Berlin brothel offers cyclists a discount

@C3a Presumably it's to do with turnover stability while moving. I saw a Tentbox today, just being driven through Garstang. I can certainly see the advantage of these boxes over tents, because I have suffered lifelong from the 'Get orf my land' brigade, and there's a much greater tolerance among them for those 'camping' in vehicles than for those much more worthy real campers in tents. Add to that the convenience of just stopping in any old free spot by the roadside, where there isn't a decent site for a tent, and you can see the attraction.

Most of the cars that I have owned have had a roof-box limit (bars, box and contents) of 70kg. How does a textbox fit with that? Is the limit only applicable when the vehicle is moving?

@Chris RideFar For starters, by being 1,5 m above the ground you are mostly protected from dew. In many countries it also protects you from frost or really low temperatures. You'd be surprised how much of a difference it actually makes. Bugs, ants, spiders etc. are another thing, as is the purely mental feeling of security by being isolated from the ground. You'd be surprised how much that means to some of us and our better halves ;-) Sleeping on the ground also means more mechanical damage to the floor from rocks, hard roots etc., which could make a big difference in some areas and on longer trips, where a ripped tent floor could really break your holiday. I'm not saying a roof tent is the answer to all one's troubles with camping. But these factors definitely to make a difference to many of us.

It was counting on you thinking that.

When was the last time you had a groundsheet with a built in mattress? The point is predictable comfort.

My old boss loved his 2nd hand trailer tent.

Is it because cars and driving are about convenience (for a price), so there is mileage in selling more (quite expensive) related things that are about convenience?

@FionaJJ that's the crux of the issue i guess. Minority causes can have this where the mainstream has the power to steamroll you (figuratively and literally). There's always "fear of angering the giant" (or alienating the decision makers / majority, where any politician has the temptation to gain attention by criticising this. And business salespeople stand to gain by selling "convenience and status" instead). But ... it's also easy to keep getting "small wins" while losing the main argument. (That would be where rules and public space remain suited to or are further modified to reinforce motor dependency and thus reduce active travel - even if perhaps it's now autonomous vehicles and "they're more efficient / much safer than human drivers").

@Secret_squirrel If you put it on the ground, you don't need a "giant solid base". I still don't get the point of it.

@chrisonabike I'd personally prefer it if she were bolder, but on the spectrum of terrible to brilliant options for Transport Secretary, having someone who believes in cycling, but is a bit timid about it, is a net positive. Yes, those of us who can see opportunities missed or delayed will be frustrated, but it could easily have been much worse. That doesn't mean there's not a role for encouragement and constructive criticism. Agreed Chris Boardman has a good approach. He is ambitious, but communicates it in a way that is meaningful to the majority, and makes it hard for all but the most brazen anti-cycling activists to disagree with his ambitions.