# It's on days like these.....



## Brandane (16 Apr 2013)

It's on days like these, as I look out at rain being driven by 50 mph winds, that I remember a few years back when I first joined CC..
There were several members who would not be told that I "needed" a car, as I had at that time a 25 mile each way commute to work on busy trunk roads, and when I got there I was working shifts of at least 12 hours.
I am 50 years old, of reasonable fitness, but I still say that there is absolutely NO WAY on this earth that I would be out on a bike trying to get to or from work in this weather, on those roads. Even more so on dark winter mornings or nights. It would be verging on suicidal, or at best crass stupidity. This type of weather is far from unusual in these parts.

I can appreciate that others in more temperate areas of the country might be able to manage it, given that they probably only work 8 hour days, have shorter commutes, have showers and changing facilities at work, don't have to share the narrow trunk roads with constant heavy traffic, etc.. It would be good if those same members could appreciate that not all members circumstances are the same. Sometimes you do "need" a car.

Glad I got that off my chest!


----------



## Spinney (16 Apr 2013)




----------



## Mo1959 (16 Apr 2013)

Pretty much agree. Just cycle for pleasure rather than commuting and I have been much better lately at going out in bad weather. I will ride in heavy rain and light winds, but today with horizontal rain and gale force winds is a definite no go for me. I would like to remain alive to cycle another day.


----------



## Biscuit (16 Apr 2013)

Fair comment I think. No need to take unnecessary risks.


----------



## AnythingButVanilla (16 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> rain being driven by 50 mph winds


 
It's things like this that make me glad I escaped to the sunny south


----------



## glasgowcyclist (16 Apr 2013)

Very windy ride into work today but, thanfully, it was a tailwind for 99% of the journey. Here's hoping it changes for the return leg.

GC


----------



## wiggydiggy (16 Apr 2013)

Completely agree, with 1 minor difference!

I've just turned down moving to a house I like as it sits at the top of large hill, whichever way home I chose at the end of (potentially long days) its a 3.5 mile drag up along NSL A roads with no cycling provision. I trust myself to cycle on those type of roads occasionally but as an everyday commute in all weathers, I think I'm asking for trouble.

Only difference is I dont have a car as backup, no moral high ground I just dont need/want one right now and rely instead on trains/buses if I cant cycle commute.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (16 Apr 2013)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Very windy ride into work today but, thanfully, it was a tailwind for 99% of the journey. Here's hoping it changes for the return leg.
> 
> GC


Was not bad today, compared to the past weekend.
Lots of cyclists about in Glasgow. When I left work at 8pm the wind had died down.


----------



## Psycolist (17 Apr 2013)

well said Pat !


----------



## Brandane (17 Apr 2013)

Psycolist said:


> well said Pat !


 
With all due respect to Pat (who commutes Rutherglen to Glasgow SECC, about 4 miles each way on city streets and paths) and other commuters, the point I was trying to make was the combination of several factors. Weather, distance, time involved on top of 12 hour shifts, and worst of all - the A737 and A760. Utter madness IMHO.


----------



## theclaud (17 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> There were several members who would not be told that I "needed" a car, as I had at that time a 25 mile each way commute to work on busy trunk roads, and when I got there I was working shifts of at least 12 hours.



People don't "need" to have a 25 mile each-way commute. Most of us have to either live somewhere close to where we work, or find work close to where we live. Your reasoning is produced by a culture that has shaped itself around the demands of the private car.


----------



## al78 (17 Apr 2013)

User3094 said:


> I know of someone who could prove the OP completely wrong....
> 
> .,,, I couldn't do it though.


 
The OP said that he couldn't do that commute, he did not say it was impossible for anyone to do it.

Hence the fact that someone else is capable of it does not in any way invalidate the OP's claims.

I can fully understand where the OP is coming from. I work office hours, am sat at a desk all day, have shower facilities, have less than half the distance of the OP to travel to work, am 15 years younger, can commute mostly on quiet country lanes and live in a part of the UK with a more benign climate than Ayrshire, and I find it tough occasionally.


----------



## Brandane (17 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> People don't "need" to have a 25 mile each-way commute. Most of us have to either live somewhere close to where we work, or find work close to where we live. Your reasoning is produced by a culture that has shaped itself around the demands of the private car.


 
Here we go ..... again!
I'll keep it short. Live where I do because it is near where I thought I was going to see out my working days. Ill health put paid to that. Re-trained several times for different jobs but all were hit by the recession. Finding local work around here is nigh on impossible; but having said that I AM now working locally but hopefully only in the short term. The pay is rock bottom (below NMW), but at least it is work. That is the result of the current employers market for you.

So, you say, move house then? You're just going to have to take my word for this; I have looked into the possibilities but it is simply not worth my while.

If you want the fuller version, here is the link to 17 pages of fuel price "debate" from last year, which got a wee bit heated.

BTW; the "culture that has shaped itself around the demands of the private car" was shaped by successive Government policies over several decades, and those self same Governments now want to rob us blind for using our cars. Perhaps they knew exactly what they were doing?


----------



## theclaud (17 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Here we go ..... again!
> I'll keep it short. Live where I do because it is near where I thought I was going to see out my working days. Ill health put paid to that. Re-trained several times for different jobs but all were hit by the recession. Finding local work around here is nigh on impossible; but having said that I AM now working locally but hopefully only in the short term. The pay is rock bottom (below NMW), but at least it is work. That is the result of the current employers market for you.
> 
> So, you say, move house then? You're just going to have to take my word for this; I have looked into the possibilities but it is simply not worth my while.
> ...



Seen it, thanks. It's the one in which you said " you can keep your concrete wonderland", isn't it? If you start a thread provocatively, don't get shirty when someone responds with "bring it on".


----------



## Andrew_P (17 Apr 2013)

Not sure why you needed to post or why the need to justify your postion nor get it off your chest?! There are ways around most obstcles none of which I will suggest.  Just be sure to make up the miles at the weekends.


----------



## SquareDaff (17 Apr 2013)

Was hard work getting into work this morning. 30 mile commute into a constand headwind all the way! If I hadn't been doing it as part of a training plan I'd have given up and caught the train part of the way! Just no fun when it's like this.


----------



## kerndog (17 Apr 2013)

well I'm with you op. I know some people who tried to live like that, refusing to buy a car out of principle, even when they had kids they would drive them around in a trailer even in sub zero temps, pissing rain and in dangerous situations. Fools nearly killed their kids on a narrow road just to prove a point. 

Anyway they now have a car which they use as little as possible, but do still have to use at times.

We recently went from 2 to 1 car, I mostly ride if I can but not if it's pissing it down or too far to ride or inconvenient to ride.

I reckon anyone who says you dont need a car probably lives in a city and doesn't have children. It's a fact of life that we need a car, its how our world is constructed and foolish to think otherwise.


----------



## tyred (17 Apr 2013)

kerndog said:


> well I'm with you op. I know some people who tried to live like that, refusing to buy a car out of principle, even when they had kids they would drive them around in a trailer even in sub zero temps, ****ing rain and in dangerous situations. Fools nearly killed their kids on a narrow road just to prove a point.
> 
> Anyway they now have a car which they use as little as possible, but do still have to use at times.
> 
> ...


 
Oh, I hope you've dug a trench and put on your tin hat


----------



## Crackle (17 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> People don't "need" to have a 25 mile each-way commute. Most of us have to either live somewhere close to where we work, or find work close to where we live. Your reasoning is produced by a culture that has shaped itself around the demands of the private car.


Nowt wrong with that though. Once it was shaped around farming, then industrialisation, then trains, now cars. Cars probably have a few more years, then it'll be hoverboards or something.


----------



## Brandane (17 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> Seen it, thanks. It's the one in which you said " you can keep your concrete wonderland", isn't it? If you start a thread provocatively, don't get shirty when someone responds with "bring it on".


 
Errrm; are you referring to the concrete wonderland comment (which I stand by - it's one of the main reasons why I won't be moving from the seaside), or this thread? The one in which in my first post I wrote:



> I can appreciate that others in more temperate areas of the country might be able to manage it, given that they probably only work 8 hour days, have shorter commutes, have showers and changing facilities at work, don't have to share the narrow trunk roads with constant heavy traffic, etc.. It would be good if those same members could appreciate that not all members circumstances are the same.


 
Hardly "provocative", is it? All I was pointing out is that peoples circumstances are wide and varied. I find it quite irritating that some folk can't get their heads round the fact that others have different needs. I respect (even envy in a lot of ways) people who don't need a car, so why can others not respect my needs, and those of the vast majority of the population?


----------



## Brandane (17 Apr 2013)

2413294 said:


> I can get my head around the fact that people have different needs thanks. I, for instance, am comfortable with the fact that you need to debate your perceived need for a car every so often.


 
If it makes you feel even better, I don't need a car just now, but since I'm looking for work and unlikely to get anything within (my) cycle commuting distance, I will be keeping it for now. I will, of course, keep you updated .


----------



## theclaud (17 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Errrm; are you referring to the concrete wonderland comment (which I stand by - it's one of the main reasons why I won't be moving from the seaside), or this thread? The one in which in my first post I wrote:
> 
> *Hardly "provocative", is it?* All I was pointing out is that peoples circumstances are wide and varied. I find it quite irritating that some folk can't get their heads round the fact that others have different needs. I respect (even envy in a lot of ways) people who don't need a car, so why can others not respect my needs, and those of the vast majority of the population?



_"There are several members who needed to be told..?"_ No one needs to be told anything about why you choose to drive - you seem to have a need constantly to rationalize the decision. I don't condemn you for the driving - I just don't want to hear the excuses. I find it "quite irritating" that those who are addicted to their cars whinge constantly about the price of fuel and traffic wardens and congestion, and then have the nerve to criticize those of us who either seek alternatives or have never troubled their fellow citizens with the demands of their own private motoring. The really irritating thing is that insofar as it is a "need" at all, it is a self-perpetuating one - if you feel that you don't have enough choices and that the car has you in its grip against your will, you ought to be on the side of those taking action against its dominance.

The point about cities was that you shun them. You _choose_ to shun them. I like the seaside _and_ the city, and have made a choice to be by the seaside. But I can only continue to live by the seaside as long as my job here exists. That's how it works.


----------



## Brandane (17 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> and then have the nerve to criticize those of us who either seek alternatives or have never troubled their fellow citizens with the demands of their own private motoring.


 
Who is criticising them? I believe I said I ENVY them. As for "troubled their fellow citizens with the demands of their own private motoring"; you are beginning to sound like the cycling version of the motorists who want cyclists off the road "coz they don't have insurance or road tax, and they hold us up, innit".


----------



## theclaud (17 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Who is criticising them? I believe I said I ENVY them. As for "troubled their fellow citizens with the demands of their own private motoring"; you are beginning to sound like the cycling version of the motorists who want cyclists off the road "coz they don't have insurance or road tax, and they hold us up, innit".


 
Don't envy us - just join us, or stop whinging.

There is no "cycling version of the motorists who want cyclists off the road". Cars and the infrastructure they require make demands on our social space which are not remotely equivalent to anything cyclists have the power to impose on others. It's a false equivalence.


----------



## Brandane (17 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> _"There are several members who needed to be told..?"_


 
Just noticed this piece of mis-quoting. What I actually said in post #1 was "There were several members who would not be told that I "needed" a car". There is a subtle difference. If you are going to quote me, at least get the wording correct.


----------



## wiggydiggy (17 Apr 2013)

Everyone cheer up 



(Hope that works!)


----------



## cyberknight (17 Apr 2013)

My commute is only 10miles each way but i just hung the washingout and the wind was gusting enough to be knocking me all over the road and i have been off the bike for a week with a bad cold so i am glad i have the option to take the car tonight , coughing my guts up with a streaming nose and getting blown about in the dark does not sound fun.


----------



## theclaud (17 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Just noticed this piece of mis-quoting. What I actually said in post #1 was "There were several members who would not be told that I "needed" a car". There is a subtle difference. If you are going to quote me, at least get the wording correct.



Apologies for the misquote. I'm not convinced it makes a whole lot of difference, though, as we still don't wish to be told. We are grown-ups.


----------



## Brandane (17 Apr 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> Everyone cheer up
> 
> 
> 
> (Hope that works!)





I prefer the old version!


----------



## Peteaud (17 Apr 2013)

I work 12 hour (minimum and more like 12.5 hour) shifts and i can tell you, at the end of the day i am fit to drop, let alone cycle home.

I do cycle some days (better weather etc) but i dont want my cycling to become a chore, so drive most days.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (17 Apr 2013)

Not so windy today but the rain was running out of my shoes as I walked into the office from the bike shed. Having said that, there is something very pleasurable in putting on dry socks and pants after a soaking wet ride. 

GC


----------



## kerndog (17 Apr 2013)

tyred said:


> Oh, I hope you've dug a trench and put on your tin hat


----------



## bianchi1 (17 Apr 2013)

I love my car, and at times it's a necessity. My sons under 13 football league has a radius of about 30 miles. As much as we love cycling a 60 mile round trip plus a match may be a bit cruel! 

I also work shifts in a busy kitchen. While I often commute (12 miles each way) in the week, the idea of riding back at 1 in the morning after cooking 160 meals in a 40+ degree kitchen is not appealing! I would get the bus but the last one leaves town at 10.30.

It's also the best way I have found for getting me and whoever else to the alps/Pyrenees for my annual summer jolly where it doubles up as a workshop and hotel. 

I think if it weren't for my children I would buy a moped/skooter type thing for rough days and do what all my "I don't need a car" friends do, bother someone with a car occasionally.


----------



## bianchi1 (17 Apr 2013)

2413747 said:


> So another example of necessity driven by choices made.



Believe me it's not a choice that my son has football matches 30 miles away! But I feel it's more of a responsibility that I am able to ensure he can pursue his hobbies.


----------



## bianchi1 (17 Apr 2013)

2413765 said:


> As I say, choice.



As i say, responsibility.


----------



## simon.r (17 Apr 2013)

I moved to the house I now live in about 20 years ago. One of the reasons I moved here was that it was about 7 miles from where I worked. Since then I have had 7 different employers and been based at at least 12 different locations, ranging from 7 to 60 miles from my house.

Moving house to be within cycle commuting distance of each location would have been incredibly difficult, expensive and disruptive.

It's a choice in so much that I want to work, in the field I'm trained and qualified in and with a reasonable income.

Rightly or wrongly some of us need to be flexible with regard to our work locations and I have not yet found a more practical way of doing this than to use a car.


----------



## bianchi1 (17 Apr 2013)

2413779 said:


> Yes, you are getting there. We dress our choices up as something else.



Choice...Noun...An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities.
Responcibility ...Noun....The state or fact of having a duty to deal with something.

Now I suppose I could choose to ignore my responsibilities, but that's not the type of person I am.


----------



## kerndog (17 Apr 2013)

2413779 said:


> Yes, you are getting there. We dress our choices up as something else.


 
I think of them as needs rather than choices.

I need to drop my 3 kids to school 3 miles away and then pick them up for example, same with mateys boy who plays football. that's a need not a choice

do you have children?

do you live in a city?


----------



## snorri (17 Apr 2013)

cyberknight said:


> but i just hung the washingout and the wind was gusting enough to


have all my clothes dry in 15 minutes..

Spring is great, and summer is just around the corner, spread the joy.


----------



## simon.r (17 Apr 2013)

2413799 said:


> So the possession of a car enabled you to decide to take a job 60 miles away, and you now view that as evidence of necessity to have the car.


 
Yes. Or you could say the possession of a car enabled me to stay in employment in a job which was reasonably well paid, that I am trained for and that I quite enjoyed. The alternative, had I not had a car, would have been to move house, or undertake a ridiculously long commute by public transport, or take a much less well paid job close to home.

It depends on your definition of 'necessity' I suppose.


----------



## bianchi1 (17 Apr 2013)

2413815 said:



> I live where I do out of choice and planning for this sort of thing. Primary school about 1k, walked to and from with kids. Secondary school about 2k, kids able to walk. Work about 20k or if unable to cycle, station about 400m and train 25 mins then 10 mins walk. It came at a price though, no pub.



The irony is you don't have to pay for my choice of living where I do, my car use costs you nothing, but because you choose not have a car, I have to subsidise the rail network you use. 

A thanks wouldn't go amiss!


----------



## Brandane (17 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> my car use costs you nothing,


 
Oh no; who mentioned a tin hat earlier? The resident cycle gestapo are going to have you for that one! 

Edit: Must type faster; and I told you so....


----------



## CopperCyclist (17 Apr 2013)

User3094 said:


> I know of someone who could prove the OP completely wrong....
> 
> .,,, I couldn't do it though.



Ands that's probably the point  No one should tell Brandane HE doesn't need a car. They could say 'I wouldn't need a car on your circumstances', but they can't really know or dictate his needs, in the same way Brandane doesn't say that others couldn't manage without one.


----------



## bianchi1 (17 Apr 2013)

2413846 said:


> You do realise that this is a forum for cyclsts and not a moaning hard done by drivers one?



Or lazy rail users!


----------



## Brandane (17 Apr 2013)

2413846 said:


> You do realise that this is a forum for cyclsts and not moaning hard done by drivers one?


 
The name Cycle Chat kind of gave it away. I joined because I consider myself a cyclist. 3500 miles last year qualifies me for that I think, and 45 years cycling experience.
However I confess to being a member on a car owners forum, because I drive. Further to that, I am on a motor bike forum because I ride a motorbike. Oh, and a table tennis forum too. FWIW, I have been known to fight our (cyclists) cause on the bikers site when the usual anti cyclist threads come up. None of them have ever hinted that I shouldn't be on "their" forum just because I cycle!

Do all members of CC have to be one trick ponies? I don't remember reading that bit on the T&Cs.


----------



## simon.r (17 Apr 2013)

2413821 said:


> Well, since you have listed the alternatives which were presumably not impossible, it appears that your definition of necessity is the flexible one.


 
Alternative 1 - Move house. Not impossible. Move house 12+ times in 20 years - still not impossible, but disadvantages fairly obvious.
Alternative 2 - Long commute. Would mean being out of the house for 14+ hours, 5 days a week.Again, obvious disadvantages.
Alternative 3 - Less well paid job. Aside from the obvious drawbacks, issues such as self-esteem come into play.

So, yes, I agree with you again, my definition of necessity is flexible.

I am drawn towards a car-free lifestyle, I can see many advantages. But, in my opinion, without a *massive* change in the way virtually everything is organised (and I'm not talking about better public transport, more a whole-scale shift in attitudes and expectations of society in general and employers in particular), it is, at present, necessary for some people to own and use cars


----------



## simon.r (17 Apr 2013)

2413846 said:


> You do realise that this is a forum for cyclsts and not a moaning hard done by drivers one?


 
I don't think any car owners on this thread are moaning about being hard done by?


----------



## bianchi1 (17 Apr 2013)

simon.r said:


> I don't think any car owners on this thread are moaning about being hard done by?



Like I said in my fist post...I love my car


----------



## Monsieur (17 Apr 2013)

Well...what a load of hot headed bullying cyclists 
Since when has owning a car become an issue? I have 3 cars - mine, wife and children's cars.
I work 11 miles away from my house.
I bought my house as its where I want to live, where my children went to school, where my friends were and where I'd like to retire to (I'm 50, same as the OP).

I drive to work as its by far the easiest option for me.
I cycle evenings and weekends for leisure, fitness and fun.
I drive most distances over 4 miles.

I don't dictate to others how they should use their cars and/or bicycle.
I'm also fairly wealthy (through hard work and canny spending) so can well afford to run 3 cars.

I will continue to use my cars and will also continue to use my bikes.
As for cycling through 50mph winds, driving rain and freezing tempeartures...like the OP, it isn't feasable...I don't need to so I don't.

So there


----------



## kerndog (17 Apr 2013)

2413815 said:


> It came at a price though, no pub.


 
now that's a decision and a choice but most of all a sacrifice.

It would be nice if everyone could cycle everywhere and no one had a car but it's not realistic, in anybody's world, to suggest that it's even remotely possible.Unless you dont mind the already knackered economy completely collapsing.

I agree if you can get away with not having a car (we just got rid of one and replaced it with a road bike) then do it, but suggesting we all should is ridiculous, bonkers, unrealistic and pure fantasy


----------



## kerndog (17 Apr 2013)

2413906 said:


> Did I do any of that?


 
nope but your attitude and tone suggests that that is what you think.

Oh and you chose to live in a place with no pub so you could only ride a bike and not have an evil killer car.

So did you really move there so you didn't have to use a car or did you move there then get rid of the car once you realised you didn't need it?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (17 Apr 2013)

What happened to Brandane's completely uncontroversial (imo) theread in 24 hours?
I'm not reading it all btw  just enough to see you got ganged up upon Brandane - something is happening to the @ sign in this forum, I've just noticed  ... alas, it just told me I don't have permission to tag people!
Anyhow:
I thought Brandane's observation was entirely reasonable, some life styles need the use of a car.
Even theclaud and Adrian need a car, if not your own don't you need Amazon's delivery vans?
Me, I hate driving so choose not to run one.
Don't really need it, don't really have to cycle either, could take the bus, but I choose to cycle because it's more convenient time wise and of course because I enjoy it.
My 5 mile commute (I'm a bit further out than Rutherglen town) in all weather does not bother me, even after a 14 hour shift: for now, still healthy at 50, who knows what the future will bring. I might need to drive one day.
Then again I don't have to wear makeup or dressy clothes at work, so it's no bother to quickly change into my uniform.
I fully agree that sometimes a car is a necessity for some people, and most businesses too.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (17 Apr 2013)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Not so windy today but the rain was running out of my shoes as I walked into the office from the bike shed. Having said that, there is something very pleasurable in putting on dry socks and pants after a soaking wet ride.
> 
> GC


It did not rain on me today at 7am, but the wind had really picked up at 6 tonight - did not have to push the bike  ... just


----------



## wiggydiggy (17 Apr 2013)

Tonights ride home is a good example of where the bike, for me, almost didnt cut it. Gale like conditions with gusts of 60-65 mph, multi directional due to many buildings on my route meant I was blown around a lot. Its not that it was too hard, but too unpredictable.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (17 Apr 2013)

2414466 said:


> You cannot be bothered to read it all but do find time to write a lot.


Yes: I had to choose tonight between cleaning the bike and reading all of cc news before getting some sleep in view of tomorrow's 14 hour shift.
I cleaned the bike, now I'm skimming cc


----------



## Brandane (17 Apr 2013)

Pat "5mph" said:


> What happened to Brandane's completely uncontroversial (imo) theread in 24 hours?
> I'm not reading it all btw  just enough to see you got ganged up upon Brandane


 
Ach, it's only two of them Pat, and they are members of the "school bullies" gang . I am thick skinned enough to take all they are capable of handing out, and more besides. Nineteen years of dealing with the worst that Greenock and district can muster stood me in good stead for these amateurs .


----------



## MickeyBlueEyes (18 Apr 2013)

I very much NEED my car, as hard as I've tried I just cannot get enough grip on Conti GP4000s' when trying to pull my caravan.....


----------



## steve52 (18 Apr 2013)

Gods teeth it drives me crazy! i had to ride the long way round just to get some headwind! what dose it think its doing,bloody tailwind blowing me along at a steady 15,mph grrr


----------



## kerndog (18 Apr 2013)

2414025 said:


> Fine, join the list of people who think they can presume to decide what I think.


 
ok... so what do you think?


----------



## wiggydiggy (18 Apr 2013)

Caravan haters should use BBCiplayer to find the excellent documentary on their history (Caravans:A brittish love affair), certainly opened my eyes as to how far removed a lot of modern caravanists are from the early pioneers of the hobby.


----------



## wiggydiggy (18 Apr 2013)

User13710 said:


> I think a wheel just came off this thread


 
Possibly sorry  I just remembered the doc being good when I watched and thought I'd mention it....

Er anyway on topic -

Commute this morning was bus, wayyyyy too windy. I'm fortunate that my train pass also doubles as a bus pass so I do have that option as the bus's are almost too expensive to use regularly.

Would I have used my car (if I had one), not to replace my bike/train commute no - the town I work in requires you to plan in advance parking, bike/public transport (or just public transport) is more convenient (for me).


----------



## kerndog (18 Apr 2013)

2414864 said:


> On the vanishingly small off chance that it hasn't been expressed clearly enough, I think that there is a tendency for people to confuse the consequences of their choices with genuine need.


 
ok so your saying that anyone who thinks they need a car is actually confusing their need with the consequence of their choice?

so my wife needs a car to do her job as a child minder which involved lots of runs to different locations to pick up and drop off children, but that's not a need its a choice, because she chose to do that job? What she should really do is quit that job and get a bike, right?

so we chose to get a job to feed our family's therefore its not a need but a choice. It's not a genuine need to earn a living and keep my family fed? For my wife to be able to do her Job? for anyone to be able to do the above. Instead we should all chose to get jobs locally even though there arent any, and get bikes. sod the kids, sod the economy.

Your position is laughable. As well as being grumpy, spiky and rude, you are living in a totally unrealistic dream world. Have fun with that


----------



## kerndog (18 Apr 2013)

2415357 said:


> Nice talking to you too.


 
so that's a yes then? You actually think like this? wow


----------



## theclaud (18 Apr 2013)

kerndog said:


> so that's a yes then? You actually think like this? wow


 
Why the need to rationalize your choices? We all have choices, although some have more choices than others, and our choices are constrained by our needs (few of us have the choice of not working at all, for example). I don't own a car, so that excludes me from all jobs that require me to own one (including jobs that might pay more than the one I have). If I were to buy a car in order to get a job, that would be a choice. It might be an _understandable_ choice, but it's a choice nonetheless. It would be absurd to argue that I suddenly _needed_ a car, as if the need came before the choice.


----------



## kerndog (18 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> Why the need to rationalize your choices? We all have choices, although some have more choices than others, and our choices are constrained by our needs (few of us have the choice of not working at all, for example). I don't own a car, so that excludes me from all jobs that require me to own one (including jobs that might pay more than the one I have). If I were to buy a car in order to get a job, that would be a choice. It might be an _understandable_ choice, but it's a choice nonetheless. It would be absurd to argue that I suddenly _needed_ a car, as if the need came before the choice.


 
So we should chose not to work and pay our bills and feed our kids because cars are evil? I chose to sell my car recently and get a bike because I didn't need my car all the time. But I do need to use my wife's car to get to meetings, which pay the bills and feed the kids - thats a need not a choice. And dont come back with 'having kids was your choice' cos that would just be getting silly now wouldnt it.

My point is that to say no one needs a car is rubbish. I need a car about once or twice a week, my wife needs it every day.

Im off for a drive because I chose to send my daughter to the only school I could, which is a long way away and I chose not to have to make her walk 10 miles home every day - she needs a lift


----------



## Monsieur (18 Apr 2013)

My word 
Is it a prerequisite now, to be able to offer comments on CC, that you must not own a motor vehicle or even dare to even consider the dreaded thought of buying one?
I'm off to polish my car


----------



## bianchi1 (18 Apr 2013)

2414864 said:


> On the vanishingly small off chance that it hasn't been expressed clearly enough, I think that there is a tendency for people to confuse the consequences of their choices with genuine need.


 
Interesting that you assume situations that individuals find themselves in are a result solely of their choices. Do you accept that 'genuine need' can arise as a result of situations that are out of the control of the individual? (think disability) 

The statement "consequences of their choices" seems to me to be over simplistic and does not take into account the many outside influences that dictate the direction an individuals life may take. 

I think that in some circumstances a car is essential for an individual, this may be down to their personal choices, or as a result of factors that have rendered all other transport options impractical or even impossible.


----------



## snorri (18 Apr 2013)

I think this debate has escalated due to differing use of language.

I need food, water and air for my survival, everything else just adds to my comfort but is not a need. I don't even need a bicycle, but it does enable me to get a lot more out of life.


----------



## kerndog (18 Apr 2013)

2415417 said:


> You have formed the opinion that I am rude. bla bla bla.... blabla...... bla.


 
you have created the impression that you are rude, because you are. I am witless, yes, but I am still right and you are still a grumpy old narrow minded so and so who is too stubborn to admit that your argument is flawed. People need cars. simples.

But you are right about one thing. i have wasted enough time with this futile argument, and I will exit the debate. So as you ride around self righteously sneering at all cars with your beard and grumpy old man face I shall be driving around when I need to, to do things like earn a living and feed my family - because I need too. It's that or I chose to stop working and go hungry... Hmmmm


----------



## snorri (18 Apr 2013)

What do we all think of Chris Hoy now that he has announced his retiral from cycle sport and the word on the street is he will get involved in car racing?


----------



## bianchi1 (18 Apr 2013)

2415451 said:


> Tedious that you assume my assumptions. The key word you are missing is "confuse".


 
I think you are confusing yourself! My assumptions of your assumptions are based on the first two words of your post. ie: "I think". Therefore that statement is indication of your assumptions of individuals thoughts?


You could answer my question "Do you accept that 'genuine need' can arise as a result of situations that are out of the control of the individual?" rather than your standard "you dont know what im thinking post" which you sneak into almost every thread you take part in!


----------



## Tim Hall (18 Apr 2013)

kerndog said:


> you are still a grumpy old narrow minded so and so


 
Old.

Snigger.


----------



## theclaud (18 Apr 2013)

kerndog said:


> *So we should chose not to work and pay our bills and feed our kids because cars are evil?* I chose to sell my car recently and get a bike because I didn't need my car all the time. But I do need to use my wife's car to get to meetings, which pay the bills and feed the kids - thats a need not a choice. And dont come back with 'having kids was your choice' cos that would just be getting silly now wouldnt it.
> 
> My point is that to say no one needs a car is rubbish. I need a car about once or twice a week, my wife needs it every day.
> 
> Im off for a drive because I chose to send my daughter to the only school I could, which is a long way away and I chose not to have to make her walk 10 miles home every day - she needs a lift


 
Who said that? What you are hearing is not what I have said, but made-up-stuff which presumably arises from whatever guilt lies behind the rationalization. I specifically said that very few people can choose not to work. I can't choose to do whatever job I like or live wherever I please, but that doesn't mean I have _no_ choices. The way some people are going on, you'd think that their next choice was whether to sell their body or go hungry, or whether to sleep under a bridge rather than in a doorway, instead of which it's a series of middle-class dilemmas about how to get the kids to their after-school activities, or whether to move out of the city so as to have a bigger garden. Gimme a break.


----------



## kerndog (18 Apr 2013)

2415466 said:


> So to recap, you can't see alternatives and that makes me the narrow minded one. Bizarre logic you employ.


 
nope. I can see alternatives, that's why I sold my car and got a bike. It seems to me its you who cant see the alternatives - I chose to work so need a car. It's that simple.

You can wrap your flawed logic in fancy language all you like and then try to belittle people by suggesting its our lack of wit or understanding that is the problem, thing is it's still a flawed and unrealistic logic.


----------



## bianchi1 (18 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> Who said that? What you are hearing is not what I have said, but made-up-stuff which presumably arises from whatever guilt lies behind the rationalization. I specifically said that very few people can choose not to work. I can't choose to do whatever job I like or live wherever I please, but that doesn't mean I have _no_ choices. The way some people are going on, you'd think that their next choice was whether to sell their body or go hungry, or whether to sleep under a bridge rather than in a doorway, instead of which it's a series of middle-class dilemmas about how to get the kids to their after-school activities, or whether to move out of the city so as to have a bigger garden. Gimme a break.


 
Its not just the middle class who worry about getting their kids to after school activities...its also working class single parents


----------



## theclaud (18 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> Its not just the middle class who worry about getting their kids to after school activities...its also working class single parents


 
Up to a point, Lord Copper, but the more one is in the habit of running one's kids around to this, that and the other, the more one is apt to describe one's car as a necessity. Car ownership is a relatively reliable indicator of privilege in the first place.


----------



## theclaud (18 Apr 2013)

User13710 said:


> What 'fancy language'?


 
Oi! I'll have you know I intend to get "noumenon" in before the thread is out.


----------



## bianchi1 (18 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> Up to a point, Lord Copper, but the more one is in the habit of running one's kids around to this, that and the other, the more one is apt to describe one's car as a necessity. Car ownership is a relatively reliable indicator of privilege in the first place.



Interestingly, I pay for my car using tax credits. Yay, the state has enabled me to appear privileged!


----------



## kerndog (18 Apr 2013)

User13710 said:


> These are all made-up accusations from the likes of our newbie Kerndog, who is indeed very rude going by his childish attacks on people who have been around here a long time and are well known and well liked.


 
Actually they are implications by our long standing cc god like members who deserve the upmost respect...
Im supposed to respect you because you have been using this website longer than me? Grow up



> What 'fancy language'? Not understanding plain English does unfortunately imply a bit of a lack in the wit department.


 
I'm dyslexic - sorry

I think maybe you need to step away from the keyboard and calm down before you get really carried away


----------



## RedRider (18 Apr 2013)

People have coped without a car for just shy of all history.


----------



## bianchi1 (18 Apr 2013)

RedRider said:


> People have coped without a car for just shy of all history.



I'm not sure reverting to horse drawn vehicles is a viable option!


----------



## kerndog (18 Apr 2013)

User13710 said:


> You're not the only dyslexic person around here, and the others seem to manage. I think you should take your own advice now.


 
nope im sure im not, and your not the only bike fascist it seems


----------



## RedRider (18 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> I'm not sure reverting to horse drawn vehicles is a viable option!


Choose horse. Any one of us could with a bit of planning.


----------



## RedRider (18 Apr 2013)

2415574 said:


> Noooooooo


I just couldn't cope without mine.


----------



## theclaud (18 Apr 2013)

2415570 said:


> Still holding the door open ajar then?


 
He's employing the Teasing Dummy-Flouncette Manoeuvre. However, in my experience it's usually followed by a Straight Flounce With Misdirected Parthian.


----------



## Crackle (18 Apr 2013)

Replace the word choice with chicken and need with egg.


----------



## Brandane (18 Apr 2013)

User13710 said:


> These are all made-up accusations from the likes of our newbie Kerndog, who is indeed very rude going by his childish attacks on people who have been around here a long time and are well known and well liked.


 
I see the reinforcements have arrived.

They are well liked by who? The rest of the Taliban?
Kerndog may be a newbie to the forum, but so what? Do we know how long he has been cycling? Possibly longer than some of the long standing members on here who have made him so welcome  . As far as I can see he is making perfectly valid points which are being shot down by the aggressive debating methods of the cycle fascists rather than by any reasonable counter arguments.

I have been around here for over 3 years now so I think I am entitled to voice an opinion on some of the membership. There does seem to be a small clique of regulars (some of whom are so regular I don't know how they ever have time to get on a bike) whose manner of debating is abrasive, aggressive, arrogant, bullying, selfish and downright hostile to anyone who doesn't eat, sleep, and breathe bicycles. How welcoming is that to new members?

I would think that the vast majority of members on here have interests, work, and social needs which are made possible by the use of a motor car.


----------



## Brandane (18 Apr 2013)

RedRider said:


> People have coped without a car for just shy of all history.


 
Don't forget electricity, gas, Tescos, and .... bicycles.


----------



## Monsieur (18 Apr 2013)

I find some of the inane comments by some people on this thread pretty embarrasing and, to some large extent, rather immature and purile.
You tend to get similar on forums whereby some more 'longer establsihed' forum members (a clique?) view those 'newbies' with disdain. Not all by any means but a sizeable minority.
Anyone who dares to have an opinion that differs to theirs is always wrong - like Brandane, I wonder how they actually get the time to cycle when they seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on here bitching and passing spiteful remarks to others.

Rather amusing actually


----------



## mcshroom (18 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Don't forget electricity, gas, Tescos, and .... bicycles.



which all goes to show that none of those, nor a car as Red rider said are _needed_


----------



## Brandane (18 Apr 2013)

mcshroom said:


> which all goes to show that none of those, nor a car as Red rider said are _needed_


 
Granted; as long as you only want to _survive_, rather than _live_.


----------



## theclaud (18 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> I see the reinforcements have arrived.
> Kerndog may be a newbie to the forum, but so what? Do we know how long he has been cycling? Possibly longer than some of the long standing members on here who have made him so welcome  . As far as I can see he is making perfectly valid points which are being shot down by the aggressive debating methods of the cycle fascists rather than by any reasonable counter arguments.
> 
> I have been around here for over 3 years now so I think I am entitled to voice an opinion on some of the membership. There does seem to be a small clique of regulars (some of whom are so regular I don't know how they ever have time to get on a bike) whose manner of debating is abrasive, aggressive, arrogant, bullying, selfish and downright hostile to anyone who doesn't eat, sleep, and breathe bicycles. How welcoming is that to new members?
> ...


 
Ah, the tired old "clique" attack. Y'know, some of us actually ride bicycles together _as a result of this forum_. How sweet is that! Nothing stopping you and Kerndog going out for a nice drive. I'm afraid I don't buy the faux-victim thing. It's what happens when people step in with both feet, and then realize they are out of their depth. Cue enflouncement, or Extended Victimhood Charade. It's the interweb, and people are going to question what you write - toughen up, peeps!


----------



## RedRider (18 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> I see the reinforcements have arrived.
> Kerndog may be a newbie to the forum, but so what? Do we know how long he has been cycling? Possibly longer than some of the long standing members on here who have made him so welcome  . As far as I can see he is making perfectly valid points which are being shot down by the aggressive debating methods of the cycle fascists rather than by any reasonable counter arguments.
> 
> I have been around here for over 3 years now so I think I am entitled to voice an opinion on some of the membership. There does seem to be a small clique of regulars (some of whom are so regular I don't know how they ever have time to get on a bike) whose manner of debating is abrasive, aggressive, arrogant, bullying, selfish and downright hostile to anyone who doesn't eat, sleep, and breathe bicycles. How welcoming is that to new members?
> ...


 
I'm not judging anyone's choices here, but life can be designed around the bicycle (and yes!) even the horse just as around the car.

Anyway, all this horse-talk made me think of heroin. Like the car (or bike etc), choosing to take it can become addictive.


----------



## mcshroom (18 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Granted; as long as you only want to _survive_, rather than _live_.


I seem to remember Sheffield \Tiger managed to live perfectly well without any supermarkets and by using a bike.

Cars, like many things are a choice. I choose to have and drive one because I feel it improves my quality of life, but that doesn't make me need it. Approximately a third of all households in the UK have no car at all, are none of them living without this theoretical 'need'? I don't see any reason for having to justify my choice or blame others/life for the choice I have made on an internet forum either.

Outside of each individuals personal choice, you can also look at the wider social impacts of peoples' choices to use cars. One main one is the reduction in the frequency and coverage of public transport options as people choose to drive instead, removing the choice of using such public transport for those who either choose not to or are physically unable to drive. Also the death of the High Street and the rise of Out of Town shopping centres is another example of people's choice to drive shaping the society we live in to encourage the same choice.

Of course one thing that has been raised here is that driving allows people to travel further to work. Think about it the other way round though. How many companies have consolidated into large out-of-town premises that have cheaper rents, using the subsidy of their employees paying for the privilege of going to work for them?


----------



## RedRider (18 Apr 2013)




----------



## Brandane (18 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> Ah, the tired old "clique" attack. Y'know, some of us actually ride bicycles together _as a result of this forum_. How sweet is that! Nothing stopping you and Kerndog going out for a nice drive. I'm afraid I don't buy the faux-victim thing. It's what happens when people step in with both feet, and then realize they are out of their depth. Cue enflouncement, or Extended Victimhood Charade. It's the interweb, and people are going to question what you write - toughen up, peeps!


 
Ah, the tired old "it's the interweb" statement. So are you saying you are no more than a keyboard warrior? Personally I wouldn't post anything on here that I would be afraid to say in the pub. Similarly, I don't normally spend time on forums with people who I wouldn't spend time with in a pub. On this occasion though I must admit I am finding it all quite amusing. I'm actually quite impressed that some of the normally silent majority have stepped up to voice their opinion in the face of adversity from the usual suspects .


----------



## Brandane (18 Apr 2013)

mcshroom said:


> I seem to remember Sheffield \Tiger managed to live perfectly well without any supermarkets and by using a bike.
> 
> Cars, like many things are a choice. I choose to have and drive one because I feel it improves my quality of life, but that doesn't make me need it. Approximately a third of all households in the UK have no car at all, are none of them living without this theoretical 'need'? I don't see any reason for having to justify my choice or blame others/life for the choice I have made on an internet forum either.
> 
> ...


 
A well put together and sensible response to the point being debated; could you perhaps teach some of the others how to do it?




> Approximately a third of all households in the UK have no car at all, are none of them living without this theoretical 'need'?


 I sincerely wish that I was among that one third. It gives me no pleasure to pay my hard earned cash straight to the treasury in the form of fuel duty + VAT, VED etc.. I do try and use my car as little as possible purely for reasons of economy. I am now down to about 5k miles per year, rather than the 30k at my peak in the mid 90s..

In my present circumstances, I could quite easily survive AND live without a car. However in previous jobs I have had to travel, and I do mean HAD to travel as quite simply there was no local work to be had. Public transport wasn't an option (7am starts on a Saturday and Sunday? Even during the week it was a load of hassle). A car was the cheaper and most convenient option. Cycling, as in post #1, just not an option in MY circumstances. Moving house - we've already covered that one too.

As previously stated I am keeping the car for now, as I am hoping to find a better paying job in the near future. Chances are that it won't be local. If it is, fine, I will make my decision then. The original point of this thread was simply to make the case that some people do have a genuine need for a car due to their circumstances.


----------



## Brandane (18 Apr 2013)

User13710 said:


> Strangely enough, it seemed to me like it was the other way around. We reasoned, but Brandane and Kerndog got all angry and insulting. Oh well.


 
Is that the Royal "we"? As in, the site bully boys (and girls).

I've got angry, have I? I've got nothing to get angry about. I've put forward a perfectly sensible, reasoned explanation why some people need a car to maintain a reasonable quality of life. I also stated that I appreciate why others might manage perfectly well without one. I can see both sides, so it is only the anti-car brigade who are getting all uppity and angry. I like cars and bikes, so no problem here, thanks.

If you are insulted by being called bullies/fascists/Taliban, then stop behaving like them.


----------



## snorri (18 Apr 2013)

kerndog said:


> i have wasted enough time with this futile argument, and I will exit the debate.


 
It would appear his account has been hacked, three posts have appeared in the name of kerndog since he exited.


----------



## Tim Hall (18 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> He's employing the Teasing Dummy-Flouncette Manoeuvre. However, in my experience it's usually followed by a Straight Flounce With *Misdirected Parthian*.


 
For that you'd definitely need to Choose Horse.


----------



## oldfatfool (18 Apr 2013)

........................when skies are blue and fields are green 
I look around and think about what might have been 
and then I hear sweet music float around my head 
as I recall the many things we left unsaid 
its on days like these that I remember 
singing songs and drinking wine 
while your eyes played games with mine


----------



## snorri (18 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> . On this occasion though I must admit I am finding it all quite amusing. I'm actually quite impressed that some of the normally silent majority have stepped up to voice their opinion in the face of adversity from the usual suspects .


You are not the only one to find the thread amusing, why shouldn't the "silent majority" step up to share the fun?


----------



## theclaud (18 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Ah, the tired old "it's the interweb" statement. So are you saying you are no more than a keyboard warrior? *Personally I wouldn't post anything on here that I would be afraid to say in the pub.*Similarly, I don't normally spend time on forums with people who I wouldn't spend time with in a pub. On this occasion though I must admit I am finding it all quite amusing. I'm actually quite impressed that some of the normally silent majority have stepped up to voice their opinion in the face of adversity from the usual suspects .



Weird! You seriously go into the pub and launch straight into some unprovoked self-justifying diatribe about how you NEED to drive a car and then call anyone who questions you a fascist? I've been into some strange boozers in my time, but I'll take my chances with the star-on-the-wall brigade before I head for your local.


----------



## theclaud (18 Apr 2013)

Monsieur said:


> I find some of the inane comments by some people on this thread pretty embarrasing and, to some large extent, rather immature and purile.
> You tend to get similar on forums whereby some more 'longer establsihed' forum members (a clique?) view those 'newbies' with disdain. Not all by any means but a sizeable minority.
> Anyone who dares to have an opinion that differs to theirs is always wrong - like Brandane, I wonder how they actually get the time to cycle when they seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on here bitching and passing spiteful remarks to others.
> 
> Rather amusing actually



YAWN!


----------



## bianchi1 (18 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> Weird! You seriously go into the pub and launch straight into some unprovoked self-justifying diatribe about how you NEED to drive a car and then call anyone who questions you a fascist? I've been into some strange boozers in my time, but I'll take my chances with the star-on-the-wall brigade before I head for your local.


 
To be fair,you state that you like to 'toy' with posters online. Hardly the actions of a rational person....unless it does something for you

_"I already toy with enough pointless contrarians - until one of them dies, I haven't room for another". _

Classy !!!


----------



## Brandane (18 Apr 2013)




----------



## theclaud (18 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> To be fair,you state that you like to 'toy' with posters online. Hardly the actions of a rational person....unless it does something for you
> 
> _"I already toy with enough pointless contrarians - until one of them dies, I haven't room for another". _
> 
> Classy !!!





Busted! It was a paraphrase of a line from a film. First person to tell me which one wins a trip in Linf's 4x4 to the all-night Tesco in Cheltenham.

Seriously, though, this "don't post anything you wouldn't say down the pub" nonsense isn't just lazy cliche - it shows a lamentable disregard for form.


----------



## bianchi1 (18 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> Busted! It was a paraphrase of a line from a film. First person to tell me which one wins a trip in Linf's 4x4 to the all-night Tesco in Cheltenham.
> 
> Seriously, though, this "don't post anything you wouldn't say down the pub" nonsense isn't just lazy cliche - it shows a lamentable disregard for form.


 
I guessed that's why Adrian moved to somewhere without a pub. Years of throwing out provocative statements, then shouting "DONT TELL ME WHAT IM THINKING" probably resulted in lots off slaps and beer with landlord spit in it.

Much safer to have a can at home (or on the train) and provoke faceless strangers on line.


----------



## kerndog (18 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> I guessed that's why Adrian moved to somewhere without a pub. Years of throwing out provocative statements, then shouting "DONT TELL ME WHAT IM THINKING" probably resulted in lots off slaps and beer with landlord spit in it.
> 
> Much safer to have a can at home (or on the train) and provoke faceless strangers on line.


 
I'm not sure trolls are welcome in pubs either


----------



## Brandane (18 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> To be fair,you state that you like to 'toy' with posters online. Hardly the actions of a rational person....unless it does something for you
> 
> _"I already toy with enough pointless contrarians - until one of them dies, I haven't room for another". _
> 
> Classy !!!


 
So theclaud is nothing more than a troll. How sad.
I can't believe I just "liked" a post that he/she also liked .


----------



## kerndog (18 Apr 2013)

2415583 said:


> Bring it on.


 
scary


----------



## al78 (18 Apr 2013)

mcshroom said:


> Cars, like many things are a choice.


 
Unless you are frail and elderly, or disabled, something I feel certain people forget whilst they are relatively young, in full health and capable of cycling 100+ miles a week without problem. Just remember, there is a good chance that the mobility you now take for granted will be gone in the future.


----------



## bianchi1 (18 Apr 2013)

2415583 said:


> Bring it on.


 
"as long as it not to heavy or wont fit in my backpack, in what case can I blag a lift in your car"


----------



## kerndog (18 Apr 2013)

Tell you what bike fascists, man up and clear this whole thing up. I've made my point quite clear, As has the OP, but im a bit slow and linguistically challenged, so why not spell out your stance on this subject?

And dont bottle it by saying you already have. Your talking to a numpty here remember, now spell it out and we can all move on


----------



## snorri (18 Apr 2013)

Just thought thisthread needed a few, there's just too much seriousness about.


----------



## lukesdad (18 Apr 2013)

The usual bollox from adrian ! ...now thats rude


----------



## kerndog (18 Apr 2013)

lukesdad said:


> The usual bollox from adrian ! ...now thats rude


----------



## theclaud (18 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> So theclaud is nothing more than a troll. How sad.
> I can't believe I just "liked" a post that he/she also liked .



Does it make you feel slightly grubby, rubbing virtual shoulders with the Cycling Taliban?


----------



## theclaud (18 Apr 2013)

snorri said:


> Just thought thisthread needed a few, there's just too much seriousness about.



Oooooh Adrian won't like that.


----------



## Brandane (18 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> Does it make you feel slightly grubby, rubbing virtual shoulders with the Cycling Taliban?


 
Worse than that. If we were in that fictitious pub I would be running for the exit .


----------



## theclaud (18 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Worse than that. If we were in that fictitious pub I would be running for the exit .



Pub? I'm a fanatically puritanical Islamofascist. I'll just wait outside with a big knife and a smartphone until the Infidel Motorists come out, thanks.


----------



## snorri (18 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Worse than that. If we were in that fictitious pub I would be running for the exit .


 Lucky you have the bike with you tonight


----------



## bianchi1 (18 Apr 2013)

kerndog said:


> Tell you what bike fascists, man up and clear this whole thing up. I've made my point quite clear, but im a bit slow and linguistically challenged, so why not spell out your stance on this subject?
> 
> And dont bottle it by saying you already have. Your talking to a numpty here remember, now spell it out and we can all move on


 
Thats the point...their stance will be mysteriously ambiguous and include phrases such as

"lazy cliche"
"YAWN!"
"Don't let any facts get in the way of your observations"
"To be fair"
"Ah, the tired old "clique" attack"
"Bring it on"
"a creation of your mind."
"I thought you had gone."
"Nice talking to you too."
"Fine, join the list of people who think they can presume to decide what I think" (my favorite as it contains so many verbs that relate to thinking, and makes no sense)
"On the vanishingly small off chance that it hasn't been expressed clearly enough"
"Yes, you are getting there"
"You do realise that this is a forum for cyclists and not a moaning hard done by drivers one?"

And all these from 2 contributors! They repeat the pattern time and again throughout many threads. Hey, everyone's got to have a hobby!

They are quite talented though. take this sentence for example: 

" I, for instance, am comfortable with the fact that you need to debate your perceived need for a car every so often."

While implicitly stating that one's need for a car is perceived, they also imply that they are comfortable enough to allow you to debate your position. So Adrian is saying that you are wrong (your need is perceived rather than real) and his evidence is that he will let you debate it on an open internet forum. 

To quote another contributor 

"YAWN!"


----------



## mcshroom (18 Apr 2013)

al78 said:


> Unless you are frail and elderly, or disabled, something I feel certain people forget whilst they are relatively young, in full health and capable of cycling 100+ miles a week without problem. Just remember, there is a good chance that the mobility you now take for granted will be gone in the future.



I agree there are fewer options if you are less fit. However as I mentioned earlier the public transport alternatives are degraded by a large collective choice to use private cars. Unfortunately this means that when those who are too frail, elderly or disabled to be able to drive then have fewer alternatives to fall back on. This is no-one's fault - no-one is deliberately choosing to eliminate buses due to lack of use, but it is an example of where people are not able to choose to drive, and their other choices are diminished due to the unintended consequences of our lives being shaped around private car travel.


----------



## snorri (18 Apr 2013)

Ah! Classic double bluff post from bianchi.
Was that to confuse, or is he really one of us?


----------



## theclaud (18 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> [incoherent mish-mash of quotations demonstrating precisely nothing]



I know you are having trouble with this, but some of us dispute the premise of the OP, and the OP is blatantly adversarial. It really is that simple.


----------



## bianchi1 (18 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> I know you are having trouble with this, but some of us dispute the premise of the OP, and the OP is blatantly adversarial. It really is that simple.


 
_[incoherent mish-mash of quotations demonstrating precisely nothing] _Clever....dismiss the previous post as irreverent while leaving it as a quote.
"I know you are having trouble with this"...Imply i am not clever enough to keep up with the thread...Nice
"but some of us dispute the premise of the OP"....Gather the troops
"It really is that simple"...and back to the "if you cant keep up" tone.

Im surprised you don't mention my spelling:

"Too right. Cafe folk are sticklers for correct spelling"

O you have...."YAWN"

.


----------



## kerndog (18 Apr 2013)

Im going to post this for you again theclaud to make sure you saw it:

"Tell you what bike fascists, man up and clear this whole thing up. I've made my point quite clear, As has the OP, but im a bit slow and linguistically challenged, so why not spell out your stance on this subject?

And dont bottle it by saying you already have. Your talking to a numpty here remember, now spell it out and we can all move on"

come on old boy, man up and straighten this out


----------



## bianchi1 (18 Apr 2013)

kerndog said:


> Im going to post this for you again theclaud to make sure you saw it:
> 
> "Tell you what bike fascists, man up and clear this whole thing up. I've made my point quite clear, As has the OP, but im a bit slow and linguistically challenged, so why not spell out your stance on this subject?
> 
> ...



Don't feed them!!!


----------



## kerndog (18 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> Don't feed them!!!


 
it's fun!

tell me your not enjoying watching them make fools of themselves?


----------



## bianchi1 (18 Apr 2013)

kerndog said:


> it's fun!
> 
> tell me your not enjoying watching them make fools of themselves?



Trust me, they are enjoying it more than us.


----------



## Wobblers (19 Apr 2013)

al78 said:


> Unless you are frail and elderly, or disabled, something I feel certain people forget whilst they are relatively young, in full health and capable of cycling 100+ miles a week without problem. Just remember, there is a good chance that the mobility you now take for granted will be gone in the future.


 
It might be also well to remember that many cannot drive a car through illness or disability. They don't have much choice either. Rather, they find themselves constrained by a society that has been shaped for the needs of the car.


----------



## Wobblers (19 Apr 2013)

I've never owned a car. I've never been able to _afford_ to own a car. Which means that, yes, I've had to move quite a few times in order to be able to get to work, from one end of the country to another. Maybe not twelve times in twenty years, but not actually far off. And I'll most likely have to move again soon - not a pleasing prospect with a suspect ankle...

There is no doubt that having to live somewhere that you can walk, or cycle, or take a train or bus to work is constraining. But it is certainly possible. This is something that one third of the people in this country have to live with, so no, a car is not a necessity for most people. Unquestionably it is for some - and I couldn't cycle 25 miles into a fierce head wind either.

But what really troubles me is if this makes me a member of the "cycling taliban"?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (19 Apr 2013)

2415451 said:


> Tedious that you assume my assumptions. The key word you are missing is "confuse".


Never mind all that: you are being called _old_ here


----------



## bianchi1 (19 Apr 2013)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Never mind all that: you are being called _old_ here



My guess:


----------



## snorri (19 Apr 2013)

kerndog said:


> Im going to post this for you again theclaud to make sure you saw it:.........................
> come on old boy, man up and straighten this out


I do think you are making unreasonable demands on theclaud, kerndog.
Play fair


----------



## subaqua (19 Apr 2013)

Peteaud said:


> I work 12 hour (minimum and more like 12.5 hour) shifts and i can tell you, at the end of the day i am fit to drop, let alone cycle home.
> 
> I do cycle some days (better weather etc) but i dont want my cycling to become a chore, so drive most days.


 I have just got back in after a 10 hour mentally and physically demanding shift . i rode in through horizontal rain and hail and needed to "tack" in places to make progress against the wind. I could have got in a car but decided what the hell. Oh and as i was on the back shift i rode in the long route of 25 miles .

ye si live in a city but i have kids - both fairly keen cyclists. youngest was most peeved when he couldn't ride in this morning as he would be going on the bus after school.

i am 40 and up to 4 yrs ago was a fat , unfit, smoker who thought he "needed " a car. I realised i didnt NEED a car and did something about it.


----------



## subaqua (19 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> I love my car, and at times it's a necessity. *My sons under 13 football league has a radius of about 30 miles. As much as we love cycling a 60 mile round trip plus a match may be a bit cruel!*
> 
> I also work shifts in a busy kitchen. *While I often commute (12 miles each way) in the week, the idea of riding back at 1 in the morning* after cooking 160 meals in a 40+ degree kitchen is not appealing! I would get the bus but the last one leaves town at 10.30.
> 
> ...


 
have a similar thing with 11 yr olds swimming Galas - go out as far as Clacton . so we use public transport . we know when the galas are, much like football matches are planned. so we can plan the journeys.

see my post above rode home from central London at 1am this morning . I wasn't the only cyclist !


----------



## theclaud (19 Apr 2013)

kerndog said:


> Im going to post this for you again theclaud to make sure you saw it:
> 
> "Tell you what bike fascists, man up and clear this whole thing up. I've made my point quite clear, As has the OP, but im a bit slow and linguistically challenged, so why not spell out your stance on this subject?
> 
> ...



Tell you what, young lady... How 'bout you try once more to stretch your brain round the crystal-clear stuff that's already there in black and white? You're already being indulged far more than you deserve.


----------



## lukesdad (19 Apr 2013)

How are Peter Pan and the lost girls doing, Reached Neverland yet ?


----------



## Brandane (19 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> I know you are having trouble with this, but some of us dispute the premise of the OP, and the OP is blatantly adversarial. It really is that simple.


 
"Adversarial" only to those with intolerant attitudes towards people who do not choose to live their lives as you, and your likes, would have them living it.


----------



## Brandane (19 Apr 2013)

McWobble said:


> I've never owned a car. I've never been able to _afford_ to own a car. Which means that, yes, I've had to move quite a few times in order to be able to get to work, from one end of the country to another
> 
> a car is not a necessity for most people. Unquestionably it is for some - and I couldn't cycle 25 miles into a fierce head wind either.
> 
> But what really troubles me is if this makes me a member of the "cycling taliban"?


 
Not at all, your points are perfectly valid, and you concede that "a car is not a necessity for most people. Unquestionably it is for some" (although I would reverse your "most" and "some"). You've got a long way to go before your attitude is as Taliban like as the rabid anti-car brigade on here.


----------



## kerndog (19 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> Tell you what, young lady... How 'bout you try once more to stretch your brain round the crystal-clear stuff that's already there in black and white? You're already being indulged far more than you deserve.


 
just as I thought, not man enough


----------



## Brandane (19 Apr 2013)

Way-hey; the sun is out , there is no wind, and it's not freezing cold. I'm off to cycle round the Isle of Bute with a cycling buddy today. Trolls, keyboard warriors, and Taliban members; y'all have a nice day. At least try and get to the cave entrance so you can catch a glimpse of the sun .


----------



## theclaud (19 Apr 2013)

kerndog said:


> just as I thought, not man enough



You might just be on to something there...


----------



## lukesdad (19 Apr 2013)

subaqua said:


> I have just got back in after a 10 hour mentally and physically demanding shift . i rode in through horizontal rain and hail and needed to "tack" in places to make progress against the wind. I could have got in a car but decided what the hell. Oh and as i was on the back shift i rode in the long route of 25 miles .
> 
> ye si live in a city but i have kids - both fairly keen cyclists. youngest was most peeved when he couldn't ride in this morning as he would be going on the bus after school.
> 
> i am 40 and up to 4 yrs ago was a fat , unfit, smoker who thought he "needed " a car. I realised i didnt NEED a car and did something about it.


 Lucky old you eh ?


----------



## kerndog (19 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> You might just be on to something there...


 
ok let me rephrase - not grown up enough

tell you what, you continue your flawed, unrealistic, nonsense argument that we should all make choices that mean we dont use our cars and im going to live in the real world, where i appreciate that a lot of people have no choice but to use their cars. It would be great if more people rode bikes and used their cars less, hell I just sold my car recently and haven't looked back, thing is it's not an option for a lot of people. Our entire system is built around people using cars, it will take a huge shift to make that change, which would be great, but it takes more than a couple of bike geeks on a forum to make that change. If your that committed to a car free world get out there and do something about it other than preaching and trolling on the interwebs.

So move on and stop trolling. It's embarrassing, your just making your silly little self look even sillier.


----------



## srw (19 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> Trust me, they are enjoying it more than us.


Trust me, you, kerndog and brandane are making *far* bigger fools of yourselves than anyone else. 

One of you (I forget who) wanted a clear exposition of the argument. TC's posted that several times. Once it's become clear you're not listening, I'm afraid you're fair game.


----------



## srw (19 Apr 2013)

kerndog said:


> ok let me rephrase - not grown up enough
> 
> tell you what, you continue your flawed, unrealistic, nonsense argument that we should all make choices that mean we dont use our cars and im going to live in the real world, where i appreciate that a lot of people have no choice but to use their cars. It would be great if more people rode bikes and used their cars less, hell I just sold my car recently and haven't looked back, thing is it's not an option for a lot of people. Our entire system is built around people using cars, it will take a huge shift to make that change, which would be great, but it takes more than a couple of bike geeks on a forum to make that change. If your that committed to a car free world get out there and do something about it other than preaching and trolling on the interwebs.
> 
> So move on and stop trolling. It's embarrassing, your just making your silly little self look even sillier.


Talking of looking silly - you told us you'd had enough half a dozen pages ago. Flounces only work with a follow-through.


----------



## srw (19 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> With all due respect to Pat (who commutes Rutherglen to Glasgow SECC, about 4 miles each way on city streets and paths) and other commuters, the point I was trying to make was the combination of several factors. Weather, distance, time involved on top of 12 hour shifts, and worst of all - the A737 and A760. Utter madness IMHO.


Largs - Paisley? There's a damn fine train service that would be the envy of most of the country. On a bike the A760 is completely avoidable via the Lochwinnoch bike path. Damn fine tarmac. 

Of course it's your choice...


----------



## srw (19 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> I love my car, and at times it's a necessity. My sons under 13 football league has a radius of about 30 miles. As much as we love cycling a 60 mile round trip plus a match may be a bit cruel!


Your choice to have children. 
Your choice to encourage one of them to play football (damn silly choice, BTW I there are far more interesting things for him to do of a Saturday). 
Your choice to indulge him with a daddy-taxi each week rather than organise a minibus for the team, or car-sharing. 

I don't see much necessity in any of those choices.


----------



## theclaud (19 Apr 2013)

kerndog said:


> you continue your flawed, unrealistic, nonsense argument that we should all make choices that mean we dont use our cars



Is that "my" argument, as in the one I haven't made?


----------



## kerndog (19 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> Talking of looking silly - you told us you'd had enough half a dozen pages ago. Flounces only work with a follow-through.


 
ok and now the brown nosers are here to massage some ego's.

your a bit late mate to come in here all flustered and try to join in. you look silly.


----------



## srw (19 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> Of course it's your choice...


And it was your choice to post on one of the cycling-related boards rather than on the fluffy cafe - where you would have been offered a cup of tea and a sit-down for your traumatic drive. 

Probably a good thing you didn't post in Commuting, actually.


----------



## theclaud (19 Apr 2013)

kerndog said:


> ok and now the brown nosers are here to massage some ego's.
> 
> your a bit late mate to come in here all flustered and try to join in. you look silly.



Flustered? Hahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## swansonj (19 Apr 2013)

My wife and I have made a number of choices about our lifestyle. I am not inviting moral approval or censure here, I' proud of some and less proud of others, but the point is that all of these were choices.

We chose to live in a town with a decent comprehensive school in walking distance. We chose to confine our house search to houses within ten minutes walk of the railway station. We chose to buy a bike trailer to take the kids to nursery and then a child back tandem when one child needed to go to a special unit in a school in the neighbouring town. When my work relocated, I chose not to go, but negotiated a deal to work from an office in cycle-commute distance, thereby limiting my promotion prospects, though not too seriously. I have chosen never once in six or seven years of part-time commuting to that ten-mile-away office to duck out because of the weather. I have chosen to stick with a job that now requires more travelling to meetings, and sometimes I choose to do those by train and Brompton, but often I choose to drive so as to be home an hour earlier in the evening. When my wife re-entered the job market after maternity, she chose to limit herself to hospitals accessible by train, but if she has chosen an evening commitment on a work day, she sometimes chooses to drive instead so as to be back sooner. We have chosen to encourage our daughter in her music, which involves driving her to and from evening rehearsals and concerts, and we have chosen to teach her to use public transport at an earlier age than most of her peers so that she can progressively do more of these by train or bus. We have chosen to have some holidays without a car e.g. train to Scotland, sleeper train to Venice, and we have chosen to have rather more holidays by car. I choose my style of leisure cycling so that it doesn't involve a car (e.g. the Fridays).

Every one of those is a CHOICE! I completely agree that I have more choices than many because (a) I am relatively fit and healthy and (b) my wife and I start with the advantages of our respective professional educations which gives us more options for work. But my use of a car, which is more than Claud and Adrian's and less than the average in our peer group, is a CHOICE not a need. Oh, and I support HIGHER fuel duty and HIGHER parking charges and would be mortified if I ever picked up a parking ticket.


----------



## theclaud (19 Apr 2013)

OT, but just out of interest, which is the post TMN refers to in your sig, SJ?


----------



## wiggydiggy (19 Apr 2013)

*Late Night Cycle Commutes and Public Transport*

This has been mentioned a little but has got missed....

Central London has been mooted as an example of where it is possible, and almost popular, to commute at unsocial hours on a bicycle. But when I tried that (Leeds) I felt very vulnerable being (a) the only cyclist I saw and (b) a tendency for driving standards to fall. So unsocial hours cycling is not always safe for all.

Which leads to one alternative then - public transport - but unfortunately it is not viable as in many towns and cities it stops as around 2200-2300. My own city has scrapped all but 1 of its night bus and that only runs term time (for the universities)*.*

So we're left with cars, either our own or a taxi. That can change, for instance in Leeds a call for the night bus's return is gathering strength but I think too often people perhaps are victims of taking the easy (or seen to be easy) way out of using a car.

I do feel BTW given the tone of the topic that I need to state it is not as simple as someone being either pro bike or pro car, but simply we should try to adopt a sensible attitude to our life choices whatever they may be.


----------



## tyred (19 Apr 2013)

Tomorrow I will be putting my bike in my car and travelling quite a few miles to meet up with some friends (who will also be reaching the destination by car) and we will be going for an enjoyable ride on scenic traffic free mountain roads before driving home again.

I am preparing the sack cloth and ashes as I type for daring to use a car to enhance my enjoyment of life.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (19 Apr 2013)

al78 said:


> Unless you are frail and elderly, or disabled, something I feel certain people forget whilst they are relatively young, in full health and capable of cycling 100+ miles a week without problem. Just remember, there is a good chance that the mobility you now take for granted will be gone in the future.


Oh, can really relate to that. Never sick before, a few years back I done something to my knee, suddenly needed a walking stick.
That was the only time ever in my life I felt sorry for myself 
Dark thoughts of not being able to feed myself and the cat!
Hope I'm dead before something mayor happens to my mobility, no kidding, it's horrible not to be independent


----------



## Pat "5mph" (19 Apr 2013)

2416229 said:


> Yeah but I am


I find older bearded men of few words, set in their ways with a grumpy disposition, quite endearing. 
Can I adopt you as honorary Grampa? Mind, you need to be at least 90!


----------



## wiggydiggy (19 Apr 2013)

2416398 said:


> Every person who decides to commute by bike makes it easier for another person to make the same decision and vice versa


 
True but my point was (in Leeds at least) - I tried the 'commute by bike at all times' attitude but for safety reasons had to abandon it, and the current mindset of people is not to try and consider any alternative other than to use a car rather than for example join the call for the return of late night public transport.

100's perhaps 1000's of people work in Leeds late night, not to mention everyone out enjoying the babycham or cheap lager, yet the majority not within walking distance get a taxi/private car journey home. 

Here's a link BTW to current calls for more late night public transport:

"Leeds night buses ‘a non starter" http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....ies/leeds-night-buses-a-non-starter-1-4433244

In that article it says "“It is .... clear that the options and opportunities for conventional bus services are very limited commercially and difficult to justify in terms of the significant levels of public subsidy needed to achieve the level of coverage that would make a meaningful difference.”" - So people are happier to use cars to get around late night it seems.

"Late-night train call issued by Leeds councillor" http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....ain-call-issued-by-leeds-councillor-1-5569253

Its not just that line BTW my own finishes by 2330 and the only very late services I know of serve Leeds>Manchester and Leeds>York, hardly the local populace!


PS I realise that is widely off topic, but its better than arguing with each other present company accepted!


----------



## 400bhp (19 Apr 2013)

What a middle class thread.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (19 Apr 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> True but my point was (in Leeds at least) - I tried the 'commute by bike at all times' attitude but for safety reasons had to abandon it, and the current mindset of people is not to try and consider any alternative other than to use a car rather than for example join the call for the return of late night public transport.
> 
> 100's perhaps 1000's of people work in Leeds late night, not to mention everyone out enjoying the babycham or cheap lager, yet the majority not within walking distance get a taxi/private car journey home.
> 
> ...


Hey, don't know about Leeds, but here in Glasgow I feel much safer cycling through the park late at night after a shift instead of taking the bus.
What a nightmare late night public transport is, used it for many years!
I mean, got headphones on, my nose in a book, still the smelly drunk pub goer wants to talk to me .... bleuchh


----------



## Boris Bajic (19 Apr 2013)

400bhp said:


> What a middle class thread.


 
Yes, but not uninteresting. Insofar as people are taking sides, they seem to be doing so in a fairly passive way; digging in rather than lobbing grenades. Much more civilised than it could be, if slightly silly at times.

I'm an avid cyclist, but I run a car (three - eek!). My reasons are much as those posted by Brandane and others. I've tried to encourage my children to ride (still naively believing that my views have any impression on those of my issue) and so far it has worked. But I also encourage them to drive at the appropriate age. They may or may not run cars when they have their own money, but it seems a sensible thing to get under their belts. Meanwhile they all have bicycles and seem to enjoy using them.

We live where we do because it is beautiful and we are happy here. When we both worked in different towns (20-ish miles in different directions) and had three young children and an au pair, cars were a blessing. We felt the need of them and I suspect that their absence would have altered our lives quite a lot.

It may be easier to keep the faith if living in a city and/or without dependents.

Within a family, it is not easy to align domestic stability, good (state) schools, work opportunity and all the sport, music and silliness of childhood with a Utopian and car-free life. I dare say some have done it, but it was not for us. I have a high regard for those who have managed it, but we have not. To do so while raising active children merits a medal or similar.

The 'car' debate is but one of many about lifestyle choices: We grow a lot of our own food here. Others might not, but that doesn't make them wrong, naughty or bad - it's just a choice. I know someone who is very _anti-car_ but who buys supermarket apples from the other side of the world. That's not something I'd do, but I can't see it as a sin or a reason to get my soap box out. Nor do I turn down his _air-mile apples_ when offered one - as he doesn't turn down lifts I offer.

One thing that does strike me is the extent to which living a life free of motor vehicles is always going to be fantasy at one or another level. Almost everything we eat, ride, sleep on or rake the moss with is delivered by motor vehicle.


----------



## swansonj (19 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> OT, but just out of interest, which is the post TMN refers to in your sig, SJ?


Ah. I wouldn't use that sig line is I thought there was any serious disagreement between TMN and myself. It was on a thread about the evils of tailgating (those cursed cars again...). I recounted how, on work journeys by car, I improved my mpg by slipstreaming lorries. My point was supposed to be that, even when seeking that benefit, I still didn't get ridiculously close to them. I'm guessing, however, that I managed to give TMN the impression of driving along ten feet from the tailgate of a lorry at 60mph....


----------



## wiggydiggy (19 Apr 2013)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Hey, don't know about Leeds, but here in Glasgow I feel much safer cycling through the park late at night after a shift instead of taking the bus.
> What a nightmare late night public transport is, used it for many years!
> I mean, got headphones on, my nose in a book, still the smelly drunk pub goer wants to talk to me .... bleuchh


 
Well there are some late night cyclists: http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....clist-was-armed-with-pair-of-knives-1-5596831 

Joking aside the night bus's can be drunken dens of shouty peeps yes, but if more normal people were willing to use rather than the drunken 16-25 age groups that was so prevalent that might be different.


----------



## subaqua (19 Apr 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> *Late Night Cycle Commutes and Public Transport*
> 
> This has been mentioned a little but has got missed....
> 
> ...


 

I used to commute at silly o clock on a bike on unlit rural roads in North Wales. They have some wild weather there too , its not limited to Scotland. I was peer pressured into getting a car at 18, it wasn't long after that i started smoking too . wish i had had some more willpower and decided against getting a car and just got my licence . would be a damn sight fitter and healthier .

no problem with people choosing things, but please don't say you NEED a car, when what you mean is you WANT to use a car.


----------



## Wobblers (19 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Not at all, your points are perfectly valid, and you concede that "a car is not a necessity for most people. Unquestionably it is for some" (although I would reverse your "most" and "some"). You've got a long way to go before your attitude is as Taliban like as the rabid anti-car brigade on here.


 
There is a big difference between someone in a wheelchair who needs a car to have a modicum of independence and someone who needs a car in order to avoid the perceived inconvenience of public transport. You cannot conflate convenience with need. Most people live in cities and towns with public transport. Most people, therefore, have an alternative. The issue, for most people, is one of quality of life as mcshroom has already pointed out. And on the question of "need", what would you prefer to have access to: a car, or a health service?

On the topic of "taliban like as the rabid anti-car brigade", I have to point out that absolutely _no one_ has said that you ought to man up and cycle those windy 25 miles - come on, this isn't Bike Radar, you know! Indeed, all the insults have been in one direction only - from what I think fair to call the rabid car excusal lobby. It's odd how that lobby insist that their viewpoint must be the only right one - and regards any questioning of this as evidence of "rabid anti-car" attitudes, all while not condescending to accord those with other opinions the respect that they demand themselves. Or maybe not.


----------



## Wobblers (19 Apr 2013)

wiggydiggy said:


> *Late Night Cycle Commutes and Public Transport*
> 
> This has been mentioned a little but has got missed....
> 
> ...


 
I do a lot miles late at night. This is entirely _opposite_ to my experiences. I've found it much safer - the roads are quieter, vehicles give you _very much more room_, driving standards are better, if anything, I've never had anyone deliberately stand in my way playing chicken... It is in short a safer, more pleasant experience. There are quite a few people here who do late night commutes - they don't tend to report as many problems as the rush hour warriors.


----------



## Wobblers (19 Apr 2013)

Pat "5mph" said:


> I find older bearded men of few words, set in their ways with a grumpy disposition, quite endearing.
> Can I adopt you as honorary Grampa? Mind, you need to be at least 90!


 
You've got Adrian down to a tee - are you sure you've not met him already?

Though I'm not quite sure that the word "endearing" would be the first to spring to mind were I to describe him.


----------



## wiggydiggy (19 Apr 2013)

subaqua said:


> I used to commute at silly o clock on a bike on unlit rural roads in North Wales. They have some wild weather there too , its not limited to Scotland. I was peer pressured into getting a car at 18, it wasn't long after that i started smoking too . wish i had had some more willpower and decided against getting a car and just got my licence . would be a damn sight fitter and healthier .
> 
> no problem with people choosing things, but please don't say you NEED a car, when what you mean is you WANT to use a car.


 
I didnt say that though did I ? But I was talking in general terms about the general populace where their choices seem to imply they dont want even public transport as an alternative to the car < thats why I linked the bus story where the council are blaming a lack of demand for the lack of night bus's.



McWobble said:


> I do a lot miles late at night. This is entirely _opposite_ to my experiences. I've found it much safer - the roads are quieter, vehicles give you _very much more room_, driving standards are better, if anything, I've never had anyone deliberately stand in my way playing chicken... It is in short a safer, more pleasant experience. There are quite a few people here who do late night commutes - they don't tend to report as many problems as the rush hour warriors.


 
It was just my perception and comfortability with riding alone at that time, I've actually done some very rural rides late and through the night (sole and group) and felt fine.

It was only the commute, sharing space with drunken drivers and impatient taxis and being greeted by inebriated piss heads to whom the sight of a cyclist late at night is frankly as shocking as being beaten with a wet haddock that put me off.

I replaced the commute with a different job BTW.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (19 Apr 2013)

McWobble said:


> You've got Adrian down to a tee - are you sure you've not met him already?
> 
> Though I'm not quite sure that the word "endearing" would be the first to spring to mind were I to describe him.


Wouldn't know Adrian from Adam  but "challenging" bearded over 50's men? 
Adrian, would you like to meet BigCat?


----------



## theclaud (19 Apr 2013)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Adrian, *would you like to meet BigCat*?


 
Is this some kind of euphemism?


----------



## Tim Hall (19 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> Is this some kind of euphemism?


A friend of the Beer Kitty perhaps?


----------



## Brandane (19 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> Largs - Paisley? There's a damn fine train service that would be the envy of most of the country. On a bike the A760 is completely avoidable via the Lochwinnoch bike path. Damn fine tarmac.
> 
> Of course it's your choice...


 
OK, have a look at the timetable and tell me how to get to Paisley for 0630 on a Saturday or Sunday morning, in time for my shift which started at the airport, at 0700. I'll save you the time; the first train from Largs arrives at 0727 on a Saturday, 0946 on a Sunday. So the train service is fine (when they haven't suspended the service for any number of weather related reasons) ..... as long as you have a nice wee office job Mon/Fri 9-5.

The Lochwinnoch bike path is indeed a fine facility to have on our doorstep. Unfortunately it tends to be covered in snow and ice for several weeks at a time over the winter, and it never gets cleared until nature takes its course. Even with the ice spiked tyres on my MTB it is foolhardy to try and cycle on. And there is of course the small matter of the A760 to negotiate before you even get to Lochwinnoch.



srw said:


> Trust me, you, kerndog and brandane are making *far* bigger fools of yourselves than anyone else.


 
How do you work that one out? Just because I have different needs (ooops sorry - have made different life choices) to you and the rest of your gang? Just to reiterate; I can appreciate where you lot are coming from in NOT wanting to own a car, so what is your problem with accepting that other people might see things differently? Is it REALLY so difficult?



srw said:


> Your choice to have children.
> Your choice to encourage one of them to play football (damn silly choice, BTW I there are far more interesting things for him to do of a Saturday).
> Your choice to indulge him with a daddy-taxi each week rather than organise a minibus for the team, or car-sharing.
> 
> I don't see much necessity in any of those choices.


 
Can't believe what I'm reading now. Your credibility just sunk to new depths.


----------



## Brandane (19 Apr 2013)

subaqua said:


> no problem with people choosing things, but please don't say you NEED a car, when what you mean is you WANT to use a car.


 
What about people who DON'T want a car, but NEED one? I don't particularly WANT a car and all its associated hassle and expense, but I NEED one if I am going to make myself available to employers who want me to work shifts some considerable distance from home. That is the reality of MY situation, and good luck to those who find themselves in a different situation.


----------



## Brandane (19 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Way-hey; the sun is out , there is no wind, and it's not freezing cold. I'm off to cycle round the Isle of Bute with a cycling buddy today. Trolls, keyboard warriors, and Taliban members; y'all have a nice day. At least try and get to the cave entrance so you can catch a glimpse of the sun .


 
Yes I had a very nice day out today thanks, I know theclaud & co. were wishing me well .
40 miles in the sunshine, cannae beat it . 


But I wouldn't like to have to do it every day in all weathers, that's what cars are for.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (19 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> Is this some kind of euphemism?





Tim Hall said:


> A friend of the Beer Kitty perhaps?


BigCat: a cat version of Adrian?


----------



## theclaud (19 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Yes I had a very nice day out today thanks, *I know theclaud & co. were wishing me well* .
> 40 miles in the sunshine, cannae beat it .
> 
> 
> But I wouldn't like to have to do it every day in all weathers, that's what cars are for.


 
But of course! I am happy for anyone who is riding a bicycle in the sunshine.


----------



## Crackle (19 Apr 2013)

2417018 said:


> Not mangy enough


 
No one can quote this and do a mangy pussy joke. This thread is already bad enough.


----------



## Spinney (19 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> Your choice to have children.
> Your choice to encourage one of them to play football (damn silly choice, BTW I there are far more interesting things for him to do of a Saturday).
> Your choice to indulge him with a daddy-taxi each week rather than organise a minibus for the team, or *car-sharing*.
> 
> I don't see much necessity in any of those choices.


 
This rather requires that at least someone needs has made the choice to run a car!


----------



## srw (19 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> the airport,


The largest employer for miles around. The only tourist destination between Glasgow and the sea. And there's no thought in your noddle of getting your union to suggest improving transport for everyone? The airport could make a mint out of socialised transport for flyers even if they offered it to employees for free. 

I suspect you've made reasonable choices - and I recognise that your choices are more constrained than some. But they're still choices. The first stage in liberating yourself from the results of those choices is to acknowledge that you have a choice.


----------



## srw (19 Apr 2013)

Spinney said:


> This rather requires that at least someone needs has made the choice to run a car!


Bianchi1 has (although he denies it). But there are more imaginative choices than condemning his son to a daddy-taxi ride every week.


----------



## Boris Bajic (19 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> Bianchi1 has (although he denies it). But there are more imaginative choices than condemning his son to a daddy-taxi ride every week.


 
This is unusual stuff. I was 'condemned' to a Daddy-Taxi as a sport-obsessed schoolboy in the 70s and 80s. It seemed (and seems) quite an imaginative way to move one (or more) of several children around to various events at conflicting times. I loved dragging myself, muddy and tired. back to the car for a nice drive home. In those pre-seatbelt days, a large estate with the seats down took quite a few muddy runners.

I have since produced young of my own and over the years we've 'condemned' them to to the Daddy-Taxi and the Mummy-Taxi to get them to drama, football, ballet, riding, rugby, cadets and all sorts of other things. Recently, I've been Daddy-Taxi-ing my middle child to 10-mile TTs run in the middle of nowhere by a local cycling club. Our drives home from all sorts of silly events are a chance to chat without the rest of the family suddenly butting in or throwing something at us or calling us to the 'phone. I think many parents will agree that a drive to or from an event with a solitary child briefly separated from peers and siblings is a rather lovely thing where useful and revealing chats are had.

A cynic might argue that there are more imaginative uses of time than berating a fellow cyclist on the Internet for his lack of imagination in choosing to drive a child to a sporting event.


----------



## kerndog (19 Apr 2013)

2416393 said:


> So, in essence we are all in agreement here, although for reasons which you have now probably forgotten, you have felt the need to have a jolly good rant at people based on stuff which they haven't said.



Pretty much. I was just responding to the aggressive, abrasive responses and I love a good debate!


----------



## Pat "5mph" (19 Apr 2013)

2417018 said:


> Not mangy enough


More like this?


----------



## kerndog (19 Apr 2013)

2417198 said:


> Do you? I look forward to an example.



You just can't help yourself can you, you grumpy old troll


----------



## subaqua (19 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> But of course! I am happy for anyone who is riding a bicycle in the sunshine.


 I am happy for anybody riding a bicycle whatever the weather. more so if they are riding in poor weather as they need the positive Ommm .


----------



## subaqua (19 Apr 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> This is unusual stuff. I was 'condemned' to a Daddy-Taxi as a sport-obsessed schoolboy in the 70s and 80s. It seemed (and seems) quite an imaginative way to move one (or more) of several children around to various events at conflicting times. I loved draging myself, muddy and tired. back to the car for a nice drive home. In those pre-seatbelt days, a large estate with the seats down took quite a few muddy runners.
> 
> I have since produced young of my own and over the years we've 'condemned' them to to the Daddy-Taxi and the Mummy-Taxi to get them to drama, football, ballet, riding, rugby, cadets and all sorts of other things. Recently, I've been Daddy-Taxi-ing my middle child to 10-mile TTs run in the middle of nowhere by a local cycling club. Our drives home from all sorts of silly events are a chance to chat without the rest of the family suddenly butting in or throwing something at us or calling us to the 'phone.* I think many parents will agree that a drive to or from an event with a solitary child briefly separated from peers and siblings is a rather lovely thing where useful and revealing chats are had. *
> 
> A cynic might argue that there are more imaginative uses of time than berating a fellow cyclist on the Internet for his lack of imagination in choosing to drive a child to a sporting event.


 
yeah cos we cant talk to our kids when on public transport


----------



## Peteaud (19 Apr 2013)

I am going to go and live in a rain forest, butt naked and only take what i need.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (19 Apr 2013)

Peteaud said:


> I am going to go and live in a rain forest, butt naked and only take what i need.


You're not supposed to take anything!


----------



## Brandane (19 Apr 2013)

Peteaud said:


> I am going to go and live in a rain forest, butt naked and only take what i need.


 
But.... but..... how are you going to get the car in there??


----------



## Peteaud (19 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> But.... but..... how are you going to get the car in there??


 
Bleeding great 4 x 4 and a turbo charged V8


----------



## Boris Bajic (19 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> But.... but..... how are you going to get the car in there??


 
A Unimog. Don't leave home without it.

In the rain forest I use nothing else.

The natves don't think much of it, but they don't have a proper flag so I don't see why they think their opinion is of any concern to me.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (19 Apr 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> A Unimog.


This reminds me, a few days ago on the commute, saw a young chap holding to the rails of a park monument: he was trying to set off on a unicycle!
He was not succeeding in beating his fear of the unknown


----------



## bianchi1 (21 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> Bianchi1 has (although he denies it). But there are more imaginative choices than condemning his son to a daddy-taxi ride every week.



Name one for last weeks situation.

My son had a home match (2 miles from where we live) at 1 30 pm . I had volunteered to marshal at a local road race which finished at 1 pm. This was approximately 15 miles from where we live so no way of getting my son from the race to the match other than by car. There are no busses running on Sundays around me and the nearest rail station is ten miles away. 

I could have left him at home by himself and let him ride to the match while I went to marshal the race but he is slightly to young and it would be irresponsible. I am a single parent so have extremely limited options when it comes to child care. 

In the end I he got changed for football, came with me to marshal the race (well sat in the car and did his reading) then drove him to the match then back home. 

When you come up with a better option than that (that doesn't involve someone else 'needing' to own a car) let me know.

And while you are at it the next match is in droitwich. 15 miles and 35 min by car. Any suggestions for this journey?







Public transport is a 7 hour round trip






I will be giving a lift to a couple of his teammates but if you have any better suggestions let me know.

I have never pushed either of my children into any activity. I have always let them choose their own path and accepted that I have a responsibility to enable them to undertake activities that make them happy. 

I am however happy to join this threads jolly trolling attitude..


I need a car in order that I am not forced to live in areas that are surrounded by public transport. My car enables me to satisfy my responsibilities, both work and parental, while not forcing them to live in crowded, urban centres with high crime, social deprivation, poor air quality and all the associated problems, that include increased mental illness, road deaths, that come with living in these horrific concrete jungles. My childrens primary school had under 50 pupils (in total) and their (state) secondary school is surrounded by beautiful countryside, has a reputation second to none. 

I think that anyone who CHOOSES not to run a car while bringing up young children in a city is basically responsible for child abuse.


----------



## mcshroom (21 Apr 2013)

FIrst you deny it's a choice, now you claim that any other choice is wrong. At least you're starting to admit that choices are involved.


----------



## bianchi1 (21 Apr 2013)

2420048 said:


> You are just being silly now.



Don't make presumptions about what assumptions I might think I would like to choose to assert as my actual opinions


----------



## bianchi1 (21 Apr 2013)

mcshroom said:


> FIrst you deny it's a choice, now you claim that any other choice is wrong. At least you're starting to admit that choices are involved.



You can choose to satisfy a need or not. Think eating for example. Keep up!


----------



## mcshroom (21 Apr 2013)

Right still some way to go then. 

What happens if you choose not to eat? What happens if you choose not to drive? Come on I'm sure you can figure it out


----------



## bianchi1 (22 Apr 2013)

mcshroom said:


> Right still some way to go then.
> 
> What happens if you choose not to eat? What happens if you choose not to drive? Come on I'm sure you can figure it out



Some have further to go than others! If you don't understand my point that, while eating is a need, individuals have free will to ignore that need. Obviously the results of choosing not to eat are worse than ignoring some individuals needs for motorised personal transport. 

Here's an easier one for you to get your head around

Take water for example. Turn the taps off in most of the UK and you could argue that a need is not being met. I live near a spring so it would cause an inconvenience but I would cope. Vast parts of the world have no water supply to individual properties so it is not a human need, it just means more people live longer and easier lives.

You get where I'm going here..is running water a need or a choice?


----------



## mcshroom (22 Apr 2013)

So you are still that short of understanding, oh well.

The physical well being of a person is not dependant on their owning a large collection of steel, plastic, rubber and electronics. That it is possible to have the water supply turned off is pretty good proof that the requirement for water to be piped to one's house is not a 'need', though it may be desirable.

What you are repeatedly failing to grasp is the difference between a 'need' - something that is required for life; and something that is a desirable 'choice' - something that you feel improves your quality of life.

Your comment about 'child abuse' shows a basic lack of understanding of this concept, and asking people to show you how you could make your car dependant choices without using a car after making those choices shows how clearly you are missing the point.

Oh well, there's still a chance it may sink in


----------



## theclaud (22 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> I need a car in order that I am not forced to live in areas that are surrounded by public transport.


I've read some bonkers stuff on here before, but this is in a league of its own.


----------



## bianchi1 (22 Apr 2013)

mcshroom said:


> So you are still that short of understanding, oh well.
> 
> The physical well being of a person is not dependant on their owning a large collection of steel, plastic, rubber and electronics. That it is possible to have the water supply turned off is pretty good proof that the requirement for water to be piped to one's house is not a 'need', though it may be desirable.
> 
> ...



Looks like your definition of need is different from that of Collins dictionary






Yours is far more simple:

'need' - something that is required for life

Short, to the point and over simplistic.


----------



## mcshroom (22 Apr 2013)

Well it looks like we are back to the remedial work.

What would happen if you were told tomorrow that you were unfit to drive? For example, if you were diagnosed with epilepsy?

As a third of the country do not have a car, it is evident that cars are not needed for life in the UK, yet you choose to make more and more ludicrous 'reasons' for why you 'need' one. That you feel you need to defend your choices shows that you understand that they are choices. That you seek to shift the 'blame' for your choices to others shows that you are not comfortable with the choices you have made. It doesn't take much to understand this, but it does need you to step away from your own car-centric view point and actually think.

Oh and for trading dictionary listings: -



> need
> /nēd/
> Verb
> Require (something) because it is essential or very important: "I need help now".
> ...


----------



## bianchi1 (22 Apr 2013)

mcshroom said:


> Well it looks like we are back to the remedial work.
> 
> What would happen if you were told tomorrow that you were unfit to drive? For example, if you were diagnosed with epilepsy?
> 
> ...



Love this.

Even in your definition it states that need is something that is "very important". Not exactly life or death, but very important.

Your statistics prove only that cars aren't a necessity in a third of the country...urban bias anyone! 

If I were diagnosed with an illness that meant I could not drive I would receive funding from the government for taxis due to the lack of public transport options where I live. I know people that get such benefits. 

I do refer you to the point I made earlier in the thread that an individuals path in life is not solely governed by choices. Outside influences beyond the control of the individual will impact the needs (things that are very important) that that individual must face. 

For example I did choose to have children but I didn't choose to become a single parent.


----------



## subaqua (22 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> Love this.
> 
> Even in your definition it states that need is something that is "very important". *Not exactly life or death, but very important.*
> 
> ...


 none of which a car is, therefore a car is not a need.
you really think thats going top be a large sum of money do you. been there as a kid . it covers things like hospital appointments etc not just nipping down the shops.


----------



## srw (22 Apr 2013)

bianchi1 said:


> I had volunteered to marshal at a local road race which finished at 1 pm.


A choice.


> This was approximately 15 miles from where we live so no way of getting my son from the race to the match other than by car.


You both could have walked. A choice. 


> And while you are at it the next match is in droitwich. 15 miles and 35 min by car. Any suggestions for this journey?
> 
> I will be giving a lift to a couple of his teammates but if you have any better suggestions let me know.


Well done. A good choice. And one of the people you're ferrying next week could have given your son a lift this week. If he really needs a lift to travel two miles.


> I need a car in order that I am not forced to live in areas that are surrounded by public transport. My car enables me to satisfy my responsibilities, both work and parental, while not forcing them to live in crowded, urban centres with high crime, social deprivation, poor air quality and all the associated problems, that include increased mental illness, road deaths, that come with living in these horrific concrete jungles.


As TC says, that's an utterly daft thing to have written - you really ought to be ashamed of it. You're pretending to be forced to do something that you've freely chosen of your own volition. Unlike brandane, your choices are pretty unconstrained.


----------



## srw (22 Apr 2013)

2420115 said:


> Are you sure about that? For epilepsy? Covering ferrying your son to football?


It might be true now. It certainly won't be in a few years time.


----------



## Brandane (22 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> Unlike brandane, your choices are pretty unconstrained.


 
Finally! . 
Maybe, just maybe, someone from the other side has sort of admitted that there may be times when there is a need for a car a car is the most sensible and practical "choice". It all depends on where you live, the job you do, and other personal circumstances. So can you all try and stop enforcing your misguided beliefs on others (who form the vast majority of the non city dwelling population)?


----------



## srw (22 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Finally! .
> Maybe, just maybe, someone from the other side has sort of admitted that there may be times when a car is the most sensible and practical choice.


I don't suppose you'd like to find a place where anyone has said anything different? Good luck - you'll have a very long hunt. And then perhaps you can go on to reflect on McShroom's wise words. And finally have a think about what the situation will be like in a couple of years time when your hours have been cut because of the continuing economic gloom and your choice will be between keeping your car and keeping your house warm.


----------



## theclaud (22 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> *Finally! . *
> *Maybe, just maybe, someone from the other side has sort of admitted that there may be times when there is a need for a car a car is the most sensible and practical "choice".* It all depends on where you live, the job you do, and other personal circumstances. So can you all try and stop enforcing your misguided beliefs on others (who form the vast majority of the non city dwelling population)?


 
Meanwhile, back on page 5:



theclaud said:


> If I were to buy a car in order to get a job, that would be a choice. *It might be an understandable choice*, but it's a choice nonetheless..


 
No danger of you responding to what anyone actually says, instead of to the voices in your head, I suppose?


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 Apr 2013)

2420152 said:


> Well, if you could bring yourself to agree that the proportion of genuine need hidden within the huge body of choice dressed up as need is rather small, we could possibly bring this to a conclusion. Bianchi1's frankly ludicrous trolling aside that is.


 
I find Brandane's posts in this thread (that he started) fairly reasonable. If he feels a need, then there is a case (as Lear might have it) not to reason that need.

As a child in a fairly godless family, I frequently visited the monastic retreat of my father's wartime chaplain. The brothers there lived without possessions, without spouses or children, drank no alcohol and pretty much devoted their lives to prayer and good works. Their perception of need was (I would imagine) vastly different to those of the majority of posters on these pages. I found it a charming and slightly dotty lifestyle, but I liked the cakes they made.

Despite their chosen livestyles of poverty, chastity and obedience, these brothers did not ram the superiority of their choices down anyone's throat or try to open a spurious debate about the difference between need and choice. They just did their chanting and praying and weaving and let others do their driving and share-dealing and drinking and factory work.

There may be town-dwelling members of these pages who feel the need of things (imported fruit, tumble driers, new-world wines) for which I feel no need. One may argue between choice and perceived need, but this can sometimes descend into a spat of _'I prefer my lifestyle and will condemn or question the language with which you describe yours'_.

When still working in an office, I cycled most days between March and November (return journey 46 miles). As Brandane says in the OP, if the wind, rain or cold just looked horrid I drove. Sometimes I regretted the choice within moments of leaving the drive, but I did it again and again.

We (my family) have cars. We feel the need for them. We have open fires, we grow our own fruit (and some salads and vegetables), we make our own music... but we feel the need for cars. I think that my children have all benefitted hugely in their formative years by having access to personal transport in a (beautiful) part of the world where few public-transport options exist. In that sense, I have felt (and continue to feel) the need for a car (or three).


----------



## Brandane (22 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> Meanwhile, back on page 5:
> No danger of you responding to what anyone actually says, instead of to the voices in your head, I suppose?


 
So I might have failed to recall one post which was a reply to someone elses post. No need to get personal though. If you want to start that game, just let me know....... 

NB... Well written reply above from Boris. Common sense at its best.


----------



## Brandane (22 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> I don't suppose you'd like to find a place where anyone has said anything different? Good luck - you'll have a very long hunt. And then perhaps you can go on to reflect on McShroom's wise words. And finally have a think about what the situation will be like in a couple of years time when your hours have been cut because of the continuing economic gloom and your choice will be between keeping your car and keeping your house warm.


 
Did I forget to tell you? I now work just 27 hours per week, locally, because the cost of fuel has now made it uneconomical for me to travel on my previous 25 mile each way commute. As I have previously posted, the car is staying until I can no longer afford it, whenever that may be. Luckily I receive a pension from my previous life, so work is much like the car - I could get by without it, but I make my own "choices" to enhance my quality of life.


----------



## srw (22 Apr 2013)

Lose the inverted commas, think (with McShroom's help) about the impact of your choices on your neighbours and children and you're there. Well done.


----------



## Brandane (22 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> Lose the inverted commas, think (with McShroom's help) about the impact of your choices on your neighbours and children and you're there. Well done.


 
Lose the patronising victory statement. IF the car has to go, it will be purely for reasons of economics, and not as a result of some sort of social conscience.


----------



## kerndog (22 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Lose the patronising victory statement. IF the car has to go, it will be purely for reasons of economics, and not as a result of some sort of social conscience.


 
 glad to see your still holding your own brandane - theres nothing worse than a smug **** who doesn't even realise he's a smug ****


----------



## srw (22 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Lose the patronising victory statement. IF the car has to go, it will be purely for reasons of economics, and not as a result of some sort of social conscience.


Who's asking you to ditch the car? It's entirely in your own mind.


----------



## kerndog (22 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> A choice.
> 
> You both could have walked. A choice.


 
A bloody ridiculous, unrealistic choice. do you have any idea how unrealistic that suggestion is?

srw you dont have children do you?

 30 mile walk with a kid and a game of football in between. what a joke.


----------



## theclaud (22 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> So I might have failed to recall one post which was a reply to someone elses post. No need to get personal though. If you want to start that game, just let me know.......
> 
> NB... Well written reply above from Boris. Common sense at its best.


 
You're entirely missing the point, which is that you are battling an imaginary foe; arguing with a voice that you have projected onto others. And Boris's post is the usual loquacious, self-cebtred, irrelevant mish-mash of anecdote, disingenuousness, equivocation and passive aggression. So, yes - that is usually roughly what people seem to mean by "common sense".


----------



## Pat "5mph" (22 Apr 2013)

Brandane said:


> Lose the patronising victory statement. IF the car has to go, it will be purely for reasons of economics, and not as a result of some sort of social conscience.


Watch out: money spent in bikes and accessories can soon mount up to the price of a small car 
Economics: we cannae win!


----------



## srw (22 Apr 2013)

kerndog said:


> A bloody ridiculous, unrealistic choice. do you have any idea how unrealistic that suggestion is?
> 
> srw you dont have children do you?
> 
> 30 mile walk with a kid and a game of football in between. what a joke.


Errrrrmmmm.....

No. Try reading the right post. It's 2 miles. A 40 minute walk each way.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (22 Apr 2013)

2421315 said:


> Sad?


Nay, not really
Couldn't find a "dismay" smiley.


----------



## Boris Bajic (22 Apr 2013)

theclaud said:


> You're entirely missing the point, which is that you are battling an imaginary foe; arguing with a voice that you have projected onto others. And Boris's post is the usual loquacious, self-cebtred, irrelevant mish-mash of anecdote, disingenuousness, equivocation and passive aggression. So, yes - that is usually roughly what people seem to mean by "common sense".


 
You provide the psychoanalysis I could never afford. For which thank you.

I worry that the view (perspective) from several yards up your own flue may be obstructed, but I thank you for the care you display nonetheless.


----------



## kerndog (22 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> Errrrrmmmm.....
> 
> No. Try reading the right post. It's 2 miles. A 40 minute walk each way.


 
Errrrrrmmmmmmm

no. try bla bla bla​​"This was approximately 15 miles from where we live so no way of getting my son from the race to the match other than by car."​​"You both could have walked. A choice."


----------



## srw (22 Apr 2013)

kerndog said:


> Errrrrrmmmmmmm
> 
> no. try bla bla bla​​"This was approximately 15 miles from where we live so no way of getting my son from the race to the match other than by car."​​"You both could have walked. A choice."


You are quite dim, aren't you?

The bike event was 15 miles away. The football match was 2 miles away. The gentleman in question decided it was so important that he marshalled at a bike event 15 miles away that he drove to it, abandoned his son to sit in the car and read a book while he waved at his mates on bikes and then drove 15 miles back home to drop his son off at a football match 2 miles away from home.

A series of questionable choices which apparently add up to being forced to run a car.


----------



## kerndog (22 Apr 2013)

srw said:


> You are quite dim, aren't you?
> 
> The bike event was 15 miles away. The football match was 2 miles away. The gentleman in question bla bla bla, condecending spoddy comment bla bla bla another condescending arrogant comment bla bla bla middle class twat bla bla bla me resorting to childish abuse bla bla bla another unrealistic and stupid comment by a gimp with no real life experience bla bla bla me getting abusive again bla bla bla and round and round we go bla bla bla


 
 yep. I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, true, and I'm happy to admit when I make a bit of a tit out of my self... you?


----------



## Shaun (22 Apr 2013)

It's all getting a bit personal and silly now (and I can't see it improving), so I'm going to close the thread and invite you all to try some of the many other wonderful threads we have to offer. 

Cheers,
Shaun


----------

