Thrown into cycle commuting - not by choice!

[Vorpal]

I do a similar (but hillier) commute frequently. Luckily, I have an alternative of public transport, though it takes roughly the same amount of time as cycling. I could go without a car, and did so for 6 months in 2012.

I considered going car-less altogether, but we eventually decided to get one, mostly because days out with the family were difficult or limited without one.

I could be happy without a car, though it does take more planning. In any case, the OPs commute is possible on a long term basis. I hope that if & when he buys a car, he continues cycling.

[reohn2]

I wonder how people coped before cars when they had to cycle to t'pit 20 miles away?

The fact is they didn't.
Most cycling commuters roade less than 3miles because more often than not people lived near where they worked or used public transport,which was regular,cheap and run as a service to the public,not to satisfy shareholders.
Of course now we live in more enlightened times where our engineering and manufacturing industry is decimated and it's cheaper to import our needs and wants from the other side of the world.
Meanwhile here people travel 20+miles to work each day and we rely on house sales to keep the economy afloat
Sorry I digress............

[Ben@Forest]

Most cycling commuters roade less than 3miles because more often than not people lived near where they worked...

This is true - I remember reading a statistical analysis that in the early 70s the number of people who cycled to work was about 25% but the vast majority rode less than 6 miles each way. The thing that makes me wonder though (going off topic and straight into stereotyping) is the number of silver-haired drivers who are not very cycle-friendly.

As cycling was more common then you'd think that generation would respect or understand cyclists more, but that is not my experience. I do a lot of riding on single-track roads where oncoming drivers sometimes stop, sometime slow down and sometimes pelt past at 40 mph with inches to spare. And if I had to broadly describe that type I'd say male, fat, 60 years plus.

Light blue touchpaper and retire.....

[AlaninWales]

Most cycling commuters roade less than 3miles because more often than not people lived near where they worked...

This is true - I remember reading a statistical analysis that in the early 70s the number of people who cycled to work was about 25% but the vast majority rode less than 6 miles each way. The thing that makes me wonder though (going off topic and straight into stereotyping) is the number of silver-haired drivers who are not very cycle-friendly.

As cycling was more common then you'd think that generation would respect or understand cyclists more, but that is not my experience. I do a lot of riding on single-track roads where oncoming drivers sometimes stop, sometime slow down and sometimes pelt past at 40 mph with inches to spare. And if I had to broadly describe that type I'd say male, fat, 60 years plus.

Light blue touchpaper and retire.....

It's the generation that grew up with the myth of 'a car for everyone', which promised hassle-free transport anywhere, whenever you wanted it - in your car. The only people who didn't buy in are popularly thought of (by that generation and subsequent ones who have followed their lead) as poor, wierd or both. They may have had cycles as kids, but that's where they left them (and so should anyone who is 'normal').

[Psamathe]

I do a lot of riding on single-track roads where oncoming drivers sometimes stop, sometime slow down and sometimes pelt past at 40 mph with inches to spare. And if I had to broadly describe that type I'd say male, fat, 60 years plus.

Likewise (single track roads) but I "recognise" the high risk/problem vehicles as what I think of as the "road owners", the large SUV/4x4 truck thingys (Warrior/Destructor/Devastator/Exterminator cab things ... all manufacturers have similar macho named vehicles). You small hatchback seems to be driven more considerately (statistically - so not always).

Ian

[Mark1978]

I wonder how people coped before cars when they had to cycle to t'pit 20 miles away?

They didn't. In most coal fields such as County Durham there were pits all over the place, you would go to work in your local pit, which would be no more than a few miles. If it was more than that you wouldn't work there or you'd move. It's only in recent times that we've started to consider distances of 20 miles or so to be a reasonable commute.

[Mark1978]

Dave, you've come to a cycling website for advice, and, unsurprisingly, most people are offering you a bike-related solution. But seriously, I think you might need a car, and with the £400+ that people are trying to spend for you, you can get a reasonable internal combustion powered workhorse.

I don't disagree that he may need a car, there's good reason that the majority of cycle commuters also have cars. But I'm not certain of your premise that £400 is going to do it. £400 on a car is going to get you something very ropey indeed which may end up more trouble than it's worth.

[mjr]

I wonder how people coped before cars when they had to cycle to t'pit 20 miles away?

The fact is they didn't.
Most cycling commuters roade less than 3miles because more often than not people lived near where they worked or used public transport,which was regular,cheap and run as a service to the public,not to satisfy shareholders.
Of course now we live in more enlightened times where our engineering and manufacturing industry is decimated and it's cheaper to import our needs and wants from the other side of the world.
Meanwhile here people travel 20+miles to work each day and we rely on house sales to keep the economy afloat
Sorry I digress............

Sorry to prolong the digression, but what are the sources for those claims?

I grew up in the 1980s in a village with my father working in the nearest factory just over 3 miles away, I think my grandmother used to work in a larger factory a bit over 5 miles away and in the 1990s I worked in various factories up to about 12 miles away - and as far as I know, all three of us commuted by cycling because the public transport across the county boundary which surrounded us on three sides was infrequent, ill-timed, slow and on inappropriate routes because it was still run as a service to the councils (directly until 1987 and under contract thereafter because our village services were claimed to be not commercially viable rather than mismanaged), not to satisfy the public.

That's just one anecdote, but I didn't find good data about historic commuting (1950s, for example). viewtopic.php?f=7&t=51788&p=430857 is about as good as the forum search found. For modern commuting, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2005 ... ortintheuk claims that the average (mean AFAICT) commute was 7 miles and 70% of commutes were shorter than 6 miles. So 20+ miles isn't typical, is it? Most of that 70% could spend a half-hour or less cycling if barriers like bad road designs and poor parking were removed.

On the get a car idea... I bought a "cheap" car that was about £700 over 15 years ago, which ran OK but needed expensive repairs fairly soon and I knew it was a gamble. I feel that £400 on a car now would almost certainly fail as a similar gamble and even then you've insurance and fuel which are also much more expensive now. I suspect some of the modern leasing deals would be a better bet, but they didn't exist back then and they're also still far worse value than cycling in the long run. Cycling might not be much slower through an urban area, either.

[reohn2]

............The thing that makes me wonder though (going off topic and straight into stereotyping) is the number of silver-haired drivers who are not very cycle-friendly.

As cycling was more common then you'd think that generation would respect or understand cyclists more, but that is not my experience. I do a lot of riding on single-track roads where oncoming drivers sometimes stop, sometime slow down and sometimes pelt past at 40 mph with inches to spare. And if I had to broadly describe that type I'd say male, fat, 60 years plus.

Light blue touchpaper and retire.....

I find the non cycling friendly drivers to be across the spectrum of age and gender.
I find the most unfriendly to be a disproportionate number of drivers of large 4x4's,again across the spectrum.

[reohn2]

Sorry to prolong the digression, but what are the sources for those claims?

Experience of people where I live.

That's just one anecdote,

Here's mine,in the small village I was brought up in I could catch a bus out on anyone of the three roads within 15minutes at most and 10mins at least,which would take me to any of the major towns.
TBH we were spoiled but even doubling the times between buses(which would halve the fleet)it would still have been a good service.

For modern commuting, http://www.theguardian.com/science/2005 ... ortintheuk claims that the average (mean AFAICT) commute was 7 miles and 70% of commutes were shorter than 6 miles. So 20+ miles isn't typical, is it?

I find that hard to believe but I concede.

Most of that 70% could spend a half-hour or less cycling if barriers like bad road designs and poor parking were removed.

I'd agree but first you can't expect everyone to cycle,it ain't going to happen,even in the modern world cycling hotspots such Copenhagen,only 35% of journeys are by bike.
The key to better cycling provision and use is clean,affordable,reliable public transport,only a cheaper convenient alternative will change peoples minds and attitudes toward the car.
Our problem is that the car is here and cheap and no one in power is prepared to grasp the nettle,because it brings in loadsa revenue.And it don't matter if the population chokes on the fumes, so long as they're paying for the privileged and keeping the big boys in clover

On the get a(cheap) car idea...

Cheap cars can be worth it if you know what you're about,but for the unwary are a money pit that can swallow a weeks wage on repairs and not even burp.

[mjr]

The key to better cycling provision and use is clean,affordable,reliable public transport,only a cheaper convenient alternative will change peoples minds and attitudes toward the car.

And what's the source for that? If there isn't one, please stop this manic handwaving because it's as bad as the prejudiced/conviction politicians. The best thing found so far to change people's attitudes toward cars significantly is increasing usage charges (congestion charges or similar): http://journalistsresource.org/studies/ ... -s-cities/ introduces the 2011 study published in The American Economic Review, “The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from U.S. Cities,” from the University of Toronto and the London School of Economics. Meanwhile, the topic I linked earlier claimed (although without sources again ) that the top three keys to better cycling provision and use are

-provision of suitable parking/changing facilities at the destination: fixing this has about the biggest single effect on rates of cycle transport
-the perception of how dangerous it is: which is related to, but not precisely aligned with, the fact of how dangerous it is
-income: complicated this one: generally speaking lower income people are less likely to cycle, at least in W Europe, but give the same person more money and generally speaking s/he becomes less likely to cycle

[Mark1978]

On the get a car idea... I bought a "cheap" car that was about £700 over 15 years ago, which ran OK but needed expensive repairs fairly soon and I knew it was a gamble. I feel that £400 on a car now would almost certainly fail as a similar gamble and even then you've insurance and fuel which are also much more expensive now. I suspect some of the modern leasing deals would be a better bet, but they didn't exist back then and they're also still far worse value than cycling in the long run. Cycling might not be much slower through an urban area, either.

Indeed, if you're short on cash and you need to invest in a form of transport, then a bicycle is likely to give you a much better return. For cars for an ok runner you're talking £800-£1000 plus insurance plus tax. The same money could get you a good bike (or two ok bikes) plus kit and locks etc, and will be far cheaper to fix when they go wrong.

Not saying a car isn't a good idea, but it's not the most cost effective one.

[Italia50]

I save over £1400 a year commuting and I can honestly say I would really miss those 40 minutes of 'head space' to myself every day!

[reohn2]

The key to better cycling provision and use is clean,affordable,reliable public transport,only a cheaper convenient alternative will change peoples minds and attitudes toward the car.

And what's the source for that? If there isn't one, please stop this manic handwaving because it's as bad as the prejudiced/conviction politicians.

The best thing found so far to change people's attitudes toward cars significantly is increasing usage charges (congestion charges or similar): http://journalistsresource.org/studies/ ... -s-cities/ introduces the 2011 study published in The American Economic Review, “The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from U.S. Cities,” from the University of Toronto and the London School of Economics. Meanwhile, the topic I linked earlier claimed (although without sources again ) that the top three keys to better cycling provision and use are

-provision of suitable parking/changing facilities at the destination: fixing this has about the biggest single effect on rates of cycle transport
-the perception of how dangerous it is: which is related to, but not precisely aligned with, the fact of how dangerous it is
-income: complicated this one: generally speaking lower income people are less likely to cycle, at least in W Europe, but give the same person more money and generally speaking s/he becomes less likely to cycle

What you don't seem to grasp is that not everyone wants to or can cycle,this is the UK,whose people carry a lot of class baggage where cycling's concerned,unlike much of the continent where they tend to know a good thing when they see one .
So you've got start somewhere.
I could've rhymed off better cycling provision and a shed load of other ideas.
But the removal of cars from the road is the first step and the best way to do that is by a decent public transport system that beats or equals the car.
Politrickians in the UK won't price cars off the roads nor will they provide a decent public transport system,nor will they provide decent cycling infrastructure,nor will they increase penalties that are so woefully inadequate for motoring crime and more so than where vulnerable road users are concerned,that's because profit comes before people.
Unless they're made to they won't do squat.
Now look around who's going to do that?
It won't be the electorate because they're either grabbing what they can or on facebook/twitter.It's said that less than 200 thousand people change which government gets in power in this country.All the politrickians have to do is work out how to grab that vote and hey presto another fives years of flannel.
So its all a speculation and so much forum speak.
I'm sorry I don't have any sources or studies just a life of observation.
All IMHO of course,just like yours only you got some links .

[mjr]

Meh. I'm evidence led. I wasn't in favour of congestion charging until seeing the research. Like you, I thought decent public transport would reduce car use, rather than just (AIUI) slow the increase.