More bikes fewer cars.
Doug
by Alison Raphael
"WASHINGTON - What single silver bullet can simultaneously reduce air
pollution and oil dependency, roll back urban congestion, and fight
obesity?
It’s not a pill, nor a complicated formula concocted by the World
Bank. People around the world are turning to bicycles by the millions,
as governments rush to create incentives for the low-tech transport
alternative to gas-glugging, smog-making, traffic jam-producing
automobiles.
Some 130 million bikes were produced worldwide in 2007 — more than
double the number of cars rolling off assembly lines (52 million)..."
More:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/14/8938/
Alas, it doesn't seem to apply to the UK though.
--
Critical Mass London
http://www.criticalmasslondon.org.uk
"We aren't blocking traffic, we are traffic".
Dogpoop
> Pedaling
Good.
> Alas, it doesn't seem to apply to the UK though.
Shame.
--
Dogpoop
http://www.glass-uk.org/
"You would probably do better not to bother with renewable
energy" Doug, UK.Transport 29/04/2008 08:53.
TimB
> Doug typed:
>
> > Pedaling
>
> Good.
>
> > Alas, it doesn't seem to apply to the UK though.
>
> Shame.
>
> --
> "You would probably do better not to bother with renewable
> energy" Doug, UK.Transport 29/04/2008 08:53.
Doesn't mention carbon emissions and global warming - oh, I see,
American.
In the UK for many years I believe we've bought more bikes than cars
per annum, we just don't use them. Similarly, we have lower car
ownership than countries such as Germany, we just use our cars much
more. Strange habits.
Tim
Graculus
"Doug" <jag...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:583ca474-105c-433e...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Pedaling Toward Cleaner Cities
FUCK OFF!
Conor
b59589...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
> Pedaling Toward Cleaner Cities
>
> by Alison Raphael
>
> "WASHINGTON - What single silver bullet can simultaneously reduce air
> pollution and oil dependency, roll back urban congestion, and fight
> obesity?
>
> Bank. People around the world are turning to bicycles by the millions,
> as governments rush to create incentives for the low-tech transport
> alternative to gas-glugging, smog-making, traffic jam-producing
> automobiles.
>
> double the number of cars rolling off assembly lines (52 million)..."
>
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
TimB
> In article <583ca474-105c-433e-8a3e-
> b5958993f...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Doug says...
That's because you either live or work in the wrong place.
Conor
59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, TimB says...
> > Still doesn't get me to work 28 miles away in a decent amount of time..
> That's because you either live or work in the wrong place.
>
Well according to our resident eco-mentalist, I can't move to where I
work either as it's in the middle of nowhere and nobody should be
living in the country. Which kind of leaves everyone in a quandry as
food comes from the country.
Mark McNeill
As it happens, you're the first non-Google-Groups poster in this thread;
your well-argued contribution has drawn the attention of those of us who
plonk GG to Duhg and his message. Well done you.
--
Mark, UK
"It doesn't mean anything! It's like 'ramalamadingdong' or 'give peace a
chance'!"
Tony Dragon
If you ask Doug nicely, and give him all your details he will post a
report on how you can improve your travel ling.
Oh, hang on ......
--
Tony the Dragon
John Wright
Can we wait for that one until Vince's report is published? I think
that's what you were referring to..
--
John Wright
What would happen if you eliminated the autism genes from the gene pool?
You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and
socialising and not getting anything done!” - Temple Grandin
Zog The Undeniable
> Pedaling Toward Cleaner Cities
>
> by Alison Raphael
>
> "WASHINGTON - What single silver bullet can simultaneously reduce air
> pollution and oil dependency, roll back urban congestion, and fight
> obesity?
>
> It’s not a pill, nor a complicated formula concocted by the World
> Bank. People around the world are turning to bicycles by the millions,
> as governments rush to create incentives for the low-tech transport
> alternative to gas-glugging, smog-making, traffic jam-producing
> automobiles.
>
> Some 130 million bikes were produced worldwide in 2007 — more than
> double the number of cars rolling off assembly lines (52 million)..."
In the UK most bikes sold (the £40 "ATB" horrors) are
landfill-in-waiting, doomed to be ridden for one summer than forgotten.
The big problem is that we've become used to long commutes which are
impossible by bike. Half our office comes in from 40 miles away.
John Kane
> The big problem is that we've become used to long commutes which are
> impossible by bike. Half our office comes in from 40 miles away
But what's the distance for the rest? You may have 50% of your office
within practical commuting distance.
I surprised myself a while ago when I looked up some commuting stats
for Canada (where we have some looong distances) A bit over 60% of
all Canadians had a one way commute of less than 10km.
http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png
I wonder what the UK figures are?
John Kane Kingston ON Canada
Nick Finnigan
Average commute distance 8.7 miles, the break down may well be similar.
Doug
No problem on a bike.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
It takes about 10 acres to feed a car on ethanol for a year.
The world supply of grainland is about three-tenths of an acre per
person.
Tony Dragon
That would depend on the terrain & the user, but for most it should be
no problem.
--
Tony the Dragon
JNugent
> Conor <conor_tur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Doug says...
>>> Pedaling Toward Cleaner Cities
>>> by Alison Raphael
>>> "WASHINGTON - What single silver bullet can simultaneously reduce air
>>> pollution and oil dependency, roll back urban congestion, and fight
>>> obesity?
>>> It?s not a pill, nor a complicated formula concocted by the World
>>> Bank. People around the world are turning to bicycles by the millions,
>>> as governments rush to create incentives for the low-tech transport
>>> alternative to gas-glugging, smog-making, traffic jam-producing
>>> automobiles.
>>> Some 130 million bikes were produced worldwide in 2007 ? more than
>>> double the number of cars rolling off assembly lines (52 million)..."
>> Still doesn't get me to work 28 miles away in a decent amount of time..
> That's because you either live or work in the wrong place.
So assertive. So sure of yourself about other peoples' lives - no room
for doubt or scope for further analysis. Doug would agree with all of that.
TimB - are you in a position to produce a report (with recommendations)
on Conor's geographical position (residential, educational, economic,
leisure, family contacts, health access)? I expect you must be, since
you are so confident about the facts.
I ask because Doug (ukt) promised to produce such a report for another
transport driver (this was late last year), based on exactly the same
sort of confident assertion tht you made above. He didn't come up with
the goods, as far as I know, but you're obviously a different kettle of
fish.
Please explain why a 28 mile commute is socially unacceptable. Please
pay particular attention to why Conor should live near his nominal
workplace(s) rather than in a location he prefers.
JNugent
Is that "average" the mode, the mean or the median?
Nick Finnigan
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>
>> Average commute distance 8.7 miles, the break down may well be similar.
>
> Is that "average" the mode, the mean or the median?
Arithmetic mean.
Roger Merriman
sure if one is a cyclist, but may well not be any faster than other
forms, particaly if count changing time etc, 10 miles or close to at
least, is getting on to the needing to be keen cyclist.
as is the way of averages most are likely to have shorter journeys look
at average wages for comparison only the Mean would give a better idea.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
JNugent
> Arithmetic mean.
So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the same way
that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per person in the
UK is less than two)?
Nick Finnigan
No.
JNugent
>>> Arithmetic mean.
> No.
Sorry.. "no" to what?
Nick Finnigan
"No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.
JNugent
>>> No.
>> Sorry.. "no" to what?
I think we must be at cross purposes.
Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be
taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)
8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of
8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.
Clive George
"JNugent" <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
news:DvKdncEl64r16K3V...@pipex.net...
You forgot the bit in brackets - it's not in the same way as your example
there. Hence 'no'.
Meanwhile, is it important if 8.7 angels can fit on a pin? Are you
developing a useful argument, or just messing with definitions?
JNugent
> "JNugent" <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the
>>>>>> same way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per
>>>>>> person in the UK is less than two)?
>>>>> No.
>>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?
>>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.
>> I think we must be at cross purposes.
>> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be
>> taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)
>> 8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of
>> 8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.
> You forgot the bit in brackets - it's not in the same way as your
> example there. Hence 'no'.
The "average number of legs being less than two" quote is a well-known
example of how the mean can be misleading - even when perfectly calculated.
> Meanwhile, is it important if 8.7 angels can fit on a pin? Are you
> developing a useful argument, or just messing with definitions?
I was wondering whether the argument that some average commute is 8.7
miles tells us anything useful.
Peter Grange
wrote:
>> Still doesn't get me to work 28 miles away in a decent amount of time..
>>
>> --
>> Conor
>>
>> I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
>> looking good either. - Scott Adams
>
>That's because you either live or work in the wrong place.
That's not always the answer. I do short term contract work in
different places. My last contract was about 35 miles east of my home.
My current contract is for 5 weeks, and is about 15 miles SW. Should I
move house for each contract? (Replies saying "Yes" and signed "Gordon
Brown" or "Alistair Darling" will be ignored :) ).
pete
Nick Finnigan
No, I did not deny any fact.
Adam Lea
"JNugent" <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote in message
> Clive George wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>> JNugent wrote:
>>>>> Nick Finnigan wrote:
>>>>>> JNugent wrote:
>
>>>>>>> So it's possible that no-one travels 8.7 miles to work (in the same
>>>>>>> way that the average - that is, the mean - number of legs per person
>>>>>>> in the UK is less than two)?
>
>>>>>> No.
>
>>>>> Sorry.. "no" to what?
>
>>>> "No" is the answer to your question, quoted above.
>
>>> I think we must be at cross purposes.
>>> Taken at face value and applied to the question, your "no" could be
>>> taken as a denial of the fact that a mean commuting distance of (say)
>>> 8.7 miles might mean that no-one actually has a commuting distance of
>>> 8.7 miles. I don't think that can be what you mean.
>
>> You forgot the bit in brackets - it's not in the same way as your example
>> there. Hence 'no'.
>
> The "average number of legs being less than two" quote is a well-known
> example of how the mean can be misleading - even when perfectly
> calculated.
>
What you need to know is what distribution does the data best fit.
JNugent
Ideally, of course.
Not that there is any choice here - the statement was that the mean was
used.
JNugent
So what were you saying "no" to?
Daniel Barlow
> The "average number of legs being less than two" quote is a well-known
> example of how the mean can be misleading - even when perfectly
> calculated.
Misleading to morons, perhaps. Anyone with GCSE maths should have no
trouble with it.
-dan
Roger Merriman
not that much unless one could look at the number per mile, ie how many
under a mile, and so on, up. some people do have long journeys.
but with out looking at how spread out or not they are the mean of 8.7
miles doesn't tell one much.
when i was in wales my commute was about 8 miles and about 10mins, i was
by far the longest distance traveller a few walked one biked, a most
drove the 2 to 6 miles, these days my distance varies though tends to be
less, but since this is london, i can spend longer waiting at lights
than my orginal coummute.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
JNugent
So why is the example (and the question to which it relates) misleading you?
JNugent
Exactly.
Calculating the average (the mean average) in this sort of matter is of
very little direct use. I suppose it's helpful for calculating fuel
consumption, etc, though why anyone would be interested in doing that
for a fleet of privately-owned vehicles isn't obvious.
> but with out looking at how spread out or not they are the mean of 8.7
> miles doesn't tell one much.
Exactly.
> when i was in wales my commute was about 8 miles and about 10mins, i was
> by far the longest distance traveller a few walked one biked, a most
> drove the 2 to 6 miles, these days my distance varies though tends to be
> less, but since this is london, i can spend longer waiting at lights
> than my orginal coummute.
Sympathies.
Brimstone
> I suppose it's helpful for calculating fuel
> consumption, etc, though why anyone would be interested in doing that
> for a fleet of privately-owned vehicles isn't obvious.
Changing fuel consumption is a guide to changing efficiency in the engine's
operation, i.e. if fuel consumption rises without a change in driving style
then there's a good chnace that the engine isn't working correctly.
JNugent
> JNugent wrote:
That's true.
I think it unlikely that a group of car-owners would organise a "get
more mileage to the gallon" club on a workplace basis - but perhaps it
would be a good idea.
Brimstone
Agreed, on both points. A little bit of friendly rivalry does much to raise
standards.
Daniel Barlow
As the post you quote is to my memory (and google groups seems to
agree) the first I've made on this thread, I am curious as to the
basis on which you think I have been misled.
-dan
Conor
> > I think it unlikely that a group of car-owners would organise a "get
> > more mileage to the gallon" club on a workplace basis - but perhaps it
> > would be a good idea.
>
> Agreed, on both points. A little bit of friendly rivalry does much to raise
> standards.
>
At the haulage firm my mate works at, they put up a list of who has got
what fuel economy in a month and they also pay a "fuel bonus" which is
also put on this list. My mate got £166 last month.
I've seen similar things at some TNT places in past years as well.
JNugent
> Brimstone says...
>>> I think it unlikely that a group of car-owners would organise a "get
>>> more mileage to the gallon" club on a workplace basis - but perhaps it
>>> would be a good idea.
>> Agreed, on both points. A little bit of friendly rivalry does much to raise
>> standards.
> At the haulage firm my mate works at, they put up a list of who has got
> what fuel economy in a month and they also pay a "fuel bonus" which is
> also put on this list. My mate got £166 last month.
> I've seen similar things at some TNT places in past years as well.
I think we were thinking of private car (commuting) mpg, but what you
describe sounds like an absolutely wonderful idea.
Conor
> I think we were thinking of private car (commuting) mpg, but what you
> describe sounds like an absolutely wonderful idea.
>
Could work. Get everyone to shove a quid in a pot and he who has the
best, wins the pot.
Adrian
were saying:
>> I think we were thinking of private car (commuting) mpg, but what you
>> describe sounds like an absolutely wonderful idea.
> Could work. Get everyone to shove a quid in a pot and he who has the
> best, wins the pot.
Not really. Even where vehicles are identical, economy is very route
dependent.
Brimstone
I expect a handicapping system could be worked out (just don't ask me to do
it).
Nick Finnigan
(in answer to) Your question, quoted above.
JNugent
The best improvement (over already-established historical figures) could
win.
®i©ardo
;-)
--
Moving things in still pictures!
Ekul Namsob
I suspect many of us could name several non-morons with GCSE Maths who
sometimes are misled by the use of an arithmetic mean. Many non-morons
have better and more interesting things to do with their lives than to
bother with statistics.
Cheers,
Luke
--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>
Depresion
"Peter Grange" <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lhu034p0qfv7n1oug...@4ax.com...
OK, yes.
Mr E. Stateagent
Depresion
"Zog The Undeniable" <hroth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g0m42k$1g7k$1...@energise.enta.net...
>
> The big problem is that we've become used to long commutes which are
> impossible by bike.
Yes, bikes are clearly not the answer.
Depresion
"Conor" <conor_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:69dq9vF3...@mid.individual.net...
> In article <GKCdnVHZXrv...@pipex.net>, JNugent says...
>
>> I think we were thinking of private car (commuting) mpg, but what you
>> describe sounds like an absolutely wonderful idea.
>>
> Could work. Get everyone to shove a quid in a pot and he who has the
> best, wins the pot.
Better still he who can drop there average the most over one week. Getting
lower MPG is almost always more fun round here.
Jonathan Schneider
They might be when you add an engine giving you better economy and
traffic-busting abilities than anything on four wheels.
Jon
Peter Grange
Ah, forgot about him. Mr S O Licitor might be someone else to ignore.
Pete
John Kane
> Tony Dragon <tony.dra...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Doug wrote:
> > > On 17 May, 22:16, Nick Finnigan <n...@genie.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> John Kane wrote:
> > >>> On May 17, 4:11 am, Zog The Undeniable <hrothga...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>> The big problem is that we've become used to long commutes which are
> > >>> But what's the distance for the rest? You may have 50% of your office
> > >>> within practical commuting distance.
> > >>> I surprised myself a while ago when I looked up some commuting stats
> > >>> for Canada (where we have some looong distances) A bit over 60% of
> > >>> all Canadians had a one way commute of less than 10km.
> > >>>http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png
> > >>> I wonder what the UK figures are?
> > >> Average commute distance 8.7 miles, the break down may well be similar.
>
> > > No problem on a bike.
>
> > > --
> > > UK Radical Campaigns
> > >www.zing.icom43.net
> > > It takes about 10 acres to feed a car on ethanol for a year.
> > > The world supply of grainland is about three-tenths of an acre per
> > > person.
>
> > That would depend on the terrain & the user, but for most it should be
> > no problem.
>
> sure if one is a cyclist, but may well not be any faster than other
> forms, particaly if count changing time etc, 10 miles or close to at
> least, is getting on to the needing to be keen cyclist.
>
> as is the way of averages most are likely to have shorter journeys look
> at average wages for comparison only the Mean would give a better idea.
My Canadian figures are median figures. A very large proportion of
the commutes are well under 5 km.
John Kane Kingston ON Canada
John Kane
> Nick Finnigan wrote:
> > John Kane wrote:
> >> On May 17, 4:11 am, Zog The Undeniable <hrothga...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The big problem is that we've become used to long commutes which are
> >>> impossible by bike. Half our office comes in from 40 miles away
>
> >> But what's the distance for the rest? You may have 50% of your office
> >> within practical commuting distance.
>
> >> I surprised myself a while ago when I looked up some commuting stats
> >> for Canada (where we have some looong distances) A bit over 60% of
> >> all Canadians had a one way commute of less than 10km.
> >>http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png
>
> >> I wonder what the UK figures are?
>
> > Average commute distance 8.7 miles, the break down may well be similar.
>
Median based on Stattistics Canada figures. A large proportion of the
commutes under 10 km are under 5km (see graph).
John Kane
> "Zog The Undeniable" <hrothga...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:g0m42k$1g7k$1...@energise.enta.net...
>
>
>
> > The big problem is that we've become used to long commutes which are
> > impossible by bike.
>
> Yes, bikes are clearly not the answer.
Well for commuting from London to Paris you're probably right. Of
course how many people do this?