Cycling is quickest for commute.

On Jun 9, 11:50*pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:
On 09/06/2011 21:44, Simon Mason wrote:





On Jun 9, 9:39 pm, Dave - Cyclists
wrote:
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".

You mean you are the thickest.

Come bonus time - I get a bigger payout than them.
So who is the mug then?

Don't you mean "who is the arse licking scab"?

One man's "arse licking scab" is another's model employee.

But most peoples arse licking scab.

Wake up & smell the coffee. *At a management whim you are a UB40.


Then they will have to hire a new bod and train them from scratch and
then give them 36 years experience and pay them the same as me.
For what end? None whatsoever.

--
Simon Mason

On Jun 10, 7:39*am, Kim Bolton wrote:
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.


You forgot that the drink drive limits don't apply to cyclists either
and you can ride on bald tyres..

--
Simon Mason

On Jun 10, 8:47*am, Adam Lea wrote:

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.-

No - you just set off earlier so that there is no need to rush.
I allow an hour for my 45 minute commute, so unless I get a puncture,
I am never chasing the clock.
--
Simon Mason

On Jun 10, 10:06*am, "BartC" wrote:
"Simon Mason" wrote in message

...





On Jun 9, 6:03 pm, Jeff wrote:
Doug.

Unfortunately those times are incorrect, as they don't allow for the
time to change at each end and shower at your destination.

Jeff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I shower at home and don't need to shower at work at all.
I also don't need to rush to the coffee machine and spend 10-15
minutes drinking it to jump start my body, as I am ready for work
instantly.

..and very smelly; if you cycled the distances in the times suggested by
the article!!!

Jeff

I have a video clip of my 12 mile commute where I ride down the
approach road to my workplace at 34mph and still arrive at work fresh
as a daisy.

http://www.swldxer.co.uk/Commute.wmv

What happened to the four miles off-road?

--
Bartc- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I edited it out as my head was pointing down and it just showed 4
miles of tarmac.
I took the footage with a pair of video sunglasses.

--
Simon Mason

Ian Smith wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Ste wrote:

the law is being constantly lobbied by single-issue extremists and
pressure groups, that pervert the obvious and natural solutions (like
separate cycleways)

Who is going to fund duplicating the road network?

A 'cycling-road fund' raised by taxing cyclists?

--
from
Kim Bolton

On Jun 10, 11:21*am, Ste wrote:
On Jun 10, 10:37*am, Doug wrote:

I think the law could make up its mind, which is that cyclists should
not share the same road space with fast-moving cars, any more than we
allow farm tractors and cyclists onto motorways.

That reminded me of when I was driving on a motorway in Bulgaria
earlier this afternoon.

To think I had to pay 5 Euros for the privilege!

http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/6131/009nj.jpg

The problem is that
the law is being constantly lobbied by single-issue extremists.

Agreed. The ABD, AA, RAC, IAM, Car makers and traders etc etc.

--
Simon Mason

On Jun 10, 3:11*pm, Kim Bolton wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Ste wrote:

*the law is being constantly lobbied by single-issue extremists and
*pressure groups, that pervert the obvious and natural solutions (like
*separate cycleways)

Who is going to fund duplicating the road network?

A 'cycling-road fund' raised by taxing cyclists?

--
from
Kim Bolton

Such a road fund was wound up in 1937 as it was unworkable, since
then, road building has come out of the big tax pot that everyone pays
into.
Although, cyclists pay NI/Income Tax/VAT/etc which goes to pay for a
motorway network that they are not allowed to use.

--
Simon Mason

On Jun 10, 2:10*pm, "Mrcheerful" wrote:

So did the cyclists stick to the highway code and avoid dangerous
manoeuvres? *or did they have a 'cyclists only route' ? *Otherwise it is
hard to see how a bicycle would be faster than a motorbike over the same
route.

It's pretty simple. Motorbikes have sticky out mirrors that mean they
cannot filter though nose to tail traffic as easily as a cyclist, who
only needs the same space as the width of his shoulders. Most bikers
know this and will shuffle along behind the car in front and don't
attempt to filter the way a cyclist can. On occasions, a biker can
pass a queue of cars by riding down the central white line, but not
always.

--
Simon Mason

On Jun 10, 10:37*am, Doug wrote:
On Jun 10, 7:15*am, webreader wrote:







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?

Here's just a few Those that are unenforced, like ASLs.

ASL apply to motorists not cyclists so they are discrimination against
motorists.

A lack of
contra-flow cycle provision.

Not a law so can't discriminate against cyclists.

Laws that take no account of cyclist
vulnerability and inequality and are applied as if they are the same
as motorised vehicles.

If the laws apply to both they do not discriminate.

Discrimination against disabled cyclists.

I know of no law that mentions disabled cyclists.

Barriers and dismount signs on cycle routes.

As motorists are not allowed on these route there is no
discrimination.


Ambivalence in the Highway Code...

"74

On the right. If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure it
is safe, then signal and move to the centre of the road. Wait until
there is a safe gap in the oncoming traffic and give a final look
before completing the turn.

Same applies to all vehicles, so no discrimination.

It may be safer to wait on the left until
there is a safe gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the
road."

This is advice & not a law.


Wouldn't it be better and safer to make drivers always give way to
vulnerable cyclists who are turning right?

No it would make the road more dangerous for all users.
Just imagine a queue of motorists who stop to allow a right turning
cyclist to cross in front of them, and then the usual cyclist
'filters' up on the inside & does not wait.
I'm sure others can think of many dangers.


The reality is that the law can't make up its mind about cyclists. Are
they unprotected pedestrians on wheels or should they be treated just
the same as motorised vehicles?

Where does the law say they are pedestrians on wheels?


It has been mooted in the EU in the past that vulnerable road users
such as cyclists should be exempt from blame when they are killed or
injured by drivers,

That's not quite correct is it.

which copes with the inequality,

But this would be a law that discriminates against motorists.

but instead we
have a climate of vulnerable victim blaming which suits both drivers
and their insurance companies and reinforces the inequality.

Or it could be we blame the person who is the blame.
Did you answer the question as to who was to blame in the video of the
cyclist being squashed between a bus & a truck.

Is that enough for now? Do you think the CTC should address such
issues instead of concentrating on the fears instead of the dangers in
its brochure?

Doug.

On 10/06/2011 15:39, Simon Mason wrote:
On Jun 10, 3:11 pm, Kim wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, wrote:

the law is being constantly lobbied by single-issue extremists and
pressure groups, that pervert the obvious and natural solutions (like
separate cycleways)

Who is going to fund duplicating the road network?

A 'cycling-road fund' raised by taxing cyclists?

--
from
Kim Bolton

Such a road fund was wound up in 1937 as it was unworkable, since
then, road building has come out of the big tax pot that everyone pays
into.
Although, cyclists pay NI/Income Tax/VAT/etc which goes to pay for a
motorway network that they are not allowed to use.

--
Simon Mason

Has your logic changed then, cyclists are allowed to use motorways but
not on bikes, bit like motorists are allowed to use cycle lanes, but not
with cars.