Volt, Schmolt; Get a Bike Instead

Let me answer with a question: Would it have been more environmentally friendly for the "overtaking drivers" to have been cycling instead of driving?

 

Shucks, Hyo... now you're just embarrassing me.

I second that! I'd wear 'em all day if I wasn't afraid of getting arrested.

 

Nobody wants that, of course. And it really shows us the problem we're dealing with. And it is the same problem as when a mom tells me, "I won't let my daughter ride to school because there are too many cars on the road."

So what's the result of these similar situations? Too many cars on the road to safely ride... so we drive more cars. Gaah! How do we stop the maddness?

I hear people telling me all the time that bicycling is dangerous. No it isn't. It is the cars that are the danger. Put everybody on bikes, and how many people die in traffic accidents? Put everybody in cars and... well, we know how that works out.

 

ya know Grumpy... you post interesting, relevant stuff like this, in a polite tone, and it almost makes you sound human and helpful! Group hug.

 

Let me second the motion for bicycle routes completely separate from roads, other than stoplight-controlled crossings. I bicycled for a few years, when I lived in rural North Dakota, between the time I first learned to bicycle (as an adult) until the time when an overuse tendon injury put an and to my cycling.

On two occasions I bicycled into Fargo. The rural roads into and out of town were very nice, but within the city, biking in traffic was terrifying. Bicycling is not second-nature to me, as it is for people who learn as young children, and I came close to getting killed on both trips in town, and never did it again.

When even a skilled cyclist can get killed by an inattentive moron driving a car, it is lunatic for an unskilled rider to venture onto the streets.

I propose a one-dollar-per-pound-per-year tax on automobiles, with the revenue used to construct and maintain a network of bike and pedestrian paths totally separate from roads, except at necessary stoplight-controlled crossings.

 

Over here these are called Rail Trails. The urban trails have had an enormous impact on cycle commuting, drawing many riders who would never consider (at least initially) pedaling on the streets. The rural trails have also become very popular for recreation, enough to support new trailside businesses.

 

I believe that if we build infrastructure supporting the use of bicycles, more people would ride them.

But the trails have to go where people need to go, too. There's nothing wrong with riding for fun on a weekend, but to really make a difference it's bicycle commuting we really need to focus on, not creating more mountain bike trails far away from the city.

 

We have both types of cycle track or trail, the ones in the country are popular for fun, but we also have tracks on disused rail lines in urban areas. This way, with the right signage and lighting, they prove to be popular ways of getting right into the heart of a town or city without getting hit by a car.

All the hard work was done 100 years ago bringing the line into the city - bridges, earth works etc. To complicate things though, a lot of old rail lines are now being reinstated again as rail is proving a more popular way of travelling into urban areas.

 

ridiculous. when people walked, they lived in small villages. horses and buggies allowed them to move further out. i'm no expert on the history of transportation, but i don't believe bicycles were ever a major factor. we now live so far apart, it would be impractical and bike paths come at an enormous investment even for local riding. nice thought tho, and they could probably have some beneficial effect in urban environments. but even there, auto traffic is so dense, it makes riding very dangerous, even with separate lanes.

 

So with absolutely NO information to go on, you decide what to "believe"? Bicycles were the primary form of personal transportation just before the 20th century when the Safety Bicycle (the grandfather of the bicycle we all recognize today) allowed both men AND women from all walks (not intended) of life to ride comfortably and safely. Roads were initially created for bicycles. Then the automobile put a halt to adult cycling in the US (it continued in Europe) until modern times when the bicycle as transportation and recreation has enjoyed quite a resurgence.

I can't tell you how many people have purchased a Prius for commutes under five miles. Folks ask about short commutes on this form all the time... they wonder why they don't get good gas mileage! Untold millions of car trips every day in the US are under five miles. Personally I ride about 8,000 miles per year. Way more than I drive a car. But then by some standards, I'm impractical. I mean who wouldn't think it impractical to transport my skinny nice person on a 20 pound bike vs in a more practical 3,000+ pound automobile? How many people also drive their cars (A mile? Two miles?) to the gym in order to get the exercise that they don't otherwise get while seated in their car??

So if I understand you correctly, you feel that because urban traffic is so dense that it would be better to add another car to that traffic rather than help reduce the congestion by cycling?

Why do you even bother to comment on things that you don't seem to know much about, care much about... or even bother to *think* about? I'm not usually so blunt, but damn!

 

I agree with Darell. In my limited experience, road cycling is actually not that dangerous. Cars may make the ride a little scary but assuming everyone follows the law it can be very safe.

I actually think cycling on a college campus is more dangerous than cycling on streets with cars. I don't know how many times I've personally done stupid stuff or seen stupid stuff done. People flipping over on bikes, hitting students, not knowing how to use roundabouts, students on their cell phone, FRESHMEN, etc etc.

One time on campus this girl walked out right in front of this biker. He was going pretty fast on a road bike. He slammed his front brake to avoid her and he flipped over her. She was untouched. It was an amazing sight. He gathered his stuff, as they both walked separate directions.

Another time I had freshmen chemistry at 7am in the morning. I was half awake, and my eyes were crusty so I couldn't see straight. I started biking to class and on the way I hit some poor kid in the back with my handlebars. The worst part is that he had one of those empty backpacks, so he felt the full impact. Ouch, I apologized, woke up and never biked tired again.

This other time on campus I saw someone on one of those small bikes (like for toddlers). He was approaching one of those red/white railroad crossing guards (that go up and down), except it was down. He seemed to want to try to go under it. He hunched over and cleared it, but his backpack caught the rail. Lol! So he basically fell back as his bike wiped out from under him.

Oh there's so many more too....

Ok back on topic.

 

This was caused by our automobiles. Many people are now moving back, closer to jobs, business, and shopping.

Compared to the humongous investment in the automobile paths -- and the additional investment still needed to relieve congestion, which in turn enables more sprawl and congestion -- bike paths look quite reasonable.

An important element of safe cycling is rethinking routes, avoiding the most dangerous motorized traffic and finding alternates won't even cross the mindset of motor drivers.

The spouse and I, and several cycling friends, have helped train a number of novice riders for the annual Seattle To Portland ride, a 200 mile event. To relieve the repetitious boredom of training on just two trails, we took them on many other routes around the region. It was quite gratifying to see those who were initially afraid to ride alone, graduate to confident solo riders, some of whom turned into frequent pedal commuters.

 

Wondering if you misunderstood or misread what I put?

I meant that the hard work one hundred years ago was bringing the railways into the existing towns over here. Back then they didn't care if they knocked down poorer houses to build their embankment or track - something unlikely to happen today. About 50 years ago a big program of railway closures took place over here where the lines were removed, leaving the embankments which were just eyesores. In the last 20 years many have been converted to cycle ways and thus cyclists have their own routes into cities and towns without having to risk riding on roads.

Not sure if old railway lines or routes exist in the US, but if they did it would be a great way of encouraging bikes into the cities.

 

Ineed! Thoug I'm going to veer off just a bit from that statement and say that as long as everybody operates their machines safely (vs simply obeying the law regardless of the impact on safety), then cycling in traffic can be very safe. There are some significant cases where following the law to the letter does NOT make cycling safer. The laws cyclists are expected to follow were made for cars... yet there are obviously limits to how much like a car a bike can be. But anyway, that's just a nitpick.

Amen! Totally agree! I live in a college town, and have to cross campus regularly. There is NOTHING more dangerous than mixing it up with our current generation of ipod-wearing phone texters. The norm is ipod in, texting while riding with one hand... in flip-flops, and little else. NO regard for anybody else using the roads and paths. Want to turn off the road? Just turn. Don't bother looking first! Ug. Only safe time to cross campus is between midnight and 6am.

 

Indeed they do exist. In the SF Bay area in California many rails were abandoned when GM and Firestone conspired to replace trains with rubber-tired, GM-engined busses. It has been many decades... but yes, many old rail lines are being converted to multi-use paths. We're even reopening tunnels at great expense (they were filled in to prevent whatever happens in dark places when people are unattended) - and some great things are coming of them.

Check it out - this just opened up in my home town.
MCBC - Cal Park Hill Tunnel - Marin County's Brightest Addition to the Bicycle Network

 

Well, that settles it: We're condemned to live in a situation whose creation dates back more than a century. Forever, with no hope of ever changing anything.

This is the way it is, and this is the way it will always be.

Excuse me, I'm going to fire up the car for the first time in nearly a month—hope it starts—and drive 20 miles for a double cheeseburger.

 

We are creatures of habit. After WWII the U.S. was flush, wages were climbing due to strong unions and strong demand for our manufactured goods since most of the rest of the developed world was in shambles. People could afford houses and cars and the result was urban sprawl. Gas was cheap and driving an hour from a pristine housing development into the city to work was a novelty that had not yet lost its appeal.

Now gas is not so cheap and deteriorating freeways are turning into parking lots during rush hour and fifty years of two gas guzzlers in every garage is melting the world's ice caps and India and China have decided they want what we have, and a few farsighted folks are starting to preach the benefits of bicycles. (I agree with them, though I cannot stay upright on anything with less than three points on the ground.)

But as I said, we are creatures of habit, and people who grew up since WWII believe that cars and urban sprawl and unlimited gasoline are just the way it is, and more significantly believe that they have a god-given right (literally) to live sprawled all over this once-green Earth, and that it's just not possible to live any other way.

But what respect for the Earth cannot accomplish, and what concern for our fellow citizens cannot accomplish, economics will accomplish: As oil gets more expensive to produce and gasoline gets more expensive to buy, a point will come when ordinary folks will no longer be able to afford gasoline. Mass transit will be too expensive to provide to the sprawl outside cities, and communities will begin to shrink as people are forced to abandon cars they cannot afford to drive and a market is created for shopping and jobs closer to where they live, or else they are forced to move back into the cities.

In a hundred years, communities will be as small as they were 100 years ago, and the age of cheap energy will be a blip, an anomaly in the history of the human race. That is, unless we exterminate ourselves in a nuclear war or produce so much pollution that we suffocate.

We're living in a golden age, but it won't last.

 

In the U.S. there's this stigma about public transportation, and about bicycles too: They're for people who can't afford to drive a car. Amped characterized European motor scooter operators in the same way.

Anyhow, until we can get past that to see the beauty of public transportation and of bicycle riding, funding and public support will remain problematic.

Marin County was a classic example, when they voted down rail-based public transportation because of fears that it would bring in an undesirable element.

The good news is, could it be any more awesome than when I ride my bike from home to the station, step off BART or CalTrain and I'm right there in the heart of San Francisco, close to where I want to be, with at least some intraurban transit connections available, and no car to worry about?

And that's only a fair to middlin' example. Bicycles on BART are problematic and the bike cars on CalTrain fill to capacity sometimes. Think what it could be like if we were really dedicated to improving non automotive-based transportation!

 

you only want opinions that agree with yours?