Why don't you own an electric bike?

[dang65]

No, it's 91 miles door-to-door. 181 miles per day. Takes me between 70-90 minutes to do. It's not really a matter of choice - I'm a contractor - I go where the work is.

Well, that's... dedication? I dunno. I couldn't do that personally, and I'm a contractor too y'know. I either work completely away from home and negotiate longer hours at work in exchange for extra days off at home, or I work close enough that I can cycle to work. A long commute each day would drive me insane very quickly.

I did do 9 months once at a place about 40 miles away, but it was on a convenient train route from my house. I did have to get up early for that one though and would avoid it in future if at all possible.

[TheBigYinJames]

Well, that's... dedication? I dunno. I couldn't do that personally, and I'm a contractor too y'know. I either work completely away from home and negotiate longer hours at work in exchange for extra days off at home, or I work close enough that I can cycle to work. A long commute each day would drive me insane very quickly.

Well I negotiated a 4 day week. Apart from an extra weekend day, it has the added advantage that I need to work longer hours on the 4 days I am in, so I tend to be travelling slightly before and after the main rush hours.

It's not dedication. It's money. A lot of money. And a 3 day weekend. And money.

[DS23]

90 miles?! Are you saying you commute 90 miles each way, or 45 miles each way? Even 45 miles seems a bit extreme. If people are going to choose to work at that sort of distance from home then surely they have to accept the costs in either travel or accomodation, let alone on their health in the forms of stress and lard generation.

45 miles extreme? er.. i don't think so. i did 40 miles thismorning and that is the closest (ignoring the occasional wfh) i have ever commuted as a contractor.

[TheBigYinJames]

45 miles extreme? er.. i don't think so. i did 40 miles thismorning and that is the closest (ignoring the occasional wfh) i have ever commuted as a contractor.

And I think travelling to work is the norm for contractors, not the exception. OK 91 miles is probably more than most, but it's not out of the question if the money is right. Which it is.

[TheBigYinJames]

I found 75 each way was ok... tried 103 each way but that was just too much... after the 1st week I found a travel lodge.
84 each way was ok for 6 or 8 weeks or so... in the summer. And not in a Polo

It depends a lot on the quality of the road. I can do this 91 no bother (good dual and 3-laners) but the 40 mile trip up the A12 to Lowestoft was horrible (single laner, 'road of death' overtaking oportunities etc)

[BoredBloke]

[QUOTE=dang65;585031]You're thinking of the sound inside the vehicle. Try getting out and having a listen. It's not just engine noise (they're pretty quiet these days), it's the tyres swishing on the road and the rumbling of wheels on tarmac. That's the sound you hear constantly in England unless you're in the depths of the countryside.[/QUOTE

I suspect that Rochdale must be the depths of the countryside as I don't hear it. When a car or truck or bus goes by it is the engine I hear, not the road noise from the tyres. I've not met anybody who ever complained about loud tyres. Also, a byproduct of congesstion would be slower traffic reducing the tyre noise which you complain about.

The roads are filthy. Coated with oil and grease and rubber. The roadside vegetation is covered in dirt thrown up by vehicles. Cycle lanes, pavements and gutters are full of gravel, broken glass and leaves, all thrown there by an endless stream of motor vehicles.

I think this would be created by the 15 year old bus carrying 5 people at 25 mph more than the modern cars we have on our roads. The gutters are not filled with things thrown there by cars - they get filled with all of this because the gutters were designed to take the water away from the roads and pavements. As the water flows to the gutter it takes whatever cr@p is in its path. This is because of the camber of the road and the slope of the pavement and has nothing at all to do with cars.

Nearly every road has rows of cars parked down either side. You personally may somehow avoid congestion, but only by going out of your way to get up early. Presumably you are acknowledging the congestion caused by motor vehicles when you take this action.

Utter bollocks. If they did then double yellows should be painted to prevent this obvious obstruction. If you have examples of this then raise it with the council concerned - I'm sure they would jump at the chance to raise a bit more cash through extra parking tickets.

Most contractors work extended distances from home and most commutes are mainly by motorway where none of the objections you have raised actually apply. On my journey to the motorway I do not pass cars parked on both sides of the main road at all. I do not see hoards of people giving me stern looks because my tyres are too loud. I do not see a cloud of grit/glass and leaves in my rear view mirror. But by the same token I do not see many cyclists - mainly because it is simply dangerous on our roads.

[DS23]

yeah - it's time not distance. 90 minutes each way is about as far as i would usually take it on a driving commute.

[dang65]

I suspect that Rochdale must be the depths of the countryside as I don't hear it. When a car or truck or bus goes by it is the engine I hear, not the road noise from the tyres. I've not met anybody who ever complained about loud tyres. Also, a byproduct of congestion would be slower traffic reducing the tyre noise which you complain about.

You have to be kidding. Stand by any road which actually has moving traffic on it and it's the tyres you hear. Sure, the odd truck or motorbike still has a loud engine and engine noise definitely contributes to the overall din, but the constant swish of a dual carriageway or motorway is the tyres on the road. There's a road outside my house and, if I have the window open, the tyre noise of passing cars overrides voices on the radio. That's just a 30mph short stretch of road.

I think this would be created by the 15 year old bus carrying 5 people at 25 mph more than the modern cars we have on our roads. The gutters are not filled with things thrown there by cars - they get filled with all of this because the gutters were designed to take the water away from the roads and pavements. As the water flows to the gutter it takes whatever cr@p is in its path. This is because of the camber of the road and the slope of the pavement and has nothing at all to do with cars.

The water run-off theory is quite good, except that cycle lanes are about a meter wide, and pavements are away from the road camber. They are both covered in rubbish. Honestly. Take a look. And the rubbish stops right at the edge of the "racing line" where cars drive. Pavements in town are swept and have pedestrians kicking rubbish out the way, sure, but pavements by the side of A-Roads etc. Filthy. Rubber comes off all types of vehicles, as does oil and grease, especially in rain. Your car makes a mess. It just does. Why deny it?

Utter bollocks. If they did then double yellows should be painted to prevent this obvious obstruction. If you have examples of this then raise it with the council concerned - I'm sure they would jump at the chance to raise a bit more cash through extra parking tickets.

Is this another example of car driver selective blindness or something? Do you really not see rows of parked cars everywhere you go? Sure, there are Red Routes and motorways where cars are banned from stopping, but in town centres, residential roads and estates... cars parked everywhere. Fahsands of 'em. Two or three on most residential driveways as well.

Most contractors work extended distances from home and most commutes are mainly by motorway where none of the objections you have raised actually apply. On my journey to the motorway I do not pass cars parked on both sides of the main road at all. I do not see hoards of people giving me stern looks because my tyres are too loud. I do not see a cloud of grit/glass and leaves in my rear view mirror. But by the same token I do not see many cyclists - mainly because it is simply dangerous on our roads.

Yeah, uh, no cyclists on motorways, that's true. And no parked cars. The dirt and noise is there though. You never stopped at a service station? Birdies singing and insects buzzing were they? Sit out on the grass for a picnic? I mean, seriously, why waste so much time typing up your objections in that dismissive tone ("absolute bollocks" etc) when you are completely and totally burying your head in the sand if you think that cars don't cause damage to the environment.

[BoredBloke]

You are really anti car and all of your arguments back this up. Cars do make a noise. Even green cars such as the Toyota Prius will make the road noise which you (and you alone) complain about. If you are struggling to hear your radio while you have your window open then turn it up or close the window or move to a place more in keeping with your anti car sentiments. I'm guessing that the road was there before you bought your house - so it has hardly come as a suprise.

The line of deris relating to the cycle lane is obvious really. If the road were not used by cars, the same amount of debris would still find its way onto the road and it would, over time produce the same amount of crap in the cycle lanes. Cars do not produce grit, leaves or glass. The camber of the road will assist in moving this junk towards the edge of the road and cars will speed this process up - but not add to it. The reason you see a distinct line is not because the cars have pushed it there, but because they have flicked up the stuff and moved it out of its path when driving over it. Cars are not designed to sweep this in to the gutter - they will flick it pretty much randomly behind them.

Your point about the lack of nature at service stations is as valid as the lack of nature at picadilly train station. last time I was there I couldn't hear the birds or the insects and I certainly wouldn't have a picnic there either. But then most rational people would not want to have a picnic in a built up area or next to a motorway.

As for the parked cars. I expect to see parked cars on housing estates and have no problem with them so long as they are parked in such a way that the emergency services could get through if required. If you have examples of places where cars are causing an obstruction then contact the council. But as I said, once off the estate onto the main roads, the cars I see parked are parked perfectly legally and are not causing an obstuction.

[Moscow Mule]

But by the same token I do not see many cyclists - mainly because it is simply dangerous on our roads.

people are too stupid and lazy to get off their arse and onto a bike.