Money well spent!

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:26:10 +0100, bod wrote:

snip


Indeed: I look forward to an explanation why anyone actually *needs* a
pushbike.

Saves having to use the car for short journeys (saves on fuel costs and
gives less pollution into the atmosphere), plus the obvious exercise
gained from doing so.


Yes - but that is not a *necessity*

I have a pushbike : but I do not need one.

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:23:08 +0000 (UTC), Scion wrote:

bod put finger to keyboard:

On 16/08/2013 11:20, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:04:05 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 16/08/2013 10:49, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote

Walking costs even less, of course.

A set of shoes around £60. Possibly manage1000 miles...
(From experience, cheaper shoes are a false economy.)

It depends.

Bicycle about 9p a mile. And can do journeys where walking requires
the cost of other transport.

sigh

You cannot realistically substitute the purchase (or even prior
possession) of a bicycle for that of a pair of shoes.

Even if you plan to take no exercise worth the name, you'll still need
shoes if you live in a civilised place. You will not need (for any
sensible definition of the term "need") a bicycle in anything like as
basic a way.


Indeed: I look forward to an explanation why anyone actually *needs* a
pushbike.

Saves having to use the car for short journeys (saves on fuel costs and
gives less pollution into the atmosphere), plus the obvious exercise
gained from doing so.

That, in general, isn't a need though.

It's easy to imagine some scenarios where a bike is just about the only
practical solution - the need for someone without a driver's licence and
no access to public transport to travel several miles to work, for example
- but in general people don't need bikes, just like they don't need the
Internet or a TV.


I think even if someone had been sacked for driving a train whilst ****ed - and
then had lost their driving licence - then even then there would not be a
*need* to use the push bike. (Hypothetical example)

On 16/08/2013 13:41, Judith wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:26:10 +0100, bod wrote:

snip


Indeed: I look forward to an explanation why anyone actually *needs* a
pushbike.

Saves having to use the car for short journeys (saves on fuel costs and
gives less pollution into the atmosphere), plus the obvious exercise
gained from doing so.


Yes - but that is not a *necessity*

I have a pushbike : but I do not need one.

Plenty of drivers don't need their cars out of necessity either.
I can imagine that for a lot of folk who live in congested cities, that
a bicycle would be the ONLY sensible form of transport for them.
Especially the ones that have no parking spaces anywhere near their
property.

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 08:15:28 +0100
soup wrote:

the rear derailleur is sounding a bit suspect (will have
to have an attack of the braves and try twisting it by hand as tuning
only takes 80% of the noise away)

First check the hanger is straight. The pulleys might need replacing
too - you can get some funky coloured alloy ones with ceramic bearings
on eBay, and matching bolts. :-)

"JNugent" wrote in message
On 16/08/2013 10:49, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

Walking costs even less, of course.

A set of shoes around £60. Possibly manage1000 miles...
(From experience, cheaper shoes are a false economy.)

It depends.

On what?

Bicycle about 9p a mile. And can do journeys where walking requires the
cost
of other transport.

sigh

You cannot realistically substitute the purchase (or even prior
possession) of a bicycle for that of a pair of shoes.

It depends on the type of shoes. It is true that a bicycle is not a
substitute for a pair of slippers or stilettos, for instance. But slippers
or stilettos are not suitable for long distance walking.

Even if you plan to take no exercise worth the name, you'll still need
shoes if you live in a civilised place.

If there is no plan for exercise, there is no plan for transport (worth the
name). A bicycle is a cost and time efficient substitute for transport
walking.

You will not need (for any sensible definition of the term "need") a
bicycle in anything like as basic a way.

Shoes capable of lasting 1000 miles are not basic shoes.

On 17/08/2013 00:08, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 16/08/2013 10:49, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

Walking costs even less, of course.

A set of shoes around £60. Possibly manage1000 miles...
(From experience, cheaper shoes are a false economy.)

It depends.

On what?

On the purpose to which the shoes are being put, of course.

Bicycle about 9p a mile. And can do journeys where walking requires the
cost of other transport.

sigh

You cannot realistically substitute the purchase (or even prior
possession) of a bicycle for that of a pair of shoes.

It depends on the type of shoes.

No, it doesn't. You cannot pass unnoticed in polite society unless you
own - or at least wear - a pair of shoes. Some barefooters might fondly
imagine that their eccentricity is received in a tolerant manner (and
they'd be right), but it would still be seen as eccentricity.

It is true that a bicycle is not a
substitute for a pair of slippers or stilettos, for instance. But slippers
or stilettos are not suitable for long distance walking.

Not everyone needs footwear suitable for such things.

Even if you plan to take no exercise worth the name, you'll still need
shoes if you live in a civilised place.

If there is no plan for exercise, there is no plan for transport (worth the
name). A bicycle is a cost and time efficient substitute for transport
walking.

Is it easy to pedal a bike in bare feet?

I've never tried it.

You will not need (for any sensible definition of the term "need") a
bicycle in anything like as basic a way.

Shoes capable of lasting 1000 miles are not basic shoes.

And neither are they in any real sense "needed".

But some semblance of a pair of shoes, even at minimal cost, certainly
is a basic need.

"JNugent" wrote
On 17/08/2013 00:08, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 16/08/2013 10:49, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

Walking costs even less, of course.

A set of shoes around £60. Possibly manage1000 miles...
(From experience, cheaper shoes are a false economy.)

It depends.

On what?

On the purpose to which the shoes are being put, of course.

The starting point of your diatribe included the word "walking". So I
naturally assumed the purpose of shoes under discussion would be for
"walking". Hence the cost effective solution for doing 1000 miles, eg, 3
miles a day, every day for nearly a year. Obviously, walking, as opposed to
covering the shortest possible distance across a car park, is an alien
activity to you.

Oh btw, shoes adapted for use on a bicycle, when used with a bicycle, only
contribute in the region of 0.3-0.6 pence a mile to operating cost.

On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 10:56:00 +0100, "TMS320" wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
On 17/08/2013 00:08, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 16/08/2013 10:49, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

Walking costs even less, of course.

A set of shoes around £60. Possibly manage1000 miles...
(From experience, cheaper shoes are a false economy.)

It depends.

On what?

On the purpose to which the shoes are being put, of course.

The starting point of your diatribe included the word "walking". So I
naturally assumed the purpose of shoes under discussion would be for
"walking". Hence the cost effective solution for doing 1000 miles, eg, 3
miles a day, every day for nearly a year. Obviously, walking, as opposed to
covering the shortest possible distance across a car park, is an alien
activity to you.

Oh btw, shoes adapted for use on a bicycle, when used with a bicycle, only
contribute in the region of 0.3-0.6 pence a mile to operating cost.

I reckon my last pair of cleated cycling shoes managed at least 10,000
miles. That ties in very neatly with your estimate.

On 17/08/2013 10:56, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 17/08/2013 00:08, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 16/08/2013 10:49, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

Walking costs even less, of course.

A set of shoes around £60. Possibly manage1000 miles...
(From experience, cheaper shoes are a false economy.)

It depends.

On what?

On the purpose to which the shoes are being put, of course.

The starting point of your diatribe included the word "walking". So I
naturally assumed the purpose of shoes under discussion would be for
"walking". Hence the cost effective solution for doing 1000 miles, eg, 3
miles a day, every day for nearly a year. Obviously, walking, as opposed to
covering the shortest possible distance across a car park, is an alien
activity to you.

"Diatribe"?

You do your own "arguments" far too much honour, sir.

They are not worth, and do not require for easy rebuttal, a "diatribe".

Neither:

(a) have I ever written a diatribe, nor

(b) could you define one (cue your scurrying across to Google).

Incidentally, I am on a strict self-imposed 3+ miles per day walking
regime for health-related reasons. I agree that substantial walking for
pure practical transport reasons is difficult for many in the modern
world (certainly for me). Except, that is, for work trips to London,
when one can easily rely upon a walk of at least a mile each way along
railway approach roads, platforms, up and down escalators, to and from
bus-stops, etc.

Otherwise, it's all a question of getting out onto the local farms and
walking for exercise. Hereabouts, the farms are neither imaginary nor
only remembered in place names, of course - they're genuine agricultural
facilities, with footpaths across them. Sometimes the footpath trips are
substituted for by road walking, preferably late at night.

Oh btw, shoes adapted for use on a bicycle, when used with a bicycle, only
contribute in the region of 0.3-0.6 pence a mile to operating cost.

I dare say.

"JNugent" wrote
On 17/08/2013 10:56, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 17/08/2013 00:08, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
On 16/08/2013 10:49, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote

Walking costs even less, of course.

A set of shoes around £60. Possibly manage1000 miles...
(From experience, cheaper shoes are a false economy.)

It depends.

On what?

On the purpose to which the shoes are being put, of course.

The starting point of your diatribe included the word "walking". So I
naturally assumed the purpose of shoes under discussion would be for
"walking". Hence the cost effective solution for doing 1000 miles, eg, 3
miles a day, every day for nearly a year. Obviously, walking, as opposed
to
covering the shortest possible distance across a car park, is an alien
activity to you.

"Diatribe"?

You do your own "arguments" far too much honour, sir.

They are not worth, and do not require for easy rebuttal, a "diatribe".

Neither:

(a) have I ever written a diatribe, nor

You flatter yourself.

(b) could you define one (cue your scurrying across to Google).

A very recent example of your reputation. "Rode tax" 16/8/13 15:01

"Mike P" wrote
You're (as usual) talking ********.


Incidentally, I am on a strict self-imposed 3+ miles per day walking
regime for health-related reasons.

In that case, you should have developed an idea of cost per mile. And you
could have avoided wasting time arguing about how it is impossible to
compare a
bicycle with shoes that aren't suitable for walking.

So, assuming shoes cost 6p a mile against cycling at 9p a mile, then indeed
the cost per hour is less (so long as another transport mode isn't
involved). But cycling opens up much greater horizons.