Display:
you're forgetting critical issues like ... age and infirmity.

america, in particular, has reached that point where the majority of citizens are baby boomers - and we are in our late 50's, early 60's.  definitely NOT bike material - too many broken hips and serious injuries.

i'm not saying some old folks don't ride, but on a daily basis as the primary mode of transportation, it won't work.

also, this is a bit idealistic - assuming it is only one person travelling - not a parent with kids... and here in ca, or in nyc - travelling by bike is extremely treacherous - traffic doesn't warrant a safe experience.  

i oughta know - in the mid70's, i was one of the first female bike messengers in nyc.  one pothole could take out a car, nevermind a cyclist!  today at 59, there is no way i would tackle the roadways with a bike.  

horseback riding is much safer and more fuel efficient - but you won't see me taking the boys to the store, either.

by edrie on Sat Jul 9th, 2005 at 04:19:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
our late 50's, early 60's.  definitely NOT bike material

Hm. I remember quite a number of old people on the bike roads in Germany.

They only biked slower.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Jul 9th, 2005 at 11:56:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
not "old"..but the problem with america is the bigger area to traverse, the lack of safe bike lanes and the damned fools on the roads.  in europe, i remember from the last time i visited, there is actually curtesy - not murderous intent.

it is hard enough avoiding the idiots in a metal casing, to ride a bike (even a motorbike) is extremely hazardous here.

in california, between cell phonitis and hostile drivers, one takes one's life in his/her hands each time the vehicle rolls.  

nope, i'd rather fall off my horse - at least, i can crawl back on and he'll take me home - on the roads, i'm just another speed bump.

by edrie on Sat Jul 9th, 2005 at 04:17:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps the suggestion was that in the long run, bikes are a good approach to local transportation. Obviously if you have to ride on a highway or crowded city street without bike lanes, it's not going to work. But over time as these problems are resolved the situation will get better.

There are tricycles built on bicycle principles that avoid the balance problem--as I'm sure you know.

Another issue is "what about cold in winter and hot in summer?" An obvious solution: Covered bike paths. Lots less expensive than streets...

by asdf on Sat Jul 9th, 2005 at 06:14:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
from nyc, i travelled exclusively by bike - loved it.  did 35 miles the first day out - and my legs were total jelly when i got home - couldn't wait to go back out.

the roads were snowy, the weather crisp (translate: friggin' cold) and it was incredible!  in my healthier days (pre two episodes broken back and one car wreck with permanent c6/t1 nerve damage, i loved biking.  if i were physically capable now, i would still love to bike path it - actually went to get my bike back on road several years ago, but someone rearended the rv and bent the wheel - looking back, probably a VERY good thing...

for the young, for the fit - it is incredible.  for those with safe places to ride, awesome - for those confined to areas where roads aren't friendly to cyclists, it is a damned shame.

i would love to bike around europe - my sister did it and had a ball - but for biking around california - i prefer having a bradley - it is a wee bit safer!

by edrie on Sun Jul 10th, 2005 at 03:54:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Cycling is safer per mile than driving, at least in the US and some other countries like France. It most countries, it's about equally safe on a per mile basis, though for some odd reason it's slightly less safe than driving in the UK according to the statistics I've found.

One reason cycling is more dangerous than it should be is that cyclists are rare, and car drivers aren't used to them, and accomodations are not made in terms of road planning. A concerted national effort to cycle would change all this and improve safety even more.

As far as age goes, lifetime cyclists can easily continue throughout their 50s and 60s, and perhaps longer. If you're truly too old to ride a bike, it's probably time for retirement anyway.

You have a point in terms of dealing with small children too young to have their own bicycles. But such children complicate all tasks, and not just cycling. In any case, there are baby carts you can attach to bicycles, and two-parent families can trade off duties to allow each of them to cycle.

Really, the only major barrier to widespread cycling is that we've invested trillions of dollars in a road network and suburban lifestyle that makes commuting, shopping, and other daily tasks difficult by bike. Many people couldn't bike to work at all because they're 25 miles or more away from work one way. That's a sign that we're living wrong as a society, and we should change that. In the meantime, anyone within 12-15 miles of work could easily make the effort to cycle once per week. It's not as hard as people think it is.

Personally, thanks to the politics and economic realities of peak oil, I started cycling to work in late May. I've made it in at least once a week since then, and would have made it more except for the iffy Seattle weather. One week in May, I cycled in all 5 days. It's not only safe and feasible, but many people do it, including a coworker of mine who's about 50 and has been bike commuting every day of his professional life for the last 20 years.

by Cascadia Progressive on Sun Jul 10th, 2005 at 12:00:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series
Agriculture
by afew - Aug 7

Anglo Disease
by Migeru - Aug 3