Cycling is quickest for commute.

On Jun 9, 5:07*pm, "Mentalguy2k8" wrote:
"Simon Mason" wrote in message

...
On Jun 9, 4:04 pm, Phil W Lee wrote:









"Mentalguy2k8" considered Thu, 9 Jun 2011
11:20:52 +0100 the perfect time to write:

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
Ste wrote:
On Jun 9, 9:09 am, Simon Mason wrote:
On Jun 9, 8:45 am, "Ret." wrote:

It's not a question of being ill-equipped - it's a question of
preferring to drive along in total comfort - kept warm and dry in
bad weather - and cool in hot weather, rather than being cold and
wet or hot and sweaty, pedalling a cycle along.

Nothing worthwhile in life comes without putting in the hard work.

Indeed, which is why it's better to take twice the time and travel in
a car, rather than take the "easy" way and cycle to work.

Actually, I thought the comment "Nothing worthwhile in life comes
without
putting in the hard work" referred directly to a car.

Perhaps if cyclists worked harder, they could get one too.

Maybe they're too tired and sweaty to put in a decent shift at work when
they finally get there.

The reverse seems to be true.
Being fitter and more healthy, they have a higher work output than
drivers.
They arrive at work ready to work, instead of half asleep from
drowsing their way in through long queues in their mobile living room.-
Hide quoted text -

- 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!

No all it proves is that people are more intelligent than Simon.

On Jun 10, 4:35*pm, Tony Dragon wrote:
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I was reinforcing Winston Churchill's logic that ring fenced funding
is unworkable.
His was a logical progression borne of the time that ridiculed taxes
from theatre goers being spent on theatre building.
Taxes on horse racing gambling going on race course building and so
on.
Kim Bolton's assertion that cycle lanes be built solely from funding
from cycling taxes was in the same class of absurdity.

--
Simon Mason

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 03:21:56 -0700, Doug wrote:

On Jun 9, 9:19Â*am, Mike P wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 22:07:48 -0700, Doug wrote:
"Get on your bike and cycle. It's good for you and it will be a lot
quicker." "

If you can find me a bicycle that can get me the 19 non-motorway miles
to work in the 20 minutes my car takes on a quiet Saturday morning,
arriving in the same state as I left the house (not sweaty, dry, warm),
I'll gladly ride it.

What's that? You can't? There's a surprise.

Before you start, that 19 miles only takes me 35 mins at "normal" rush
hour times, so a bike would never do it in the same time or quicker.

So do you admit to total car dependency or is your choice of
inconveniently related home and work locations determined by some other
factor?

That factor being that I don't want to live in a filthy hole, which the
town where I work is.

I live in a nice place. I work in a not nice place.

Is that so hard for you to understand, you idiot?




--
Mike P

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:33:05 +0100, Tony Dragon wrote:

On 09/06/2011 11:21, Doug wrote:
On Jun 9, 9:19 am, Mike wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 22:07:48 -0700, Doug wrote:
"Get on your bike and cycle. It's good for you and it will be a lot
quicker." "

If you can find me a bicycle that can get me the 19 non-motorway miles
to work in the 20 minutes my car takes on a quiet Saturday morning,
arriving in the same state as I left the house (not sweaty, dry,
warm), I'll gladly ride it.

What's that? You can't? There's a surprise.

Before you start, that 19 miles only takes me 35 mins at "normal" rush
hour times, so a bike would never do it in the same time or quicker.

So do you admit to total car dependency or is your choice of
inconveniently related home and work locations determined by some other
factor?

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




Perhaps you could compile a report about how you would solve his
home/work locations.
You could call it 'Mike's Report' & while your at it could you forward
'Vince's Report', you know the one promising the same thing that's three
years & waiting.

Yes, I think Doug should do just that. I shall await the results with
interest. Maybe he would like to take into account the excellent schools
we have within walking distance of us here along with all the other
benefits that living in this area gives.



--
Mike P

Simon Mason wrote:
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.

could be, if they used a large bike which is near as wide as a very small
car. something like a little honda step thru is as small as a bicycle and
can thread through easily and would be hard to beat on the same route.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:22:56 +0100, Phil W Lee wrote:

Mike P considered 9 Jun 2011 08:19:31 GMT the perfect
time to write:

On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 22:07:48 -0700, Doug wrote:


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

If you can find me a bicycle that can get me the 19 non-motorway miles
to work in the 20 minutes my car takes on a quiet Saturday morning,
arriving in the same state as I left the house (not sweaty, dry, warm,
asleep), I'll gladly ride it.

What's that? You can't? There's a surprise.

Before you start, that 19 miles only takes me 35 mins at "normal" rush
hour times, so a bike would never do it in the same time or quicker.

You'll have to allow an extra 25 minutes, but don't worry, that is time
that is spent usefully, getting exercise, instead of time wasted raising
your blood pressure and clogging up your arteries.

No, it's a total ballache on a bike. It's unpleasant, sweaty, traffic is
not great, the road surfaces are *awful*.

I'd much rather spend an hour at lunchtime in the (free) gym at work every
day and ride my bike 15-20 miles three times a week round the lightly
trafficed country lanes around here thanks.



--
Mike P

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:25:58 +0100, bugbear wrote:

Bod wrote:
On 09/06/2011 10:36, bugbear wrote:
Doug wrote:
This year participants made a seven-mile journey from Eynsham to the
Radcliffe Camera.

Cyclists times ranged from 21 to 35 minutes.

That's not a commute. That's a time trial.

7 miles in 21 minutes is (neatly) 20 MPH.

BugBear



And you'd have to jump every red light to even stand a chance of
averaging 20 mph :-)

I was guessing that whoever did it is capable of a 25 MPH "ten", and was
cut down to 20 MPH by the (various) stops.

Speculation. obviously.

It's hard going in traffic. I can manage a 28min 10 miler around here,
there's no traffic lights but there are a few unsighted junctions I have
to stop at.





--
Mike P

And when you arrive in a cheery fug of sweat, gurning like Gordon Brittas,
all your workmates groan and rush outside in search of fresh air.

I don't cycle hard enough to sweat on the way to work, any more than
someone who leisurely strolls to work would arrive in a pool of sweat.
It's a myth promulgated by people who just want to throw a punch at
cycling in the forlorn hope that at least *one* blow will land and
score a point.

Then you don't cycle anywhere near the speed that is required to support
Doug or the article's contention that it is quicker by bike!!

Jeff

On Jun 10, 5:00*pm, Mike P wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:31:36 +0100, Derek G. wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 03:21:56 -0700 (PDT), Doug
wrote:

If you can find me a bicycle that can get me the 19 non-motorway miles
to work in the 20 minutes my car takes on a quiet Saturday morning,
arriving in the same state as I left the house (not sweaty, dry,
warm), I'll gladly ride it.

What's that? You can't? There's a surprise.

Before you start, that 19 miles only takes me 35 mins at "normal" rush
hour times, so a bike would never do it in the same time or quicker.

So do you admit to total car dependency or is your choice of
inconveniently related home and work locations determined by some other
factor?

If it was me I'd live where I fancied, and get the job that best suited
me, travelling as required, which would be be the fastest way

*Ding*

Is that not what all sane people do?

--
Mike P- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Indeed.
I live in an E Yorks village and cycle all the way through Kingston
upon Hull and out through its eastern boundary to my place of work.
Driving a car on the same route at peak times takes much longer than
my bike commute does.

Vastly more so when some numpty has a crash and gridlocks the whole
city.

--
Simon Mason

On Jun 10, 5:07*pm, Jeff wrote:
And when you arrive in a cheery fug of sweat, gurning like Gordon Brittas,
all your workmates groan and rush outside in search of fresh air.

I don't cycle hard enough to sweat on the way to work, any more than
someone who leisurely strolls to work would arrive in a pool of sweat.
It's a myth promulgated by people who just want to throw a punch at
cycling in the forlorn hope that at least *one* blow will land and
score a point.

Then you don't cycle anywhere near the speed that is required to support
Doug or the article's contention that it is quicker by bike!!

Jeff

34 mph is not fast?

Here's my commute, topping out at 34mph on the flat near the end.

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

--
Simon Mason