The new CTC

[MrCheerful]

On 06/04/2016 22:28, Simon Jester wrote:
>
> CTC is changing it's name from Cycling Tourists Club to Cycling UK.
> What do people think?
> As much as I liked the old Winged Wheel logo I thing it is time for an update.
>
> Bear in mind cyclists are responsible for pneumatic tyres, metalled roads and powered flight.
>

Since so little has changed (bicycle wise) what is the need to do any
updating?

[MrCheerful]

On 06/04/2016 22:40, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 9:33:24 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
>> On 06/04/2016 22:28, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>
>>> CTC is changing it's name from Cycling Tourists Club to Cycling UK.
>>> What do people think?
>>> As much as I liked the old Winged Wheel logo I thing it is time for an update.
>>>
>>> Bear in mind cyclists are responsible for pneumatic tyres, metalled roads and powered flight.
>>>
>>
>> Since so little has changed (bicycle wise) what is the need to do any
>> updating?
>
> Bicycles may not have changed much in design (how can you improve on perfection) but use of bicycles has.
>

Not here, bicycle use in the UK is roughly a quarter of what it was 60
odd years ago.

[MrCheerful]

On 06/04/2016 22:47, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 9:36:45 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:
>
>> It is a good update as "touring" is too narrow a field, especially as commuting has seen such a massive boom.
>
> We were told that the only reason for the boom in cycle commuting was due to high oil prices.
> Yet the boom continues as oil prices fall.
> Why do the haters have such a problem with the fact that so many people want to cycle?
>

Strange, because they said that the 'boom' was down to the Olympics.
Any increase in actual numbers of cyclists on the roads is more likely
due to the general population increase, especially with regard to the
numbers of East Europeans that have arrived and many of those like to
travel by bike so they can send more money home.

[MrCheerful]

On 06/04/2016 23:01, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 9:56:44 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
>
>> Not here, bicycle use in the UK is roughly a quarter of what it was 60
>> odd years ago.
>
> Precisely my point.
> Read Larkrise to Candleford.
>
>
yet you said that use of bicycles has increased, yet has gone down,
which is it to be today?

[Simon Jester]

CTC is changing it's name from Cycling Tourists Club to Cycling UK.
What do people think?
As much as I liked the old Winged Wheel logo I thing it is time for an update.

Bear in mind cyclists are responsible for pneumatic tyres, metalled roads and powered flight.

[MrCheerful]

On 06/04/2016 23:07, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 9:57:55 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
>
>>
>> Strange, because they said that the 'boom' was down to the Olympics.
>> Any increase in actual numbers of cyclists on the roads is more likely
>> due to the general population increase, especially with regard to the
>> numbers of East Europeans that have arrived and many of those like to
>> travel by bike so they can send more money home.
>
> Either way the boom continues and facilities need to be provided for cyclists.
> If that means less room for cars then tough.
> It may also mean less subsidy is available for motorways, also tough.
>
>
this boom is still less than 1 percent of all journeys, hardly a boom is
it? Just a fraction up from 1980 and a quarter what it was in 1950 ,
while car use has skyrocketed since those dates.

[Alycidon]

On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 21:28:30 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
> CTC is changing it's name from Cycling Tourists Club to Cycling UK.
> What do people think?
> As much as I liked the old Winged Wheel logo I thing it is time for an update.
>
> Bear in mind cyclists are responsible for pneumatic tyres, metalled roads and powered flight.

It is a good update as "touring" is too narrow a field, especially as commuting has seen such a massive boom.

[Simon Jester]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 9:33:24 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
> On 06/04/2016 22:28, Simon Jester wrote:
> >
> > CTC is changing it's name from Cycling Tourists Club to Cycling UK.
> > What do people think?
> > As much as I liked the old Winged Wheel logo I thing it is time for an update.
> >
> > Bear in mind cyclists are responsible for pneumatic tyres, metalled roads and powered flight.
> >
>
> Since so little has changed (bicycle wise) what is the need to do any
> updating?

Bicycles may not have changed much in design (how can you improve on perfection) but use of bicycles has.

[Simon Jester]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 9:36:45 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:

> It is a good update as "touring" is too narrow a field, especially as commuting has seen such a massive boom.

We were told that the only reason for the boom in cycle commuting was due to high oil prices.
Yet the boom continues as oil prices fall.
Why do the haters have such a problem with the fact that so many people want to cycle?

[Simon Jester]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 9:56:44 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:

> Not here, bicycle use in the UK is roughly a quarter of what it was 60
> odd years ago.

Precisely my point.
Read Larkrise to Candleford.

[Alycidon]

On Wednesday, 6 April 2016 21:47:33 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 9:36:45 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:
>
> > It is a good update as "touring" is too narrow a field, especially as commuting has seen such a massive boom.
>
> We were told that the only reason for the boom in cycle commuting was due to high oil prices.
> Yet the boom continues as oil prices fall.
> Why do the haters have such a problem with the fact that so many people want to cycle?

As I wrote on a newspaper website yesterday.

I think a lot of the hatred comes from pure jealousy. A driver is typically overweight, unfit, has to pay vast amounts to keep his tin box on the roads, feels guilty about polluting the air we breathe and sees some skinny fit guy on a free mode of transport and the envy and hatred emerges. I cycled to work for 20 years and met just those sort of sad people and I actually felt sorry for them as they all seemed so miserable, while I was happy, fit and had extra money in my pocket. Pity them.

Read more: http://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/letters/why-the-hatred-of-cyclists-1-7305473#ixzz455BAZw4r

[Simon Jester]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 9:57:55 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:

>
> Strange, because they said that the 'boom' was down to the Olympics.
> Any increase in actual numbers of cyclists on the roads is more likely
> due to the general population increase, especially with regard to the
> numbers of East Europeans that have arrived and many of those like to
> travel by bike so they can send more money home.

Either way the boom continues and facilities need to be provided for cyclists.
If that means less room for cars then tough.
It may also mean less subsidy is available for motorways, also tough.

[Simon Jester]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:30:51 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
> On 06/04/2016 23:01, Simon Jester wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 9:56:44 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
> >
> >> Not here, bicycle use in the UK is roughly a quarter of what it was 60
> >> odd years ago.
> >
> > Precisely my point.
> > Read Larkrise to Candleford.
> >
> >
> yet you said that use of bicycles has increased, yet has gone down,
> which is it to be today?

Did I?

[Simon Jester]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:30:02 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:

> this boom is still less than 1 percent of all journeys, hardly a boom is
> it? Just a fraction up from 1980 and a quarter what it was in 1950 ,
> while car use has skyrocketed since those dates.

What percentage of road vehicles in the London rush hour are bicycles.

The problem with haters is that they want to use global figures.

Of course sheep farmers in Australia don't use bicycles to go into town because it is a 300 mile round trip.

[Simon Jester]

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:02:56 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:

> I think a lot of the hatred comes from pure jealousy. A driver is typically overweight, unfit, has to pay vast amounts to keep his tin box on the roads, feels guilty about polluting the air we breathe and sees some skinny fit guy on a free mode of transport and the envy and hatred emerges. I cycled to work for 20 years and met just those sort of sad people and I actually felt sorry for them as they all seemed so miserable, while I was happy, fit and had extra money in my pocket. Pity them.
>
> Read more: http://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/letters/why-the-hatred-of-cyclists-1-7305473#ixzz455BAZw4r

I agree with this philosophy.
I also agree with the poster who likened cyclists to jews.
Cyclists are hated for who they are, not what they do.
Maybe the haters can explain why.

[MrCheerful]

On 06/04/2016 23:32, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:30:51 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
>> On 06/04/2016 23:01, Simon Jester wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 9:56:44 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not here, bicycle use in the UK is roughly a quarter of what it was 60
>>>> odd years ago.
>>>
>>> Precisely my point.
>>> Read Larkrise to Candleford.
>>>
>>>
>> yet you said that use of bicycles has increased, yet has gone down,
>> which is it to be today?
>
> Did I?
>

You said that use of bicycles has increased. Yet you also agree that
use of bicycles is roughly a quarter of what is was 60 odd years ago.

If present day use of bicycles had increased then it would be more than
at any time in the past, which it is not.

[MrCheerful]

On 06/04/2016 23:38, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:30:02 PM UTC+1, MrCheerful wrote:
>
>> this boom is still less than 1 percent of all journeys, hardly a boom is
>> it? Just a fraction up from 1980 and a quarter what it was in 1950 ,
>> while car use has skyrocketed since those dates.
>
> What percentage of road vehicles in the London rush hour are bicycles.
>
> The problem with haters is that they want to use global figures.
>
> Of course sheep farmers in Australia don't use bicycles to go into town because it is a 300 mile round trip.
>
>
>

We live on a little island, global is not really relevant.
Pointing at at one area where there have always been strange commuting
patterns is not really relevant. Same for Australia, this is the UK

[MrCheerful]

On 06/04/2016 23:48, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:02:56 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:
>
>> I think a lot of the hatred comes from pure jealousy. A driver is typically overweight, unfit, has to pay vast amounts to keep his tin box on the roads, feels guilty about polluting the air we breathe and sees some skinny fit guy on a free mode of transport and the envy and hatred emerges. I cycled to work for 20 years and met just those sort of sad people and I actually felt sorry for them as they all seemed so miserable, while I was happy, fit and had extra money in my pocket. Pity them.
>>
>> Read more: http://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/letters/why-the-hatred-of-cyclists-1-7305473#ixzz455BAZw4r
>
> I agree with this philosophy.
> I also agree with the poster who likened cyclists to jews.
> Cyclists are hated for who they are, not what they do.
> Maybe the haters can explain why.
>

They want everyone else to look after them and take no responsibility
for their own actions, and are surprised when people take exception to
their selfish behaviour.

[Rob Morley]

On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Simon Jester > wrote:

> CTC is changing it's name from Cycling Tourists Club to Cycling UK.
> What do people think?
> As much as I liked the old Winged Wheel logo I thing it is time for
> an update.
>
> Bear in mind cyclists are responsible for pneumatic tyres, metalled
> roads and powered flight.
>
I thought its name had been "CTC" rather than "Cycling Tourists Club"
for a while now, reflecting that its role had changed some years back.
The new name does make it sound like a quango, though.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

MrCheerful > wrote:
> On 06/04/2016 23:48, Simon Jester wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:02:56 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:
>>
>>> I think a lot of the hatred comes from pure jealousy. A driver is typically overweight, unfit, has to pay vast amounts to keep his tin box on the roads, feels guilty about polluting the air we breathe and sees some skinny fit guy on a free mode of transport and the envy and hatred emerges. I cycled to work for 20 years and met just those sort of sad people and I actually felt sorry for them as they all seemed so miserable, while I was happy, fit and had extra money in my pocket. Pity them.
>>>
>>> Read more: http://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/letters/why-the-hatred-of-cyclists-1-7305473#ixzz455BAZw4r
>>
>> I agree with this philosophy.
>> I also agree with the poster who likened cyclists to jews.
>> Cyclists are hated for who they are, not what they do.
>> Maybe the haters can explain why.

> They want everyone else to look after them and take no responsibility
> for their own actions, and are surprised when people take exception to
> their selfish behaviour.

We're not talking about drivers.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[jnugent]

On 07/04/2016 15:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:

> MrCheerful > wrote:
>> On 06/04/2016 23:48, Simon Jester wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:02:56 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:
>
>>>> I think a lot of the hatred comes from pure jealousy. A driver is typically overweight, unfit, has to pay vast amounts to keep his tin box on the roads, feels guilty about polluting the air we breathe and sees some skinny fit guy on a free mode of transport and the envy and hatred emerges. I cycled to work for 20 years and met just those sort of sad people and I actually felt sorry for them as they all seemed so miserable, while I was happy, fit and had extra money in my pocket. Pity them.
>
>>>> Read more: http://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/letters/why-the-hatred-of-cyclists-1-7305473#ixzz455BAZw4r
>
>>> I agree with this philosophy.
>>> I also agree with the poster who likened cyclists to jews.
>>> Cyclists are hated for who they are, not what they do.
>>> Maybe the haters can explain why.
>
>> They want everyone else to look after them and take no responsibility
>> for their own actions, and are surprised when people take exception to
>> their selfish behaviour.

> We're not talking about drivers.

Exactly.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 07/04/2016 15:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>
>> MrCheerful > wrote:
>>> On 06/04/2016 23:48, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:02:56 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:
>>
>>>>> I think a lot of the hatred comes from pure jealousy. A driver is typically overweight, unfit, has to pay vast amounts to keep his tin box on the roads, feels guilty about polluting the air we breathe and sees some skinny fit guy on a free mode of transport and the envy and hatred emerges. I cycled to work for 20 years and met just those sort of sad people and I actually felt sorry for them as they all seemed so miserable, while I was happy, fit and had extra money in my pocket. Pity them.
>>
>>>>> Read more: http://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/letters/why-the-hatred-of-cyclists-1-7305473#ixzz455BAZw4r
>>
>>>> I agree with this philosophy.
>>>> I also agree with the poster who likened cyclists to jews.
>>>> Cyclists are hated for who they are, not what they do.
>>>> Maybe the haters can explain why.
>>
>>> They want everyone else to look after them and take no responsibility
>>> for their own actions, and are surprised when people take exception to
>>> their selfish behaviour.
>
>> We're not talking about drivers.
>
> Exactly.

So your friend is an idiot.

Like you.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

Simon Jester > wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:02:56 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:

>> I think a lot of the hatred comes from pure jealousy. A driver is
>> typically overweight, unfit, has to pay vast amounts to keep his tin box
>> on the roads, feels guilty about polluting the air we breathe and sees
>> some skinny fit guy on a free mode of transport and the envy and hatred
>> emerges. I cycled to work for 20 years and met just those sort of sad
>> people and I actually felt sorry for them as they all seemed so
>> miserable, while I was happy, fit and had extra money in my pocket. Pity
>> them.
>>
>> Read more:
>> http://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/letters/why-the-hatred-of-cyclists-1-7305473#ixzz455BAZw4r

> I agree with this philosophy. I also agree with the poster who likened
> cyclists to jews. Cyclists are hated for who they are, not what they do.
> Maybe the haters can explain why.

Yes, and the days of Jews lowering our gaze as we're stabbed and shot, are
over.

Expect the hatred directed against cyclists to 'peak' as you start to fight
back. You can start with D-locks, clubs etc., but sooner or later, you
will need to graduate to knives and firearms.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[jnugent]

On 07/04/2016 15:14, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 07/04/2016 15:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>
>>> MrCheerful > wrote:
>>>> On 06/04/2016 23:48, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:02:56 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I think a lot of the hatred comes from pure jealousy. A driver is typically overweight, unfit, has to pay vast amounts to keep his tin box on the roads, feels guilty about polluting the air we breathe and sees some skinny fit guy on a free mode of transport and the envy and hatred emerges. I cycled to work for 20 years and met just those sort of sad people and I actually felt sorry for them as they all seemed so miserable, while I was happy, fit and had extra money in my pocket. Pity them.
>>>
>>>>>> Read more: http://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/letters/why-the-hatred-of-cyclists-1-7305473#ixzz455BAZw4r
>>>
>>>>> I agree with this philosophy.
>>>>> I also agree with the poster who likened cyclists to jews.
>>>>> Cyclists are hated for who they are, not what they do.
>>>>> Maybe the haters can explain why.
>>>
>>>> They want everyone else to look after them and take no responsibility
>>>> for their own actions, and are surprised when people take exception to
>>>> their selfish behaviour.
>>
>>> We're not talking about drivers.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> So your friend is an idiot.
>
> Like you.

MrCheerful (who is not particularly my "friend") was speaking about
people who behave selfishly.

You (unnecessarily) remarked that we were not talking about drivers.

Well, quite so, and I agreed with you.

What's your problem?

[Rob Morley]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:16:15 +0100
Rob Morley > wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
> Simon Jester > wrote:
>
> > CTC is changing it's name from Cycling Tourists Club to Cycling UK.
> > What do people think?
> > As much as I liked the old Winged Wheel logo I thing it is time for
> > an update.
> >
> > Bear in mind cyclists are responsible for pneumatic tyres, metalled
> > roads and powered flight.
> >
> I thought its name had been "CTC" rather than "Cycling Tourists Club"
>
That should of course have read "Cyclists' Touring Club".

[MrCheerful]

On 07/04/2016 21:36, Tosspot wrote:
> On 07/04/16 15:16, Rob Morley wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
>> Simon Jester > wrote:
>>
>>> CTC is changing it's name from Cycling Tourists Club to Cycling UK.
>>> What do people think?
>>> As much as I liked the old Winged Wheel logo I thing it is time for
>>> an update.
>>>
>>> Bear in mind cyclists are responsible for pneumatic tyres, metalled
>>> roads and powered flight.
>>>
>> I thought its name had been "CTC" rather than "Cycling Tourists Club"
>> for a while now, reflecting that its role had changed some years back.
>> The new name does make it sound like a quango, though.
>
>
> I've just been on to
>
> http://www.cyclinguk.org/
>
> Which in the higher left corner says "CTC is rebranding to Cycling UK"
> and I *can't* find any link as to why. Or a blog. Or anything.
>
> This reinforces my view that the CTC is a waste of space.
>

they employ 50 people at an average salary of 33k, its great when you
can get people to give you money for so little return to so few.

[Tosspot[_3_]]

On 07/04/16 15:16, Rob Morley wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
> Simon Jester > wrote:
>
>> CTC is changing it's name from Cycling Tourists Club to Cycling UK.
>> What do people think?
>> As much as I liked the old Winged Wheel logo I thing it is time for
>> an update.
>>
>> Bear in mind cyclists are responsible for pneumatic tyres, metalled
>> roads and powered flight.
>>
> I thought its name had been "CTC" rather than "Cycling Tourists Club"
> for a while now, reflecting that its role had changed some years back.
> The new name does make it sound like a quango, though.


I've just been on to

http://www.cyclinguk.org/

Which in the higher left corner says "CTC is rebranding to Cycling UK"
and I *can't* find any link as to why. Or a blog. Or anything.

This reinforces my view that the CTC is a waste of space.

[Simon Jester]

On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:36:24 PM UTC+1, Tosspot wrote:

> I've just been on to
>
> http://www.cyclinguk.org/
>
> Which in the higher left corner says "CTC is rebranding to Cycling UK"
> and I *can't* find any link as to why. Or a blog. Or anything.
>
> This reinforces my view that the CTC is a waste of space.

Why do you care?
If you don't want to join the CTC then don't join the CTC.
I joined for the 3rd party insurance and legal services.

The CTC were also instrumental in the Highway Code clearly stating that cycle lanes are optional for cyclists.

[Rob Morley]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 21:36:21 +0200
Tosspot > wrote:

> I've just been on to
>
> http://www.cyclinguk.org/
>
> Which in the higher left corner says "CTC is rebranding to Cycling
> UK" and I *can't* find any link as to why. Or a blog. Or anything.

Well the first article on that page below the big "rebranding" banner
is "Update from Cycling UK's Chief Executive" which appears to be
exactly what you were looking for.
>
> This reinforces my view that the CTC is a waste of space.
>
I thought they had a long history of protecting cyclists' rights and
promoting cycling.

[Alycidon]

On Thursday, 7 April 2016 21:49:22 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:36:24 PM UTC+1, Tosspot wrote:
>
> > I've just been on to
> >
> > http://www.cyclinguk.org/
> >
> > Which in the higher left corner says "CTC is rebranding to Cycling UK"
> > and I *can't* find any link as to why. Or a blog. Or anything.
> >
> > This reinforces my view that the CTC is a waste of space.
>
> Why do you care?
> If you don't want to join the CTC then don't join the CTC.
> I joined for the 3rd party insurance and legal services.

I got a £5000 compo payout thanks to the CTC's legal team - well worth the money.

[Tosspot[_3_]]

On 08/04/16 01:42, Phil W Lee wrote:
> Simon Jester > considered Thu, 7 Apr 2016 13:49:21
> -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
>> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:36:24 PM UTC+1, Tosspot wrote:
>>
>>> I've just been on to
>>>
>>> http://www.cyclinguk.org/
>>>
>>> Which in the higher left corner says "CTC is rebranding to Cycling UK"
>>> and I *can't* find any link as to why. Or a blog. Or anything.
>>>
>>> This reinforces my view that the CTC is a waste of space.
>>
>> Why do you care?
>> If you don't want to join the CTC then don't join the CTC.
>> I joined for the 3rd party insurance and legal services.
>>
>> The CTC were also instrumental in the Highway Code clearly stating that cycle lanes are optional for cyclists.
>>
> They are also one of the few (and oldest) non-governmental
> organisations with the legal right to erect road signs.

Now that *is* a claim to fame!

[Tosspot[_3_]]

On 08/04/16 03:15, Rob Morley wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 21:36:21 +0200
> Tosspot > wrote:
>
>> I've just been on to
>>
>> http://www.cyclinguk.org/
>>
>> Which in the higher left corner says "CTC is rebranding to Cycling
>> UK" and I *can't* find any link as to why. Or a blog. Or anything.
>
> Well the first article on that page below the big "rebranding" banner
> is "Update from Cycling UK's Chief Executive" which appears to be
> exactly what you were looking for.

Streuth, I was even sober when I couldn't find that. Must be early
onset alzheimers :-(

>> This reinforces my view that the CTC is a waste of space.
>>
> I thought they had a long history of protecting cyclists' rights and
> promoting cycling.

I think they do, and tbf, likely the oldest, but I'm more of a sustrans
man myself.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 07/04/2016 15:14, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 07/04/2016 15:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>
>>>> MrCheerful > wrote:
>>>>> On 06/04/2016 23:48, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:02:56 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> I think a lot of the hatred comes from pure jealousy. A driver is typically overweight, unfit, has to pay vast amounts to keep his tin box on the roads, feels guilty about polluting the air we breathe and sees some skinny fit guy on a free mode of transport and the envy and hatred emerges. I cycled to work for 20 years and met just those sort of sad people and I actually felt sorry for them as they all seemed so miserable, while I was happy, fit and had extra money in my pocket. Pity them.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Read more: http://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/letters/why-the-hatred-of-cyclists-1-7305473#ixzz455BAZw4r
>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with this philosophy.
>>>>>> I also agree with the poster who likened cyclists to jews.
>>>>>> Cyclists are hated for who they are, not what they do.
>>>>>> Maybe the haters can explain why.
>>>>
>>>>> They want everyone else to look after them and take no responsibility
>>>>> for their own actions, and are surprised when people take exception to
>>>>> their selfish behaviour.
>>>
>>>> We're not talking about drivers.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>
>> So your friend is an idiot.
>>
>> Like you.
>
> MrCheerful (who is not particularly my "friend") was speaking about
> people who behave selfishly.
>
> You (unnecessarily) remarked that we were not talking about drivers.
>
> Well, quite so, and I agreed with you.
>
> What's your problem?

That you're a troll? That would do to be going on with.

But of course, you are being deliberately disingenuous. You're stupid -
but not _that_ stupid.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[jnugent]

On 08/04/2016 06:02, Alycidon wrote:
> On Thursday, 7 April 2016 21:49:22 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:36:24 PM UTC+1, Tosspot wrote:
>>
>>> I've just been on to
>>>
>>> http://www.cyclinguk.org/
>>>
>>> Which in the higher left corner says "CTC is rebranding to Cycling UK"
>>> and I *can't* find any link as to why. Or a blog. Or anything.
>>>
>>> This reinforces my view that the CTC is a waste of space.
>>
>> Why do you care?
>> If you don't want to join the CTC then don't join the CTC.
>> I joined for the 3rd party insurance and legal services.
>
> I got a £5000 compo payout thanks to the CTC's legal team - well worth the money.

Was it a jackpot?

[jnugent]

On 08/04/2016 11:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 07/04/2016 15:14, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> On 07/04/2016 15:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> MrCheerful > wrote:
>>>>>> On 06/04/2016 23:48, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:02:56 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think a lot of the hatred comes from pure jealousy. A driver is typically overweight, unfit, has to pay vast amounts to keep his tin box on the roads, feels guilty about polluting the air we breathe and sees some skinny fit guy on a free mode of transport and the envy and hatred emerges. I cycled to work for 20 years and met just those sort of sad people and I actually felt sorry for them as they all seemed so miserable, while I was happy, fit and had extra money in my pocket. Pity them.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Read more: http://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/letters/why-the-hatred-of-cyclists-1-7305473#ixzz455BAZw4r
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with this philosophy.
>>>>>>> I also agree with the poster who likened cyclists to jews.
>>>>>>> Cyclists are hated for who they are, not what they do.
>>>>>>> Maybe the haters can explain why.
>>>>>
>>>>>> They want everyone else to look after them and take no responsibility
>>>>>> for their own actions, and are surprised when people take exception to
>>>>>> their selfish behaviour.
>>>>
>>>>> We're not talking about drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> So your friend is an idiot.
>>>
>>> Like you.
>>
>> MrCheerful (who is not particularly my "friend") was speaking about
>> people who behave selfishly.
>>
>> You (unnecessarily) remarked that we were not talking about drivers.
>>
>> Well, quite so, and I agreed with you.
>>
>> What's your problem?
>
> That you're a troll? That would do to be going on with.

Glug the Troll: you don't understand the meaning of the words "irony"
and "ironic", that's for certain.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 08/04/2016 06:02, Alycidon wrote:
>> On Thursday, 7 April 2016 21:49:22 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:36:24 PM UTC+1, Tosspot wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've just been on to
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cyclinguk.org/
>>>>
>>>> Which in the higher left corner says "CTC is rebranding to Cycling UK"
>>>> and I *can't* find any link as to why. Or a blog. Or anything.
>>>>
>>>> This reinforces my view that the CTC is a waste of space.
>>>
>>> Why do you care?
>>> If you don't want to join the CTC then don't join the CTC.
>>> I joined for the 3rd party insurance and legal services.
>>
>> I got a £5000 compo payout thanks to the CTC's legal team - well worth the money.
>
> Was it a jackpot?

No, £31,500 would be a jackpot.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 08/04/2016 11:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 07/04/2016 15:14, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>> On 07/04/2016 15:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> MrCheerful > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 06/04/2016 23:48, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:02:56 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think a lot of the hatred comes from pure jealousy. A driver is typically overweight, unfit, has to pay vast amounts to keep his tin box on the roads, feels guilty about polluting the air we breathe and sees some skinny fit guy on a free mode of transport and the envy and hatred emerges. I cycled to work for 20 years and met just those sort of sad people and I actually felt sorry for them as they all seemed so miserable, while I was happy, fit and had extra money in my pocket. Pity them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Read more: http://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/letters/why-the-hatred-of-cyclists-1-7305473#ixzz455BAZw4r
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with this philosophy.
>>>>>>>> I also agree with the poster who likened cyclists to jews.
>>>>>>>> Cyclists are hated for who they are, not what they do.
>>>>>>>> Maybe the haters can explain why.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They want everyone else to look after them and take no responsibility
>>>>>>> for their own actions, and are surprised when people take exception to
>>>>>>> their selfish behaviour.
>>>>>
>>>>>> We're not talking about drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>
>>>> So your friend is an idiot.
>>>>
>>>> Like you.
>>>
>>> MrCheerful (who is not particularly my "friend") was speaking about
>>> people who behave selfishly.
>>>
>>> You (unnecessarily) remarked that we were not talking about drivers.
>>>
>>> Well, quite so, and I agreed with you.
>>>
>>> What's your problem?
>>
>> That you're a troll? That would do to be going on with.
>
> Glug the Troll: you don't understand the meaning of the words "irony"
> and "ironic", that's for certain.

What, you mean as opposed to Andy the Car Driving Troll?

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[jnugent]

On 08/04/2016 11:36, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 08/04/2016 11:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> On 07/04/2016 15:14, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/04/2016 15:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MrCheerful > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2016 23:48, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:02:56 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think a lot of the hatred comes from pure jealousy. A driver is typically overweight, unfit, has to pay vast amounts to keep his tin box on the roads, feels guilty about polluting the air we breathe and sees some skinny fit guy on a free mode of transport and the envy and hatred emerges. I cycled to work for 20 years and met just those sort of sad people and I actually felt sorry for them as they all seemed so miserable, while I was happy, fit and had extra money in my pocket. Pity them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Read more: http://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/letters/why-the-hatred-of-cyclists-1-7305473#ixzz455BAZw4r
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree with this philosophy.
>>>>>>>>> I also agree with the poster who likened cyclists to jews.
>>>>>>>>> Cyclists are hated for who they are, not what they do.
>>>>>>>>> Maybe the haters can explain why.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They want everyone else to look after them and take no responsibility
>>>>>>>> for their own actions, and are surprised when people take exception to
>>>>>>>> their selfish behaviour.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We're not talking about drivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>
>>>>> So your friend is an idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like you.
>>>>
>>>> MrCheerful (who is not particularly my "friend") was speaking about
>>>> people who behave selfishly.
>>>>
>>>> You (unnecessarily) remarked that we were not talking about drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Well, quite so, and I agreed with you.
>>>>
>>>> What's your problem?
>>>
>>> That you're a troll? That would do to be going on with.
>>
>> Glug the Troll: you don't understand the meaning of the words "irony"
>> and "ironic", that's for certain.
>
> What, you mean as opposed to Andy the Car Driving Troll?

No.

[jnugent]

On 08/04/2016 11:35, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 08/04/2016 06:02, Alycidon wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 7 April 2016 21:49:22 UTC+1, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:36:24 PM UTC+1, Tosspot wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've just been on to
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cyclinguk.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Which in the higher left corner says "CTC is rebranding to Cycling UK"
>>>>> and I *can't* find any link as to why. Or a blog. Or anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> This reinforces my view that the CTC is a waste of space.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you care?
>>>> If you don't want to join the CTC then don't join the CTC.
>>>> I joined for the 3rd party insurance and legal services.
>>>
>>> I got a £5000 compo payout thanks to the CTC's legal team - well worth the money.
>>
>> Was it a jackpot?
>
> No, £31,500 would be a jackpot.

Thanks for that interesting information.

[Anthony 'Piss_Taker' Janssen]

JNugent > wrote:
> On 08/04/2016 11:36, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>> JNugent > wrote:
>>> On 08/04/2016 11:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>> On 07/04/2016 15:14, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/04/2016 15:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MrCheerful > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2016 23:48, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:02:56 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think a lot of the hatred comes from pure jealousy. A driver is typically overweight, unfit, has to pay vast amounts to keep his tin box on the roads, feels guilty about polluting the air we breathe and sees some skinny fit guy on a free mode of transport and the envy and hatred emerges. I cycled to work for 20 years and met just those sort of sad people and I actually felt sorry for them as they all seemed so miserable, while I was happy, fit and had extra money in my pocket. Pity them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Read more: http://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/letters/why-the-hatred-of-cyclists-1-7305473#ixzz455BAZw4r
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree with this philosophy.
>>>>>>>>>> I also agree with the poster who likened cyclists to jews.
>>>>>>>>>> Cyclists are hated for who they are, not what they do.
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the haters can explain why.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They want everyone else to look after them and take no responsibility
>>>>>>>>> for their own actions, and are surprised when people take exception to
>>>>>>>>> their selfish behaviour.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We're not talking about drivers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So your friend is an idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like you.
>>>>>
>>>>> MrCheerful (who is not particularly my "friend") was speaking about
>>>>> people who behave selfishly.
>>>>>
>>>>> You (unnecessarily) remarked that we were not talking about drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, quite so, and I agreed with you.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's your problem?
>>>>
>>>> That you're a troll? That would do to be going on with.
>>>
>>> Glug the Troll: you don't understand the meaning of the words "irony"
>>> and "ironic", that's for certain.
>>
>> What, you mean as opposed to Andy the Car Driving Troll?
>
> No.

Good. So you can **** off to a motoring newsgroup, then.

--
john smith |MA (Hons)|MPhil (Hons)|CAPES (mention très bien)|LLB (Hons)
'It never gets any easier. You just get faster'
(Greg LeMond (1961 - ))

[jnugent]

On 08/04/2016 12:01, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
> JNugent > wrote:
>> On 08/04/2016 11:36, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> On 08/04/2016 11:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/04/2016 15:14, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07/04/2016 15:05, Anthony '****_Taker' Janssen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MrCheerful > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 06/04/2016 23:48, Simon Jester wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 10:02:56 PM UTC+1, Alycidon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think a lot of the hatred comes from pure jealousy. A driver is typically overweight, unfit, has to pay vast amounts to keep his tin box on the roads, feels guilty about polluting the air we breathe and sees some skinny fit guy on a free mode of transport and the envy and hatred emerges. I cycled to work for 20 years and met just those sort of sad people and I actually felt sorry for them as they all seemed so miserable, while I was happy, fit and had extra money in my pocket. Pity them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Read more: http://www.shorehamherald.co.uk/news/letters/why-the-hatred-of-cyclists-1-7305473#ixzz455BAZw4r
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with this philosophy.
>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree with the poster who likened cyclists to jews.
>>>>>>>>>>> Cyclists are hated for who they are, not what they do.
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the haters can explain why.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They want everyone else to look after them and take no responsibility
>>>>>>>>>> for their own actions, and are surprised when people take exception to
>>>>>>>>>> their selfish behaviour.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We're not talking about drivers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So your friend is an idiot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MrCheerful (who is not particularly my "friend") was speaking about
>>>>>> people who behave selfishly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You (unnecessarily) remarked that we were not talking about drivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, quite so, and I agreed with you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's your problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> That you're a troll? That would do to be going on with.
>>>>
>>>> Glug the Troll: you don't understand the meaning of the words "irony"
>>>> and "ironic", that's for certain.
>>>
>>> What, you mean as opposed to Andy the Car Driving Troll?
>>
>> No.
>
> Good. So you can **** off to a motoring newsgroup, then.

Glug the Troll: you don't understand the meaning of the words "irony"
and "ironic", that's for certain.
>

[Peter Parry]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2016 00:35:46 +0100, Phil W Lee >
wrote:

>MrCheerful > considered Thu, 7 Apr 2016
>09:07:24 +0200 the perfect time to write:

>
>You seem to be struggling with the concept of time.
>Cycling use decreased for a long time, and is now increasing again.

"Cycling to work has stagnated in the UK in the past decade, with only
a handful of cities bucking the trend, according to census data
released today.

.... the 2011 census data, released today, shows no overall change to
the 2.8% of journeys to work by bike since 2001 across the UK as a
whole... Of 348 local authorities in England and Wales, only 31 saw 5%
or more of working residents cycling to work. The highest levels,
unsurprisingly, were 29% in Cambridge, with Oxford the next highest at
17%.

However, while cycling has increased in some areas it has decreased in
others, with the majority of UK authorities seeing a decline in
residents cycling to work over 10 years."

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/census-reveals-growth-proportion-cycling-work-uk-118904#btiWHYvyzbB1Z6Y4.99


>At the moment, cycling levels are on the increase, and have been
>steadily for a decade or more.

Cycling trends per month was unchanged between 2012/13 and 2013/14

In England as a whole the number who cycle at least once a month has
remained unchanged from 2010 to 2014

(Active Travel Survey)

>And after all, relative to cycling levels two hundred years ago,
>cycling levels are much higher now, whatever peak may have occurred in
>the intervening period.

As the bicycle didn't exist in 1816 this is quite probable.

[TMS320]

"Peter Parry" > wrote
>
> ... the 2011 census data, released today, shows no overall change to
> the 2.8% of journeys to work by bike since 2001 across the UK as a
> whole... Of 348 local authorities in England and Wales, only 31 saw 5%
> or more of working residents cycling to work. The highest levels,
> unsurprisingly, were 29% in Cambridge, with Oxford the next highest at
> 17%.

The census was a waste of space. 20% (by distance, no less) of my travel to
work was by bicycle but the question only allowed me to enter my main mode.
There must be many other uncounted cycle users.

Some years ago, the local council did a traffic census on a main road,
missing a popular cycle route so even though questions were applicable to
cycle travel in the district, many users would not have been counted.

[jnugent]

On 08/04/2016 18:19, TMS320 wrote:

> "Peter Parry" > wrote

>> ... the 2011 census data, released today, shows no overall change to
>> the 2.8% of journeys to work by bike since 2001 across the UK as a
>> whole... Of 348 local authorities in England and Wales, only 31 saw 5%
>> or more of working residents cycling to work. The highest levels,
>> unsurprisingly, were 29% in Cambridge, with Oxford the next highest at
>> 17%.

> The census was a waste of space. 20% (by distance, no less) of my travel to
> work was by bicycle but the question only allowed me to enter my main mode.
> There must be many other uncounted cycle users.

> Some years ago, the local council did a traffic census on a main road,
> missing a popular cycle route so even though questions were applicable to
> cycle travel in the district, many users would not have been counted.

The same must apply to every mode counted.

It will particularly apply to taxi use.

[TMS320]

"JNugent" > wrote
> On 08/04/2016 18:19, TMS320 wrote:
>
>> "Peter Parry" > wrote
>
>>> ... the 2011 census data, released today, shows no overall change to
>>> the 2.8% of journeys to work by bike since 2001 across the UK as a
>>> whole... Of 348 local authorities in England and Wales, only 31 saw 5%
>>> or more of working residents cycling to work. The highest levels,
>>> unsurprisingly, were 29% in Cambridge, with Oxford the next highest at
>>> 17%.
>
>> The census was a waste of space. 20% (by distance, no less) of my travel
>> to
>> work was by bicycle but the question only allowed me to enter my main
>> mode.
>> There must be many other uncounted cycle users.
>
>> Some years ago, the local council did a traffic census on a main road,
>> missing a popular cycle route so even though questions were applicable to
>> cycle travel in the district, many users would not have been counted.
>
> The same must apply to every mode counted.

The method does not apply the same fudge factor to each mode.

> It will particularly apply to taxi use.

In the local traffic census, taxis would not have been particular.

[jnugent]

On 09/04/2016 00:25, TMS320 wrote:
> "JNugent" > wrote
>> On 08/04/2016 18:19, TMS320 wrote:
>>
>>> "Peter Parry" > wrote
>>
>>>> ... the 2011 census data, released today, shows no overall change to
>>>> the 2.8% of journeys to work by bike since 2001 across the UK as a
>>>> whole... Of 348 local authorities in England and Wales, only 31 saw 5%
>>>> or more of working residents cycling to work. The highest levels,
>>>> unsurprisingly, were 29% in Cambridge, with Oxford the next highest at
>>>> 17%.
>>
>>> The census was a waste of space. 20% (by distance, no less) of my travel
>>> to
>>> work was by bicycle but the question only allowed me to enter my main
>>> mode.
>>> There must be many other uncounted cycle users.
>>
>>> Some years ago, the local council did a traffic census on a main road,
>>> missing a popular cycle route so even though questions were applicable to
>>> cycle travel in the district, many users would not have been counted.
>>
>> The same must apply to every mode counted.
>
> The method does not apply the same fudge factor to each mode.

It must do, particularly wherever there is a change of mode - and this
will apply in spades to journeys of the type:

home to nearby railway station, railway to city, city-centre transfer
mode (Boris Bike, taxi, bus, underground) - and the reverse.

>> It will particularly apply to taxi use.

> In the local traffic census, taxis would not have been particular.

That is far from being a clear statement.

Taxi use as a short-distance link to railway stations is bound to be at
least as under-represented as the bicycle if only the major part of the
journey "counts". So, in many cases, will buses, LU, etc.

[TMS320]

"JNugent" > wrote
> On 09/04/2016 00:25, TMS320 wrote:
>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>> On 08/04/2016 18:19, TMS320 wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Peter Parry" > wrote
>>>
>>>>> ... the 2011 census data, released today, shows no overall change to
>>>>> the 2.8% of journeys to work by bike since 2001 across the UK as a
>>>>> whole... Of 348 local authorities in England and Wales, only 31 saw 5%
>>>>> or more of working residents cycling to work. The highest levels,
>>>>> unsurprisingly, were 29% in Cambridge, with Oxford the next highest at
>>>>> 17%.
>>>
>>>> The census was a waste of space. 20% (by distance, no less) of my
>>>> travel
>>>> to
>>>> work was by bicycle but the question only allowed me to enter my main
>>>> mode.
>>>> There must be many other uncounted cycle users.
>>>
>>>> Some years ago, the local council did a traffic census on a main road,
>>>> missing a popular cycle route so even though questions were applicable
>>>> to
>>>> cycle travel in the district, many users would not have been counted.
>>>
>>> The same must apply to every mode counted.
>>
>> The method does not apply the same fudge factor to each mode.
>
> It must do, particularly wherever there is a change of mode - and this
> will apply in spades to journeys of the type:
> home to nearby railway station, railway to city, city-centre transfer mode
> (Boris Bike, taxi, bus, underground) - and the reverse.

*These* will be under represented. In respect to the main modes.

>>> It will particularly apply to taxi use.
>
>> In the local traffic census, taxis would not have been particular.
>
> That is far from being a clear statement.
>
> Taxi use as a short-distance link to railway stations is bound to be at
> least as under-represented as the bicycle if only the major part of the
> journey "counts". So, in many cases, will buses, LU, etc.

When measuring vehicles on a particular thoroughfare, taxis will be counted
in the correct proportion to private motor vehicles.

[jnugent]

On 09/04/2016 17:31, TMS320 wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote
>> On 09/04/2016 00:25, TMS320 wrote:
>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>> On 08/04/2016 18:19, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> "Peter Parry" > wrote
>
>>>>>> ... the 2011 census data, released today, shows no overall change to
>>>>>> the 2.8% of journeys to work by bike since 2001 across the UK as a
>>>>>> whole...
>
>>>>> The census was a waste of space. 20% (by distance, no less) of my
>>>>> travel to work was by bicycle but the question only allowed me to
>>>>> enter my main mode. There must be many other uncounted cycle users.
>>>>> Some years ago, the local council did a traffic census on a main road,
>>>>> missing a popular cycle route so even though questions were applicable
>>>>> to cycle travel in the district, many users would not have been counted.
>
>>>> The same must apply to every mode counted.
>
>>> The method does not apply the same fudge factor to each mode.
>
>> It must do, particularly wherever there is a change of mode - and this
>> will apply in spades to journeys of the type:
>> home to nearby railway station, railway to city, city-centre transfer
>> mode (Boris Bike, taxi, bus, underground) - and the reverse.
>
> *These* will be under represented. In respect to the main modes.
>
>>>> It will particularly apply to taxi use.
>
>>> In the local traffic census, taxis would not have been particular.
>
>> That is far from being a clear statement.
>> Taxi use as a short-distance link to railway stations is bound to be at
>> least as under-represented as the bicycle if only the major part of the
>> journey "counts". So, in many cases, will buses, LU, etc.
>
> When measuring vehicles on a particular thoroughfare, taxis will be counted
> in the correct proportion to private motor vehicles.

But that isn't the point. Your point was that the mode used for a short
part of the journey is not counted for the purposes of a particular type
of survey. And that must apply to *any* "home to station" mode, whether
it be cycling, car + car park, bus, taxi or walking - for the purposes
of that or any similar survey which takes account only of the mode which
accounts for the longest part of the journey.

[TMS320]

"JNugent" > wrote
> On 09/04/2016 17:31, TMS320 wrote:
>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>> On 09/04/2016 00:25, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>> On 08/04/2016 18:19, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> "Peter Parry" > wrote
>>
>>>>>>> ... the 2011 census data, released today, shows no overall change to
>>>>>>> the 2.8% of journeys to work by bike since 2001 across the UK as a
>>>>>>> whole...
>>
>>>>>> The census was a waste of space. 20% (by distance, no less) of my
>>>>>> travel to work was by bicycle but the question only allowed me to
>>>>>> enter my main mode. There must be many other uncounted cycle users.
>>>>>> Some years ago, the local council did a traffic census on a main
>>>>>> road,
>>>>>> missing a popular cycle route so even though questions were
>>>>>> applicable
>>>>>> to cycle travel in the district, many users would not have been
>>>>>> counted.
>>
>>>>> The same must apply to every mode counted.
>>
>>>> The method does not apply the same fudge factor to each mode.
>>
>>> It must do, particularly wherever there is a change of mode - and this
>>> will apply in spades to journeys of the type:
>>> home to nearby railway station, railway to city, city-centre transfer
>>> mode (Boris Bike, taxi, bus, underground) - and the reverse.
>>
>> *These* will be under represented. In respect to the main modes.
>>
>>>>> It will particularly apply to taxi use.
>>
>>>> In the local traffic census, taxis would not have been particular.
>>
>>> That is far from being a clear statement.
>>> Taxi use as a short-distance link to railway stations is bound to be at
>>> least as under-represented as the bicycle if only the major part of the
>>> journey "counts". So, in many cases, will buses, LU, etc.
>>
>> When measuring vehicles on a particular thoroughfare, taxis will be
>> counted
>> in the correct proportion to private motor vehicles.
>
> But that isn't the point. Your point was that the mode used for a short
> part of the journey is not counted for the purposes of a particular type
> of survey.

Yes.

> And that must apply to *any* "home to station" mode, whether it be
> cycling, car + car park, bus, taxi or walking - for the purposes of that
> or any similar survey which takes account only of the mode which accounts
> for the longest part of the journey.

Indeed.

So what?

The census only tells us that 2.8% of *complete* journeys are by bicycle.

[jnugent]

On 09/04/2016 22:21, TMS320 wrote:
> "JNugent" > wrote
>> On 09/04/2016 17:31, TMS320 wrote:
>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>> On 09/04/2016 00:25, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>>> On 08/04/2016 18:19, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> "Peter Parry" > wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>> ... the 2011 census data, released today, shows no overall change to
>>>>>>>> the 2.8% of journeys to work by bike since 2001 across the UK as a
>>>>>>>> whole...
>>>
>>>>>>> The census was a waste of space. 20% (by distance, no less) of my
>>>>>>> travel to work was by bicycle but the question only allowed me to
>>>>>>> enter my main mode. There must be many other uncounted cycle users.
>>>>>>> Some years ago, the local council did a traffic census on a main
>>>>>>> road,
>>>>>>> missing a popular cycle route so even though questions were
>>>>>>> applicable
>>>>>>> to cycle travel in the district, many users would not have been
>>>>>>> counted.
>>>
>>>>>> The same must apply to every mode counted.
>>>
>>>>> The method does not apply the same fudge factor to each mode.
>>>
>>>> It must do, particularly wherever there is a change of mode - and this
>>>> will apply in spades to journeys of the type:
>>>> home to nearby railway station, railway to city, city-centre transfer
>>>> mode (Boris Bike, taxi, bus, underground) - and the reverse.
>>>
>>> *These* will be under represented. In respect to the main modes.
>>>
>>>>>> It will particularly apply to taxi use.
>>>
>>>>> In the local traffic census, taxis would not have been particular.
>>>
>>>> That is far from being a clear statement.
>>>> Taxi use as a short-distance link to railway stations is bound to be at
>>>> least as under-represented as the bicycle if only the major part of the
>>>> journey "counts". So, in many cases, will buses, LU, etc.
>>>
>>> When measuring vehicles on a particular thoroughfare, taxis will be
>>> counted
>>> in the correct proportion to private motor vehicles.
>>
>> But that isn't the point. Your point was that the mode used for a short
>> part of the journey is not counted for the purposes of a particular type
>> of survey.
>
> Yes.
>
>> And that must apply to *any* "home to station" mode, whether it be
>> cycling, car + car park, bus, taxi or walking - for the purposes of that
>> or any similar survey which takes account only of the mode which accounts
>> for the longest part of the journey.
>
> Indeed.
>
> So what?
>
> The census only tells us that 2.8% of *complete* journeys are by bicycle.

The same applies to (say) taxis.

But (as you claimed, and I have no reason to doubt), when measuring
vehicles on a particular thoroughfare, taxis will be counted in the
correct proportion to private motor vehicles.

Why would that not also apply to bicycles (in correct proportion to
other sorts of vehicle)?

Yes, I realise that that is a different measure, but if it doesn't
matter when applied to taxis, why does it matter when applied to bicycles?

[TMS320]

"JNugent" > wrote
> On 09/04/2016 22:21, TMS320 wrote:
>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>> On 09/04/2016 17:31, TMS320 wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>> On 09/04/2016 00:25, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>>>> On 08/04/2016 18:19, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Peter Parry" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ... the 2011 census data, released today, shows no overall change
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> the 2.8% of journeys to work by bike since 2001 across the UK as a
>>>>>>>>> whole...
>>>>
>>>>>>>> The census was a waste of space. 20% (by distance, no less) of my
>>>>>>>> travel to work was by bicycle but the question only allowed me to
>>>>>>>> enter my main mode. There must be many other uncounted cycle users.
>>>>>>>> Some years ago, the local council did a traffic census on a main
>>>>>>>> road,
>>>>>>>> missing a popular cycle route so even though questions were
>>>>>>>> applicable
>>>>>>>> to cycle travel in the district, many users would not have been
>>>>>>>> counted.
>>>>
>>>>>>> The same must apply to every mode counted.
>>>>
>>>>>> The method does not apply the same fudge factor to each mode.
>>>>
>>>>> It must do, particularly wherever there is a change of mode - and this
>>>>> will apply in spades to journeys of the type:
>>>>> home to nearby railway station, railway to city, city-centre transfer
>>>>> mode (Boris Bike, taxi, bus, underground) - and the reverse.
>>>>
>>>> *These* will be under represented. In respect to the main modes.
>>>>
>>>>>>> It will particularly apply to taxi use.
>>>>
>>>>>> In the local traffic census, taxis would not have been particular.
>>>>
>>>>> That is far from being a clear statement.
>>>>> Taxi use as a short-distance link to railway stations is bound to be
>>>>> at
>>>>> least as under-represented as the bicycle if only the major part of
>>>>> the
>>>>> journey "counts". So, in many cases, will buses, LU, etc.
>>>>
>>>> When measuring vehicles on a particular thoroughfare, taxis will be
>>>> counted
>>>> in the correct proportion to private motor vehicles.
>>>
>>> But that isn't the point. Your point was that the mode used for a short
>>> part of the journey is not counted for the purposes of a particular type
>>> of survey.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> And that must apply to *any* "home to station" mode, whether it be
>>> cycling, car + car park, bus, taxi or walking - for the purposes of that
>>> or any similar survey which takes account only of the mode which
>>> accounts
>>> for the longest part of the journey.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> So what?
>>
>> The census only tells us that 2.8% of *complete* journeys are by bicycle.
>
> The same applies to (say) taxis.
>
> But (as you claimed, and I have no reason to doubt), when measuring
> vehicles on a particular thoroughfare, taxis will be counted in the
> correct proportion to private motor vehicles.
>
> Why would that not also apply to bicycles (in correct proportion to other
> sorts of vehicle)?

It's like talking to a child.

> Yes, I realise that that is a different measure, but if it doesn't matter
> when applied to taxis, why does it matter when applied to bicycles?

And it's not my problem if you cannot hold a conversation in your head and
cannot read through a thread.

[jnugent]

On 11/04/2016 08:35, TMS320 wrote:

> "JNugent" > wrote
>> On 09/04/2016 22:21, TMS320 wrote:
>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>> On 09/04/2016 17:31, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>>> On 09/04/2016 00:25, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>> "JNugent" > wrote
>>>>>>>> On 08/04/2016 18:19, TMS320 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Peter Parry" > wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>> ... the 2011 census data, released today, shows no overall change
>>>>>>>>>> to the 2.8% of journeys to work by bike since 2001 across the UK
>>>>>>>>>> as a whole...
>
>>>>>>>>> The census was a waste of space. 20% (by distance, no less) of my
>>>>>>>>> travel to work was by bicycle but the question only allowed me to
>>>>>>>>> enter my main mode. There must be many other uncounted cycle users.
>>>>>>>>> Some years ago, the local council did a traffic census on a main
>>>>>>>>> road, missing a popular cycle route so even though questions were
>>>>>>>>> applicable to cycle travel in the district, many users would not
>>>>>>>>> have been counted.
>
>>>>>>>> The same must apply to every mode counted.
>
>>>>>>> The method does not apply the same fudge factor to each mode.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It must do, particularly wherever there is a change of mode - and this
>>>>>> will apply in spades to journeys of the type:
>>>>>> home to nearby railway station, railway to city, city-centre transfer
>>>>>> mode (Boris Bike, taxi, bus, underground) - and the reverse.
>
>>>>> *These* will be under represented. In respect to the main modes.
>
>>>>>>>> It will particularly apply to taxi use.
>
>>>>>>> In the local traffic census, taxis would not have been particular.
>
>>>>>> That is far from being a clear statement.
>>>>>> Taxi use as a short-distance link to railway stations is bound to be
>>>>>> at least as under-represented as the bicycle if only the major part
>>>>>> of the journey "counts". So, in many cases, will buses, LU, etc.
>
>>>>> When measuring vehicles on a particular thoroughfare, taxis will be
>>>>> counted in the correct proportion to private motor vehicles.
>
>>>> But that isn't the point. Your point was that the mode used for a short
>>>> part of the journey is not counted for the purposes of a particular type
>>>> of survey.
>
>>> Yes.
>
>>>> And that must apply to *any* "home to station" mode, whether it be
>>>> cycling, car + car park, bus, taxi or walking - for the purposes of that
>>>> or any similar survey which takes account only of the mode which
>>>> accounts for the longest part of the journey.
>
>>> Indeed.
>>> So what?
>>> The census only tells us that 2.8% of *complete* journeys are by bicycle.
>
>> The same applies to (say) taxis.
>> But (as you claimed, and I have no reason to doubt), when measuring
>> vehicles on a particular thoroughfare, taxis will be counted in the
>> correct proportion to private motor vehicles.
>> Why would that not also apply to bicycles (in correct proportion to other
>> sorts of vehicle)?
>
> It's like talking to a child.

Well, I wasn't going to say that of you because confrontation isn't my
MO, but you could do better if you tried. The trouble is that you aren't
even trying.

>> Yes, I realise that that is a different measure, but if it doesn't matter
>> when applied to taxis, why does it matter when applied to bicycles?
>
> And it's not my problem if you cannot hold a conversation in your head and
> cannot read through a thread.

Your central point was that a bike used only for a minor part of a
multi-mode journey is not counted at all for the purposes of some survey
or other.

My response is that this must equally apply to other short-distance
modes used as a minor part of a longer multi-mode journey (car to
station, bus to station, taxi to station, walk to station are all good
examples).

You seem keen not to accept it, even though it is patently true.