Cycle facts.

On Sat, 02 May 2009 19:00:06 +0100, Chris Gerhard
wrote:
My summer bike gets upped to
16.5p/mile (ouch) even that would not cover the fuel of a car and is
much more fun.

Don't talk bloody daft, at 100p per litre a 30 mpg car costs 15.15p
per mile in fuel costs, or to put it another way fuel would have to
rise from the current price of 93.9p for unleaded to 108.9p per litre
with the hypothetical 30mpg car to cost 16.5p a mile in fuel costs.

Many small cars that can carry four people in relative comfort in all
weathers can achieve around 40mpg or more in real world urban traffic.
This equates to less than 10p per mile at current fuel prices.

(not that I'm either pro car or pro bike!)


--

On 6 May, 12:25, Mike wrote:
On Sat, 02 May 2009 19:00:06 +0100, Chris Gerhard

wrote:
My summer bike gets upped to
16.5p/mile (ouch) even that would not cover the fuel of a car and is
much more fun.

Don't talk bloody daft, at 100p per litre a 30 mpg car costs 15.15p
per mile in fuel costs, or to put it another way fuel would have to
rise from the current price of 93.9p for unleaded to 108.9p per litre
with the hypothetical 30mpg car to cost 16.5p a mile in fuel costs.

Many small cars that can carry four people in relative comfort in all
weathers can achieve around 40mpg or more in real world urban traffic.
This equates to less than 10p per mile at current fuel prices.

(not that I'm either pro car or pro bike!)

Average car occupancy is 1.6 not 4.

I never cease to be amused by the seeming ingenuity of motorists here
and their insistent pro-car/anti-cyclist propaganda. But this one is
much too much! Bicycles more expensive to run than cars? Give me a
break!

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:
On 6 May, 12:25, Mike wrote:
On Sat, 02 May 2009 19:00:06 +0100, Chris Gerhard

wrote:
My summer bike gets upped to
16.5p/mile (ouch) even that would not cover the fuel of a car and is
much more fun.
Don't talk bloody daft, at 100p per litre a 30 mpg car costs 15.15p
per mile in fuel costs, or to put it another way fuel would have to
rise from the current price of 93.9p for unleaded to 108.9p per litre
with the hypothetical 30mpg car to cost 16.5p a mile in fuel costs.

Many small cars that can carry four people in relative comfort in all
weathers can achieve around 40mpg or more in real world urban traffic.
This equates to less than 10p per mile at current fuel prices.

(not that I'm either pro car or pro bike!)

Average car occupancy is 1.6 not 4.

I never cease to be amused by the seeming ingenuity of motorists here
and their insistent pro-car/anti-cyclist propaganda. But this one is
much too much! Bicycles more expensive to run than cars? Give me a
break!

To the specific point that the total cost of my summer bike is 16.5p
would be more than the fuel costs of a car he is right though.

The point was not that cars were cheaper to run than bikes, simply my
16.5p/mile is less than you would pay in fuel. What I should have said
to be correct was that when diesel hit over 110p/litre a while back my
car became more expensive in fuel than the total cost of my expensive
bike. However that is not what I said so Mike was right. the fuel costs
of most cars will be less then 16.5p/mile. The actual costs including
depreciation, and maintenance would be more.

Getting the costs of a car down to the costs of my commuter at 7.4p
would be a challenge and I'm sure you could get a cheaper bike than my
commuter.

--chris

Doug wrote:
On 6 May, 12:25, Mike wrote:
On Sat, 02 May 2009 19:00:06 +0100, Chris Gerhard

wrote:
My summer bike gets upped to
16.5p/mile (ouch) even that would not cover the fuel of a car and is
much more fun.
Don't talk bloody daft, at 100p per litre a 30 mpg car costs 15.15p
per mile in fuel costs, or to put it another way fuel would have to
rise from the current price of 93.9p for unleaded to 108.9p per litre
with the hypothetical 30mpg car to cost 16.5p a mile in fuel costs.

Many small cars that can carry four people in relative comfort in all
weathers can achieve around 40mpg or more in real world urban traffic.
This equates to less than 10p per mile at current fuel prices.

(not that I'm either pro car or pro bike!)

Average car occupancy is 1.6 not 4.

I never cease to be amused by the seeming ingenuity of motorists here
and their insistent pro-car/anti-cyclist propaganda. But this one is
much too much! Bicycles more expensive to run than cars? Give me a
break!


Feel free to show where anyone , and I do mean anyone, has ever said
"Bicycles more expensive to run than cars" Provide proof or retract!

In ,
Chris Gerhard tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell
us:

The point was not that cars were cheaper to run than bikes, simply my
16.5p/mile is less than you would pay in fuel. What I should have said
to be correct was that when diesel hit over 110p/litre a while back my
car became more expensive in fuel than the total cost of my expensive
bike.

It was cheap round your way, then! At the height of the price rises I paid
133p/litre at Birchanger Services as I didn't think I had enough left to get
as far as Tesco in Harlow :-(

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
No user-serviceable parts inside.

On 8 May, 07:33, Marc wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 6 May, 12:25, Mike wrote:
On Sat, 02 May 2009 19:00:06 +0100, Chris Gerhard

wrote:
My summer bike gets upped to
16.5p/mile (ouch) even that would not cover the fuel of a car and is
much more fun.
Don't talk bloody daft, at 100p per litre a 30 mpg car costs 15.15p
per mile in fuel costs, or to put it another way fuel would have to
rise from the current price of 93.9p for unleaded to 108.9p per litre
with the hypothetical 30mpg car to cost 16.5p a mile in fuel costs.

Many small cars that can carry four people in relative comfort in all
weathers can achieve around 40mpg or more in real world urban traffic.
This equates to less than 10p per mile at current fuel prices.

(not that I'm either pro car or pro bike!)

Average car occupancy is 1.6 not 4.

I never cease to be amused by the seeming ingenuity of motorists here
and their insistent pro-car/anti-cyclist propaganda. But this one is
much too much! Bicycles more expensive to run than cars? Give me a
break!

Feel free to show where anyone , and I do mean anyone, has ever said
"Bicycles more expensive to run than cars" *Provide proof or retract!

Perhaps you might like to care to explain why like was deliberately
not compared with like thus giving a quick impression that cycles are
more expensive to run than cars?

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 8 May, 10:50, Doug wrote:
On 8 May, 07:33, Marc wrote:



Doug wrote:
On 6 May, 12:25, Mike wrote:
On Sat, 02 May 2009 19:00:06 +0100, Chris Gerhard

wrote:
My summer bike gets upped to
16.5p/mile (ouch) even that would not cover the fuel of a car and is
much more fun.
Don't talk bloody daft, at 100p per litre a 30 mpg car costs 15.15p
per mile in fuel costs, or to put it another way fuel would have to
rise from the current price of 93.9p for unleaded to 108.9p per litre
with the hypothetical 30mpg car to cost 16.5p a mile in fuel costs.

Many small cars that can carry four people in relative comfort in all
weathers can achieve around 40mpg or more in real world urban traffic.
This equates to less than 10p per mile at current fuel prices.

(not that I'm either pro car or pro bike!)

Average car occupancy is 1.6 not 4.

I never cease to be amused by the seeming ingenuity of motorists here
and their insistent pro-car/anti-cyclist propaganda. But this one is
much too much! Bicycles more expensive to run than cars? Give me a
break!

Feel free to show where anyone , and I do mean anyone, has ever said
"Bicycles more expensive to run than cars" *Provide proof or retract!

Perhaps you might like to care to explain why like was deliberately
not compared with like thus giving a quick impression that cycles are
more expensive to run than cars?

--
World Carfree Networkhttp://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wow you have some front asking that with your history of posting.

Francis

Doug wrote:
On 8 May, 07:33, Marc wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 6 May, 12:25, Mike wrote:
On Sat, 02 May 2009 19:00:06 +0100, Chris Gerhard
wrote:
My summer bike gets upped to
16.5p/mile (ouch) even that would not cover the fuel of a car and is
much more fun.
Don't talk bloody daft, at 100p per litre a 30 mpg car costs 15.15p
per mile in fuel costs, or to put it another way fuel would have to
rise from the current price of 93.9p for unleaded to 108.9p per litre
with the hypothetical 30mpg car to cost 16.5p a mile in fuel costs.
Many small cars that can carry four people in relative comfort in all
weathers can achieve around 40mpg or more in real world urban traffic.
This equates to less than 10p per mile at current fuel prices.
(not that I'm either pro car or pro bike!)
Average car occupancy is 1.6 not 4.
I never cease to be amused by the seeming ingenuity of motorists here
and their insistent pro-car/anti-cyclist propaganda. But this one is
much too much! Bicycles more expensive to run than cars? Give me a
break!
Feel free to show where anyone , and I do mean anyone, has ever said
"Bicycles more expensive to run than cars" Provide proof or retract!

Perhaps you might like to care to explain why like was deliberately
not compared with like thus giving a quick impression that cycles are
more expensive to run than cars?


Ahhhhh You mean you were too stupid to read properly?

Can I take then that you can't show that someone said "Bicycles more
expensive to run than cars"? If you can't provide proof, simply
retract, say "I was wrong"...

On Thu, 7 May 2009 23:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Doug
wrote:

On 6 May, 12:25, Mike wrote:
On Sat, 02 May 2009 19:00:06 +0100, Chris Gerhard

wrote:
My summer bike gets upped to
16.5p/mile (ouch) even that would not cover the fuel of a car and is
much more fun.

Don't talk bloody daft, at 100p per litre a 30 mpg car costs 15.15p
per mile in fuel costs, or to put it another way fuel would have to
rise from the current price of 93.9p for unleaded to 108.9p per litre
with the hypothetical 30mpg car to cost 16.5p a mile in fuel costs.

Many small cars that can carry four people in relative comfort in all
weathers can achieve around 40mpg or more in real world urban traffic.
This equates to less than 10p per mile at current fuel prices.

(not that I'm either pro car or pro bike!)

Average car occupancy is 1.6 not 4.

Irrelevant, except that with only 1.6 people in the car it will cost
less per vehicle mile than it would with four people onboard. But you
can fit two people on a tandem and not necessarily double the cost per
mile.

But in hindsight I'll correct my previous posting though. I'm pro car
AND pro bike as well as pro public transport and pro walking. I also
f*cking despise pedants.


--

Mike wrote:
On Thu, 7 May 2009 23:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Doug
wrote:

On 6 May, 12:25, Mike wrote:
On Sat, 02 May 2009 19:00:06 +0100, Chris Gerhard

wrote:
My summer bike gets upped to
16.5p/mile (ouch) even that would not cover the fuel of a car and is
much more fun.
Don't talk bloody daft, at 100p per litre a 30 mpg car costs 15.15p
per mile in fuel costs, or to put it another way fuel would have to
rise from the current price of 93.9p for unleaded to 108.9p per litre
with the hypothetical 30mpg car to cost 16.5p a mile in fuel costs.

Many small cars that can carry four people in relative comfort in all
weathers can achieve around 40mpg or more in real world urban traffic.
This equates to less than 10p per mile at current fuel prices.

(not that I'm either pro car or pro bike!)

Average car occupancy is 1.6 not 4.

Irrelevant, except that with only 1.6 people in the car it will cost
less per vehicle mile than it would with four people onboard. But you
can fit two people on a tandem and not necessarily double the cost per
mile.

And I fit three on my triplet. When my youngest was small we even got
four on it with a child seat on the bike. I've not done the cost/mile
for it.