Booming bikes

[Bertie Wooster[_2_]]

Cycling in Britain is Booming.

Last year saw a massive 18% increase in the numbers of people making
trips by bicycle, according to the health charity Sustrans. A total of
256 million trips by bike, including 3.3 million people using the
National Cycle Network.

Chief executive Malcolm Shepherd said: "Cycling and walking are the
answers to our rising petrol prices and expanding waistlines, but we
need safe routes to feel comfortable travelling by bike and foot.
People across the country are crying out for routes where they can get
off roads and make safe, healthy, cheap and green journeys. It's time
the Government had the foresight to properly fund cycling and
walking."

Source: The Press Association

I hope there are further rises in fuel duty. The extra VAT revenue
could be used to fund additional cycling facilities.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 18/06/2012 20:11, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> Cycling in Britain is Booming.
>
> Last year saw a massive 18% increase in the numbers of people making
> trips by bicycle,

So, we go from 2% of journeys being made by push bike to a whopping 2.36%.

Clearly not a maths teacher are you Cwispin?

>
> I hope there are further rises in fuel duty. The extra VAT revenue
> could be used to fund additional cycling facilities.

Sponging freeloaders to a man.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[Judith[_4_]]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:11:15 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
wrote:

>Cycling in Britain is Booming.
>
>Last year saw a massive 18% increase in the numbers of people making
>trips by bicycle, according to the health charity Sustrans. A total of
>256 million trips by bike, including 3.3 million people using the
>National Cycle Network.


Oh dear - oh dear can you get nothing correct.

There was not a "massive 18% increase in the numbers of people making trips by
cycle" at all. They actually claim that there was an increase of 18% in the
number of trips made on the National Cycle Network which is not the same thing.

In fact they actually claim that the 18% increase was in the in the number of
trips made - not the numbers of people making those trips: again quite
different things

Also - it should be noted that this contrasts with
official statistics from the Department for Transport which
shows cycling to be static. Odd that - DfT no axe to grind concluded one thing
- charity trying to prove their effectiveness concluding something else.

Most odd.

So how about more cyclists are moving off non-designated NCN routes - on to
the NCN routes - is that all that has happened?

That I can believe - but I certainly do not believe what you have claimed. Do
you have a link for your claim please.

[Bertie Wooster[_2_]]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 22:14:38 +0100, Judith >
wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:11:15 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
>wrote:
>
>>Cycling in Britain is Booming.
>>
>>Last year saw a massive 18% increase in the numbers of people making
>>trips by bicycle, according to the health charity Sustrans. A total of
>>256 million trips by bike, including 3.3 million people using the
>>National Cycle Network.
>
>
>Oh dear - oh dear can you get nothing correct.
>
>There was not a "massive 18% increase in the numbers of people making trips by
>cycle" at all. They actually claim that there was an increase of 18% in the
>number of trips made on the National Cycle Network which is not the same thing.
>
>In fact they actually claim that the 18% increase was in the in the number of
>trips made - not the numbers of people making those trips: again quite
>different things

Yes - the claim is for 300,000 more people on bikes; a 10% increase on
the previous year.

>Also - it should be noted that this contrasts with
>official statistics from the Department for Transport which
>shows cycling to be static. Odd that - DfT no axe to grind concluded one thing
>- charity trying to prove their effectiveness concluding something else.
>
>Most odd.
>
>So how about more cyclists are moving off non-designated NCN routes - on to
>the NCN routes - is that all that has happened?
>
>That I can believe - but I certainly do not believe what you have claimed. Do
>you have a link for your claim please.

=====Quote=====
Around 40 million more cycling trips were made during 2011 than the
year before, an 18% increase, taking the total to 256 million, said
cycling charity Sustrans. An estimated 3.3 million people used the
national network during 2011, an increase of 300,000 over the previous
year.
=====/Quote=====

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-T1nvLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A

[NM]

On Jun 18, 8:11*pm, Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> Cycling in Britain is Booming.
>
> Last year saw a massive 18% increase in the numbers of people making
> trips by bicycle, according to the health charity Sustrans. A total of
> 256 million trips by bike, including 3.3 million people using the
> National Cycle Network.

Is that figure including bicycle shaped objects (BSO's) ?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
wrote:

<snip>


>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-T1nvLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A


I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some obscure reason.

"Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's National Cycle
Network, according to a new study."


It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it - by doing so
it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?

[Bertie Wooster[_2_]]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith >
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-T1nvLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
>
>
>I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some obscure reason.
>
>"Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's National Cycle
>Network, according to a new study."
>
>
>It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it - by doing so
>it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?

I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips on
the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle trips
will have increased by a similar amount.

[jnugent]

On 19/06/2012 16:52, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith >
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
>> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-T1nvLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
>>
>>
>> I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some obscure reason.
>>
>> "Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's National Cycle
>> Network, according to a new study."
>>
>>
>> It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it - by doing so
>> it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
>
> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips on
> the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle trips
> will have increased by a similar amount.

Would it be a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips on the
motorway network increased by infinity percent between August 1958 and August
2008, the total number of motor trips will have increased by a similar
proportion?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:52:10 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
>>wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-T1nvLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
>>
>>
>>I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some obscure reason.
>>
>>"Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's National Cycle
>>Network, according to a new study."
>>
>>
>>It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it - by doing so
>>it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
>
>I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips on
>the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle trips
>will have increased by a similar amount.


Oh - so you deliberately left that bit off because you thought that it was
immaterial.

I wonder why the author of the report put it in?

Also - they could of course said that an 18% increase on the NCR network meant
that cycling must have increased by 18% over the UK as a whole.

They didn't.

I wonder why not.

[Bertie Wooster[_2_]]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:01:35 +0100, JNugent >
wrote:

>On 19/06/2012 16:52, Bertie Wooster wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-T1nvLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
>>>
>>>
>>> I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some obscure reason.
>>>
>>> "Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's National Cycle
>>> Network, according to a new study."
>>>
>>>
>>> It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it - by doing so
>>> it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
>>
>> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips on
>> the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle trips
>> will have increased by a similar amount.
>
>Would it be a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips on the
>motorway network increased by infinity percent between August 1958 and August
>2008, the total number of motor trips will have increased by a similar
>proportion?

That would be a false assuption.

Do you think that the National Cycle Network increased by 18% between
2010 and 2011?

[Bertie Wooster[_2_]]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:09:58 +0100, Judith >
wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:52:10 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-T1nvLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
>>>
>>>
>>>I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some obscure reason.
>>>
>>>"Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's National Cycle
>>>Network, according to a new study."
>>>
>>>
>>>It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it - by doing so
>>>it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
>>
>>I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips on
>>the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle trips
>>will have increased by a similar amount.
>
>
>Oh - so you deliberately left that bit off because you thought that it was
>immaterial.
>
>I wonder why the author of the report put it in?
>
>Also - they could of course said that an 18% increase on the NCR network meant
>that cycling must have increased by 18% over the UK as a whole.
>
>They didn't.
>
>I wonder why not.

I would guess it is because Sustrans only count cycle trips on their
network.

[Peter Parry]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:11:15 +0100, Bertie Wooster
> wrote:


>Last year saw a massive 18% increase in the numbers of people making
>trips by bicycle, according to the health charity Sustrans.

Health charity? They are a quango with 430 employees and spend
£48million of government money each year. Like any good quango their
first imperative is to spend more public money and their staff
numbers again rose, from 308 in 2009/10 to 430 in 2010/11.

>Chief executive Malcolm Shepherd said: "Cycling and walking are the
>answers to our rising petrol prices and expanding waistlines,

We could also all keep a few hens and a pig.

> but we
>need safe routes to feel comfortable travelling by bike and foot.
>People across the country are crying out for routes where they can get
>off roads and make safe, healthy, cheap and green journeys.

That's going to upset their "partner", the CTC who are rabidly opposed
to segregation in case it leads to bicycle riders being banned from
roads as has happened in places like Copenhagen.

[roger merriman]

Bertie Wooster > wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith >
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
> >wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >
> >>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-T1n
> >vLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
> >
> >
> >I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some obscure reason.
> >
> >"Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's National
> >Cycle Network, according to a new study."
> >
> >
> >It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it - by doing so
> >it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
>
> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips on
> the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle trips
> will have increased by a similar amount.

really not safe, Sustrans network is for most part pleasure cycling, to
extrapolate from that figure is poor stats.

Thats not to say that the idea that at the moment cycling seems to be
booming but to use Sustrans network which is tailered for s subsecton of
cyclist for assumptions about all is unwise.

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Judith[_4_]]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:10:07 +0100, (Roger Merriman) wrote:

<snip>


>> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips on
>> the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle trips
>> will have increased by a similar amount.
>
>really not safe, Sustrans network is for most part pleasure cycling, to
>extrapolate from that figure is poor stats.
>
>Thats not to say that the idea that at the moment cycling seems to be
>booming but to use Sustrans network which is tailered for s subsecton of
>cyclist for assumptions about all is unwise.
>
>R


You do bring some common-sense to the stats from the other side of the fence
Roger.

I wonder - are you perhaps a teacher?

[Judith[_4_]]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:13:10 +0100, Phil W Lee > wrote:

(Roger Merriman) considered Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:10:07
>+0100 the perfect time to write:
>
>>Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> ><snip>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-T1n
>>> >vLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some obscure reason.
>>> >
>>> >"Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's National
>>> >Cycle Network, according to a new study."
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it - by doing so
>>> >it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
>>>
>>> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips on
>>> the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle trips
>>> will have increased by a similar amount.
>>
>>really not safe, Sustrans network is for most part pleasure cycling, to
>>extrapolate from that figure is poor stats.
>>

Oh dear - Lee really is a ****wit:

The moon was not bright green this morning. : Discuss.

Roger : "Sustrans network is for most part pleasure cycling"

Anchor the ****wit: "Not all sustrans routes are pure leisure cycling"

Lee is a ****wit,


--
X-no-archive : No
If the *******s won't do anything about the taxi driver risking
people's lives by dangerous driving, book him to take your kids on a
trip, then report him for kiddy-fiddling. He'll never drive a taxi
again.
Message-ID: >
Phil W Lee 3 February 2011

[Bertie Wooster[_2_]]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:10:07 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
wrote:

>Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >
>> >>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-T1n
>> >vLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
>> >
>> >
>> >I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some obscure reason.
>> >
>> >"Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's National
>> >Cycle Network, according to a new study."
>> >
>> >
>> >It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it - by doing so
>> >it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
>>
>> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips on
>> the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle trips
>> will have increased by a similar amount.
>
>really not safe, Sustrans network is for most part pleasure cycling, to
>extrapolate from that figure is poor stats.

Yes - OK. It may not be a good aproximation. But much of the National
Cycle Network is on quiet roads, so the 18% figure is a reasonable
pointer to the overall figure. And many cyclists on the NCR will move
onto busier roads.

>Thats not to say that the idea that at the moment cycling seems to be
>booming but to use Sustrans network which is tailered for s subsecton of
>cyclist for assumptions about all is unwise.

The 18% figure ties in well with data from Transport for london which
has shown a 15% increase in cycling in central London between 2008 and
2009 and 14% between 2009 and 2010.

>Roger

[Mrcheerful[_3_]]

Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:10:07 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
> wrote:
>
>> Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-T1n
>>>> vLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some
>>>> obscure reason.
>>>>
>>>> "Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's
>>>> National Cycle Network, according to a new study."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it -
>>>> by doing so it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
>>>
>>> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips
>>> on the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle
>>> trips will have increased by a similar amount.
>>
>> really not safe, Sustrans network is for most part pleasure cycling,
>> to extrapolate from that figure is poor stats.
>
> Yes - OK. It may not be a good aproximation. But much of the National
> Cycle Network is on quiet roads, so the 18% figure is a reasonable
> pointer to the overall figure. And many cyclists on the NCR will move
> onto busier roads.
>
>> Thats not to say that the idea that at the moment cycling seems to be
>> booming but to use Sustrans network which is tailered for s
>> subsecton of cyclist for assumptions about all is unwise.
>
> The 18% figure ties in well with data from Transport for london which
> has shown a 15% increase in cycling in central London between 2008 and
> 2009 and 14% between 2009 and 2010.
>

Central London is a special case and not representative of the majority of
the country.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 21/06/2012 18:12, Bertie Wooster wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:10:07 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
> wrote:
>
>> Bertie > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-T1n
>>>> vLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some obscure reason.
>>>>
>>>> "Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's National
>>>> Cycle Network, according to a new study."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it - by doing so
>>>> it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
>>>
>>> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips on
>>> the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle trips
>>> will have increased by a similar amount.
>>
>> really not safe, Sustrans network is for most part pleasure cycling, to
>> extrapolate from that figure is poor stats.
>
> Yes - OK. It may not be a good aproximation. But much of the National
> Cycle Network is on quiet roads, so the 18% figure is a reasonable
> pointer to the overall figure. And many cyclists on the NCR will move
> onto busier roads.
>
>> Thats not to say that the idea that at the moment cycling seems to be
>> booming but to use Sustrans network which is tailered for s subsecton of
>> cyclist for assumptions about all is unwise.
>
> The 18% figure ties in well with data from Transport for london which
> has shown a 15% increase in cycling in central London between 2008 and
> 2009 and 14% between 2009 and 2010.
>
>> Roger

But it still makes a tiny minority into a 'slightly less' tiny minority
doesn't it idiot boy?



--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[Bertie Wooster[_2_]]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:26:35 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
> wrote:

>Bertie Wooster wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:10:07 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-T1n
>>>>> vLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some
>>>>> obscure reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's
>>>>> National Cycle Network, according to a new study."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it -
>>>>> by doing so it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips
>>>> on the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle
>>>> trips will have increased by a similar amount.
>>>
>>> really not safe, Sustrans network is for most part pleasure cycling,
>>> to extrapolate from that figure is poor stats.
>>
>> Yes - OK. It may not be a good aproximation. But much of the National
>> Cycle Network is on quiet roads, so the 18% figure is a reasonable
>> pointer to the overall figure. And many cyclists on the NCR will move
>> onto busier roads.
>>
>>> Thats not to say that the idea that at the moment cycling seems to be
>>> booming but to use Sustrans network which is tailered for s
>>> subsecton of cyclist for assumptions about all is unwise.
>>
>> The 18% figure ties in well with data from Transport for london which
>> has shown a 15% increase in cycling in central London between 2008 and
>> 2009 and 14% between 2009 and 2010.
>>
>
>Central London is a special case and not representative of the majority of
>the country.

I agree - but it's another excellent pointer to the national figure.

[Judith[_4_]]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:12:35 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:10:07 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
>wrote:
>
>>Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> ><snip>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-T1n
>>> >vLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some obscure reason.
>>> >
>>> >"Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's National
>>> >Cycle Network, according to a new study."
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it - by doing so
>>> >it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
>>>
>>> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips on
>>> the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle trips
>>> will have increased by a similar amount.
>>
>>really not safe, Sustrans network is for most part pleasure cycling, to
>>extrapolate from that figure is poor stats.
>
>Yes - OK. It may not be a good aproximation. But much of the National
>Cycle Network is on quiet roads, so the 18% figure is a reasonable
>pointer to the overall figure. And many cyclists on the NCR will move
>onto busier roads.
>
>>Thats not to say that the idea that at the moment cycling seems to be
>>booming but to use Sustrans network which is tailered for s subsecton of
>>cyclist for assumptions about all is unwise.
>
>The 18% figure ties in well with data from Transport for london which
>has shown a 15% increase in cycling in central London between 2008 and
>2009 and 14% between 2009 and 2010.


Unfortunately the Sustrans increase does not tie in with The National Travel
Survey for Great Britain 2010.

Sustrans even say so in the report which you electively quoted:

"This bucks the trend of a national decline in cycling and walking on our
roads, as reported by National Statistics"

[Judith[_4_]]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:09:53 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
wrote:

<snip>


>>Central London is a special case and not representative of the majority of
>>the country.
>
>I agree - but it's another excellent pointer to the national figure.



Absolute rubbish - it is nothing of the sort.

Why not read the Sustrans report - they actually say that their figures "buck"
the national trend.

--

Bertie Wooster's real name is Tom Crispin.
He uses the name Bertie Wooster so that people involved with
Young Lewisham and Greenwich Cyclists and John Ball primary school
can't see what a tosser he is.

[jnugent]

On 21/06/2012 19:09, Bertie Wooster wrote:

> "Mrcheerful" > wrote:

[ ... ]

>>> The 18% figure ties in well with data from Transport for london which
>>> has shown a 15% increase in cycling in central London between 2008 and
>>> 2009 and 14% between 2009 and 2010.

>> Central London is a special case and not representative of the majority of
>> the country.

> I agree - but it's another excellent pointer to the national figure.

Have you ever encountered the phrase "non-sequitur"?

[roger merriman]

Phil W Lee > wrote:

> (Roger Merriman) considered Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:10:07
> +0100 the perfect time to write:
>
> >Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-T1n
> >> >vLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some obscure
reason.
> >> >
> >> >"Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's National
> >> >Cycle Network, according to a new study."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it - by
> >> >doing so it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
> >>
> >> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips on
> >> the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle trips
> >> will have increased by a similar amount.
> >
> >really not safe, Sustrans network is for most part pleasure cycling, to
> >extrapolate from that figure is poor stats.
> >
> >Thats not to say that the idea that at the moment cycling seems to be
> >booming but to use Sustrans network which is tailered for s subsecton of
> >cyclist for assumptions about all is unwise.
> >
> Not all sustrans routes are pure leisure cycling.
> There are several sections which see heavy commuting traffic, like the
> Bath/Bristol route, or several radiating from Cambridge.
>
> Unfortunately, these are the exceptions to the general case, although
> if traffic on those routes is being counted, the increase could be at
> least partially from commuting traffic.

I'm sure some sustran routes do get heavy commute traffic, Bath/Bristol
being a good example, But sustran routes and traffic are not terribly
repusentive of uk cycling.

Sustrans know that but are having a good PR/spin any how.

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[roger merriman]

Bertie Wooster > wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:10:07 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
> wrote:
>
> >Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-T1n
> >> >vLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some obscure
reason.
> >> >
> >> >"Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's National
> >> >Cycle Network, according to a new study."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it - by
> >> >doing so it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
> >>
> >> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips on
> >> the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle trips
> >> will have increased by a similar amount.
> >
> >really not safe, Sustrans network is for most part pleasure cycling, to
> >extrapolate from that figure is poor stats.
>
> Yes - OK. It may not be a good aproximation. But much of the National
> Cycle Network is on quiet roads, so the 18% figure is a reasonable
> pointer to the overall figure. And many cyclists on the NCR will move
> onto busier roads.
>
they will why? you might wise that but what evidence do you have?

Sustrans trails get used by families and such. not commuters on the
whole.


> >Thats not to say that the idea that at the moment cycling seems to be
> >booming but to use Sustrans network which is tailered for s subsecton of
> >cyclist for assumptions about all is unwise.
>
> The 18% figure ties in well with data from Transport for london which
> has shown a 15% increase in cycling in central London between 2008 and
> 2009 and 14% between 2009 and 2010.
>
central london figures are not uk, they are impressive but for uk
figures rather pointless.

> >Roger

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[roger merriman]

Bertie Wooster > wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:26:35 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
> > wrote:
>
> >Bertie Wooster wrote:
> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:10:07 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-
> >>>>>T1n vLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some
> >>>>> obscure reason.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's
> >>>>> National Cycle Network, according to a new study."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it -
> >>>>> by doing so it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips
> >>>> on the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle
> >>>> trips will have increased by a similar amount.
> >>>
> >>> really not safe, Sustrans network is for most part pleasure cycling,
> >>> to extrapolate from that figure is poor stats.
> >>
> >> Yes - OK. It may not be a good aproximation. But much of the National
> >> Cycle Network is on quiet roads, so the 18% figure is a reasonable
> >> pointer to the overall figure. And many cyclists on the NCR will move
> >> onto busier roads.
> >>
> >>> Thats not to say that the idea that at the moment cycling seems to be
> >>> booming but to use Sustrans network which is tailered for s
> >>> subsecton of cyclist for assumptions about all is unwise.
> >>
> >> The 18% figure ties in well with data from Transport for london which
> >> has shown a 15% increase in cycling in central London between 2008 and
> >> 2009 and 14% between 2009 and 2010.
> >>
> >
> >Central London is a special case and not representative of the majority of
> >the country.
>
> I agree - but it's another excellent pointer to the national figure.

No it's a fairly poor pointer since central london is on the whole
fairly good for bikes, short distances, conjested traffic, slow even if
not and so on.

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[roger merriman]

Judith > wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:12:35 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:10:07 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> ><snip>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-T1n
> >>> >vLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some obscure
reason.
> >>> >
> >>> >"Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's National
> >>> >Cycle Network, according to a new study."
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it - by
> >>> >doing so it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
> >>>
> >>> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips on
> >>> the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle trips
> >>> will have increased by a similar amount.
> >>
> >>really not safe, Sustrans network is for most part pleasure cycling, to
> >>extrapolate from that figure is poor stats.
> >
> >Yes - OK. It may not be a good aproximation. But much of the National
> >Cycle Network is on quiet roads, so the 18% figure is a reasonable
> >pointer to the overall figure. And many cyclists on the NCR will move
> >onto busier roads.
> >
> >>Thats not to say that the idea that at the moment cycling seems to be
> >>booming but to use Sustrans network which is tailered for s subsecton of
> >>cyclist for assumptions about all is unwise.
> >
> >The 18% figure ties in well with data from Transport for london which
> >has shown a 15% increase in cycling in central London between 2008 and
> >2009 and 14% between 2009 and 2010.
>
>
> Unfortunately the Sustrans increase does not tie in with The National Travel
> Survey for Great Britain 2010.
>
> Sustrans even say so in the report which you electively quoted:
>
> "This bucks the trend of a national decline in cycling and walking on our
> roads, as reported by National Statistics"

You have to remeber who sustrans are and want.

who are they? A cycling charity.

What do they want? more money for cycle routes.

in other words its spin.

while cycling is certinaly low than say the 50's the last few year (even
out of london) has seen a visable increase. in terms of % still be
barely noise i'm sure, but equally it's something that is recovering
it's numbers, rather than in decline, across the board from sustrans to
TFL and so on.

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Judith[_4_]]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:02:49 +0100, (Roger Merriman) wrote:

<snip>


>
>Sustrans know that but are having a good PR/spin any how.
>
>Roger



Yes - but to give them credit - they were quite honest in what they claimed -
and even pointed out that their figures were at odds with Government figures.

Unfortunately some chose to ignore those comments.

[Bertie Wooster[_2_]]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:02:50 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
wrote:

>Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:26:35 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Bertie Wooster wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:10:07 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith
>> >>>> > wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster
>> >>>>> > wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> <snip>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-
>> >>>>>T1n vLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some
>> >>>>> obscure reason.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> "Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's
>> >>>>> National Cycle Network, according to a new study."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it -
>> >>>>> by doing so it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips
>> >>>> on the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle
>> >>>> trips will have increased by a similar amount.
>> >>>
>> >>> really not safe, Sustrans network is for most part pleasure cycling,
>> >>> to extrapolate from that figure is poor stats.
>> >>
>> >> Yes - OK. It may not be a good aproximation. But much of the National
>> >> Cycle Network is on quiet roads, so the 18% figure is a reasonable
>> >> pointer to the overall figure. And many cyclists on the NCR will move
>> >> onto busier roads.
>> >>
>> >>> Thats not to say that the idea that at the moment cycling seems to be
>> >>> booming but to use Sustrans network which is tailered for s
>> >>> subsecton of cyclist for assumptions about all is unwise.
>> >>
>> >> The 18% figure ties in well with data from Transport for london which
>> >> has shown a 15% increase in cycling in central London between 2008 and
>> >> 2009 and 14% between 2009 and 2010.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Central London is a special case and not representative of the majority of
>> >the country.
>>
>> I agree - but it's another excellent pointer to the national figure.
>
>No it's a fairly poor pointer since central london is on the whole
>fairly good for bikes, short distances, conjested traffic, slow even if
>not and so on.

So, taking the 18% rise in cycling on the Nationwide skeleton cycle
network, and the 14.5% rise in cycling on the main commuter centre of
the nation together provide little indication of the national picture?

I think you're mistaken.

[roger merriman]

Bertie Wooster > wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:02:50 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
> wrote:
>
> >Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:26:35 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Bertie Wooster wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:10:07 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith
> >> >>>> > wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster
> >> >>>>> > wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> <snip>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-
> >> >>>>>T1n vLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some
> >> >>>>> obscure reason.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> "Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's
> >> >>>>> National Cycle Network, according to a new study."
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it -
> >> >>>>> by doing so it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips
> >> >>>> on the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle
> >> >>>> trips will have increased by a similar amount.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> really not safe, Sustrans network is for most part pleasure cycling,
> >> >>> to extrapolate from that figure is poor stats.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes - OK. It may not be a good aproximation. But much of the National
> >> >> Cycle Network is on quiet roads, so the 18% figure is a reasonable
> >> >> pointer to the overall figure. And many cyclists on the NCR will move
> >> >> onto busier roads.
> >> >>
> >> >>> Thats not to say that the idea that at the moment cycling seems to be
> >> >>> booming but to use Sustrans network which is tailered for s
> >> >>> subsecton of cyclist for assumptions about all is unwise.
> >> >>
> >> >> The 18% figure ties in well with data from Transport for london which
> >> >> has shown a 15% increase in cycling in central London between 2008 and
> >> >> 2009 and 14% between 2009 and 2010.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Central London is a special case and not representative of the majority of
> >> >the country.
> >>
> >> I agree - but it's another excellent pointer to the national figure.
> >
> >No it's a fairly poor pointer since central london is on the whole
> >fairly good for bikes, short distances, conjested traffic, slow even if
> >not and so on.
>
> So, taking the 18% rise in cycling on the Nationwide skeleton cycle
> network, and the 14.5% rise in cycling on the main commuter centre of
> the nation together provide little indication of the national picture?
>
> I think you're mistaken.

Sustrans network, is mostly (clearly not wholly) used for riding with
familly/friends etc on traffic free route.


London again a big busy city, etc.

it's not difficult to see why both would have a higher than national
levels.

they might point to a broad increase in numbers, but they will not give
a great idea as to where the national figure is.

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Judith[_4_]]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 07:52:06 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
wrote:

<snip>


>So, taking the 18% rise in cycling on the Nationwide skeleton cycle
>network, and the 14.5% rise in cycling on the main commuter centre of
>the nation together provide little indication of the national picture?
>
>I think you're mistaken.


Are you really that thick - they categorically don't provide an indication of
anything of he sort.

Sustrans themselves say that. in the article you are referencing - but seem
not to want to read. Or perhaps you read it but could not understand.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 22/06/2012 10:42, Judith wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 07:52:06 +0100, Bertie >
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>> So, taking the 18% rise in cycling on the Nationwide skeleton cycle
>> network, and the 14.5% rise in cycling on the main commuter centre of
>> the nation together provide little indication of the national picture?
>>
>> I think you're mistaken.
>
>
> Are you really that thick - they categorically don't provide an indication of
> anything of he sort.

I'm afraid he really is that thick.
>
> Sustrans themselves say that. in the article you are referencing - but seem
> not to want to read. Or perhaps you read it but could not understand.

He doesn't understand much at all, bless him.




--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[Bertie Wooster[_2_]]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:34:31 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
wrote:

>Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:02:50 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:26:35 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Bertie Wooster wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:10:07 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Bertie Wooster > wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith
>> >> >>>> > wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster
>> >> >>>>> > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> <snip>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuyzaMTR-
>> >> >>>>>T1n vLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some
>> >> >>>>> obscure reason.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> "Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's
>> >> >>>>> National Cycle Network, according to a new study."
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it -
>> >> >>>>> by doing so it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips
>> >> >>>> on the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle
>> >> >>>> trips will have increased by a similar amount.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> really not safe, Sustrans network is for most part pleasure cycling,
>> >> >>> to extrapolate from that figure is poor stats.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes - OK. It may not be a good aproximation. But much of the National
>> >> >> Cycle Network is on quiet roads, so the 18% figure is a reasonable
>> >> >> pointer to the overall figure. And many cyclists on the NCR will move
>> >> >> onto busier roads.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Thats not to say that the idea that at the moment cycling seems to be
>> >> >>> booming but to use Sustrans network which is tailered for s
>> >> >>> subsecton of cyclist for assumptions about all is unwise.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The 18% figure ties in well with data from Transport for london which
>> >> >> has shown a 15% increase in cycling in central London between 2008 and
>> >> >> 2009 and 14% between 2009 and 2010.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Central London is a special case and not representative of the majority of
>> >> >the country.
>> >>
>> >> I agree - but it's another excellent pointer to the national figure.
>> >
>> >No it's a fairly poor pointer since central london is on the whole
>> >fairly good for bikes, short distances, conjested traffic, slow even if
>> >not and so on.
>>
>> So, taking the 18% rise in cycling on the Nationwide skeleton cycle
>> network, and the 14.5% rise in cycling on the main commuter centre of
>> the nation together provide little indication of the national picture?
>>
>> I think you're mistaken.
>
>Sustrans network, is mostly (clearly not wholly) used for riding with
>familly/friends etc on traffic free route.

Agreed. But National initiatives like the tax busting cycle to work
scheme are having a huge impact on the number of commuter cyclists up
and down and all around the country.

>
>London again a big busy city, etc.
>
>it's not difficult to see why both would have a higher than national
>levels.

One might argue that Central London, as an ideal place for cycling,
with already high numbers of cyclists, is less likely to have a high
percentage increase in cyclists than other sub-prime cycling spots
around the nation.

>they might point to a broad increase in numbers, but they will not give
>a great idea as to where the national figure is.

OK - I'll accept that. Replace "but" with "and", "great" with "good"
and remove not, and I will agree with what you say:
==========
They might point to a broad increase in numbers, and they will give
a good idea as to where the national figure is.
==========

[Judith[_4_]]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 17:29:11 +0100, Bertie Wooster >
wrote:

<snip>


>Agreed. But National initiatives like the tax busting cycle to work
>scheme are having a huge impact on the number of commuter cyclists up
>and down and all around the country.


I look forward to you posting the results of any research which confirms your
points.

If it is a "huge impact" there must be some significant research - where is it?


Here is what the last National Travel Survey said:

"On average in 2010, people made 15 stages by bicycle compared to 19 per person
per year in 1995/97. Distance travelled by bicycle in 2010 was 42 miles per
person per year which is similar to 1995/97 (43 miles). Cycling accounted for
2% of trips of less than 5 miles in 2010. Frequency of bicycle use has remained
fairly stable over time since 1998/00."


You obviously have some different stats up your sleeve - let's be seeing them.

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:29:11 +0100, Judith wrote:

> Tom Crispin.

The information superhighway is undergoing rapid growth in this new
millennium. The Internet and other telecommunications technologies are
promoting advances in virtually every aspect of society and every corner
of the globe: fostering commerce, improving education and health care,
promoting participatory democracy in the developed and developing
countries, and facilitating communications among family and friends,
whether across the street or around the world. Unfortunately, many of the
attributes of this technology - low cost, ease of use, and anonymous
nature, among others - make it an attractive medium for fraudulent scams,
child sexual exploitation, and increasingly, a new concern known as "cyber
stalking"



--
Never trust a man in a suit.

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:42:26 +0100, Judith wrote:

> Are you really that thick

In many occasions, we do not intend to insult but we want express
frustrations, anger, disappointment, etc.



--
Never trust a man in a suit.

[Peter Keller[_3_]]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:33:03 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

> idiot boy?

These are valid normal human feelings that need to be channeled in a way
that should not be suppressed inside ourselves but not to the detriment
of our relations to those who care about or even to those who do not
really care about.



--
Never trust a man in a suit.

[roger merriman]

Bertie Wooster > wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:34:31 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
> wrote:
>
> >Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:02:50 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:26:35 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Bertie Wooster wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:10:07 +0100, (Roger Merriman)
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Bertie Wooster > wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:43:17 +0100, Judith
> >> >> >>>> > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>> On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:35:36 +0100, Bertie Wooster
> >> >> >>>>> > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> <snip>
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLn2YJuy
> >> >> >>>>>zaMTR- T1n vLguJJhoruw?docId=N0333641339930798287A
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> I see now - you chose to omit the opening paragraph for some
> >> >> >>>>> obscure reason.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> "Millions of extra bike journeys were made last year on the UK's
> >> >> >>>>> National Cycle Network, according to a new study."
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> It was a pity that you omitted that opening paragraph wasn't it -
> >> >> >>>>> by doing so it totally changed the claim; intentional perhaps?
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> I believe it's a reasonable assumption that if the number of trips
> >> >> >>>> on the NCR network has increased by 18%, the total number of cycle
> >> >> >>>> trips will have increased by a similar amount.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> really not safe, Sustrans network is for most part pleasure cycling,
> >> >> >>> to extrapolate from that figure is poor stats.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes - OK. It may not be a good aproximation. But much of the National
> >> >> >> Cycle Network is on quiet roads, so the 18% figure is a reasonable
> >> >> >> pointer to the overall figure. And many cyclists on the NCR will move
> >> >> >> onto busier roads.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Thats not to say that the idea that at the moment cycling seems
> >> >> >>> to be booming but to use Sustrans network which is tailered for
> >> >> >>> s subsecton of cyclist for assumptions about all is unwise.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The 18% figure ties in well with data from Transport for london
> >> >> >> which has shown a 15% increase in cycling in central London
> >> >> >> between 2008 and 2009 and 14% between 2009 and 2010.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Central London is a special case and not representative of the
> >> >> >majority of the country.
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree - but it's another excellent pointer to the national figure.
> >> >
> >> >No it's a fairly poor pointer since central london is on the whole
> >> >fairly good for bikes, short distances, conjested traffic, slow even if
> >> >not and so on.
> >>
> >> So, taking the 18% rise in cycling on the Nationwide skeleton cycle
> >> network, and the 14.5% rise in cycling on the main commuter centre of
> >> the nation together provide little indication of the national picture?
> >>
> >> I think you're mistaken.
> >
> >Sustrans network, is mostly (clearly not wholly) used for riding with
> >familly/friends etc on traffic free route.
>
> Agreed. But National initiatives like the tax busting cycle to work
> scheme are having a huge impact on the number of commuter cyclists up
> and down and all around the country.
>
in areas like london S/E england yes other places not so. see below [1]
note that some areas have fallen in numbers, the numbers up or down
depend on the area.

> >
> >London again a big busy city, etc.
> >
> >it's not difficult to see why both would have a higher than national
> >levels.
>
> One might argue that Central London, as an ideal place for cycling,
> with already high numbers of cyclists, is less likely to have a high
> percentage increase in cyclists than other sub-prime cycling spots
> around the nation.

you might but it would be a poor argument, London has plenty more
cycling grouth yet. if I ride/drive into london even in rush hour only
in certin area do you find bikes, in any numbers the rest is a sea of
cars and vans.
>
> >they might point to a broad increase in numbers, but they will not give
> >a great idea as to where the national figure is.
>
> OK - I'll accept that. Replace "but" with "and", "great" with "good"
> and remove not, and I will agree with what you say:
> ==========
> They might point to a broad increase in numbers, and they will give
> a good idea as to where the national figure is.
> ==========

Sport England 81,000 is a lot but with out a percentage, have to take
there word it's great, their terms being quite low threshold, probably
accounts for a lot of people. ie a ride once a week.

<http://road.cc/content/news/60415-sport-england-figures-show-big-growth
-number-regular-cyclists-regional-picture>

[1] "According to British Cycling, Sky Ride and other mass participation
events with which the organisation is involved are behind the growth in
number of cyclists - Sport England's figures show that London and the
South East and Yorkshire were the areas that drove growth - so it would
be interesting to see how Sky rides and other mass participation map
against those areas. The South West also showed a slight rise in
participation over the last 12 months, but both the North East and North
West showed falls in the levels of regular cycling over the last 12
months - although both showed slight increases over the last six months"

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com