The yawning gulf between cyclists and non-cyclists.

[Smokin Joe]

Some financial guru was quoted by the BBC this week as saying that over the course of a lifetime renting will cost the average person around £200,000 more than owning.

I've lived mortgage free for eleven years now and for the decade before that I only had a very small mortgage.

 

[Peteaud]

Renting is the way of the tory advice

Rich buys house to rent to the poor.
Rich banks wont lend to poor
Poor have to rent, this keeps them poor
Rich get richer

This is the way of the Tory, here endeth the lesson.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Renting is the way of the tory advice

Rich buys house to rent to the poor.
Rich banks wont lend to poor
Poor have to rent, this keeps them poor
Rich get richer

This is the way of the Tory, here endeth the lesson.

Remind me, which party was it who gave council tenants the right to buy?

 

[Peteaud]

Remind me, which party was it who gave council tenants the right to buy?

And how many got sold at massive profit, creating the price boom.
You dont get something for nothing.

 

[Smokin Joe]

And how many got sold at massive profit, creating the price boom.
You dont get something for nothing.

Quite, but what I said still stands.

 

[Peteaud]

Quite, but what I said still stands.

True.

 

[lulubel]

Some financial guru was quoted by the BBC this week as saying that over the course of a lifetime renting will cost the average person around £200,000 more than owning.

But I'd happily pay £200,000 more over the course of my lifetime to be free to live where I want, rather than having bought a house I didn't really like (but was all I could afford) in a location I didn't really like (but was all I could afford), and to now be trapped there because I can't sell it. If I spent 50 years living independently, that only works out to £4,000 a year, which is a small price to pay for freedom.

If you happened to be in fortunate position of being able to buy the house you wanted in the location you wanted (and you still want to be there), that's great for you. But home ownership is a compromise for most people, and I'm not prepared to make that compromise for the sake of a little bit of land that I can't take with me when I die.

 

[al78]

But I'd happily pay £200,000 more over the course of my lifetime to be free to live where I want, rather than having bought a house I didn't really like (but was all I could afford) in a location I didn't really like (but was all I could afford), and to now be trapped there because I can't sell it. If I spent 50 years living independently, that only works out to £4,000 a year, which is a small price to pay for freedom.

If you happened to be in fortunate position of being able to buy the house you wanted in the location you wanted (and you still want to be there), that's great for you. But home ownership is a compromise for most people, and I'm not prepared to make that compromise for the sake of a little bit of land that I can't take with me when I die.

You would only be trapped there if you go into negative equity, the risk of which reduces the larger the deposit you put down.

 

[Ian Cooper]

I'm sure (or i hope) you don't really think like that IC....

Actually, I pretty much do think that. Though my true feelings are a bit more nuanced. But most motorists easily fit the bill. After all, some folks live within easy cycling distance of work and amenities (sometimes within just a few hundred yards), yet they still drive. These lazy people sicken me. They are often so unfit and there are so many of them that they increase my health insurance costs, they use up our natural resources and pollute unnecessarily, they clog up the roads and create vast parking lots in downtown areas that are essentially mini-deserts - wastelands of asphalt. It's disgusting! At best, these folks are a drag on the system; at worst, they are a cancer.

And when it comes to living close to work, no one's forcing anyone to buy a house - there are many rentals very close to workplaces. I just finished renting in a house close to downtown - stayed there for 2 1/2 years - finally found a house for sale at a reasonable price and where I needed it to be. Anyway, I live in the US, where it is mostly true that all car drivers are obese yobbos and yobettes with a vast sense of entitlement and/or a lot more money than sense. Maybe that's not so much the case in the UK, but my opinions surely apply to many - perhaps most - drivers there too. I'm not suggesting everyone meets my characterization, but too many do.

The problem a lot of people are having right now is that we are living at a time when suburbia and home ownership have been pushed, for 50 years or more, as the utopian ideal. And it would have kept being so if the economy hadn't tanked. Now those who bought into the ideal are stuck way out in the Styx with petrol prices going through the roof, with more money owed to their mortgages than their houses are worth, and therefore with no way to sell. It is not my fault that they couldn't see that they were buying into a scam - a housing pyramid scheme. I could see this problem coming back in the 1990s, and I'm no economic genius, so it's not as if it was some difficult-to-see issue. I decided back then that buying into suburbia was a fools game.

Anyway, getting back to the OP's post, I think there are two yawning gulfs - one between cyclists and non-cyclists and another between cyclists and motorists who own a bike. After all, many motorists occasionally cycle and therefore believe themselves to be cyclists. These are the same sorts of folks as those people who volunteer to pick up trash in the park for two hours and suddenly think they're environmentalists.

 

[Boris Bajic]

... Anyway, getting back to the OP's post, I think there are two yawning gulfs - one between cyclists and non-cyclists and another between cyclists and motorists who own a bike. After all, many motorists occasionally cycle and therefore believe themselves to be cyclists. These are the same sorts of folks as those people who volunteer to pick up trash in the park for two hours and suddenly think they're environmentalists.

This is a most unusual sentiment. Anyone who cycles is a cyclist. Ownership or use of a car does not prevent one from being a cyclist.

Many (most?) cyclists make no link between their love of bicycles and environmntalism. I certainly do not.

You state elsewhere that your wife drives a car, yet the vitriol you pour on drivers is fairly unfettered.

The definitions you seem to be choosing appear to be born of your own imagination or prejudices. I may be wrong.

I am a motorist and a cyclist. I am not an envoronmentalist. None of my cycling friends would describe themselves as an environmentalist.

I find your posts hugely entertaining, in part because they are so far from anything I recognise as rational. I may be wrong.

I'm still waiting for replies to questions I posed after earlier anti-car posts from you:

1: Do you derive any benefit from the fact that your wife drives a car?

2. Of the several fairly ugly and damning stereotypes you heaped upon car drivers, which best fits your wife, who you say is a driver?

It's great fun to hold strong opinions on an Internet forum, but credibility is dependent in some way on consistency.

 

[lulubel]

You would only be trapped there if you go into negative equity, the risk of which reduces the larger the deposit you put down.

That's true. But if you have to sell your house for considerably less than you paid for it, effectively losing a hefty chunk of your desposit, you end up financially worse off than you would have been if you'd rented for that time and just kept the money in the bank.

The only reason buying a house makes sense to me is:

a) if you know you want to stay there for a long time, possibly the rest of your life
b) the market is stable, so you can be confident of getting back at least what you put in if you sell
c) house prices are rising rapidly, and you're a speculator willing to take the risk that the bubble will burst before you sell

None of those have ever applied to me, so I've been careful to not fall into the "must buy my own house" trap.

 

[gbb]

That's true. But if you have to sell your house for considerably less than you paid for it, effectively losing a hefty chunk of your desposit, you end up financially worse off than you would have been if you'd rented for that time and just kept the money in the bank.

The only reason buying a house makes sense to me is:

a) if you know you want to stay there for a long time, possibly the rest of your life
b) the market is stable, so you can be confident of getting back at least what you put in if you sell
c) house prices are rising rapidly, and you're a speculator willing to take the risk that the bubble will burst before you sell

None of those have ever applied to me, so I've been careful to not fall into the "must buy my own house" trap.

The truth is, as always, somewhere in the middle.
Everyones needs are different.
I brought my house, thanks to the Tories at a massive discount. I now benefit from a very low mortgage and am hugely better off than if i'd rented. Unlike so many others, i didnt take extra, remortgage etc etc...ive seen so many lose their houses as a result of that decision.
True, it is a mare selling and moving, expensive too. I always worked close to home, but circumstances now mean i have to travel 20 miles each way. I could sell with all the problems that incurs and move closer, but i dont want to anyway, my family are ALL in my locality.
Anyway, i could move closer to work....but who's to say that in a years time, i wont be out of work again and doing the same in reverse. No doubt, this is where renting has a plus side.

Long term ?...i dont care if the prices go up and down, i'm only concerned with how much it costs me each month. Having got through the first 5 years, ive been in progressively more and more in pocket ever since..

Plusses and minuses..(is that spelt right ? )...

 

[gbb]

Actually, I pretty much do think that. Though my true feelings are a bit more nuanced. But most motorists easily fit the bill. After all, some folks live within easy cycling distance of work and amenities (sometimes within just a few hundred yards), yet they still drive. These lazy people sicken me. They are often so unfit and there are so many of them that they increase my health insurance costs, they use up our natural resources and pollute unnecessarily, they clog up the roads and create vast parking lots in downtown areas that are essentially mini-deserts - wastelands of asphalt. It's disgusting! At best, these folks are a drag on the system; at worst, they are a cancer.

And when it comes to living close to work, no one's forcing anyone to buy a house - there are many rentals very close to workplaces. I just finished renting in a house close to downtown - stayed there for 2 1/2 years - finally found a house for sale at a reasonable price and where I needed it to be. Anyway, I live in the US, where it is mostly true that all car drivers are obese yobbos and yobettes with a vast sense of entitlement and/or a lot more money than sense. Maybe that's not so much the case in the UK, but my opinions surely apply to many - perhaps most - drivers there too. I'm not suggesting everyone meets my characterization, but too many do.

The problem a lot of people are having right now is that we are living at a time when suburbia and home ownership have been pushed, for 50 years or more, as the utopian ideal. And it would have kept being so if the economy hadn't tanked. Now those who bought into the ideal are stuck way out in the Styx with petrol prices going through the roof, with more money owed to their mortgages than their houses are worth, and therefore with no way to sell. It is not my fault that they couldn't see that they were buying into a scam - a housing pyramid scheme. I could see this problem coming back in the 1990s, and I'm no economic genius, so it's not as if it was some difficult-to-see issue. I decided back then that buying into suburbia was a fools game.

Anyway, getting back to the OP's post, I think there are two yawning gulfs - one between cyclists and non-cyclists and another between cyclists and motorists who own a bike. After all, many motorists occasionally cycle and therefore believe themselves to be cyclists. These are the same sorts of folks as those people who volunteer to pick up trash in the park for two hours and suddenly think they're environmentalists.

TBF, i can see your sentiments. As always, you can make a statement and it can get taken literally or personally, rather than the generalisation its (i assume) meant to be...and a fair generalisation in some respects.

 

[Nigel-YZ1]

... Anyway, getting back to the OP's post, I think there are two yawning gulfs - one between cyclists and non-cyclists and another between cyclists and motorists who own a bike. After all, many motorists occasionally cycle and therefore believe themselves to be cyclists. These are the same sorts of folks as those people who volunteer to pick up trash in the park for two hours and suddenly think they're environmentalists.

Does anyone want to tell me that for me cycling is a token effort? That I don't take it seriously?

Motorist who owns a bike? Bullshit. No-one has the right to label me.

There is no yawning gulf. There are just occasional bigots that like to dole out labels and sit in judgement. Or pick apart Cyclechat posts to eek that last bit of victory out of a single phrase.

Perhaps I'm missing the point and some people just believe that: cyclist = environmental campaigning god.

Now I'm valeting the car today, so I'm gonna go to Halfords at Cortonwood for some cleaner, on the bike. Have a nice day

 

[Mad Doug Biker]

Actually, Italy usually comes out as having some of the highest home ownership figures in the world - higher than the UK or Switzerland or Germany. I was very surprised about this as well!.

Just going on what Italian friends told us. Must have got my facts mixed up. HOWEVER, if everything is owned, then that makes the over all general state of the buildings even worse!