What bikes can do for you

[Abbot]

Re: What bike's can do for you?

"The most important socio-economic impact of cycling lies in the area of health care. When we cycle we save ourselves and society as a whole significant health care costs, including saved treatment expenses and increased tax revenues as result of fewer illnesses."

:thumbsup: john

I think go by bike is a good way to exercise. Most of our time are pend on work and study. We have less time on exercise. If we have a bike and our workplace is not far from home( that's difficult to all of us), we can commute by bike. It is a good way of exercise. Also a good way to lose weight. Many people's work maybe like me, office worker( sitting in the office all the day), facing the computer. After a long day work, i feel the body stiffed. Riding bike a good choice. Just as a way of relaxing.
Save money. You don't need to pay for oil fee, insurance fee and kinds of fee.

 

[CPFBiology]

Re: What bike's can do for you?

What's a bike without a motor? In the CPF tradition, add a battery to it and measure the amperage. lol

Ebikes are the way to go.

 

[Stress_Test]

Re: What bike's can do for you?

With current levels of traffic, and the plague of drivers talking on phones and texting while driving, you're taking your life in your own hands any time you ride your bike, at least in my city.

Think I'm paranoid? My brother was in a bad accident when a lady in a sedan pulled out in front of him at an intersection because she misjudged his speed, or just didn't notice him (he had right-of-way, not that it mattered). Result: Broken leg, broken shoulder, broken wrist, two surgeries, but no head injury luckily. The helmet did it's job for once.

And just recently, a local high school teacher was riding his bike to work in the morning on a quiet neighborhood street, coming down a hill (probably at apx. 20 - 25 mph or so) when a minivan driver (who claimed he didn't see the rider) pulled out in front of him. The teacher went face first into the side of the van, had major face injuries (lost teeth, etc.) collapsed/punctured lungs, etc etc. Again, he had the right of way too, not that it mattered.

A couple of years ago, a local university student was riding to class on a 4 lane divided road (2 lanes each way) where the speed limit is about 35mph. She was run over from behind by a car and killed by a driver who never saw her (I think that was a cell phone / distracted driver incident). I could go on...



I don't mean to discourage anyone from riding, I just want to add a little dose of reality. If the only reason you ride your bike to work is to save a few bucks, is it worth your life? Or your mobility? (you could be maimed or crippled). Sorry for the rant but this topic hits close to home for me due to the people I know personally who have been smashed up by careless drivers when riding their bikes. The drivers around here scare me enough as it is, so I think I'll stick with my 3500 lb vehicle, thanks.

 

[Bullzeyebill]

Re: What bike's can do for you?

Just a thought that I have relative to the last post. I sometimes find myself in a community about 10+ miles from my home. That town is a University town and there are many bicyclists out there. My town has very few bicyclists about, so I have had to be very aware in that University town. This has been very difficult, in that I can have problems noticing bicycles, particularly when the bicyclists are not obeying the rules of the road, going through stop signs, driving on the wrong side of the road, often very oblivious to their surroundings, and even texting while they are riding. It scares the **** out of me. As a disclaimer, I can say that not all bicyclists in that town do what I have mentioned, I am sure, and are no doubt good riders. As a driver of an automobile, I think that we must also be aware of surroundings, and watching out for our fellow automobile drives, can alone, be a challange.

Bill

 

[Cyclops942]

Re: What bike's can do for you?

I agree, Bill... everyone who shares the road has an equal responsibility to be aware of all others using it.

 

[iapyx]

You expect a mom, any mom, to let her most precious of things bike ride to soccer and other sporting events??

A handful of children going through an intersection, each on a bicycle, as a car's brakes lock up and is headed towards them . . .

For a mom, losing just one of her off-spring isn't acceptable. Ironically, you just brought up another point why cars are better than bikes. A safe way for parents to transport their children.

Monocrom, pay my country a visit (the Netherlands) and you will likely be surprised how many kids ride their bikes to school, soccer and other sporting events. It's grown into our society. Bikes here (adults and/or kids) are a very common streetview.

 

[Monocrom]

Monocrom, pay my country a visit (the Netherlands) and you will likely be surprised how many kids ride their bikes to school, soccer and other sporting events. It's grown into our society. Bikes here (adults and/or kids) are a very common streetview.

I can't comment about what takes place in other nations that I haven't visited. I can say that other than drunk drivers, moms have to worry about young and extremely stupid drivers who think that texting on a cellphone is perfectly okay while driving. No mom in America, not a responsible one anyway, is going to let her young children bike to sporting events. Not in the age of cellphones.

 

[orbital]

Monocrom
not everyone lives in big cities & bikes are far less evil than you think.
Quite frankly, its the damn cars that are the problem. Less cars, less overall problems.

Where I grew up & went to school, everyone biked. There were both bike paths & dedicated bike lanes.
There are smaller cites that not only encurage cycling, it's the norm... like Portland, OR & Madison WI

>anyway, I was able to put in a solid 35 mile ride on my road bike first thing this morning {climbing & descending hills the entire time}

 

[Monocrom]

Monocrom
not everyone lives in big cities & bikes are far less evil than you think.
Quite frankly, its the damn cars that are the problem. Less cars, less overall problems.

Where I grew up & went to school, everyone biked. There were both bike paths & dedicated bike lanes.
There are smaller cites that not only encurage cycling, it's the norm... like Portland, OR & Madison WI

>anyway, I was able to put in a solid 35 mile ride on my road bike first thing this morning {climbing & descending hills the entire time}

A good point. However, I don't think bikes are evil. Cyclists can be. We have a group of them called "Critical Mass" here in NYC. Violent, obnoxious, cowardly . . . Did I mention violent? But that's mainly in NYC.

Still, while cars have become a necessity for many, bikes are mostly a fun thing to have around. Also, what's going to hurt more; a driver in a car getting hit by a cyclist or a cyclist getting hit by a driver? Drunk drivers are everywhere. So are dumb-*** teens with cellphones. When you bike on city streets, even in a small city, it's not as though the danger of drunks and dumb-asses goes away. Cyclists suffer far worse consequences by not watching out for obnoxious drivers than drivers do when they don't watch out for oblivious cyclists. Not saying it's fair at all. Just saying it's a fact of reality. I'm sure Michigan has its fair share of Soccor Moms in SUVs and minivans on the road.

 

[kaichu dento]

No mom in America, not a responsible one anyway, is going to let her young children bike to sporting events. Not in the age of cellphones.

You're going outside the scope of this thread with this presumptive thinking into how people should or should not be raising their kids. In any age the kids should be getting the input from their parents to better prepare them for a dangerous world, rather than putting them in danger by keeping them in an artificial cocoon which leaves them too much at risk when they finally do meet the real world.

Bikes can do a lot for people and that's what this thread was supposed to be about until for some reason you decided to take it upon yourself to convince others that they'd be better off without them.

 

[Monocrom]

You're going outside the scope of this thread with this presumptive thinking into how people should or should not be raising their kids. In any age the kids should be getting the input from their parents to better prepare them for a dangerous world, rather than putting them in danger by keeping them in an artificial cocoon which leaves them too much at risk when they finally do meet the real world.

Bikes can do a lot for people and that's what this thread was supposed to be about until for some reason you decided to take it upon yourself to convince others that they'd be better off without them.

I actually took it upon myself to point out some much needed reality that this topic was sorely lacking, since the discussion was headed over towards the fantasy that somehow bikes are a perfect replacement for cars in all situations. They're not. That's what I pointed out. If certain members are upset with me over that, then they should ask themselves why it upsets them so much.

As far as cocoon's go, I never said that parents should seal away their children in one. However, there is such a thing as reasonable risks vs. higher risks. I'll give you an example of one right now. True story. Young mother who wanted to get some exercise. However, she was usually inside taking care of her baby. How to exercise and keep an eye on her little one? Answer = A jogging stroller. However, this mom decided to get a bicycle with the most ridiculous attachment I had ever seen. Small, thing, flexible poll about 8 feet long leading from the back of the bicycle to a tiny tent designed to hold a baby's car carrier. Two small wheels on the bottom of the tent.

Yeah . . . Mom thought that was perfectly fine. Helmet for her, small helmet for the baby. And right out into a busy city street. They got hit by a car. Mom made it. Baby almost didn't. Reasonable risk = Jogging stroller. Higher risk = Whatever the Hell that ridiculous contraption was. And yes, it was designed for active moms to take their babies with them. Safety device? A little red pennant on a short poll that extended up from the baby tent. Now something like that, some would consider it perfectly acceptable. That's their opinion and they're entitled to it. I'll disagree and point out why. Just as I have in this topic with regards to bicycles being a perfect alternative to cars. Once again, they're not. I've already pointed out why. If that bothers some folks, it shouldn't. I'm open to anyone who can actually illustrate why they believe cars are obsolete as the most pragmatic form of transportation under the vast majority of situations.

If I'm honest, I'd love to save $2400 a year by not having to rely on a car. Part of that is my fault. But I do love it when my sports sedan turns me on when I turn her "on."

 

[nbp]

Once again 'Crom...RELAX!! Did your mom get slapped by a bicycle or something?

It was mean to be a light hearted thread encouraging people to ride their bikes more to save money and likely their health too. People are aware of the pros and cons of both cars and bikes, and you have made anyone who was previously ill-informed well aware of them by now.

Let people enjoy talking about their bikes without all the Debbie Downer drama and horror stories. I knew a fella who died while eating pizza too but I don't tell the story to everyone I know who likes pizza. There's inherent risk in every move you make every minute of the day. I could slip and die getting in the shower tomorrow morning but I'm gonna do it anyways. Let people make their own decisions and deal with whatever it brings. You've made your point and it has been duly noted.

Carry on.

 

[Sub_Umbra]

Ya got to be kidding me- womenfolk can't survive without cars? How did women/children ever survive before cars? By the way, just for the record, they did survive before cars.

...I actually took it upon myself to point out some much needed reality that this topic was sorely lacking, since the discussion was headed over towards the fantasy that somehow bikes are a perfect replacement for cars in all situations...

I'm glad you brought up reality because I'd like to remind you that you live in a world of Neo-Classical economics which is based upon the insane notion of infinite growth on a planet with finite resources. Neo-Classical economics states that energy is just a function of applied capitol, which, by the way, has failed to increase world petroleum production since 2004 in spite of prices often being higher than than $100 per bbl. I am amazed that there are still those hauling water for the 'infinite growth' camp.

My injection of reality to this thread would be to state that humans have been here for millions of years and obviously some of us have become very confused about a historically small event that happened in 1859 -- that was when the first production oil well went online. Since that well went online the Earth's population has increased ninefold.

What we are seeing here is not something that has been with humans for hundreds of thousands of years, or even just thousands of years -- but more like a notion that has formed in just the last hundred and fifty years. As attached to the cars as many are, there is nothing that ties us to these devices beyond our very recent history.

Many are fond of talking about how we can't live without them, but that is total bull- I've lived without them for decades. By the way, all of your great grandfathers did well enough without cars to not only survive, but to reproduce... Get real...

I said in an earlier post on this thread that people's preconceived notions would stop many from taking any positive action. There are a great many who will not stop at the cliff, but will be compelled to ride their cars all the way to the bottom of the canyon...

GERONIMO!

 

[Monocrom]

You've made your point and it has been duly noted.

You're right. And . . . That was all I was trying to do. Just wanted folks making an informed decision. Thanks.

 

[Monocrom]

. . . By the way, all of your great grandfathers did well enough without cars to not only survive, but to reproduce... Get real...

I said in an earlier post on this thread that people's preconceived notions would stop many from taking any positive action. There are a great many who will not stop at the cliff, but will be compelled to ride their cars all the way to the bottom of the canyon...

GERONIMO!

Not sure how this became an economics discussion. But as for cars not being around thousands or even hundreds of years, and how previous generations got through Life before the invention of the automobile; I actually covered all of that in-dept in a previous post in this topic. Also pointed out in that post how things changed and how the car has indeed become a necessity for many, as well as changing how we do something as basic as buying food at the market. So, all of that has already been covered.

As for that canyon . . . By the time we get near it's edge, we should have flying cars by then. No worries.

 

[jtr1962]

Regarding the danger motorists pose to bicycles by distracted and/or incompetent driving, this can easily be mitigated by proper laws and driver training, as well as infrastructure. It's a sad commentary on the US that in many places if you wish to travel under your own power, either on foot or by bike, facilities to make this safe are often absent. Quite a few places don't even have sidewalks.

As for the danger posed by motor vehicles, this can be changed by changing driver attitudes. For starters, you need to have a vulnerable user law where a motor vehicle is automatically considered at fault if they hit either a pedestrian or a cyclist. Many countries in Europe have such a law. The theory is that if you are driving in a place where there are likely to be cyclists or pedestrians, you need to exercise due care, and drive in such a manner that you can avoid a collision should, for example, a child suddenly dart into your path. This usually means you drive no faster than 15-20 mph in places with cyclists or pedestrians. It also means you don't drive distracted. A simple vulnerable user law would greatly change the casual disregard drivers in places like NYC have for more vulnerable users. A secondary benefit of driving only 20 mph is that you can largely get rid of traffic signals because you'll be approaching intersections slow enough to see and avoid cross traffic. This can mean that trip times remain the same as they did with higher speed limits but frequent stops for traffic lights.

Bottom line-the idea that cycling is impractical because of the danger posed by motor vehicles is a red herring. Motor traffic can be tamed with proper measures. If you want to drive fast, do so on limited access highways, not local streets shared with pedestrians or cyclists. There's just no reason people should be driving 30, 40, or 50 mph on local roads.

 

[jtr1962]

I actually took it upon myself to point out some much needed reality that this topic was sorely lacking, since the discussion was headed over towards the fantasy that somehow bikes are a perfect replacement for cars in all situations. They're not. That's what I pointed out. If certain members are upset with me over that, then they should ask themselves why it upsets them so much.

A better question to ask is exactly what cars can do better compared to alternatives. My take on this is not much. For local travel of about 10 miles or less, public transit, walking, or biking are all often faster and cheaper than driving. Bikes can fill the gap where it's too far to walk and public transit is sparse. This covers a lot of the situation in the outer boroughs of NYC, for example.

For medium distance transit, say 10 miles up to about 50 miles, commuter rail, perhaps combined with local public transit or even biking on either end, can often match or beat car travel times, especially if you count the time lost driving. In some cases a car might be faster or more convenient, but with proper design public transit can fulfill many medium distance trips. I've also been convinced in the last few years that with proper infrastructure, human-powered transit can play a much larger role over medium distances than previously imagined. With bike highways and aerodynamic velomobiles, some of which could potentially cruise at 40 to 50 mph, you can easily come close to matching even ideal automobile travel times.

For long distance transit, such as greater than about 50 miles, the car is honestly a very poor fit. It's slow, cramped, and uncomfortable compared to something like high-speed rail. In many other countries with a proper rail system, people actually laugh at the notion of going any distance by car.

What it comes down to is for most types of transit cars are a decidedly bad fit compared to other modes. In the rural USA they may make sense given the distances traveled plus the sparse population. In any place with a denser population, they really don't. The only real uses I personally see for motor vehicles in large cities are for deliveries, cargo, emergencies, and bus service. I'm not seeing that passenger cars can do things any better than alternatives.

The point here isn't that bikes are a perfect replacement for cars, but rather that cars are a poor fit for the vast majority of transit situations despite spending vast sums trying to shoehorn them into every conceivable transportation role. The last 50 years show that hasn't worked out all that well. It's time to try something else.