Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Theinitial rise in deaths (which I referred to) would include a few more deaths caused by motorists, but primarily obese and unfit people succumbing to cardiac arrests !!

Innocent Bystander posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Oh ! I think my suggestion that users of the highway be charged based on occupancy is fair and very easy to implement. It covers both cyclists and cars. The figures I proposed are reasonable (20p per mile) for cyclists. 

Your 3km journey would cost 40 p each way. I think most cyclists would pay without flinching.

OTOH, £5 per litre extra fuel tax, doubling every year, i.e. More than £5000 per litre in 10 years time, and still doubling.........More like a riot well before then !

Do you? Really??? I beg to differ.

As for the petrol tax, I am open to discussion as to the most realistic effective tax - one that will stop people buying and using private petrol cars within a few years.

Of course public transport wpuld need to be improved in the same timeframe, and something done to ensure electric cars don't overrun the world in the same way as petrol cars, leaving space for cyclists, else a tax on electric car use would be needed, too.

Would I pay $44 (Canadian) per week (20p per mile) to ride my bike to work? Well, it would still be much cheaper than motoring, and I would still save the huge amount of time that that I gain by choosing to cycle. I might just pay it. But I'm odd.....

The vast majority of cyclists would simply stop cycling altogether, which would result in costs to society far in excess of the illusory revenue that Don posits. Not only would no tax be collected, but costs associated with alternate transport and alternative recreation for those people, and the increased health-care costs would be a huge negative. The environmental impact of their non-cycling transport choices would also be a negative.

Then, with virtually no cyclists whatsoever left, all support would evaporate. Motorists would view us with even greater levels of hostility (hard to imagine) and even I would likely give it up. Don wins in the end.

The sad world of even greater car dependency that Don wishes for is fast becoming a reality in NSW, Australia, where, by the application of insane levels of fines and enforcement specifically targeting cyclists (you know, for their own protection), cycling has effectively been banned. Huge sums continue to be spent on road projects for cars, and the starving of public transport continues. The the state is becoming a dystopian transport nightmare.

The perimeter track gets good use most weekends (not always by cyclists) and a few evenings during the week.

Not everybody wears lycra, especially when it's the children from the local schools.

The schools get to use the track for free. The cycle clubs pay about 40p per lap. The circuit is just over 2 miles long.

This morning when I turned up for work, I only just beat the traffic jam of about 300 cars arriving at the circuit. Each with one or two blokes and a bike or two !! Why didn't they just cycle here ??

Don Atkinson posted:

The perimeter track gets good use most weekends (not always by cyclists) and a few evenings during the week.

Not everybody wears lycra, especially when it's the children from the local schools.

The schools get to use the track for free. The cycle clubs pay about 40p per lap. The circuit is just over 2 miles long.

This morning when I turned up for work, I only just beat the traffic jam of about 300 cars arriving at the circuit. Each with one or two blokes and a bike or two !! Why didn't they just cycle here ??

Is that Castle Combe?

Don Atkinson posted:

 

This morning when I turned up for work, I only just beat the traffic jam of about 300 cars arriving at the circuit. Each with one or two blokes and a bike or two !! Why didn't they just cycle here ??

It's an excellent question. Perhaps to save their legs for the event. Those guys are riding TT bikes which actually aren't all that nice to ride, so maybe they don't want to do more miles on them than necessary. You could also ask a similar question to the guys who tow their "track-day" cars to the circuit.

I "ride to the ride" for the most part. Only for multi-day trips-away or remote events (of which I do very few) will I transport my bike to the ride (by plane or car).

Don Atkinson posted:

 

This morning when I turned up for work, I only just beat the traffic jam of about 300 cars arriving at the circuit. Each with one or two blokes and a bike or two !! Why didn't they just cycle here ??

May depend on how far away they live.  

And how unsafe they perceive the roads to be with so many road-owning, ego-centric or cyclist-hating (take your pick) motorists...

Clive B posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

The perimeter track gets good use most weekends (not always by cyclists) and a few evenings during the week.

Not everybody wears lycra, especially when it's the children from the local schools.

The schools get to use the track for free. The cycle clubs pay about 40p per lap. The circuit is just over 2 miles long.

This morning when I turned up for work, I only just beat the traffic jam of about 300 cars arriving at the circuit. Each with one or two blokes and a bike or two !! Why didn't they just cycle here ??

Is that Castle Combe?

Thruxton.

Don Atkinson posted:

The perimeter track gets good use most weekends (not always by cyclists) and a few evenings during the week.

Not everybody wears lycra, especially when it's the children from the local schools.

The schools get to use the track for free. The cycle clubs pay about 40p per lap. The circuit is just over 2 miles long.

This morning when I turned up for work, I only just beat the traffic jam of about 300 cars arriving at the circuit. Each with one or two blokes and a bike or two !! Why didn't they just cycle here ??

Oh lord is this bloke still banging on about this?

It's yet another example of why Don will never grasp why his 20p per mile idea will never work, conflating 20p per mile on a private business enterprise for an organised competition, with his spite-based 20p mile to cycle to work idea. Lycra gets a mention as usual, confirming his usual failure of understanding and his bias against cycling, and he can't even trouble himself to understand why people wouldn't drive to Thruxton on a Sunday morning instead of riding there to compete.  Maybe Don also assumes that Mo Farah runs from his hotel to the athletics stadium to compete for his gold medals, who knows?

Don I wrote a website not many years ago for a cycling commute competition on a web forum. It ran for 4 years I think, individuals posted their distances and the winner was the one who did the most miles per year. I could roll the database back on and generate some stats, but you don't listen to facts so it's not worth my time. The winners were the regular outliers doing about 12-14000 miles per year. There were a few who occasionally stuck a few miles on the board but the majority were doing commutes of about 7-10 miles each way a few times per week, which is what you'd expect. Let's use the median figure and say 7 miles per journey was the normal sort of commute distance. So £2.80 per day,  £14 a week hence £56 a month. Let's be generous and round it down to £50 a month to cycle to work on a regular basis. I know from my days on that site that most people weren't obsessive. The guys knocking out 200+ miles a week were but a lot of the enthusiasm for cycling was due to public transport costs or parking costs, and also the keeping fit &not adding to congestion and for a lot, making it feasible to be a one-car household instead of two so the wife could drive to work; these were common reasons. 200 miles a week is £40 under Don's insane scheme, £160 a month. At what point in this £50 - £200 a month scheme of Don's do these guys give in to pressure from their wives and their wallets and decide that going by train or driving in is the better financial option? For a few it's quite a low point at which being charged 20p a mile to get to work stops it being  a worthwhile exercise. But Don knows all this; he's a self-confessed coward when it comes to cycling on the road and doesn't like the idea that other people seem to find it easy, he just wants to stop people cycling, dressing it up as afairness tax when we've paid lots of tax already - you know, this PAYE / income tax, VAT, wine tax etc plus most of us already pay to run a car so cough up the VED and then don't add to congestion & road wear & tear by leaving it at home, even though we've paid.

Anyway. Bikes take up a lot less road space than cars so Don's start point  of charging for being on the road for longer is wrong from the off. Using a lot less road space for a little longer negates your wonky man-maths from the off. So does your claim that payment would be easy to collect. Either you make every cyclist register and carry a device [which in your brain is the same as tachograph in a lorry except cycles aren't self-powered so it can't be guaranteed to be working 100% of the time, just like lights], or it's done by honesty. So what does plod do when he finds time to pick on cyclists and finds one 20 miles from home with a failed device? Would I have to walk home? One of Don's other mad plans - replace cycling to work with 'a brisk walk'. 7 miles Don? A 7 mile walk to work Don? Dream on madman. If it's an honesty thing and I have to submit the reverse of an expense claim I'll do what we used to dish out as advice for newcomers who were scared at riding 10 miles to work and put down that I drove or trained halfway then ride the rest. But I'd claim to have driven 19 miles and cycled the last 2 miles just to stay fit, then the wife carried on to work in the car and will fetch me later. It could even be true Don, but whichever way it stops the tax being collected either because I've failed to submit my miles or because I have actually driven 19 miles and cycled 2 instead of cycling all 21. Please explain how lying about it, or driving instead of cycling, is a better option than me cycling 21 miles on open country roads that are almost entirely car-free?

Honestly, Don's suggestion is ludicrous, based on spite, envy, an appalling failure of comprehension wrt to the bigger picture, and it benefits exactly nobody, not even mad Don himself. Don you saw yesterday what happens when a few hundred cyclists drive instead of ride - they nearly got in your way, the gits. Extrapolate that across the UK and especially London, then tell us how forcing cyclists off their bikes en masse is a good thing. You can't. You just keep announcing that 20p a mile would be ok and failing to offer any rebuttal to any or all of the reasons that many many people have shown you. 

Don't bother doing your stupid crossings out Don, or 'nice rant'. They just show that you've no idea of how to put forward any counter to reasons why your 20p tax is so stupidly unworkable.

My considered opinion is that cyclists should pay, just like motorists, to use our roads. Whether it is based on occupancy or as an annual fee is irrelevant.

Motorists contribute c.£40bn pa to the exchequer. If cyclists want similar facilities, it is reasonable to pay on a similar basis.

Some people have a different view.

Don Atkinson posted:

My considered opinion is that cyclists should pay, just like motorists, to use our roads. Whether it is based on occupancy or as an annual fee is irrelevant.

Motorists contribute c.£40bn pa to the exchequer. If cyclists want similar facilities, it is reasonable to pay on a similar basis.

Some people have a different view.

You just can't see beyond the end of your own spite-filled face Don.

We do pay. We pay all the taxes you pay, including VED, insurance tax, and fuel duty, as generally we also drive cars. We also pay all the other taxes that contribute to govt coffers, local and national. So forget this barmy idea that cyclists don't pay for the roads; we do. We also help sustain an industry that at its last estimates was worth about £6bn a year in terms of jobs, turnover and wealth creation.

What we don't do is wear the roads out. My 23mm tyres dealing with my approximate ¼bhp do not cause any damage at all to the roads. The millions of cars running around on 185/60VR16s pushing out 150bhp and keeping a ton & a half of car out of the ditches is what causes road wear.

We don't kill or maim thousands upon thousands of other road users per year with all the medical social & intangible costs that carnage on an industrial scale costs the country. We tend not to take as many days off sick; we tend not be such a drain on the NHS by not catching cancer or Parkinsons or Alzheimer's in as many numbers as the lardies in cars do.

In short Don, we're a net benefit to society. We should be given a tax rebate to account for that societal benefit, but that would cost money to apply so we'll settle for being left to get on with it and hope that more people decide to be part of the solution by replacing driving with cycling where possible, rather than being part of the problem by imagining that charging 20p a mile is in any way shape or form a good thing. That's just barmy.

Don Atkinson posted:

My considered opinion is that cyclists should pay, just like motorists, to use our roads. Whether it is based on occupancy or as an annual fee is irrelevant.

Motorists contribute c.£40bn pa to the exchequer. If cyclists want similar facilities, it is reasonable to pay on a similar basis.

Some people have a different view.

I think your biggest problems are two fold. First, it's not a considered opinion. You given no thought at all about how to implement it, how to collect it, who pays, and how. And no thought whatsoever about the consequences and the loss of benefits that encouraging cycling brings with it. You only see cyclists on the road as a nuisance or a bunch of freeeloaders. So it's not a considered opinion at all. 

Secondly you seem to believe that this army of motorists who pay £40b a year to HMRC is a completely different group of people to those who include cycling as an option in their possible transport solutions. The Venn diagram of the two groups would be almost concentric.

The reality should be every car-tax (road fund) paying cyclist should receive a rebate of 1/365th of the road fund duty for each day that he or she uses a bike and not the car. And if Gov't revenue drops as a result by more than the savings identified in my next paragraph, then road fund duty should be increased sufficient to compensate.  I nearly suggested that the rebate should be 1/365th of road fund duty less Don's 20p/mile, but strangely for most cyclists the 20p/mile would be considerably more than the road fund licence...

IIRC Don's expressed 'logic' for the 20p/mike was assuming everyone travels by bike instead of car, also taking into account lost Govt revenue from fuel tax. However, that ignored the considerably reduced road construction and repair costs and reduced healthcare costs from the fitter cyclists, reduced air pollution, and reduction in serious accidents, and this is before even considering any of the less quantifiable benefits from reduced road congestion, reduced demand for parking space and reduced CO2 emissions and their potentially adverse effect on climate. It also failed to tax people who choose to walk rather than go by car.

Strangely enough, the inescapable conclusion is indeed that the intent of the 20p/mile is really simply to restrict the number of cyclists, and deter car drivers from switching to cycling.

Innocent Bystander posted:

The reality should be every car-tax (road fund) paying cyclist should receive a rebate of 1/365th of the road fund duty for each day that he or she uses a bike and not the car. And if Gov't revenue drops as a result by more than the savings identified in my next paragraph, then road fund duty should be increased sufficient to compensate.  I nearly suggested that the rebate should be 1/365th of road fund duty less Don's 20p/mile, but strangely for most cyclists the 20p/mile would be considerably more than the road fund licence...

IIRC Don's expressed 'logic' for the 20p/mike was assuming everyone travels by bike instead of car, also taking into account lost Govt revenue from fuel tax. However, that ignored the considerably reduced road construction and repair costs and reduced healthcare costs from the fitter cyclists, reduced air pollution, and reduction in serious accidents, and this is before even considering any of the less quantifiable benefits from reduced road congestion, reduced demand for parking space and reduced CO2 emissions and their potentially adverse effect on climate. It also failed to tax people who choose to walk rather than go by car.

Strangely enough, the inescapable conclusion is indeed that the intent of the 20p/mile is really simply to restrict the number of cyclists, and deter car drivers from switching to cycling.

It's not cars that damage our roads, it's the weather and HGVs.

Nope, it really is, as i've said before, simply a gov revenue stream to maintain gov spending levels as and when motorists transfer to cycles and because it's fair and reasonable to pay to use our infrastucture.

I do appreciate that people who have become used to having something for free, might be upset at the thought of having to pay a fair price for it in future.

Don Atkinson posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

The reality should be every car-tax (road fund) paying cyclist should receive a rebate of 1/365th of the road fund duty for each day that he or she uses a bike and not the car. And if Gov't revenue drops as a result by more than the savings identified in my next paragraph, then road fund duty should be increased sufficient to compensate.  I nearly suggested that the rebate should be 1/365th of road fund duty less Don's 20p/mile, but strangely for most cyclists the 20p/mile would be considerably more than the road fund licence...

IIRC Don's expressed 'logic' for the 20p/mike was assuming everyone travels by bike instead of car, also taking into account lost Govt revenue from fuel tax. However, that ignored the considerably reduced road construction and repair costs and reduced healthcare costs from the fitter cyclists, reduced air pollution, and reduction in serious accidents, and this is before even considering any of the less quantifiable benefits from reduced road congestion, reduced demand for parking space and reduced CO2 emissions and their potentially adverse effect on climate. It also failed to tax people who choose to walk rather than go by car.

Strangely enough, the inescapable conclusion is indeed that the intent of the 20p/mile is really simply to restrict the number of cyclists, and deter car drivers from switching to cycling.

It's not cars that damage our roads, it's the weather and HGVs.

Nope, it really is, as i've said before, simply a gov revenue stream to maintain gov spending levels as and when motorists transfer to cycles and because it's fair and reasonable to pay to use our infrastucture.

I do appreciate that people who have become used to having something for free, might be upset at the thought of having to pay a fair price for it in future.

But it wouldn't BE a revenue stream. People would overwhelmingly choose not to cycle. But you know that. Your tax is so absurd that's not even worth discussing......

Nevertheless, I thought of you this morning as I was gliding past the thousands of commuters stuck in gridlock, each of them sitting mostly stationary and alone in their vehicles, and wondered whether or not my 20p per mile would help them much. Methinks not.

I also thought of the 37,000 people who will be killed by motorists in the USA alone over the next 12 months (and the 12 after that; and every year for the foreseeable future). The figure  rising for the first time in years, as texting while driving now outstrips DUI as a widespread criminal act killing thousands each year. I thought about the millions whose lives are irrevocably changed every single year (thousands per day) by injuries from motor vehicle collisions. I thought about the psychological torment that drivers who kill their family and friends must feel. I thought about the millions who will die prematurely from the effects of pollution caused by our obsession with cars. I thought about the effects on the environment of the extraction, processing and burning of fossil fuels as well as the manufacturing and disposal of our 2-tonne cages. I thought about the millions dying prematurely every year from the effects of obesity, caused in no small part by our refusal to get out of our cars. I thought about the billions in healthcare costs of treating the diseases of inactivity and the trauma of the motor-vehicle collisions.

No Don, cyclists "not paying their share" is a ludicrous concept and is not an issue worth debating. There are bigger things at stake here. There is absolutely no denying that motorists are HEAVILY subsidised by the community at large once the the externalities of car use; primarily death, trauma, health and environmental damage (but there are others) are properly considered. Cyclists getting a "free ride" on roads is a rounding error. Replacing cycling with a "brisk walk" is simply absurd.

Don Atkinson posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

The reality should be every car-tax (road fund) paying cyclist should receive a rebate of 1/365th of the road fund duty for each day that he or she uses a bike and not the car. And if Gov't revenue drops as a result by more than the savings identified in my next paragraph, then road fund duty should be increased sufficient to compensate.  I nearly suggested that the rebate should be 1/365th of road fund duty less Don's 20p/mile, but strangely for most cyclists the 20p/mile would be considerably more than the road fund licence...

IIRC Don's expressed 'logic' for the 20p/mike was assuming everyone travels by bike instead of car, also taking into account lost Govt revenue from fuel tax. However, that ignored the considerably reduced road construction and repair costs and reduced healthcare costs from the fitter cyclists, reduced air pollution, and reduction in serious accidents, and this is before even considering any of the less quantifiable benefits from reduced road congestion, reduced demand for parking space and reduced CO2 emissions and their potentially adverse effect on climate. It also failed to tax people who choose to walk rather than go by car.

Strangely enough, the inescapable conclusion is indeed that the intent of the 20p/mile is really simply to restrict the number of cyclists, and deter car drivers from switching to cycling.

It's not cars that damage our roads, it's the weather and HGVs.

Nope, it really is, as i've said before, simply a gov revenue stream to maintain gov spending levels as and when motorists transfer to cycles and because it's fair and reasonable to pay to use our infrastucture.

I do appreciate that people who have become used to having something for free, might be upset at the thought of having to pay a fair price for it in future.

It is a fallacy that cars don't damage roads, though yes, certainly far less than HGVs. As for weather, that its effects are worse when roads are already in poor condition, such as when worn by vehicles, including cars.

And I addressed your 'revenue stream' argument in my post - though it appears you want ad assitional revenue stream solely at the expense of cyclists.

Don seems to have missed the point that VED is now based on CO2 emissions. As is the heavy tax on fuel. If you drive an electric car you don't pay VED and you don't pay much fuel tax (just VAT at 5% on power with free charging in many places). EVs are heavy so actually create some wear and tear on the road. Cyclists don't.

Given that EVs don't incur these charges, why on earth would cyclists?

winkyincanada posted:

 

But it wouldn't BE a revenue stream. People would overwhelmingly choose not to cycle. See my Venice solution from a few months back. No bikes or cars in Venice, just pedestrians and public transport. I have provided a range of examples to avoid cyclists conflicting with pedestrians (the reason for my opening post) But if cyclists are going to want to use the roads, just pay up. You accepted you would, I consider most commuting cyclists would. But you know that. Your tax is so absurd that's not even worth discussing......even income tax wasn't too popular when it was introduced and even now some people go to great lengths to avoid it......

Nevertheless, I thought of you this morning as I was gliding past the thousands of commuters stuck in gridlock, each of them sitting mostly stationary and alone in their vehicles, and wondered whether or not my 20p per mile would help them much. Methinks not.

I also thought of the 37,000 people who will be killed by motorists in the USA alone over the next 12 months (and the 12 after that; and every year for the foreseeable future). The figure  rising for the first time in years, as texting while driving now outstrips DUI as a widespread criminal act killing thousands each year. I thought about the millions whose lives are irrevocably changed every single year (thousands per day) by injuries from motor vehicle collisions. I thought about the psychological torment that drivers who kill their family and friends must feel. I thought about the millions who will die prematurely from the effects of pollution caused by our obsession with cars. I thought about the effects on the environment of the extraction, processing and burning of fossil fuels as well as the manufacturing and disposal of our 2-tonne cages. I thought about the millions dying prematurely every year from the effects of obesity, caused in no small part by our refusal to get out of our cars. I thought about the billions in healthcare costs of treating the diseases of inactivity and the trauma of the motor-vehicle collisions. We aren't going to see the demise of the private motor car anytime soon. Fuel and other factors might change, but the car is here to stay for a long time. Push bikes are for the few.

No Don, cyclists "not paying their share" is a ludicrous concept and is not an issue worth debating. There are bigger things at stake here. There is absolutely no denying that motorists are HEAVILY subsidised by the community at large once the the externalities of car use; primarily death, trauma, health and environmental damage (but there are others) are properly considered. Cyclists getting a "free ride" on roads is a rounding error. Replacing cycling with a "brisk walk" is simply absurd. Not if you adopt the Venice model.

Innocent Bystander posted:

It is a fallacy that cars don't damage roads, though yes, certainly far less than HGVs. As for weather, that its effects are worse when roads are already in poor condition, such as when worn by vehicles, including cars.

And I addressed your 'revenue stream' argument in my post - though it appears you want ad assitional revenue stream solely at the expense of cyclists.

Not anadditional revenue stream. Just one where a cyclist pays his fair share for the occupation of the road. I am content that since the benefits of cycling (as many on this forum have outlined) will lead to a mass-migration from car commuting to cycle commuting the transfer of revenue streams would maintain the overall income based on c.20p per mile.

JedT posted:

Don seems to have missed the point that VED is now based on CO2 emissions. As is the heavy tax on fuel. If you drive an electric car you don't pay VED and you don't pay much fuel tax (just VAT at 5% on power with free charging in many places). EVs are heavy so actually create some wear and tear on the road. Cyclists don't.

Given that EVs don't incur these charges, why on earth would cyclists?

 

We did cover VED, fuel tax, and other car-related tax streams. Regardless of the niceties of how the Gov gets us to swallow these taxes, we pay them and cough up c.£40bn pa in the UK. We spend c.£9bn pa on the operation, maintenance, renewal and enhancement of the highway network.

If we move from cars to bikes (which we won't do in any great numbers) then that income stream will need to be maintained, despite the savings arising from reduced road maintenance and the health benefits claimed and outlined by others.

Non-the-less, at present and for the foreseable future, we need to accommodate both cars and cyclists on our roads. My fundamental proposition is that we pay for access on the basis of occupancy. This is the concept that many cyclists are concerned about.

Don Atkinson posted:

Not anadditional revenue stream. Just one where a cyclist pays his fair share for the occupation of the road. I am content that since the benefits of cycling (as many on this forum have outlined) will lead to a mass-migration from car commuting to cycle commuting the transfer of revenue streams would maintain the overall income based on c.20p per mile.

I wonder what was so difficult for don to grasp in that earlier post pointing out that people who cycle generally also have a car and therefore have paid towards the roads. Or maybe don thinks that owning a cycle gets us a free pass from income tax, council tax and all the other taxes.

Cyclists do pay. Tough luck don that it's not called Cycling VED, but we do pay yet cause absolutely zero damage and don't cause congestion, and we reduce govt spending elsewhere. If you weren't such a simpleton you'd have grasped that by now, it's been pointed out to you enough times. Just because you don't like it as a fact it's not any less true.

It'd be easy to believe that don thinks he owns the roads having paid his minuscule bit towards them, and wants to stop other people using his roads unless they pay. Tough luck don. Fortunately people in charge have a more enlightened view than your idiotic approach to how to best use the national infrastructure that we all contribute towards.

It occurs to me that Don might not be entirely serious. 

tonym posted:

It occurs to me that Don might not be entirely serious. 

I really hope so! He's been trolling us for months on this. It has been entertaining, But if he was serious, I'd have major concerns for his mental health.

tonym posted:

It occurs to me that Don might not be entirely serious. 

As I said on page 4, cage rattling can sometimes be an amusing pastime!

Nevertheless Don is to be admired for his terrier-like persistence, and reminding of the futility of his argument lest he convince himself!

Don Atkinson posted:

The perimeter track gets good use most weekends (not always by cyclists) and a few evenings during the week.

Not everybody wears lycra, especially when it's the children from the local schools.

The schools get to use the track for free. The cycle clubs pay about 40p per lap. The circuit is just over 2 miles long.

This morning when I turned up for work, I only just beat the traffic jam of about 300 cars arriving at the circuit. Each with one or two blokes and a bike or two !! Why didn't they just cycle here ??

So you expect the guy who lives 3 doors up from me on the south Devon coast to cycle there to race? He would be knackered by the time he got there (yes he was there cycling yesterday).

You're starting to sound desperate now. 

Drewy posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

The perimeter track gets good use most weekends (not always by cyclists) and a few evenings during the week.

Not everybody wears lycra, especially when it's the children from the local schools.

The schools get to use the track for free. The cycle clubs pay about 40p per lap. The circuit is just over 2 miles long.

This morning when I turned up for work, I only just beat the traffic jam of about 300 cars arriving at the circuit. Each with one or two blokes and a bike or two !! Why didn't they just cycle here ??

So you expect the guy who lives 3 doors up from me on the south Devon coast to cycle there to race?  

I personally wouldn't be 100% behind him driving there, either. There is something to be said for just living locally. There's lots of great cycling right out of your neighbour's front door that doesn't require him to get in a car. This is just my 2 cents, and yes, I know a lot of people think nothing of driving 100+ miles to ride their bikes 25 miles.