“Hope you don't mind me cutting in, lads, but I just thought I'd show off a picture of how I brought home the shopping a few years ago when I was in the fortunate position to go car-free for a couple of years. This outfit was a fair bit cheaper than the freight bicycle shown by Tim, (I do fancy one of those Bullitts) being just an ordinary hybrid bike (with nice low gears) with a flat-bed trailer. The two boxes on the trailer plus a pair of panniers (taken off when the snap was taken) was enough to haul a week's shopping for a family of four up from Radstock Co-op to Westfield. Easier than even I expected, but then I was a mere lad of 57.
http://bit.ly/92r0wW.
Where there's a will and all that... :-)”

“@William: thank you for a cordial discussion about a topic that often descends into petty name calling :)

All the best, on two wheels or four...”

“I can see we have no hope of agreeing on this Tim, but I do like your picture of the freight bicycle (and am very surprised you found a way of uploading it into the Chronic's comments). God-speed!”

“Sorry, this time at a better size:

”

“@William "Sustrans = quango with charitable status (funded by DfT & other elements of the quangosphere, "SchoolTravel UK" etc)."

Sustrans aren't universally liked, but they've helped this project happen.

"There's the argument against major investment in cycle tracks right there. Particularly to hubs of the economy like Midford."

Eh? If anything it's an argument for either changing to a job closer to home or moving closer to work. I don't *like* my commute and, it seems, nor do most other people:

"A wealth of literature from researchers studying stress and related effects reveals 'persistent and significant costs associated with a long commute through heavy traffic'. By contrast, studies comparing the experiences of commuting by bicycle and car report that cyclists find their mode of transport at least as flexible and convenient as those who use cars, with lower stress and greater feelings of freedom, relaxation and excitement."
-- http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2011/02/happiness_work_sleep_and_bicyc.html

"You can't go very far on a cycle...you get there more slowly (taking time away from either your job or family life)..."

Going further isn't necessarily good.

Going faster isn't necessarily good (though, round town, due to motor traffic congestion you'll likely be faster on a bike).

The coming oil price shock is an argument for contracting our frankly insane lifestyles that make us think driving over an hour each way to work every day is a good idea.

"you can't carry much stuff (shopping, goods, tools, etc)."

Actually, you can, but you need a more suitable bike than you usually find at Halfords, e.g.


"Your arguments about taxation illustrate why drivers believe they're used as a useful cash cow."

It's also difficult for government to promote alternatives when it's wired up to a ready source of taxation, too, which rather defeats the point of a supposedly green taxation.”

“@ Tim B

Sustrans = quango with charitable status (funded by DfT & other elements of the quangosphere, "SchoolTravel UK" etc).

"I drive 20,000 miles a year due to the location of my job".

There's the argument against major investment in cycle tracks right there. Particularly to hubs of the economy like Midford.

You can't go very far on a cycle...you get there more slowly (taking time away from either your job or family life)...you can't carry much stuff (shopping, goods, tools, etc).

Your arguments about taxation illustrate why drivers believe they're used as a useful cash cow.”

“@William "You don't seem to realise that most of those drivers zooming past you by are generating wealth for the economy in some way."

That's the funny thing: I drive 20,000 miles a year due to the location of my job in relation to my home. I don't like it, mind, and I'd rather that it weren't the case.

What I seem to be reading into your statement (as you go on to separately mention fuel duty) is that "drivers are economically productive, but cyclists are not."

Plenty of economically productive people cycle to work. The fact that they don't pay fuel duty or vehicle excise duty is offset by the fact that they'll be less of a burden to the NHS, cause less road damage etc. Why can't you see this?

Which quango would you be referring to, by the way? Cycling England, which cost a relatively low amount to run, got the chop.

We have a choice: keep on spending on roads that de facto exclude non-motorised transport, or start investing in cycle infrastructure in a more serious way. "Build it and they will come" (induced demand) works for cars as much as it does for bikes.

Oh, and on the HGVs issue:

"Heavy goods vehicles (hgv's) have a disproportionate effect on road wear and tear and should be charged for road use by distance and axle weight. This should apply to foreign-registered hgv's as well, which would level the playing field between UK and foreign hauliers."

"Lorries are at present charged for the extra damage they cause to roads by paying much higher VED rates and pay more per mile in fuel tax because of their higher fuel consumption. But these are blunt instruments. The costs imposed by hgvs vary with mileage run, whereas VED doesn't. Road damage costs rise sharply with increasing axleweight, whereas fuel consumption varies more with gross weight and not to the same extent as wear and tear. Moreover road damage is higher on roads with thinner pavements (generally poorer quality roads)."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmtran/103/103we21.htm”

“Good post Nigel - Barclays and Vodafone suggest that the word "compulsary" may not apply to all in respect of taxation. :-)”

“It's a shame that a story of this splendid project is getting overshadowed by petty bickering about motoring and taxation.
It's also rather puzzling that in this day and age there are some who still cling on to the long outdated notion that highway maintenance is directly funded from motoring taxation.
Here's a definition of "tax" from Karen Dunnell, National Statistician, Office of National Statistics, in response to a Written Question from Eric Pickles MP. Parliamentary Written Answers, 9 February 2009: "Taxes are compulsory unrequited payments, where unrequited means that the payer does not receive anything directly in return."
It should be clear that any comparison between revenue from motoring taxation and highways expenditure is irrelevant. As Tim suggests, no-one expects beer tax or tobacco tax to be ring-fenced (posh word: "hypothecation") for the direct benefit of drinkers and smokers. (The sole exception to this rule is, of course, the TV Licence.)
The individual motorist is free to choose, to a limited degree, how much motoring tax he or she pays into the system by the type of car they run and the mileage they do. The lowest vehicle tax band is zero - http://bit.ly/9WPpxC. If you're particularly flush with cash you could also pay zero fuel tax by coughing up £29k on a Nissan Leaf electric car - and get a £5k bonus paid for by the rest of us taxpayers: http://bit.ly/f0bOSr. This suggests, does it not, that the Treasury understands what Tim understands: there is NO direct link between motor tax revenue and highway expenditure so there is little point in trying to make a like-for-like comparison.
Anyway, this is all by-the-by. The Two Tunnels route will be there for all to use and enjoy for whatever purpose they choose. It almost tempts me to come out of retirement and find a job in Bath so that I could cycle to work every day and avoid all that congestion and pollution on the A367. Almost...”

“@ Tim B

You don't seem to realise that most of those drivers zooming past you by are generating wealth for the economy in some way. Nor am I persuaded by your assertion that the 63% tax on the pump price of fuel is too...low!?

Anyway, BANES contribution to the 2 Tunnels is a done deal. Let's hope they more thoroughly examine the puffed up claims about investment returns next time your quango asks for some (motorists') cash.”