They are whingeing about petrol prices again!

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 11:23:46 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
wrote:

On Nov 18, 3:33*pm, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:
On 18/11/2011 14:48, Simon Mason wrote:





On Nov 17, 7:33 am, Simon
wrote:
On 17/11/2011 04:05, Simon Mason wrote:

On Nov 16, 11:46 pm, *wrote:
On Nov 16, 6:53 pm, *wrote:

Doug wrote:
Fortunately this hardly affects cyclists at all.

so why are you mentioning it here?

"just about everybody on this group have said they own a car."

I am not moaning about high petrol prices as
a) I work for an oil company.
b) I get a staff discount c) I hardly ever drive anyway.

Win win win.

Higher prices, less traffic!

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My fuel bills are going through the roof due to me driving Mrs M out
to all of these hills.
I've just put another 70 quids worth in. :-(

It does not go far, I spend approx £80 a month on diesel. Still I’d
rather pay £160 per month and see less traffic on the roads.

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I forgot to say that before the personal training programme got under
way, 70 quid used to last at least 2 weeks.
Still, the 10p a litre off Sainsbury's petrol voucher will come in
handy for once.

Ah yes - the 10p vouchers make all the difference.

--
"You get a real feeling of elation just for the simple act of cycling past the local hospital
where there are people of my age who have abused their bodies and suffered all sorts of ailments"

Simon Mason

On Nov 17, 4:21*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" considered
Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:58:35 +0000 the perfect time to write:





On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:09:19 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
wrote:

Fortunately this hardly affects cyclists at all.

When will these car addicts ever learn that motoring is costly and it
goes with the territory. If they don't like it then they should not have
chosen a lifestyle based on car dependency in the first place, instead
of perpetually whining about their habit.

There are actually some people who cannot ride a bike, due to problems
with balance, orthopaedic problems etc. *They should not be stigmatised.

They cost more but it's hard to fall off a recumbent.

A recumbent trike, anyway.

Guy

Yes, a recumbent bicycle is actually harder to balance, as it has such
a low centre of mass.

For anyone who hasn't tried, a simple demonstration will suffice.
Take a small weight (1lb or 450g will do fine), and tape it to one end
an ordinary 12" (30cm) ruler, then balance the ruler upright on the
palm of your hand with the weight at the top.
Then try the same trick with a yard (or metre) ruler.

Which is easier to keep balanced?

The safety bicycle was condemned by riders of ordinary "penny
farthings" as being difficult to balance, for the same reason!

I actually met the local guy who rides up one of our local killer
hills on his penny farthing on our country walk this morning.
He is one of the country's great eccentrics sadly becoming rarer as
time goes by. :-(

--
Simon Mason

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 11:41:49 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
wrote:

On Nov 17, 4:21*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
"Just zis Guy, you know?" considered
Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:58:35 +0000 the perfect time to write:





On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 20:09:19 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
wrote:

Fortunately this hardly affects cyclists at all.

When will these car addicts ever learn that motoring is costly and it
goes with the territory. If they don't like it then they should not have
chosen a lifestyle based on car dependency in the first place, instead
of perpetually whining about their habit.

There are actually some people who cannot ride a bike, due to problems
with balance, orthopaedic problems etc. *They should not be stigmatised.

They cost more but it's hard to fall off a recumbent.

A recumbent trike, anyway.

Guy

Yes, a recumbent bicycle is actually harder to balance, as it has such
a low centre of mass.

For anyone who hasn't tried, a simple demonstration will suffice.
Take a small weight (1lb or 450g will do fine), and tape it to one end
an ordinary 12" (30cm) ruler, then balance the ruler upright on the
palm of your hand with the weight at the top.
Then try the same trick with a yard (or metre) ruler.

Which is easier to keep balanced?

The safety bicycle was condemned by riders of ordinary "penny
farthings" as being difficult to balance, for the same reason!

I actually met the local guy who rides up one of our local killer
hills on his penny farthing



You do talk ****e.

--
"You get a real feeling of elation just for the simple act of cycling past the local hospital
where there are people of my age who have abused their bodies and suffered all sorts of ailments"

Simon Mason

On Nov 20, 12:55*pm, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:
On 20/11/2011 10:30, Simon Mason wrote:





On Nov 20, 9:48 am, Tony *wrote:

Of course that is the undoubted benefit of higher fuel prices so the higher
the better. Lets get all those frivolous drivers off our roads so that
serious road users can benefit. I bet the resulting lack of congestion would
save on fuel costs in the end.

Doug.

Yes, the higher the better, we all know that only motorists use fuel.

Those lorries, buses, trains, ambulances, hospitals, etc do not use fuel
at all, they are powered by Pixie Dust that falls out of the skies in
cloud cockoo land.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In years to come when all of the oil has run out, those vehicles will
be powered by biofuels made from palm oil, maize, wheat, sugar cane
and all sorts of other renewable resources. We are in a transitional
period when we are having to learn to be weaned off fossil fuels and
into cleaner forms of energy which will benefit us all.

Fantastic. With half the world in food poverty, and we grow crops to use
for transportation fuel.

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I have spent four hours today on analysis for our biobutanol pilot
plant.
Sorry.

--
Simon Mason

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:49:33 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:



the ****wit
writes;

It is a very great honour to be f****wittted by the vorephilicc dave.







--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 17:49:53 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

On 20/11/2011 15:59, JNugent wrote:
On 20/11/2011 15:43, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 20/11/2011 14:49, JNugent wrote:
On 20/11/2011 12:58, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 20/11/2011 10:18, Mr. Benn wrote:
"Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in message
...

On 20/11/2011 08:50, Doug wrote:
On 18-Nov-2011, Simon
wrote:

On 18/11/2011 14:48, Simon Mason wrote:
On Nov 17, 7:33 am, Simon
wrote:
On 17/11/2011 04:05, Simon Mason wrote:



On Nov 16, 11:46 pm, wrote:
On Nov 16, 6:53 pm, wrote:

Doug wrote:
Fortunately this hardly affects cyclists at all.

so why are you mentioning it here?

"just about everybody on this group have said they own a
car."

I am not moaning about high petrol prices as a) I work for an
oil company.
b) I get a staff discount c) I hardly ever drive anyway.

Win win win.

Higher prices, less traffic!

--
Simon
For personal replies, please use my reply-to address.- Hide
quoted text
-

- Show quoted text -

My fuel bills are going through the roof due to me driving Mrs M
out
to all of these hills.
I've just put another 70 quids worth in. :-(


It does not go far, I spend approx £80 a month on diesel. Still
I’d rather pay £160 per month and see less traffic on the roads.

Of course that is the undoubted benefit of higher fuel prices so
the higher
the better. Lets get all those frivolous drivers off our roads so
that
serious road users can benefit. I bet the resulting lack of
congestion
would
save on fuel costs in the end.

Still waiting for the penny to drop....
=========================================

It will when he realises that increases in food prices are largely
due to increased transportation costs.

Food is very cheap in the UK. It should be a lot more.

Should it?
Why do you say that UK living standards should be reduced?

It might have a positive effect on obesity rates if people were not
able to
afford to gorge themselves to such a point where they are a health
risk.

Commodity prices would have to rise a LOT before that would happen.

In effect, real incomes would have to be similar to what they were in
the late 1940s or early 1950s (the last time that food was rationed by
price, as well as by the state).

Interestingly, during the rationing of food, when red meat, butter,
cheese, lard, sugar etc were in short supply, but fish & vegetables were
easily available - heart disease tripled.

No.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/7586.php



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 15:02:08 +0000, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:



As long as he can ride his child's toy in peace...

I love my child's toy.



--
An oft-repeated lie is still a lie.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 12:10:55 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason
wrote:

snip


I have spent four hours today on analysis for our biobutanol pilot
plant.
Sorry.

Ah yes - pushing back those frontiers of science yet again.

Many thanks - on behalf of all of mankind.

--
"You get a real feeling of elation just for the simple act of cycling past the local hospital
where there are people of my age who have abused their bodies and suffered all sorts of ailments"

Simon Mason

On Nov 20, 4:18*pm, Simon Weaseltemper
wrote:

You cannot compare just the price alone. Price and affordability are
relative to income and wealth. Food prices in the US are cheap. The UK
is less so. In much of Europe, food prices (in relation to incomes) are
high even though the actual purchase price may be about the same. It
seems though that The UK, US and other wealthier nations have an obesity
problem.


In my opinion, food prices are very low due to the fierce competition
between the big supermarkets. Plus since I now do all of my shopping
online it is dead easy to see the half price offers, meal deals and
multibuy savings. Last week the Tuesday delivery was 235 quid, but the
savings total was a massive 95 pounds. Mind you, most of that was down
to the beer offers. :-)

--
Simon Mason

On 20/11/2011 16:22, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 20/11/2011 16:03, JNugent wrote:
On 20/11/2011 15:53, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:
On 20/11/2011 14:50, JNugent wrote:
On 20/11/2011 13:01, Simon Weaseltemper wrote:

... I have for a long time considered that driving to work is a
costly waste of resources...

...so you don't bother going?

No need. I can earn a living not leaving the house :-)
Those who do “have” to drive to work are mugs. They will spend a good
part of
their income on the means to get them there. They are also being further
conned in that the cost of travel to work is not tax deductible so
they pay
tax on earning the money to pay for the means to get them to work and
… pay tax.

This is all their own fault, is it?

They took the job.

You missed your vocation.

You remind me a bit of one-time uk.transport poster Conor (a lorry
driver) who used to insist that car-drivers were "****wits" because car
speedometers are more optimistic than lorry speedometers.

Yes... really. The issue of what one can do about it didn't seem to
occur to him.

And the issue of the average citizen being a mere observant victim of
the tax regime doesn't seem to have occurred to you.

There are always choices.

As I said, you missed your vocation; you ought to have been the Queen Consort
of King Louis XVI of France and Navarre. You certainly have the necessary
political and social insight.