London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

JohnB ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

But then the last cycle I bought contributed around five times more
in tax to the country's coffers than most people pay in VED :-(

Eh? You spent FIVE AND A HALF GRAND ON A BICYCLE?

Nope.

puzzled
But you said you did.

The VAT on a £5,500 bicycle would be £819, which is (slightly under) five
times the £165 VED.

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Huge wrote:

the complete inability to construct a logical argument

Ah, the old self-descriptive sig; good work that man! Like yer shtyle!

tom

--
Hit to death in the future head

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

Adrian wrote:

JohnB ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

But then the last cycle I bought contributed around five times more
in tax to the country's coffers than most people pay in VED :-(

Eh? You spent FIVE AND A HALF GRAND ON A BICYCLE?

Nope.

puzzled
But you said you did.

Nope.

The VAT on a £5,500 bicycle would be £819, which is (slightly under) five
times the £165 VED.

My word. You have a calculator.
And isn't £165 the top end of the scale? Is that the average paid?

John B

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

JohnB ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

But then the last cycle I bought contributed around five times
more in tax to the country's coffers than most people pay in VED
:-(

Eh? You spent FIVE AND A HALF GRAND ON A BICYCLE?

Nope.

puzzled
But you said you did.

Nope.

The VAT on a £5,500 bicycle would be £819, which is (slightly under)
five times the £165 VED.

My word. You have a calculator.

Good job one of us has.

And isn't £165 the top end of the scale? Is that the average paid?

You said "most people pay", not average - and I would lay odds that "most"
VED are top-whack - certainly I would think that "most cars" are larger
than 1549cc - although that may have skewed since the introduction of the
CO2-based VED.

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

"JohnB" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:

Eh? You spent FIVE AND A HALF GRAND ON A BICYCLE?

Nope.

Oh, John, you bad man!

Adrian -

First up, you should probably read things a bit more carefully.

Second - what's wrong with spending 5K or so on a bike? Plenty of people
throw that much away in depreciation alone in the first year on their car,
and I don't see you shouting at them.

FWIW my rule is that no bike can cost less than the car. I'm just about
obeying that one now - good thing cars are so cheap these days.

cheers,
clive

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

Clive George ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Second - what's wrong with spending 5K or so on a bike?

FWIW my rule is that no bike can cost less than the car.

I've never spent five grand on a car.
I've only once spent more than HALF that on a car.

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

Huge wrote:
cyclist-hater
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. So cycle back, if it's so
bloody marvellous.
/cyclist-hater

Not that bad an idea, and some people already do that. I've never,
but I've done the London-Cambridge both ways for the last 4 years,
which requires getting up at about 3.30am to cycle down to Lee Valley
for the start. (Not particularly fast!). Cycling through Herts in the
small hours is quite pleasant given the virtual complete lack of other
traffic at that time.

Can't someone charter a train or two?

Or 10 I'd think, given the numbers involved.

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

Rich wrote:

BTW, I think you'll find the definition of "road" includes the pavement.

Ah, so that's why so many cyclists seem to think that they are entitled
to ride on the pavement.

--
John Ray, London UK.

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

Adrian wrote:
Clive George ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :


Second - what's wrong with spending 5K or so on a bike?


FWIW my rule is that no bike can cost less than the car.


I've never spent five grand on a car.
I've only once spent more than HALF that on a car.

You are not average in this regard amongst car drivers ....

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

"John Ray" wrote in message
...
Rich wrote:

BTW, I think you'll find the definition of "road" includes the pavement.

Ah, so that's why so many cyclists seem to think that they are entitled
to ride on the pavement.

As a cyclist (who doesn't use the pavements!) it astounds me that many
police forces now actively ENCOURAGE cyclists to use what we used to term
'the footpath', for their own safety.

OTOH, as a cyclist, why is it that when discrete footpaths and cyclepaths
are provided (even with grass strips between them), with clear signage on
the asphalt and on lamp-posts, half-witted pedestrians (usually with prams
and pushchairs) STILL insist on jay-walking along the cyclepath, then having
the audacity to verbally harangue any cyclists with the temerity to ask if
they can pass?

The bottom line is that, whether pedestrians, cyclists or motorists, there
is bad practise and intolerance between all groups. Ultimately, better
roadcraft, less arrogance and more consideration for other parties would
improve everybodys day!

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Second - what's wrong with spending 5K or so on a bike?

FWIW my rule is that no bike can cost less than the car.

I've never spent five grand on a car.
I've only once spent more than HALF that on a car.

You are not average in this regard amongst car drivers ....

And five grand is an average bicycle?

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

Clive wrote:
In message , Huge
writes
Then we come to the next point; cyclists want to be treated like
"proper road users" (in actual fact, they mean cars, but if you mention
that, they deny it.)That's fine by me. I want them to be treated like
"proper road users", too; that is, registered, licensed, tested, carry
a registration plate, be prosecuted for their continuous infractions of
the road laws and bled white in taxes. Then they can justifably
complain about the crappiness of the facilities they are provided with,
since they will have paid for them. Whinging about things provided at
other people's expense just shows what kind of people they actually are.
I endorse this 100%.
--
Clive

In sentiment only I hope since quite a bit of it is wrong.

If as Huge says being treated like a "proper road user" means being
"registered, licensed, tested, carry a registration plate" then Huge is
wrong if he thinks cyclists want that. I haven't a clue what else he
thinks being treated like a "proper road user" means - oh yes being
taxed loads. No thanks. I pay enough tax already.

Quite happy for all cyclists to be "prosecuted for their continuous
infractions of the road laws". Same for all road users.

"provided at other people's expense" - I'm sure if you try very hard
you'll be able to find a cyclist who's paid no tax, otherwise that
statement is rubbish. I'm sure you could also find a motorist who has
paid no tax other than on fuel. And who knows you might even be able to
find one of those.

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

kiko ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

If as Huge says being treated like a "proper road user" means being
"registered, licensed, tested, carry a registration plate" then Huge
is wrong if he thinks cyclists want that.

Well, yes, that's obvious. Nobody ever wants more bureaucracy for
themselves, do they? Even when there may very well be a benefit in it.

Quite happy for all cyclists to be "prosecuted for their continuous
infractions of the road laws". Same for all road users.

Fine. So - how DO we get red light cameras to recognise cyclists without
having plates on bikes?

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Jack Taylor wrote:

The bottom line is that, whether pedestrians, cyclists or motorists,
there is bad practise and intolerance between all groups. Ultimately,
better roadcraft, less arrogance and more consideration for other
parties would improve everybodys day!

Well said.

The solution, of course, is to STRING THE *******S UP IT'S THE ONLY
LANGUAGE THEY UNDERSTAND. Innit. What do we want? Gibbets! When do we want
them? Now!

tom

--
.... a tale for which the world is not yet prepared

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

Adrian wrote:
chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :


Second - what's wrong with spending 5K or so on a bike?

FWIW my rule is that no bike can cost less than the car.


I've never spent five grand on a car.
I've only once spent more than HALF that on a car.


You are not average in this regard amongst car drivers ....


And five grand is an average bicycle?

Also not average, but not unimaginable.

It goes a lot further than that same 5 grand spent on a car, not even
beginning to count ongoing running costs.

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

Adrian wrote:
kiko ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Quite happy for all cyclists to be "prosecuted for their continuous
infractions of the road laws". Same for all road users.

Fine. So - how DO we get red light cameras to recognise cyclists without
having plates on bikes?

Mmm. Introduce an instant fine involving a vehicle going through green
light at same time removing cyclist from cycle? Then you'll have no
problem recognising and catching them.

Seriously, I agree that would be tricky. But where would you stick a
number plate on a bike/rider? Maybe use a lightweight electronic ID tag?

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

In message . 170,
Adrian writes
Quite happy for all cyclists to be "prosecuted for their continuous
infractions of the road laws". Same for all road users.

Fine. So - how DO we get red light cameras to recognise cyclists without
having plates on bikes?

Assuming the punishment would be to fine the cyclists, roaming
enforcement officers would probably pay for themselves many times over
in the worst troublespots (e.g. the whole of Oxford city centre), and I
say this as a cyclist who hates red light jumpers, pavement cyclists and
cyclists without lights at night too.
--
Daniel (a.k.a Spyke)
Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. Replace the bit before the
@ with 'daniel' to get through. The opinions expressed in this post do not
necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post.

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

kiko ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

But where would you stick a number plate on a bike/rider?

Ummm, rear mudguard?

Is it NL or BE or one of those countries that has a small yellow square
plate on bikes? Some EU countries have a smaller plate for mopeds, too.

However, I don't see it's a huge problem, partly since I have to have a
full size numberplate on some of my bikes, purely because they have a small
petrol hairdryer strapped to the front wheel.

Maybe use a lightweight electronic ID tag?

groan Don't give the *******s ideas...

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

kiko wrote:
If as Huge says being treated like a "proper road user" means being
"registered, licensed, tested, carry a registration plate" then Huge is
wrong if he thinks cyclists want that.

Actually, it might help to ask people, have polls ever been taken or are
you making assumptions? Personally, I don't mind the idea.

It really does bug me when I see cyclists riding on pavements and going
through red lights and flagrantly disregarding the rules of the road. I
might not be of international standard, but I am certainly what I would
consider a 'proper' cyclist. I can drive, I hold a full driving licence
(and have done for many, many years), I just choose not to exercise that
ability. That also makes me a 'driver'.

The rules of the road aren't there to restrict road users from having
fun they are there to make everyone's behaviour predictable under what
are potentially dangerous and life-threatening conditions.

I really don't mind the idea of being registered, tested or licensed. I
can't imagine that it should come to it, but I do wonder sometimes at
the inconsistency of using the road as a cyclist with no required
instruction, but to have to be qualified to use a motor vehicle. Just
what right is it that we should expect unfettered access to a resource
that requires expense to maintain? The fact that the average cyclist
causes virtually no damage to that resource should be reflected in the
charge to use it, but that doesn't remove entirely the inequity.

Yes, it might discourage cycle use.
Yes, this might fly in the face of government obesity targets and
congestion reduction.
But it would make life more comfortable for the remaining cyclists.

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

I've never spent five grand on a car.
I've only once spent more than HALF that on a car.

You are not average in this regard amongst car drivers ....

And five grand is an average bicycle?

Also not average, but not unimaginable.

So where did "average" come into it? Although I'd suspect that it's *FAR*
more common to buy inexpensive cars than expensive bikes...

It goes a lot further than that same 5 grand spent on a car

How? Seriously - genuine question. I'm *baffled* about what a £5k bike will
do that a £500 one won't.

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

Adrian wrote:
chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :
Also not average, but not unimaginable.


So where did "average" come into it? Although I'd suspect that it's *FAR*
more common to buy inexpensive cars than expensive bikes...

Not if I look at the cars on the roads I walk past in the morning. I
would put money on an overwhelming majority of them costing their owners
more than 5 grand when bought - and a goodly proportion of them still
worth more than that.

FWIW, I introduced the word 'average' several posts ago. You were making
out that you would not have done something - that is only relevant if
you are proposing yourself as the typical man in the street? Otherwise
why should you go on to question why spending the same sum on a bike
should be a cause of surprise?

It goes a lot further than that same 5 grand spent on a car


How? Seriously - genuine question. I'm *baffled* about what a £5k bike will
do that a £500 one won't.

As the old saying goes, if you have to ask the question, you won't
understand the answer.

But it is very similar to asking what a 50 grand car will get you that a
5 grand one won't.

You get better technology, better materials, higher quality components,
better performance.

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

In message . 170,
Adrian writes
chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like

So where did "average" come into it? Although I'd suspect that it's *FAR*
more common to buy inexpensive cars than expensive bikes...

It goes a lot further than that same 5 grand spent on a car

How? Seriously - genuine question. I'm *baffled* about what a £5k bike will
do that a £500 one won't.

Make a statement to the world about the wealth, taste and trouser
endowment of the man who owns it?

I'm guessing the majority of people who spend 5k on a bike are men.

--
Steve Walker

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

How? Seriously - genuine question. I'm *baffled* about what a £5k
bike will do that a £500 one won't.

As the old saying goes, if you have to ask the question, you won't
understand the answer.

Humour me.

But it is very similar to asking what a 50 grand car will get you that
a 5 grand one won't.

Is it?

You get better technology, better materials, higher quality
components,

Do you get more space, more comfort, and more functionality?

better performance.

Really? sceptical Y'see, I was of the impression that the £5k bike would
use the same power source as the £500 bike. Yes, there may be a very minor
weight saving, but that's going to be minimal when you consider the weight
including rider. a few hundred grams saved over a hundred kilo all-in
weight? Similar difference to having a dump before you get on the bike.

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...

So where did "average" come into it? Although I'd suspect that it's *FAR*
more common to buy inexpensive cars than expensive bikes...

There are a hell of a lot of cheap crap bikes bought - you just don't see
the owner's talking about them.

It goes a lot further than that same 5 grand spent on a car

How? Seriously - genuine question. I'm *baffled* about what a £5k bike
will
do that a £500 one won't.

Ok, what will a 300k car do which a 30k one won't? There's an awful lot of
your answer.

Most of the answer is almost always 'go faster' - applies to both cars and
bikes. Another of the key subsets is 'being more comfortable' - oh look,
cars and bikes again. 'Easy to ride' is another one (ok, cars suffer this to
less of a degree since autoboxes etc are very cheap). 'Carry more people' is
another - cars get this one too.

Key differences include materials (CF costs a lot more than gaspipe!),
design and volume of manufacture (recumbents tend to be more expensive,
recumbent trikes more so).

My speciality is tandems - I know of bikes which cost 5K. What they will do
which your 500 quid one won't is : Carry two people. Be portable within
airline luggage restrictions (the former makes this one quite hard and
expensive). Be light enough to lift (ever crossed scottish deer fences?
having something which doesn't weigh a ton is a significant advantage). Have
better gears and brakes (a rohloff hub costs as much as your 500 quid bike
alone - but it will be strong and reliable in the way that a derailleur
system never will be).

Recumbents have similar games. Recumbent tandems even more so.

Will that do?

cheers,
clive

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

Adrian wrote:
chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :
But it is very similar to asking what a 50 grand car will get you that
a 5 grand one won't.


Is it?

You asked the question, are you giving the answer, too?

You get better technology, better materials, higher quality
components,


Do you get more space, more comfort, and more functionality?

Those are not typically factors considered when spending that sort of
amount on a bike - but if you are just measuring issues of utility, of
getting from A to B, then the issues are similar.

better performance.


Really? sceptical Y'see, I was of the impression that the £5k bike would
use the same power source as the £500 bike. Yes, there may be a very minor
weight saving, but that's going to be minimal when you consider the weight
including rider. a few hundred grams saved over a hundred kilo all-in
weight? Similar difference to having a dump before you get on the bike.

It's not just weight, but that is a consideration. Different
constructions (e.g. wheels, frame), more expensive materials which are
stiffer and thus more effective at transferring the power generated
directly to where it is useful.

Consider road bikes. At the cheap end of the market (e.g. less than 500
quid) you can still get a more than decent machine which will, to most
people, do a great job of getting them from A to B without too much
fuss. It will even allow them to do it with reasonable speed. The
marginal improvements of the next step up (to under 1000) will be
evident, but not generally necessary unless you're doing a lot of
mileage and training/racing seriously. As you spend more and more you
will suffer from diminishing returns, so if you are buying to commute or
just pootle then, yes, 5 grand is a waste and you shouldn't be doing it.

But if you are racing, where seconds counts and fractions of a percent
make a real difference ... then spending more is just something that has
to happen. Same as with a car. Same as with a boat. Same as with most
things used for competitions as opposed to utility.

And, yes, having a dump or not having seconds of pudding can make a
difference - but if you're doing that *as*well* as having decent kit ...

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

In message . com, kiko
writes
- oh yes being taxed loads. No thanks. I pay enough tax already.
So do I, but I still have to pay VED and buy DERV as red diesel renders
my car liable to confiscation by those nasty customs men. No, there is
no equality in road use and until there is the I believe all cycles
should be taxed tested and insured and the riders have to pay extra to
use the roads as motorists do.
--
Clive

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

In message .com, kiko
writes
Seriously, I agree that would be tricky. But where would you stick a
number plate on a bike/rider? Maybe use a lightweight electronic ID
tag?
What's wrong with just enforcing the use of user identification on their
backs, with the same fine as not displaying a number plate on a car,
London cyclists get the benefits, why not the pain?
--
Clive

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

In message . 170,
Adrian writes
groan Don't give the *******s ideas...
It's not a bad idea, just equality.
--
Clive

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

In message , Jack Taylor
writes
The bottom line is that, whether pedestrians, cyclists or motorists,
there is bad practise and intolerance between all groups. Ultimately,
better roadcraft, less arrogance and more consideration for other
parties would improve everybodys day!
Whilst as a pedestrian and a car driver I accept this, I find that
cyclists are by far and away the worst for breaking the HC and this
includes motor-cyclists of all sizes of machines, from little scooters
up to 1200cc machines.
--
Clive

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

Clive ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

groan Don't give the *******s ideas...

It's not a bad idea, just equality.

They've not *quite* got round to RFID tags in car 'plates yet, though...

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

You get better technology, better materials, higher quality
components,

Do you get more space, more comfort, and more functionality?

Those are not typically factors considered when spending that sort of
amount on a bike

But they're definitely factors in spending £50k on a new car rather than
£5k.

Consider road bikes. At the cheap end of the market (e.g. less than
500 quid)

Umm, I'd have said the "cheap end of the market" for new bikes was less
than £100 from Halfrauds. £200 at a push. That's your direct bicycle
equivalent to a £5k new car.

£500+ for a new bike is equivalent in market position to somewhere around
£15-20k new car territory, I'd have thought - starting to get towards the
top end of tangible reasons to buy (space, toys, build quality) and head
into the intangibles (prestige, bling, fashion)

On that basis, £5k for a bike has to be somewhere around £100k car
territory?

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

Adrian wrote:
chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :
Those are not typically factors considered when spending that sort of
amount on a bike


But they're definitely factors in spending £50k on a new car rather than
£5k.

While the reasons for speeding ten times as much on a car as a bike are
different, the reasons for speeding a tenth of the amount are similar
(because it can do the primary job (utility) just as well, the secondary
skills are just that, less important than the price).

Consider road bikes. At the cheap end of the market (e.g. less than
500 quid)


Umm, I'd have said the "cheap end of the market" for new bikes was less
than £100 from Halfrauds. £200 at a push. That's your direct bicycle
equivalent to a £5k new car.

Now you're talking 5 grand for a new car, that's different than 5 grand
for a car. But yes, 5 grand in new car terms is probably c.100 ish in
Halfrauds.

£500+ for a new bike is equivalent in market position to somewhere around
£15-20k new car territory, I'd have thought - starting to get towards the
top end of tangible reasons to buy (space, toys, build quality) and head
into the intangibles (prestige, bling, fashion)

But while there will be people who will spend money for its own sake,
purely to show off (in cars and bikes) - I would contend that a higher
proportion of high end (500) bikes will be sold to 'knowledgeable'
cyclists than similar cars (20k+?).

On that basis, £5k for a bike has to be somewhere around £100k car
territory?

Probably slightly higher in terms of percentage of the market, but yes,
in that ballpark.

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Now you're talking 5 grand for a new car, that's different than 5
grand for a car.

Sure, but we were comparing vs new bikes.

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

Adrian wrote:
chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :


Now you're talking 5 grand for a new car, that's different than 5
grand for a car.


Sure, but we were comparing vs new bikes.

Can you get a new car for 5 grand? :)

Same question, caveat with "worth having"? :-D

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Now you're talking 5 grand for a new car, that's different than 5
grand for a car.

Sure, but we were comparing vs new bikes.

Can you get a new car for 5 grand? :)

Yes. List on some of the ropier stuff about can squeek under £5k - and I'm
sure they'd be desperate to shift one. For another few hundred notes, you
could get something half-decent and mainstream like a Panda.

But the most I've ever spent on a car is £4.5k, for a 4.5yr old £27k-new
turbo petrol XM - I paid roughly the list price of the options. 5 years
later, it's still doing fine.

Same question, caveat with "worth having"? :-D

I'll answer that by echoing...

Can you get a new bike for 100 quid, "worth having"?

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

Adrian wrote:

JohnB ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

But then the last cycle I bought contributed around five times
more in tax to the country's coffers than most people pay in VED
:-(

Eh? You spent FIVE AND A HALF GRAND ON A BICYCLE?

Nope.

puzzled
But you said you did.

Nope.

The VAT on a £5,500 bicycle would be £819, which is (slightly under)
five times the £165 VED.

And isn't £165 the top end of the scale? Is that the average paid?

You said "most people pay", not average - and I would lay odds that "most"
VED are top-whack - certainly I would think that "most cars" are larger
than 1549cc - although that may have skewed since the introduction of the
CO2-based VED.

I used a band C Petrol car - £105, which I guessed was average as its in
the middle of the DVLA table.
But even using your top whack £165 I still contributed over three times
more in tax than the VED.
Which of course goes towards 'the roads'.

John B

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

Adrian wrote:
chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :
Can you get a new car for 5 grand? :)


Yes. List on some of the ropier stuff about can squeek under £5k - and I'm
sure they'd be desperate to shift one. For another few hundred notes, you
could get something half-decent and mainstream like a Panda.

So 5k will get you a tolerable but unexciting small car.

But it will get you a world-class bike.

In fact, several exceptional ones.

But the most I've ever spent on a car is £4.5k, for a 4.5yr old £27k-new
turbo petrol XM - I paid roughly the list price of the options. 5 years
later, it's still doing fine.

But not a new one ...

Same question, caveat with "worth having"? :-D


I'll answer that by echoing...

Can you get a new bike for 100 quid, "worth having"?


I would never recommend anyone spend "just" 100 quid on a new bike.

Double that to get acceptable. Double *that* to get tolerable. Double
*that* to get reasonable.

You're still talking a fraction of the similar amounts for cars ;)

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

chris harrison ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Can you get a new bike for 100 quid, "worth having"?

I would never recommend anyone spend "just" 100 quid on a new bike.

There's your answer to your question, then... g

But I'll bet a much higher percentage of new bikes are the £100-250 end of
the market than £5k cars are of new cars.

You're still talking a fraction of the similar amounts for cars ;)

Oh, absolutely. That's undeniable. But... five grand... on a bike...?!?

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

Clive George wrote:

"JohnB" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:

Eh? You spent FIVE AND A HALF GRAND ON A BICYCLE?

Nope.

Oh, John, you bad man!

Well it was a little less. Even I would have problems justifying that
much for a bicycle to the Senior Management.
But then it did come from those wonderfully laid back engineers in
Falmouth ;-)
Which of course should tell our Adrian chap he should read wot I wrote a
little more carefully and not jump in with his assumptions.

John B

London to Brighton bike ride next week (blatant plug for me!)
 

JohnB ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

Which of course should tell our Adrian chap he should read wot I wrote a
little more carefully and not jump in with his assumptions.

Not I making the incorrect assumptions, ol' chap. You were making
guesstimates of the "majority" VED rate which I suspect were way out...

But, even so... More money than sense...