steveblack wrote: » It all makes sense now,a lot of the cycling zealots are not happy in their life and want to make those happy car users suffer just like they do. My advice get a car and get a girlfriend, you only live once, dont be bitter you whole life.
Zebra3 wrote: » Any facts to back that rubbish up with? :rolleyes:
CramCycle wrote: » I am more impressed with the fact that he has narrowed down all cyclists down to bisexuals, lesbians and hetero men. I thought it was for everyone but apparently not.
Zebra3 wrote: » Many a public road can not cope with huge volumes of motorists. Roads bumper to bumper, nobody moving for ages. All the while these stationery vehicles pump out killer emissions. Any thoughts on that? :rolleyes:
steveblack wrote: » The electronic cyclist counters around dublin would tell you the numbers are well down when it rains.
Iwannahurl wrote: » Fair weather cyclists. Weather stations around the country tell us that the probability of rain during any one hour is lower than many people (and some cyclists) might think.
Cookie_Monster wrote: » why, they are separate expenses.
John_C wrote: » If you count the loan repayments along with the depreciation then your counting the cost of buying the car twice. I just had a look at the AA site and they only include the interest on the loan but not the capital payments so that seems OK.
No Pants wrote: » Purchase is a capital expense, depreciation is a running cost. Both would be included in TCO.
cython wrote: » By both, you presumably mean any interest on the purchase and the depreciation? As otherwise I fail to see how the capital expense is a running cost since it, less the depreciation, can be recovered by selling the asset (car) at the end of it.
No Pants wrote: » Your calculations are sound. However, the total cost of ownership includes all the costs associated with the item, whatever it is, in this case a car. You're right that the asset value may be partially recovered later, but until that time, the spend remains a cost.
cython wrote: » e.g. IT equipment
cython wrote: » overstating the cost of car ownership is in nobody's interest
Cookie_Monster wrote: » by finance I assumed you were referring to the interest cost, not the capital cost of the repayments.
Iwannahurl wrote: » Perhaps. We have one car, which might be regarded as a bog-standard "family saloon". If I had a second car on stand-by for those occasions when the 'main' vehicle was not available, at the very minimum it would cost, say, €400 for Motor Tax and €300 for insurance every year. Obviously that would be a recurring expense on top of the original purchase price. Currently we have bikes and a trailer which cost well in excess of €700. However, the key difference is that the cycle equipment requires negligible expenditure every year, and also provides 'benefit in kind' that a car simply can't deliver. Assuming that the car and the bikes are generally used for the same purposes, the net outcome is that the car continues to cost money to run or even just own while depreciating in value, while the bikes pay for themselves over and over in terms of cost savings and other benefits such as providing physical exercise.
monument wrote: » I'm seeing an increasing amount of "shared use" in street and road redesign projects across Ireland -- it now seems to be the default for new designs and redesigns to mix people on foot and those on bicycles. This is regardless of the fact that many people dislike mixing the two modes of transport. There has also been a national move in places to copy Dublin's mistake of just reclassing footpaths as shared use path. There are some places where mixing the two can work, ie short sections of side streets where speeds are low. But it seems to have become the default without any debate. It's really seems like a compromise too far -- the two don't mix well, and many cyclists (legally) keep to the road. Why can't we follow the examples in Denmark or the Netherlands, rather than following the failed design of shared use? Does anybody care that the Department of Transport, the NTA and councils are legalising cycling on footpaths via the back door?
Spook_ie wrote: » Did we not have this already?http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057122132
Spook_ie wrote: » Why should we stop sharing between pedestrians and cyclists, there are obvious parallels between allowing shared use of roads by cyclists and heavier traffic, but for some reason cyclists, in general, seem content to allow that situation when it suits them.
monument wrote: » This time it's staying on topic. To be clear: This is not a general discussion thread, this is a thread about stopping shared use being used. -- moderator
Spook_ie wrote: » Why should we stop sharing between pedestrians and cyclists, there are obvious parallels between allowing shared use of roads by cyclists and heavier traffic, but for some reason cyclists, in general, seem content to allow that situation when it suits them. Is it, yet again, a case of some cyclists wanting something. So everyone should concede to their point of view?
Subpopulus wrote: » Because it's dangerous, obviously. It encourages relatively fast moving bikes into areas with slow moving pedestrians, placing them into conflict. It endangers both pedestrians and cyclists. Cyclists can't travel as fast on shared surfaces so they have to slow down and be constantly alert, reducing the efficacy of cycling as a mode of transport and making it less appealing. It also blurs the line between pavement cycling being illegal and it being legal. There is little parallel with cyclists sharing road space with motorised vehicles. This, like sharing road space with pedestrians, puts cyclists into conflict with vehicles, endangering the lives of the cyclists. Most cyclists, if asked whether they would rather travel in a segregated lane, or amongst moving traffic, would opt for the former. This isn't a case of cyclists picking and choosing - in an ideal world all, cycling infrastructure would be separated from both pedestrians and motorised vehicles.
Spook_ie wrote: » It's only dangerous if you aren't paying attention or cycling too fast for the conditions, just like non segregated motorised traffic not paying attenion or driving at inappriate speeds. It is interesting though that you immediately jump on the "dangerous" bandwagon when in many other threads some cyclists view themselves as not dangerous to pedestrians because of their lower mass especially any that involve RLJing or cycling through pedestrian crossings?
Subpopulus wrote: » I'm not condoning breaking red lights, nor does the fact that others do affect the argument that shared use is dangerous. The argument that shared use is dangerous is only part of it though. The main irritation in it for me is that it forces you to cycle very slowly in places, weaving around pedestrians, slowing to walking pace a lot of the time. There's no suggestion of which side you pass someone on, so as you approach a pedestrian you have to 'bargain' with them as to who moves to which side. I was coming up behind a pedestrian on the Lee Fields walk recently - I rang my bell to warn him as going around him to the right - he immediately jumped to the right (into my path) to let me through on the left. No accident came from it but it gives an idea of the conflict that shared use entails, even if you travel slowly and considerately.
TheQuietFella wrote: » I would argue that cyclists shouldn't be on motorways, dual carriageways & on some streets in Dublin City Centre
