Advocacy & Safety - Is biking really possible in USA?

Hi,

As u might be knowing i am form india and i am always surprised by one question: with so many bike riders in this forum, why do i see such a large number of cars on the highways and expressways in USA?

My friends who are there in the USA say that its almost impossible to ride in the cold season and only seasoned cyclists and the ones who have a good stamina and alertness for slippery surfaces and skidding cars during snow can survive.

The other valid reson they gave was in mountainous states such as TN, KY, VA, CO and CA it's almost next to impossible to to use the bike for shopping, commuting and fun riding.

I like to add here that many of these firends of mine had done a lot of cycling in India and i just wanted to know if all of these reasons are for real?

But they all stood by one point, they said that almost all of the motorists were courteous and yielding and added that US is one of the safest haven for cyclists(i dunno how much of this is true since i can understand that locals are always friendly to aliens, especially if they are students and are not very well aware of road rules).

regards
srinipartha

Hi iluvbiking!

I'm from TN and this end of the state is mostly flat land with some rolling hills, the real reason most here don't use bikes is, there lazy. Americans have gotten use to getting into their car and going 3 blocks to get anything! Heaven forbid that even my children should have to walk to the movie rental or local market that is 3-4 blocks away! I will add that many people here live in rural areas and don't see a bicycle as a viable resource for anything other than recreation. Most of the bikes sold in department stores here are destined to clutter up some one's porch or garrage and never be ridden except for some recreation and that usually doesn't last long. Why do you think that diseases that are assoatied with a sedentary life style and over eating pleague our nation?
I ride mostly for fun and fitness and plan to do some commuting this spring and summer to see how it goes. I also noticed that in areas that have more congested trafic and more cyclers that people don't seem to "live by the clock" as much as in other areas, so their always pushing themselves to "be on time" somewhere. Many Americans commute by auto 30-40 miles to their jobs and think nothing of driving more miles than that to work. Small towns and cities often make no effort to encourge bike riding and often riders are looked on as a nusance to autos that are trying to "be somewhere"! Almost all the street lights are activated by some sort of magnetic sensor imbeded in the road so a cyclist will wait all day and the light will never change to allow a bicycle to pass! More and more stores are located off major roads and cyclist have to contend with high volume, high speed trafic and motorist that have many distractions. I will add that I have had very few issues with hostile motorist, most of the time they just don't see you or they aren't paying attention to what they are doing.
I work in a college town and most of the student riders I see are Asian and do use the bicycle as a means to run errands and trips to the store. Why do American kids think that they are too good to ride a bike? When my son wanted a car the first thing I did was make him ride a bike back and fourth to work and earn his money. I realy sours my stomach to see so many of the kids in this country driving cars that cost $20,000 and I know that most haven't earned it. WE ARE SPOILED! :eek:

I would agree with most of that except to say that I have gotten fairly good at triggering those lights it feels good to trip a light and see the looks on drivers faces when a lonme bicycle comes across the intersection. usually if you find one of the strips and ride right on it from the beginning to end it will trip the light. But yes Americans have gotten lazy! I work with a guy who lives 4 blocks away from work and in the winter he spends more time between warming the car, scraping the windows, find a parking spot and walk from there that i can commute by bike faster! still I get called crazy and a big dummy and in general treated as second class citizen on the streets. This does not even take into account the $200 a month for his car payment that I save.

I have cycled in Europe several times to compare how cyclists are treated in the US.. Strange, we have had cyclists/exchange students visit us.. They are impressed with the US because our roads are so wide. Often, bike lanes on our roads are minimal- no margins.. Bike lanes are not always consistent on major highways. To plan a bike trip local bike/county authorities publish maps to let cyclists know where the bike lanes are.. Think the reson European visitors are impressed with the width of our highways- urban centers in Europe are so congested and roads built hundreds of years ago when planning for automobiles was not a concern..
California, at least San Diego County seems to be better at putting in bike lanes. Many US cyclists train out here because of our climate.. The US cycling camp in now south of the City of San Diego.. Often you will find significan cycling lanes going up our mountains- which is great for training.. But our traffic and speed on our highways can be intimidating..
But then, often California is thought to travel to a different drummer(Hollywood and all that)- so bike commuting is not unheard of and you will find lots of cyclists about these areas. The terrain/climate is too good for cycling to not be popular. Yet, local cycling advocates would think we are pretty cycling unfriendly, I am sure.
I can not speak for the rest of the US- but motorists are not surprised to find packs of cyclists cluttering the road. I am sure bike club membership in San Diego County is in the 10,000 of thousands..
Now, to the other issue of how motorists treat cyclists. As someone who has cycled/toured in Europe four times.. Americans are emotionally, unprepared to see cyclists on "their" highways. Lots of hostilities for the most part.. Just my personal comparsion..
Quite unlike Europe when you are greeted with applause and cyclists are as popular as our football/baseball sports figures..
I have seen figures as to how many Americans commute by bike to work. As I recall it was like 2 %. Europe would be significantly higher, with the Netherlands over 50 %. That makes a strong statement..

Originally posted by cyclezealot
...Quite unlike Europe when you are greeted with applause and cyclists are as popular as our football/baseball sports figures....
I think that is one of the distinctive "emotional" (?) differences between Americans and Europeans.

Their heroes participate in activities that are accesible to pretty much everybody. Compare that to the US, where the "hero" is typically into something that just isn't feasible to the common man. The events in which they are active, are intended to be watched (spectator sports = oxymoron) and are not meant for an everyman to go out and do. Also, IMO, the heroes in Europe appear to be more accessible to their fans, than they are over here.
We are a lonely country.

hi,

Thats what i have been hearing, that the roads in USA is pretty much very safe for cycling, due to their width and good attitude among bikers and drivers.

But i came across certain roads and avenues in chattanooga in some pictures and i wonder how they had marked bike routes on those roads, let alone cycling i think that even driving would be a difficult proposition.

Have you people driven on such dangerous roads? like the ones having a steep incline ending with a steep turn and speed breakers?

I would be glad to know how these obstacles are overridden.

regards
srinipartha

iluvbiking--

I don't know this for sure, but I'd bet that some localities designate roads as bikeways just to get state and federal road funding, regardless of the road's actual bike-friendliness. Venice Boulevard in Los Angeles is marked as a bike route but there's no way you could safely bike it.

This summer I was visiting LA for a week or so and tried to find a safe route between Hollywood and Santa Monica (about 9-10 mi). I consider myself a fairly competent rider in traffic but there was just no way. I ended up putting the bike on the rack and driving out to the water. So, I became yet another car stuck in traffic on the freeway. :(

Dangerous curves are almost always marked in advance with a sign in the US. You know to slow down especially if you are travelling down an incline on the approach. Bike lanes are scarce in most cities. You can't count on them to go everywhere that you want to go. The law allows bicycles to share the road with cars. If the lane isn't wide enough to share, the bicycle can take the lane. Motorists may or may not agree with this but they go along with it for the most part.

I live in one of them "hilly" states, and I've gotta say a bike can get over most all of the hills no problem. Richmond's (reasonably) flat, but I used to live in the Blue Ridge Mts. area and I don't recall walking my bike up a hill after I got off the Huffy I had as a kid. (I commuted to school on bike in that "hilly" area, BTW, all through grade school). I'll pedal down to shockhoe bottom here in town now and again, and although it's a steep, extended climb back out, I never have any problem as long as I'm riding a geared bike.
Perhaps it's because I've been riding so long, but I really don't see riding in the U.S. as that bad. Sure, you'll run into the occasional lunatic motorist, but on the occasions I drive my car, I notice you run into the occasional lunatic motorist then, too.
The real reason for this perception that biking is somehow unsafe, I think, is people look for reasons to rationalize their behaviour (in this case, driving their car). I'm constantly told by non-bikers that it's far too dangerous to ride on the streets so they can't do it (just how do they know if they've never done it, I wonder?). The car is so easy to use that most of them just use, and then try to rationalize their laziness... by denying there's any alternative.

I think biking in the USA, or at least, Atlanta, is more possible than most people here imagine.

The main problem I see is that planners and motorists don't think about cyclists sharing the road: it's considered the domain of the motor vehicle. So distances are long, design is not always bicycle-friendly and motorists don't have enough experience sharing the road with cyclists. Yet, I have found most drivers to be very careful around me.

In my opinion, even though the automobile rules the road here,
the bicycle is a strong contender for commuting, because like the motorcar, you can go wherever you choose, whenever you choose, even for the long distances we have. This flexibility is unlike mass transit, which takes you only where it goes, on it's own timetable.

Most people here don't realize how easy and enjoyable bicycle commuting is. I find it far more peaceful than driving.

iluvbiking - I've lived my whole life without a car. The cities in the US vary to a considerable degree as to their suitability for cycling. Even in the same state you will find horrible and good cities. For example, in Texas, Austin is wonderful for cycling, whereas Houston is awful, at least according to Bicycling magazine.

As far as doing things like getting groceries on a bike, that's what a back pack is for. Hills are irrelevant. When you live in a city like Seattle, if you can't climb a hill, you might as well move to Omaha.

OK, I don't live in the US, so I may be full of crap, but here's my $0.02 worth.

I tend to think a lot of it has to do with the "cycling is dangerous" myth that is perpetuated commonly by society and particularly by the media. On the Gold Coast in 2002 (a city of over 400,000) there were two cyclists killed. This was described in local newspapers as a "horror year for cyclists", with many suggesting banning cyclists from particular roads "for their own safety".

Now just think for a moment what the perception might be if every two motoring deaths received that sort of publicity? Or just think what the perception might be if the thousands of cyclists who survived the year unscathed (such as myself) received that sort of publicity.

My point is that cycling deaths tend to get more publicity with more journalists writing "cycling is dangerous" articles than virtually any other activity I can think of. Of course, this is what often leads governments to take other misguided actions like urban "bikepaths" or banning bikes from certain roads, but that's another rant. It also leads to people in general believing that if you ride on the road, you'll be killed in a matter of time. It aint necessarily so.

cycling in america is definitely possible, we have better roads better bikes made in America, and a happy populace,what more can you ask for a better cycling country

anything is possible, the automobiles that many citizens use to commute are far more dangerous than any bicycle ever built.

Perhaps it may be a easier task to be a cyclist living on the western half of the US, since many of the cities were planned with cars in mind (and congestion) and so the roads are much wider with shoulders. (All the BF.net people would be amazed when you saw how wide some of the roads here in vegas are.) When I visited my uncle in chicago last summer I did notice that there were many roads, yet they were a bit more narrow than I was used to, however it was still safe to ride (as long as the cars gave you some room ;))

anyhow, living in the desert is a great advantage, why? because I can ride year round, without fear of being snowed in. Little rain and plenty of sun make for a happy cyclist, and those mountains... yeah we have those too :)

I have lived all of my life in the coastal portion of southern California (west Los Angeles, Huntington Beach, and Encinitas) and have bicycled for recreation and for transportation since high school. The climate is benign, I love hills, and I can usually (but not always) plan an acceptably safe route.

I did not own a car before age 26.

As I said elsewhere, we have had French Exchange students.. They were surprised with the width and shoulders of the roads here in California.. Every part of the US is different. You come for a visit, i would check with cycling adovocacy groups to the location you are going.. Back east, the roads are older and crowded.
Every state is different. Some are reported to even be hostile to cyclists.. Cycling in the congested urban East, from what I have seen and recall would be impossible..
I think we think of ourselves as the land of the free and we are guaranteed freedom of choice.. So, cycling is transportation to those who choose to not have a car or can't afford it..
So to me, Cycling is a RIGHT and we should think of it as such.. IF we do not demand such, we will not be given the right of choice.
Related to this idea.. Many states bike rights groups are weak and can't compete with the power of the automobile and road lobbies.. That last Federal Highway Authorization was known as ISTEA.. It guarantees a certain funding formula for cycling interests.. If the pressure of the Federal Highway program does not encourage cycling interests- then most state's will care less... It is in our interests to follow what happens to Federal Highway funding programs.. Without federal funds, I know many nearby cities would not have built bike paths and lanes, that we presently enjoy.. They do not have the money..

hi chrisL,

u wrote

"I tend to think a lot of it has to do with the "cycling is dangerous" myth that is perpetuated commonly by society and particularly by the media. On the Gold Coast in 2002 (a city of over 400,000) there were two cyclists killed. This was described in local newspapers as a "horror year for cyclists", with many suggesting banning cyclists from particular roads "for their own safety".

send some of the press people to my city where they can see some real horror.

In my city(combined with three districts) the total number of cyclists killed in 2002 amount to 135+ and 600+ for the entire state, now hows that when compared to the two cyclists(may their souls rest in peace) who died in your city.

I would say that 2 cycling deaths per year is all normal(still a loss of life is a terrible one, numbers does'nt count) for the city to be called bike safe.

I hope every city become bike friendly in the near future.


regards
srinipartha

hi JDP,

yes, that was a valid point, even in my country with worst roads and worst of all drivers we have warning markers for curves.

But the question is how safe they are? for example if the narrow road is infested with heavy vehicle traffic, a slow speed of 20kmph(12mph) by a careless driver might inflict grevious injuries to the pedestrian/cyclist. The law cannot blame the driver as he was not overspeedng. I dont know how frequent this happens in developed countries but the numbers here are hard to digest.

I once tried to bring this issue with one of friends here, what can be done to prevent the appaling number of road accident deaths in india, i got a shocking reply he said atleast it aids in population control.

regards
srinipartha

Originally posted by iluvbiking
send some of the press people to my city where they can see some real horror.

In my city(combined with three districts) the total number of cyclists killed in 2002 amount to 135+ and 600+ for the entire state, now hows that when compared to the two cyclists(may their souls rest in peace) who died in your city.

It's difficult to say, because the numbers alone don't always mean that much. We need to take other factors into account, such as the total number of cyclists in that area, how long they actually spent riding, the total population etc etc. I believe the population (not to mention the population density) and the number of cyclists is significantly greater in India than in Australia.

However, the point I was making wasn't so much about whether the Gold Coast is or isn't a dangerous place to ride, it was more to do with the attitude of the media around here. Those two cycling deaths probably took up as much newspaper space as 200 auto deaths would have done. Then one has to look at the type of coverage they got. When I read about auto deaths I see no mention of banning cars from the road "for their own safety" regardless of how many are killed, yet every time a cyclist gets killed that's exactly the sort of articles that are written.

The sort of media coverage I described above might lead people to conclude that cycling here is unsafe (indeed, many I have spoken to have told me this) on the basis of two deaths in a year. I don't know if this is what goes on in the U.S or not, but it certainly distorts perceptions around here.

Originally posted by VegasCyclist
Perhaps it may be a easier task to be a cyclist living on the western half of the US, since many of the cities were planned with cars in mind (and congestion) and so the roads are much wider with shoulders. (All the BF.net people would be amazed when you saw how wide some of the roads here in vegas are.)
[/B]
I was amazed.
I especially noted, out on Charleston, where the far right lane is reserved for bikes and seems to be as wide as a regular lane. This was pretty nice except approaching intersections where many of the motorists think it is a right turn lane.

Every state is different. Some are reported to even be hostile to cyclists.. Cycling in the congested urban East, from what I have seen and recall would be impossible..

i disagree with this one point that has been made by 2 or 3 here from the West.

while i agree that in the West (and most of the South like Texas, Georgia) roads are wider, i don't think that has too much to do with biking safety. for example Houston Tx has very large and wide roads but b/c of the dominance of cars there and drivers' inattentiveness and often agressiveness to cyclists, it is less ideal than say downtown Portland or downtown Boston where streets are narrower. actually in many cases, narrower roads are BETTER for cycling as cars must slow down a little. usually some of the worst places to ride is on the shoulder of a 45MPH, 55MPH or 65MPH or higher multi-lane speedway... (often prohibited on highways like Interstates)

from my experience many "crowded" East Coast cities are very bikeable - to name a few from from my personal experience: NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, Montreal...

new automobile-centric exurban areas with wide multi-lane roads, high speeds and lots of traffic tend to be the worst --- true rural is OK b/c of low traffic, and urban b/c of slower speeds.

as to the original question: i agree with most posts that the dangers of biking are exagerated. i also agree that most people are just too lazy and would rather sit in a car even though they could bike. finally, the attitudes towards and awareness of cyclists is low so driver's don't watch for cyclists or often know how to share the road. and yes, planners and sprawled development often do not think about the bicylce with such things are high-speed interchanges and overpasses and multilane raods as the only entry and exit points to a mall or shopping center (to make auto traffic efficient and safe, but also usually makes it difficult and unsafe for cyclists)

outside of Europe, cycling in the US is one the safest places in the world... just most Americans don't see it that way "do you really ride all the way to work?" meaning a whole 4 miles! "and during rush hour with all those cars?! wow, you're really brave! but you better stop once you have a family b/c they wouldn't want to lose their father to a cycling accident."... when driving a car is just about or maybe even more dangerous (cycling statistics are biased b/c they include children and untrained cyclists - think if kids and the untrained drove cars and added to the motoring collisions and deaths!)

Originally posted by iluvbiking
hi JDP,

But the question is how safe they are? for example if the narrow road is infested with heavy vehicle traffic, a slow speed of 20kmph(12mph) by a careless driver might inflict grevious injuries to the pedestrian/cyclist. The law cannot blame the driver as he was not overspeedng.

There is no minimum speed on most roads so yes the law would blame a car that runs down a slow moving cyclist. The interstate is an exception. It usually has 45mph minimum speed and bicycles are generally excluded from travel here.

Besides if a bicycle has to slow down for a curve, a car will have to slow down just as much if not more.

Generally you want to avoid narrow streets with heavy, high speed traffic. It's pretty easy to do with the road network that is established in the US.

Also, statistically speaking not many cyclists are run down from behind in the US. Instead, they are hit because of moving violations like running stop signs, not yielding, etc. Visibility is sometimes an issue in these cases so lights are very helpful.

Originally posted by nathank


new automobile-centric exurban areas with wide multi-lane roads, high speeds and lots of traffic tend to be the worst --- true rural is OK b/c of low traffic, and urban b/c of slower speeds.



Agree completely with this statement. Exactly the case you find in the Sacramento area. The newly developed parts of the sprawl-urbs to the south and east of the city have nice wide bikelanes alongside 3 and 4 lane boulevards. The posted speed limits on those is often 35 but the prevailing speed seems to be 50-60. Thirty years ago, roads like that would be considered highways. Now they're just surface streets.

Still, I do appreciate that developers are being forced to include bikelanes at all. Some progress has been made at least.

An American advantage--freeways have drawn traffic away from many surface streets and rural roads. An American disadvantage--noticing the ever lower level of speed limit enforcement. US politicians and cops become stone ******* when addressing any law violations or social/environmental/health problems caused by our grossly excessive auto use.

Traffic congestion has gotten out of control here, due to a incredible rate of home construction.. From Central San Diego County to mid-Riverside County home construction has to be over a 10 % growth rate.. Winchester, Calif. population has grown from 1,000 to 8,000 in about five years..
So, with road construction going nowhere- roads are horrendous.. Traffic is not moving during peak commute hours..
The comments I hear from co-workers- so many incidents of irrational drivers going nuts, verbal threats and potential physical violence, chase scenes caused by conflicts as cars almost colide when cars illegally pass one another.. One worker had a crazed motorist follow him to work and told guards to not let the 'crazy' into the plant- as Bob passed through the gate.. The fuming Nut Case waited quite awhile outside the gate before leaving. The guard pondered about calling the police..
So anyway- and we cyclists think we are unsafe? Where bike lanes are wide- I feel we are out of the battle zone?
Nathank. I do not know about Boston, Philadelphia- but urban Michigan comes to mind- and I can't imagine riding the main arterial highways into Detroit, Grand Rapids or Toledo. No margins exist- last I knew.. Dallas looked pretty bad. But, yes- many of the traffic/cycle accidents are not adult cyclists, certainly, raising accident rates from the older, hard core cycle commuting community..
I wonder around the world- do you hear comments about physical violence errupting between motorists over traffic conflicts.?

Originally posted by cyclezealot
I wonder around the world- do you hear comments about physical violence errupting between motorists over traffic conflicts.?

Yup. All the time. Sometimes it's just fisticuffs, other times it's stabbings and whatever else. However, this relates to my earlier point about media coverage making cycling appear more dangerous than it actually is. If a motorist stabs another motorists, it might get a small write-up in the newspapers if it's fatal. However, as soon as a cyclist is involved, regardless of any injuries that may or may not have been sustained, out come all the "dangers of cycling" articles.

Nathank. I do not know about Boston, Philadelphia- but urban Michigan comes to mind- and I can't imagine riding the main arterial highways into Detroit, Grand Rapids or Toledo. No margins exist- last I knew.. Dallas looked pretty bad. But, yes- many of the traffic/cycle accidents are not adult cyclists, certainly, raising accident rates from the older, hard core cycle commuting community..

i think a few people at said "east vs west" or something like that and i would generalize more to be: OLDER CITIES (Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes, West Coast) are generally better for cycling than NEWER cities (South, SouthEast) as they are more compact and less sprawled and less auto-dominated.

Originally posted by Feldman
An American advantage--freeways have drawn traffic away from many surface streets and rural roads. An American disadvantage--noticing the ever lower level of speed limit enforcement. US politicians and cops become stone ******* when addressing any law violations or social/environmental/health problems caused by our grossly excessive auto use.
Message to politicians and parents:

Got nutz?

Speaking of freeways and east v west, I have ridden rural Interstates across New Mexico, Arizona, and areas in all three west coast states; if you're outside urban areas they're legal and can be less hairy than the small roads parallel to them. Case in point, I-84 shoulder in the Columbia River Gorge vs. the narrow, winding Columbia Gorge Scenic Highway that starts and ends in roughly the same places. Weekends are NOT the time for the scenic road!

Well, it sort of depends. An experienced cyclist can ride safely in most of the USA. The USA has about 800 bicycling fatalities per year. Oddly enough it is MORE DANGEROUS to drive in an automobile than ride on a bike. I guess cyclists are more careful. Also most of our auto fatalities involve driving while intoxicated or falling asleep at the wheel (not big risks for cyclists).

Years ago, I commuted year round in Michigan. Michigan is in the northern USA and if I could do it there, it can be done almost anywhere. The roads did get ice covered at times and I had a few falls on slick ice. But most of the time the roads were pretty good even with snow cover on the ground. The temperatures probably got down to about -15 degrees C. Below that, I gave it up.

The road net in the USA varies quite a bit state to state. In Michigan, the roads are laid out on a grid system with a road every mile (not always paved) running north-south and east-west. So in Michigan, there are plenty of lightly travelled paved roads to ride on and you can even keep track of your mileage by counting the intersections! Of course, you do have to contend with potholes and loose farm dogs.

I live in Florida now. The weather allows year round cycling if you can tolerate the summer heat and humidity. The road net isn't that great and I ride on roads with more traffic now then I ever did in Michigan.

I have also ridden in the western United States - New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana etc. Out there you can hit high elevations in the mountain passes. The highest pass I have done was over 12,000' which comes out to just under 4,000 meters. The passes are not that bad because the roads wind so much that most people can not drive really fast. The grades are not that steep and usually do not exceed 7%. In the eastern USA, there are some hilly areas and the some roads there can get awfully steep. The steepest road I have ridden was 20% and I have heard that there are a few roads that hit over 30%. But you can always find ways to avoid these paved cliffs. But shoot that wouldn't be any fun no would it?

Originally posted by Pat
An experienced cyclist can ride safely in most of the USA...Oddly enough it is MORE DANGEROUS to drive in an automobile than ride on a bike.
The entire Vietnam War (over a decade) produced about the same number of American deaths as occur every year in the United States due to traffic deaths alone. That's almost 10 to 1 ratio.

Where is the protest against driving? Perhaps America is addicted to driving and in "denial."

Teenagers suffer death by car accident more than any other cause in America. But parents aren't up in arms about that, even though they were when their kids were sent to Vietnam.

If all traffic deaths were reported on the news in detail, there would not be room for the weather report.

Recently the safety person for my employer, during a safety presentation; said your odds of being a auto fatility is like 1 to 100. Guess that must be in your lifetime ! Chance of being in a homicide is about 1 to 600.. Like to see statistics on cyclists... Think about those odds..

Iluvbiking-
I could not tell by your posts whether or not you live in Chattanooga or not, I do, and the hills and roads are really not a problem for me as a commuter. We do have a LOT of hills, but you just find a low gear and sweat for awhile. Fenders help here also because it rains a lot.
We recently got a system of bike routes marked on some of our main roads here,(some like the idea, others don't!)
If there is one problem commuting in town here, it's people out for sunday rides on their MTBs using the SIDEWALKS. Motorists get used to seeing them there and think it's their proper place, and then get angry at cyclists who are properly following traffic laws in the road where they should be. If I can think of one phrase I've had yelled at me the most it's probably "Use the sidewalk!"
Anyway, the hills really aren't a big deal once you're used to them,(you should see the road my house is on!) I would be more concerned with having a helmet and head/tail lights, as well as Knowing how to signal your turns to motorists.On the positive side, I notice more and more bike commuters in Chattanooga everyday, as well as more interest in ecological matters. Probably not a coincidence!
Take Care!

hey re-reading through this post... i came up with some new comments...

basically cycling is very possible and generally safe in the US, but not popular in the US because of the ATTITUDE that cycling is unsafe, distances are too great, it is too hard, and it is not socially "cool" to bike because the car is the sign of success (although almost everyone in the US has one). because of these societal attitudes, problems like intersections designed for cars and great sprawling distances exist because all money is spent designing facilities with exclusively autos in mind. and because drivers do not expect bicycles and believe the roads to be only for cars, drivers sometimes don't drive as safely as they should (as can also be seen by all the auto users that are killed by each other each year)

but with a little changing from the societal norms (maybe shopping at a local store instead of the Walmart 30 miles away) cycling is very possible in the US - especially for daily/local travel. for long distance travel (for transportation, not touring) the car is still needed. (or plane and then rent a car - rent a bike?)

but with a little changing from the societal norms (maybe shopping at a local store instead of the Walmart 30 miles away) cycling is very possible in the US - especially for daily/local travel. for long distance travel (for transportation, not touring) the car is still needed. (or plane and then rent a car - rent a bike?)
This is completely possible. I live in the suburbs of Portland,OR (Aloha). We shop at the local supermarket by public transit or by bike with a bike trailer. The same technique is used to go to the movies, etc.

For long distance we use public transit to get to the airport or a car service. We often rent bicycles at our destination. We did this last year in Bend. We brought our bike trailer and gear so that we could camp. We also take the train or bus as certain routes are bike friendly. Now that we are getting more into cycling for fun we are planning some tour vacations.

To visit family in certain areas of the country we are stuck with car rental. If we brought our own bicycles and used a car service to get to our destination it would still be possible. OTOH Family attitude is a PITA already.
-Duncan

I use a combination of public transportation and junk bikes in commuting to work. I start off riding a junk folding bike about 1.1 miles to the light rail (trolley). I then take a subway to Manhattan where I have another junk toy store bike waiting for me on the other side.

Living in Manhattan, it's amazing how few people actually do this. Seriously. We have an estimated 600,000 people who commute using the same subway but I only seen a handful of people who use my system of junk bikes. Incredible.

I've talked with cyclists who can't believe I leave a junk bike parked on the streets of Manhattan 24/7. I think that's the reason why more people don't use the junk bike system. Everyone's afraid of having their cycle stolen.

It doesn't bother me one bit. If more peple found out about my system, my favorite parking spot would get taken!:)

I use a combination of public transportation and junk bikes in commuting to work. I start off riding a junk folding bike about 1.1 miles to the light rail (trolley). I then take a subway to Manhattan where I have another junk toy store bike waiting for me on the other side.

Living in Manhattan, it's amazing how few people actually do this. Seriously. We have an estimated 600,000 people who commute using the same subway but I only seen a handful of people who use my system of junk bikes. Incredible.
I lived in Jersey and worked in Manhattan for years and this never occurred to me then. It actually would have made my commute much easier. If I ever move back I would adopt something like your method.

In answer to the original question -- of course it's possible to bike here. I've done it for decades here in Atlanta, I commute downtown, and ride all over the city, and into a number of parts of the metro area outside the city limits. I'm certain that the characteristics of how to effectively cycle here in the U.S. is considerably different than in India. And different regions of the U.S. have different climate, geographic characteristics, and road conditions. Here in Atlanta we are in piedmont, so it's hilly, but the climate tends toward the warm and humid end of the scale. Not a lot of snow and ice. In the city, where I cycle for the most part, cycling on the roads is pretty easy, but requires moderate skills interacting with motorized traffic.

I have had several bike tours both in Europe and a couple in the US.
Funny, we host European student exchanges. Here in California, our European friends comment upon the width of the roads and how common and wide bike lanes are, here in San Diego County.
Europe being older with supposedly narrow roads, and they thought biking to be ideal here..
My experience, Europeans are very used to seeing cyclists and treat them with considerable respect. I have never experienced cyclists being taunted in Europe- quite the opposite in fact.
As to narrow roads poorly equiped to accompany the needs of bikes adjacent to cars: maybe, my bike guides placed me in ideal riding situations in France/Spain- but, I had no complaints there.
Other comparsions to the US- I find Americans far more hostile to cyclists, but as to riding conditions- California is pretty good.
How about commuting conditions in cities such as Buffalo or St. Louis good or bad?

Iluv, The fact is that the USA is a motor vehicle oriented country. The cities are mostly designed with the car as the main form of transportation. Most of the cities here were designed or had most of their growth during the automobile age. Most people here have a rather long commute to work each day. Mine is 15 miles ( 25 km?) and for me this is too long to commute. I use my car to go to work, to the grocery store, and to run errands in general. Cycling is primarily for recreation and exercise.

As you visit different places here, the quality of bike trails, lanes etc. does vary greatly. Much of the decision to build bike-friendly trails and lanes is made locally, rather than on a national level. It's a matter of the local citizens making themselves heard on the issue. It's a tough sell in many communites. The same goes for mass transit.

Hi,

When i started the thread with the question "is Biking really possible in USA?", my curiousity weighed on the terrain & weather conditions, distance of commute, dangers from animals on road(i heard form some americans working here in my city saying that dogs and some wild animals pose a real threat to lone peds/bikers on isolated streets/woods etc.).

So i guess a lot depends upon the traffic conditions and attitude of the people. I think its different from how the system works India, here drivers put in more effort in breaking the rules rather than following it.

But one of the sickest attitudes here is that automobiles are seen as a sign of growth. If you own a bike, it implies that you are poor and have not made it up in life...i am happy it stays that way



:(
regards
iluvbiking

Well its possible for me here in Calgary. Bike 12 months a year though most people would not like to deal with the cold and snow. Not sure if it was in this thread on not but by biking you make it possible for more people to bike. The more people who bike the more resources get spent on biking stuff. I only started biking to work when we moved to Calgary 3 years ago. There was a guy at my wifes work who biked into work so about the same distance that I would have (33 miles round trip). At first I thought she was crazy but the fact that this other guy was doing it made it possible. So I was able to look at all the advantages, don't have to pay for parking, can get away with one car, excercise. I'm on a bike path about half the distance and 2/3 of the there are seperate bike and ped paths.

the reason why there are more cars in north america than bikes on the road is because the people are used to having cars as their luxory. some people have to drive to work which is realy far away, so of course they wil use their cars. and after a while they get used to using cars and end up driving them 2 blocks down just to get a carton of milk then come back. and half the time when the people get back from work it wil be already to late, so there wil be no way they can go biking or fit it into their schedule unless its a holiday or a weekend

take care

SpOnGeBoB :D

I'm afraid you've hit on it, Spongebob. There's a scene in LA Story that totally sums it up where Steve Martin gets in his car to drive to his friend's, three houses down. And there's a Toyota commercial where a guy gets in his Corolla to drive across the street. It'd be funny if it wasn't so true.

It is quite amusing here in the Washington DC area. They will drive the car a quarter mile or so, and then spend 15 minutes circling around looking for a parking place. I don't think it is a concious mode choice -- I think it never occurs to them that there are any alternatives.

Paul