People going to work on bikes.

[RootsBooster 24]

23 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

If somewhere can be cycled to, then it's within range of a combination of walking and public transport.

You assume everyone can afford the time and money for that

[WiseOwl182 10]

12 minutes ago, RootsBooster said:

You assume everyone can afford the time and money for that

Ok, let's rephrase slightly. Cycling is by far the least necessary out of cycling, walking and road vehicles (cars and buses).

[Cyclone 10]

16 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Cars are necessary because many people have to travel too far to work for walking, cycling or public transport. Walking is necessary because we're human beings. Cycling provides an overlap between the two as an additional option, rather than a necessity.

Living too far from work to walk isn't necessary, also buses and trams exist.

48 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Ok, let's rephrase slightly. Cycling is by far the least necessary out of cycling, walking and road vehicles (cars and buses).

Arguably, cycling is more necessary than driving.  As a society we are supposedly attempting to reduce pollution and congestion and also deal with a health crisis partly created by a lack of exercise.

Cycling achieves those aims better than driving.

[RootsBooster 24]

1 hour ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Ok, let's rephrase slightly. Cycling is by far the least necessary out of cycling, walking and road vehicles (cars and buses).

Before we go any further, can you explain what makes a car necessary, in terms of every day life (or to be more on topic, in terms of going to the workplace) ?

[WiseOwl182 10]

10 hours ago, RootsBooster said:

Before we go any further, can you explain what makes a car necessary, in terms of every day life (or to be more on topic, in terms of going to the workplace) ?

It's not just the car per se, but all vehicle transport on roads. Private cars are essential for many people who need to commute, travel between offices, etc, but then there are also buses, taxis ambulances, police cars, fire engines, etc. Roads are a necessity. Walking is a necessity. Cycling not so much. Sharing the roads is most appropriate, sharing pavements is dangerous to pedestrians.

[Car Boot 10]

On 14/05/2019 at 12:33, makapaka said:

I wouldn't cycle around roads in the city centre - nor most parts of the suburbs  - for a golden pig.  It's madness.

 

Totally outdated form of transport for a city. I understand it ticks boxes for health and the environment but involves transport by balancing on metal spindles with zero protection on dangerous, busy roads.

 

In an ideal world yes but realistically - no ta.

Only the mad middle-class, who think that everything they do benefits everyone when in reality it benefits only themselves, have the energy (due to their employment in non-manual sectors) and the lunacy to peddle close to buses and lorries to get to work. 

[RootsBooster 24]

22 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

It's not just the car per se, but all vehicle transport on roads. Private cars are essential for many people who need to commute, travel between offices, etc, but then there are also buses, taxis ambulances, police cars, fire engines, etc. Roads are a necessity. Walking is a necessity. Cycling not so much. Sharing the roads is most appropriate, sharing pavements is dangerous to pedestrians.

What makes cars more necessary than bikes though, for getting to work?

 

Also you seem to be asserting that people using bikes must be using pavements to cycle.

[Cyclone 10]

3 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

Only the mad middle-class, who think that everything they do benefits everyone when in reality it benefits only themselves, have the energy (due to their employment in non-manual sectors) and the lunacy to peddle close to buses and lorries to get to work. 

So, using a bike doesn't reduce congestion and pollution then?  And so isn't of benefit to everyone.

28 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

It's not just the car per se, but all vehicle transport on roads. Private cars are essential for many people who need to commute, travel between offices, etc, but then there are also buses, taxis ambulances, police cars, fire engines, etc. Roads are a necessity. Walking is a necessity. Cycling not so much. Sharing the roads is most appropriate, sharing pavements is dangerous to pedestrians.

Motor vehicles are definitely necessary for society, private cars, not so much.  I get that they're convenient, I've been to Leeds today by car, I couldn't cycle it and it's a lot quicker than public transport.  But necessary, I think you'll struggle to make that argument.

[RootsBooster 24]

2 minutes ago, Car Boot said:

Only the mad middle-class, who think that everything they do benefits everyone when in reality it benefits only themselves, have the energy (due to their employment in non-manual sectors) and the lunacy to peddle close to buses and lorries to get to work. 

Apart from the mechanics, builders, truck drivers and many other non- "mad middle-class" folk who commute on bikes.

[WiseOwl182 10]

22 minutes ago, RootsBooster said:

What makes cars more necessary than bikes though, for getting to work?

 

Also you seem to be asserting that people using bikes must be using pavements to cycle.

Because cars cover any range of distances, whereas bikes only cover a small range.

 

I'm not asserting that at all. If you'd been following the thread, this started because Cyclone wants cyclists to be able to use pavements, and I'm giving reasons why they shouldn't.

[Cyclone 10]

I want the law to be brought in line with the reality tbh.  Two former home secretaries said that cyclists should use pavements and when the police patrol on cycles they use the pavement.

 

So, this morning, I have a requirement to go to work, explain to me how the bike is less necessary than the car in my garage or my feet?

[Guest makapaka]

12 hours ago, Cyclone said:

So, using a bike doesn't reduce congestion and pollution then?  And so isn't of benefit to everyone.

Motor vehicles are definitely necessary for society, private cars, not so much.  I get that they're convenient, I've been to Leeds today by car, I couldn't cycle it and it's a lot quicker than public transport.  But necessary, I think you'll struggle to make that argument.

It’s just pedantry to pick on the word necessary.

 

very little other than say  maslows hierarchy of needs is necessary but to fulfil some of  those needs we use available tools - a car being one.

 

we could all live in tents because  a house isn’t necessary.

 

i could get to work via public transport but it would be so elongated, stressful and extend my working day to impractical levels - at the expense of my family life etc.

 

so is a car necessary in some instances - I would say so - it’s certainly convenient and allows people to fulfil other needs as as a consequence. 

Edited June 10, 2019 by makapaka