Are cyclists being seen as a political tool?

[Si]

While modern life may have many advantages over back-to-back, tin bath, out side privy ("You were lucky, we had to...") type of living, I don't believe that it has to be a case of either-or. Why can't we take the best of both worlds. We have to admit that although poorer, people in the past did have certain advantages that are dissappearing now, that would benefit us all if we brought them back.

Just as one example, although I can happily afford pre-packaged food from my localish supermarket, I've recently started to grow my own just like my old man did years ago. This is much more physical work and limits my choice of veg but should have the advantages of: less packaging to get rid of, a better quality of food, don't need to drive to a supermarket when I can walk 5mins to the plot, more exercise (cheaper and more rewarding than the gym), a larger social network: people on the allotment site actually talk to each other!, fewer food miles for transporting the veg to the supermarket, etc.

[mhara]

It's a pleasant romatic picture Si, but a pleasure only for those who have the time to spend and access to an adequately sized area of decent arable ground.

There's a half-way house, which is to get your food from local organic farmers. Farming organically takes a lot of knowledge, skill and dedication - but it feeds more people than could feed themselves through allotments. We buy organic fruit and veg and our meat comes from a local co-op of small farmers. Not many air miles there.

Harking back to the past isn't the way forward.

[Si]

It's a pleasant romatic picture Si, but a pleasure only for those who have the time to spend and access to an adequately sized area of decent arable ground.

Which is quite a lot of people that live in cities thanks to the availibility of allotments, although the recent rise in popularity is creating waiting lists in a few areas. As for time - I think that much of the population would have sufficent time. Is it that important to watch eastenders/corination St every night - not really but a helluva a lot of people do it.

However, food isn't the issue. The point that I was demonstrating using the random example of GYO, is that some things that were done in the past and that have declined in recent years, are not necessarily worse than what has replaced them.

If you believe that they are then you might as well tell people to bin their bikes and get gas-guzzlers instead.

[Oracle]

I agree with GYO, and you can always grow something, even if only via a window sill box or container; good for the soul if nothing else and can reminds us how fragile life can be when the crop fails.

I also believe that the motor vehicle has moved from the gas guzzling thing of the past to something rather efficient these days. That does not mean that rather silly (IMO) vehicles do not exist as they do, and appear to be there primarily to massage the ego (eg Porshe Cayenne or Hummer), but the advances made are admirable.

I believe that cyclists need to aware of the fact that there is an awful lot of people who need a motor car and some will not even consider the cycle as a means of transport. Add to this the fact that recent reports have highlighted that using a fuel efficient cars can actually result in lower CO2 emissions than a diesel powered train when considering moving the same number of people, those who favour motoring will use such data to justify using motor vehicles as the preferred option on environmental grounds. Realistically, the motor vehicle is here to stay and cyclists should be wary of being seen as the saviour of the World’s environment, as the more this happens, the more smug we may be viewed and the cycle-motorist relationship will be in further danger of deteriorating.

[George Riches]

recent reports have highlighted that using a fuel efficient cars can actually result in lower CO2 emissions than a diesel powered train when considering moving the same number of people

But using far more space and causing far more deaths and injuries.

[glueman]

An excess of mobility means employers, shops and others can insist on our presence wherever they choose to site themselves. The motoring dream may be of the open road but that represents a fraction of most drivers car use. The reality is a burden of travel which, imo, leads to frustration and rage - compulsion passed off as choice. Motorists are in effect on rails but without the freedom to look out the window and read the paper.
Small wonder cyclists are seen as collateral damage.

[Oracle]

'But using far more space and causing far more deaths and injuries.'

Clearly a price seen as worth paying for the benefits accrued. What Government would currently get elected by the type of clampdown we would need to liberate the roads to a degree that some desire? I believe even schemes such as congestion charges has actually resulted in an increased speed of traffic thereby making what vehicles are left even more of a potentially lethal weapon. Introduce motorway tolls and just see more congestion on the other roads which equates to increased danger for the cyclist and pedestrian!

We could easily reduce the number of cars by trebling the price of petrol. Oh look, there’s another pig airborne. Cars are here to stay for a while yet and we have to work with the motorist to the benefit of all.

[archy sturmer]

An excess of mobility means employers, shops and others can insist on our presence wherever they choose to site themselves. The motoring dream may be of the open road but that represents a fraction of most drivers car use. The reality is a burden of travel which, imo, leads to frustration and rage - compulsion passed off as choice.

I completely agree, glueman. In most areas, if you haven't got your own transport, your employment choices are severely limited.
The truth is, for most people with mortgage, kids, etc, doing without a car is a luxury they can't afford - though they mostly don't see it that way.

AS

[montmorency]

It's a pleasant romatic picture Si, but a pleasure only for those who have the time to spend and access to an adequately sized area of decent arable ground.

Which is quite a lot of people that live in cities thanks to the availibility of allotments, although the recent rise in popularity is creating waiting lists in a few areas. As for time - I think that much of the population would have sufficent time. Is it that important to watch eastenders/corination St every night - not really but a helluva a lot of people do it.

Not to mention Big Brother!

However, food isn't the issue. The point that I was demonstrating using the random example of GYO, is that some things that were done in the past and that have declined in recent years, are not necessarily worse than what has replaced them.

Well, still food-related, there is also that old-fashioned thing called
(real) cooking, as opposed to heating up overpackaged ready meals, or buying take-aways.



Regards,
M.

[Si]

Not to mention Big Brother!

yes, and can we carry on not mentioning it please?

[CJ]

An excess of mobility means employers, shops and others can insist on our presence wherever they choose to site themselves.

How true.

I used to have a nice, manageable, six-mile ride to work.

[PW]

I still have one - but I'd rather have the 14 miles each way I had a dozen years ago.

[George Riches]

'But using far more space and causing far more deaths and injuries.'
Clearly a price seen as worth paying for the benefits accrued.

But the driver doesn't pay the price. It's paid collectively.
A major reason for railways losing out to cars is that railway companies have, since they were set up, to pay for all operating costs, including rent, maintenance and policing. The road network, its policing and the costs of crashes on it have been paid for by the taxpayer.
The enormous resistance to pay-as-you go schemes for motoring from the motoring lobby shows that they realise that motoring would suffer a big decline if it were brought in.

If motorists had to accept the same safety standards as people operating railways, you'd probably have to ban cars from most roads apart from motorways.

[glueman]

Agree with that George. The railway system was scuppered through lack of investment and the coup de grace delivered by Dr. Beeching. This was in no small measure because the Tory party at the time were heavily associated with the road lobby, with a senior minister having family connections to a road construction company. It was a hatchet job of the most primitive kind.
The lead up saw profitable rail routes cut back to encourage travellers to use other means and user surveys conducted on the quietest days of the year on busy lines. Cut backs were piecemeal, vindictive and politically motivated.
Ancient history now of course but part of the reason we're travelling on traffic clogged roads. (Climbs down from hobby horse)

[ktam2]

I believe Oracle is completely wrong about his figures of cars compared to trains and that trains get much better fuel economy than a car when looking at per person. The toyota prius is still nothing like as a good as a train. Is the car you are talking about yet another demonstration model that never goes into production and is purely a pr stunt by a car manufacturer. Car manufacturers have been doing this since the seventies.

Secondly as to fuel economy I think you'll find that the Model T ford from the 1920s had better fuel economy than a majority of cars on the road today.

Improvements in engine efficiency have predominantly resulted in higher power output not fuel economy so we can accelerate harder.

Kevin