Search found 780 matches

by George Riches
25 Mar 2011, 8:52pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Cycling set to be banned from Stevenage town centre
Replies: 24
Views: 2262

Re: Cycling set to be banned from Stevenage town centre

Some years ago there was a concerted attempt to get cycling banned from the pedestrianised area in Coventry. The council sucessfully resisted the pressure pointing out that a by-law would cost money and wouldn't make any difference on the ground. A better approach might have been ASBOs on the individuals with the worst behaviour.

The council also tried to get ordinary motor vehicles banned from various city centre roads; it put up the right signs and sucessfully placed Traffic Orders. Then the documents were examined in detail and the conclusion reached that an errant motorist could have sucessfully challenged a prosecution. So a whole set of new TROs had to be passed, in the hope of second time lucky.

I would therefore guess that Stevenage council has just embarked on a job creation scheme for lawyers.

Perhaps the Dangerous Dogs act could be revised to prevent cycling dogs causing bodily harm. :wink:
by George Riches
24 Jan 2011, 9:38am
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Subsidising motorists
Replies: 221
Views: 14794

Re: Subsidising motorists

George Riches wrote:Would shifting the £5 billion a year from rail to road building decrease the time those people take to get to/from work? What impact would it have on those people who currently use cars to commute to the hearts of our largest cities?


irc wrote:I'm not suggesting building more roads in London. I'm just pointing out that rail travellers are subsidised more than road users.

I'm sure rail is heavily subsidised everywhere. But if you are suggesting it's not heavily subsidised outside London the onus is on you to quote some figures.


I won't bother. I should focus on what's good for cycling; there's more than enough people arguing about rail v car.

Although In passing I'd say in Coventry there's an argument developing about roads verses jobs. Coventry has a ring road in its centre which takes a lot of space which could be used for offices or shops. Some want to nibble away at this ring road, especially the large gyratories used for access, others rate motoring convenience above all other considerations.
by George Riches
22 Jan 2011, 12:54pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Subsidising motorists
Replies: 221
Views: 14794

Re: Subsidising motorists

George Riches wrote:Much of the subsidy to public transport operators should be included as the main reason to subsidise public transport is that it's a cheaper way of keeping congestion in check than building new roads.

irc wrote:You think so. Rail subsidy is 5 billion a year yet rail accounts for only a trivial proption of journeys and passenger miles. journeys.

Don't the majority of commuters into London travel by train to get there and don't those services get the bulk of the subsidy?

Even the pro-road lobbying group "Transport Watch" from the link you supplied had to admit:
"the train is used by people reaching the hearts of our largest cities because there is, for those people, no other practical way of reaching the destinations"

Would shifting the £5 billion a year from rail to road building decrease the time those people take to get to/from work? What impact would it have on those people who currently use cars to commute to the hearts of our largest cities?
by George Riches
21 Jan 2011, 9:57pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Subsidising motorists
Replies: 221
Views: 14794

Re: Subsidising motorists

hubgearfreak wrote:
George Riches wrote:I'm irritated by the confusion between the government (or more correctly the State) and the country (or more correctly Society).


please elucidate. surely the state/government has been selected by the people/society to serve the latter's needs?

But not all needs. I might employ a cleaner for my house. He/she wouldn't cater for all my needs.

The state has to pay for roads, but it doesn't have to pay for air polution. So when you look at the balance sheet from the state's viewpoint you include things like VED and road costs, but not things that air polution.

Now it may well be worthwhile to look at the costs & benefits to everyone, but then it has to be everyone and not some people but not others.

It may also be worthwhile to look at the costs & benefits to car owners and then have a look at non car owners.

All I'm trying to say is that adding the costs to business to the costs to flat dwellers and subtracting the benefits to car owners doesn't make sense. Adding the costs & benefits to all in those groups wouldn't work either as some people are in more than one group.
by George Riches
21 Jan 2011, 4:00pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Subsidising motorists
Replies: 221
Views: 14794

Re: Subsidising motorists

snibgo wrote:We can do a back-of-the-envelope calculation:

Expenditure:
- roads £21.86b (tsgb0115.xls) (The Sun includes this, as £9.1b)
- accidents £15.8b - £30b
- congestion (urban only) £10.9
- physical inactivity (I won't include this, but the point is arguable) zero
- road traffic noise £3b - £5b
- carbon emissions (urban only) £1.2b - £3.7b (The Sun includes this, as £3.1b)
- Total: £52.76b - £71.46b

Income (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... ions/tsgb/, and confirmed by The Sun):
- VED £5.4b
- Fuel tax £24.6b
- Total: £30.0b

So motorists cost the country roughly double what they pay.

The costs of congestion and physical inactivity are paid for by motorists themselves, so shouldn't be included.
Much of the subsidy to public transport operators should be included as the main reason to subsidise public transport is that it's a cheaper way of keeping congestion in check than building new roads.

I'm irritated by the confusion between the government (or more correctly the State) and the country (or more correctly Society).

The State gets money from VED and vehicle fuel tax. It pays out money to public transport operators, NHS employees, road construction companies etc. It doesn't pay any congestion or noise compensation fees.

Society gets the benefit of being able to get between A and B comfortably at speed, but the disadvantages of RTA's, noise, physical inactivity, congestion, climate change & road costs.
by George Riches
6 Jan 2011, 9:17am
Forum: Bikes & Bits – Technical section
Topic: Anyone tried Maplins heated gloves and insoles?
Replies: 25
Views: 4364

Re: Anyone tried Maplins heated gloves and insoles?

If someone finds they their feet/hands are unfortably cold in circumstances when 95% of other people have no discomfort, it's probably worthwhile seeking medical advice. But it's quite a different matter if 50% or more of your companions are also complaining.
by George Riches
5 Jan 2011, 9:13am
Forum: Bikes & Bits – Technical section
Topic: Anyone tried Maplins heated gloves and insoles?
Replies: 25
Views: 4364

Re: Anyone tried Maplins heated gloves and insoles?

I tried 3 pairs of socks plus neoprene overshoes last Sunday. After 90 mins my feet were cold. Perhaps the CTC "codgers & loiterers" cycle too slowly?
by George Riches
30 Dec 2010, 2:20pm
Forum: Bikes & Bits – Technical section
Topic: Anyone tried Maplins heated gloves and insoles?
Replies: 25
Views: 4364

Re: Anyone tried Maplins heated gloves and insoles?

vjosullivan wrote:... the logical thing to do would be to do away with the batteries altogether and wire them up - via a suitable adaptor - to a dynamo.

I did buy a pair of insoles last March - it's difficult to resist the temptation to buy something at the toy shop, err Maplins.

Each insole is powered by 4.5 volts and has a resistance of about 16 ohms. So each insole produces about 1.3W of heat.

I expect you could connect a pair in parallel to a standard bicycle dynamo without causing damage to anything. They would get a little bit hotter than with 3 AA batteries each, as standard dynamos are nominally 6 volts. But the actual voltage would be lower given the higher load.

As bicycle dynamos are notoriously inefficient, you'd have to pedal with 10W of extra power to maintain speed. As muscle is about 20% efficient, you'd consume 50W to heat your feet by 2W. More support to the idea of re-directing the waste heat carried by your blood to your feet rather than losing it elsewhere?
by George Riches
30 Dec 2010, 9:04am
Forum: Bikes & Bits – Technical section
Topic: Anyone tried Maplins heated gloves and insoles?
Replies: 25
Views: 4364

Re: Anyone tried Maplins heated gloves and insoles?

Maybe try thicker trousers and warmer hats before spending money on bigger shoes or heated insoles/gloves.

When your blood is a bit cold, the blood vessels close to the skin contract to reduce further heat loss from the blood. Unfortunately this means that the outer parts of your body get unpleasantly cold. On the other hand if your blood is a bit too warm, the blood vessels close to the skin expand in an effort to cool the blood.

So if your trousers are not very thick, given the cold weather, your blood will be a bit cool by the time it reaches your feet. Leading the blood vessels to contract making your feet colder. Wrap up your legs; your blood will get hotter, the blood vessels will expand and heat your flesh.

I notice this effect with my hands. If they are cold I put on a warm hat. At first my head feels uncomfortably warm, but I persist and soon my hands warm up! :D
by George Riches
29 Dec 2010, 10:15pm
Forum: Bikes & Bits – Technical section
Topic: Anyone tried Maplins heated gloves and insoles?
Replies: 25
Views: 4364

Re: Anyone tried Maplins heated gloves and insoles?

johnmac wrote:... Rechargeables are the only viable option, unless you're very rich because they'll eat a set of Duracells in one ride.

So if you forget to re-charge your batteries or you go out on a longer than usual ride? ... Reminds me of relying on batteries for lighting.

Ski mittens are good, although they can be expensive.
by George Riches
29 Dec 2010, 6:31pm
Forum: Bikes & Bits – Technical section
Topic: Anyone tried Maplins heated gloves and insoles?
Replies: 25
Views: 4364

Re: Anyone tried Maplins heated gloves and insoles?

There's a bit of a discussion here.

I've gone for shoes which are four sizes two big (46 instead of 42) and three pairs of socks (two thin, 1 thick). What do you do when the batteries go flat? Rechargables?
by George Riches
17 Dec 2010, 6:51pm
Forum: Helmets & helmet discussion
Topic: Freak accident - helmet may have prevented serious injury
Replies: 6
Views: 1737

Re: Freak accident - helmet may have prevented serious injury

Perhaps steerer tubes need to be taken out and examined every 10,000 miles?

On one bike I had nasty rust holes developed at the bottom bracket after 11,000 miles. But that was easy to spot. Also the bike had a manufacturing flaw - holes for bolt-ons were left unplugged and there was no hole at the bottom to let water out.

The bottom of your steerer tube wasn't blocked by mud was it?
by George Riches
16 Nov 2010, 10:43am
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Is cycling being oversold as free?
Replies: 74
Views: 5536

Re: Is cycling being oversold as free?

Many status seeking employees would be more aroused by the prospect of a key to the executive wc or traveling 1st class on trains than a car.

No doubt there are workplaces where people show off how expensive a bicycle they are worth
by George Riches
15 Nov 2010, 7:57pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Is cycling being oversold as free?
Replies: 74
Views: 5536

Re: Is cycling being oversold as free?

snibgo wrote:I think we do all acknowledge this. We know there is a cost to possessing a bike, and an extra cost per mile. Some folk on these forums calculated about 2p per mile, IIRC.

Ignoring the purchase price doesn't make sense to me. The more you use a bicycle the quicker the parts wear out and the sooner you reach the point where it's cheaper to buy a new bike than replace the parts. I think including the purchase price means it costs more like 5p/mile plus maintenance labour costs.

The costs to other people of a person cycling are far lower than the costs of other people's driving.
by George Riches
3 Nov 2010, 8:21pm
Forum: Campaigning & Public Policy
Topic: Unwise Undertake?
Replies: 51
Views: 5066

Re: Unwise Undertake?

Well I think it's useful to highlight infrastructure which only the most careful can use safely. It may seem a criticism of the user but it's really a criticism of the designer. The more the general public understands about the dangers, the greater the pressure on highway engineers to do better.

It reminds me of the criticism of those cycle paths which are only safe if the cyclist gives way to traffic entering/leaving side roads. Some may say that children should be expected to take more care than adults. But I think the opposite; as cycle paths are used by children, the onus should be on the driver to stop, as adults who have passed driving tests should be more responsible than children who haven't.