Changes in transport costs.

[irc]

Also you're considering the car like it's the best option. It isn't, even now, cycling is objectively the best option in urban areas at most times of day, it's faster, much cheaper, makes you healthier & happier. The main barrier is the subjective lack of safety from having to share with motor vehicles. Hardly anyone actually likes driving in urban areas!

Strange that the vast majority of people don't choose the faster option that makes them happy.

Depends how you define urban. Congested city centres perhaps. Any further out and the car is king. Arrives when you want any time of day. I waited 40m for a bus last week. Buses are free for me but I still choose my car 99% of the time. AS I was going for a few beers it was bus or bike. Bus won as I didn't want to risk parking my bike in Glasgow city centre for a few hours at night. I currently only have good bikes, no pub bike.

A bike is no use for carrying dogs or large amounts of shopping. A bike doesn't keep you dry on wet days.

As I don't work 9-5 my car is faster than my bike for any journey longer than 2 or 3 miles or so.

For work. I work at several locations. One is 20 miles away. By car 30 minutes. Bike 90 minutes (by the fastest route with some suicidal 70mph dual carriageway). Public transport can't be done because of my shift times. The closest place is 8 miles away. I have biked there. But as I have no locker and have to carry a change of clothes and towel etc the car wins most of the time. There is over 100 NHS employees. The bike rack is normally empty.

One of my colleagues, a GP, lives closer than me. 3 miles perhaps. He jogs several times a week. Plays 5 a side. Cycles recreationally. He never cycles to work.

I have no stats but my impression is that post lockdown there are no more commuter cyclists in Glasgow than before and the extra cycle lanes see little use. Not helped by their poor quality but that is another debate.

[Syd]

Also you're considering the car like it's the best option. It isn't, even now, cycling is objectively the best option in urban areas at most times of day, it's faster, much cheaper, makes you healthier & happier. The main barrier is the subjective lack of safety from having to share with motor vehicles. Hardly anyone actually likes driving in urban areas!

Strange that the vast majority of people don't choose the faster option that makes them happy.

Depends how you define urban. Congested city centres perhaps. Any further out and the car is king. Arrives when you want any time of day. I waited 40m for a bus last week. Buses are free for me but I still choose my car 99% of the time. AS I was going for a few beers it was bus or bike. Bus won as I didn't want to risk parking my bike in Glasgow city centre for a few hours at night. I currently only have good bikes, no pub bike.

A bike is no use for carrying dogs or large amounts of shopping. A bike doesn't keep you dry on wet days.

As I don't work 9-5 my car is faster than my bike for any journey longer than 2 or 3 miles or so.

For work. I work at several locations. One is 20 miles away. By car 30 minutes. Bike 90 minutes (by the fastest route with some suicidal 70mph dual carriageway). Public transport can't be done because of my shift times. The closest place is 8 miles away. I have biked there. But as I have no locker and have to carry a change of clothes and towel etc the car wins most of the time. There is over 100 NHS employees. The bike rack is normally empty.

One of my colleagues, a GP, lives closer than me. 3 miles perhaps. He jogs several times a week. Plays 5 a side. Cycles recreationally. He never cycles to work.

I have no stats but my impression is that post lockdown there are no more commuter cyclists in Glasgow than before and the extra cycle lanes see little use. Not helped by their poor quality but that is another debate.

Things seem very different 8n Glasgow to Edinburgh where our cycle storage facilities are full to bursting with many others keeping bikes in their offices.

On a separate note I find it disappointing that you would have considered going for a few beers by bike, had you has one suitable for the purpose.

[irc]

Disappointing why? I consider myself capable of cycling after 3 beers over a couple of hours. Not unfit imo. Any risk is to me, not others as in the case of cars.

[Syd]

Many people think themselves capable of driving after three beers.

There is lots of evidence to the contrary.

Cycling is no different, other than the mass of the vehicle and possibly speed, and no, it is not only yourself who is at increased risk.

A now retired work colleague was put in a coma for 6 weeks, a few years ago after been hit by a cyclist who only had a few pints.

[irc]

Many people think themselves capable of driving after three beers.

There is lots of evidence to the contrary.

Cycling is no different, other than the mass of the vehicle and possibly speed, and no, it is not only yourself who is at increased risk.

A now retired work colleague was put in a coma for 6 weeks, a few years ago after been hit by a cyclist who only had a few pints.

Correct. Mass and speed. A 1500kg vehicle at 40mph has an energy hundreds of times more than a solo cyclist.

Sober cyclists crash as well. A retired colleague of mine crippled himself whilst sober cycling at speed, head down, into the back of a stationary bus. Anecdotes prove nothing.

Opinions differ. Hence the common phrase "pub bike." I'm happy I would have been no risk to pedestrians on my route home had I chosen to cycle. We'll just need to differ on this one.

[Syd]

We'll just need to differ on this one.

We will indeed.

I have the same distain for everyone who drinks and rides / drives.

[mjr]

A bike is no use for carrying dogs or large amounts of shopping.

Hello Dick Quax!

A bike doesn't keep you dry on wet days.

No, a raincoat (or cape) does.

As I don't work 9-5 my car is faster than my bike for any journey longer than 2 or 3 miles or so.

That's strange: I live 5 miles out of town and my bike is as fast as my car into town. It's quicker door-to-door because bike parking is closer than available car parking, especially after the 9-5ers have taken the best free/cheap spaces.

For work. [...] NHS employees.

Yes, NHS sites tend to be among the worst places to cycle to: often, on/near busy roads with poor connections to cycleways, terrible substandard bike parking and little consideration for people wanting to get changed on-site.

I have no stats but my impression is that post lockdown there are no more commuter cyclists in Glasgow than before and the extra cycle lanes see little use. Not helped by their poor quality but that is another debate.

It seems surprising if all the gains (80%-606%) from lockdown have been reversed:
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/188 ... -per-cent/
but I guess it will be a while before stats are published after the latest lockdown lifting.

[irc]

That's strange: I live 5 miles out of town and my bike is as fast as my car into town. It's quicker door-to-door because bike parking is closer than available car parking, especially after the 9-5ers have taken the best free/cheap spaces.

We live in different places or you are a faster cyclist. My car is faster than my bike almost all journeys. If parking was an issue I wouldn't go here. Others seem to have similar views hence the decline of city centre shopping and the growth of out of town shopping with free parking and good road access.

[Syd]

I have a number of possible options to get from home to my main place of work ~11k each way.

1. Drive
2. Take the bus
3. Cycle
4. Run
5. Walk


In terms of journey time it’s as follows (fastest first)

1. Cycle
2. Run
3. Bus
4. Drive
5. Walk

A number of factors place driving in 4th. General traffic, queuing at car park entrance, walk from car park into hospital. I’ve only ever driven when I was recovering from an injury and public transport was ruled out due to the pandemic.

[Bmblbzzz]

You must have decent bus lanes and well thought out bus routes. I wouldn't have been surprised if it had been:

1. Cycle
2. Run
3. Walk
4. Drive
5. Bus

[mjr]

That's strange: I live 5 miles out of town and my bike is as fast as my car into town. It's quicker door-to-door because bike parking is closer than available car parking, especially after the 9-5ers have taken the best free/cheap spaces.

We live in different places or you are a faster cyclist.

Yeah, I'm almost certainly not faster but I'm pretty sure you don't live with me

My car is faster than my bike almost all journeys. If parking was an issue I wouldn't go here. Others seem to have similar views hence the decline of city centre shopping and the growth of out of town shopping with free parking and good road access.

I think that's more driven by town centre rents and rates being so much higher per square metre than the retail barn wastelands, meaning the barns are not paying full whack for maintaining the extra-wide roads to them or the damage done by their car parks, plus shops have to be a certain size to occupy one of the barns, as few people walk between shops because that means walking across vast car parks and crossing the 4/5/6/7/8/9-lane road between them.

I doubt this is being driven by customer views more than shop and road/parking space supply. I've not heard anyone say they actually like visiting the megahypermart zone since the novelty of the first ones opening years ago. More often people say they have to go there because there are no longer enough shops in town to supply everything they need/want, plus the councils have failed to get a grip on congestion (still trying to build their way out of it) so it takes motorists longer to get to the town centre than the time saved by using smaller shops, plus there's then the perverse incentive of council-owned pay car parks.

Ironically, I ride through Lynn's main megahypermart zone to go shopping in town, unless I need one of the 3 things I've not found elsewhere recently. The 10 minutes from there into town plus the time spent walking around (OK, limping around!) is less than the time taken moving even a bike from road to shop to shop (...to shop...) to road. Moving a car (which has to stop at the lights and cannot use the crossings or more direct routes) would be even slower, but driving into town from there and parking and walking would probably be slower too, so drivers tolerate it.

Oh well, at least there's cycleways through it! Roll on business property tax reforms!

[Carlton green]

We'll just need to differ on this one.

We will indeed.

I have the same distain for everyone who drinks and rides / drives.

As I don’t find it logical I don’t share your equal distain, however I wouldn’t want to encourage anyone to cycle while under the influence of Alcohol. As I understand it Cycling whilst under the influence of Alcohol can result in points on your driving licence, disqualification even, something to have in mind.

(EDIT. See my post below for correction on the license points issue.
However, as an additional issue, the courts still have the power to take your driving licence away:
“the court does have a general power under the Power of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 to disqualify anyone from driving, without imposing penalty points, for any offence, including a cycling offence. ”https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats ... -your-bike).

With rare exception I will not consume any alcohol and then drive. Very occasionally I’ll have a social drink (two pints or less) and then cycle a short distance home; my progress is then deliberately slow, made along quiet routes and made taking extra care. As safety goes that choice (after having a bevy) is probably one of the better ones for me, YMMV.

[mjr]

As I understand it Cycling whilst under the influence of Alcohol can result in points on your driving licence, disqualification even, something to have in mind.

I think that is true since the recent law change that gives courts pretty wide ability to add points but it's still rare. Also, you'd need to be convicted first and you cannot be compelled to give a breath or blood sample and the limit for cycling is basically the pre-1972 limit for driving — "under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control" — so you'd pretty much need to be unsteady or doing other obviously stupid stuff, not only have crossed the two-pint (for the average man) threshold.

Still try not to do it but I think the different standard fairly reflects the different severity of the offence.

[pwa]

We'll just need to differ on this one.

We will indeed.

I have the same distain for everyone who drinks and rides / drives.

As I don’t find it logical I don’t share your equal distain, however I wouldn’t want to encourage anyone to cycle while under the influence of Alcohol. As I understand it Cycling whilst under the influence of Alcohol can result in points on your driving licence, disqualification even, something to have in mind.

With rare exception I will not consume any alcohol and then drive. Very occasionally I’ll have a social drink (two pints or less) and then cycle a short distance home; my progress is then deliberately slow, made along quiet routes and made taking extra care. As safety goes that choice (after having a bevy) is probably one of the better ones for me, YMMV.

A man who lives in my area used to drink the evening away at a local pub then drive home. He was nabbed and lost his licence for a while. He now has his licence back but these days he cycles home from the pub in a less than sober state, and I feel a bit safer with that choice. It may not be perfect but it is an improvement.

[Carlton green]

Slater and Gordon have the answer on their website and I reckon that they’re more likely to be right than nearly anyone else. https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/newsroom ... hen-drunk/

# “It is illegal to ride your bike under the influence of drink or drugs, and you would be guilty of this if you were unfit to ride to such an extent as you are incapable of having proper control of the bicycle.”

I wonder how this is defined in practice: who judges, when and against what measurable criteria.

# “The maximum penalty for cycling whilst under the influence of drink or drugs is a £1,000 fine. This is also the case for careless or inconsiderate cycling. The maximum penalty for dangerous cycling is a £2,500 fine.

You wouldn’t, however, get any points on your driving license should you have one, as it isn’t a driving offence..”

# “Cycling under the influence of alcohol is never a good idea. It affects reaction times, causes inhibitions to disappear and can render you incapable of controlling a bicycle. Recent research has shown that intoxicated cyclists are 10 times more at risk of being injured in a cycling accident than sober cyclists.”

From PWA above:
“A man who lives in my area used to drink the evening away at a local pub then drive home. He was nabbed and lost his licence for a while. He now has his licence back but these days he cycles home from the pub in a less than sober state, and I feel a bit safer with that choice. It may not be perfect but it is an improvement.”

IMHO it certainly is an improvement, the guy is still a liability but arguably much less so that if he were in charge of a car. Whatever, the applicable laws indicate the perspective of the Courts ...