Anti-cycling bias in todays Metro
Comments
-
alfablue wrote:I am starting to think, though, 20p is not enough for cycling miles, especially with the appetite I have developed!
Yes, obviously there are people who are stuck with the cars they've got. It's just when people moan that it costs then a tenner to get across town, and you think "why have you got a Q7 then?!"0 -
Quite! no sympathy at all!bails87 wrote:alfablue wrote:I am starting to think, though, 20p is not enough for cycling miles, especially with the appetite I have developed!
Yes, obviously there are people who are stuck with the cars they've got. It's just when people moan that it costs then a tenner to get across town, and you think "why have you got a Q7 then?!"0 -
I don't think the article is anti-cycling at all. It's just another rehash of the old MP expenses thing. I was always a bit bemused by the vilification heaped on the poor sod who claimed the price of a postage stamp: he seemed to get just as much abuse as the ones who actually committed fraud.
My works Ts+Cs are pretty similar to this MPs: I can't claim for cycling to and from work; I can claim for cycling on business. Personally, I don't bother: it's too much hassle to claim cycling mileage and I don't do enough of it to make it worthwhile. But if I were putting in a claim for something else, and I'd happened to have some cycling mileage I could legitimately claim, I'd add it on. Why wouldn't you if you were filling in the form anyway?
So this entire news article could be summed up as 'MP saves taxpayer so much money on his travel expenses, we think he has a cheek claiming anything at all'. It's lazy nonsense.0 -
notsoblue wrote:Dudu wrote:bails87 wrote:The Metro isn't just in London
And it's part of the Daily Mail group, so of course they're anti-cyclist. Only communists and asylum seekers ride bikes. Good, honest, hardworking middle-class people drive cars.
As Zoe Williams wrote recently in the LCC magazine:
"We have an innate British tendency to confuse being wealthy with being upstanding and socially responsible. Car drivers, having cars and paying tax, musi be wealthier than cyclists, ergo, they must be more civically minded, and civilisation has a greater duty to them"
That's in spite of the average London commuter cyclist being wealthier than the average London commuter driver, according to a survey somewhere-or-other.
Thats a brilliant insight! Very well put indeed. I have to admit that my main bias against Zoe Williams is probably due to my having only encountered her articles on pregnancy and childbirth... I've reformed my opinion...
You see it's that sort of complete tosh that makes me consider her articles a waste of decent trees. It just reinforces the (incorrect) stereotype that cyclists are lefty commies, which is unhelpful.0 -
notsoblue wrote:Dudu wrote:bails87 wrote:The Metro isn't just in London
And it's part of the Daily Mail group, so of course they're anti-cyclist. Only communists and asylum seekers ride bikes. Good, honest, hardworking middle-class people drive cars.
As Zoe Williams wrote recently in the LCC magazine:
"We have an innate British tendency to confuse being wealthy with being upstanding and socially responsible. Car drivers, having cars and paying tax, musi be wealthier than cyclists, ergo, they must be more civically minded, and civilisation has a greater duty to them"
That's in spite of the average London commuter cyclist being wealthier than the average London commuter driver, according to a survey somewhere-or-other.
Thats a brilliant insight! Very well put indeed. I have to admit that my main bias against Zoe Williams is probably due to my having only encountered her articles on pregnancy and childbirth... I've reformed my opinion...
They weren't that bad, although they did have their moments. Compared with a lot of the guff written about such things, her take was often quite refreshing. I think her articles in the main Comment section of the Guardian are her better stuff.
@W1: Of course you don't like her, she's a left-wing journalist. I mean, duh! 1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
pianoleo wrote:20p a mile ISN'T much, especially bearing in mind that you could only claim £3 for an hour cycling as opposed to probably £28 for an hour driving, but bear in mind it's mileage during hours you're already being paid to work. Being paid my hourly rate plus £3 an hour (ok, £2.40 an hour - I'm slow) to cycle rather than work sounds like a bargain!
What part of expenses do you not understand?
the 20p per mile is to cover wear and tear depreciation etc- it is not to remunerate you for cycling. If it were remuneration, then you would be liable to tax on itWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
Yep, my point was that I'd rather be paid to cycle than to work. The 20p per mile probably covers my costs for those miles but so what? Given cycling is a hobby as well as a mode of transport, it generally costs me money. Unlike PT I can control those costs (by choosing to wear DHB rather than Assos, for example).0
-
Hmmm, 20p a mile. I rode 10,000 miles last year. Cost me less than £200. I'd only claim 2p a mile on that basis.
20p a mile is almost half what the AA reckons it costs to run a new car including depreciation. If we really think that it costs 20p a mile to ride a bike, we are making an appalling case for the relative costs of the two modes of transport. Can't have it both ways......Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:Hmmm, 20p a mile. I rode 10,000 miles last year. Cost me less than £200. I'd only claim 2p a mile on that basis.
20p a mile is almost half what the AA reckons it costs to run a new car including depreciation. If we really think that it costs 20p a mile to ride a bike, we are making an appalling case for the relative costs of the two modes of transport. Can't have it both ways......
Luckily we don't think that, HMRC does!0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Dudu wrote:"We have an innate British tendency to confuse being wealthy with being upstanding and socially responsible. Car drivers, having cars and paying tax, musi be wealthier than cyclists, ergo, they must be more civically minded, and civilisation has a greater duty to them"
That's in spite of the average London commuter cyclist being wealthier than the average London commuter driver, according to a survey somewhere-or-other.
Thats a brilliant insight! Very well put indeed. I have to admit that my main bias against Zoe Williams is probably due to my having only encountered her articles on pregnancy and childbirth... I've reformed my opinion...
You see it's that sort of complete tosh that makes me consider her articles a waste of decent trees. It just reinforces the (incorrect) stereotype that cyclists are lefty commies, which is unhelpful.
Er, what? How does that reinforce a stereotype that cyclists are lefty commies?0 -
The HMRC figure is 40p/mile but this is based on an average AA figure from several years ago (2002) when fuel was 75 pence per litre. It is now upwards of £1.25 per litre. All other motoring costs have also increased. According to the AA now, you need to do over 10 000 business miles per year in the cheapest car to get below 40p. The HMRC has deliberately pegged back this. I am not in the least bit pro-motoring, but I am definitely anti employees subsidising employers business costs (though it is no fault of the employers for freezing the 40p rate).Rolf F wrote:Hmmm, 20p a mile. I rode 10,000 miles last year. Cost me less than £200. I'd only claim 2p a mile on that basis.
20p a mile is almost half what the AA reckons it costs to run a new car including depreciation. If we really think that it costs 20p a mile to ride a bike, we are making an appalling case for the relative costs of the two modes of transport. Can't have it both ways......0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Dudu wrote:"We have an innate British tendency to confuse being wealthy with being upstanding and socially responsible. Car drivers, having cars and paying tax, musi be wealthier than cyclists, ergo, they must be more civically minded, and civilisation has a greater duty to them"
That's in spite of the average London commuter cyclist being wealthier than the average London commuter driver, according to a survey somewhere-or-other.
Thats a brilliant insight! Very well put indeed. I have to admit that my main bias against Zoe Williams is probably due to my having only encountered her articles on pregnancy and childbirth... I've reformed my opinion...
You see it's that sort of complete tosh that makes me consider her articles a waste of decent trees. It just reinforces the (incorrect) stereotype that cyclists are lefty commies, which is unhelpful.
Er, what? How does that reinforce a stereotype that cyclists are lefty commies?
Briefly she appears to be saying that money = cars= "rights" and that be default cyclists are crushed under the weight of all the wealthy car drivers, who are so wealthy, what with all their wealth. So cyclists = poor = crushed by the capitalist dogs. which is, of course, crap.0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Dudu wrote:"We have an innate British tendency to confuse being wealthy with being upstanding and socially responsible. Car drivers, having cars and paying tax, musi be wealthier than cyclists, ergo, they must be more civically minded, and civilisation has a greater duty to them"
That's in spite of the average London commuter cyclist being wealthier than the average London commuter driver, according to a survey somewhere-or-other.
Thats a brilliant insight! Very well put indeed. I have to admit that my main bias against Zoe Williams is probably due to my having only encountered her articles on pregnancy and childbirth... I've reformed my opinion...
You see it's that sort of complete tosh that makes me consider her articles a waste of decent trees. It just reinforces the (incorrect) stereotype that cyclists are lefty commies, which is unhelpful.
Er, what? How does that reinforce a stereotype that cyclists are lefty commies?
Briefly she appears to be saying that money = cars= "rights" and that be default cyclists are crushed under the weight of all the wealthy car drivers, who are so wealthy, what with all their wealth. So cyclists = poor = crushed by the capitalist dogs. which is, of course, crap.
She's not saying that at all.0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Dudu wrote:"We have an innate British tendency to confuse being wealthy with being upstanding and socially responsible. Car drivers, having cars and paying tax, musi be wealthier than cyclists, ergo, they must be more civically minded, and civilisation has a greater duty to them"
That's in spite of the average London commuter cyclist being wealthier than the average London commuter driver, according to a survey somewhere-or-other.
Thats a brilliant insight! Very well put indeed. I have to admit that my main bias against Zoe Williams is probably due to my having only encountered her articles on pregnancy and childbirth... I've reformed my opinion...
You see it's that sort of complete tosh that makes me consider her articles a waste of decent trees. It just reinforces the (incorrect) stereotype that cyclists are lefty commies, which is unhelpful.
Er, what? How does that reinforce a stereotype that cyclists are lefty commies?
Briefly she appears to be saying that money = cars= "rights" and that be default cyclists are crushed under the weight of all the wealthy car drivers, who are so wealthy, what with all their wealth. So cyclists = poor = crushed by the capitalist dogs. which is, of course, crap.
She's not saying that at all. She's speculating that the public perceive cyclists as less wealthy than drivers and that they then go on to draw a conclusion that because they're less wealthy they contribute less to society and it's therefore OK to afford them fewer rights. I reckon she may have a point!0 -
does this mean I should be treated more fairly when I'm riding in full rapha(tm)?Hat + Beard0
-
Just to veer back on track, it appears the expenses weren't for riding for work, but for travelling around his constituency. Seeing as he's an MP for somewhere in Yorkshire, I don't think £4.80 would get him to Westminster
So just as 'valid' as if anyone else had to go out to another site whilst at work.0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:Dudu wrote:"We have an innate British tendency to confuse being wealthy with being upstanding and socially responsible. Car drivers, having cars and paying tax, musi be wealthier than cyclists, ergo, they must be more civically minded, and civilisation has a greater duty to them"
That's in spite of the average London commuter cyclist being wealthier than the average London commuter driver, according to a survey somewhere-or-other.
Thats a brilliant insight! Very well put indeed. I have to admit that my main bias against Zoe Williams is probably due to my having only encountered her articles on pregnancy and childbirth... I've reformed my opinion...
You see it's that sort of complete tosh that makes me consider her articles a waste of decent trees. It just reinforces the (incorrect) stereotype that cyclists are lefty commies, which is unhelpful.
Er, what? How does that reinforce a stereotype that cyclists are lefty commies?
Briefly she appears to be saying that money = cars= "rights" and that be default cyclists are crushed under the weight of all the wealthy car drivers, who are so wealthy, what with all their wealth. So cyclists = poor = crushed by the capitalist dogs. which is, of course, crap.
That really isn't what she's saying at all (and If it were it would be grossly hypocritical).
First she says ""We have an innate British tendency to confuse being wealthy with being upstanding and socially responsible." Something I agree with. Consider the chav, and the "squeezed middle" as props used to inspire enmity or sympathy.
My understanding of what she then says is that many people make the flawed assumption that drivers are more upstanding and socially responsible than cyclists because their car use implies greater wealth. I'd agree with this observation. Its clear from any discussion in which vehicle drivers seek to stereotype cyclists for the purpose of arguing against their rights on the road. Just look at how often "Road Tax" is mentioned in these discussions.
The way I see it she's arguing for sympathy towards people who ride bikes because as fellow human beings they have just as much right to go about their lawful business on their chosen mode of transport as anyone else does. Something I'd have thought you would agree with.
Edit; Capitalism and Socialism don't really come into it...0 -
notsoblue wrote:The way I see it she's arguing for sympathy towards people who ride bikes because as fellow human beings they have just as much right to go about their lawful business on their chosen mode of transport as anyone else does. Something I'd have thought you would agree with.
Damn, now I have to re-read the whole article again.
That's not how I read it, because I do agree with that sentiment.
Generally speaking I don't think it's correct to add any consideration of "wealth" to a cycling/rights argument. Drivers don't go on about "road tax" because they're "considerably richer than you" compared to cyclists. The harp on about it because they think it's unfair that they pay it and we don't. Obviously it's a flacid argument, but I'm not sure it has much to do with relative wealth.0 -
Just to get even more back on track, what is it with the gen public & expenses? My last job had a stipulation that expenses must be claimed, to prevent those that did claim legitmate exes from being stigmatised by doing so presumably.
I've said it before [re Andy Gray, and just as easily to Top Gear's Mexican jape last week] that this country has become a nasty ugly po-faced unpleasant place to be these days, where everyone in the public and not so public eye has to be shineeeee white and whiter than anyone else can be seen to be, because there's a long and lengthening queue of smug self-satisifed people waiting desparately to be offended by something so they can get their ugly stupid opinions and faces in the media and presmaubly make a bit on top, all crowing about about how vile it is that a bloke with a bad haircut thinks all Mexicans have dago moustaches or that MPs who claim trivial amounts of money that are within the rules should be villified.
Where did it all go wrong?0 -
W1 wrote:Drivers don't go on about "road tax" because they're "considerably richer than you" compared to cyclists. The harp on about it because they think it's unfair that they pay it and we don't.
What? You mean like this prat?
My Roads - my ar$e. Who does this bloke think he is? Prat. Reckon I'll show him my pay slip.However, since motorists also pay PAYE, VAT (on the fuel tax!) and all the others, they pay as extra taxes far more than is actually spent on the roads and road-related services, so it is quite valid for motorists to complain. While I'm quite happy to permit cyclists to use my roads... [drones on in simlar vein for 3 more sentences...0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:The way I see it she's arguing for sympathy towards people who ride bikes because as fellow human beings they have just as much right to go about their lawful business on their chosen mode of transport as anyone else does. Something I'd have thought you would agree with.
Damn, now I have to re-read the whole article again.
That's not how I read it, because I do agree with that sentiment.
Generally speaking I don't think it's correct to add any consideration of "wealth" to a cycling/rights argument. Drivers don't go on about "road tax" because they're "considerably richer than you" compared to cyclists. The harp on about it because they think it's unfair that they pay it and we don't. Obviously it's a flacid argument, but I'm not sure it has much to do with relative wealth.
I think its a bit more subtle than you're making it out to be. She refers to an "innate British tendency" to conflate wealth with decency. They harp on about "road tax" because they think it gives them more right to public highways than those citizens who don't have to pay to use them. An opinion which is all kinds of wrong...
Anyway, we seem to be roughly in agreement here so I'll leave it at that.0 -
CiB wrote:W1 wrote:Drivers don't go on about "road tax" because they're "considerably richer than you" compared to cyclists. The harp on about it because they think it's unfair that they pay it and we don't.
What? You mean like this prat?
My Roads - my ar$e. Who does this bloke think he is? Prat. Reckon I'll show him my pay slip.However, since motorists also pay PAYE, VAT (on the fuel tax!) and all the others, they pay as extra taxes far more than is actually spent on the roads and road-related services, so it is quite valid for motorists to complain. While I'm quite happy to permit cyclists to use my roads... [drones on in simlar vein for 3 more sentences...
Didn't someone here have a driver shout "Get a job!" at them?0 -
CiB wrote:W1 wrote:Drivers don't go on about "road tax" because they're "considerably richer than you" compared to cyclists. The harp on about it because they think it's unfair that they pay it and we don't.
What? You mean like this prat?
My Roads - my ar$e. Who does this bloke think he is? Prat. Reckon I'll show him my pay slip.However, since motorists also pay PAYE, VAT (on the fuel tax!) and all the others, they pay as extra taxes far more than is actually spent on the roads and road-related services, so it is quite valid for motorists to complain. While I'm quite happy to permit cyclists to use my roads... [drones on in simlar vein for 3 more sentences...
No, exactly not like that prat. He's saying their "his" roads because he pays more tax for them, not because he's richer. That's the distinction I made above, beautifully illustrated.0 -
CiB wrote:Just to get even more back on track, what is it with the gen public & expenses? My last job had a stipulation that expenses must be claimed, to prevent those that did claim legitmate exes from being stigmatised by doing so presumably.
I've said it before [re Andy Gray, and just as easily to Top Gear's Mexican jape last week] that this country has become a nasty ugly po-faced unpleasant place to be these days, where everyone in the public and not so public eye has to be shineeeee white and whiter than anyone else can be seen to be, because there's a long and lengthening queue of smug self-satisifed people waiting desparately to be offended by something so they can get their ugly stupid opinions and faces in the media and presmaubly make a bit on top, all crowing about about how vile it is that a bloke with a bad haircut thinks all Mexicans have dago moustaches or that MPs who claim trivial amounts of money that are within the rules should be villified.
Where did it all go wrong?
Not the position you took when that bishop made the mistake of having an opinion about the royal wedding(s)“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
W1 wrote:CiB wrote:W1 wrote:Drivers don't go on about "road tax" because they're "considerably richer than you" compared to cyclists. The harp on about it because they think it's unfair that they pay it and we don't.
What? You mean like this prat?
My Roads - my ar$e. Who does this bloke think he is? Prat. Reckon I'll show him my pay slip.However, since motorists also pay PAYE, VAT (on the fuel tax!) and all the others, they pay as extra taxes far more than is actually spent on the roads and road-related services, so it is quite valid for motorists to complain. While I'm quite happy to permit cyclists to use my roads... [drones on in simlar vein for 3 more sentences...
No, exactly not like that prat. He's saying their "his" roads because he pays more tax for them, not because he's richer. That's the distinction I made above, beautifully illustrated.
Yes, but then the driver here suggests that as a driver he pays more PAYE, and therefore earns and contributes more, for no other reason than because he is a motorist.
And who here genuinely doesn't think that at least some people think we ride bikes to work because we can't afford cars. I've read numerous accounts on here of drivers, car passengers and people waiting at bus stops (!!!) shouting "get a car" at cyclists. Cars are seen as better than bikes by pretty much everyone. You ride a bike as a child, then when you're old and rich enough, you buy a car. If you're riding a bike and you're over 21 then you must be a penniless hobo.0 -
[Rant] At least this time they had a quote from someone with at least a tenuous basis for giving an opinion, even if you don't think much of them. What really annoys me is the constant quoting in Metro articles of random tweets by people who have no connection with or relevant background knowledge or experience of what they're reporting on - "so and so tweeted "blah-de-blah!" ", thrown in pointlessly to pad out the article. [end of rant]rjsterry wrote:Surprise, surprise, the F***wits' (sorry, Taxpayers) Alliance are brought in to spout their usual drivel at the first opportunity. Why does anyone think they have any legitimacy to comment on anything? Wouldn't let my cat (if I had one) sh*t on it. Just reconfirms my opinion of 'journalists'.0
