Money well spent!

On 17/08/2013 12:04, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
On 17/08/2013 10:56, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 17/08/2013 00:08, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 16/08/2013 10:49, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

Walking costs even less, of course.

A set of shoes around £60. Possibly manage1000 miles...
(From experience, cheaper shoes are a false economy.)

It depends.

On what?

On the purpose to which the shoes are being put, of course.

The starting point of your diatribe included the word "walking". So I
naturally assumed the purpose of shoes under discussion would be for
"walking". Hence the cost effective solution for doing 1000 miles, eg,
3 miles a day, every day for nearly a year. Obviously, walking, as
opposed to covering the shortest possible distance across a car park,
is an alien activity to you.

"Diatribe"?

You do your own "arguments" far too much honour, sir.
They are not worth, and do not require for easy rebuttal, a "diatribe".
Neither:
(a) have I ever written a diatribe, nor

You flatter yourself.

I do no such thing.

It is clear that you do not know what a diatribe is.

(b) could you define one (cue your scurrying across to Google).

A very recent example of your reputation. "Rode tax" 16/8/13 15:01
"Mike P" wrote
You're (as usual) talking ********.

Ah yes... "Mike P".. the poster who insisted that road tax doesn't pay
for roads, which (even on his odd "logic") would make it the only tax
which doesn't pay for roads. And then he didn't like it when his rather
obvious error was pointed out.

He hadn't thought it through, you see. He ought to have spotted his own
mistake. And perhaps he did, but couldn't bring himself to admit it.

Incidentally, I am on a strict self-imposed 3+ miles per day walking
regime for health-related reasons.

In that case, you should have developed an idea of cost per mile. And you
could have avoided wasting time arguing about how it is impossible to
compare a bicycle with shoes that aren't suitable for walking.

Really?

Why on Earth "should" I have done that?

So, assuming shoes cost 6p a mile against cycling at 9p a mile, then indeed
the cost per hour is less (so long as another transport mode isn't
involved). But cycling opens up much greater horizons.

Shoes don't cost 6p a mile. I don't accept that cycling costs (anything
like) as much as 9p a mile.

So I shan't be accepting your ill-founded recommendations.

But thanks for thinking of my welfare. I do appreciate it.

On 17/08/2013 12:38, JNugent wrote:

So, assuming shoes cost 6p a mile against cycling at 9p a mile, then
indeed
the cost per hour is less (so long as another transport mode isn't
involved). But cycling opens up much greater horizons.

Shoes don't cost 6p a mile. I don't accept that cycling costs (anything
like) as much as 9p a mile.

So I shan't be accepting your ill-founded recommendations.


Have a look he
http://www.thebikestation.org.uk/sto...rison_2011.pdf

On 17/08/2013 14:37, Sig wrote:

On 17/08/2013 12:38, JNugent wrote:

So, assuming shoes cost 6p a mile against cycling at 9p a mile, then
indeed the cost per hour is less (so long as another transport mode
isn't involved). But cycling opens up much greater horizons.

Shoes don't cost 6p a mile. I don't accept that cycling costs (anything
like) as much as 9p a mile.

So I shan't be accepting your ill-founded recommendations.

Have a look he
http://www.thebikestation.org.uk/sto...rison_2011.pdf

Thanks.

I'm aware of the arguments (and that's what they are; they aren't
undisputed fact).

The way in which it is claimed that one can save £2800 pa by switching
the work commute from car to bus is a good example of why the figures
are unreliable. I shan't spell out why that claim is obvious nonsense.

After the first 6,000 miles per year, the revenue accept without demur
that a payment of 25p a mile is fair for the expenses of using a car.
That includes fuel at a minimum of about 11p a mile (probably more),
leaving the balance at 14p a mile or less.

If one accepts that a bike (with no use of fuel, no road tax and
probably no dedicated insurance, as well as no motoring organisation
subscription and minimal servicing costs) puts the expenses at 9p a
mile, that means that it costs pretty nearly as much, ex-fuel, to run a
bike as a car. Add in some insurance and some sort of breakdown
assistance cover (always factored in with the HMRC figures) and the cost
would be more or less the same.

See why I'm sceptical?

On 17/08/2013 14:53, JNugent wrote:
On 17/08/2013 14:37, Sig wrote:

On 17/08/2013 12:38, JNugent wrote:

So, assuming shoes cost 6p a mile against cycling at 9p a mile, then
indeed the cost per hour is less (so long as another transport mode
isn't involved). But cycling opens up much greater horizons.

Shoes don't cost 6p a mile. I don't accept that cycling costs (anything
like) as much as 9p a mile.

So I shan't be accepting your ill-founded recommendations.

Have a look he
http://www.thebikestation.org.uk/sto...rison_2011.pdf


Thanks.

I'm aware of the arguments (and that's what they are; they aren't
undisputed fact).

The way in which it is claimed that one can save £2800 pa by switching
the work commute from car to bus is a good example of why the figures
are unreliable. I shan't spell out why that claim is obvious nonsense.

After the first 6,000 miles per year, the revenue accept without demur
that a payment of 25p a mile is fair for the expenses of using a car.
That includes fuel at a minimum of about 11p a mile (probably more),
leaving the balance at 14p a mile or less.

If one accepts that a bike (with no use of fuel, no road tax and
probably no dedicated insurance, as well as no motoring organisation
subscription and minimal servicing costs) puts the expenses at 9p a
mile, that means that it costs pretty nearly as much, ex-fuel, to run a
bike as a car. Add in some insurance and some sort of breakdown
assistance cover (always factored in with the HMRC figures) and the cost
would be more or less the same.

See why I'm sceptical?



Well, I can only say that I considered my mileage costs on my pushbike
and they are considerably above those in the comparison table.
Mind you, they are not necessities, but I enjoy riding my bike and it is
money well spent!
You can certainly spend less and have fun!

Bike £ 3000 (Capital outlay)
Computer £ 200 (capital outlay)

Annual costs:
Clothing and shoes £200
Insurance £ 30 ( Ctc membership)
Tyres and tubes £ 40
Chains & cassettes & chainwheels & bits £ 100
Servicing £ 30

Average mileage per year about 5000 +
I make that 16p per mile (roughly) writing the bike off after 8 years.

In case of a breakdown (it happens!) costs would include taxi or train
or rescue by nearest and dearest! (they don't come cheap either) :-)

In the meantime my car is sitting in the garage costing me a mint doing
nothing, but depreciate, not to mention insurance, VED & servicing costs.

"Sig" wrote in message

Well, I can only say that I considered my mileage costs on my pushbike and
they are considerably above those in the comparison table.
Mind you, they are not necessities, but I enjoy riding my bike and it is
money well spent!

I haven't totted up costs for some time now and have lost the spreadsheet
but I separated out two values - cost per mile for utility trips and cost
per hour for leisure rides. It's hard to imagine entertainment that's any
cheaper.

"JNugent" wrote

It is clear that you do not know what a diatribe is.

For the current purposes, you probably realise what meaning is intended

In that case, you should have developed an idea of cost per mile. And you
could have avoided wasting time arguing about how it is impossible to
compare a bicycle with shoes that aren't suitable for walking.

Really?

Why on Earth "should" I have done that?

So you haven't developed an idea of cost per mile? Oh well. You can hardly
argue about it.

On 17/08/2013 23:30, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote

It is clear that you do not know what a diatribe is.

For the current purposes, you probably realise what meaning is intended

As I'm sure you have already realised, failure to use accurate words
casts doubt on your judgement.

In that case, you should have developed an idea of cost per mile. And you
could have avoided wasting time arguing about how it is impossible to
compare a bicycle with shoes that aren't suitable for walking.

Really?
Why on Earth "should" I have done that?

So you haven't developed an idea of cost per mile? Oh well. You can hardly
argue about it.

The cost per mile of walking?

What does it matter how much a mile it "costs" to walk? It's hardly as
though there's an available alternative.

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:20:58 +0100, Judith wrote:

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:04:05 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 16/08/2013 10:49, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote

Walking costs even less, of course.

A set of shoes around £60. Possibly manage1000 miles...
(From experience, cheaper shoes are a false economy.)

It depends.

Bicycle about 9p a mile. And can do journeys where walking requires
the cost of other transport.

sigh

You cannot realistically substitute the purchase (or even prior
possession) of a bicycle for that of a pair of shoes.

Even if you plan to take no exercise worth the name, you'll still need
shoes if you live in a civilised place. You will not need (for any
sensible definition of the term "need") a bicycle in anything like as
basic a way.


Indeed: I look forward to an explanation why anyone actually *needs* a
pushbike.

It would be a ****-poor uninteresting life if we only had and used what
we *needed*

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 23:30:07 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:

snip


I haven't totted up costs for some time now and have lost the spreadsheet
but I separated out two values - cost per mile for utility trips and cost
per hour for leisure rides.


My word: I bet the long winter evenings just fly by.

On 14/08/2013 23:12, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 13/08/2013 22:00, JNugent wrote:
On 13/08/2013 20:12, Brian Robertson wrote:
On 13/08/2013 18:56, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"John Benn" wrote in message
...
"JNugent" wrote in message
...

Is cycling the only known form of exercise?

Psycholists think so. But then they would, wouldn't they? That's
what you get from a religion.

Maybe we should listen, apparently they earn more than the rest of us,
and are healthier than the rest of us.

Funny, I've never seen a match-fit multi-millionaire footballer turn up
for training or go shopping on a bike. The only rich and healthy sports
people I've ever seen on bikes are the ones who *have* to ride them.

What a complete prick you are!

That must be the wittiest and most adult response ever made on usenet.

or something.


Surely surpassed by many a petrol head saying that speeding doesn't kill.

Speeding does not kill, crashing into something is the possible killing
bit, whether by bicycle, car or train.
UK road casualties keep on dropping despite the increase year on year of
car use. Cyclist casualties keep on rising despite a nominal increase
in their numbers on the road.