Another commuting win for the bicycle

Even on a quiet Saturday morning in a small town.

QUOTE:
"THEY came by bike, they came by car, others took the bus and some even
walked to find out who would be fastest.Winchester Action on Climate Change
asked volunteers to try several forms of transport into the city to see
which was quickest. Cyclists came home first as the contestants set out from
Oliver's Battery, Abbotts Barton, Harestock and Winnall. Motorists came
second as the challenge took place on a Saturday morning when traffic was
relatively light . The final place on the podium went to the bus passengers
while Winacc's foot soldiers brought up the rear."
On average the cyclists took 10 minutes, the drivers 13, the bus passengers
21, and 26 for the pedestrians.

http://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/..._Winches ter/


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:27:35 +0100, "Simon Mason"
wrote:

Even on a quiet Saturday morning in a small town.

Or on a busy Thursday morning to get to Watford Business Park - by
car, 25 mins, by pushbike 1 hr 5 mins.

To Hemel Industrial estate by bike 31 minutes, by car 9 minutes.

To Bourne End industrial estate, by bike, 35 mins, by car 10 mins.

All times door to door including parking but do not include the time
taken to chain and padlock the bike so it stands a chance of still
being there when you want to go home.

Chose your route and participants and you can get any result you want.
When an "Action on climate change" group already campaigning to close
car parks asks for volunteers from amongst its members for this
"challenge" it isn't too difficult to guess what the result is going
to be is it?

Peter Parry wrote:

Chose your route and participants and you can get any result you want.

I think there's quite a few full-on petrol heads
who would find it surprising that a bike can *ever*
beat a car, regardless of (carefully chosen) circumstances.

BugBear

On Aug 25, 3:01*pm, bugbear wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
Chose your route and participants and you can get any result you want.

I think there's quite a few full-on petrol heads
who would find it surprising that a bike can *ever*
beat a car, regardless of (carefully chosen) circumstances.

If you can choose the circumstances, you can get the result you want.
If I were to commute to WInchester, car would be the only option, as
it's 45 minute drive, so who knows how many hours by bike. Bus and/or
train would be non-starters (route too tortuous).

Conclusion from that: none of any note.

On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:01:57 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

I think there's quite a few full-on petrol heads
who would find it surprising that a bike can *ever*
beat a car, regardless of (carefully chosen) circumstances.

The trick with these "challenges" is to find a shortish route and a
finishing point as far as possible from a car park. The "challenge"
includes parking the car and walking to the finishing line. The
cyclist simply pedals up to the finishing point. They don't have to
secure their bike or find somewhere to leave it.

The bus passenger starts their timing when they get on the bus, not
when they get to the bus stop so there is no time penalty for buses
running late or having to get to the stop early because they are
unpredictable.

If you made it door to desk so included the time it takes the cyclist
to dismantle and lock up their bike, have a shower,change into the
clothes they work in etc the results would usually be somewhat
different, but that isn't the aim of the exercise.

bugbear wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:

Chose your route and participants and you can get any result you
want.

I think there's quite a few full-on petrol heads
who would find it surprising that a bike can *ever*
beat a car, regardless of (carefully chosen) circumstances.

BugBear

I did a run the other day from Southampon: 131 miles in 2 hrs exactly, I
would love to see a bicyclist do that.
I also did a return journey of 28 miles into London (Greenwich) and back in
50 minutes, again there is no way a cycle can compete with that.

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
...
bugbear wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:

Chose your route and participants and you can get any result you
want.

I think there's quite a few full-on petrol heads
who would find it surprising that a bike can *ever*
beat a car, regardless of (carefully chosen) circumstances.

BugBear

I did a run the other day from Southampon: 131 miles in 2 hrs exactly,

Christ, you must have been knackered!

But I do agree that the organisers with a vested interest probably spend
weeks making sure that whatever route(s) and starting times they choose, are
always going to give the bikes an unfair advantage.

Personally I detest sitting in traffic but if it's cold, windy and ****ing
down, it's still preferable to cycling.

On Aug 25, 3:01*pm, bugbear wrote:
Peter Parry wrote:
Chose your route and participants and you can get any result you want.

I think there's quite a few full-on petrol heads
who would find it surprising that a bike can *ever*
beat a car, regardless of (carefully chosen) circumstances.

* BugBear

That's right - they even won on the Top Gear challenge.

--
Simon Mason

On 25/08/2011 12:27, Simon Mason wrote:

Even on a quiet Saturday morning in a small town.

QUOTE:
"THEY came by bike, they came by car, others took the bus and some even
walked to find out who would be fastest.Winchester Action on Climate Change
asked volunteers to try several forms of transport into the city to see which
was quickest. Cyclists came home first as the contestants set out from
Oliver's Battery, Abbotts Barton, Harestock and Winnall. Motorists came
second as the challenge took place on a Saturday morning when traffic was
relatively light . The final place on the podium went to the bus passengers
while Winacc's foot soldiers brought up the rear."
On average the cyclists took 10 minutes, the drivers 13, the bus passengers
21, and 26 for the pedestrians.

http://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/..._Winches ter/

IOW, the usual nonsense from "Winchester Action on Climate Change" -
undoubtedly one of the usual suspects.

A car *is* faster than a bicycle on an unobstructed route.

*If* traffic was "light" (and the routes therefore unobstructed) and *if* a
bike was faster than a car, then something must have been happening to slow
down cars but not slow down bikes.

There are no other explanations possible, unless Winchester cyclists are all
from Krypton.

On 25/08/2011 15:01, bugbear wrote:

Peter Parry wrote:

Chose your route and participants and you can get any result you want.

I think there's quite a few full-on petrol heads
who would find it surprising that a bike can *ever*
beat a car, regardless of (carefully chosen) circumstances.

It is very clear that given the right level of rigging, a bike certainly can
"beat" a car. All that needs to be done is to obstruct the route with
maliciously-phased traffic lights and"bus lanes" and to ensure that
car-parking is sufficiently awkward to get to and sufficiently far from the
destination that a significant amount of time has to be added on foot. These
circumstances are familiar to many people.

The easiest way to get a fair contest is to make sure that it is long enough
to represent reality (eg, a commuting distance of 10 miles or more, other
than in London) and that it starts and ends in realistic locations (ie, a
credible residential location and a credible workplace, nwither of which are
typically railways stations or bus termini).