Shopping by Bike - volunteers required

Headhuunter

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Southgate wrote:

For example, if you increased VED to, say, £10,000 a year, London's roads would be nearly empty of cars

Would you do that for taxis and minicabs, as well? Do you think the volume of commercial delivery vehicles and buses might just edge upwards?

And from where do you replace the tax take on petrol, new car sales, VAT on servicing, etc...?

Buses are far more efficient transporters of people than cars. The number of single occupants driving across London is astounding, this should be heavily cut back. Again, commercial delivery vehicles are more efficient transporters, so if everyone who currently drives half a mile to Sainsbury's to pick up 2 bags of shopping decided to shop online, there would be an overall benefit

Southgate

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Ooookay. Nutters are out today.

Insulting people isn't an argument.

You rely purely on assertion, backed by ridicule. Cars, you say, do not impinge on the well-being of others and do not kill people. This is a ridiculous statement. You could argue that the negatives are a price worth paying, but to assert that car use is consequence-free is absurd, especially as I gave you several examples.

As for your example of you using your car to buy a TV, you are misrepresenting my position and creating a 'straw man'. I made it very clear that "at its most basic, an unnecessary car journey is a trip of a mile or less to the local shop to buy a pint of milk."

greg66_tri_v2.0

Southgate wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Ooookay. Nutters are out today.

Insulting people isn't an argument.

You rely purely on assertion, backed by ridicule. Cars, you say, do not impinge on the well-being of others and do not kill people. This is a ridiculous statement. You could argue that the negatives are a price worth paying, but to assert that car use is consequence-free is absurd, especially as I gave you several examples.

As for your example of you using your car to buy a TV, you are misrepresenting my position and creating a 'straw man'. I made it very clear that "at its most basic, an unnecessary car journey is a trip of a mile or less to the local shop to buy a pint of milk."

That quote wasn't part of the argument. It was an opening observation.

Re-read the thread. You came up with some genuinely lunatic ideas that deserved nothing better than ridicule. If you can't see that, too bad.

And the TV comment wasn't directed at you, so I wasn't misrepresenting anything you said. The idea that you can on a practical level engineer and/or tax out of existence a small sub-set of car journeys ("Design the roads and the taxation system so that driving to the local shop is as difficult and expensive as possible") is at best naive and at worst plain stupid.

Southgate

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Southgate wrote:

For example, if you increased VED to, say, £10,000 a year, London's roads would be nearly empty of cars

Would you do that for taxis and minicabs, as well? Do you think the volume of commercial delivery vehicles and buses might just edge upwards?

And from where do you replace the tax take on petrol, new car sales, VAT on servicing, etc...?

You have spectacularly missed the point! I am not proposing an increase in VED to £10,000. I am merely using it as an example to illustrate that choices about whether to drive, cycle, walk or take the bus etc, do not exist in a vacuum. They are heavily influenced by factors such as road design and taxation. And, as a matter of fact rather than opinion, people's choices have outcomes which affect everyone, e.g. congestion, pollution, RTAs, obesity.

We can design roads and taxation and town planning to encourage people to choose cars, or to choose alternative means of transport. The cycle to work scheme is a good example of using a tax break to encourage people to cycle. Granting planning permission for an out-of-town supermarket off a duel carriageway encourages people to drive.

You can agree or disagree with any of these specifics. That isn't the point. The point is that people's choices are not abstract (as you appear to believe), but are influenced by public and social policy.

So given that personal choice, whether you like it or not, is influenced by public policy, the question is this:

Should we encourage people to use their cars for unnecessary short local journeys, e.g. to buy a pint of milk, or should we encourage them to use alternative means of transport, such cycling or walking?

Agent57

My wife drives from our house to ASDA, which annoys me because I reckon it's not good for the car (via the roads it's about 1km) and uses fuel wastefully. Fair enough if she's doing a "big shop", but when it's just for a loaf of bread... I walk, usually.

I don't think people realise that doing short trips by bike can end up faster (as well as cheaper) than driving; especially during high volume traffic periods. Used to take my wife longer to drive 2 miles into town for work than it took me to cycle 5 miles, via the same town centre.

mr_ribble

TGOTB wrote:

I have yet to come up with a convenient way of carrying an entire frameset...

Have you tried adding some wheels and riding it?

Southgate

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

The idea that you can on a practical level engineer and/or tax out of existence a small sub-set of car journeys ("Design the roads and the taxation system so that driving to the local shop is as difficult and expensive as possible") is at best naive and at worst plain stupid.

Naive. Stupid. Again, you fail to make an argument in support of your assertions. Name -calling isn't an argument.

It's perfectly possible to make driving to the local shops more unattractive than walking or cycling. You could for example give cyclists right-of-way, reduce road space for cars, increase the width of cycle lanes and pavements, introduce one-way systems, no-entry points, pedestrianised zones, no parking within a 200 yard radius of the shops, increase parking charges, provide secure cycle parking right outside the shops.

In short, you could make it a huge hassle to drive to the local shops, and a pleasure to walk or cycle. It's about town planning and road design. Please explain what you think is "naive" about designing and planning things to reduce car use for local journeys. And then please explain what is "plain stupid" about it.

gavinjw

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

gavinjw wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

gavinjw wrote:

Currently, less than 1% of shopping trips are by bike.

Do you really not think that that might just be because for something close to 99% pf shopping trips, a bike is not a practical option? Just possibly?

Answer me this. In your published report, how many of your 76 or so participants had families? And of the 29 who signed up and then didn't participate, how many had families?

Er, not really to do with practicality. In Denmark, policies favour more vulnerable road users, as a consequnce modal share is about a quarter, ditto Netherlands. Both these countries have obesity levels considerably lower than the UKs. Coincidence, maybe, but probbly not

Which came first: the volume of bike use, or the protective policies. I guess the former. I think it's a bit of a stretch to link obesity levels to short distance cycling with no evidence, no?

Anyway, what are the answers to the questions about family members in the participating sample?

I don't have the demographic profiling data for those that didn't participate, sorry. However, there is an undeniable correlation between countries with lower obesity levels and higher levels of cycling. There is also evidence to suggest that every mile cycled saves society money, whilst every mile driven costs society money - again a win/win.

I realise you're not going to take part in the project, and you sound like you're probably the sort of person who isn't convinced of any of the social good that cycling can bring.

http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/facts-abo ... g-history/ favourable policies can help create a cycling culture, I really hope we see this kind of revolution in the UK. Don't you?

mr_ribble

gavinjw wrote:

I really hope we see this kind of revolution in the UK. Don't you?

I have the same ambition for male denim hotpant wearing as well. It looks good, it's great for the environment and it makes you fitter.

Southgate

Mr_Ribble wrote:

gavinjw wrote:

I really hope we see this kind of revolution in the UK. Don't you?

I have the same ambition for male denim hotpant wearing as well. It looks good, it's great for the environment and it makes you fitter.

We have a guy like you in my cycling club. I worked really hard to be fitter than him so now he gets to sit on my wheel and stare at MY arse!

gavinjw

Mr_Ribble wrote:

gavinjw wrote:

I really hope we see this kind of revolution in the UK. Don't you?

I have the same ambition for male denim hotpant wearing as well. It looks good, it's great for the environment and it makes you fitter.

If you want me to put a word in at the EU for funding I can do?

Big_Paul

roger merriman wrote:

Clearly load carrying bikes can carry but equally their size and weight limit their use.

Dunno, I've found myself using the Ute for practically everything, I've even had it through the local forests, I know of another chap who uses a Bakfiets as his daily transport, the only thing they can't do is go fast or be carried up stairs. I tend to do my shopping in big loads, 64 litres of cat litter, 40 litres of soft drinks etc. For the cat litter I have to go to a shop that would take about £10 of a taxi fare to get back from. I had a car for years but getting anywhere in Belfast is a disaster in rush hour. It was costing me £500 a year to sit outside the door going nowhere.

I would say that a journey of a mile for picking up a couple of kg's of stuff in a car is pretty unnecessary, if you're physically able to. I've seen cars still on the fast idle after a mile, if anything it's not good for the car.

Southgate

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Southgate wrote:

Well, if Group B are doing something which negatively impacts on Groups A, C, D, E, F etc (in this case damaging the environment, congesting the roads, killing and injuring people, and burdening our NHS with obesity-related diseases) then it's reasonable that they be asked to modify their behavior, or be compelled to do so through taxation and legislation.

Well, Group B isn't, in this instance, otherwise the Government would have made short car journeys illegal or fiscally punitive. However, they haven't and won't (because they're not eco-nutjobs), so we can safely conclude that this is a misconceived argument.

So the proof that cars don't damage the environment, cause congestion, kill and injure people, and contribute to obesity is...

...the Government hasn't made short car journeys illegal! :roll: :roll:

On your... cough... logic... the proof that smoking 40 Marlboro a day is harmless is that the Government hasn't banned tobacco! No doubt drinking two bottles of vodka is good for you because the local council gives the corner shop a licence. And eating a dozen Big Macs a day must be really good for your health cos Obama hasn't banged up Ronald McDonald in Guantanamo. No. Seriously.

Exhaust fumes, traffic jams, RTAs, fat drivers... yep, we can all "safely conclude" that these things don't in fact exist and are in fact some sort of collective hallucination created by "eco-nutjobs".

Talking of nut-jobs, why don't you put your theories to the test? Do not walk or cycle anywhere for 12 months, then stick your now very fat gob over the exhaust pipe, inhale deeply for a few minutes, then drive into the back of a traffic jam at 40mph, whilst screaming: "Doing nothing makes you slim! Pollution is good for you! There is no congestion! Cars don't kill!"

greg66_tri_v2.0

Southgate wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

The idea that you can on a practical level engineer and/or tax out of existence a small sub-set of car journeys ("Design the roads and the taxation system so that driving to the local shop is as difficult and expensive as possible") is at best naive and at worst plain stupid.

Naive. Stupid. Again, you fail to make an argument in support of your assertions. Name -calling isn't an argument.

It's perfectly possible to make driving to the local shops more unattractive than walking or cycling. You could for example give cyclists right-of-way, reduce road space for cars, increase the width of cycle lanes and pavements, introduce one-way systems, no-entry points, pedestrianised zones, no parking within a 200 yard radius of the shops, increase parking charges, provide secure cycle parking right outside the shops.

In short, you could make it a huge hassle to drive to the local shops, and a pleasure to walk or cycle. It's about town planning and road design. Please explain what you think is "naive" about designing and planning things to reduce car use for local journeys. And then please explain what is "plain stupid" about it.

Focus on the words in bold. Think about what your proposition is.

Now look at your solution in italics.

Now answer this: How do your proposals allow the driving shopper who isn't local to drive to the shops?

Yeah. Doesn't really work, does it?

You also managed by a side wind to knock out a goodly amount of practical road use for buses, taxis and emergency vehicles around the shops. And best of all, you've managed to royally p!ss off the shopkeepers, who really, really, like shoppers leaving their shops with something larger than a full carrier bag.

So, you counter with CCTV, numberplate recognition that links to the DVLA database of addresses of registered keepers, and smart parking spaces that allow parking for the chosen few out of towners.

At which point, the locals decide that they will do their shopping 5 miles away, where they can be out of towners. So you haven't solved any problems. You've just moved them around.

Your ideas, and the means to implement them, are naive because you're so fixated on bashing drivers that you've overlooked the fact that you'll kill off the businesses. They're stupid because they're myopic and unworkable. Had you thought them through, you'd've realised that.

greg66_tri_v2.0

gavinjw wrote:

you sound like you're probably the sort of person who isn't convinced of any of the social good that cycling can bring.

You could not be more wrong. But I don't see any merit in "stick" policies. They breed resentment and don't give you true converts. If yon want to change behaviour, the better way to do it is with carrots. Help people to see that cycling is an enjoyable activity per se, and just maybe their cycling will spill over into other parts of their life. Associate it with a chore (eg shopping) and the loss of a choice and you've done cycling absolutely no favours.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Southgate wrote:

On your... cough... logic... the proof that smoking 40 Marlboro a day is harmless is that the Government hasn't banned tobacco!

Why do you think the Government hasn't banned tobacco, exactly?

Southgate wrote:

your very fat gob

Yeah. Thought it wouldn't be long before you resorted to name calling. The pious ones always do sooner or later.

Southgate

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Southgate wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

The idea that you can on a practical level engineer and/or tax out of existence a small sub-set of car journeys ("Design the roads and the taxation system so that driving to the local shop is as difficult and expensive as possible") is at best naive and at worst plain stupid.

Naive. Stupid. Again, you fail to make an argument in support of your assertions. Name -calling isn't an argument.

It's perfectly possible to make driving to the local shops more unattractive than walking or cycling. You could for example give cyclists right-of-way, reduce road space for cars, increase the width of cycle lanes and pavements, introduce one-way systems, no-entry points, pedestrianised zones, no parking within a 200 yard radius of the shops, increase parking charges, provide secure cycle parking right outside the shops.

In short, you could make it a huge hassle to drive to the local shops, and a pleasure to walk or cycle. It's about town planning and road design. Please explain what you think is "naive" about designing and planning things to reduce car use for local journeys. And then please explain what is "plain stupid" about it.

Focus on the words in bold. Think about what your proposition is.

Now look at your solution in italics.

Now answer this: How do your proposals allow the driving shopper who isn't local to drive to the shops?

Yeah. Doesn't really work, does it?

You also managed by a side wind to knock out a goodly amount of practical road use for buses, taxis and emergency vehicles around the shops. And best of all, you've managed to royally p!ss off the shopkeepers, who really, really, like shoppers leaving their shops with something larger than a full carrier bag.

So, you counter with CCTV, numberplate recognition that links to the DVLA database of addresses of registered keepers, and smart parking spaces that allow parking for the chosen few out of towners.

At which point, the locals decide that they will do their shopping 5 miles away, where they can be out of towners. So you haven't solved any problems. You've just moved them around.

Your ideas, and the means to implement them, are naive because you're so fixated on bashing drivers that you've overlooked the fact that you'll kill off the businesses. They're stupid because they're myopic and unworkable. Had you thought them through, you'd've realised that.

Local shops and high streets are being killed off by the proliferation of out-of-town shopping centres and the internet, not by bus, cycle and pedestrian-centred policies. In fact, to survive as anything other than run-down outlets for booze, gambling and kebabs, high streets need to re-invent themselves as centres of the local community. That means putting the human being back in the frame, changing the way most people travel to and from the high street, and making them pleasant public places to visit for all kinds of reasons, not only to shop.

Cycle and ped-friendly towns and cities are already a reality in many parts of the world, including in Cambridge and a few other parts of the UK. In fact, their packed shops and vibrant street culture is directly connected to the relative absence of cars.

The fat guy who can't be persuaded to walk or cycle the half mile to the local shop will doubtless choose to sit in his barely moving car for an extra five minutes while he contemplates buying his fags. I'm suggesting that we shouldn't build social policy around such slovenly and self-centred individuals, especially given the damage caused by their unnecessary use of the private car.

greg66_tri_v2.0

You can't kill off the town centre shops and expect people to retake the high street. What's on the high street to draw them? Starbucks, Costa and Cafe Nero? We have pleasant public places to visit. Called parks.

And there's a massive difference between cycle and ped-friendly towns, and what you're proposing (as I am sure you realise, even if you don't admit it).

If you come up with a viable way to implement your proposal to produce an effective ban on short car journeys to the local shops, be sure to post it (although I sense that you've quietly decided to give that one up). No Government or council will ever implement it though, so there's really not much point continuing this debate. Nor, for that matter, am I persuaded that any Government will build a policy around the idea of reducing private car use to its bare minimum. It's a vote loser and a revenue loser.

jds_1981

Headhuunter wrote:

Buses are far more efficient transporters of people than cars.

Surely depends on how you measure efficient?
For instance, where I went to college (not in London), it would take abot 15 mins to walk to the bus stop, then half an hour on the bus. with 5 mins leeway for the bus that was 50 mins each way.
AA route planner puts it at 20 mins drive. It wasn't a busy route so think max 30 mins. Car would save you 40 mins/day. Much more efficient?

In reality it was much worse than this, my time keeping was really crap, so I tended to just miss the bus on and so have to wait half an hour for the next one.

Southgate

Greg66

Cycle and ped-friendly towns have absolutely taken measures to reduce local use of the car, for example pedestrianisation of roads, wide cycle paths taking up road space, one way streets etc. Those towns became cycle-friendly by design and by re-allocating priorities and resources. It didn't happen by accident, and the BMA states that simply "encouraging" people to cycle is ineffective. And the proof that it can be done whilst invigorating the local high street, not destroying it, is all around you, if you care to look.

Further, no-one is "bashing drivers" in general or trying to ban cars. There is a place for the private car, alongside buses, taxis, bikes and walking. What the car should not be, is a protected species to be privileged above other more environmentally and socially beneficial means of transport, especially as far as short journeys are concerned and where nothing bulky is being transported. Many people already wish to take up cycling but are put off by the perceived dangers and lack of cycling infrastructure. Much of that cycling infrastructure will inevitably come at the expense of road space previously dominated by cars, and by redesigning road priorities. You appear to think that's a bad thing.

We have an obesity crisis which is costing the NHS billions. We need to reduce carbon emissions. RTAs need to be reduced. This won't happen overnight and change will necessarily be phased in, given the costs, complexity and sheer scale of the task. The BMA has conducted two exhaustive reports (in 1997 and again last year) which make the economic as well as the public health and social case for curbing car use.

Your solution is to do nothing cos, as you put it, cars don't cause congestion, kill or injure people, or pollute the environment. I guess you must be a Daily Mail reader - long on opinion, short on facts.

Southgate

Greg66

The cycle and ped-friendly city of Cambridge proves my point:

Received wisdom tells us a critical mass of cycling creates a cycling culture, and here [in Cambridge] this seems to be the case. All around there is evidence of this, from the many cycle lanes to the large numbers of bike racks in workplaces and shopping areas; from the roads permitting buses and bicycles only, to the many one-way streets which are two-way for bicycles. And of course its careful drivers. Hills Bridge Road near the station, for example, is used by 4,000-5,000 cyclists a day, and recently priority was given to cyclists, pedestrians and buses as a result.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... cling-city
(The fact this was published in the Guardian is irrelevant. The facts are the facts)

roger_merriman

jds_1981 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Buses are far more efficient transporters of people than cars.

Surely depends on how you measure efficient?
For instance, where I went to college (not in London), it would take abot 15 mins to walk to the bus stop, then half an hour on the bus. with 5 mins leeway for the bus that was 50 mins each way.
AA route planner puts it at 20 mins drive. It wasn't a busy route so think max 30 mins. Car would save you 40 mins/day. Much more efficient?

In reality it was much worse than this, my time keeping was really crap, so I tended to just miss the bus on and so have to wait half an hour for the next one.

Around these parts, edge of London the bus is the poor relation in that, with out space for long bus lanes etc, train/bike/car are in almost all cases faster, even though rush hour.

Headhuunter

roger merriman wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Buses are far more efficient transporters of people than cars.

Surely depends on how you measure efficient?
For instance, where I went to college (not in London), it would take abot 15 mins to walk to the bus stop, then half an hour on the bus. with 5 mins leeway for the bus that was 50 mins each way.
AA route planner puts it at 20 mins drive. It wasn't a busy route so think max 30 mins. Car would save you 40 mins/day. Much more efficient?

In reality it was much worse than this, my time keeping was really crap, so I tended to just miss the bus on and so have to wait half an hour for the next one.

Around these parts, edge of London the bus is the poor relation in that, with out space for long bus lanes etc, train/bike/car are in almost all cases faster, even though rush hour.

By efficient I meant efficient in terms of fuel consumption and city pollution, even road surface damage. With 20+ people on a single bus rather than 20+ people driving 10-20 cars there are clear benefits. Speed wise certainly buses are slow but in Central London they're probably not that much slower than cars...

roger_merriman

Headhuunter wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Buses are far more efficient transporters of people than cars.

Surely depends on how you measure efficient?
For instance, where I went to college (not in London), it would take abot 15 mins to walk to the bus stop, then half an hour on the bus. with 5 mins leeway for the bus that was 50 mins each way.
AA route planner puts it at 20 mins drive. It wasn't a busy route so think max 30 mins. Car would save you 40 mins/day. Much more efficient?

In reality it was much worse than this, my time keeping was really crap, so I tended to just miss the bus on and so have to wait half an hour for the next one.

Around these parts, edge of London the bus is the poor relation in that, with out space for long bus lanes etc, train/bike/car are in almost all cases faster, even though rush hour.

By efficient I meant efficient in terms of fuel consumption and city pollution, even road surface damage. With 20+ people on a single bus rather than 20+ people driving 10-20 cars there are clear benefits. Speed wise certainly buses are slow but in Central London they're probably not that much slower than cars...

They probably do have better MPG but due to quiet times its not as good as you might first think, cars etc are a lot cleaner buses are dirty beasts, they also create some conjestion by being really too big for some of the roads.

They also being heavy will cause much more damage, being 10 tons or there abouts. Cars will wear the surface out but they will not smear the road like buses/lorries or damage services under the road etc.

davmaggs

For all of the heated debate, how people travel will in the end come down to practically Vs economics. There's some habits/behaviour patterns in there no doubt, but the wallet wins in the end once a certain price point is hit.

For example; petrol sales fell as prices rose too high (last year I think), as did distances travelled so it wasn't down to better vehicles. I doubt many gave up their cars entirely, but instead they probably dropped a few pointless journies or planned them a little better.

Councils indirectly have proven this wallet theory. By killing parking and/or resorting to revenue wheezes like fines in town centres they made people vote with their wallets and go out of town. When councils bring in parking promotions then people return.

So, my plan would be to make cycling a really nice option to use. Every time a new road layout or re-paving of the shopping areas are done then factor this in and grab the chance to gradually build in the infrastructure. But let people come to using them without the sticks. London cycle commuting is booming and I don't think there's any evidence to show that a single central initiative made it happen. Economics, fashion, and the rise of outdoor sports probably drove uptake more than any campaigner ever did.

Headhuunter

roger merriman wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Buses are far more efficient transporters of people than cars.

Surely depends on how you measure efficient?
For instance, where I went to college (not in London), it would take abot 15 mins to walk to the bus stop, then half an hour on the bus. with 5 mins leeway for the bus that was 50 mins each way.
AA route planner puts it at 20 mins drive. It wasn't a busy route so think max 30 mins. Car would save you 40 mins/day. Much more efficient?

In reality it was much worse than this, my time keeping was really crap, so I tended to just miss the bus on and so have to wait half an hour for the next one.

Around these parts, edge of London the bus is the poor relation in that, with out space for long bus lanes etc, train/bike/car are in almost all cases faster, even though rush hour.

By efficient I meant efficient in terms of fuel consumption and city pollution, even road surface damage. With 20+ people on a single bus rather than 20+ people driving 10-20 cars there are clear benefits. Speed wise certainly buses are slow but in Central London they're probably not that much slower than cars...

They probably do have better MPG but due to quiet times its not as good as you might first think, cars etc are a lot cleaner buses are dirty beasts, they also create some conjestion by being really too big for some of the roads.

They also being heavy will cause much more damage, being 10 tons or there abouts. Cars will wear the surface out but they will not smear the road like buses/lorries or damage services under the road etc.

I find it highly doubtful that 1 bus creates more pollution than 10-20 cars although I take your point that the type of pollution (PM10 count etc) may be worse, I dunno. Also in terms of congestion - 1 bus is far better than 10-20 cars no matter which way you slice it.

roger_merriman

Headhuunter wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

jds_1981 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Buses are far more efficient transporters of people than cars.

Surely depends on how you measure efficient?
For instance, where I went to college (not in London), it would take abot 15 mins to walk to the bus stop, then half an hour on the bus. with 5 mins leeway for the bus that was 50 mins each way.
AA route planner puts it at 20 mins drive. It wasn't a busy route so think max 30 mins. Car would save you 40 mins/day. Much more efficient?

In reality it was much worse than this, my time keeping was really crap, so I tended to just miss the bus on and so have to wait half an hour for the next one.

Around these parts, edge of London the bus is the poor relation in that, with out space for long bus lanes etc, train/bike/car are in almost all cases faster, even though rush hour.

By efficient I meant efficient in terms of fuel consumption and city pollution, even road surface damage. With 20+ people on a single bus rather than 20+ people driving 10-20 cars there are clear benefits. Speed wise certainly buses are slow but in Central London they're probably not that much slower than cars...

They probably do have better MPG but due to quiet times its not as good as you might first think, cars etc are a lot cleaner buses are dirty beasts, they also create some conjestion by being really too big for some of the roads.

They also being heavy will cause much more damage, being 10 tons or there abouts. Cars will wear the surface out but they will not smear the road like buses/lorries or damage services under the road etc.

I find it highly doubtful that 1 bus creates more pollution than 10-20 cars although I take your point that the type of pollution (PM10 count etc) may be worse, I dunno. Also in terms of congestion - 1 bus is far better than 10-20 cars no matter which way you slice it.

On narrower roads when the bus stops the rest of the traffic stops, and plenty of the old village centers buses all pulling in or waiting to do so, on days when there is less buses the traffic flow more freely the amount of cars is within reason not a problem.

Clearly buses are useful services ( I use them for work from time to time ) they also clearly do have a impact both good and bad.

asprilla

I'm actually looking at getting a Bakfiets for the school run and shopping. I'll get pedelec to keep the Mrs happy but my biggest issues are;

1) A Bakfiets is huge, too big for any current secure parking.
2) will it still be there when I come out of the shop

meanredspider

Southgate wrote:

Greg66

The cycle and ped-friendly city of Cambridge proves my point:

Received wisdom tells us a critical mass of cycling creates a cycling culture, and here [in Cambridge] this seems to be the case. All around there is evidence of this, from the many cycle lanes to the large numbers of bike racks in workplaces and shopping areas; from the roads permitting buses and bicycles only, to the many one-way streets which are two-way for bicycles. And of course its careful drivers. Hills Bridge Road near the station, for example, is used by 4,000-5,000 cyclists a day, and recently priority was given to cyclists, pedestrians and buses as a result.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... cling-city
(The fact this was published in the Guardian is irrelevant. The facts are the facts)

Bizarrely, I think Cambridge has got LESS cycle-friendly over the years. I lived their from the age of 5. At the age of 9 or 10 I used to cycle to the local baker's to collect 3 loaves on a Saturday morning in my panniers. The baker is no longer there and I'd probably need to cycle up the A14 (my squashed childish body would at least be close to the crematorium) to the Tesco mega-store at Bar Hill.

Bike crime seems (at least) far worse.

Pedestrianisation of the city centre means that peds stopped looking for cars and just step out in front of bikes (especially on the one-way/two-way streets). The proliferation of buses sharing space with bikes is a nightmare.

And so on.

Yes - it's popular with bikes (it's flat and it's full of students both university (2) and foreign language) but it's far from pleasant...

meanredspider

On the main topic, living in the Highlands means I either go to the small local shop (or send my son ) or it's a 25-mile round trip to one of the 75 Tescos (OK about 7 but it feels like 75) we have up here. No-one in their right mind is going to do a weekly shop over that distance on a bike or (the non-existent) public transport. In fact, the delivery service makes most "sense" as at least you are "sharing" the vehicle miles with others.