# Can Scotland copy the Netherlands?



## Brandane (7 Feb 2013)

Thread title is the headline of this BBC article.

Personally, I think they are kidding themselves on. There are several differences between Scotland and the Netherlands which make cycling a different proposition IMHO. Firstly, and most importantly is the weather. I live in the west of Scotland and for about 11 months of the year it rains, usually with high winds thrown in. When it's not wet and windy, it's icy (and no way are they going to grit cycle paths; they don't even bother with non bus routes currently).

Then there is the culture, or lack of it. Try riding on any cycle path in the Glasgow area just now, and see how far you get before coming across the dreaded smashed bottle. They are everywhere. On top of these 2 factors, we have hills, and lots of them compared to the Netherlands.

The way things are just now, there are few cyclists in Scotland. You have to be reasonably hardcore to want to do it, as most on here will be. But as far as being a viable method of transport for the masses? Forget it, and don't waste our money on half-cocked facilities please. It will take a miracle to get your average Scot on a bike. Public transport is far more appealing; failing that a car, or even walking. Anyway, I enjoy having the current sparse facilities pretty much to myself!


----------



## Scoosh (7 Feb 2013)

Magnatom makes the headlines again ! 

I think you will find -:
- the Netherlands get more cold and ice than Ayrshire - think ice skating on the canals ! 
- they also get winds just as strong - think windsurfing



> Then there is the culture, or lack of it.


That is exactly the point ! Both Denmark (Copenhagen) and the Netherlands made a policy decision to change the culture of the mode of transport from cars, buses etc to cycling many years ago - in the 1960's I think.

They put money into the cycling infrastructure and the result - thus far - is what we now see. They are not finished yet, either, as the the report of the new bridge shows.

The point that the Scottish cycling campaigners are trying to get across is that it needs consistent increased investment in the cycling infrastructure, including separation of car/bus and cycle lanes in many cases, proper secure cycleparks and all the rest, before the culture and mindset will change.


Various Councils across Scotland want to increase the rates of cycling, (one could say, slightly cynically, just to improve their Green credentials ) so they give grants and encourage Cycling Proficiency courses in primary schools. All well and good - until the children want to cycle to school, at which point there is resistance from parents and friends ("It's too dangerous") and there are few, if any, secure places to leave their bikes at school.

Many surveys have been carried out asking people if they would like to cycle more. Frequently, responses are along the lines of : "Yes but I don't feel safe cycling on the roads". When the roads become safer for cycling - which requires (considerably improved) driver training/awareness/courtesy, proper cycling infrastructure as well as possible changes to the law - then there will be many more people cycling, which increases the awareness etc, cycling becomes main-stream, the nations's health improves, NHS costs go down ......

It might seem to be 'cloud cuckoo land' at the moment - but it was probably exactly the same in Denmark (Copenhagen) and the Netherlands all those years ago !


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Feb 2013)

It's easily sorted. Just elect a government that is prepared to spend €30 per head of population on cycling year-in-and-year-out for a period of about 30 years and you'll be sorted.

Good luck with finding a party prepared to put that in their manifesto.


----------



## Scoosh (7 Feb 2013)

Vote Magnatom, HJ _et al_ ...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Feb 2013)

Scoosh said:


> It might seem to be 'cloud cuckoo land' at the moment - but it was probably exactly the same in Denmark and the Netherlands all those years ago !


Scoosh, don't get Copenhagen mixed up with Denmark and don't confuse Copenhagen's (declining) modal share with that of the Dutch.


----------



## Scoosh (7 Feb 2013)

Tks - post amended.


----------



## Brandane (7 Feb 2013)

Scoosh said:


> They put money into the cycling infrastructure and the result - thus far - is what we now see. They are not finished yet, either, as the the report of the new bridge shows.
> 
> The point that the Scottish cycling campaigners are trying to get across is that it needs consistent increased investment in the cycling infrastructure, including separation of car/bus and cycle lanes in many cases, proper secure cycleparks and all the rest, before the culture and mindset will change.
> 
> ...


 
Maybe I am a little cynical, but with good cause! Jeez; our wonderful leaders aren't even capable of doing a proper job on the Edinburgh tram project, which is now a laughing stock. Do you really trust them to be able to find the funds, and then properly use them, to come up with a good and fit for purpose cycle network across Scotland (i.e. of the same standard as that found in the Netherlands)? Not a chance. How long have we been waiting for the completion of NCN74 between Hamilton and Douglas? My year 2000 "Sustrans Scotland" book says "The other routes..........will be coming along later and will be completed by 2005". Eight years late, so far, and it seems to have been conveniently forgotten about. And that is/should be the main route to the south and England!!

It is all smoke and mirrors in an attempt, as you say, to be seen to be green.


----------



## HLaB (7 Feb 2013)

Weather/ terrain etc is just an excuse, red herron IMO; many countries across Europe are colder and hillier (perhaps not wetter ) and yet have a higher mode share than Scotland (This is quite a good tool to compare EU cities), unfortunately those that do (like Holland, Switerland, Sweden, etc) have different laws and culture. I've seen some horrible examples of Farcilities across Europe in countries where the modal split is high, orbital cycle lane and cycle paths crossing at the mouth of roads, etc but they work because the laws & cultures are different. So by building Farcilities alone no IMO Scotland cant copy the Netherlands, MEP's need to look at the wider picture changing laws and culture.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (7 Feb 2013)

As HLab says!
Even if lots of money gets invested in cycling facilities, what's the use if you cannot cycle in a deserted town on a Sunday 7am without getting shouted at by drivers - cyclist scared of traffic will still stay scared, cars will not accept us, merely see us as pests on the road that should be segregated.
Lots of people will not take up cycling because of that.
There are loads of cycle lanes in Glasgow already: no use as often full of parked cars.
Cycle paths are strewn with broken glass.
Unless this hypothetical new network of facilities will be maintained (how? not even the roads are!) better forget it, spend the money on something else.
There are excellent cycling facilities, in fact a cycling ring road, from the west end of Glasgow leading to Dumbarton, encompassing several villages. Not a piece of broken glass to be seen after Clydebank.
But it is mostly unlit, no doubt at this time of the year slippery with icy patches.
Bet the local commuters don't use it much in winter, rather take their chances on the roads.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (8 Feb 2013)

Would welcome any change towards safer roads and more cyclists. For the change to occur there would need to be a massive shift in attitude which will likely take decades, not years. 

Sooner the better then.........
​


----------



## Poacher (8 Feb 2013)

Cheaper, easier and more effective than creating new farcilities would be the introduction of presumed liability legislation - and what do you think are the chances of that happening?


----------



## Dayvo (8 Feb 2013)

And there was me thinking this was about football (maybe even rugby! ).

The problem in Britain, as we all know, is the attitude of motorists towards cyclists. Unlike the continent, we are considered to be a hinderance and obstacle to the always-in-a-hurry driver. And any political party that prioritises investment in cyling-safe towns and cities before major roads linking towns (now with regard to Scotland) won't last long due to the 'motoring public' outrage.

I doubt if we in Britain will ever have the same cycling culture as the continent: we're just too bloody British. 

Good to see/read about Mags, too. All expenses paid trip to Amsterdam; can't be bad.


----------



## Scoosh (8 Feb 2013)

Poacher said:


> Cheaper, easier and more effective than creating new farcilities would be the introduction of presumed liability legislation - and what do you think are the chances of that happening?


In the current motorist/cycling climate - remote. However, given some time and the will, allied with the sea-change in attitudes and facilities, it could happen (though I doubt I'll live to see it ).

It must be remembered that neither Amsterdam/Netherlands nor Copenhagen/Denmark went from being anti- to neutral- bike places to the paragons of cycling pleasure we now envy, overnight. It took years for them to get there and the will of the politicians, financial controllers, which led to public recognition of the benefits, to make the changes.


----------



## Scoosh (8 Feb 2013)

Dayvo said:


> Good to see/read about Mags, too. All expenses paid trip to Amsterdam; can't be bad.


See _and_ hear Mags in his new role as BBC Scotland's roving cycling expert and follow the 'debate' here. (7.20 - 16.45)

Pity the CTC guy was in a different studio, clearly nervous, defensive, not very convincing and the smug, smooth-tongued,skilled motoring journalist ate him for his late-night snack.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Feb 2013)

Poacher said:


> Cheaper, easier and more effective than creating new farcilities would be the introduction of presumed liability legislation - and what do you think are the chances of that happening?


When was that legislation introduced in the Netherlands?


----------



## Rasmus (8 Feb 2013)

Some perspective from someone who lived and cycled in Copenhagen for 10 years:

Environment: Denmark is just as wet and windy as Scotland. Copenhagen bicycle commuters have no issues with the weather. Hills can be overcome with suitable gearing.

Attitude: The difference is not as great as you might think. The Danish motoring lobby is the same as the plonker on Newsnight yesterday, and you see the exact same vitriol spouted on newspaper website comments etc. The "hardcore" motorists are irrelevant, as they will never cycle anyway. The persons that need to be convinced are the ones who have no great feelings about mode of transport, apart from convenience and safety, and with commutes of about 5 miles or less. How to convince them: Make cycling convenient, and safe!

Legislation: I don't think it's that big a deal. Noone I have ever encountered in Denmark has ever cited legislation regarding bike/car collisions as a reason to ride the bike. The reason: Collisions are so much less infrequent, and perceived safety so much greater, that it simply is not an issue. While we (rightly) complain that the courts are too lenient on poor drivers in this country, I don't think change in this area would make much of a difference in driving people from cars onto bikes.

Infrastructure: This is the clincher. In Glasgow (I believe conditions are similar elsewhere) we have a number of cycle "routes" (colleges cycle route, clydeside path, East Kilbride route, Commonwealth games route, etc). Even if these were of impeccable quality (they're not), it would still be insufficient infrastructure, as there is no overall plan for integration. Cycle infrastructure only works if it is (near)-ubiquitous, taking people from their house to work/school/shops along a direct route of their choice, without being forced into detours on cycleroutes designed for travel from one end to the other. Achieving this is a big ask of national and local government, but there is no inherent reason it couldn't be done.

If (that's a big if) investment happens, and we get high quality, properly designed cycling infrastructure in Scotland, cyclists like us ("road-warriors", used to battling motor traffic) will also have the responsibility of actually using it. This _will_ mean that speed needs to be decreased. You're closer to pedestrians and hopefully a whole bunch of slower moving cyclists, and you will need to stop multiple times if making turns at big/complex junctions. This is the price we must be willing to pay if cycling is to become mainstream.


----------



## Scoosh (8 Feb 2013)

Excellent, Rasmus - thank you


----------



## Poacher (8 Feb 2013)

GregCollins said:


> When was that legislation introduced in the Netherlands?


 
According to David Hembrow, the Netherlands have had strict liability, rather than presumed liability, since the '90s:
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/01/campaign-for-sustainable-safety-not.html
although his description (to my shame, I have no command of Dutch, and haven't followed his links) sounds more to me like presumed liability.


----------



## snorri (8 Feb 2013)

Scoosh said:


> and the smug, smooth-tongued,skilled motoring journalist ate him for his late-night snack.


Alan Douglas, for it was he, is really just tedious, no more able to argue effectively than the pub bore. In the past he has claimed to be a cyclist himself, and attempted to put the cyclist point of view on a programme in which he had been wheeled in as a transport expert because he happens to be a motoring journalist. However it soon became clear his 'knowledge' was very limited and he relied on imagination more than experience.


----------



## dellzeqq (8 Feb 2013)

it's not going to happen. Cycling in Glasgow is a breeze, and people don't do it. Scottish cities are utterly disfigured by traffic, and nobody gives a monkeys. The Scots are wedded to their cars. The further north you go, the worse it gets. Inverness reeks of exhaust smoke. It's astounding that people hide in tin boxes when the country is so beautiful, but there you have it.

And the rhetoric is just window dressing on a huge road-building programme.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Feb 2013)

Rasmus said:


> Some perspective from someone who lived and cycled in Copenhagen for 10 years:
> 
> Environment: Denmark is just as wet and windy as Scotland. Copenhagen bicycle commuters have no issues with the weather. Hills can be overcome with suitable gearing.
> 
> ...


Copenhagen's modal share is in decline. How come?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Feb 2013)

Poacher said:


> According to David Hembrow, the Netherlands have had strict liability, rather than presumed liability, since the '90s:
> http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2012/01/campaign-for-sustainable-safety-not.html
> although his description (to my shame, I have no command of Dutch, and haven't followed his links) sounds more to me like presumed liability.


So given they had high modal share before the law was introduced can it have been the law that made the difference?


----------



## Rasmus (9 Feb 2013)

GregCollins said:


> Copenhagen's modal share is in decline. How come?


Do you have a source for this? The most recent numbers I could find are from 2010 (link - in Danish), and the decrease (from 37% in 2008 to 35%) is attributed to the strong winter in 2010. I also suspect that the introduction of free bicycle carriage on the s-train network has contributed, as combined train/bike commuters are counted as public transport in the statistics.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (9 Feb 2013)

dellzeqq said:


> it's not going to happen. Cycling in Glasgow is a breeze, and people don't do it.


Most of my non cycling female friends won't consider it, their main concern is fear of traffic.
They would like to after seeing me loose weight since starting cycling, but they are scared of getting run over. They are also concerned about the safety of cycling after dark: cycle paths are mostly unlit here.
Of my cycling female friends, some are off the road a lot because of mechanicals: lbs are expensive, some areas do not have any - obviously, as there are not many cyclists.
Self taught know how takes time and effort - as I've discovered myself, hardly read any books in the last year for tinkering with bikes!
Others stop cycling in winter: they can't afford proper gear or do not know what to get/never heard of marathon winters, or are simply not that hardy.
Other reasons for not commuting by bike are: no safe place to leave the bike, no facilities for changing/showering.


----------



## Poacher (10 Feb 2013)

GregCollins said:


> So given they had high modal share before the law was introduced can it have been the law that made the difference?


 
OK, Greg, point taken. My first post was a bit of a throwaway line, as is my wont. Maybe I should delete the "more effective" bit, but leave the "cheaper and easier". Either way, it's not likely to happen, considering the hysterical outbursts in e.g. the Daily Wail last time it was tentatively suggested, but likelier than the commitment of serious amounts of cash for genuinely useful cycling facilities - it just ain't going to happen in this country.


----------



## Rasmus (12 Feb 2013)

User said:


> It has been done.
> 
> They're called roads.


Dedicated cycling infrastructure is not for you, or me, or most people on this forum. We are both able and willing to share urban roads with motor traffic.

It is about children, the elderly, and people like Pat's friends. Even in a world where all motorists behaved perfectly, these people still would not be comfortable on the road. If we want to increase cycling in the general population, high quality segregated infrastructure is the only option.


----------



## Richard Mann (12 Feb 2013)

Rasmus said:


> Dedicated cycling infrastructure is not for you, or me, or most people on this forum. We are both able and willing to share urban roads with motor traffic.
> 
> It is about children, the elderly, and people like Pat's friends. Even in a world where all motorists behaved perfectly, these people still would not be comfortable on the road. If we want to increase cycling in the general population, high quality segregated infrastructure is the only option.


 
There's a big group between the assertives and that avoiders that can use the roads perfectly fine, *if the roads are tamed*. As many do in Oxford. Your assertion does not hold water.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Feb 2013)

Rasmus said:


> Dedicated cycling infrastructure is not for you, or me, or most people on this forum. We are both able and willing to share urban roads with motor traffic.
> 
> It is about children, the elderly, and people like Pat's friends. Even in a world where all motorists behaved perfectly, these people still would not be comfortable on the road. If we want to increase cycling in the general population, high quality segregated infrastructure is the only option.


Part of the solution.

You're not seriously postulating that, in a world where motor traffic speed and volumes were restricted to the levels of, say, the first decade, or the first quarter, or first 40 - 50 years, of the 20th Century, these folk wouldn't be comfortable on the roads, surely?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Feb 2013)

User said:


> It has been done.
> 
> They're called roads.


Whether we like it or not the vast majority of folk in the UK are convinced you need to be brave, bold or bonkers to cycle on our roads. 

Until they are convinced that is not the case, or find, say, public transport distasteful, or perceived to be risk laden (see bomb dodgers passim), and private motoring too expensive and impractical/difficult, the existing-roads-only argument, with current speed and volume of motor traffic, is as pointless as the traffic-free-only argument.


----------



## snorri (12 Feb 2013)

Can there be no middle ground on this segregation issue?
I don't want or believe segregation makes economic sense or would encourage cycling in my local town.
I do want segregation, on a well designed and maintained path, from a 70mph dual carriageway carrying a high volume of traffic and which is the only practical route on part of a journey I make fairly frequently.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Feb 2013)

snorri said:


> Can there be no middle ground on this segregation issue?
> I don't want or believe segregation makes economic sense or would encourage cycling in my local town.
> I do want segregation, on a well designed and maintained path, from a 70mph dual carriageway carrying a high volume of traffic and which is the only practical route on part of a journey I make fairly frequently.


In spirit I'm with you. In practise it is all about priorities, and the choices people make.


----------



## HLaB (12 Feb 2013)

snorri said:


> Can there be no middle ground on this segregation issue?
> I don't want or believe segregation makes economic sense or would encourage cycling in my local town.
> I do want segregation, on a well designed and maintained path, from a 70mph dual carriageway carrying a high volume of traffic and which is the only practical route on part of a journey I make fairly frequently.


OT, LTN 1/12 opens the door to a lot of crap, substandard farcilities alongside busy rural roads; it basically says even a substandard path is better than no path if there is no reasonable alternative.


----------



## Scoosh (12 Feb 2013)

I see a difference also between urban cycling and its required infrastructure and rural cycling and its required infrastructure.

It's not too hard to see that, as snorri says above, having a separate, well constructed cycle path (not lane) detached from the fast-moving (main, dual carriageway) traffic is the safer option in less urban/ more rural areas. There is a (rare) good example of this beside the A91, from Edenside to St Andrews (both kilometres of it  ) :




In the urban areas, there needs to be segregation if we are going to get young people and older returnees feeling safe on their bikes in our towns and cities.

It's obviously not a 'one size fits all' situation and there are so many limiting factors (cost !!!) that it will require careful planning and an active political will. Included in that political will is the recognition that driver re-education is important; we all have a 'right' to use the roads (with or without a licence , before the "we are traffic" brigade get too steamed up ); cyclists are not perfect either ; a bit of consideration, do-as-you-would-be-done-by etc etc; we can share the roads and all be safe .

I'm not having a go at anyone who has posted previously, I just want to get more people feeling safe(r) when out on their bikes, so more people cycling !


----------



## snorri (12 Feb 2013)

HLaB said:


> OT, LTN 1/12 opens the door to a lot of crap,


LTNs applicable only to South Britain.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (12 Feb 2013)

Richard Mann said:


> There's a big group between the assertives and that avoiders that can use the roads perfectly fine, *if the roads are tamed*. As many do in Oxford. Your assertion does not hold water.


 
We all need to start somewhere if not used to cycling in traffic since youth. Or, like in my case, never cycled at all before. On top of that, one here does not have "cycling examples" because so little people cycle.
I try to watch other cyclists on the road, what they do. Seems though if I act the same I end up getting beeped or shouted at. I am too slow (max 10/15 mph) to mix with fast flowing traffic.
Truly, if there had not been a way for me to cycle from home to work avoiding traffic (this meant using a pavement for a short stretch) I would have never started it.

I was looking into an alternative method to public transport transport into work - I don't have a car - a colleague made me consider a bike. He cycled, little did I know he lives only 5 minutes up the cycle path!
My commute is 5 miles, mostly parks and cycle path. I was terrified, still am at times, on the dual carriage way. I use all sorts of diversions to make my journey safer: keep buses/lorries in front, don't filter, cross on foot when the junction is too much for me to handle.
Still there are scary moments (I don't post about them in commuting, 'cause I'll rather not be reminded) but I have learned to live with this: the advantages of cycling outnumber the stress ... for now.

My friend (experienced cyclist btw) got run over a couple of weeks ago. She was left lying on the road. Driver gone, a passing pedestrian crossed away from her, didn't want involved.
She straightened her handlebars, carried on to work on her bike, hurt, wet, dirty.
We don't even have a shower, she had to clean up as best as she could.
If this happens to me I know I'll not stop cycling: I'll take to the pavement again


----------



## snorri (12 Feb 2013)

What can I say in response to the previous post?
Only, "I take my hat off to you Pat "5mph" "


----------



## Pat "5mph" (12 Feb 2013)

snorri said:


> What can I say in response to the previous post?
> Only, "I take my hat off to you Pat "5mph" "


Don't, it's too cold to do that!


----------



## Richard Mann (12 Feb 2013)

Pat "5mph" said:


> We all need to start somewhere if not used to cycling in traffic since youth. Or, like in my case, never cycled at all before. On top of that, one here does not have "cycling examples" because so little people cycle.
> I try to watch other cyclists on the road, what they do. Seems though if I act the same I end up getting beeped or shouted at. I am too slow (max 10/15 mph) to mix with fast flowing traffic.
> Truly, if there had not been a way for me to cycle from home to work avoiding traffic (this meant using a pavement for a short stretch) I would have never started it...


 
The in-between group (where most people start, if conditions permit, and most remain indefinitely), approach cycling in a "guarded" fashion. They keep to the left, they studiously avoid turning right unless traffic is going _very_ slowly. Roundabouts and gyratories are pretty much no-go zones. All ripe for a bit of training? Perhaps. But in practice most people can't be bothered with training.

This group is very sensitive to what might seem like fairly small changes to an assertive cyclist (and irrelevant to the avoiders): the provision of cycle lanes, slowing down main roads to 20-25mph, and the tightening or elimination of roundabouts / gyratories.

The reason why cycling has grown in Oxford, despite heavy competition from the buses, is that we have studiously ignored the views of assertive cyclists. Mostly of course because they are already outnumbered by the "guarded" cyclists. But regardless, we have stuck with providing painted cycle lanes, taming the traffic, removing gyratories and tightening roundabouts. Because it works.

And so: segregated paths are not the only solution. Which is perhaps just as well, since we don't have the clout to grab that much roadspace. Especially since it patently isn't necessary.


----------



## HLaB (12 Feb 2013)

snorri said:


> LTNs applicable only to South Britain.


I would like that to be true but the DfTs remit is for the whole of the UK; just how Transport Scotland fits into it is a matter for later, I'm too knackered just now. The Scottish Government puts its name to some LTNs like 2/08 but I dont think they have to 1/12 so hopefully they are cherry picking the best ones


----------



## HLaB (12 Feb 2013)

snorri said:


> LTNs applicable only to South Britain.


Sugar  A quick google and Cycling Scotland have took it on board.


----------



## snorri (12 Feb 2013)

HLaB said:


> Sugar  A quick google and Cycling Scotland have took it on board.


 Oh, sorry!
Transport Scotland ignore their own guidelines and all the others relating to cycling as well as far as i can see.


----------



## Scoosh (13 Feb 2013)

snorri said:


> Oh, sorry!
> Transport Scotland ignore their own guidelines and all the others relating to cycling as well as far as i can see.


I suspect they sign up to these things so they can look good and can claim how much they are doing for sustainable transport/ the environment/ nation's health/ cyclists etc etc - but I doubt their heart** is really in it. 

[** where heart = real money]


----------



## threebikesmcginty (17 Feb 2013)

Get some clogs and smoke dope, sorted.


----------



## HJ (13 Aug 2013)

If we want change in Scotland we have to fight for it, write to your MSPs tell them that you want to see a sustainable safety approach, tell them that you want them to support the Strict Liability private members bill (when it is introduced in the next term of the Parliament), turn up outside Holyrood on the 2nd September and join the protest against the Nice Way Code. The Dutch didn't get their cycling infrastructure by being nice, they fought for it, with big protests (like Pedal on Parliament) and die ins etc


----------



## byegad (13 Aug 2013)

GregCollins said:


> It's easily sorted. Just elect a government that is prepared to spend €30 per head of population on cycling year-in-and-year-out for a period of about 30 years and you'll be sorted.
> 
> Good luck with finding a party prepared to put that in their manifesto.


 
Well Alex Trout* or whatever his name is, will happily spend that while your're still part of the UK, but don't hold your breath after you leave.

* May have got this wrong, but I know he has a fishy something.


----------



## byegad (13 Aug 2013)

[QUOTE 2302319, member: 259"]Actually, there are certain sounds in common. Dutch people have no problems pronouncing the word "loch" correctly. And they're dead mean. [/quote]

Not as mean as Yorkshire folk. We don't spend any money if we can help it.


----------

