At risk of being flamed, we really wouldn't have roads to ride on if car culture did not exist... so a certain amount of a cyclists life, even a car free cyclists life, depends on the infrastructure that is in place because of the automobile. This of course, could be different if there were a mass transit / bus / streetcar / taxi system spreading across the countryside - but last I looked - trains and light rail were in retreat - if not non existent in most cities. A city with light rail, bus lines, and limited private auto traffic? Sign me up! Convert the existing infrastructure to one that promotes community and healthier living... cagers become "flat bars" or "droppers" - we'll just find another way to classify and steroetype.

I agree - people should drive less, and walk, ride, or public transit more. We, as a society (specifically the US here, as that is my only frame of reference) do not make it easy, or viable for many people. It's just easier to grab your lunch from the window of your auto while burning oil to and fro.

"cagers" "public" "consumers"... call it what you will, in the end, how about "system flaws"?

People aren't necessarily bad... people in ill designed systems can become patterns and reinforcers of that system. I think that is what is going on here...

It has been pointed out the calling people bad names is not going to convince them to change their ways. Agreed, it's obvious. So then what?

Don't be so quick. I finally got motivated to get active and lose some weight because somebody called me a name. You never know what'll do it for somebody else.

Anyway, I think the relevance of this topic is that we cyclists, especially those of us who battle it out daily to and from work, go head-to-head every day with these behemoth vehicles. These vehicles just keep getting bigger and bigger and meanwhile they keep getting more and more comfortable with bigger, plusher seats, roomier interiors, cup holders, convenience foods that fit in them, phones, TVs, GPS units etc etc. The driver of a vehicle like this has more stuff to do and more stuff to pay attention to inside the car than outside.

That many of the drivers of these vehicles may be fat, or the fact that Americans as a whole are getting fatter and fatter, is really just symbolic. For us as cyclists it's symbolic of all that is opposite of what we are or wish to be: fit, fast, athletic, environmentally friendly, fully alive or whatever. It's also symbolic of how so few seem to understand us, they think we're crazy, they think we don't belong on the road, aren't acting like grown-ups, aren't normal or whatever. The fat American is the norm now, and we don't want to be like that.

The fat American is symbolic of a lot of things, not just those things. It's not that all of us are thin and we hate fat people. I'm not thin. I don't hate fat people. We mostly just hate what it means.

At risk of being flamed, we really wouldn't have roads to ride on if car culture did not exist...
not flaming, but roads as an invention predate the automobile, of course, and the earliest road improvement advocates were actually cyclists, not motorists.

from http://www.bikeleague.org/about/index.html :

A Proud and Rich History

The League was founded as the League of American Wheelmen in 1880. Bicyclists, known then as "wheelmen", were challenged by rutted roads of gravel and dirt and faced antagonism from horsemen, wagon drivers, and pedestrians.

In an effort to improve riding conditions so they might better enjoy their newly discovered sport, over 100,000 cyclists from across the United States joined the League to advocate for paved roads. The success of the League in its first advocacy efforts ultimately led to our national highway system.

Crap, I lost my original response to fat fingers...probably best, it was kind of long. What I wanted to say in a nutshell, and maybe I'll expand upon it after I get home tonight, is that to reverse the trend towards obesity, lack of physical fitness and unhealthy lifestyle caused by our ever sedate way of life, people need to exercise. Ok that's a no-brainer. In the context of cycling and cycling advocacy, we need to get more people riding. To achieve that, we need to show that it is not only fun, but easy and inexpensive. We need to remove the barriers to entry that have grown larger over the last 40 years by manufacturers, marketers, and yes, we the 'avid' cyclists. Seems ironic doesn't it - the very people and entities that would benefit from more people riding bicycles are the same folks who have erected barriers to entry. The two major barriers are cost (or even TOC), and the 'cool' factor. Hopefully I can summarize these in a less than epic post when I get home, but for now, I got a bike beckoning to me that it's time to ride home! :)

Two things. First, no kind of real exercise is "easy." You need to find time for it and you need to actually exert yourself to make it worthwhile. If exercise was really easy, everyone would be doing it. But, sleeping late and driving your car 15mph over the speed limit to get to work on time is easier so that's what people do. Second, I thought people knew how cheap cycling was from all those bikes at Walmart :D Cycling is fun though and if people just gave it a try to get a mile down the road instead of driving, they'd realize that quickly.

Sometimes people just need a good kick in the arse to get moving and for all of our sakes, it's a lot easier when it's just words rather than open heart surgery (which my dad had to go through before he shaped up). Car makers continually catering to the "growing needs" of the American motorists aren't helping.

amusing story and topic, but i don't get how it's cycling advocacy. unless you're advocating people should get off their ass and ride.

By jove... I think he's got it. Frankly most of the motoring public should just get off their ass and move... rather then sit sedately and jell.

Most short trips, now driven, can easily be accomplished by bike...

I remember this story the first time it ran about 20 years ago. NYC had just bought a bunch of trains from Kawasaki that came w/ individually molded seats. Problem was, Japanese butts were narrower than American butts and most NY'ers couldn't sit side by side comfortably. Their butts fit, but their shoulders didn't. The solution was to install bench seats in any new trains ordered afterwards. Maybe car manufacturers will just go back to installing bench seats in the front of the cars. No more widening seats and it's cheaper.

I remember this story the first time it ran about 20 years ago. NYC had just bought a bunch of trains from Kawasaki that came w/ individually molded seats. Problem was, Japanese butts were narrower than American butts and most NY'ers couldn't sit side by side comfortably. Their butts fit, but their shoulders didn't. The solution was to install bench seats in any new trains ordered afterwards. Maybe car manufacturers will just go back to installing bench seats in the front of the cars. No more widening seats and it's cheaper.

i remember hearing about that. are those older trains with the yellow\orange color scheme the same? like on the N,R and Q lines? a lot of people have trouble sitting side by side in those. and MANY times i've been without a seat because 4 or 5 people take up the room of 7 or 8. that actually makes me pretty mad sometimes.

Its obvious you and the rest of the pedantic ranters (about the foibles of theCager Public) "around here" don't consider advocacy as anything more than maintaining a support group for a little club of cycling lifestyle/counter culture types; Romantic Cultural Outlaws who think it's them against the Cager World. "Advocates" who find it appropriate (and presumably effective) to bad mouth everybody in the American public who doesn't fit into their designated square hole profile of what all cyclists and the public should look like, think like and do like.

I'll offer a Season's Greetings to all self righteous cycling advocates and raise a toast of a healthy soy milk shakes over a bowl of healthy bicycling enthusiast/PC approved gruel. And anyone who doesn't want to share must be a tool of the Cager Beast. ;)

What he's saying is that getting together and slagging off fat cagers in this forum has absolutely nothing to do with Cycling Advocacy and everything to do with partaking in a holier-than-thou cager bashing ritual that we see here so often. Nothing in the above posts supporting the OP's position promotes cycling, in fact if you were to openly promote the derogatory anti-cager observations in this thread you would only alienate non-cyclists even further - in fact that's exactly what you're doing since this is an open forum.

If we want to indulge in an elitist self-righteous orgy of fatass cager bashing lets do so but lets not try to pass it off as cycling advocacy.

i remember hearing about that. are those older trains with the yellow\orange color scheme the same? like on the N,R and Q lines? a lot of people have trouble sitting side by side in those. and MANY times i've been without a seat because 4 or 5 people take up the room of 7 or 8. that actually makes me pretty mad sometimes.
Yup, those are the trains I'm talking about. People straddle the seats taking more room and leaving less seats for everyone else.

Increasing fatness isn't limited to the US. In the UK child obesity is an epidemic. It's even bad in some South American countries like Chile, according to some BBC reports.

What he's saying is that getting together and slagging off fat cagers in this forum has absolutely nothing to do with Cycling Advocacy and everything to do with partaking in a holier-than-thou cager bashing ritual that we see here so often. Nothing in the above posts supporting the OP's position promotes cycling, in fact if you were to openly promote the derogatory anti-cager observations in this thread you would only alienate non-cyclists even further - in fact that's exactly what you're doing since this is an open forum.

If we want to indulge in an elitist self-righteous orgy of fatass cager bashing lets do so but lets not try to pass it off as cycling advocacy.

That may be the way that ILTB sees it... I see it as a health problem for the nation that is easily solved, not by widening the seats, but by moving their asses.

I also see it as a problem in that if trends continue, they will require still wider vehicles on already limited streets... and that is a problem for those of us "sharing" the roads.

The auto industry is putting a bandaid on a problem that needs major surgery... simply supporting "wide loads" is not a viable solution... other measures need to be taken.

Perhaps there was some "holier then thou" in my original post... but it is based on my weight loss of the past year... weight loss BTW thanks to bike riding.

Now let's see the rest of the nation push away from the table and get into shape... wider seats are NOT the right answer.

That may be the way that ILTB sees it... I see it as a health problem for the nation that is easily solved, not by widening the seats, but by moving their asses.
That is the way I see the intent of the OP.

Also what you find "easy" for youself; substituting a bicycle for an automobile for "short" trips (presumably a distance that you find practical for a healthy person with no children or sick/disabled dependents in SanDiego weather), or "moving their asses" like yourself, may not be as easy (or as practical) as just doing it. Your lack of empathy for anyone who doesn't share your viewpoints/lifestyle is only too apparent.

...and less of a waste of time than this thread became
Yes I am sure it is a waste of time to be diverted from an advocacy posting consisting of name calling and smug self righteousness.

Yup, those are the trains I'm talking about. People straddle the seats taking more room and leaving less seats for everyone else.

Read this. :)
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/nyc/16475588.html

i remember hearing about that. are those older trains with the yellow\orange color scheme the same? like on the N,R and Q lines? a lot of people have trouble sitting side by side in those. and MANY times i've been without a seat because 4 or 5 people take up the room of 7 or 8. that actually makes me pretty mad sometimes.
I got it now, what all those advocates who complain of cagers enjoying the comfort of their rides.

American cars should be built with all the comfort and conveniences of NYC subway trains so that all those cagers can share in the joy of commuting in Spartan purity just like our civic minded comrades in NYC.

Perhaps those who get mad at the sight of overweight subway riders should inform those social outcasts of your opinion of them and how they should just move their fat asses off the train and ride a bike like all the pretty people do.

That may be the way that ILTB sees it... I see it as a health problem for the nation that is easily solved, not by widening the seats, but by moving their asses.

I also see it as a problem in that if trends continue, they will require still wider vehicles on already limited streets... and that is a problem for those of us "sharing" the roads.

The auto industry is putting a bandaid on a problem that needs major surgery... simply supporting "wide loads" is not a viable solution... other measures need to be taken.

Perhaps there was some "holier then thou" in my original post... but it is based on my weight loss of the past year... weight loss BTW thanks to bike riding.

Now let's see the rest of the nation push away from the table and get into shape... wider seats are NOT the right answer.

If the world's problems were so easily solved.... First off, the auto industry simply responds to what they see. You cannot expect them to involve themselves to social engineering to the detriment of their sales. Our system does not work that way. They see that Americans are bigger than the Japanese, on average, and so they adjust their seat sizes accordingly. Simple as that.

Second, increasing the number of people cycling is going to be very difficult. Barriers to entry, as chipcom has suggested, are very high compared to driving a car. Most people drive because it is the most efficient way to get themselves around. People with lots of errands, or who live far away from work, see little choice but to take a car. Yes, there are people here who have made it work, but others (non-cycling people) would see their actions as calling for sacrifices which they are unable or unwilling to make. Sacrifices such as the lack of ability to be flexable about travel. The lack of ability to run major errands across town in a reasonable time. The lack of protection from the weather. The lack of ability to cart a kid around. Not to mention the percieved danger.

Then there are the financial barriers to entry. There are very few good bicycles which cost (after equiping) under $500. Even the rock bottom fixed gear I bought over the summer cost over $700 after it was equipped for commuting. Of course, this pales in comparison to a car, but most of these people would need a car anyway, so the cost of a bicycle is in addition to that of a car, not in place of one.

There are temporal barriers to entry. How the day shortens when a 9 hour day (8 hours plus lunch) turns into an 11 hour day with an hour bike commute before and after work! I've seen this myself. Then there is the planning and lack of flexability involved with avoiding or preparing for nighttime riding and the inability to stray far off the commute path. Not everyone lives within 5 miles of work and inside a city, and for even those people who do, few of their errands will fall within this 5 mile sphere.

We, here, like to think that since we have made the sacrifices to bicycle commute in the current environment, that anyone could, if only made aware of the benefits. But it's not that simple, otherwise it would be done by now. The proper incentives cannot be only in the realm of personal improvement, but it has to be in making cycling more efficient and more convenient than driving, and that's a tall order.

I don't know where this is going, but in canada they want to add tax to fast food purchases. How about giving tax relief to people who maintain a healthy lifestyle? i'm not sure how that would come about though, checkups of health records I think.

I don't know where this is going, but in canada they want to add tax to fast food purchases. How about giving tax relief to people who maintain a healthy lifestyle? i'm not sure how that would come about though, checkups of health records I think.

Yea... I'd get nervous about this. Nobody except my doctor and I should have access to my health records. This is blatent social engineering and wouldn't fly here in the US.

Taxing fast food has promise, but would be criticized here by liberals as hitting lower income people harder than higher income people and attacked by conservatives as an attempt at social engineering through taxation. It would be a real non-starter in the United States.

Two things. First, no kind of real exercise is "easy." You need to find time for it and you need to actually exert yourself to make it worthwhile. If exercise was really easy, everyone would be doing it. But, sleeping late and driving your car 15mph over the speed limit to get to work on time is easier so that's what people do. Second, I thought people knew how cheap cycling was from all those bikes at Walmart :D Cycling is fun though and if people just gave it a try to get a mile down the road instead of driving, they'd realize that quickly.


Point taken, but when it's fun it seems easier. I never considered cycling hard work, even when dragging my fat butt up a nasty hill that never seems to end, cuz it just feels so good when I get there. ;)

The X-mart bikes are one of the points I wanted to make. We spend a lot of time bashing them, but the fact is that they are simply low-end entry level bikes that can be suitable for general riding...even if they are sold by an evil empire. I just think that instead of telling people looking for something cheap why they SHOULDN'T buy from x-mart, we could give them even handed tips and pointers so they CAN buy a bike from x-mart and have it serve their basic needs, while of course giving them the other option of higher-end cycles and the advantages of building a relationship with a good LBS. In other words, don't make it seem like they MUST spend more than they want to. I'd much rather see someone pedaling around the block once a week on an x-mart bike than not riding at all because they couldn't afford something better. In the same vein, I'd love to see LBS offer more in the way of used bikes, unlike many here that wholesale them out. Again, I'd rather make a sale on a used bike and make a new, potentially long-term customer who might buy a more expensive bike and do a lot of business with me in the future, than have them waltz over to x-mart because nothing I sell is in their price range.

Am I making any sense, my brain doesn't seem to be communicating with my fingers well tonight (like it ever does?) ;)

Yea... I'd get nervous about this. Nobody except my doctor and I should have access to my health records. This is blatent social engineering and wouldn't fly here in the US.

Taxing fast food has promise, but would be criticized here by liberals as hitting lower income people harder than higher income people and attacked by conservatives as an attempt at social engineering through taxation. It would be a real non-starter in the United States.

How about we tax fast-food AND Starbucks? :eek:

Most people drive because it is the most efficient way to get themselves around.

Maybe efficient in terms of time (not counting the many hours of work needed to pay for all the car expenses), but in terms of energy spent to move X amount of payload.

A person weighs a tenth or less what an automobile weighs. Only about 10% of the energy used by an automobile makes it to the drivetrain. That leaves about 1% of the energy that a car uses to move the passenger in the car. That's not very efficient. Neither is it efficient to use a resource as valuable, precious and scarce as oil (energy concentrated over millions of years) to go back and forth every day.

That is the way I see the intent of the OP.

Also what you find "easy" for youself; substituting a bicycle for an automobile for "short" trips (presumably a distance that you find practical for a healthy person with no children or sick/disabled dependents in SanDiego weather), or "moving their asses" like yourself, may not be as easy (or as practical) as just doing it. Your lack of empathy for anyone who doesn't share your viewpoints/lifestyle is only too apparent.


The surgeon general has little empathy for widebutt lazy lifestyles either... so don't go pointing your "viewpoint" finger at me.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/

I'd love to see LBS offer more in the way of used bikes, unlike many here that wholesale them out. Again, I'd rather make a sale on a used bike and make a new, potentially long-term customer who might buy a more expensive bike and do a lot of business with me in the future, than have them waltz over to x-mart because nothing I sell is in their price range.

A LBS told me that they don't sell used bikes because they have to do a lot of work on them, (overhauling hubs, bottom brackets, etc) in order to sell them. The shop told me it was too much trouble for them so they don't bother with selling used bikes. Shame. :(

A LBS told me that they don't sell used bikes because they have to do a lot of work on them, (overhauling hubs, bottom brackets, etc) in order to sell them. The shop told me it was too much trouble for them so they don't bother with selling used bikes. Shame. :(

Ouch... sad situation.

My first bike was a used Schwinn... bought from a Schwinn LBS back in Fort Worth... that LBS has grown considerably. Bob Bolen Bikes... now with several locations in that area.

That used Schwinn carried me for several years. Single speed and black and basically ugly. But it was a workhorse.

Maybe efficient in terms of time (not counting the many hours of work needed to pay for all the car expenses), but in terms of energy spent to move X amount of payload.

Very true, but unfortunately, only a few people care.

Car expenses: those will have to be payed regardless.
Gas: it's not really that expensive, even at $3/gal.
Hours of work: will be the same regardless of bicycle status.

Efficiency is termed by most people to be in terms of time and money. The difference in amount of energy to move a ton of metal vs. a 25lb bike is only taken into account by gas prices. The fact that muscular energy need not be expended by operating a car is a big plus in its favor, regardless of the hydrocarbon energy expended.

There are many different ways of measuring efficiency. No single one of these is more valid than another, though some are more relevent. In terms of cycling advocacy, the goal should either be to convince people that one measure of efficiency is more relevant than another, or it should be to recognize what people view as relevent and make cycling conform. There is lots of the former going on in cycling advocacy circles, but little of the latter.

I believe that fat people should stop eating and start playing Dance Dance Revolution 24/7 with short breaks for water and celery sticks.

How about we tax fast-food AND Starbucks? :eek:
Have you noticed all the "ask your doctor" ads lately for sleep aids? Think the popularity of Starbucks has anything to do with the rise in insomnia? Naaahhh.

Here's an interesting tidbit. The average American car maker has something like 40 different seat frames for all the cars in their line. The average Japanese car maker has something like 5. That's the reason why the Japanese are kicking our butts. For all those 40 different seat frames you then have multiple different seat foams, then there's different cloth or leather or whatever to cover it. The inventory and design requirements for this are so expensive it's no wonder US car makers can't compete. Now they gotta have fatty seats for Americans and they probably have smaller seats for the cars they sell to other countries...

Ok tangent that has nothing to do with cycling advocacy. Sorry. But part of advocacy is having a support group, and that's what these forums often are. Keeps me cycling anyway.

If the world's problems were so easily solved.... First off, the auto industry simply responds to what they see. You cannot expect them to involve themselves to social engineering to the detriment of their sales. Our system does not work that way. They see that Americans are bigger than the Japanese, on average, and so they adjust their seat sizes accordingly. Simple as that.


The destruction of the original US public transit system in favor of automobiles & heavily polluting buses was a pure piece of social engineering carried out by big business & their agents in Washington for their own profit, with no regard for the public.

The notion that corporations just meekly "respond to demand" & abhor such com/lib notions like "social engineering" (always a term used by right wingers against any policies that might benefit the general public) is a myth that they themselves propagate. See:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_335.html


























































































































http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm

Ouch... sad situation.

My first bike was a used Schwinn... bought from a Schwinn LBS back in Fort Worth... that LBS has grown considerably. Bob Bolen Bikes... now with several locations in that area.

That used Schwinn carried me for several years. Single speed and black and basically ugly. But it was a workhorse.
My first 'real' bike was a used Nishiki, and I rode the lving daylights outta that thing. That pretty much solidified my relationship with bikes. I wish more shops sold used....although I know some do bikes for kids programs, maybe they should do bikes for fat asses programs too!:)

My first 'real' bike was a used Nishiki, and I rode the lving daylights outta that thing. That pretty much solidified my relationship with bikes. I wish more shops sold used....although I know some do bikes for kids programs, maybe they should do bikes for fat asses programs too!:)

My first new bike was a Nishiki... International. Man that thing was a dream to a kid who had only ridden a single speed bike before. Ohhh "10 speed," wow!

Let's turn to Britain's loudest band, Spinal Tap, for guidance:

Big Bottom Lyrics

The bigger the cushion, the sweeter the pushin'
That's what I said
The looser the waistband, the deeper the quicksand
Or so I have read

My baby fits me like a flesh tuxedo
I'd like to sink her with my pink torpedo

Big bottom, big bottom
Talk about bum cakes, my girl's got 'em
Big bottom drive me out of my mind
How could I leave this behind?

I met her on Monday, twas my lucky bun day
You know what I mean
I love her each weekday, each velvety cheek day
You know what I mean

My love gun's loaded and she's in my sights
Big game is waiting there inside her tights, yeah

Big bottom, big bottom
Talk about mud flaps, my girl's got 'em
Big bottom drive me out of my mind
How could I leave this behind?

My first 'real' bike was a used Nishiki, and I rode the lving daylights outta that thing. That pretty much solidified my relationship with bikes. I wish more shops sold used....although I know some do bikes for kids programs, maybe they should do bikes for fat asses programs too!:)
A comment was made earlier, that LBS don't want to sell used bikes because they require too much repair work and are not profitable. There is only one LBS within 20 miles of my house that sells used bikes. That's one out of about 20. However, I purchased several 'Garage Sale Specials' and found more than one LBS is willing to look over a used bike for free to tell me where to repair, replace parts. So there is still support for the used bicycle but you have to be creative in finding that used bike and determine how much investment you want to make to bring it up to a reliable unit. By the way, jayroc, my first 'Garage Sale Special and the bike that returned me to cycling, was a Nishiki too. I installed a new chain and tires and added a front suspension. My youngest son uses it on our MTB trails.

Keep eating fatties, my bike will be faster than your wheelchair some day.

I don't know where this is going, but in canada they want to add tax to fast food purchases. How about giving tax relief to people who maintain a healthy lifestyle? i'm not sure how that would come about though, checkups of health records I think.

Checking health records might be the best way to to it without discriminating in some way, although it would still discriminate. If I pay attention to the people around me, for every overweight person that goes to the doctor, there's another person engaged in sports that is also going to the doctor for a sports or overuse injury. Our government here likes to study how much being overweight costs the health care system, but doesn't even want to "go there" by finding out how much all forms of "sports" costs the same system.

If Americans are getting wider, does that mean that bike lanes need to be widened?

Do I get points for making the thread relevant to cycling advocacy?

The surgeon general has little empathy for widebutt lazy lifestyles either... so don't go pointing your "viewpoint" finger at me.
I didn't realize it was the Surgeon General who wrote to this bicycle advocacy list pointing out how easy it would be for the Public to replace its widebutt lazy lifestyles with bicycles. Was it also employees of the Public Health Service posting the "stuff" about the bicycle as a credible/significant solution to a public health problem of obesity. Or was it just smug narcissists venting their disdain for others who don't share the values of the avid cyclist/counter culture lifestyle?

If Americans are getting wider, does that mean that bike lanes need to be widened?


Hard to tell, you must not have heard We Real Cyclists are all svelte specimens of physical and mental perfection. It is up to the "experts" of this thread to determine if We Real Cyclists would ever lower ourselves to cycle in bike lanes amongst wide butt low lifes.

Hard to tell, you must not have heard We Real Cyclists are all svelte specimens of physical and mental perfection. It is up to the "experts" of this thread to determine if We Real Cyclists would ever lower ourselves to cycle in bike lanes amongst wide butt low lifes.

Are you sure you aren't a EURO sock puppet?

Are you sure you aren't a EURO sock puppet?
Has this EURO fellow ever posted on this Forum list in the last 14 months or so? I've never seen any posts by anyone with that handle here. Enlighten me.

I've never seen any posts by anyone with that handle here.

EURO is all over the Road Cycling forum. I don't know if I've ever seen EURO in A&S, though. EURO's self-proclaimed goal is to piss off as many people as possible.

not flaming, but roads as an invention predate the automobile, of course, and the earliest road improvement advocates were actually cyclists, not motorists.

True, but it wasn't until the widespread use of the auto (and more specifically the long haul truck and the military's need to move men and equipment), that inter-city roadways boomed and became viable in the U.S. Had the auto not come along and been widely accepted, we would not have the road system we have today.

In an effort to improve riding conditions so they might better enjoy their newly discovered sport, over 100,000 cyclists from across the United States joined the League to advocate for paved roads. The success of the League in its first advocacy efforts ultimately led to our national highway system.

What ultimately led to the U.S. national highway system was the cold war, and the perceived need to move military units and equipment quickly and efficiently. The military recognised this as early as 1918 or so, and Eisenhower saw the advantages to such a system during the Second World War when the Allies beat the Germans and occupied Germany. This is well documented and (should be) common knowledge - see these link for starters:

CREATING THE INTERSTATE SYSTEM (http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer96/p96su10.htm)
The story of the U.S. Interstate (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/interstate1.html)

EURO is all over the Road Cycling forum. I don't know if I've ever seen EURO in A&S, though. EURO's self-proclaimed goal is to piss off as many people as possible.
1. Now why should anyone interested in bicycling advocacy or safety care what anybody posts in the Road Cycling Forum, unless interested in the activities of the Roadie Types.

2. It is obvious that the me-too believers in the conventional wisdom about "we Real Cyclists" are always wee-weed when their rhetorical house of cards about bicycling advocacy or safety is knocked over. I wouldn't be proud to admit that I thought advocacy for bicyclists required joining a support group for misfits or cultural dropouts.

Just because the cupholders are there, it doesn't mean you have to use them. I drive German cars, they have nice form fitting seats for regular sized people.

2. It is obvious that the me-too believers in the conventional wisdom about "we Real Cyclists" are always wee-weed when their rhetorical house of cards about bicycling advocacy or safety is knocked over. I wouldn't be proud to admit that I thought advocacy for bicyclists required joining a support group for misfits or cultural dropouts.

You keep insinuating by responding to my posts as you did above that I am a part of that "we Real Cyclists" group, or that your comments have struck some vital blow to my philosophy. I don't know where you get that from. Do you not read the posts I make? Or do you just grab various and sundry portions of my posts to stick in your QUOTE area to use as a starting point for your rhetoric?

My only concern throughout this entire ordeal has been that you came down on the OP too hard, that you've been attacking people for not advocating respectfully because of terms used on this board (even though this is not a board to advocate on), that you're missing the target audience of this forum, and that you don't seem to be a real pleasant person and seem to spend a lot of time sniping at people for no good reason. So you can continue to put me in the same group as you put HH and some of the other "we Real Cyclists", and I'll continue to laugh at you for it. You can continue to view our conversation as damaging to my philosophy and I'll continue to giggle at your lack of understanding.

P.S. You completely missed my point about EURO. It had nothing to do with what boards either of you post on, it had to do with attitude, posting style, and desired outcomes.

True, but it wasn't until the widespread use of the auto (and more specifically the long haul truck and the military's need to move men and equipment), that inter-city roadways boomed and became viable in the U.S. Had the auto not come along and been widely accepted, we would not have the road system we have today.

What ultimately led to the U.S. national highway system was the cold war, and the perceived need to move military units and equipment quickly and efficiently. The military recognised this as early as 1918 or so, and Eisenhower saw the advantages to such a system during the Second World War when the Allies beat the Germans and occupied Germany. This is well documented and (should be) common knowledge - see these link for starters:

CREATING THE INTERSTATE SYSTEM (http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer96/p96su10.htm)
The story of the U.S. Interstate (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/interstate1.html)

Thats all well and good regarding the interstate hiway system... but the reality is that cyclists are not often permitted to use the "limited access" interstates... except where they are the only road between two points. Surface streets on the other hand were being paved long before the auto... and this was due in part to the bicycle.


Just over a century ago, steamships, canals, railroads, and the telegraph were up and running. They were the technological marvels of the 19th century-- setting the stage for the 20th century. Yet the invention that would spark a revolution in transportation was a simple two-wheeler. The bicycle. Its popularity in the 1880s and 1890s spurred interest in the nation's roads.

On October 3, 1893, General Roy Stone, a Civil War hero and good roads advocate, was appointed Special Agent in charge of the new Office of Road Inquiry (ORI) within the Department of Agriculture. With a budget of $10,000, ORI promoted new rural road development to serve the wagons, coaches, and bicycles on America's dirt roads.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcar3.htm

or try searching for "roads and bicycles".

True, but it wasn't until the widespread use of the auto (and more specifically the long haul truck and the military's need to move men and equipment), that inter-city roadways boomed and became viable in the U.S. Had the auto not come along and been widely accepted, we would not have the road system we have today.

Entirely true. To paraphrase: "If we didn't need roads, we wouldn't have roads."

But then again, bicycle commuters wouldn't need the roads, either. We'd be living in walkable communities close to work.

I could live with that as well. In fact, I'd be happier walking 1/2 mile to work than cycling 10, if everyone else were walking to work as well.

Entirely true. To paraphrase: "If we didn't need roads, we wouldn't have roads."

But then again, bicycle commuters wouldn't need the roads, either. We'd be living in walkable communities close to work.

I could live with that as well. In fact, I'd be happier walking 1/2 mile to work than cycling 10, if everyone else were walking to work as well.


I'd be curious to know if the walkers would then be advocating for "pedestrian" lanes on all the bikeways... seeing as a bike is a machine, and it is not as "simple" and "pure" and as environmentally friendly (think of all the energy and materials in the manufacturing of a bike!) as just walking. ;)

I'd enjoy that life as well. Walking a short distance, or living above my office. Maybe having a bicycle outfitted for trips to "the country". Hop a train with the bike and ride to some park for a picnic lunch.... ahh the life of leisure!

...


http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcar3.htm

...

Interesting the the article points to bicycle mechanics in Springfield, Ma. as having put the first gasoline powered motor on wheels, and the Wright Brothers as aviation pioneers.

It seems some of the most ubiquitous and polluting forms of transport came from fellow cyclists! :eek:

To paraphrase: "If we didn't need roads, we wouldn't have roads."

But then again, bicycle commuters wouldn't need the roads, either. We'd be living in walkable communities close to work.

I could live with that as well. In fact, I'd be happier walking 1/2 mile to work than cycling 10, if everyone else were walking to work as well.

I'd enjoy that life as well. Walking a short distance, or living above my office. Maybe having a bicycle outfitted for trips to "the country". Hop a train with the bike and ride to some park for a picnic lunch.... ahh the life of leisure!
How how 'bout taking in piece work in tenament housing, sharing TB with your friendly neighbors? Or living right above a chinese noodle factory, 10 to a room? Sounds like the life.

True, but it wasn't until the widespread use of the auto (and more specifically the long haul truck and the military's need to move men and equipment), that inter-city roadways boomed and became viable in the U.S. Had the auto not come along and been widely accepted, we would not have the road system we have today.



What ultimately led to the U.S. national highway system was the cold war, and the perceived need to move military units and equipment quickly and efficiently. The military recognised this as early as 1918 or so, and Eisenhower saw the advantages to such a system during the Second World War when the Allies beat the Germans and occupied Germany. This is well documented and (should be) common knowledge - see these link for starters:

CREATING THE INTERSTATE SYSTEM (http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer96/p96su10.htm)
The story of the U.S. Interstate (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/interstate1.html)

you're absolutely right. was merely correcting the above stated opinion that agitation for paved roadways bega with motorists.