The End of the 'Punishment Pass'?

[battered]

Those of us with more sense put a tracksuit on over the lycra, or a pair of baggy shorts. It's not hard.

[WinstonWolf]

battered said:

George111 said:

The manufacture and maintenance of vehicles is usually excluded from the emissions equation these days but it's more relevant now with battery cars than it ever was. The greenies seem to forget this for some reason . . .

So your bicycle starts life with some emissions, probably a lot if it's got carbon fibre frame, or parts on it, and it accrues emissions as it's maintained and repaired over the years. Even tyres, small though they are, create emissions in production.

A bike weighs about 12kg. Yes, it's manufactured, but we are talking about 12kg worth of manufactured materials. I carry more than that home from the supermarket every week.

someone clutching at straws said:

And you contribute to the emissions with the food you eat and the cloths you wear/replace - granted only marginal over a car driver

Come off it. Do you really imagine that there's a significant difference between a cycle commuter's food consumption and that of a motorist? Let's do a fag packet sum - a fit cyclist burns 200W. This is enough to get you to 15-20mph on flat roads. Most commuters will run half or 2/3 this, but we'll stick with 200W for ease. Half an hour each way, 200Wh. 200J/sec x 60 x 60 = 720kJ. About 170kcal. A 58g Mars bar is 260kcal. So 2/3 of a Mars bar extra per day, or a slice of bread and butter. Wow. It's good to see that all the motorists out there have their diet dialled in as precisely as the last slice of bread and butter. I can see that they do, they're all so thin.

As for clothes, this is even more of a red herring. My sports clothing is God knows how old and I wear it until it's in holes. Things like T shirts get worn for other activities. Yet apparently drivers wear fewer clothes. Really? Is there anyone out there, anyone at all, who doesn't throw out their normal clothing, any of it, long before it's worn out? A glance in any charity shop will show you otherwise.

These arguments just don't hold water. You may as well have a go at people who walk to work because they are using more shoe leather.

And most of us who cycle are burning off spare calories anyway... I bet George is a tubster.

[battered]

No he's not, like I said he has his diet dialled in to the last 170kcal. Just like all those other hyperathletic motorists.

[George111]

WinstonWolf said:

I bet George is a tubster.

Have we met ? You are quite correct, but I do cycle for pleasure as well as drive. I meet clients and don't want to do that red faced or smelling like an old fish Apart from the fact I don't think they want human powered vehicles, of whatever construction, on the M1 !

[George111]

aclivity said:

I know I will regret this ...

So car production and the clothes car drivers wear and the food they eat are different?

Also, why do you insist on using "bi" at the start of "cyclists"? Makes you sound even more of an idiot.

And did you ?

Yes, it is different - but the point is that selectively choosing which parts of a vehicle's emissions are ignored is now a political tool - usually to prove how efficient battery cars are and how bad petrol cars are. When you look in more detail at the whole life emissions and consumption of each vehicle, the picture changes significantly.

Because that's the correct word - http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bicyclist

Now who's the idiot ?

[heebeegeetee]

cb1965 said:

While I'm happy to support the cause of most cyclists the lycra nonsense is a bit odd though.

I'm a massive F1 fan and if when I drove my Merc at weekend I dressed in a full F1 race suit I am sure people would be laughing their head of yet.......

Er, you don't see many people riding dutch bikes wearing lycra... but most people wear sports clothing for the type of sport or exercise they're doing.

[aclivity]

George111 said:

Now who's the idiot ?

Still you, I'm afraid, it is still you.

[NickCQ]

battered said:

heebeegeetee said:

I don't think we should do anything that would get people to take a look at emissions from a car factory. I mean, do you include the emissions from building the thing? What about the emissions from the vehicles that were used in building the car factory, and what about the emissions from building the vehicles that built the car factory?

Let's not go there...

I've heard it reported that a car's total emissions over life are 50% fuel and 50% manufacturing related.

This is one of the reasons why taxing old vehicles out of existence in the UK is not a reliable means of reducing global emissions, but we all knew that anyway. Cars are too valuable as taxed resources to want to reduce their manufacture.

Agree with the points raised but I think one piece is missing. While the total quantum of emissions is important, the place where the emissions are, er emitted is also important. It would massively improve the air quality of our built-up areas if polluting diesel vehicles could be replaced with electric - litre for litre emissions from power stations are definitely less harmful to the general population.

[Efbe]

1) Very few cars cause an issue driving too close to cyclists, those that do are nobbers.
2) There are too many cars on the road.

Fix both by a 1 year driving ban for driving too close to a cyclist.
In all my years of driving I have never had to resort to driving too close to a cyclist. If I do, then ban me. fair game.

[herewego]

battered said:

heebeegeetee said:

I don't think we should do anything that would get people to take a look at emissions from a car factory. I mean, do you include the emissions from building the thing? What about the emissions from the vehicles that were used in building the car factory, and what about the emissions from building the vehicles that built the car factory?

Let's not go there...

I've heard it reported that a car's total emissions over life are 50% fuel and 50% manufacturing related.

This is one of the reasons why taxing old vehicles out of existence in the UK is not a reliable means of reducing global emissions, but we all knew that anyway. Cars are too valuable as taxed resources to want to reduce their manufacture.

I looked at this a few years ago. It very much depends on the vehicle's fuel consumption. High consumption cars are more like 90%/10%, low consumption cars might achieve 50/50. Average new car fuel consumption has improved greatly in recent years.

[WinstonWolf]

George111 said:

WinstonWolf said:

I bet George is a tubster.

Have we met ? You are quite correct, but I do cycle for pleasure as well as drive. I meet clients and don't want to do that red faced or smelling like an old fish Apart from the fact I don't think they want human powered vehicles, of whatever construction, on the M1 !

If you lost some weight you wouldn't smell like an old fish when you sweat

[J4CKO]

cb1965 said:

While I'm happy to support the cause of most cyclists the lycra nonsense is a bit odd though.

I'm a massive F1 fan and if when I drove my Merc at weekend I dressed in a full F1 race suit I am sure people would be laughing their head of yet.......

Not sure why everyone is obsessed with Lycra ?

It serves a purpose, it is more aerodynamic than other fabrics as it fits your body, you need all the help you can get on a bike.

It is comfy, it doesnt ride up or fall down, you arent aware of it, it doesnt end up getting caught on chainwheels when it is flapping about (the garment)

It doesn't have to be a full Sky team kit like some ride in, but neither do you have to be on the TDF to ride with some Lycra clothing.

I think part of it is jealousy that a lot have because they couldn't get away with it as they have a physique like a potato with a cocktail stick at each corner ?

[Rawwr]

And what about all those DICKS on motorbikes!? Riding around wearing leather suits like COMPLETE BENDERS.

[Rawwr]

And pedestrians! Wearing SHOES! LIKE IDIOTS! I have no time for these people.

[Johnnytheboy]

J4CKO said:

Not sure why everyone is obsessed with Lycra ?

Nor am I. It seems to be one of those things that shouty PH cyclists bring up premeditatedly, like "road tax" to try and suggest people that disagree with them are always going on about it.

[heebeegeetee]

Johnnytheboy said:

Nor am I. It seems to be one of those things that shouty PH cyclists bring up premeditatedly, like "road tax" to try and suggest people that disagree with them are always going on about it.

Are you seriously suggesting that motorists don't always go on about it? You'd be seriously dishonest if you did.

Lets be clear - motorists ALWAYS go on about road tax in connection with cyclists, but NEVER in conjunction with cars.

[red rider]

What is it with this nanny state we live in? The modern roads were built for motorised vehicles, the law should not be changing in favour for cyclists, its about bloody time cyclists was off the road completely and made the roads safer for all. The roads have changed from years ago and so much more busier now and besides generally cyclists dont follow the highway code anyway. Cyclists should have separate lanes to go on....why not! they waste money on building them for buses

[heebeegeetee]

red rider said:

What is it with this nanny state we live in? The modern roads were built for motorised vehicles, the law should not be changing in favour for cyclists, its about bloody time cyclists was off the road completely and made the roads safer for all. The roads have changed from years ago and so much more busier now and besides generally cyclists dont follow the highway code anyway. Cyclists should have separate lanes to go on....why not! they waste money on building them for buses

Nooooooo, we're bingo'd right out!

fk me I don't think a cards been made big enough for this one.

I also don't know if serious either.

[IroningMan]

red rider said:

What is it with this nanny state we live in? The modern roads were built for motorised vehicles, the law should not be changing in favour for cyclists, its about bloody time cyclists was off the road completely and made the roads safer for all. The roads have changed from years ago and so much more busier now and besides generally cyclists dont follow the highway code anyway. Cyclists should have separate lanes to go on....why not! they waste money on building them for buses

Separate lanes, you say? Where will the space for these come from?

[WinstonWolf]

heebeegeetee said:

red rider said:

What is it with this nanny state we live in? The modern roads were built for motorised vehicles, the law should not be changing in favour for cyclists, its about bloody time cyclists was off the road completely and made the roads safer for all. The roads have changed from years ago and so much more busier now and besides generally cyclists dont follow the highway code anyway. Cyclists should have separate lanes to go on....why not! they waste money on building them for buses

Nooooooo, we're bingo'd right out!

fk me I don't think a cards been made big enough for this one.

I also don't know if serious either.

Roads so much busier... Cyclists reduce the amount of congestion. "Yeah, but, because cyclist."