Islabikes new range

Ian Smith wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep, Roger Merriman wrote:

and they got to the high street how? or mall probably not by walking, or
rather not as the main method.

I am simply asserting that it is untrue to say that the car meets
every transport need of everyone.

it is a close as one can expect any form of transport to manage, yes
you'll still walk, to the car. your not likely to drive the car up and
down, the high street while shopping, but for a large number of people
they use the car, and it's their main form of transport. it very much is
the case that they probably could use, bike/bus/tram/walk for some/much
of it but they don't

This is fact, but you persist in apparently disagreeing with it
(though quite what you disagree with you seem strangely unable to
articulate).

Ergo, I conclude that you are trolling. I give up.

regards, Ian SMith

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

wafflycat wrote:

"Roger Merriman" wrote in message
. uk...


is he not a keen racer? that doesn't really sell it as a means of
transport, which i can be, i often use it as such.

He used to be a keen racer, but is not racing any more. He is, however,
still using a bicycle for utility purposes.

thats not from a crash, is it? vague memory of a crash at a track?

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

"Roger Merriman" wrote in message
k...
wafflycat wrote:

"Roger Merriman" wrote in message
. uk...


is he not a keen racer? that doesn't really sell it as a means of
transport, which i can be, i often use it as such.

He used to be a keen racer, but is not racing any more. He is, however,
still using a bicycle for utility purposes.

thats not from a crash, is it? vague memory of a crash at a track?


From two crashes. He's had his confidence severely dented. He is, however,
still cycling for utility and for a wee bit of leisure. At least that's the
theory at the moment

wafflycat wrote:

"Roger Merriman" wrote in message
k...
wafflycat wrote:

"Roger Merriman" wrote in message
. uk...


is he not a keen racer? that doesn't really sell it as a means of
transport, which i can be, i often use it as such.

He used to be a keen racer, but is not racing any more. He is, however,
still using a bicycle for utility purposes.

thats not from a crash, is it? vague memory of a crash at a track?


From two crashes. He's had his confidence severely dented. He is, however,
still cycling for utility and for a wee bit of leisure. At least that's the
theory at the moment

ooh owch, yes i can that would do that, can be good to just go for ride
with out targets.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Ian Smith wrote:

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, JNugent wrote:

Unless one wants to nitpick to the nth degree (a time-honoured
usenet diversion - NASA and the shuttle, anyone?), the statement
"Cars can do everything for everyone" (in the context of surface
transport on land) is pretty well unarguably true.

It is plainly and factually not true that cars can do everything for
everyone.

sigh

It is true that they cannot (on their own) satisfy ther transport needs of a
newborn (but then, can anything?).

It is equally true that a car isn't much use (on its own) to a blind person.

Is it really necessary to point out every last iota of lack of generality of
a reasonable statement or are you going to go for pedant of the millennium?

They can't even satisfy all transport needs for everyone.

Which bit of "in the context of surface transport on land" did you miss?

I doubt they even meet all transport needs for anyone.

No-one said they do - not even the original poster, when properly and
reasonably construed.

They can't even satisfy my routine daily transport requirements in a
western, developed nation which has committed large expenditure to
providing car-centric infrastructure.

I agree that a car isn't much use for getting you out to the kitchen for a
another biscuit.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:50:52 +0100, (Roger
Merriman) said in :

things need to be really congested or very close for a car not to be the
easier option, certinaly with supermarkets or work, even out in greater
london,

You think. But that depends on the values of "really congested" and
"very close"; I reckoned that it had to be over 2 miles before the
car was quicker even late in the evening for a quick trip to get
milk. Think of time to park etc.

You might be 101% cortrect in all of that, and yet it still does not
undermine that porevious poster's statement to the effect that a car can
satisfy all of the (non-pedestrian) land transport needs of a reasonable
person leading a reasonably ordinary life.

Yes, lighthouse keepers are a race apart. So are children and others who are
unable to drive for physical or legal reasons.

You aren't David Boothroyd or David Hansen under an assumed name, by any chance?

What I have found is that the more I use the bike, the more likely I
am to use the bike, a bus or a train. We're now have one car where
we had two, and my cunning plan to buy an old Landie for fun has
been shelved indefinitely because I can't justify it even to myself.

I think I drive maybe once a fortnight.

And you think that's better - fair enough.

It does not militate against what the PP wrote. He didn't say the car was
better (though for most people, the vast majority of the time, it clearly is).

Tom Anderson wrote:

[...]

There are a good few million people in the same situation as me. Cars
are simply not the easier option for us.

The poster who started the sub-thread made no observations or claims about
such comparisons, so what you wrote (and there was more of it than is quoted
above) is something of a strawman, isn't it?

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:22:08 +0100,
(Ekul Namsob) wrote:

Peter Clinch wrote:

wafflycat wrote:

On the Islabikes web page, under 'gallery' photo 7/18 is *glorious*

http://www.islabikes.co.uk/gallery/gallery.html

I note that Martha is winning, though doubtless a blazered UCI official
will step in at the end and have her banned for having a brake and
wheels that are too small... ;-/

photo 9... shurely that should be captioned "/Do/ try this at home kids!"

If my daughter tried that inside the house, she'd be sent to bed without
any pudding.

Surely it would be better to sit down with your daughter and explain
to her that helmets really aren't necessary when riding a bike than to
impose an unrealted punishment.

Phil W Lee wrote:

JNugent considered:

It does not militate against what the PP wrote. He didn't say the car was
better (though for most people, the vast majority of the time, it clearly is).

Or rather, they have been mislead into believing so, and never give
any alternative any thought.

That might or might not be a true statement, but it is unrelated to the PP's
claim either way. Your claim does not have to be shown to be untrue in order
for his to be true, and if yours is true, it does not mean that his is untrue.

The correct version of the statement would be:
"For some people, over a few journeys, it might be"

Why so competitive?

The PP was not making a normative statement, but a straightforward factually
descriptive one.

Phil W Lee wrote:
JNugent considered Thu, 18 Sep 2008
15:46:53 +0100 the perfect time to write:

Tom Anderson wrote:

[...]

There are a good few million people in the same situation as me. Cars
are simply not the easier option for us.
The poster who started the sub-thread made no observations or claims about
such comparisons, so what you wrote (and there was more of it than is quoted
above) is something of a strawman, isn't it?

Er, NO.
The OP said theat they are better for everyone and everything, so any
counterexample froves him wrong.

He did not say "better" in the bit I am working from. He simply said that a
car can cover anyone's transport needs.

Naturally, one needs to interpret that reasonably in order to filter out
coverage of flights into space, ocean voyages, trips across pedestrianised
piazzas to get lunch from the sandwich shop, etc, etc.