Cycling is quickest for commute.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:09:50 +0100, Adam Lea wrote:
On 09/06/11 17:40, Ian Smith wrote:

No-one has disputed that you _can_ cycle in such a way as to become
sweaty. What you don't seem to grasp is that it is possible to cycle
to work without employing levels of exertion that make you
significantly sweaty or significantly dehydrated.

It depends on the length of the commute and the terrain. I certainly
can't cycle to work without getting sweaty, at least not at a speed that
would make the commute practical timewise.

I said: "No-one has disputed that you _can_ cycle in such a way as to
become sweaty."

It _is_ the case that you could cycle-commute without getting
significantly sweaty. You may choose not to, it may be expedient not
to, you may prefer not to, but it is possible.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 22:40:17 +0100, Zapp Brannigan wrote:
Sara wrote:
In article ,
Ian Smith wrote:

I have never once found myself cycling along wishing I was in a
car.

I have. I ride to work every day because there is no reasonable
alternative for me that doesn't take twice as long at least. There
have been quite a few times when I wished I was in a warm, dry
car!

Stop being moderate and balanced in your views. You'll spoil
everything if you lead us into that sort of thing...

There are no 'views' in so far as an expression of opinion in teh
above quotes - both reports are (as presented) straight fact.

It's not an opinion that I've never wanted to be in a car - it's a
fact, and what that is indisputable (unless you're going to claim to
have been telepathically scanning me for teh last 20 years or so).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Jun 10, 5:58*am, Doug wrote:
On Jun 9, 10:12*am, Kim Bolton wrote:







Doug wrote:
That much is true and we can put it down to the laws which do not
allow for, or care about, cyclist vulnerability.

Have you read CTC's brochure on the subject?

"Unfortunately, many organisations perceive cycling as dangerous, and
perpetuate that perception through their actions. For example, by
treating it as a risky activity requiring special clothes and
equipment, even well intentioned efforts to promote cycling may
actually discourage people by playing on people’s fears.

In fact cycling isn’t as risky as commonly thought, with just one
death every 32 million kilometres – that’s over 800 times around the
world. Indeed not cycling is more risky than cycling: cyclists on
average live two years longer than non-cyclists and take 15% fewer
days off work through illness."

Perhaps you could take their message on board.

Probably written by a motorist. Most things are.

No I believe the message is misleading in that it brushes aside the
thousands of injuries to cyclists and the discrimination against
cyclists on our roads and in law. *It also fails to perceive the
serious inequality in that drivers can and do kill cyclists in a
collision while it is impossible for cyclists to kill drivers in a
collision. This inequality also extends throughout a society permeated
by a motorist majority.

If CTC wants to promote cycling it should try to do something about
the discrimination against cyclists instead of trying to play down the
situation.

Doug.

Which particular laws are you talking about?

Doug wrote:

On Jun 9, 10:12Â*am, Kim Bolton wrote:
Doug wrote:
That much is true and we can put it down to the laws which do not
allow for, or care about, cyclist vulnerability.

Have you read CTC's brochure on the subject?

"Unfortunately, many organisations perceive cycling as dangerous, and
perpetuate that perception through their actions. For example, by
treating it as a risky activity requiring special clothes and
equipment, even well intentioned efforts to promote cycling may
actually discourage people by playing on people’s fears.

In fact cycling isn’t as risky as commonly thought, with just one
death every 32 million kilometres – that’s over 800 times around the
world. Indeed not cycling is more risky than cycling: cyclists on
average live two years longer than non-cyclists and take 15% fewer
days off work through illness."

Perhaps you could take their message on board.

Probably written by a motorist. Most things are.

No I believe the message is misleading in that it brushes aside the
thousands of injuries to cyclists and the discrimination against
cyclists on our roads and in law. It also fails to perceive the
serious inequality in that drivers can and do kill cyclists in a
collision while it is impossible for cyclists to kill drivers in a
collision. This inequality also extends throughout a society permeated
by a motorist majority.

If CTC wants to promote cycling it should try to do something about
the discrimination against cyclists instead of trying to play down the
situation.

Doug.

Oh, I see now. You aren't pro-cyclist, you're anti-motorist.

And I quite agree about discrimination in the cycling world: it has no
cycling tests, no licences, no road or pavement taxes, no compulsory
annual cycle check, no cycle registration cheme, no compulsory
clothing, and no need to obey speed limits.

It's time this shameful state of affairs was addressed.

--
from
Kim Bolton

On 10/06/2011 05:38, Doug wrote:
On Jun 9, 9:39 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 09/06/2011 08:25, Doug wrote:









On Jun 9, 8:00 am, wrote:
Doug wrote:
And it creates much less harm too.

"Cyclist have decisively beaten other modes of transport in a commuter
challenge run by Cyclox, the cycling campaign for Oxford.

The annual race has previously tested a number of routes into the city
centre.

This year participants made a seven-mile journey from Eynsham to the
Radcliffe Camera.

Cyclists times ranged from 21 to 35 minutes. The quickest car commuter
made the trip in 44 minutes, three minutes quicker than runner Alan
Ward.

The fastest commuter bus journey was made in a time of 47 minutes and
40 seconds.
'Queues of traffic'

Oxford's first lord mayor from the Green Party, Elise Benjamin, took
part in the challenge, which she completed in 34 minutes.

James Styring, Cyclox chair, said: "On a lovely sunny day like this
there is absolutely no reason to sit on the A40 in long queues of
traffic.

"Get on your bike and cycle. It's good for you and it will be a lot
quicker." "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-13695060

'On a lovely sunny day like this...'

When was that?

For every lovely sunny day in the UK - you have a month of abysmal weather
when cycling would be uncomfortable and unpleasant.

You exaggerate.

For once, I do have to agree with Doug. Many years ago I worked for an
Electricty Board and, when redesigning their distribution network, they
had to decide whether to provide awnings over the delivery doors. They
found that the chances of rain in any specific one hour period were
remarkably low: A matter of a a very few days per year.

Obviously, if you are as ill-equipped to the outdoors
as you seem to be it will be naturally be uncomfortable and
unpleasant.

I do have to disagree with Doug here though. I strongly dislike being
out in the rain, even when equipped with good quality waxed cotton
waterproof gear.

Waxed cotton? How primitive! These days we use breathable plastic gear
which minimises condensation.

I am sure that is far more suitable for cycling in. However, my
experiences involve standing in a field and for that waxed cotton is
still the best. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that, even
people who are very well prepared for the outdoors may find bad weather
uncomfortable and unpleasant.

That's what car-cosseting does to people. Presumably they
never ever encounter even a single raindrop as they rush from one
enclosed area to another.

If possible.

You seem to approve of car-cosseting?

I approve of avoiding getting rained on whenever possible.

Colin Bignell

On 10/06/2011 05:38, Doug wrote:
On Jun 9, 9:39 am, "Nightjar\"cpb\"@""insertmysurnamehere wrote:


I do have to disagree with Doug here though. I strongly dislike being
out in the rain, even when equipped with good quality waxed cotton
waterproof gear.

Waxed cotton? How primitive! These days we use breathable plastic gear
which minimises condensation.

Do you mean you prefer synthetic plastic stuff, a product of the planet
destroying oil industry, to a natural cotton fibre?

You ****ing hypocrite.



--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On 10/06/11 07:08, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:09:50 +0100, Adam wrote:
On 09/06/11 17:40, Ian Smith wrote:

No-one has disputed that you _can_ cycle in such a way as to become
sweaty. What you don't seem to grasp is that it is possible to cycle
to work without employing levels of exertion that make you
significantly sweaty or significantly dehydrated.

It depends on the length of the commute and the terrain. I certainly
can't cycle to work without getting sweaty, at least not at a speed that
would make the commute practical timewise.

I said: "No-one has disputed that you _can_ cycle in such a way as to
become sweaty."

It _is_ the case that you could cycle-commute without getting
significantly sweaty. You may choose not to, it may be expedient not
to, you may prefer not to, but it is possible.

regards, Ian SMith

Theoretically possible and practical in reality are not the same things.
It is the latter which is crucial in this case. If you can only avoid
sweating by taking an impractically long time for the journey they you
either have to accept sweating or use motorised transport.

"Phil W Lee" wrote in message
...
"BartC" considered Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:45:58 +0100 the
perfect time to write:

Didn't read carefully enough: the runner took 41 minutes. About the same
as
a *normal* cyclist would take.

If you work on the misguided assumption that 30 as about the same as
47.

OK, the runner was 3 minutes *slower* than the car, not faster.

I wish these types of articles just listed the results instead of having to
deduce them piecemeal.

But 30 minutes to do 7 miles on a bike, sure if you're in some sort or race
like this seemed to be, you'd make a special effort.

A 14mph *average* on a bike seems unsustainable though, unless it was
downhill. And someone did in in 21 minutes, exactly 20mph, again *average*!
And this seems to be on the inside of crawling traffic too..

Cyclists times ranged from 21 to 35 minutes. The quickest car commuter
made the trip in 44 minutes, three minutes quicker than runner Alan
Ward.

--
Bartc

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 08:47:11 +0100, Adam Lea wrote:
On 10/06/11 07:08, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:09:50 +0100, Adam wrote:
On 09/06/11 17:40, Ian Smith wrote:

No-one has disputed that you _can_ cycle in such a way as to
become sweaty. What you don't seem to grasp is that it is
possible to cycle to work without employing levels of exertion
that make you significantly sweaty or significantly dehydrated.

It depends on the length of the commute and the terrain. I
certainly can't cycle to work without getting sweaty, at least
not at a speed that would make the commute practical timewise.

I said: "No-one has disputed that you _can_ cycle in such a way as
to become sweaty."

It _is_ the case that you could cycle-commute without getting
significantly sweaty. You may choose not to, it may be expedient
not to, you may prefer not to, but it is possible.

Theoretically possible and practical in reality are not the same
things. It is the latter which is crucial in this case. If you can
only avoid sweating by taking an impractically long time for the
journey they you either have to accept sweating or use motorised
transport.

For a particular commute, possibly. I don't recall anyone claiming
that every commute was practical by bicycle, though, so I'm not sure
what the point you're making is?

There are, however, numbers of people here who will swear that
cycling is impractical for any commute (or indeed any journey). They
are wrong.

There are also people whop have been asserting that any cycle journey
will make you sweaty. They are also wrong.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

- Show quoted text -

That is exactly our finding as well. While they are in the tea room
supping caffeine, I will be out doing their job for them, as after
cycling 12 miles, I'm raring to go and don't need a pick up. They seem
to shirk tough physical challenges as well, such as when we have to
climb up several very tall distillation columns on plant - I always
get sent out as quote "you are the fittest".

So they let you do all the hard work while they drink coffee, and let you
do all the dangerous stuff too.

I think this proves that car drivers are far more intelligent than
cyclists!

'Nuff said!

--

Mike P