Extracted from official data:

The average person in England in 2022

- spent about 90 minutes a week travelling by walking

- spent about 7 minutes a week travelling by cycle.

--
Spike

On 19/11/2023 12:58 pm, Spike wrote:
>
> Extracted from official data:
>
> The average person in England in 2022
>
> - spent about 90 minutes a week travelling by walking
>
> - spent about 7 minutes a week travelling by cycle.

I would say that being retired, I am no longer representative of the
average person when it comes to travel by other forms of transport.
Today, my mileage and travelling time is well under average.

But I still spend several multiples - more than ten, probably more than
twenty - of hours per week travelling by motor car as compared with the
average seven minutes by chav-cycles.

When I was working and travelling nationally and internationally, I was
probably beating the chav-cyclists' seven minutes by a factor of thirty
every working day. And then there was my own social and domestic mileage
to take into account.

JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
> On 19/11/2023 12:58 pm, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Extracted from official data:
>>
>> The average person in England in 2022
>>
>> - spent about 90 minutes a week travelling by walking
>>
>> - spent about 7 minutes a week travelling by cycle.
>
> I would say that being retired, I am no longer representative of the
> average person when it comes to travel by other forms of transport.
> Today, my mileage and travelling time is well under average.
>
> But I still spend several multiples - more than ten, probably more than
> twenty - of hours per week travelling by motor car as compared with the
> average seven minutes by chav-cycles.
>
> When I was working and travelling nationally and internationally, I was
> probably beating the chav-cyclists' seven minutes by a factor of thirty
> every working day. And then there was my own social and domestic mileage
> to take into account.

I could only claim some 25x the cyclist’s 7 minutes per day, when I was
working, due to commuting - but that was on a good day.

--
Spike

On 20/11/23 01:58, Spike wrote:
>
> Extracted from official data:
>
> The average person in England in 2022
>
> - spent about 90 minutes a week travelling by walking
>
> - spent about 7 minutes a week travelling by cycle.
>
Thank God I am not average.
I like being insignificant.
I use a very convenient economical healthy viable means of transport.

Peter Keller <muzhmuzh@centrum.sk> wrote:
> On 20/11/23 01:58, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Extracted from official data:
>>
>> The average person in England in 2022
>>
>> - spent about 90 minutes a week travelling by walking
>>
>> - spent about 7 minutes a week travelling by cycle.

> Thank God I am not average.
> I like being insignificant.
> I use a very convenient economical healthy viable means of transport.

<Devil’s Advocate>
But cycling can’t be healthy! Look at the continuing strident calls for
ever more cycling infra to be paid for by someone else, just to make
cyclists ‘feel safe’!
And this is at a time when the UK’s cycling KSI rates are lower than the
often-touted cycletopia enjoyed (sic) by the Dutch!
</Devil’s Advocate>

--
Spike

On 20/11/23 22:32, Spike wrote:
> Peter Keller <muzhmuzh@centrum.sk> wrote:
>> On 20/11/23 01:58, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> Extracted from official data:
>>>
>>> The average person in England in 2022
>>>
>>> - spent about 90 minutes a week travelling by walking
>>>
>>> - spent about 7 minutes a week travelling by cycle.
>
>> Thank God I am not average.
>> I like being insignificant.
>> I use a very convenient economical healthy viable means of transport.
>
> <Devil’s Advocate>
> But cycling can’t be healthy! Look at the continuing strident calls for
> ever more cycling infra to be paid for by someone else, just to make
> cyclists ‘feel safe’!
> And this is at a time when the UK’s cycling KSI rates are lower than the
> often-touted cycletopia enjoyed (sic) by the Dutch!
> </Devil’s Advocate>
>
Please show that I have ever stridently called for "ever more cycling
infra to be paid for by someone else, just to make cyclists ‘feel safe’!"
I will ride my bike anywhere - cycling infrastructure or no.
And I am not KSI'd yet.

Peter Keller <muzhmuzh@centrum.sk> wrote:
> On 20/11/23 22:32, Spike wrote:
>> Peter Keller <muzhmuzh@centrum.sk> wrote:
>>> On 20/11/23 01:58, Spike wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Extracted from official data:
>>>>
>>>> The average person in England in 2022
>>>>
>>>> - spent about 90 minutes a week travelling by walking
>>>>
>>>> - spent about 7 minutes a week travelling by cycle.
>>
>>> Thank God I am not average.
>>> I like being insignificant.
>>> I use a very convenient economical healthy viable means of transport.
>>
>> <Devil’s Advocate>
>> But cycling can’t be healthy! Look at the continuing strident calls for
>> ever more cycling infra to be paid for by someone else, just to make
>> cyclists ‘feel safe’!
>> And this is at a time when the UK’s cycling KSI rates are lower than the
>> often-touted cycletopia enjoyed (sic) by the Dutch!
>> </Devil’s Advocate>
>>
> Please show that I have ever stridently called for "ever more cycling
> infra to be paid for by someone else, just to make cyclists ‘feel safe’!"

Nice swerve, but easily spotted…

> I will ride my bike anywhere - cycling infrastructure or no.

I’m glad to hear it.

> And I am not KSI'd yet.

Let’s hope that happy state continues!

--
Spike

On 20/11/2023 10:31 am, Peter Keller wrote:

> On 20/11/23 22:32, Spike wrote:
>> Peter Keller <muzhmuzh@centrum.sk> wrote:
>>> On 20/11/23 01:58, Spike wrote:
>
>>>> Extracted from official data:
>>>> The average person in England in 2022
>>>> - spent about 90 minutes a week travelling by walking
>>>> - spent about 7 minutes a week travelling by cycle.
>
>>> Thank God I am not average.
>>> I like being insignificant.
>>> I use a very convenient economical healthy viable means of transport.
>
>> <Devil’s Advocate>
>> But cycling can’t be healthy! Look at the continuing strident calls for
>> ever more cycling infra to be paid for by someone else, just to make
>> cyclists ‘feel safe’!
>> And this is at a time when the UK’s cycling KSI rates are lower than the
>> often-touted cycletopia enjoyed (sic) by the Dutch!
>> </Devil’s Advocate>
>
> Please show that I have ever stridently called for "ever more cycling
> infra to be paid for by someone else, just to make cyclists ‘feel safe’!"
> I will ride my bike anywhere - cycling infrastructure or no.
> And I am not KSI'd yet.

All true.

And an example to every one of us.

On 21/11/23 00:17, Spike wrote:
>> Please show that I have ever stridently called for "ever more cycling
>> infra to be paid for by someone else, just to make cyclists ‘feel safe’!"
> Nice swerve, but easily spotted…

Eh? I don't understand.

I have seen and used many bicycling farcilities. Almost without
exception they increase inconvenience and danger to bicyclists.

I am safer riding on the road where I can be seen properly.

I see no point in wasting money for these farcilities. The people
stridently calling for them are mostly scaredy-cat politically correct
greenies who don't ride bikes themselves.

Peter Keller <muzhmuzh@centrum.sk> wrote:
> On 21/11/23 00:17, Spike wrote:
>>> Please show that I have ever stridently called for "ever more cycling
>>> infra to be paid for by someone else, just to make cyclists ‘feel safe’!"
>> Nice swerve, but easily spotted…
>
> Eh? I don't understand.

It’s not important…

> I have seen and used many bicycling farcilities. Almost without
> exception they increase inconvenience and danger to bicyclists.
>
> I am safer riding on the road where I can be seen properly.
>
> I see no point in wasting money for these farcilities. The people
> stridently calling for them are mostly scaredy-cat politically correct
> greenies who don't ride bikes themselves.

The cycling media in the UK doesn’t agree with you. Without exception they
clamour for more and more infra, new laws for drivers, harsher penalties
for drivers, they rail against SUVs, use demands for more infra for
pedestrians to cover their own demands, and dress it all up under the
‘climate change’ umbrella. Bike hire schemes are lauded, despite, for
example, the one in Manchester resulting in its first 100,000km costing
£436 for each 1.6 mile trip.

The cycling world is more fabulous than Wonderland.

--
Spike

On 22/11/23 03:27, Spike wrote:
> Peter Keller <muzhmuzh@centrum.sk> wrote:
>> On 21/11/23 00:17, Spike wrote:
>>>> Please show that I have ever stridently called for "ever more cycling
>>>> infra to be paid for by someone else, just to make cyclists ‘feel safe’!"
>>> Nice swerve, but easily spotted…
>>
>> Eh? I don't understand.
>
> It’s not important…
>
>> I have seen and used many bicycling farcilities. Almost without
>> exception they increase inconvenience and danger to bicyclists.
>>
>> I am safer riding on the road where I can be seen properly.
>>
>> I see no point in wasting money for these farcilities. The people
>> stridently calling for them are mostly scaredy-cat politically correct
>> greenies who don't ride bikes themselves.
>
> The cycling media in the UK doesn’t agree with you. Without exception they
> clamour for more and more infra, new laws for drivers, harsher penalties
> for drivers, they rail against SUVs, use demands for more infra for
> pedestrians to cover their own demands, and dress it all up under the
> ‘climate change’ umbrella. Bike hire schemes are lauded, despite, for
> example, the one in Manchester resulting in its first 100,000km costing
> £436 for each 1.6 mile trip.
>
> The cycling world is more fabulous than Wonderland.
>
I agree with all what you say there.
However that does not stop me using my bike as a great and delightful
means of transport.
I personally have not ever "clamoured for more and more infra, new laws
for drivers, harsher penalties for drivers, they rail against SUVs, use
demands for more infra for pedestrians to cover their own demands, and
dress it all up under the ‘climate change’ umbrella. Bike hire schemes
are lauded, despite, for example, the one in Manchester resulting in its
first 100,000km costing £436 for each 1.6 mile trip."

Peter Keller <muzhmuzh@centrum.sk> wrote:
> On 22/11/23 03:27, Spike wrote:
>> Peter Keller <muzhmuzh@centrum.sk> wrote:
>>> On 21/11/23 00:17, Spike wrote:
>>>>> Please show that I have ever stridently called for "ever more cycling
>>>>> infra to be paid for by someone else, just to make cyclists ‘feel safe’!"
>>>> Nice swerve, but easily spotted…
>>>
>>> Eh? I don't understand.
>>
>> It’s not important…
>>
>>> I have seen and used many bicycling farcilities. Almost without
>>> exception they increase inconvenience and danger to bicyclists.
>>>
>>> I am safer riding on the road where I can be seen properly.
>>>
>>> I see no point in wasting money for these farcilities. The people
>>> stridently calling for them are mostly scaredy-cat politically correct
>>> greenies who don't ride bikes themselves.
>>
>> The cycling media in the UK doesn’t agree with you. Without exception they
>> clamour for more and more infra, new laws for drivers, harsher penalties
>> for drivers, they rail against SUVs, use demands for more infra for
>> pedestrians to cover their own demands, and dress it all up under the
>> ‘climate change’ umbrella. Bike hire schemes are lauded, despite, for
>> example, the one in Manchester resulting in its first 100,000km costing
>> £436 for each 1.6 mile trip.
>>
>> The cycling world is more fabulous than Wonderland.

> I agree with all what you say there.

Thanks!

> However that does not stop me using my bike as a great and delightful
> means of transport.

And it shouldn’t, it certainly wasn’t meant to.

Unfortunately, as a group, cyclists are their own worst enemy when it comes
to interaction with the rest of the world, and people are beginning to
react negatively with respect to the cycling media’s general attitude.

> I personally have not ever "clamoured for more and more infra, new laws
> for drivers, harsher penalties for drivers, they rail against SUVs, use
> demands for more infra for pedestrians to cover their own demands, and
> dress it all up under the ‘climate change’ umbrella. Bike hire schemes
> are lauded, despite, for example, the one in Manchester resulting in its
> first 100,000km costing £436 for each 1.6 mile trip."

--
Spike