Eccentric, Moi?

Today as usual I cycled to work. In the evening I went to a retiral
function which was being held about 5 miles from the house.
Having considered the options of
1 going in the car and not drinking.
2 going by bus. Involving a 5 min walk followed by a 10 to 40 minute
wait folowed by a 20 minute bus ride, followed by a 10 min walk - total
45 - 75 mintues travel
3 going by train - 20 min walk to station - 20 min train ride, and 15
minute walk or
4 a leisurely cycle 25 minutes

No contest. But eccentric enough for numerous comments from the cagers.
All the comments were friendly enough but they just don't get it.

Iain

I am doing something similar next Tuesday

The annual Christmas diabetic holier happens to fall on St Nicholas' day --
(I go to the boring monthly meetings to help maintain my dietary efforts and
keep me alive!)
Anyway it is about a 1/2 hr gentle ride (7 miles ish) on the velo along
"death alley" (the A630 into Doncaster) at a quiet time. To go by bus it
would take me at least an hour with a change + a walk. Train is just
impossible - walk - train - walk - wait - bus.
Best of all I shall leave home when all the motorists have cleared the
"rush hour" mauling and return before the chucking out time driver is on
the road (Drink officer -- Not ever -- just help me to stand up - syndrome).

It will also mean that I shall be able to have 2 glasses of a decent claret
( or even house wine) and a cognac after without making myself incapable of
cycling home.

As an aside -- it is quite odd ( funny peculiar) that most people at these
diabetic meetings are all hugely overweight --- as was I, 4 years ago --
and do nothing about it. But dieting is immensely difficult on a long term
basis - I ran a 3 year strict system to get down form 123kg to 90 kg and
now I vary from 80 to 90 kg depending on my cycling season ( down from
spring/summer - increasing in autumn/winter).
BUT it is all about "quality of life" -- one has to enjoy being alive.
I enjoy cycling on my long annual camping tours but most of my daily
"training" runs are a necessary chore - lightened by the odd pleasant
happening -- but so often darkened by crass motorists

I have rambled on too much -- as I often do -- but cycling by night is
frequently safer than cycling by day ( illuminated and reflected in
abundance).

In the end it is quicker, cheaper and ( amazingly) safer on my velo! ( it is
a velocepanther)

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply
wrote in message
oups.com...
Today as usual I cycled to work. In the evening I went to a retiral
function which was being held about 5 miles from the house.
Having considered the options of
1 going in the car and not drinking.
2 going by bus. Involving a 5 min walk followed by a 10 to 40 minute
wait folowed by a 20 minute bus ride, followed by a 10 min walk - total
45 - 75 mintues travel
3 going by train - 20 min walk to station - 20 min train ride, and 15
minute walk or
4 a leisurely cycle 25 minutes

No contest. But eccentric enough for numerous comments from the cagers.
All the comments were friendly enough but they just don't get it.

Iain

"Pinky" wrote in message
.uk...

As an aside -- it is quite odd ( funny peculiar) that most people at these
diabetic meetings are all hugely overweight --- as was I, 4 years ago --
and do nothing about it.

I could mention at this point the diabetic nurse's reaction when doing my
exit interview (or whatever it was) after being diagnosed I said I'd be
cycling 4 miles to work and 6 miles back - 'Can't you make it a bit
shorter?' (ans = 'No, I wouldn't make it home').

Since I have subsequently managed a daily 10.75 mile each way cycle commute,
this suggests their concerns were misplaced.

cheers,
clive

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Pinky" wrote in message
.uk...

As an aside -- it is quite odd ( funny peculiar) that most people at
these diabetic meetings are all hugely overweight --- as was I, 4 years
ago -- and do nothing about it.

I could mention at this point the diabetic nurse's reaction when doing my
exit interview (or whatever it was) after being diagnosed I said I'd be
cycling 4 miles to work and 6 miles back - 'Can't you make it a bit
shorter?' (ans = 'No, I wouldn't make it home').

Since I have subsequently managed a daily 10.75 mile each way cycle
commute, this suggests their concerns were misplaced.

cheers,
clive



--


Spot on!
I try to do 20 miles every day ( but fail miserably in winter --- I don't
mind cycling in the cold and wet --- but I don't like starting in those
conditions!)

Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply

wrote:

Today as usual I cycled to work. In the evening I went to a retiral
function which was being held about 5 miles from the house.
Having considered the options of
1 going in the car and not drinking.
2 going by bus. Involving a 5 min walk followed by a 10 to 40 minute
wait folowed by a 20 minute bus ride, followed by a 10 min walk - total
45 - 75 mintues travel
3 going by train - 20 min walk to station - 20 min train ride, and 15
minute walk or
4 a leisurely cycle 25 minutes

Cycling after drinking makes you feel as if you're going faster - or is
that just the dark?

BTW, being *drunk* when cycling is an offence but, as a cyclist, you can
legally refuse a breath test, leaving the officers free to devise
amusing ways to test your sobriety.

Zog The Undeniable wrote:


BTW, being *drunk* when cycling is an offence but, as a cyclist, you can
legally refuse a breath test, leaving the officers free to devise
amusing ways to test your sobriety.

Yep, like making things *very* inconvenient.

It happened to me last year when I was knocked off on a roundabout by a
white van turning left across my path.
The attending police asked me to take a test, saying it was policy in
Hampshire to test *all* road users after a collision.
If I didn't comply I would need to accompany him to the nearest open police
station - 15 miles away, where I may have quite a wait before being attended
to.

As I wanted my tea and was only 300 yards from home, I reluctantly agreed
:-(

John B

John B wrote:

The attending police asked me to take a test, saying it was policy in
Hampshire to test *all* road users after a collision.
If I didn't comply I would need to accompany him to the nearest open police
station - 15 miles away, where I may have quite a wait before being attended
to.

As I wanted my tea and was only 300 yards from home, I reluctantly agreed


It might be policy to test all drivers but there is no provision in law
to test cylists with a breath test. The breath test was introduced
along with the seperate offence of driving or attempting to drive a
motor vehicle whilst the alchol in the drivers breath, blood or urine
exceeded a set limit.
This was I believe due to the fact that prosecuting drunk drivers
was difficult as it relied on the subjective opinions of the arresting
officers and a medical examination at the station which might take
place hours after the person was arrested.
No set alcohol limit exists for cyclist so there is no power to
breath test them. The thinking might have been that drunk cyclist are
a danger mainly to themselves while drunk drivers kill mainly other
people.
Unless the attending police had reason to believe you were unfit
to cycle through alcohol - ie smelling of alcohol and unsteady on your
feet they would hve no power to take you to a police station.
Sounds like somebody has either misunderstood a policy or the
policy was badly written by somebody who thought all road users were
drivers.
Iain

" wrote:

John B wrote:

The attending police asked me to take a test, saying it was policy in
Hampshire to test *all* road users after a collision.
If I didn't comply I would need to accompany him to the nearest open police
station - 15 miles away, where I may have quite a wait before being attended
to.

As I wanted my tea and was only 300 yards from home, I reluctantly agreed

It might be policy to test all drivers but there is no provision in law
to test cylists with a breath test.

I am very aware of that, but once I pointed that out to the PC I was on sticky
ground as questioning him seemed to wind him up and make him more determined :-(

Unless the attending police had reason to believe you were unfit
to cycle through alcohol - ie smelling of alcohol and unsteady on your
feet they would hve no power to take you to a police station.

Maybe, but I'm sure an overzealous PC trying to look macho would try to conjure
up a reason.
In judging the situation at the time, and with my tea on the table just down the
road, I went for the non-confrontational approach and decided to comply.
Another time I might not and might call their bluff.

Sounds like somebody has either misunderstood a policy or the
policy was badly written by somebody who thought all road users were
drivers

I actually agree with breath-testing cyclists, and see no real problem with it.
Whilst I would support its introduction I do strongly object to the police
imposing such a policy without it being incorporated into the law.
It just strengthens the perception that the police take the law into their own
hands.

The police are not the law-makers, simply the enforcers.

What will be next?

John B

in message , John B
') wrote:



Zog The Undeniable wrote:


BTW, being *drunk* when cycling is an offence but, as a cyclist, you
can legally refuse a breath test, leaving the officers free to devise
amusing ways to test your sobriety.

Yep, like making things *very* inconvenient.

It happened to me last year when I was knocked off on a roundabout by a
white van turning left across my path.
The attending police asked me to take a test, saying it was policy in
Hampshire to test *all* road users after a collision.

Frankly, this seems reasonable to me, and I wish my local police force
had a similar policy. Your judgement is just as impaired by alcohol
whether you are on a bike or in a car, and although you may be less
likely to kill others, causing an accident in which you are the only
fatality is nevertheless not very considerate to the driver involved.
And there's always the possibility that a driver, swerving to miss you,
may kill others.

Cycling under the influence seems to me just as morally indefensible as
driving under the influence.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002

Simon Brooke wrote:

in message , John B
') wrote:

It happened to me last year when I was knocked off on a roundabout by a
white van turning left across my path.
The attending police asked me to take a test, saying it was policy in
Hampshire to test *all* road users after a collision.

Frankly, this seems reasonable to me, and I wish my local police force
had a similar policy. Your judgement is just as impaired by alcohol
whether you are on a bike or in a car, and although you may be less
likely to kill others, causing an accident in which you are the only
fatality is nevertheless not very considerate to the driver involved.
And there's always the possibility that a driver, swerving to miss you,
may kill others.

Cycling under the influence seems to me just as morally indefensible as
driving under the influence.

I agree entirely and would fully support the introduction of compulsory
testing in *all* road collisions where a vehicle is involved.

What I do object to is the introduction of such measures without the back up
of the law.
For the police to be able to make up 'laws' as they go along, without going
through parliament is dangerous for society.

John B