Most of the rail lines in the South East are already running at capacity. Should ex-drivers hang onto the outside of the carriages, or stop working for a decade whilst they wait for new lines to be built?

Somewhat melodramatic! Why don’t you go the whole hog and accuse all those who think car use should be limited of wanting us all to live in caves, eat berries and wear hessian sacks*?!

*Standard MO.

Slightly more seriously though, most of the roads in the South East are already running at capacity too. The whole transport network is at the tipping point. The point is we all need to travel less. Mode shift is good, but if we’re all making the same journeys the current network is in just as much trouble.

I do this too.. but I’m a brickie.. which pleases the other passengers no end..

:lol:

A full brick hod is nothing, try getting a folding bike on a busy train, then you’ll see real abuse!

My employer wouldn’t count that as working time if I did do work on the train (and there is a limited amount I could do) so I’d still have to do my 8 hours in the office on top. So for me there would be no saving by working on the train.

Seems a bit unfair and backward of your employer to not allow you to count that as working time. I have encountered companies like this and it’s a shame that flexible working isn’t more widely available and accepted, especially considering the potential cost savings associated with it.

If your happy spending two hours a day commuting by car then so be it. I personally think it’s a shame and I’d struggle to justify it to myself, but I’m not 100% convinced I’m in a position to judge your choices…

it would take me 1h45 to get to work by train. The same journey takes 1h-1h15 in the car. So that’s 1-1.5 hours a day i “gain”.

I don’t know what you train would be like, but when I catch the train I often take work with me. I can then use this time productively so the 1h45 (x2 = 3h30) would be part of my work time. So that would be saving you the 2-2h30 you would “lose” driving.

Mind you, I doubt I could cope with a daily commute of 2-2h30 driving anyway! Probably just cut my losses and move house to somewhere closer to work or change job…

I don’t like seeing people assuming they know more about a strangers travel options, making the rather massive assumption that they are more enlightened than the other person and the other person clearly hasn’t thought it through.

Unfortunately many of the people who do make these assumptions do tend to be more enlightened than the other person. Note, I said many, not all!

The use of private personal motorised transport has become the default option, despite in a huge number of instances it being more expensive, more time consuming, more polluting and more detrimental to society.

In so many cases people just haven’t thought through the options available to them, maybe it’s due to lack of information (God knows how difficult it is to wade through all the PT operators websites), maybe it’s due to social pressure and the aspiration to own a car. Personally I think it’s primarily due to apathy (with a significant factor also being status), why change the status quo? “My car use isn’t harming anyone, why should I change?”

in truth I seriously doubt there are many people who use cars when trains are available, because trains are, well, easier and cheaper.

I’m afraid you’re wrong. The car is a status symbol, an extension of the owners personality, a statement to their peers and other road users. A train is just a way to get from A to B. Cars are worshipped by most people who own them. Car owners will generally opt for driving over Public Transport despite it being easier and cheaper.

It costs £250 plus to travel from London Euston to Wilmslow and back in peak times. How much would it cost to drive?

Depends what you drive? Depends when you book your ticket?

Trains are cheaper than driving? Nonsense!

Liverpol to euston return, around £150, or £80-90 in diesel.

You really haven’t thought that through!

Consider the other costs of car travel, and consider ordering your ticket in advance. Ways and means… Ways and means…

It would be an interesting experiment to ban personal car use. Then everyone who has to cart around equipment/do site visits could still use them (commercial use being the exempt from the ban) and those who didn’t need a car for work could get there by other means? Would need suitable enforcement activity, but I’d be intrigued as to the results, especially if the HSE could start to view driving as a work activity and subject to the appropriate controls e.g. training, safety controls, failsafes etc..

I was told by a local green-laner (obligatory Series 1 Landrover Defender-style too!), that Ash Ranges has the highest amount of mislaid old explosives of all the MoD ranges.

He also claimed he got shot in the head by an old rifle round. Apparently he disturbed an old ammo dump while doing his green-laning and the explosive had denatured to pure nitroglycerine so somewhat unstable. The resultant disturbance caused a round to be discharged which hit him in the head. Although it didn’t do any damage because it wasn’t chambered!

Probably urban/suburban myth, but there is some truth in sticking to established trails. Most of the MTB trails around Ash Ranges have been established for a good few years anyway.

I got a set of Schwalbe Marathon Pluses a few months ago too, great tyres, as previously said pretty much bomb proof and don’t roll badly for a protected tyre.

When I was sold them the Chappy in the shop mantioned something about the reflective sidewalls being a legal requirement in some EU countries, not sure of the truth of this, but thought it worth mentioning in case you were planning on International touring.

Be cool if the tail moved too.

I hope there’s a woman riding a bike with a huge egg on it further up the road.

There’s a big latex sheet at the next set of traffic lights!

I read somewhere that there’s no evidence that sugar actually makes them hyper. It cheers them up and excites them, but then so do lots of exciting and nice things.

I heard/watched/read the same, think there was an experiment on TV with a bunch of kids fed with sugar loaded snacks and another fed on normal foods. The parents weren’t informed which was which and the results indicated no conclusive evidence, except the parents claiming to notice their kids loaded when they weren’t!

if you want to wind ’em up a treat the only way is amphetamines, though that does raise a whole load of ethical/moral questions, not to mention the legal position…

Erm, yeah. I’d rather use the actual evidence that helmets may well have saved the wearer from more serious injury, and my own experiences, than what’s written in some ‘study’.

Surely they’re both actual evidence, it’s just one is more personal to you and therefore you ascribe more emotion to it than a larger evidence base collated from a wider variety of more distant sources? Not a particularly scientific approach, but a very human one!

See, what none of the studies have done, is taken a suitable test group, and hit the subjects heads in various places, with heavy objects, then repeated the exercise with the subjects wearing helmets, and compared the results. You can’t do tests like that, it’s not allowed. So, the findings of any studies, no matter how posh the people writing them, are little more than theory really, aren’t they?

Well, that test ignores all factors prior to the impact occuring. i.e. behaviour preventing the accident in the first place (the risk compensation alluded to earlier). It also ignores behaviour while the accident is occuring, i.e. impact preparation, moving your head so it is protected by your body/limbs. This is a lot more difficult when you’ve got a couple of inches of polystyrene increasing the diameter of it. Then one has to consider the impact itself, whether the presence of additional material increases certain injuries over others, but also the relative seriousness of those injuries over ones sustained sans helmet!

It’s all a bit more complicated than it first appears, a bit like all accident prevention and investigation really!

Yep, I got one. Had it for about three/four years now, so it’s the Al framed one rather than the steel one, I think the components have changed too, mines got Sora groupset and AVid BB5 brakes.

Been very happy with it, except for a fracture/crack that appeared at the base of the seat tube where it joined the BB shell. This was last year so I didn’t expect it to be warrantied, however I emailed EBC and they informed the frame carries a lifetime warrnty, 8 weeks later I had a new frame!

Anyway, I haven’t toured on mine, it’s used as a commuter although my commute can be upto 56 miles and involves hoiking panniers around so it’s pretty much lightweight touring! It’s been great, reliable and requires minimal maintenance. The wheels are still true and smooth after 13,000 miles (no new rims, disc brakes are great!), it’s a comfy ride not exactly quick off the mark or nimble, but beyond 10mph it’s fine and a real mile muncher if you’re looking to go long distances. I use it on dodgy potholed roads, towpaths and parks so it can cope with off-road (not technical singletrack mind). So, all in all, pretty much like all tourers except cheaper.

I’d certainly recommend it, particularly as it’s now got a steel frame, not got anything against Al, but the crack I mentioned above may not have happened with steel (caveat – I’m no Metalurgist though).

Another Echobelly and Portishead fan.

Just rediscovered Sleeper with the Smart album, and Elastica. May have to revisit my formative Brit pop/indie years with some of Blur (Leisure and Modern Life is Rubbish), Dodgy’s Free Peace Sweet, and Supergrass I Should Coco!

The really annoying part of all the whole giving birth thing is that when you explain to folk after it’s all happened how long it took, four days in the Mr Peyote’s case, you can guarantee that some trained medic (nurse, midwife, doctor or whoever) will turn around and say “That’s impossible. Labour cannot last that long”. They’re probably right from a clinical point of view (all due to dilation distances and the ilk), but from my POV she was doing the really hard work for a good few days before that!

Got another one on the go, due July, so I guess I should probably start practicing standing round like a lemon, making sympathetic noises & actions and generally being told what to do by all the hospital staff. Quite unnerving how impotent it is being the partner of a women in the throes of Labour!

Anyway, all the best to Mrs Q and you, it’ll all be a distant memory shortly!

Voting Yes, not because I particularly want AV, but it could be a step on the way to proportional representation (PR) whereas a no vote would kill the debate for the foreseeable future.

Same here. I am a bit confused though, because as a ex-Lib Dem I’d rather give Nick a slap, than Dave. At least Dave has the decency to fulfil the Tory stereotype, Clegg is just a traiterous little wretch (IMO of course!)

Makes you think. Often little stuff like this makes people’s lives really difficult. Same goes for parked cars on pavements (but not necessarily in the OP’s case). Imagine having to back down the pavement for ages, then come back along the road and find another dropped kerb, just because someone was late for church.

You can scoff but it happens all the time. Ask a wheelchair user.

Wise words MG.

Surely someone should right a stern letter and get the council to increase the width of the pavement so that everyone can pass unimpeded & un-inconvenienced???

It wouldn’t work, any attempt to remove road and put it into pavement (or even cycle lane, Heaven forbid!) would be jumped on from a great height by the political motorist lobby. Same as every other improvement that has been suggested for pedestrians and vulnerable road users for the past 30 years.

Did I miss it all kick off – or was TJ right….?

It all kicked off, and as usual TJ was/is right about helmets. The problem is most of those arguing against him ascribe views to him which he doesn’t seem to hold…

…so, same old, same old really!

Anyone wants to confirm their pussy status status I’ve got some Hayes So1e in my garage waiting for a new home, mind you, if you’ve ever used them in anger you probably not that much of a pussy. They are worse than dual pivots! :wink:

Manufacturers are starting to make disc brakes for roadbikes. Not quite Dura Ace level, but it’s only a matter of time:

http://www.veloecosse.com/productdetails.asp?productid=15463

http://www.tektro.com/_english/01_products/01_prodetail.php?pid=100&sortname=Disc&sort=1&fid=1

I like the look of the Lyras, and I reckon my BB5s have saved me two sets of rims already. Then again I ride a Tourer, not a proper road bike.

But, you haven’t included total revenues to the country of private motoring have you, you see if you want to play with ethereal “total costs” then you have to think about the effect of tourism on local areas, the effect of mental health of people being able to do stuff in their cars, like visiting family for example, you need to include the expansion of sports like mountain biking, since people use private motoring to go to trail centres and things – if you want to play the “total cost” then you cannot only include “money raised in motoring taxes” you have to compare it to “total beneficial value to the country of private motoring” which goes far, far beyond fuel duty and VAT

If you want to do that, then you’d also have to take into account the negative effects too. The communities cut off and destroyed because they were on the wrong side of the motorway (ever heard the expression wrong side of the tracks? The same happens with large/busy roads). The additional stres and mental health issues caused by the congestion and stress of driving. The removal of tourism from local areas due to people travelling farther away.

There’s no easy answer, I’ve had this debate many times and nobody has been able to say definitely one way or the other, so everyone stays convinced they’re correct.

TJ is right, no one will be convinced they are wrong.

I’ve always been under the impression that marine fuel was the biggest consumer of oil. I suppose when the market hits that one then we’ll notice it in the price of imported goods.

Fuel for private personal transport has got to be a pretty low consumer of oil in the big scheme of things. However, I think that a lot, maybe even the majority, of car journeys could be carried out by foot, cycle or public transport.

Webinar – Isn’t that a seminar conducted over a telephone and live internet link? So, yes a seminar, but without necessarily being in the same building, town or country?

Anyway, I digress. I find my boss and colleagues using “incentivise” far too much at the moment, the problem is I can’t find a word to replace it. The whole sentence/statement needs rephrasing to use avoid the use of the word. Get’s on my nerves that does.

Within the realms of mediocre, I sit happily right on top of the bell shaped curve.

Charlie Mungus: ’tis

Somebody else: ’tisn’t

Charlie Mungus: ’tis

Somebody else: ’tisn’t

Charlie Mungus: ’tis

Somebody else: ’tisn’t

Charlie Mungus: ’tis

Somebody else: ’tisn’t

That’s getting on for binary that is, speaking of which, when are the Mathematicians going to turn up and whip the Physicists?

‘Nowt like a good Science fight!

Here’s an idea, how about young drivers just don’t get a car until they can afford to tax, insure and run it?! When I learnt to drive (lessons were a compulsory birthday present!) it was years after I passed my test before I could run my own vehicle.

Then when I had owned it for a couple of years, managed to move out of my parents place I had to sell it because I couldn’t afford to run it. I don’t recall thinking to myself, “oh insurance is far too high, maybe I just won’t bother forking out for it” this excuse that it encourages illegal behaviour seems a bit ridiculous to me. But then I’ve always viewed driving and owning a car as a privilege, not a right.

Just another post to register a lazy parent/reins user!

Little Peyote (LP) is learning to walk to heel, so a lot of the time they are just stuffed into the hood of his jacket, but as a failsafe I find them very handy. The Missus has a dodgy back, so while LP does hold hands, it does mean stooping which isn’t good for back ache. Although I suppose these could just be excuses for us being lazy. :wink:

I used to have a “proper” roadbike, but then I saw the light and got a Tourer!

If ever there is a cycling niche where you can wear what you want and not look nearly as bad as most other folk on similar bikes, it’s Touring bikes! No need to shave your legs, none of this exposed lycra nonsense, you can even have a full-on beard and wear a 20 year old CTC jersey and not be ostracised!

I did the same just before the last cold spell. They were great for a couple of weeks of snowy and icy weather. However, a word of warning, they’ll stop being so effective after about 150 miles, and the studs will be useless after 300+. Mine have worn down to the rubber tread now so don’t work on ice anymore, still got deep tread so good for snow, but you’re shifting a few hundred grams of metal for no reason!

I’ve since learnt that pretty much all the other studded tyre manufacturers use carbide tipped studs, Innova just use regular steel, so they wear down far quicker. So, I invested in a pair of Schwalbe Marathon Winters, and guess what? It got warmer and I haven’t had a chance to try them out!

Yep, Dahon. Been very happy with my Mu Uno for a couple of years of commuting by train duties. Not that great on hills, but it is a singlespeed so to be expected!

Not as small a fold as Brompton, and a wee bit slower but only by seconds. Larger wheels means it rides more like a normal bike though.

Surely the addiction is harm? And the fact you tend to stop caring about other things?

That’s a good point Molgrips. I think there has to be a distinction made between physiological damage; i.e whether a certain substance is poisonous, what quantiites it can be considered poisonous and what damage can be caused, and psychological damage; i.e the ease at which addiction can be created and the effect of the substance on the users mental well being.

The problem in my mind is, the former is relatively easy to quantify, the latter is far more dependant on the individual user. For example, I suspect in some people addiction to alcohol or gambling causes the addict to disregard all else to get there next drink/fix. I’m not sure if heroin is particularly more addictive than anything else. Indeed one of the regular lines trotted out in smoking cessation literature is that nicotine is more addictive than heroin. I’m suspicious about the accuracy of this though.

I don’t see how the Government could ever legalise drugs. Alcohol is relatively low risk and has been used widely quite literally since man found out how to make it. Can you seriously imagine a time when there will be a minimum legal age for people to buy drugs like heroine or cannabis? Get real.

Yes I can imagine a time, several govts have and are considering it. Alcohol isn’t low risk as has already been pointed out in this thread.

How long do you think the native Americans having been chewing Coca leaves? Ditto Opium poppies and Ganja plants? Alcohol and the fermentation methods to produce it are probably a much younger invention (amateur historian mode off!). So learning how to make it, and picking it off a plant and chewing it/sticking it on a handy camp fire is likely to be more ingrained in human society than brewing.

Drugs like heroine, cocaine, and arguably cannabis, can induce severe long term physiological problems in a very short space of time and after relatively small quantities have been ingested. No way the powers that be will ever legalise them; they are far too dangerous to justify any revenue raised through the duty that would undoubtedly be levied on them.

The research doesn’t back this up. You’re right about the political element though. Too many of Joe Public believe they are dangerous without understanding why, so it’s political suicide to legalise them… …at the moment anyway. Hoepfully education about this will change the populist viewpoint (hint hint!).

The NHS would probably also go into meltdown if more people started using drugs recreationally.

Hyperbole I’m afraid, no evidence that this would happen from other countries that have experimented. Besides the increased tax take could cover any short term spike.

I’m also quite sure most drug users would resent the government telling them how strong the substances they are allowed to take should be and having to pay duty on them and so the illegal trade would still continue.

You don’t know many drug users then! Think of how many alcohol users resent the govt. imposing limits on how strong their alcohol is. Not many right?

The illegal trade wouldn’t continue on nearly the same scale. It’d just be a matter of making the tax low enough so that it would be economically unviable to produce and import it illegally. Not difficult economics really. If you’re worried about the ethical aspect of it, I’m sure some entrepeneurial soul would sort out some fairtrade opium for you!

Yeah except the nature of herion is such that you don’t just take one tiny does then carry on. It tends to consume your life making you forget about anything else, pretty much from the off. There is (usually) no middle ground. As I understand it, anyway.

This is what I have heard too. It’s certainly the line that is taken by pretty much all of the media outlets I’ve experience.

I have to say though that I’m getting less and less convinced of it’s accuracy. Not that I have any personal experience or research to back my opinion up I hasten to add! It just seems odd to me that so many people can try it and not get sucked into BigDave’s scary world of drugs-hell.

What annoys about the ‘lets all take a more measured approach to drugs’ line is that the people spouting such crap forget that the drugs they buy are ultimately tainted with the blood of countless people.

I think your making some crass assumptions there about the people who support taking a more measured approach.

Really? People tend to forget that there is a whole underworld of organised crime linked to the supply and distribution of drugs. That 0.1mg of heroine has undoubtedly been handled by violent criminals. I don’t recall any instances where Smirnoff has murdered people to keep its supply lines open or to silence their competition. I don’t have kids but if I did I would rather they grew up in a world full of off licence owners than drug dealers.

Again the line of discussion takes a different course! In MF’s example he was talking about the effect it would have on him and his own personal level of control (or words to that effect).

If you want to go off on one about supply chains, organized crime etc… then that’s fine. I would point out though, that just as there are legal supplies of heroin (dimorphine) there are also illegal supplies of alcohol, no doubt also controlled by criminal gangs hell bent on creating your nightmare world. What you seem to be arguing for is a controlled market that removes the dodgy methods of production and distribution. I would completely agree with your sentiments if my assumption is correct.

I might be wrong (having never taken heroin) but it is possible to have a drink or two and stop, but when you take heroin you are taking your body off to a completely different place in one shot and you are there for hours.

Whereas I can get home from work and have a bottle of beer or a glass of wine and can still – quite safely – put my children to bed or cook a meal.

Surely that’s more about appropriate dosage than about specific substance though? If you compare 0.1mg of heroin and a bottle of Smirnoff your probably safer with you kids on H than on the Vodka!

Not sure I agree with this.

its effects (alcohol) are known and the majority of people can enjoy it without ruining their lives.

If it is true, then it’s very diffiult to be sure that it isn’t true of other drugs too. There seems to be very little information available on the numbers of people who take illegal drugs (be it the odd smoke of green, through to shooting up with H) who also live relatively normal lives. I guess the trouble is the only ones who actually come above the radar and get coverage are the ones who take it to excess/extreme levels either through quantity used or the resultant lifestyle.

This is the problem with talking to many drugs campaigners, they only ever have to deal with the f*ck-ups, ‘cos the normals never need their help…