horizon wrote:I didn't really think a 24 round trip commute was ideal but don't forget that the working day now finishes an hour earlier if you're not paying for the car.
But it doesn't for someone in a part time or minimum wage job who needs to work as many hours as s/he can get, just for the money (car or no car). It means a little more money for shopping or bills, not less work.
Yes, but the other outcome is that friend of Mini V spent less time in the back of a car and her Mum may have had a bit of a life. In fact they may even have spent some face-to-face time together instead of dashing off to the next specious social event.
On the whole though, this thread is about acknowledging other factors rather than proposing that the bike is always at an advantage - even I cannot claim that.
The mum didn't 'have a bit of a life'. She couldn't earn enough on a part time job at a local retailer, so she spent her 'spare' time buying small items, from estate liquidators and car boot sales, and reselling them online.
But yes, I agree that we should acknowledge other factors. I think it is generally a downfall, for *everyone* doing the calculations for what house they can afford, not to consider time as money. Especially when it come to commuting time.
IMO, Many people who commute an hour to a city because they can't afford housing there, might look at it differently, if they counted the cost for all of those hours spent commuting.