicking over bins is fun, but imagine the hours of entertainment the ‘evening folk’ will have with this stuff…

The ones I’ve seen aren’t really in the order of a three pin socket and an extension cord. They tend to be the heavier duty armoured cable secured with lockable sockets at either end. If someone wants to trash them they’ll have to be packing a pair of bolt croppers (not what students are generally carrying around), and anyone doing that to a charging electric car is at risk of a slight (massive) shock!

thm, I’ll check the blog out later.

Stupid is subjective, yes. That journey could be made in other ways, the purpose of that journey could be considered and a closer alternative found. I don’t know what the persons ideas were behind that journey, but I’d be happy to suggest alternatives if that information was provided.

By pricing people off the roads you have made going for some exercise in a nnearby ational park a pastime for the rich. <applause>

Sorry for quoting, but couldn’t think of a better way of responding. Anyway, what is the specific problem with this (I’m assuming the applause is sarcastic)? Couldn’t the same be said for airtravel to for example Barbados? Oh noes, the porr people can’t go on holiday there!

It is not anymore ridiculous than saying that cars give people freedom, which was my point.

thm – true cost as in what it costs to produce and the costs of the impact of it’s use minus what it’s benefits are.

Okay, fuel tax could be viewed as regressive, if you only look at those who pay fuel tax. If you look at the really poor in society, those who can’t afford a car, they are reaping the costs of car-addiction with none of the benefits. They are seeing there homes sidelined, their job options reduced, their health negatively impacted. Reduced car use would reduce these factors, therefore the poorest members of society would benefit. Is that the kind of thing you were thinking of?

You’re not wrong about the solution needing tweeking, the amount to charge for fuel, the amalagmation of different motoring taxes, the amounts spent on infrastructure, policing, health care etc… It’s a minefield to try and sort out!

jfletch – No it doesn’t, unless you can’t walk. Theoretically you have access to the entire country, you just need to have the time to travel there. You can go pretty much anywhere. “Resticting your mobility” is an emotional argument used by the motor lobby to try and persuade people that it is a “right” to hown and use a car unrestricted. It is not a right, it is a privelidge, one that needs to be paid for.

Well, the CBA I flagged up earlier indicates that it isn’t good for most peoples quality fo life (or society as a whole), and, call me a clairvoyant, but I suspect the list of minuses is going to increase faster than the list of pluses. Forget about this hang up you have on the environment side of things, that’s only a small factor, swapping everyones V8 for a G-Whizz isn’t going to impact on many of the problems we face.

BTW Car doesn’t = bad, stupid use of car = bad.

teamhurtmore (I won’t quote if that’s okay!), you’re right about much of the economic impacts, however they are all short term impacts and to be honest I haven’t really thought about the timescale side of things!

If all fuel was priced according to it’s true cost then many of the side effects you list wouldn’t happen, more goods would be produced closer to their point of consumption. People would live closer to where they work.

The poorer members of society would always be hit hardest (is there truly any tax that doesn’t do this?) but what other options are there? We cannot continue living the way we do and it’s going to be a lot better to progressively reduce car-addiction than let the markets (health, social and financial) suddenly hit everyone at a later date when it’s too late to make the (slightly less radical changes we need to.

Progress is subjective though, we can still have a globalised society, a worldwide market and communication over vast distances with the true cost of transport being paid by those who want it.

The “True” cost of transport includes the benefits and costs, traditionally the costs have been ignored and the benefits counted. Recently this has been changing. Have a look at the Dept. for Transports WebTAG documents if you want to see what is normally taken into account for a cost benefit analysis of a potential transport project (it is quite dry though).

If the true cost of transport means only the rich can afford it, then thats the way it will need to be. It doesn’t restrict where or when you can go, it just restricts how you can go…

Sorry jfletch, I didn’t realise that “quote wars” even existed, let alone it was such a breach of forum etiquette! I will endeavour to avoid such a gross faux pas in the future…

So, this wider point is that fuel duty increases won’t impact on short, irregular journeys? I disagree, I think there will come a time when people spedn so much on fuel that they will be forced to think about it and will consider whether a 20 min walk/2min cycle ride is a better option. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on that point.

Expanding public transport, encouraging walking and cycling etc. are all part of the mix, together with technology, improved communications, transportation systems of goods and similar. Google “travel planning” and you’ll see that it is much bigger than just whacking a load more buses on the roads. Just improving vehciles so they run cleaner isn’t going to tackle the bigger issues of congestion, social exclusion, sedentary lifestyles and the ilk.

Policies that penalise people are needed, because the policies that encourage alternatives aren’t working. Sitting in a car is a choice, it is comfortable, warm, cheap and convenient. Remove one of those and it’ll be a lot less attractive.

Really? I’d wager that for a significant proportion of journies less than 5 miles a car would be the “best” choice regardless of the price of fuel. Its is where personal motorised transport excels, it is cheap, convienient and efficent.

Best because it is cheap and convenient maybe, not best for all the other reasons social, environmental, health etc. There is also a contradiction here, your “best” is based on it being cheap, but this is regardless of the price of fuel. I’m afraid I don’t understand this.

e.g. I will drive to the local mini-supermarket to get stuff even though it is less than a mile away because if I go on my bike it may get nicked and if I walk it will take me 20 mins and that time is of much more value to me to spend at home than any price that could be inflicted on me by fuel duty.

Will, those a pretty spurious reason for me! But then I’m not you and I don’t know if your or my opinion can be easily transplated to large segments of the population! If I’m worried about my bike getting nicked, I’ll lock it up, if it’s 20 mins to walk to the shops I’ll do that as I’ll get some exercise/fresh air at the same time. we all have reasons for our choices.

Penalising people into making a different choice is not the answer, it just builds resentment and anger at “green” policies.

Except it isn’t just a “green” policy, it’s a social policy, health policy, a financial policy (congestion costs £billions) and ultimately a fairness-of-society policy what with the majority of the population subsidising the motorist.

Nobody is going to cycle to the supermarket just beacuase the petrol to get there costs £1 instead of 50p or even £2.

Well, that’s just an argument to raise the price even further then!

The same is true of their place of work or their kids school. Price is not an factor is their choice of transport for these trips. So we need to accept this and work within the rules of the real world. Two things need to be done…

Price is not a factor again? Well, make it one! Make the motorist pay the full cost of their behaviour.

a) Make personal motorised transport have a much lower impact on the environment through improved technology and alternative fuels without affecting the existing benefits of convienience, cost and effieciency.

Not relevant to much of the intention behind reducing car journeys

b) Offer viable alternatives that have the same hygene factors as driving. This requires huge investments in infastructure. People will get the bus if it is a cheap as driving and doesn’t take longer and stops near their house. People will cycle to work if it is is safe away from traffic and there is somewhere safe to park their bike and have a shower and there is a pool car to do work things on if required.

There are too many carrots already in many cases, it’s time to start using the sticks more effectively.

Maybe you should ask, instead of (as you appear to be doing) condemning their actions without knowing. I’m sure people have their reasons. No-one wants to spend hours in the car and hundreds of pounds a month on fuel.

Oh I do, it’s part of my job! The number of people who do have legitimate reasons for the majority of their vehicle use is so small compared to those who just don’t care (or who can afford not to care). The examples on this thread of folk who do need to use the vehicles the way they do are not the norm, unfortunately.

If no one wants to spend hours in their car and hundreds of punds on fuel why do they? Because the alternatives they are offered aren’t appealing based on their perception of them? Because they can afford to waste their time and money? Because they have no other choice? The latter is certainly not the majority in my opinion.

The fact that so many car journeys ae less than five miles means that there are alternatives already that aren’t being taken! Ramp up the cost of fuel and folk will start to make more sensible choices. Instead of driving 200m to the shop to pick up the weekend papers, they will save their fuel for the daily commute.

I really struggle to understand how some people can be so hard up yet still make such irresponsible choices when it comes to transport and lifestyle. It’s not as if this propblem hasn’t been foreseen and deliberately taking a job with such a long commute as some of those mentioned seems foolhardy and short sighted.

There is no other space for the cars unless they parked a few miles away as everywhere has no space for all the **** cars we have everywhere.

Walk a few miles then, bunch of lazy g*ts! Or use a car club, or hire a car or share one with your neighbours. I’ve yet to come across a situation where there isn’t a car parking space within walking distance of someones home/work, so the few miles thing I call b*ll*cks on!

Its annoying, many things are but there is no actual solution beyond fewer cars, which is most unlikely
If you get cross by this you are going to get cross a lot.

I get cross a lot! I hate car culture and the obsession in this country with the bl**dy things. They’re a really useful and great and all that, but for f*cks sake people, use them properly, not as an excuse not to use your legs or your bike!

Agree competely with Ian. If you park on the pavement rather than parking somewhere you can without inconveniencing others, then tough sh*t if your car gets damaged, deliberately or otherwise. The pavements aren’t designed to take the weight of cars they’re there for pedestrians and similar to use.

Its selfish, arrogant and there is no excuse. Park on the road, or park in a space further away, don’t be a tw*t.

But equally I’m not sure I’d believe the parents that they’ve brought up great kids, hardly subjective are they.

That’s a very good point, my two are right little g*ts!

Why didn’t the cyclist just cycle off? It’s not difficult to lose the Feds!

Two many stairs in my life for an ED209.

Daleks though, they should definitely be legalised, and cyber men, and the original cylons too.

Sure I saw somewhere that you can get covers or replacement lenses that change the beam pattern to make them more road friendly

Yep, I got a late incarnation of the “Bastid” light of old and got a new lense cover from ebay, think it was about a fiver (do a search on Magicshine lense or similar). It changes the normal, spot beam into a bar that illuminates a fair old chunk of the road without spilling too much up to eye level. If you tilt the light down a touch then it is very similar to a dipped beam on a car.

I’m with Binners on this one, legalise it all and pump the money currently spent on enforcement of stupid laws into education.

Also, I don’t think comparing the markets is helpful particuarly regarding other drugs such as tobacco where a significant black market exists. If cannabis was taxed too high then I reckon a lot of people would just grow their own. It’s not difficult, there is no processing of the final product to do and considering the amount of faff people go to to make their own beer (myself included!) this is a far simpler route to a good night out/in.

Male Circumcision and FGM both amount to genital mutilation for (in the majorty of cases) no medical reason they are comparable in that respect, particularly as the individual is rarely given the choice to agree or disagree to the procedure.

If there was a god what a **** he is for making people do stupid things.

Not a ****, just got a highly developed sense of humour. Don’t worry, when we’re all dead we’ll get the joke and laugh at the living too!

I can’t think of anything else which has made as big a difference to my gloomy winter commutes other than mudguards. They completely change how many people perceive you in traffic.*

Except if you use panniers, then they’re obscured!

Knowing when to challenge xenophobic/sexist/racist opinions and comments and when not to. Always have a bit of a moral struggle in my head when I bite my tongue on the basis that the knucklehead spouting the sh*t is likely to resort to fists rather than enter into a discussion about the dynamics of human group behaviour.

the blame always gets put down to the driver of the vehicle, even if it is not their fault.

Yay, presumed liability was enacted after all!

Guess it’s only me that finds this thread fairly unpleasant reading.

I read a lot of the posts as being a touch tongue-in-cheek. I always assume that peds have priority over cyclists full stop (even on roads) as they’re the more vulnerable (and often have greater legal “rights” to be there anyway).

I think most of the posters are referring to the more obnoxious folk we meet…

Second the studded tyres for winter, buy a pair then you won’t have to use them for a couple of years because the winter won’t be bad!

Overshoes are great, they don’t keep your feet dry, after about 10 miles, but they do keep them warm and wet.

A spare bike (hack bike/pub bike or similar) is useful for when you need to rebuild a wheel/change a bottom bracket or similar mid week.

Extra food, lots of it, especially in Autumn and Winter. It’s scary how much energy you use cycling in cold, wet weather compared to sunny stuff.

Panniers are much more comfortable than a rucksack, but make sure that your feet don’t bash them and they don’t foul any brakes/mudguards you’ve got.

Lots of gloves, I’ve got two pairs of each so they can be washed. Fingerless, full finger Spring/Autumn ones, mild Winter ones and I’m investing in a pair of Lobster Mitts for the proper Winter time.

Also, make sure you compare how much you spend on transport with how much additional outlay you’ll be forking out for clothes/food, tyres, spares etc. I probably spend a few hundred quid a year on kit, but compared to a few thousand on a car/train it’s not a problem!

Oh yeah, I commute 52 mile round trip Mon and Tues, then about 20 miles on Thurs and Fri. Wed. I work closer to home only around ten miles.

Don’t flame me for the source, but a quick Google on braburning:

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/mythsofwomenshistory/a/bra_burning.htm

Not techsavvy enough to make proper links. :roll:

Edit – Oh, it does it automatically! How clever.

kind of is tho isn’t it. As junkyard said we’ve all (mostly, ignoring that kilt stuff) been indoctrinated that skirts are not acceptable leg/bottom wear for blokes. We’re all conditioned. Apparently you can’t objectively critique other cultures, your own bias will always skew it.

All true DONK. I think though that you can objectively critique other cultures if you’re aware of your own bias and if you’re willing to have your views challenged by those who have a different perspective. Much like this thread really.

Without wanting to get too far into the philosophy of free will, the exact same thing could be said for every choice you ever make!

Yeah I realise that. Probably one for another thread eh?!

I’m quite sure there are also women in the UK who feel forced into getting a piercing or a tattoo, whose husbands force them to wear short skirts, or stay at home while he goes to the pub every night. But no one suggests that banning piercings, tattoos, short skirts or pubs is the answer!

That’s a good point, I guess we’re focussing on the symptom, rather than the cause, and also making an assumption that there is a cause that needs to be tackled, when in reality there may not be.

I think it is such an emoptive issue because of the bluntness and obvious segregation of the clothing. Not segregation between genders or cultures, but between the person wearing it and the outside world. The communication barrier the veil creates makes it more emotive than any other kind of clothing and this does more to foster fear/suspicion than anything else.