A Misguided Badge of Honour?

[meic]

Anyone who thinks that being physically knackered (i.e. unable to pedal up anymore hills) doesn't equates to incompetence to drive a car (It still requires concentration!) is beyond reasoning with. Driving tired is compared to driving drunk and is thought to be a widespread but underreported contributory factor in crashes. There's a summary at http://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/Review/10061

A quick read shows that their use of the term fatigue is about fatigue from driving, ie tiredness bought about by long term driving and the monotony of that task. It is an entirely different thing to physical fatigue through exercise.
Exercise is a commonly used relief from that type of fatigue.

[gxaustin]

Does anyone ever have problems when taking their bikes by train? Finding space for it (and those of your friends), say?
I've been on several trains where commuters are having to put their bikes in doorways and wonder whether the guard ever complains.
I've been physically too knackered to risk driving without nodding off. I stayed in a local hotel.

[pwa]

The OP's ride from Reeth is a mini classic. I can fully understand wanting to start from there. And there is no public transport way of getting there with a bike. For me the experience of the ride would be special enough to merit the car journey. Easily.

And unless you were new to cycling, or unwell, the ride would not leave you unfit to drive. It might leave you feeling you had had enough of cycling and an extra twenty miles over less attractive roads would not add to the day, but it would not leave you drowsy. I'd have a break at one of the local cafes around the green. Possibly a bite to eat.

I have looked at maps in the past to work out potential cycling routes between Swaledale and Thirsk, and they are not great. They involve going well out of your way to stay on quiet roads.

So even a car-resistant person could perhaps feel okay about driving to Reeth to enjoy a great ride.

[NetworkMan]

Are they restricting their riding to the limited radius of where they live....?...

Mostly yes and it's excessive car use that's making it less and less pleasant, putting many potential cyclists off even starting, and, I suspect, enabling a large overweight group to use it as an excuse for not even trying.

I thought the remark by amediasatex about the car being the default mode of transport was spot on. My wife and I each have a car, each one doing perhaps 2000 miles a year, including holidays. We use bus, bike and foot when appropriate. If I encounter someone as I ride off to do the shopping, I can get the remark, "Have a nice ride." - the concept of utility cycling is quite alien. When my wife walks off with her rucksack to go shopping, a walk of about 2 miles, she gets a similar, "Have a nice walk." That is even more disturbing - just think about it - utility walking is becoming alien too.

There, I feel better now, promise I won't say any more (well probably not)!

[thirdcrank]

I'm confused by the logic, which sees the growth of population as a major problem but denies any potential benefit from people trying to reduce their own consumption of resources (and seeming to sneer at those who try.)

[horizon]

The absolute need now is for an ever growing continuous and reliable supply of power, to fuel technology and maintain economic advancement. Fossil fuels are currently the only such totally reliable and adequate power source to maintain things.

Individual gesture actions may soothe some peoples consciences, but they will not solve the problem.

The absolute need now is to reinstate the fuel tax accelerator. Simple, effective and necessary. The next task is for individuals to vote for a party that would do it. Simple, effective and necessary. There you go, an individual action.

No need for all this nonsense about new power sources - you and others would just weigh the financial cost of your actions, something at present you don't even need to do.

[pwa]

I'm confused by the logic, which sees the growth of population as a major problem but denies any potential benefit from people trying to reduce their own consumption of resources (and seeming to sneer at those who try.)

There is a lack of logic in overlooking either side of that equation. Population level or emissions per person.

[NetworkMan]

The absolute need now is for an ever growing continuous and reliable supply of power, to fuel technology and maintain economic advancement. Fossil fuels are currently the only such totally reliable and adequate power source to maintain things.

Individual gesture actions may soothe some peoples consciences, but they will not solve the problem.

The absolute need now is to reinstate the fuel tax accelerator. Simple, effective and necessary. The next task is for individuals to vote for a party that would do it. Simple, effective and necessary. There you go, an individual action.

No need for all this nonsense about new power sources - you and others would just weigh the financial cost of your actions, something at present you don't even need to do.

Curses - you've started me up again already!
There is a big problem. Governments won't do anything because if they did the punters would be upset since to make a real difference it will hurt, at least a bit. People don't want to be hurt, they might not be able to make so many trips to far flung places, taking countless short holidays each year instead of one longish one, having to wear warm clothes indoors in the winter, etc. etc. The result is that nothing significant is done. Individual actions can hurt too of course, that's why organisations such as FOE stress the need for government actions rather than individual ones that hurt and tend to promote trivial actions that don't hurt and don't make much difference either.

[pwa]

The absolute need now is for an ever growing continuous and reliable supply of power, to fuel technology and maintain economic advancement. Fossil fuels are currently the only such totally reliable and adequate power source to maintain things.

Individual gesture actions may soothe some peoples consciences, but they will not solve the problem.

The absolute need now is to reinstate the fuel tax accelerator. Simple, effective and necessary. The next task is for individuals to vote for a party that would do it. Simple, effective and necessary. There you go, an individual action.

No need for all this nonsense about new power sources - you and others would just weigh the financial cost of your actions, something at present you don't even need to do.

I like the "polluter pays" principle. That way you get to weigh up whether that trip by car to Reeth is really worth it. If it is, great, do it. If not, maybe it was a frivolous use of a car.

[NetworkMan]

I'm confused by the logic, which sees the growth of population as a major problem but denies any potential benefit from people trying to reduce their own consumption of resources (and seeming to sneer at those who try.)

There is a lack of logic in overlooking either side of that equation. Population level or emissions per person.

Of course. On the first one individual options are limited, you can either start murdering people and/or not have a family. There are countless individual options for the latter.

[NetworkMan]

The absolute need now is for an ever growing continuous and reliable supply of power, to fuel technology and maintain economic advancement. Fossil fuels are currently the only such totally reliable and adequate power source to maintain things.

Individual gesture actions may soothe some peoples consciences, but they will not solve the problem.

The absolute need now is to reinstate the fuel tax accelerator. Simple, effective and necessary. The next task is for individuals to vote for a party that would do it. Simple, effective and necessary. There you go, an individual action.

No need for all this nonsense about new power sources - you and others would just weigh the financial cost of your actions, something at present you don't even need to do.

I like the "polluter pays" principle. That way you get to weigh up whether that trip by car to Reeth is really worth it. If it is, great, do it. If not, maybe it was a frivolous use of a car.

Yes, carbon rationing is the fairest way to do that but it won't happen.

[horizon]

I like the "polluter pays" principle. That way you get to weigh up whether that trip by car to Reeth is really worth it. If it is, great, do it. If not, maybe it was a frivolous use of a car.

Well, we've agreed on something . Yes, our individual rational choices must match the choice that is best for the common good. Then even I might be happy about people driving, flying and the rest of it. At the moment we have the Soviet economic model: make it cheap or free and then try to meet the inevitably distorted demand (or make people queue). I want to see some good Tory capitalist pricing at work!

[pwa]

I like the "polluter pays" principle. That way you get to weigh up whether that trip by car to Reeth is really worth it. If it is, great, do it. If not, maybe it was a frivolous use of a car.

Well, we've agreed on something . Yes, our individual rational choices must match the choice that is best for the common good. Then even I might be happy about people driving, flying and the rest of it. At the moment we have the Soviet economic model: make it cheap or free and then try to meet the inevitably distorted demand (or make people queue). I want to see some good Tory capitalist pricing at work!

Trouble is, the tax on road fuel has become politicised and neither of the main parties can go into the next election saying they will put up the price at the pump. I think the Lib Dems will also shy away from that. The Greens can say what they like in the safe knowledge that they will never have to implement it. So as a practical measure it is probably dead. Which I regret. I have always liked the idea of removing VED / Road Tax and getting the same amount from the pump.

[NetworkMan]

I want to see some good Tory capitalist pricing at work!

Trouble is that at a sufficient level to change the behaviour of the rich, you'll punish the poor, possibly making them ill or even dead. Carbon rationing does it in a fairer way

[Vorpal]

The absolute need now is to reinstate the fuel tax accelerator. Simple, effective and necessary. The next task is for individuals to vote for a party that would do it. Simple, effective and necessary. There you go, an individual action.

No need for all this nonsense about new power sources - you and others would just weigh the financial cost of your actions, something at present you don't even need to do.

I like the "polluter pays" principle. That way you get to weigh up whether that trip by car to Reeth is really worth it. If it is, great, do it. If not, maybe it was a frivolous use of a car.

Yes, carbon rationing is the fairest way to do that but it won't happen.

Carbon rationing is fair, for some things. We also need to prevent the release of other greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide.