I never stated that exercise can prevent. In fact, nothing at this time is known to prevent diabetes.
Some medicines have been shown to delay the onset (metfromin comes to mind as one), but it has not been shown to prevent the disease. In fact something in the area of 20% of type 2 diabetics are thin and get plenty of exercise, and did so prior to their diagnosis. I was one of those. In fact the nurse at the hospital wanted to argue that I should be treated as a type 1 due to the sudden onset and my weight at the time of diagnosis. However, 6 years later and I don't take insulin, so I guess the doctor was right.
Symptoms. I said "prevent and treat the symptoms" (ie, complications which might ultimately lead to death, such as the insulin resistance you mentioned). I also don't think everything you've said here is true, but I'm not going to argue with you because:
1. Diabetes only accounts for a mere 7% of the deaths I cited. Even if exercise did absolutely nothing to lower the number of deaths due to diabetes, the total number of deaths that I cited would still be almost eliminated. I just threw in diabetes with the rest of the group because, despite being the least significant of all the causes of death I cited, it's still a leading cause of death that might be significantly reduced by regular exercise such as utility cycling.
2. I'm sure you're perfectly capable of reading the literature yourself.

Anyway, my point is that you made the statement that deaths from these diseases could be all but eliminated. That has not been proven, so I look at that statement as hyperbole.
I don't see any citations to peer reviewed publications in this thread. None of the statements made by anyone in this thread have been proven. Do you also view everything else in this thread as hyperbole?

I have personally read enough sources to satisfy my own skepticism, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to write a fully cited review paper for I-Like-To-Bike, you, or anyone else. Feel free to do your own reading, write off my opinion as hyperbole, or anything else that tickles your fancy, but I believe that everything I've said is well known (that is, to everyone except I-Like-To-Bike who often seems even more surprised by the wide dissemination of well known facts than the facts themselves as he repeats his favorite phrase, "Who knew?").

Nothing per se, but they do tend to cost a chunk of change and they're probably more bike than most folk need. A "low end" touring bike with minimal extras will run over seven or eight bills. A nice one is well over a grand from what I've seen. Though in comparison to car costs that's still pretty minimal. They're also designed for traveling longer distances, and are less easy to mount/dismount and start/stop than a utility bicycle. The drop bars also tend to put you in a less advantageous position for navigating city traffic, at least in my experience. On a cruiser you're upright and can see all around.

A well equipped low-end utility bike with racks, fenders, lights, and chainguard is not going to be significantly cheaper than a low-end touring bike. For example, the low-end Breezer Citizen costs somewhere beteween $500 and $600.

Unless you have a U-frame utility bike, I don't think there's much of a difference for ease of mounting and dismounting. In my case, I opted for a U-frame utility bike for ease of mounting/dismounting, but I suspect I'm more of an exception than the rule.

I think a touring bike does have certain advantages as a utility cycle. They often have braze-ons or heavy-duty forks for mounting front racks, increasing the on bike carrying capacity. They also tend to have very strudy frames designed for comfortably carrying large loads.

I have used both touring bikes (Trek 520) and utility bikes (Breezer Uptown 8) for everyday transportation cycling and I think they both work well. But in truth, just about any bicycle in decent mechanical shape can be readily equipped as a serviceable transportation bicycle.

Symptoms. I said "prevent and treat the symptoms" (ie, complications which might ultimately lead to death, such as the insulin resistance you mentioned). I also don't think everything you've said here is true, but I'm not going to argue with you because:
1. Diabetes only accounts for a mere 7% of the deaths I cited. Even if exercise did absolutely nothing to lower the number of deaths due to diabetes, the total number of deaths that I cited would still be almost eliminated. I just threw in diabetes with the rest of the group because, despite being the least significant of all the causes of death I cited, it's still a leading cause of death that might be significantly reduced by regular exercise such as utility cycling.
2. I'm sure you're perfectly capable of reading the literature yourself.


I don't see any citations to peer reviewed publications in this thread. None of the statements made by anyone in this thread have been proven. Do you also view everything else in this thread as hyperbole?

I have personally read enough sources to satisfy my own skepticism, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to write a fully cited review paper for I-Like-To-Bike, you, or anyone else. Feel free to do your own reading, write off my opinion as hyperbole, or anything else that tickles your fancy, but I believe that everything I've said is well known (that is, to everyone except I-Like-To-Bike who often seems even more surprised by the wide dissemination of well known facts than the facts themselves as he repeats his favorite phrase, "Who knew?").


Makeinu...I don't disagree with your overall premise. In fact, there is a great deal of truth in what you have posted. I was basically pointing out the over statement and generalization you made that brought ILTB into the mix on this thread. It is those kinds of statements that cause some people to ignore everything a poster has to say, even though the main point is right on target.

Please don't read what I'm posting as an attack. I was really trying to help clarify any confusion.

I was basically pointing out the over statement and generalization you made that brought ILTB into the mix on this thread. It is those kinds of statements that cause some people to ignore everything a poster has to say, even though the main point is right on target.

Exactly. Inflated hyperbole makes for counterproductive advocacy; as well as opening the door for counter generalizations from the equally foolish, that the "advocates" are nothing but a bunch of loonies, look at their idiotic claims.

Another reason why cycling as transportation is not promoted is huge number of revenue streams government agencies of all types, local and state in particular, have come to rely on:

Sales taxes on cars, fuel, parts, etc.
Gas taxes
Tolls
Vehicle registration fees
Traffic violations
Parking violations
Parking fees

I'm sure I'm missing many. But it all adds up to interesting times for government if such revenues were to dry up.

I thought cow flatulence was the biggest factor in greenhouse gas.

Al

I thought I heard it was more the belching than what comes out the other end, but it's true that cows' methane emissions (from either end) are a rather significant contributor.

Infrastructure is a major problem in adopting bikes as a (partial) solution to climate change. Most major cities are autocentric, with the provision that some cities are better than others with regards to alternative modes of transportation.

That pretty much sums it up. Things in this country, generally speaking, are set up in such a way that a car is pretty much necessary unless you live in a major urban area. That said, there are certainly plenty of short local trips that people could easily make by bike instead of by car, as I have started doing. It's a matter of choosing the most appropriate vehicle for the job. Not to mention it would do our society a lot of good to be more active--this would go a long way toward reducing obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. One issue that can complicate matters, however, is when people need to bring their small children with them as they do their errands etc. The recommendations I have always heard for when to start having a child ride in a trailer is that they need to be 12 months old before doing so, as the neck muscles need to be strong enough to hold the head steady during the bumpy ride. From what I know about how the child trailers are currently designed, this makes sense. So, when someone has a baby under 12 months to tote along, that leaves driving as the only option if the trip is more than a mile or two (in that case one can just walk), assuming the area does not have a decent bus or train system. I posted in another forum recently that somebody should design a trailer setup that accommodates a car seat or two and has a suspension to absorb the bumps (and hopefully isn't too heavy!), allowing even very young infants to safely travel this way.

Nothing per se, but they do tend to cost a chunk of change and they're probably more bike than most folk need. A "low end" touring bike with minimal extras will run over seven or eight bills. A nice one is well over a grand from what I've seen. Though in comparison to car costs that's still pretty minimal. They're also designed for traveling longer distances, and are less easy to mount/dismount and start/stop than a utility bicycle. The drop bars also tend to put you in a less advantageous position for navigating city traffic, at least in my experience. On a cruiser you're upright and can see all around.

What about a hybrid? That has the upright position but is a little faster than a cruiser. The only disadvantage would be riding in slush/salt/other yuck during the winter--the internal hub gears are supposed to be the best thing for that, rather than derailleurs (although I've never ridden a bike with this setup and am not sure how desirable it would be to have so few gears when riding in hilly terrain like we have here in Worcester County).

Makeinu...I don't disagree with your overall premise. In fact, there is a great deal of truth in what you have posted. I was basically pointing out the over statement and generalization you made that brought ILTB into the mix on this thread. It is those kinds of statements that cause some people to ignore everything a poster has to say, even though the main point is right on target.

Please don't read what I'm posting as an attack. I was really trying to help clarify any confusion.
I truely appreciate you fleshing out some of the details (particularly in regards to diabetes), but I was basically pointing out that I made no overstatement or generalization. What I said was true, not an exaggeration, not one of "those kinds of statements" and I don't think any of the facts you've brought to the table suggest otherwise.

In fact, I'll say it again because it seems to me that the only time this accusation of "inflated hyperbole" even begins to sound reasonable is when people begin to ignore what was actually said:
If a significant portion of the population cycled (or got any exercise for that matter) then deaths due to heart disease, stroke, accidents, and diabetes would be almost eliminated. Those causes account for over half of all deaths in the US.

Exactly. Inflated hyperbole makes for counterproductive advocacy; as well as opening the door for counter generalizations from the equally foolish, that the "advocates" are nothing but a bunch of loonies, look at their idiotic claims.
Your counter generalizations are certainly foolish. I'll give you that much.

What I'd like to know, I-Like-To-Bike, is why you troll this forum. The fact that you offer almost no logical support for any of your inflamatory statements is quite suspicious. Isn't it true that you've been car free or car lite? Do you troll because somehow, in your twisted little brain, you believe that you're strengthening the persuasive ability of the car free community by pestering them with the most thick headed, belligerent, anti-carfree role you can portray? If not then I'm dying to know what it is that motivates you.

That pretty much sums it up. Things in this country, generally speaking, are set up in such a way that a car is pretty much necessary unless you live in a major urban area. That said, there are certainly plenty of short local trips that people could easily make by bike instead of by car, as I have started doing. It's a matter of choosing the most appropriate vehicle for the job. Not to mention it would do our society a lot of good to be more active--this would go a long way toward reducing obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. One issue that can complicate matters, however, is when people need to bring their small children with them as they do their errands etc. The recommendations I have always heard for when to start having a child ride in a trailer is that they need to be 12 months old before doing so, as the neck muscles need to be strong enough to hold the head steady during the bumpy ride. From what I know about how the child trailers are currently designed, this makes sense. So, when someone has a baby under 12 months to tote along, that leaves driving as the only option if the trip is more than a mile or two (in that case one can just walk), assuming the area does not have a decent bus or train system. I posted in another forum recently that somebody should design a trailer setup that accommodates a car seat or two and has a suspension to absorb the bumps (and hopefully isn't too heavy!), allowing even very young infants to safely travel this way.

I don't mean to be combative, but the majority of the US population lives in major urban areas (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/cps2k.htm). So unless you're "generally speaking" about the minority...

Also, in my opinion, people with babies under 12 months old shouldn't be traveling with them more than a mile or two anyway. If the bumpy ride on a bicycle is too much for their feeble necks then I can only imagine how bad the jolt of a fender bender in an automobile would be.

IMHO, the only things preventing the adoption of alternative forms of transit in this country are good old fashion selfishness, impatience, and laziness.

Also, in my opinion, people with babies under 12 months old shouldn't be traveling with them more than a mile or two anyway. If the bumpy ride on a bicycle is too much for their feeble necks then I can only imagine how bad the jolt of a fender bender in an automobile would be.

Fender benders are rare events. Bumps are everywhere.

But with the proper precautions/positioning, you can take even very young infant in a trailer.


IMHO, the only things preventing the adoption of alternative forms of transit in this country are good old fashion selfishness, impatience, and laziness.

And efficiency. Let's be honest. For most people, it is a lot easier to go to the store twice a week and fill up the SUV than to go nearly everyday for a couple of bags of groceries. Is this laziness? Impatience? Or just more efficient?

I've done both. In the US, we almost exclusively drove to the store (except we had a Volvo wagon), even though it wasn't that far away (maybe a mile), but we only had to go once every four or five days. In Denmark, we are car free, and someone goes to the store almost everyday (but part of this is due to tiny Danish refrigerators). Loading the car, with a lot more than can be carried practically (where practically is subjective) on a bike, is a lot more efficient.

But you can call me lazy if you want. It's all a matter of perspective.

IMHO, the only things preventing the adoption of alternative forms of transit in this country are good old fashion selfishness, impatience, and laziness.
IMHO Indeed. Opinion -Yes; Humble - No. Over-the top arrogant, counterproductive, lunatic-fringe rhetoric -as usual.

Also, in my opinion, people with babies under 12 months old shouldn't be traveling with them more than a mile or two anyway. If the bumpy ride on a bicycle is too much for their feeble necks then I can only imagine how bad the jolt of a fender bender in an automobile would be.



You've got to be kidding! That is the most unrealistic thing I have heard in a long time. People still have to travel and get on with their lives when they have babies--they don't sit home all day on their butt. Yes, a fender bender would be worse than the bumps in a trailer. However, fender benders don't happen often and besides, car seats are specifically designed to protect against these types of forces if something does happen. My point was that somebody should improve trailer set-ups to make the bumpy ride not a problem, thus making cycling as a major form of transportation feasible for more people.

Because of our current car-based infrastructure, as well as time constraints, children, age, physical ability, etc not everyone can feasibly live car-free. However, for the many, many people who drive a mile or two for errands, groceries, work, dentist, ball game, etc... they can with a bit of effort, change their driving habits and grab the bike or catch the bus instead. At that point, for those whose trips are <5 miles here and there, the only things stopping them are A)not realizing they can bike instead or B)making excuses such as too busy, or too tired.
You have to get to Point A to get to Point B in this case. Many people don't even make it that far. When they see a cyclist on the road, the only thing they think is "gotta pass them"... they don't think "wow they've got something there, I bet I can bike to the store instead of drive!"
I don't know how long it will take for the paradigm shift.

Not everyone lives in a warm sunny clime.

Are you seriously thinking that in temps below 15 degress celcius that people are going to use the cycle as an alternative mode of transportation. Most casual cyclists won't even pull their bikes out for a recreational ride below that threshold. So for much of the country 7 months of the year are too cold. Also, count out all trips from dusk to dawn. People will not ride in the dark.

I don't think it even needs to be an all-or-nothing thing. If people just bike when they can, or when it is most convenient to them, that would go a long way toward not only starting a change, but shifting our entire path-of-least-resistance way of living toward a state of conscious living.

The methane from the cows/livestock are mostly caused by the human because we factory farm these animals for our consumption. So it is a byproduct of human doing. I count that in with 'human-caused' global warming. If everything on our menu wasn't meat-based, there would be less factory farming, and therefore less greenhouse-gas causing methane released into the air. Not to mention the fact that they deforest land to convert to pasture, and to grow feed for the livestock (rainforest deforestation for feed, tragic) which further decreases the C02 emission to absorbtion ratio.
Until people start looking past their destination, or their plate, or their shopping bag, we will not change our habits. When we start seeing the big picture of what is going on, then we will go out of our way to ride bikes...

You've got to be kidding! That is the most unrealistic thing I have heard in a long time.
Just wait; the Humble Opinionater is on a roll. I'm sure he can top this unrealistic idea with another opinion or declaration that will take your breath away.

Just wait; the Humble Opinionater is on a roll. I'm sure he can top this unrealistic idea with another opinion or declaration that will take your breath away.
I reported your post to the moderators on the basis of rudeness and harassment. Just so you'd know it wasn't someone else. I can take the heat.

Gentlemen, just a reminder that while a differing of opinions is the source of good debate - personal attacks are not appreciated. Thank you.

Not everyone lives in a warm sunny clime.

Are you seriously thinking that in temps below 15 degress celcius that people are going to use the cycle as an alternative mode of transportation. Most casual cyclists won't even pull their bikes out for a recreational ride below that threshold. So for much of the country 7 months of the year are too cold. Also, count out all trips from dusk to dawn. People will not ride in the dark.

That still leaves 5 months out of the year with the potential for cycling for those who are not interested in outfitting themselves for winter cycling. As for night cycling, it certainly doesn't help that almost no bikes in America are sold with headlights. I could probably count on one hand with fingers to spare the number of bike makers in America that make models with headlights and taillights. In countries that encourage bike riding, like Germany and the Netherlands, bikes are required to be sold with lights, so nearly every bike in the country has a generator lighting system.

But as another poster said, cycling doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. I'm not suggesting that Americans become car-free cyclists, but rather that they seriously consider cycling as a valid transportation option, and that they choose cycling for some of the trips that make sense for them. Just as for long trip you might decide between driving and flying, for short trips you should decide between driving and cycling (or walking or transit). Even if Americans old ride for trips shorter than 5 mi (8 km) during daylight when the weather is sunny and warm, where they don't need to carry kids or a large amount of stuff, that is still a significant portion of all the car trips in America. It would be enough to make a difference in our dependence on foreign oil, our carbon dioxide emissions, and even our overall health and well-being. And getting more cyclists on the streets would make cycling safer for everyone, as studies in London have shown.

Fender benders are rare events. Bumps are everywhere.

The frequency of occurrence has absolutely nothing to do with it. A fender bender pack a much harsher jolt than a bump. Risk is a function of both the probability and the magnitude of the potential loss.

But with the proper precautions/positioning, you can take even very young infant in a trailer.

Ok, fair enough. There's room for disagreement on this, but notice that no matter whether or not you think that bike trailers are safe for infants we still get the same conclusion that the lack of a safe infant-carrying alternative isn't what's holding back America from being car free.

And efficiency. Let's be honest. For most people, it is a lot easier to go to the store twice a week and fill up the SUV than to go nearly everyday for a couple of bags of groceries. Is this laziness? Impatience? Or just more efficient?

I've done both. In the US, we almost exclusively drove to the store (except we had a Volvo wagon), even though it wasn't that far away (maybe a mile), but we only had to go once every four or five days. In Denmark, we are car free, and someone goes to the store almost everyday (but part of this is due to tiny Danish refrigerators). Loading the car, with a lot more than can be carried practically (where practically is subjective) on a bike, is a lot more efficient.

But you can call me lazy if you want. It's all a matter of perspective.

But it's not more efficient. It's only perceived by some people as more efficient because they ignore the total cost of driving. When you factor in the cost of human life and the cost to the environment, then driving a car doesn't seem efficient at all (I would also add the astronomical prices of gas, insurance, and the vehicle itself, but, as much as it baffles me, I have to conclude that most people are actually aware of these costs). I also think most people forget that if they want to stay in good health then they'll have to ride those miles (or the equivalent) regardless of whether or not they use the car. So what's more efficient, riding a bike to the store to get the groceries or driving a car and running in a gerbil wheel when you get home?

You've got to be kidding! That is the most unrealistic thing I have heard in a long time. People still have to travel and get on with their lives when they have babies--they don't sit home all day on their butt. Yes, a fender bender would be worse than the bumps in a trailer. However, fender benders don't happen often and besides, car seats are specifically designed to protect against these types of forces if something does happen. My point was that somebody should improve trailer set-ups to make the bumpy ride not a problem, thus making cycling as a major form of transportation feasible for more people.

The only thing unrealistic about it is that there are, unfortunately, many people who are perfectly willing to compromise the safety of children for the convenience of the automobile, but then go ahead and talk about how other modes of transit can't be accepted because they aren't sufficiently safe. I know plenty of mothers who get around with their infants just fine on foot. No need to go barreling down the road at 40+ mph with your infant strapped to a piece of safety engineered plastic.

BTW, gcl8a thinks that current bicycle trailers are perfectly safe for infants if used properly.

The only thing unrealistic about it is that there are, unfortunately, many people who are perfectly willing to compromise the safety of children for the convenience of the automobile, but then go ahead and talk about how other modes of transit can't be accepted because they aren't sufficiently safe. I know plenty of mothers who get around with their infants just fine on foot. No need to go barreling down the road at 40+ mph with your infant strapped to a piece of safety engineered plastic.

BTW, gcl8a thinks that current bicycle trailers are perfectly safe for infants if used properly.

Well, maybe there is a way to set up a car seat in current trailers that works--I don't know enough about what people have done and how good it is. It's just that if I were the mother of a young infant, I would be very cautious about doing this if there is not sufficient evidence that it is safe--I'd like to see some research into whether jury-rigging current setups is OK and how to make sure they are safe. And I agree that getting around on foot is a good way to avoid these issues--for the trips that are short enough. Some aren't but would still be perfectly reasonable to bike instead of driving.

But it's not more efficient. It's only perceived by some people as more efficient because they ignore the total cost of driving. When you factor in the cost of human life and the cost to the environment, then driving a car doesn't seem efficient at all (I would also add the astronomical prices of gas, insurance, and the vehicle itself, but, as much as it baffles me, I have to conclude that most people are actually aware of these costs).

I'm not sure people actually are aware of these costs. Or rather, I think think they mental account for car expenses in very different ways. The very largest expenses are the fixed costs like depreciation, financing, insurance, and registration, but you only pay them once a month, or every six months, or in the case of depreciation, when you sell the car, so it's a lot easier to forget about them, or just treat them as a normal expense like rent or mortgage. The only car expense that people seem to scream about is gas, which is actually a relatively small fraction of car expenses for most people, and also the one that they have the greatest ability to control over the short term.

I also think most people forget that if they want to stay in good health then they'll have to ride those miles (or the equivalent) regardless of whether or not they use the car. So what's more efficient, riding a bike to the store to get the groceries or driving a car and running in a gerbil wheel when you get home?

I think people don't exercise for similar reasons that they don't ride a bike. They are too lazy and/or too busy. Americans try to lose weight with fad diets, not through exercise, because changing one's lifestyle to incorporate regular exercise is just too hard.

Not everyone lives in a warm sunny clime.

Are you seriously thinking that in temps below 15 degress celcius that people are going to use the cycle as an alternative mode of transportation. Most casual cyclists won't even pull their bikes out for a recreational ride below that threshold. So for much of the country 7 months of the year are too cold. Also, count out all trips from dusk to dawn. People will not ride in the dark.
This is really a matter of public ignorance rather than reality. I ride all year in Michigan, and I almost never experience discomfort. (When I am uncomfortable, it's from heat, rain or the wind, never from the cold.) I work second shift, so I ride home at 11:30 PM, in the dark obviously. Again, no particular problem since I have the right equipment.

It's unfortunate that this prejudice against "bad" weather is so widespread. Most people are prisoners for half the year, and they don't even realize it.

I study a lot of history. Prior to the automobile age, people rarely used the weather as an excuse not to go outdoors. All travel took place in the outdoors, and people didn't hibernate like bears. The Indians in my northern area didn't even wear much clothing when they were hunting, even though they were of course identical to us physiologically. The main differences in cold tolerance between earlier people and ourselves are psychological.

This is really a matter of public ignorance rather than reality. I ride all year in Michigan, and I almost never experience discomfort. (When I am uncomfortable, it's from heat, rain or the wind, never from the cold.) I work second shift, so I ride home at 11:30 PM, in the dark obviously. Again, no particular problem since I have the right equipment.

It's unfortunate that this prejudice against "bad" weather is so widespread. Most people are prisoners for half the year, and they don't even realize it.

I study a lot of history. Prior to the automobile age, people rarely used the weather as an excuse not to go outdoors. All travel took place in the outdoors, and people didn't hibernate like bears. The Indians in my northern area didn't even wear much clothing when they were hunting, even though they were of course identical to us physiologically. The main differences in cold tolerance between earlier people and ourselves are psychological.

I would say its more than just psychological. That implies that its just a thought process that differs.
In my opinion its more of a survival skills difference. Native Americans were taught how to survive in the wilderness by their tribe members. They knew how to make tools necessary for hunting, such as arrowheads, bows, and reed arrows. They knew what plants were edible, how to catch fish and snare small animals, and how to cook there food on open fires.

Today, people are taught how to read, write, watch tv, and drive to the store for a box of cheerios.

I would say its more than just psychological. That implies that its just a thought process that differs.
In my opinion its more of a survival skills difference. Native Americans were taught how to survive in the wilderness by their tribe members. They knew how to make tools necessary for hunting, such as arrowheads, bows, and reed arrows. They knew what plants were edible, how to catch fish and snare small animals, and how to cook there food on open fires.

Today, people are taught how to read, write, watch tv, and drive to the store for a box of cheerios.
True enough. But I learned what kind of clothing to wear in the winter, and what kind of tires to put on my bike, and I learned riding skills for different weather conditions. If I coule learn this, others could too. The question is, do they want to learn it?

This is really a matter of public ignorance rather than reality. I ride all year in Michigan, and I almost never experience discomfort. (When I am uncomfortable, it's from heat, rain or the wind, never from the cold.) I work second shift, so I ride home at 11:30 PM, in the dark obviously. Again, no particular problem since I have the right equipment.

I would agree with you completely. As an experienced cyclist, cold and darkness are not much of an impediment at all. With proper equipment, rain isn't uncomfortable, but you still need to deal with wet raingear at your destination. In hot conditions you have to slow down, and/or clean up and change clothes. Wind is just annoying.

The problem is that people are used to travelling in their enclosed, climate controlled vehicle. Any kind of exposure to inclement weather seems like it would be extremely unplesant, even though experienced and well-equipped transportation cyclists know better.

I would say its more than just psychological. That implies that its just a thought process that differs.
In my opinion its more of a survival skills difference. Native Americans were taught how to survive in the wilderness by their tribe members. They knew how to make tools necessary for hunting, such as arrowheads, bows, and reed arrows. They knew what plants were edible, how to catch fish and snare small animals, and how to cook there food on open fires.

Today, people are taught how to read, write, watch tv, and drive to the store for a box of cheerios.

I hope that when I have children, I will be able teach them another model by example. If they see that daddy gets around by bicycle, maybe they will want to ride one too, even after they turn 16.

I hope that when I have children, I will be able teach them another model by example. If they see that daddy gets around by bicycle, maybe they will want to ride one too, even after they turn 16.


That's how change happens. One person makes a change, teaches it to the next generation who hopefully can influence others, and it snowballs from there. Of course it could work the other way too, but its got to start someplace.

I hope that my daughter some day realizes that her dad commuted to work and other places partly to show her that she does not have to be a slave to the current norms here in the US.

What the general public doesn't seem to realize is that the very patern of our urban development that makes the car such an "essential" commodity is a recent invention. No patern of human development uses more energy. If we REALLY want to clean up the environmental mess we've made on this planet we need to start building more compact walkable cities. I won't go into detail on this as there is a plethora of material already available in print, Car-free cities by J.H. Crawford is an excelent starting point.

The problem with bike commuting is you need a certain level of fitness to make it comfortable. To ride through traffic smoothly you need to go fast. And to go fast you need to be fit. Its unfortunate how out-of touch with their bodies North American's have become, the body should be a finely tuned machine of wiry, powerful muscles. Human's used to migrate thousands of miles on foot, hunt and kill enormouse beasts (some believe we may have hunted the mamoth to extinction). Now our bodies serve as little more than tri-pods to mount our head while we watch TV or stare into the computer screen. We are not the same specieces that clawed our way to the top of the food chain any more. People seem to be getting dumber and fatter all the time.

It seems to me that "progress" and "civilization" are killing us slowly.

by the way everyone should read "Limits to growth the thrity year update" this book was initially published in the mid 70's by a group of systems analysts and researchers from MIT they came to the conclusion that our patern of development, based on unconstrained, infinite growth simply can-not continue in a finite environment. As the title may suggest this edition is the modern update with new information but mostly the same conclusions, our outlook has changed little, we only have less time to fix it now. The book delves deeply into analyses of statistics, and geo-political paterns of development, consumption, and resource depletion. A good read for anyone with a mind to the future. If we are to truly change the world, books like this should be mandatory reading in highschool.

Awarness itself does nothing, but awarness is also the starting point of action, and action is something we are in dire need of.

The problem with bike commuting is you need a certain level of fitness to make it comfortable. To ride through traffic smoothly you need to go fast. And to go fast you need to be fit. Its unfortunate how out-of touch with their bodies North American's have become, the body should be a finely tuned machine of wiry, powerful muscles.
I agree with most of what you say, David, although I must say I was not that fit up until recently, when I started riding longer distances in an effort to get in shape. Before that, I had managed to develop a rather prominent 'beer belly', even though I had been commuting by bicycle since the 1970's. So I doubt most folks really need to have such Herculean physiques. Bicycles are such efficient machines that one can get from point A to point B with a minimum of effort.

With the advent of bicycle paths, I've been seeing more and more elderly citizens commuting on their bikes in this fair city, and most of them would not appear to have bodies of steel.

Regards,

Ekdog

It can happen. My kids, 15 and 10, only want to bike to school. They never take the bus. They hate the social environment of the bus. My son has agreed to not get his driver's license until 17 or 18. He doesn't want a car.

They have the freedom of not being tied to a car to do their thing. They have mobility unlike most others of their age.


I hope that when I have children, I will be able teach them another model by example. If they see that daddy gets around by bicycle, maybe they will want to ride one too, even after they turn 16.

So I doubt most folks really need to have such Herculean physiques. Bicycles are such efficient machines that one can get from point A to point B with a minimum of effort.

With the advent of bicycle paths, I've been seeing more and more elderly citizens commuting on their bikes in this fair city, and most of them would not appear to have bodies of steel.


I couldn't agree more. Bicycles are great because you can use them regardless of fitness level.
A hurculean physique is deffinatly not required. I personally don't believe in the bulky "Herculean" ideal of fitness. Gym rats with big muscles are pretty much useless when it comes to real applications of strength and fitness. I'm a canoe tripper. Guys that work out in gym's on machines come on trip full of themselves and their "powerful" physiques, only to get passed on the portage trail by women half their size.
Being massive can be a liability in the wilds, if you get hurt it just means more weight for your Amigo's to evac. Besides, dragging your ass up the side of a mountain in the thin alpine air is hard enough, no point giving yourself more to drag around by bulking up, when you could be stronger, and lighter/more compact from functional training.

Fitness rant over

Being massive can be a liability in the wilds, if you get hurt it just means more weight for your Amigo's to evac.


That's a good point! Now you've made me think of a couple of the guys in my hiking club...they would not be fun to carry out if they ever busted a leg or something! Although, the flip side of that is that if you're really small and one of your bigger companions is the one who gets hurt, it will make evacuating that person more difficult.

I hope that when I have children, I will be able teach them another model by example. If they see that daddy gets around by bicycle, maybe they will want to ride one too, even after they turn 16.
Don't count on it. When I was young my dad biked to work on an old raleigh 3 speed even though he owned two cars and mom didn't drive. It influenced me but not my siblings. My own daughter got many miles of transportation cycling while growing up and was very confident biking in DC traffic and getting around car free. As an adult she is in debt to a fancy car and gave her bike to a friend. Lately she's been talking about going back to biking.

I've been told one major thing when I've talked about bike commuting.

"You're going to get run over by a car."

And, on the roads that I DRIVE on, I would. 55 MPH speed limits (that are often broken,) a few curves where it's hard to see small things ahead (like bikes,) etc., etc.

I think that's the biggest thing. Not the weather. Not the effort, even. The fear of getting run over.

I've been told one major thing when I've talked about bike commuting.

"You're going to get run over by a car."

And, on the roads that I DRIVE on, I would. 55 MPH speed limits (that are often broken,) a few curves where it's hard to see small things ahead (like bikes,) etc., etc.

I think that's the biggest thing. Not the weather. Not the effort, even. The fear of getting run over.
I like to look at it the other way. If I drive, then I might run over a cyclist or pedestrian or crash and kill the passengers of another car. I don't want blood on my hands.

Unfortunately, most people are too selfish to see it that way. They'd rather kill innocent victims than be an innocent victim, even though that very attitude is the only reason anyone has to be killed at all.

And, see, one thing I forgot to mention in that post was, there are other roads that I don't normally drive on, that seem to be more suited towards biking. (Lower traffic and such.) ;)

I've been told one major thing when I've talked about bike commuting.

"You're going to get run over by a car."

And, on the roads that I DRIVE on, I would. 55 MPH speed limits (that are often broken,) a few curves where it's hard to see small things ahead (like bikes,) etc., etc.

I think that's the biggest thing. Not the weather. Not the effort, even. The fear of getting run over.

I have been told that too...and it ain't happened yet. I cycle commuted exclusively for almost 20 years until I took a job where I no longer could (I know stupid me:p ) In over 30+ years of riding(probably in excess of 75,000 miles) I can count the number of wrecks I have had on one hand. Only one involved a motor vehicle and he got the ticket and had to pay. I ride/rode in all weather conditions day and night on most roads. I do draw the line at some major roads with overly high speeds and no shoulders. What is interesting is that my 2 most severe wrecks were during bicycle races:D One on a out and back TT and the other in a closed course crit...I guess we need to regulate them there dangerous races:eek: :rolleyes: Cycling overall is not dangerous if you use common sense and pay attention to your surroundings.

Aaron:)

One thing that's clear is that the reasons most people give for not cycling are MYTHS, pure and simple. That goes for weather, fitness, time needed, traffic dangers and all the other "reasons" given on this thread.

Cycling advocates do almost nothing to bust these myths, unfortunately. Quite the opposite, in fact. Most advocacy, in my opinion, actually does more to scare people away from cycling that it does to promote cycling.

What about a hybrid? That has the upright position but is a little faster than a cruiser. The only disadvantage would be riding in slush/salt/other yuck during the winter--the internal hub gears are supposed to be the best thing for that, rather than derailleurs (although I've never ridded a bike with this setup and am not sure how desirable it would be to have so few gears when riding in hilly terrain like we have here in Worcester County).

That's a good idea, but the sad fact is at least around here 90% of the bikes people use are stump jumpers or mountain bikes. Without baskets, fenders or racks. I see them at the store all the time, lined up on the racks. These are the wrong tool for the job in every respect. But folks have been indoctrinated by LBS and the glossy mags to think that they're the only real bicycles. Folks see my cruiser with its big paniers and basket and they don't really comprehend what they're looking at. A bike that's easy to use in the citiy and can actually carry things! Imagine that.

Are you seriously thinking that in temps below 15 degress celcius that people are going to use the cycle as an alternative mode of transportation. Most casual cyclists won't even pull their bikes out for a recreational ride below that threshold. So for much of the country 7 months of the year are too cold. Also, count out all trips from dusk to dawn. People will not ride in the dark

Really? I'm VERY far from an ubermensch, but I went through an Anchorage winter on my clunky cruiser. And I was by no means the only one riding out below zero f. It's all about perception. Folks will go skiing in those temps, but they have a mental block against going on the bicycle at a tiny fraction of the price of a lift ticket. With modern LED lights, riding in the dark is no longer a problem. The bttys last a long time and the lights are considerably brighter than a car's. I was constantly getting brights flashed at me because my bike lights were too bright.

Folks will go skiing in those temps, but they have a mental block against going on the bicycle at a tiny fraction of the price of a lift ticket.

Very true. I should point that out to my sweetie, who I know would like to go skiing with me some day but pretty much never rides in sub-50-degree weather.

Although I think part of the trouble for many people may be that you're combining two stressful things- traffic and cold.

Very true. I should point that out to my sweetie, who I know would like to go skiing with me some day but pretty much never rides in sub-50-degree weather.

Although I think part of the trouble for many people may be that you're combining two stressful things- traffic and cold.

One point that most people don't factor in when it gets cold, is how you CAN dress and still function on a bicycle.

Given a choice on a nice February Richmond, VA morning (slightly above freezing) between taking out a bicycle for my normal daily workout, and getting the motorcycle out to ride to work, I'll always dive for the motorcycle first, and spend my evenings in the garage on the trainer with the kerosene heater going.

Why? Riding a motorcycle in the cold is easy. You just bundle up, possibly plug in the heated vest, throw your leg over the bike, position yourself and ride. The winter riding gear insulates you, you just stay in one position until you reach your destination, at most having to put your right leg down at stop lights to support the bike until you can move again.

Riding a bicycle in the same conditions means you're going to freeze to a certain extent. Even with actual winter riding gear you can't possibly bundle up nearly as well, since you have to be able to constantly move to make the bicycle function. Which means you're going to be colder. And if the exertion heats you, coasting down a good fast hill takes care of that advantage real quick.

I've always had a lot of admiration for anyone who can ride a bike year round, especially if he doesn't live in the deep south or southern California.

Now our bodies serve as little more than tri-pods to mount our head while we watch TV or stare into the computer screen.

wow man, great sentence..thanks

The frequency of occurrence has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Yes it does. See what this wise man wrote: :D


..Risk is a function of both the probability and the magnitude of the potential loss.

...that the lack of a safe infant-carrying alternative isn't what's holding back America from being car free.

But, I agree, it's a silly argument. Having infants a fairly exceptional case; we need not dwell on it.


But it's not more efficient. It's only perceived by some people as more efficient because they ignore the total cost of driving. When you factor in the cost of human life and the cost to the environment, then driving a car doesn't seem efficient at all (I would also add the astronomical prices of gas, insurance, and the vehicle itself, but, as much as it baffles me, I have to conclude that most people are actually aware of these costs). I also think most people forget that if they want to stay in good health then they'll have to ride those miles (or the equivalent) regardless of whether or not they use the car. So what's more efficient, riding a bike to the store to get the groceries or driving a car and running in a gerbil wheel when you get home?

I'm not sure if we're using efficiency the same. Efficient in terms of natural resources and energy? Biking wins.

But if we're talking efficient in terms of time and some nebulous perception of effort, the car is often more efficient, particularly given the modern infrastructure of the US. I, personally, would prefer to make two big trips to the grocery store each week rather than five little ones. I don't like running errands. I agree that there are lots of lame reasons people give for not cycling, but just to lump them all as ignorant, fat-asses (or selfish, lazy, and impatient), as so many do, does not consider the fact that most people are rational, and make rational decisions, given their circumstances.


BTW, gcl8a thinks that current bicycle trailers are perfectly safe for infants if used properly.

Just for the record: I don't think I said that -- at least I didn't mean it that way. I said young children can be carried in a trailer. But it usually requires some kind of modification. For example, I have friends who fastened their baby carrier in a regular cargo trailer with a cloth draped over it like a conastoga wagon. They could go easily to the store, mostly on MUP's, and such. Pretty cool, but again, we need not dwell on it.

But if we're talking efficient in terms of time and some nebulous perception of effort, the car is often more efficient, particularly given the modern infrastructure of the US. I, personally, would prefer to make two big trips to the grocery store each week rather than five little ones. I don't like running errands. I agree that there are lots of lame reasons people give for not cycling, but just to lump them all as ignorant, fat-asses (or selfish, lazy, and impatient), as so many do, does not consider the fact that most people are rational, and make rational decisions, given their circumstances.
Who said that laziness or selfishness are irrational?

One point that most people don't factor in when it gets cold, is how you CAN dress and still function on a bicycle.

Given a choice on a nice February Richmond, VA morning (slightly above freezing) between taking out a bicycle for my normal daily workout, and getting the motorcycle out to ride to work, I'll always dive for the motorcycle first, and spend my evenings in the garage on the trainer with the kerosene heater going.

Why? Riding a motorcycle in the cold is easy. You just bundle up, possibly plug in the heated vest, throw your leg over the bike, position yourself and ride. The winter riding gear insulates you, you just stay in one position until you reach your destination, at most having to put your right leg down at stop lights to support the bike until you can move again.

Riding a bicycle in the same conditions means you're going to freeze to a certain extent. Even with actual winter riding gear you can't possibly bundle up nearly as well, since you have to be able to constantly move to make the bicycle function. Which means you're going to be colder. And if the exertion heats you, coasting down a good fast hill takes care of that advantage real quick.

I've always had a lot of admiration for anyone who can ride a bike year round, especially if he doesn't live in the deep south or southern California.
Your admiration is misplaced. There's really nothing to it. I live in a much colder climate than you do, I ride year-round and I NEVER get cold. You are totally ignorant when it comes to riding a bicycle in the cold. But don't feel bad, since 99% of the populace shares your ignorance. I imagine you're simply not aware of the winter gear that's available, or else you ride a bike in an unusually energetic or contorted manner. Even normal winter coats and pants and boots work well on a bike. You don't need that expensive crap they sell in bike shops as "cold weather" gear.

But what you say about motorcycles baffles me. Here in Michigan, quite a few people are starting to ride bikes in the winter, but I literally have never seen a motorbike on the road in the four coldest months--not even on the occasional warm days of winter.

But if we're talking efficient in terms of time and some nebulous perception of effort, the car is often more efficient, particularly given the modern infrastructure of the US. I, personally, would prefer to make two big trips to the grocery store each week rather than five little ones. I don't like running errands. I agree that there are lots of lame reasons people give for not cycling, but just to lump them all as ignorant, fat-asses (or selfish, lazy, and impatient), as so many do, does not consider the fact that most people are rational, and make rational decisions, given their circumstances.

Thanks. You answered the original question:

"Why are bikes never mentioned as a mainstream solution to climate change?"

Evidently it does have to do with people being lazy, ignorant, and always in a rush to accomplish...nothing. The indoor bicycle trainer is the perfect metaphor for the Amercan lifestyle. Turning the pedals as fast as you can, but never getting anywhere.

And BTW, "I don't like running errands" Strikes me as a pretty "lame" reason, so I guess I'll lump it where I think it belongs.

That's a good idea, but the sad fact is at least around here 90% of the bikes people use are stump jumpers or mountain bikes. Without baskets, fenders or racks. I see them at the store all the time, lined up on the racks. These are the wrong tool for the job in every respect. But folks have been indoctrinated by LBS and the glossy mags to think that they're the only real bicycles. Folks see my cruiser with its big paniers and basket and they don't really comprehend what they're looking at. A bike that's easy to use in the citiy and can actually carry things! Imagine that.

My brother was recently diagnosed with epilepsy, so for the next several months at least, he can't drive a car. Insetad, he'll be getting a bicycle for personal transportation. His top two choices for type of bicycle are BMX or mountain bike. I tried to explain to him the value of a bicycle equipped for utility cycling, but he just wants a bike that looks cool.

On the other hand, I regularly get compliments on my Breezer Uptown 8 from my work colleges from China and India, because they seem to be able to appreciate the value of a bicycle designed for transportation.

iding a bicycle in the same conditions means you're going to freeze to a certain extent. Even with actual winter riding gear you can't possibly bundle up nearly as well, since you have to be able to constantly move to make the bicycle function. Which means you're going to be colder. And if the exertion heats you, coasting down a good fast hill takes care of that advantage real quick.

My experience with cold weather cycling is limited to the West Coast, where it doesn't usually get much below freezing. Under these conditions a least, dressing for cold weather cycling is just a matter of proper layering. One wind blocking layer, and one or two insulating layers is usually quite sufficient. After I get warmed up, typically after five or ten minutes, I may have to remove an insulating layer to keep from overheating. If I anticipate a long downhill, (e.g. on an early season or late season training ride), where the exertion won't be sufficient to keep me warm, I'll add a layer or two to stay warm.

I've always had a lot of admiration for anyone who can ride a bike year round, especially if he doesn't live in the deep south or southern California.

I think most of the West Coast qualifies as easy for year round biking, for those who are willing to invest a little bit in equipment. The temperatures rarely get much below freezing, and rain can easily be handled with raingear. The really diehard winter cyclists are those in the Midwest and Northeast that have to deal with sub-zero Ferenheit temperatures, snow, ice, slush, and salt. I'm not sure even I am that hardy!

Thanks. You answered the original question:

"Why are bikes never mentioned as a mainstream solution to climate change?"

Evidently it does have to do with people being lazy, ignorant, and always in a rush to accomplish...nothing. The indoor bicycle trainer is the perfect metaphor for the Amercan lifestyle. Turning the pedals as fast as you can, but never getting anywhere.

And BTW, "I don't like running errands" Strikes me as a pretty "lame" reason, so I guess I'll lump it where I think it belongs.

So you like going to the store, wandering through the aisles, standing in line, etc., etc.? I don't consider that a good time, even though I do get a ride in to and fro. And who said anything about doing nothing? Do we all need to give you a list of our non-cycling hobbies and activities so we can get the Roody Stamp of Approval(TM) for our life-styles?

<...shakes head in wonder while climbing down ladder from Roody's high horse...>