I would like to know why bikes are never mentioned by mainstream media, mainstream politicians, and even mainstream environmental activitists as a solution to global climate change?
Transportation is one of the largest contributors of greenhouse cas emissions in America. It is clear that any solution to climate change needs to address this source of emissions. However, the solutions that are proposed seem to be things like biofuels, hybrid cars, plug-in hybrids, electric cars, or hydrogen cars. It's true that all of these can reduce our emissions, it just doesn't seem like they go far enough. The best science I've seen suggests that we need to reduce our abosolute emissions by about 80% over the next forty years or so.
Bicycles are the ultimate zero emissions vehicle. And over half of all trips in America are under 5 miles. Yet no one in the mainstream ever seems to consider the possibility that we could take steps to encourage more people to replace some of there car trips with bike trips. This would be the quickest and cheapest way to reduce our transportation-related carbon dioxide emissions.
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
One it is rather inexpensive compared to others as revuenue for companies.
Not to many groups lobby government because of number one, or are very small and not diversified.
Doesn't promote sprawl IE high housing costs (house),
Consumer spending would take a hit.
5. Not alot of people want to do it.
The enviroment they are in doesn't support them so you would need to spend lots of tax dollars see 5.
bragi
What wheel said. Basically, there's not a whole lot of money involved in bike tranport, so few people are going to spend much time promoting it, despite its obvious benefits. Besides, in many parts of the US most people are simply too fat and out of shape to even ride a bike five miles.
The best, perhaps only, way to make bikes a relevant form of transportation in North America is to stop subsidizing car infrastructure. If drivers had to shoulder the true cost of driving the SUV to the box store, far fewer people would be eager to do it. And of course this will never, ever happen.
folder fanatic
The time has not arrived for the bicycle-yet.
Icycle
It seems to me that the best, easiest, and cheapest ways to address climate change are things like conservation and efficiency. Biking is an excellent example of efficiency in the transportation sector. But things like better insulation, CF lights, and even just setting your thermostat more conservatively are all good examples.
It seems to me that in most cases, there are few vested interests who stand to make money from efficiency and conservation measures, and very large, powerful vested interests who stand to lose money. For example, why would an electric company support measures to reduce electricity consumption when they can make more money by adding generating capacity?
There is much social good in reducing consumption, but there is no one with political power to support such solutions. :(
Artkansas
Good Point.
I'm reading WorldChanging : a user's guide for the 21st century, edited by Alex Steffen. While it's 600 pages of good ideas about working towards a better planet, bicycles are only mentioned a couple of times and the biggest mention is Critical Mass. While he doesn't have a big business priority, (Victor Papanek gets more space than bicycles do) I think that to those thinking on a mega scale, that the bicycle is just too obvious to get much notice. Like a prophet in its own land, people think they know the bicycle, but they know it as a recreational toy and that blinds them.
ModoVincere
It seems to me that the best, easiest, and cheapest ways to address climate change are things like conservation and efficiency. Biking is an excellent example of efficiency in the transportation sector. But things like better insulation, CF lights, and even just setting your thermostat more conservatively are all good examples.
It seems to me that in most cases, there are few vested interests who stand to make money from efficiency and conservation measures, and very large, powerful vested interests who stand to lose money. For example, why would an electric company support measures to reduce electricity consumption when they can make more money by adding generating capacity?
There is much social good in reducing consumption, but there is no one with political power to support such solutions. :(
As someone who worke in a utility planning department just less than a year ago, there are other reasons why a utility company does not want to add generating capacity. These include regulatory issues, regulatory uncertainty, costs, and fuel conservation. The basic fact of the matter is that it is a pain in the arse for utilities to have to add add'l capacity. There are only so many viable places to add a plant, and the people around those places generally don't want a power plant in their backyard. In fact it referred to by the term NIMBY (not in my back yard). The utility companies are generally heavily regulated, both environmentally and fiscally, and therefore would rather spend time on improving efficience rather than adding a new facility with scrubbers and other mandated environmental technology. In fact, many existing plants have to be retrofitted with newer environmental technologies in order to maintain existing capacity. The utilities finances are being stretched pretty thin by this fact, and there is just not that much capitol available for new generating facilities. Also, many in the industry recognise the scarcity of the fuels that are burned to generate power. They would much rather do more with what we have ( improve efficiency) than burn up more coal or oil.
Basically, the utility companies are for conservation, not against it.
cerewa
Basically, the utility companies are for conservation, not against it.
My utility companies are in the habit of sending out flyers that encourage consumers to conserve energy by using good insulation, etc. I figure that part of the reason for this is that if they provide you with utility service and you can't pay (due to rising costs of fuels, or whatever) then they lose money.
Trek Al
I thought cow flatulence was the biggest factor in greenhouse gas.
Al
wheel
My utility companies are in the habit of sending out flyers that encourage consumers to conserve energy by using good insulation, etc. I figure that part of the reason for this is that if they provide you with utility service and you can't pay (due to rising costs of fuels, or whatever) then they lose money.
They should send out flyers to devlopers for geodesic homes
old and new
Priorities,mis-guided ones,that's the only reason that bikes are all but ignored.A fighter jet costs the same as it would to provide certain major cities with a kick-ass bike path system. 20 million $$ goes a long way.
Dahon.Steve
I would like to know why bikes are never mentioned by mainstream media, mainstream politicians, and even mainstream environmental activitists as a solution to global climate change?
The reason why bikes are not mentioned because mainstream media is looking for a solution that uses a motor and some sort of alternative fuel. Plain and simple. A human powered machine will never be considered because the media will not give up the motorcar for transportation.
bragi
I thought cow flatulence was the biggest factor in greenhouse gas.
Al
I hope you're kidding...
http://www.ipcc.ch/
gerv
I think cycling and walking as a mode of transportation are just too obvious. As a society addicted to technology fixes, we are waiting for the next evolution of the car. Problem is, there isn't really a progression in that direction. We need to change our thinking a little. Instead of hoping for fixes from the technologists, maybe it is time for the historians and humanists to point out that we have had solutions to the problem of transportation... ie, try walking for a change...
Bikepacker67
I thought cow flatulence was the biggest factor in greenhouse gas.
Al
Even if that were true, it would still mean that humans are causing global warming.
You don't think it's the cows that are slashing and burning the rainforests just so they can be a MickieD's hamburger, do ya?
stevesurf
Bicycles are the ultimate zero emissions vehicle. And over half of all trips in America are under 5 miles.
They are also the most efficient delivery vehicle for many urban areas around the world. I know of a major internet retailer that has made specific provisions for mass package delivery via bike for those 5 mile and under trips.
Ekdog
Transportation is one of the largest contributors of greenhouse [gas] emissions in America.
Dear Icycle,
My understanding is that vehicles are only responsible for about 30% of the greenhouse gases produced by the world's biggest polluter, the United States, so even if everyone there started cycling tomorrow, we would still have to deal with the other 70%, a large part of which is produced by coal-burning power plants. In China, which is number two in greenhouse gas emissions, there are plans afoot to build another 500 coal-burning generators.
The United States needs to get its own house in order and then start leading on this issue. (Is that going to happen with the current administration in power? Hardly, but once there is a more progressive president in the White House...). The best way to deal with the issue, top environmentalists like Patrick Moore and James Lovelock now concede, is to rethink our stance on nuclear power (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6172217). The French and Japanese are moving ahead, building nuclear plants using advanced technology developed by the United States. It is high time the U.S. started doing the same and cooperating with the Chinese to help them put as many of their coal-burning plants out of commission as is possible.
Regards,
Ekdog
bmike
I think unheeded consumption is the largest contributor - and by this I mean both goods and services that are consumed at an unprececdented rate + all the transport and moving about the make it all happen....
There are just soo many people driving so many cars buying so much stuff. I shudder to think of what happens when China comes online 100% and starts consuming as much as a typical US household.
I love bikes and think they fit into the puzzle of climate change - but they are not a silver bullet - and I don't think there is one other than figuring out what the hell we're all doing here.
Whats a purposeful life and what makes us happy. Money? Family? Minivans full of sporting goods? Comfortable houses? Filled with tons of plastic stuff? Simpler life foraging and farming for food amongst friends and neighbors? Buying the latest and greatest (including bike stuff) and filling our lives with it to somhow give it all meaning? Vacationing in far off lands when we don't even know our neighbors let alone the names of the creeks and trees just down the road? Strawberries in the middle of winter in a northern climate?
etc. etc.
Not sure we'll ever really change... solutions that focus on creating gadgets and technologies to 'help' with our situation will only take us so far. The real solutions lie within - and thats a place that the media, politicians, oil companies, and WalMart only go to when they need to scare us (or provide an emotional response) into voting or buying something.
Lets change the world starts with lets change me (I'm a sinner of the first order in the church of the car free living and the choir of global warming) and then work it into your community and hopefully your bioregion. Doubtful that it can come from the top down, unless its under force - be them 'free' market or guns.
gwd
The Chicagoans say that biking is promoted by the mayor there. That seems pretty mainstream to me. Also there used to be a congressman from Oregon who biked around DC, congressmen seem pretty mainstream. DC is installing transportational cycling infrastructure like crazy too. We're getting more and more intelligently designed bike parking at transit hubs. It looks to me like it is just the mass communications companies who haven't recognized the changes around them. Reporting on bike transportation still seems like freak show reporting when it occurs. As far as any "mainstream" environmental activists. They probably drive around themselves so if they promoted cycling then they'd be branded as hypocrites for their own transportation choices. Outsiders can't tell much about their home conservation but their transportation choices are transparent. I understand Ralph Nader doesn't drive he seems pretty mainstream.
garyj
Because Al Gore isn't promoting it. He's too busy explaining his electric bill.
kjohnnytarr
Also, I think bikes conflict with people's image of a leisure culture. Leisure = inactivity, in the eyes of some.
The Historian
I would like to know why bikes are never mentioned by mainstream media, mainstream politicians, and even mainstream environmental activitists as a solution to global climate change?
Transportation is one of the largest contributors of greenhouse cas emissions in America. It is clear that any solution to climate change needs to address this source of emissions. However, the solutions that are proposed seem to be things like biofuels, hybrid cars, plug-in hybrids, electric cars, or hydrogen cars. It's true that all of these can reduce our emissions, it just doesn't seem like they go far enough. The best science I've seen suggests that we need to reduce our abosolute emissions by about 80% over the next forty years or so.
Bicycles are the ultimate zero emissions vehicle. And over half of all trips in America are under 5 miles. Yet no one in the mainstream ever seems to consider the possibility that we could take steps to encourage more people to replace some of there car trips with bike trips. This would be the quickest and cheapest way to reduce our transportation-related carbon dioxide emissions.
"Time magazine's latest issue has an article on "51 Things We Can Do" to help combat global warming. You won't find the word "bicycle" in the article, despite the green nature of the bike and bike riding. You do find a great deal of discussion on automobiles. I suppose that's because GM and Toyota advertise in Time, and Cannondale and Trek don't."
Roody
Also, I think bikes conflict with people's image of a leisure culture. Leisure = inactivity, in the eyes of some.
Maybe, but the oppoite is also true. Most Americans see bikes as toys or sporting equipment. They're unaware of the serious work we get done with bikes. The advantage of 2 smooth-running wheels eludes them.
However, I count more utility and commuting cyclists every year. Even in midwinter here in Michigan, I saw a lot of cyclists. A few years ago, I was the only one. So progress is being made.
"Time magazine's latest issue has an article on "51 Things We Can Do" to help combat global warming. You won't find the word "bicycle" in the article, despite the green nature of the bike and bike riding. You do find a great deal of discussion on automobiles. I suppose that's because GM and Toyota advertise in Time, and Cannondale and Trek don't."
I read that and it does talk about the bicycle as in adding more bike lanes and so on in the article. I will also say they said nothing about living car-free. When I first skimmed over that article I was like WTF no bikes. Then I read into it deeper and found a couple but not in the titles.
kjohnnytarr
Maybe, but the oppoite is also true. Most Americans see bikes as toys or sporting equipment. They're unaware of the serious work we get done with bikes. The advantage of 2 smooth-running wheels eludes them.
However, I count more utility and commuting cyclists every year. Even in midwinter here in Michigan, I saw a lot of cyclists. A few years ago, I was the only one. So progress is being made.
So true! Damned if you do, damned if you don't, right? Luckily, bikes are becoming more stylish to many.
wahoonc
Couple of things came to mind...
One is that people are looking at trying to maintain the status quo of personal transportation, in most peoples eyes a bike is not serious transportation, I mean, you get wet if it rains, you can't pile the kids in and drive 60 miles to grandma's house on Sundays, it doesn't come with DVD player, air conditioner or cruise control. Most Americans are not looking out side the box.
And Two as someone pointed out..."follow the money" Why are we using Corn based ETOH instead of Jerusalem Artichokes...follow the money. It is almost always about the money. Look at how closely the oil and automotive industries are linked...follow the money. It is the American Way....follow the money.:p
Aaron:)
Lurch
I think unheeded consumption is the largest contributor - and by this I mean both goods and services that are consumed at an unprececdented rate + all the transport and moving about the make it all happen....
I couldn't say it better so I won't even try.
Kimber
In the present culture (the car culture) it can be very dangerous to ride a bike; the infrastructure isn’t there to make it viable for many. Second there are many people who wouldn’t be capable of riding a bike around the block much less 10 or 15 miles one way to work. In this obese society (U.S.) I don’t expect to see this change soon.
gcl8a
My utility companies are in the habit of sending out flyers that encourage consumers to conserve energy by using good insulation, etc. I figure that part of the reason for this is that if they provide you with utility service and you can't pay (due to rising costs of fuels, or whatever) then they lose money.
Most conservation promotions by utility companies are not directed at curtailing use (kilowatt-hours) per se, but demand (kilowatts). Electricity plants typically have huge loads during the day, and run far below capacity at night. The power company's goal is to level the difference. Then they can sell more electricity without having to build more power plants. Fuel is cheap. Adding capacity is expensive.
gcl8a
"Time magazine's latest issue has an article on "51 Things We Can Do" to help combat global warming. You won't find the word "bicycle" in the article, despite the green nature of the bike and bike riding. You do find a great deal of discussion on automobiles. I suppose that's because GM and Toyota advertise in Time, and Cannondale and Trek don't."
No s**t. Ford has a commercial over here for a hybrid car, where the car is covered in plants and driving around scenic parts of Norway or something like that. The tag line is something about how environmentally friendly the car is. I give them props for trying, but increasing the efficiency of a car by 10% or whatever hardly qualifies for 'saving the planet' status.
Or is it Saab.
kf5nd
I think of it like this: driving a Hummer is like shooting Mother Earth in the head with a .45. Driving a Prius is like shooting her with a .22.
Either way, a ****ty way to treat your Mother.
....increasing the efficiency of a car by 10% or whatever hardly qualifies for 'saving the planet' status.
Or is it Saab.
travisthomas
Cows are the largest source of methane, but that's only one greenhouse gas of many. And cows as a source of greenhouse gases is still human-caused, because they're all being farmed for consumption.
Icycle
I'm reminded of the pro-carbon dioxide ads produced by the Competitive Enterprise Institute last year. At one point in the "Glaciers" ad, the voice-over says the environmentalists want to force people to cut back, and the video is of a bundled-up, wrong-way, sidewalk cyclist, struggling through snow and slush.
Roody
I'm reminded of the pro-carbon dioxide ads produced by the Competitive Enterprise Institute last year. At one point in the "Glaciers" ad, the voice-over says the environmentalists want to force people to cut back, and the video is of a bundled-up, wrong-way, sidewalk cyclist, struggling through snow and slush.
And they still haven't sent me the check for appearing in the ad!
:mad:
spiderbike
Is small temperature change caused by carbon? Juries still out
On a better note...bike paths are like the field of dreams "If you build it they will come". If we build bike paths they will be used. It cost between 1 to 10 million dollars to build a mile of highway. You could build some great paths with that money. I would love to ride my bike to work laughing at the poor guy stuck in a stressing out in a traffic jam on his commute to work.
Its too bad those liberals waste money on that social security crap!
bmike
Is small temperature change caused by carbon?
not carbon, just carbon fiber.
Jury is in, in terms of human impact on climate. (http://www.ipcc.ch/)
Ziemas
I would like to know why bikes are never mentioned by mainstream media, mainstream politicians, and even mainstream environmental activitists as a solution to global climate change?
Transportation is one of the largest contributors of greenhouse cas emissions in America. It is clear that any solution to climate change needs to address this source of emissions. However, the solutions that are proposed seem to be things like biofuels, hybrid cars, plug-in hybrids, electric cars, or hydrogen cars. It's true that all of these can reduce our emissions, it just doesn't seem like they go far enough. The best science I've seen suggests that we need to reduce our abosolute emissions by about 80% over the next forty years or so.
Bicycles are the ultimate zero emissions vehicle. And over half of all trips in America are under 5 miles. Yet no one in the mainstream ever seems to consider the possibility that we could take steps to encourage more people to replace some of there car trips with bike trips. This would be the quickest and cheapest way to reduce our transportation-related carbon dioxide emissions.
Because not everyone lives in a sunny, warm, climate. Right now people are looking for global solutions, not local ones.
Roody
Because not everyone lives in a sunny, warm, climate. Right now people are looking for global solutions, not local ones.
Um, lots of us ride in less than ideal climates now. And I don't just mean ride on dog sleds! And strangely, a large proportion of the earth's population lived in cold regions prior to the automobile age.
Icycle
Because not everyone lives in a sunny, warm, climate. Right now people are looking for global solutions, not local ones.
But cycling is a local solution to a global problem. And while I don't expect everyone to ride bikes for every trip, even if people just cycled for trips of 5 miles (8 km) or less when the weather was pleasant, it would go a long way towards reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Furthermore, having a warm, sunny local climate is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for high rates of transportational cycling. In Europe and North America, the cities with the highest rates of cycling are places like Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Toronto, San Francisco, and Portland, none of which are particularly known for their pleasant climates. Likewise, places with very pleasant climates like San Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego don't have particularly high rates of cycling.
scottyk
Plus, if people biked to work in the summer, it would cut down on smog when it is worst.
Wogsterca
Because not everyone lives in a sunny, warm, climate. Right now people are looking for global solutions, not local ones.
Maybe there is no global solution, instead there are different solutions in different places. Cycling does work in many places, and with a multi-speed hub and an enclosed chain, the bicycle can work quite well, even in colder climates, in winter. Actually winter riding isn't that much more difficult, you just need to dress properly for it. Just ask the nice folks at Icebike.com (http://www.icebike.com)
Another possibiliity for Winter is the Velomobile. By taking a common recumbent tricycle and adding a fibreglass shell, you have a pedal powered vehicle, you can ride in just about any kind of weather, it wouldn't take much to add MTB tires for snow. I am sure that the manufacturers could easily add a second rider position, in either a side by side or one behind the other configuration. They are not cheap, but then cars are not cheap either, and a velo will pay for itself in gas savings in under a year. I also expect that once they become common, the prices would come down.
I was in a large hardware store yesterday, and they had a display of electric scooters and mopeds, you should have seen the crowd, but then Gas has been expensive again lately. So people are looking for their own solutions. Perhaps that IS the global solution, increase the price of gas to the point, where people look for solutions on their own.
treehugger
But cycling is a local solution to a global problem. And while I don't expect everyone to ride bikes for every trip, even if people just cycled for trips of 5 miles (8 km) or less when the weather was pleasant, it would go a long way towards reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
The US has a majorly car-centric culture, and people here tend to think within that framework. Bicycling has its own concerns and limitations (weather, must be able-bodied). On top of that, the entire infrastructure of American society is based around the idea that people will not use their own bodies' energy to get from point A to point B. These solutions within that framework have the advantage of seeming palatable and practical, they has the disadvantage of not really addressing a major factor at the center of many global and environmental and violence issues throughout the world.
To a stereotypically sedentary US residents under a bunch of snow in a town with no bike lanes, bicycling seems really far out there as a practical solution. Event to not-sedentary people, this car-attached mindset develops. There have been, if not numerous, certainly multiple, times where I have had to talk compatriots out of driving from one end of a parking lot to another. Not to pick up huge amounts of groceries or furniture or something, just to go to a different store. Across a parking lot. Not a huge amusement park parking lot either. One of these people had hiked the entire Appalachian trail (about 2,000 miles). Another one was an activist with "Every Bike a Love Affair, Every Car a Murder" tattood on her body. There is just a mindset that develops. To other thoughtful folk who know lots of these people, bicycling also just seems too far out there when talking about these things on a wide scale.
But not to everyone.
On Saturday there were a bunch of actions around the US asking Congress to cut back carbon emissions 80% by 2050. If you look at the photos, a few of them (such as Brattlboro, VT and Noank, CT) feature bicycling as explicitly linked to curbing climate change (http://stepitup2007.org/ ).
I also love trying to help bicycles be seen as a (not the) solution to global ailments. I love showing up at peace events with my bicycle. I have a sign (like a fake license plate) saying "Bicycling: A Quiet Statement Against Oil Wars". Sometimes I have it, sometimes I don't. I think bicycling can be a statement in and of itself, when it occurs in an environment overly consumtive and outright hostile to alternative transportation as the US.
Recently an article about a population activist from the group formerly known as Zero Population Growth was placed into my hands. It talked about the author's changing views from a car ride of suburban sprawl and fewer animals. I kept wanting the author to get out of her car. I just kept thinking, I don't know how many people the Earth can support, but I know that it can support a lot fewer cars, if any. And I own one, which might point back to the entrenchment, not that it lets me off the hook.
Frugle
As an outside source, who doesn't believe the same things you do about conserveration as strongly as you do, I would like to play the advocate, just to give a second opinion.
a bike will NEVER be considered as a solution..
1) it is man powered... simple as that. NOBODY wants to take a 300 mile trip on a man powered vehicle. nor do they want to spend an hour and a half riding to the grocery store, when they can do it in 20 minutes in their car. Nor do they want to try to fit an entire week of food for a family on the back of a bike that they have to ride for the next hour to get home.
2) it is completely impractical. climate itself makes it not an option for 95% of Americans... you may be willing to ride through sleet to stop global warming, but nobody else is.
3) Take me for example, i live in the middle of one GIANT circle. I work in atlanta....and unless you are making $500,000+ there is no way you are going to be able to live in atlanta....so I live inthe suburban outskirts... however I also work all around, everywhere I have to go is a minimum of 45 minutes, just becuase I don't do anything close. I work as a contract production manager, so I go all over to the job sites (north south east and west), I DRIVE an HOUR AND FOURTY FIVE MINUTES south east to school every tuesday and thursday, I drive 50 minutes north east to church every sunday, and several times during the week. I drive 40 minutes south west to get to another class on wednesdays,
Believe it or not, you live in a modern world, and it is impractical to expect to live within 5 minutes of EVERYTHING you will ever need. THUS a bike is an impractical and rediculous solution to climate change.
we need a motorized system that is efficient and eco-healthy while maintaining speed.
CommuterRun
Bottom line on why more people don't ride when they could, and why it's the elephant in the room that's never mentioned? People are intrinsically lazy.
80º out? It's too hot.
60º out? It's too cold.
It's too wet.
It's too dry.
10 miles? It's too far.
I have too much to carry. (What's a bicycle trailer? Somebody makes those?)
I have to go 60 miles to work. (I base my lifestyle descisions on always having a cheap and constant supply of fuel and a car).
It's too dangerous.
There's always an excuse.
The technology and the infrastructure are here to get the U.S. off foreign oil and Americans are too selfish and lazy to take advantage of it to help their country.
kf5nd
Frugle,
A see that you can't do much about your work commute, but why do you live so far from church? Is it a very small and specialized church that has few branches?
we need a motorized system that is efficient and eco-healthy while maintaining speed.
Sounds like you're talking about trains.
Ziemas
Um, lots of us ride in less than ideal climates now. And I don't just mean ride on dog sleds! And strangely, a large proportion of the earth's population lived in cold regions prior to the automobile age.
I ride all winter too, and I live in Latvia. I just don't have the unrealistic expectation that a large enough section of the population to make any significant difference will choose to do this.
Not to mention the societies which we live in have changed drastically in the last 100 years.
Roody
As an outside source, who doesn't believe the same things you do about conserveration as strongly as you do, I would like to play the advocate, just to give a second opinion.
a bike will NEVER be considered as a solution..
1) it is man powered... simple as that. NOBODY wants to take a 300 mile trip on a man powered vehicle. nor do they want to spend an hour and a half riding to the grocery store, when they can do it in 20 minutes in their car. Nor do they want to try to fit an entire week of food for a family on the back of a bike that they have to ride for the next hour to get home.
2) it is completely impractical. climate itself makes it not an option for 95% of Americans... you may be willing to ride through sleet to stop global warming, but nobody else is.
3) Take me for example, i live in the middle of one GIANT circle. I work in atlanta....and unless you are making $500,000+ there is no way you are going to be able to live in atlanta....so I live inthe suburban outskirts... however I also work all around, everywhere I have to go is a minimum of 45 minutes, just becuase I don't do anything close. I work as a contract production manager, so I go all over to the job sites (north south east and west), I DRIVE an HOUR AND FOURTY FIVE MINUTES south east to school every tuesday and thursday, I drive 50 minutes north east to church every sunday, and several times during the week. I drive 40 minutes south west to get to another class on wednesdays,
Believe it or not, you live in a modern world, and it is impractical to expect to live within 5 minutes of EVERYTHING you will ever need. THUS a bike is an impractical and rediculous solution to climate change.
we need a motorized system that is efficient and eco-healthy while maintaining speed.
You are not talking about inherent flaws in bicycles. You are talking about inherent flaws in the American infrastructure. This is a crucial distinction. Cars will be king as long as the world is built to accomodate cars. Here's an illustration of this point:
I read about a "little person" years ago. He said that he had enormous difficulties using the bathrooms in the homes of his "normal" sized friends. Half the time he ended up piddling on the floor because the toilet was high, and he couldn't even reach the taps on the sink to wash his hands. This made him feel like a handicapped person, or even a freak.
This little person had the floor of his own bathroom built up by 8 or 10 inches. This simple modification allowed him to function perfectly in his own toilet. However, when his friends visited his bathroom, they couldn't get off the toilet once they sat down, and they strained their backs when they tried to reach the sink. Suddenly, these "big people" were the freaks or the handicapped ones.
In a similar way, cyclists like us are currently freaks in our own communities. The roads, parking lots, traffic control devices are all geared to the automobile, so we feel handicapped when we try to use them. With a few simple modifications to the infrastructure, this situation would be reversed. Then, suddenly, motorists would be handicapped and we cyclists would be the "able" or "normal" ones.
Roody
I ride all winter too, and I live in Latvia. I just don't have the unrealistic expectation that a large enough section of the population to make any significant difference will choose to do this.
.
If you ride all winter, you know that you never need to feel cold or uncomfortable if your gear is correct. Why is that you're smart enough to figure this out, but the other Latvians are not?
Not to mention the societies which we live in have changed drastically in the last 100 years.
Yes.....and how are we to believe that our societies won't change just as much in the next 100 years?
Change the infrastructure and society will follow.
treehugger
Did you know that precisely 96% of statistics are made up on the spot? :)
A slightly more accurate statement might say:
Climate makes bicycling challenging for some or much of the year for many Americans.
However, if everyone only rode when it wasn't sleeting, that would still be many more people riding than there are now.
Atlanta is a notorious car-centered sprawling city, and your situation is entirely people-constructed. Your situation highlights why bicycling is much more effective as a mainstream solution than as an individual statement. Cities built around alternative transit, including bicycling, walking, and public transit, would make biking, and other car-free and car-lite lifestyles, a much more reasonable option for mainstream Americans.
You don't need to live in a world where everything you would ever need is availabe by bike in order to be able to curb emmissions by mainstreaming bicycle commuting much more effectively than making driving monstrosities slightly more efficient or switching to a different fuel source.
People's motivations are a complicated thing, they might be naturally lazy given certain conditions. This indicates that education and cheerleading alone are not going to change major lifestyle issues. What might would be something like paying closer to the real cost of gas given the externality that our grandchildren won't have a climate if we keep burning it. Or not subsidizing SUVs. And making public transit much better. People act like driving whatever they want anywhere is some g-d given right, and it's not. At least not as much as a right as, say, being able to breathe and live because our ancestors didn't treat the Earth like there was no tommorow.
As an outside source, who doesn't believe the same things you do about conserveration as strongly as you do, I would like to play the advocate, just to give a second opinion.
a bike will NEVER be considered as a solution..
1) it is man powered... simple as that. NOBODY wants to take a 300 mile trip on a man powered vehicle. nor do they want to spend an hour and a half riding to the grocery store, when they can do it in 20 minutes in their car. Nor do they want to try to fit an entire week of food for a family on the back of a bike that they have to ride for the next hour to get home.
2) it is completely impractical. climate itself makes it not an option for 95% of Americans... you may be willing to ride through sleet to stop global warming, but nobody else is.
3) Take me for example, i live in the middle of one GIANT circle. I work in atlanta....and unless you are making $500,000+ there is no way you are going to be able to live in atlanta....so I live inthe suburban outskirts... however I also work all around, everywhere I have to go is a minimum of 45 minutes, just becuase I don't do anything close. I work as a contract production manager, so I go all over to the job sites (north south east and west), I DRIVE an HOUR AND FOURTY FIVE MINUTES south east to school every tuesday and thursday, I drive 50 minutes north east to church every sunday, and several times during the week. I drive 40 minutes south west to get to another class on wednesdays,
Believe it or not, you live in a modern world, and it is impractical to expect to live within 5 minutes of EVERYTHING you will ever need. THUS a bike is an impractical and rediculous solution to climate change.
we need a motorized system that is efficient and eco-healthy while maintaining speed.
Wogsterca
As an outside source, who doesn't believe the same things you do about conserveration as strongly as you do, I would like to play the advocate, just to give a second opinion.
a bike will NEVER be considered as a solution..
1) it is man powered... simple as that. NOBODY wants to take a 300 mile trip on a man powered vehicle. nor do they want to spend an hour and a half riding to the grocery store, when they can do it in 20 minutes in their car. Nor do they want to try to fit an entire week of food for a family on the back of a bike that they have to ride for the next hour to get home.
2) it is completely impractical. climate itself makes it not an option for 95% of Americans... you may be willing to ride through sleet to stop global warming, but nobody else is.
3) Take me for example, i live in the middle of one GIANT circle. I work in atlanta....and unless you are making $500,000+ there is no way you are going to be able to live in atlanta....so I live inthe suburban outskirts... however I also work all around, everywhere I have to go is a minimum of 45 minutes, just becuase I don't do anything close. I work as a contract production manager, so I go all over to the job sites (north south east and west), I DRIVE an HOUR AND FOURTY FIVE MINUTES south east to school every tuesday and thursday, I drive 50 minutes north east to church every sunday, and several times during the week. I drive 40 minutes south west to get to another class on wednesdays,
Believe it or not, you live in a modern world, and it is impractical to expect to live within 5 minutes of EVERYTHING you will ever need. THUS a bike is an impractical and rediculous solution to climate change.
we need a motorized system that is efficient and eco-healthy while maintaining speed.
Hey, your the one who decided to live where you do, and live the way you do, just because something doesn't work for your circumstance, doesn't mean that it's impossible for someone else to do things differently where it would work out doing the majority of trips by bicycle. There are probably more then a few who live in Atlanta too.
I don't live in Atlanta, but do live in a major city, Toronto, the one with the Hockey team that has sucked for 39 years, they didn't even make the freaking playoiffs:eek:.
Let's say that a bicycle is good for a trip of about 10 miles (16km), that means I could. Bike to work (12km), bike to church (also 12km in a different direction), have I four supermarkets I could shop at. Two major malls are within that biking distance. For longer in-town trips there is transit, I have a subway station about 1km from my house, and a bus less then 20m away. For out of town trips, there is a bus station and a railway station, one of my favourite trips, is to take the train to Montreal, with it's decidedly French flavour, it's like visiting Europe! A few stations down the subway line, at one of the malls, is a bus to the airport, so I can travel anywhere in the world, without taking a car.
Life is a bunch of choices, you chose to be a slave to your car.