"Cycling saved my life", says Queen's Brian May; Bernal loses time on brutal Giro summit finish; Fed up community builds pop-up bike lane; Fail to stop driver with bike rack hit cyclist; Highland Trail record smashed on singlespeed + more on the live blog

Steve K wrote:

How can you write about Brian May cycling without referencing this?

Pretty sure that is referenced in the very first sentence

cqexbesd wrote:

Steve K wrote:

How can you write about Brian May cycling without referencing this?

Pretty sure that is referenced in the very first sentence

So it is.  Long day yesterday... 

Steve K wrote:

How can you write about Brian May cycling without referencing this?

https://youtu.be/GugsCdLHm-Q

easy, since Brian May didn't write the song!

When my cycling exploits 4 years ago got me on the radio a few times (Talksport twice and Radios 2 and 4 once each) that was the intro music they played every time.  

My wife's previous work was connected with the music business and has met Brian May. She says he's nice; just thought you'd like to know. 

And what's more, I bet he got you back with your Ex Wife....?

essexian wrote:

And what's more, I bet he got you back with your Ex Wife....?

I'd rather not talk about that thank you....

Last night a DJ saved my life.

Someone in Twittter uses the same point. For about 4 years last decade I didn't own a car. I still had access to my dads and occaisionally my brothers and hired one if travelling for a few days. Then my dad died and I now inherited his. When that fails the MOT I will be back to not owning one.

I have exactly the same reaction - I have been using zipcars and their predecessors in London for about 15  years. I dont own a car but i have access to various cars and vans within a 5 or 10 minute walk. I have access to a multitude of transport options and the question is the wrong one. It should ask if your transport access limits your ability to undertake certain journeys/tasks. 

sapperadam wrote:

That's the thing, we have no car but when needed, we have easy access to one, not even counting the use of hire cars. So I'm curious to know which it is, is it no access or no ownership?

This is the 2021 version of the question (think the 2011 question was the same):

https://census.gov.uk/help/how-to-answer-questions/paper-questions-help/...

Vehicles that are kept at another address don't count.

I think the question makes sense - it's cars owned + cars leased + company cars you can use privately.

sapperadam wrote:

I think there is a flaw in the access to car discussion. The headline question asks how many people live in households without access to a car. The data shows households that don't own a car. In my view, they are two very different things.

The ONS metadata for table KS404EW (availability of cars) says, 

Quote:

"The number of cars or vans that are owned, or available for use, by one or more members of a household. This includes company cars and vans that are available for private use. It does not include motorbikes or scooters, or any cars or vans belonging to visitors.

The count of cars or vans in an area relates only to households. Cars or vans used by residents of communal establishments are not counted.

Households with 10 or more cars or vans are counted as having only 10.

Responses indicating a number of cars or vans greater than 20 were treated as invalid and a value was imputed."

(https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/qs416ew  and download full description)

It seems to me that "available to" implies vehicles that are exclusively available to the household (in the way that a company car or van is also exclusive outside working hours - not a pool car borrowed for the night). It specifically excludes visitors to the household (which might loosely include other households that you might visit to borrow a car).

I'm inferring that interpretation, and maybe they have left it deliberately fuzzy to allow people to self-select as having a car available ('have you got enough cars for your needs?' might be a parallel question without invoking spectres of N+1).

But it would be better to clarify the question for the purposes of policy-making.

I've seen a recent report that says the owning and running costs of a secondhand EV are about half those for a petrol car over a period of seven years. We don't use our old banger much but it does come in useful at times. Having seen that report, I'm more sure than I was before that our next car will be a secondhand EV, probably a Nissan Leaf or a Renault Zoe. 

I'm not ready to give up having a car yet and while I've used Zip vans, I've found they often are in really poor shape as they've been bashed about by people who drive only very rarely. 

I'll stick to two wheels for shorter journeys and I'm planning to get a little trailer to hook onto my bike for supermarket trips.

I've seen similar reports. If you dig, they tend to be funded by electric car manufacturers.

We're still a decade (at least) away from cars where that's actually true being sold in large numbers and depreciating enough to be cheap.

Fuel savings don't add up fast enough unless you're doing quite a lot of miles. Maintenance costs aren't very different. Even if someone has the money up front to afford a car that's cheaper in the long run, it's hard to find something where fuel and tax savings aren't reflected in a higher price.

jh2727 wrote:

So did they notice the cycle carrier and figure maybe they can do him for swearing?

It certainly proves he's a wrong'un....

You'd need a chain of evidence linking the two, otherwise it might be another Mondeo, also with a cycle rack etc.

I don't buy that.

Surely it's still a vehicle of interest until it is ruled out of the investigation. Nothing to do with chain of evidence at this stage of investigation.
Once you've identified the vehicle, driver, route, etc. Then you can start compiling evidence, such as damage to the vehicle, cell phone tracking, vehicle movements, etc.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

I don't buy that.

Surely it's still a vehicle of interest until it is ruled out of the investigation. Nothing to do with chain of evidence at this stage of investigation.
Once you've identified the vehicle, driver, route, etc. Then you can start compiling evidence, such as damage to the vehicle, cell phone tracking, vehicle movements, etc.

Point taken. I meant that, to prove which vehicle was involved, you can't go from one video to another in another part of town showing the numberplate, you need continuous footage. 

You're right it would provide a reason to investigate the car shown, in the manner you suggest. In practice we all know that won't happen unless someone was killed (and probably not even then). So without continuous video that shows the numberplate at some point, it's going to be ignored.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

I don't buy that.

Surely it's still a vehicle of interest until it is ruled out of the investigation. Nothing to do with chain of evidence at this stage of investigation.
Once you've identified the vehicle, driver, route, etc. Then you can start compiling evidence, such as damage to the vehicle, cell phone tracking, vehicle movements, etc.

They can do it with people in city centres on those crime interceptor shows...Seems likely they can do it with cars too.

You need a chain of evidence?  Like a particular make and model of car, with the same set of alloy wheels and the same dark tint to the rear windows along with a Roof Rack?  I'm pretty sure that is relatively easy to identify from other camera footage.

Especially when you add that in to the time of day, the direction of travel of the car leaving the scene etc.