Anti-social vehicle - test case

stevy666 ( snipped-for-privacy@blueyonder.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Nah, it's the quiet ones that sneak up on you that you have to *really* watch out for...

On 18 May 2004 12:30:11 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@solive.fsnet.co.uk (Rachel Schaufeld) wrote (more or less):

Massively.

Yes. But, while you can do the an analysis of individual uses of a person's car solely on the marginal cost, the overhead costs has to borne at some point.

Saying 'I use my car for leisure travel, shopping and commuting to work', then saying

"I'll include only petrol costs for commuting versus other forms of transport, because I'd still have a car for shopping and leisure travel"

and then saying "I'll include only petrol costs for shopping vs. other forms, because I'd still keep the car for leisure travel"

and then saying "I'll include only petrol costs for leisure travel vs. other forms, because ... ah, well just because" is disingenuous, at best.

Even weekend specials are kept for leisure travel!

Often this is because they perceive the time spent travelling to be shorter by car than by other means.

As we're discussing, this is not true, in aggregate.

I do my shopping at a supermarket.

I prefer to go to one I walk to, and I have them deliver the food (for free).

My wife prefers a different supermarket. She goes by bus, and taxis back, taking a fair bit longer than me.

(If I did go to the other one, I'd cycle, then taxi back.)

She spends about £6 on this, because the other supermarket is 'cheaper'.

When confronted with this, she agreed she just plain likes the other supermarket more. (It's a lot bigger. Me, I prefer something more walk-roundable)

Although petrol is not the only mileage-based cost of a car.

Otherwise clocking used cars wouldn't have been the big trend it used to be before independent records were kept of every cars milage.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 18:59:34 +0100, " dojj" wrote (more or less):

Do you do the work-hours driving in your own private vehicle?

Do you do this every week of the year, including public holidays?

Are you never off ill?

Do you spend the entire 9 or ten hours driving? Or is some of the time spend loading, unloading, some admin while pulled in a the side of the road or back at the office? Some spent having a lunch or a tea break?

(all of these things will up your speed, by the way).

On Tue, 18 May 2004 23:20:54 +0100, "PeterE" wrote (more or less):

Well, it's hard work going up steep hills /fast/.

The slower you go uphill, the less hard work it is.

Cycling uphill at walking pace can be less effort than walking up.

And it does all balancew out from it's no work going down steep hills.

I tend to choose routes that follow contours for my 'uphill' parts.

And then choose steep bits for my downhills.

(Mind you, maybe this is why I'm still chubby round the middle!)

On Tue, 18 May 2004 23:20:54 +0100, "PeterE" wrote (more or less):

It's hard work using the stairmaster in my gym, too.

That doesn't seem to deter the folk there! :-)

That would be why you often see cyclists wheeling their bikes up steep hills, then?

--

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (WilliamPitt, 1783)

Just out of interest, when did you last visit Merthyr Tydfil?

--

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (WilliamPitt, 1783)

Sadly, there are lots of cyclists out there who either don't have low gears or don't believe it's worth using them. With the vast majority of hills of any distance in this country, it's easy just to get into a low bottom gear and trundle patiently up to the top, and easier than walking.

A

Yes, I found a signed cycle path once which was so steep that I could not actually maintain traction: with the brakes on I was slipping backwards. So I had to push. So that's one hill I've had to walk up in the last 20,000 miles. I was scouting a route at the time; needless to say when I rode it for real I kept to the road and had no problem.

Guy

-- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

27 March 2004

Many older bikes didn't have low gears. Until the MTB appeared the standard was a 14 - 22 rear cluster and perhaps a 48T front. Others like original shoppers (still used by our local vicar) had single freewheels. A big mistake by the inexperienced cyclist is to rush at a hill instead of taking it steadily. The result is they soon get out of puff and have to suddenly stop. Even high geared bikes can be ridden up hills if taken slowly.

John B

Full of cyclists, was it?

--

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (WilliamPitt, 1783)

Me and four others in my group -- no doubt more around town though. Were you out on your bike that day?

Last hill I walked was a short stretch of about 100m on Ventoux in 1970, just to stretch my legs of course. I've never forgiven myself :-( hence the 9 inch gear on the trice.

John B

Do you own a car? And if so why do you not give your missus a lift? If you hate shopping, and who can blame you if you do, you could sit in the cafe with a coffee and newspaper thereby making both the shopping and the driving more recreational.

On 19 May 2004 14:21:21 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@solive.fsnet.co.uk (Rachel Schaufeld) wrote (more or less):

Not any more.

At times we've owned up to four between the two of us for extended periods. (A couple of city runabouts, a hot hatch and a mid-engined open top two seater was the largest long-lived pool).

Because we elected to spend £6 every two or three weeks on taxis (for shopping), commute into the centre for work using the excellent and frequent bus service (or walking or cycling), and plane or train+taxi to our parents' or friends in other cities, (except where the links are not good, when we hire cars).

(We've discovered that unexpectedly, on many occasions and many journeys the train is faster door-to-door than the car.)

I also do a lot of my round and about travelling by bicycle. (which costs me a grand total of about £30 per year)

So... shopping £ 100-150p.a (say £130 for ease of arithmetic) Cycle £ 30p.a. Busses £ 440p.a Plane/train/ ~£1000p.a hire car* Edi Taxis** £ 700

*mainly weekend hires, and including fuel *nights out on town, i.e. excluding shopping

Total £1600p.a

As opposed to Car tax £ 155 Insurance £ 350 Maintenance £ 400 Depreciation £ 600 Fuel £ 450 Cycle £ 30 Busses £ 350 Edi taxis £600 Loss of interest on capital employed £ 60

Total £ 2935p.a.

Mm - how does sitting in a cafe make driving more recreational?

I can stroll to many much nicer cafes than the one at the supermarket, where I do sit with a coffee or a tea - or even a pint! :-)

One of the ways that this works is by having bought a place to live that is a half-hour walk from a city centre.

It's more expensive to buy a house there than in a dormitory town and commute, but the ~£1400 a year saved in car costs pays for a mortgage of about £25,000.

(admittedly that's not much house in today's market, but it's a sizable fraction of our mortgage)

On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:13:18 +0100, JohnB wrote (more or less):

I suspect you notice the folk pushing their bike up a hill more than you notice the folk cycling up a hill.

Plus, every cyclist has to start somewhere. maybe these ones haven't done it enough for it to be easy yet. ...

I'm happy to walk up hills rather than cycle up at near walking pace.

(I'm a 'just using the bike to go places I would've walked to anyway but this is faster' sort of cyclist. )

I'll be the cyclist that he keeps seeing!

Or better still, live within walking distance of the shops, like I do :-)

"many" times ?

How many times per week does it pass your house, whilst you are there to hear it ?

Even if you somehow managed to hear it twice a day, then you've got about 10 seconds of noise pollution, about 14 times per week. Clearly it's completely insignificant !