Public transport and cyclists helping to clean up London's air.

Fewer cars in the Big Smoke leads to less pollution.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...y-2306486.html

One fascinating item was that the report included drivers' commuting
times.

"Londoners have the longest commutes at just under 36 minutes on
average and a distance of 5.41km,"

Average speed - 5.5 mph

"but rush-hour journeys in Wales are much quicker, 22 minutes,
although not much shorter at 5.07km."

Average speed - 8.4 mph

"The East Midlands claims the longest average journey distance
(7.01km) but at an impressive journey time of only 25 minutes. Do they
just drive really fast?"

Er, not really. Average speed - 10.3 mph

A cyclist would beat the lot of 'em and I thought Cheerless said that
he could drive around at an average speed of 60 mph.
Maybe he lives on a different planet.

--
Simon Mason

On 04/07/2011 18:44, Simon Mason wrote:
Fewer cars in the Big Smoke leads to less pollution.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...y-2306486.html

One fascinating item was that the report included drivers' commuting
times.

"Londoners have the longest commutes at just under 36 minutes on
average and a distance of 5.41km,"

Average speed - 5.5 mph

"but rush-hour journeys in Wales are much quicker, 22 minutes,
although not much shorter at 5.07km."

Average speed - 8.4 mph

"The East Midlands claims the longest average journey distance
(7.01km) but at an impressive journey time of only 25 minutes. Do they
just drive really fast?"

Er, not really. Average speed - 10.3 mph

A cyclist would beat the lot of 'em and I thought Cheerless said that
he could drive around at an average speed of 60 mph.
Maybe he lives on a different planet.

Didn't he actually say that he had no trouble averaging 60 on the M2?

Simon Mason wrote:
Fewer cars in the Big Smoke leads to less pollution.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...y-2306486.html

One fascinating item was that the report included drivers' commuting
times.

"Londoners have the longest commutes at just under 36 minutes on
average and a distance of 5.41km,"

Average speed - 5.5 mph

"but rush-hour journeys in Wales are much quicker, 22 minutes,
although not much shorter at 5.07km."

Average speed - 8.4 mph

"The East Midlands claims the longest average journey distance
(7.01km) but at an impressive journey time of only 25 minutes. Do they
just drive really fast?"

Er, not really. Average speed - 10.3 mph

A cyclist would beat the lot of 'em and I thought Cheerless said that
he could drive around at an average speed of 60 mph.
Maybe he lives on a different planet.

I said, very clearly that it would be quite feasible to average 60 on a nsl
dual carriageway.

Simon, you really are making yourself look even more stupid than usual.

Mrcheerful

On 04/07/2011 20:50, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

Bicycles have a place, but commuting over significant distances probably
isn't one of them.

They *can* be, but it's on the outer fringes of possibility.

I do a 40-mile each-way commute for an 80-mile day, which also includes
the local test-piece climb each way, but I don't do it every day.

I try to do it twice a week, which keeps me reasonable on-form.

It does require me to get up at 05:30 on a cycling day. ( Yes, the
*other* 5:30 for the sluggards... )

I need to plan it so that I have fresh clothes etc at the far end, and I
don't need to transport anything bulky or heavy that day.

Some days, I will drive the first 10 flat miles to shorten the day to 30
each way. Particularly if I'm a bit short of time.

So it is do-able, but it depends on your dedication and circumstances.
Obviously, it's not going to work if you need to drag along a vahn full
of tools and copies of the Sun.

--
Ron

On 04/07/2011 20:50, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

A cyclist would beat the lot of 'em and I thought Cheerless said that
he could drive around at an average speed of 60 mph.
Maybe he lives on a different planet.

I said, very clearly that it would be quite feasible to average 60 on a
nsl dual carriageway.

And you would presumably have other benefits like aircon and a comfy seat, a
stereo and a travel mug of coffee to waft you on your way? Not to mention
a roof for rainy days, and the absence of a sweaty niff during your working
day.

Simon, you really are making yourself look even more stupid than usual.

Bicycles have a place, but commuting over significant distances probably
isn't one of them. I use ours to nip to the village shop or ride in the
woods on a weekend, and they're great for that sort of thing.

The weird thing is that almost no-one posting here has ever denied that.

But there are others who insist that you can use a bike for all everyday
transport for general purposes (sometimes they relent and "admit" that a
trailer might be necessary). And some have been known to argue that the
majority should be prevented from driving and forced to either cycle or use
the bus.

On 04/07/2011 21:06, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2011 20:50, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

A cyclist would beat the lot of 'em and I thought Cheerless said that
he could drive around at an average speed of 60 mph.
Maybe he lives on a different planet.

I said, very clearly that it would be quite feasible to average 60 on a
nsl dual carriageway.

And you would presumably have other benefits like aircon and a comfy
seat, a
stereo and a travel mug of coffee to waft you on your way? Not to mention
a roof for rainy days, and the absence of a sweaty niff during your
working
day.

Simon, you really are making yourself look even more stupid than usual.

Bicycles have a place, but commuting over significant distances probably
isn't one of them. I use ours to nip to the village shop or ride in the
woods on a weekend, and they're great for that sort of thing.

The weird thing is that almost no-one posting here has ever denied that.

But there are others who insist that you can use a bike for all everyday
transport for general purposes (sometimes they relent and "admit" that a
trailer might be necessary). And some have been known to argue that the
majority should be prevented from driving and forced to either cycle or
use the bus.

In the latest census 6.7m households (out of 24.4m) have no car or van.
There is a significant proportion of the population that manage without
one because they have to and a smaller number of us who do so because we
choose to.
And we can.

--
Roger Thorpe

On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 21:06:32 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2011 20:50, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

Bicycles have a place, but commuting over significant distances probably
isn't one of them. I use ours to nip to the village shop or ride in the
woods on a weekend, and they're great for that sort of thing.

The weird thing is that almost no-one posting here has ever denied that.

Almost no-one isn't no-one. That statement, sometimes in a stronger more
hysterical form, has been made a significant number of times. And not
just by one person either.

Also most people do not commute a significant distance.

--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

On Mon, 4 Jul 2011 20:16:24 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

Simon Mason wrote:
Fewer cars in the Big Smoke leads to less pollution.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...y-2306486.html

One fascinating item was that the report included drivers' commuting
times.

"Londoners have the longest commutes at just under 36 minutes on
average and a distance of 5.41km,"

Average speed - 5.5 mph

"but rush-hour journeys in Wales are much quicker, 22 minutes,
although not much shorter at 5.07km."

Average speed - 8.4 mph

"The East Midlands claims the longest average journey distance
(7.01km) but at an impressive journey time of only 25 minutes. Do they
just drive really fast?"

Er, not really. Average speed - 10.3 mph

A cyclist would beat the lot of 'em and I thought Cheerless said that
he could drive around at an average speed of 60 mph.
Maybe he lives on a different planet.

I said, very clearly that it would be quite feasible to average 60 on a nsl
dual carriageway.

Carefull. You'll soon have the Halfwit Moanyman and Nugent complaining
that point to point on a NSL dual carriageway is an unrealistic
commute. You should start and end at least 5 seconds from one.

Simon, you really are making yourself look even more stupid than usual.

Mrcheerful

On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 21:06:32 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

On 04/07/2011 20:50, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

A cyclist would beat the lot of 'em and I thought Cheerless said that
he could drive around at an average speed of 60 mph.
Maybe he lives on a different planet.

I said, very clearly that it would be quite feasible to average 60 on a
nsl dual carriageway.

And you would presumably have other benefits like aircon and a comfy seat, a
stereo and a travel mug of coffee to waft you on your way? Not to mention
a roof for rainy days, and the absence of a sweaty niff during your working
day.

Simon, you really are making yourself look even more stupid than usual.

Bicycles have a place, but commuting over significant distances probably
isn't one of them. I use ours to nip to the village shop or ride in the
woods on a weekend, and they're great for that sort of thing.

The weird thing is that almost no-one posting here has ever denied that.

The Halfwit being a notable exception.

But there are others who insist that you can use a bike for all everyday
transport for general purposes (sometimes they relent and "admit" that a
trailer might be necessary). And some have been known to argue that the
majority should be prevented from driving and forced to either cycle or use
the bus.

On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 21:27:31 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

On 04/07/2011 21:06, JNugent wrote:
On 04/07/2011 20:50, Zapp Brannigan wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

A cyclist would beat the lot of 'em and I thought Cheerless said that
he could drive around at an average speed of 60 mph.
Maybe he lives on a different planet.

I said, very clearly that it would be quite feasible to average 60 on a
nsl dual carriageway.

And you would presumably have other benefits like aircon and a comfy
seat, a
stereo and a travel mug of coffee to waft you on your way? Not to mention
a roof for rainy days, and the absence of a sweaty niff during your
working
day.

Simon, you really are making yourself look even more stupid than usual.

Bicycles have a place, but commuting over significant distances probably
isn't one of them. I use ours to nip to the village shop or ride in the
woods on a weekend, and they're great for that sort of thing.

The weird thing is that almost no-one posting here has ever denied that.

But there are others who insist that you can use a bike for all everyday
transport for general purposes (sometimes they relent and "admit" that a
trailer might be necessary). And some have been known to argue that the
majority should be prevented from driving and forced to either cycle or
use the bus.

In the latest census 6.7m households (out of 24.4m) have no car or van.
There is a significant proportion of the population that manage without
one because they have to and a smaller number of us who do so because we
choose to.
And we can.

I have a feeling that in London only a minority of households have a
car - though I could well be wrong. Perhaps just a minority of adults
have a car.