In Search of the 'War on Motorists'

[slowmotion]

The REAL purchase price of vehicles is falling. In other words, the purchase price hasn't risen as fast as our average earnings have been.
As far back as I remember (the 1980's), the cost of a small entry-level hatchback has been around £6000, same as today. However, the average wage has risen several-fold. Also, a modern £6000 car is incomparably better than the £6000 car from 1980, so if anything the economists actually underestimate how much real car prices have fallen.

What I was suggesting is that the overall cost of motoring plot on the graph is dragged down by the cheapness of new cars. If you have a banger, your overall cost of motoring has probably risen quite a bit.

 

[Adasta]

Go read the quote again.



[/b]Seems fairly clear-cut to me. He doesn't want her doing something that she's perfectly capable of doing because it is not safe. Although it's okay for him to do it.

If she doesn't feel safe cycling is that because she's experienced it? Is it because he has convinced her it's not safe? Surely it would be more helpful for him to bolster her confidence than tell her he doesn't want her doing it because it's not safe?

I'm struggling to stay civil and polite and maintain the assumption that I have simply misunderstood Alant's comments, because the sort of male supremacy it resembles vexeth me greatly.

Sam

To come at this from the Feminist angle, I'm going to refer to Gayatri Spivak's essay 'Can the Subaltern Speak?' and point out that the key here is how Alant's wife feels or what she has to say about cycling.

I think to level a charge of implicit patriarchal chauvinism on Alant's behalf would be a bit harsh. In fact, patriarchy can affect men as well: we are also taught gender roles and ours often involves "looking out for" women. These facts can be debated but I don't think Alant deserves to be lambasted for caring for his wife which, I think, is his primary motivation.

 

[snailracer]

Ooooo... verging on the sexist there, perhaps? Or did you forget the winking smiley? Or perhaps you're just assuming that his wife won't have his skills as she doesn't ride as much as he does on the roads?
...

That is what I meant. It could have applied to his son, daughter, cousin or intersexual acquaintances, if he knows any.

...
Let me ask you this then - how does she build up her road-riding skills on the roads in question without getting out and riding them?

Good point, however I'm not great at resolving chicken-and-egg conundrums, either.

 

[snailracer]

What I was suggesting is that the overall cost of motoring plot on the graph is dragged down by the cheapness of new cars. If you have a banger, your overall cost of motoring has probably risen quite a bit.

The graph has separate lines for "purchase of vehicle" and "vehicle running costs": both trail disposable income, therefore both are becoming cheaper in real terms.

There is no breakdown for whether the mix of new cars/old bangers is changing, but that is irrelevent to the question of costs: both new cars and old bangers cost money to buy and run, it's reasonable to assume the graph covers all vehicles, old or new.

 

[snailracer]

Please tell me that was meant as a joke.

Sam

I am not following you. Surely, a skilled cyclist would be safer than an unskilled one?

 

[snailracer]

Go read the quote again.

"something which she is perfectly capable of doing as one of her hobbies is hiking..."


[/b]Seems fairly clear-cut to me. He doesn't want her doing something that she's perfectly capable of doing because it is not safe. Although it's okay for him to do it...

Being good at hiking means one can cycle safely? No, the poster thought his wife was fit enough to cycle 5 miles, not necessarily safely.

I think you're seeing things.

 

[jack the lad]

I live 30 miles from work. I didn't used to - it was 5 miles, which I cycled. then the job moved. My kids were in school and established. Jackie the Lass worked 20 miles away in the opposite direction to where my job moved. Moving house was not a serious option until last year - and the housing market has put that out of my control for now!

So I still have to commute. It is a ridiculous expense and waste of time for the privilege of working, so I did the sums this morning for car vs public transport to see if I could do it cheaper and or easier. In cost it is absolutely neutral between my gaz-guzzler (which I can't sell and is uneconomic to replace - as purchase costs/depreciation of a fuel efficient car outweighs the fuel saving). Public transport requires 3 legs - bike, bus, train each way and takes just under twice as long as the car journey. It would be totally irrational to use public transport. JtLass's car does twice as many m's per g as my car. 2 or 3 days a week we now both do the same commute, so it is 1/4 of the public transport cost per person. On the other days I will start stealing it off her - and petrol will have to double in price before public transport becomes a better alternative.

I do the commute by bike sometimes - but it's not a goer for every day, or at all in the winter! More often I just ride one way (home) - but there is absolutely no saving or environmental benefit as JtLass still has to drive the car home!

 

[Ravenbait]

Being good at hiking means one can cycle safely? No, the poster thought his wife was fit enough to cycle 5 miles, not necessarily safely.

I think you're seeing things.

Um. From Alant's assertion that it's not safe for his wife you have suggested that it is because she is unskilled and then decided that your suggestion is so plausible it must be true and therefore it actually is unsafe for his wife.

I think you're begging the question.

If Alan's wife is fit enough to cycle and it is safe for him to cycle every day, why is it not safe for her to cycle? I asked the question and I am still awaiting a response. You are not Mrs Alant or Alant so you can only make assumptions and assertions.

Sam

 

[Ravenbait]

To come at this from the Feminist angle, I'm going to refer to Gayatri Spivak's essay 'Can the Subaltern Speak?' and point out that the key here is how Alant's wife feels or what she has to say about cycling.

I think to level a charge of implicit patriarchal chauvinism on Alant's behalf would be a bit harsh. In fact, patriarchy can affect men as well: we are also taught gender roles and ours often involves "looking out for" women. These facts can be debated but I don't think Alant deserves to be lambasted for caring for his wife which, I think, is his primary motivation.

It may well be his primary motivation. On the other hand, if my husband told me not to go out wearing a short skirt because he didn't think it was safe to go out dressed like that when there might be rapists around, I'd tell him where to shove it. The motivation behind expressing a sentiment doesn't stop the sentiment being discriminatory. It certainly doesn't stop it being wrong.

Whatever Mrs Alant feels about cycling is, indeed, the important part. But let's turn this around. How does Mrs Alant feel about Alant cycling? Does she think it's not safe for him but he does it anyway? What if she asked him not to? What if she wanted to cycle? Would he refuse on the basis that it isn't safe for her? If the latter, why isn't it safe for her?

It struck me as being an incredibly strange thing to say. To paraphrase: "I cycle every day but I don't want my wife to because it's not safe." I mean, really? That is what it looked like he was saying.

I would much rather hear Alant's clarification before jumping to any conclusions, however.

Sam

 

[jack the lad]

I would much rather hear Alant's clarification before jumping to any conclusions, however.

I also want to know what he thinks of letting his servants cycle!

 

[MartinC]

Sorry Sam, but I don't agree with you. The (irrational) feeling that it's not safe for a loved one to take the same risks that you feel comfortable about taking yourself is a fairly common human reaction that doesn't depend at all on the genders involved. I can easily think of examples where the genders involved are reversed or the same. It may be that you're assuming a motivation for the feeling that isn't necessarily there and projecting your own view of the world.

 

[Alant]

Ok clarification from me:

Three main ways out of our village

route one on which I commute to work is reasonably well lit and a substantial part of the commute can be done away from main roads.

route two, which I use on a weekend takes me away from the main roads onto a number of very lightly used roads which I can happily cycle around on for miles.

route three, if you want to visit the main supermarkets etc, which bikes aren't particularly helpful anyway for carrying the shopping for a family of four on, you have to go over roads which are NSL, unlit at night, currently full of potholes, and which I personally do not ride over either.

Joined this forum originally because I was interested in cycling and learning more about it. When I joined, and particularly after my first post I found it encouraging and friendly.

Joined for that, not debates on the rights and wrongs of driving a car and other anti car propaganda, for many people a car is a lifeline, for others its a luxury, but you know what I am not perfect and I don't intend being self righteous with others

Before anyone else has to say it, I know I joined, I responded and if I don't like it then its up to me to not bother coming back

 

[As Easy As Riding A Bike]

but you know what I am not perfect

I can't see anyone suggesting that you - or anyone else, for that matter - should be?


From my perspective, if your wife feels that it is unsafe to cycle, I certainly don't think she should be forced to.

 

[snailracer]

Um. From Alant's assertion that it's not safe for his wife you have suggested that it is because she is unskilled and then decided that your suggestion is so plausible it must be true and therefore it actually is unsafe for his wife.

I think you're begging the question.

If Alan's wife is fit enough to cycle and it is safe for him to cycle every day, why is it not safe for her to cycle? I asked the question and I am still awaiting a response. You are not Mrs Alant or Alant so you can only make assumptions and assertions.

Sam

AlanT knows his wife's capabilities better than either of us.

 

[Adasta]

It may well be his primary motivation. On the other hand, if my husband told me not to go out wearing a short skirt because he didn't think it was safe to go out dressed like that when there might be rapists around, I'd tell him where to shove it. The motivation behind expressing a sentiment doesn't stop the sentiment being discriminatory. It certainly doesn't stop it being wrong.

Alant didn't say anything about telling his wife...anything. You've inferred all of that from the post. There are lots of things my other half does/wears/says etc. which I don't agree with or don't think she should do. But that doesn't mean I tell her she can't do them.