On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 1:38:33 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2015 13:29, Bod wrote:

On 19/10/2015 13:15, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2015 10:26, Bod wrote:
On 19/10/2015 10:10, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:36, David Lang wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:26, Alycidon wrote:

QUOTE:
"One Surrey resident referred to a rapid growth in cycling
"overtaking" the roads on Sundays, with driving very difficult. He
said some residents are too scared to drive on Sundays because the
roads are so packed with people on bikes."
http://road.cc/content/news/169205-n...a-wearers-dull

Good job cycling has declined drastically since 1948.

It's obvious to everyone except you, that in 1948 very few people could
afford cars, the main mode of transport was either horses or bicycles
for the common man.

So is today's general level of affluence higher or lower than it was in
1948?

Most definitely, especially as you consider that rationing was still
being used for food etc. Very few could afford a TV, only the fairly
well off could afford a car. A telephone was regarded as a luxury.
I was born in 1948 and my parents couldn't afford a tv or a phone
untill I was about 13 yrs old. A car was simply out of the question.
I remember most other residents in our street being in a similar situation.

Same here.

Somewhere, I have a photograph of my first motor vehicle (when I was 19,
I think). It's the only one in the terraced street (where today, I can't
easily find a parking space when I visit).

But given this increase in affluence, which is the more likely to
continue to grow, cycling or driving? You have identified affluence as
the counter-indicator for cycling.


And as an aside, isn't this a side-issue where Surrey is concerned?

After all, the "growth" in cycling there is not the result of an
increase in cycling generally, but stems from a fad for cycling along
the route of some fairly recent "sporting" occasion, irrespective of the
disruption it causes to local residents.

The demographic-economic paradox

In less wealthy regions of the world, the bicycle is the poor man's mode of transport: they cannot afford a motorised alternative. In the rich world, it is the wealthier who can afford to care about their health who cycle.