General Cycling Discussion - Now I've seen it all.

I look back and remember when I was a kid...all the fun I had outside running around and playing and riding my bike and stuff like that. Then I see the kids of today and stuff like this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000067R0O/qid=1054917745/br=1-15/ref=br_lf_t_15//102-7925592-3332937?v=glance&s=toys&n=586152) and I get sad. Buy the kid a bicycle and send them outside!

It definately is sad, in a way, to think about what this world has come to and how it seems like kids are being brought up nowadays. It seems like everything is geared to be either educational or so safe that it almosts defeats the purpose of doing it in the first place (hey you can't skin your knees falling off an excersise bike, can you?).

Now you might say that I'm part of this "new generation", being that I'm only 17, but when I was a "kid" we would go outside, ride our bikes, play baseball, and run around (often in the middle of street) until it was dinner time, after which we went back outside till it got dark. And being that my family didn't have a lot of money, we had to make do without computers and video games, and we had more fun without them.

Is it me or does it seem like this kind of play is being discouraged, openly or subliminaly? If anybody thinks this isn't true, please post and maybe it'll relieve some of my frustration.

My rant is over, I feel better now!

That is pretty sad, I remember watching the news a while ago, and they were saying that the younger generation has average of being overweight, and that they are having to improve PE and make it more physically intense. I wish they had something like a mountain biking class in my middle or elementary school

OMG!!!! :confused: :confused:

I can't see the problem, I mean its made for 4 - 7 year olds. Parents living in an urban area like London would be mad to buy their kids a bike to ride around on the streets (remember its for 4 - 7 year olds).

Anyway, thats my alternative view.

It's better to have them doing some exercise than no exercise.... I have no problems with this.

With PE classes rapidly disappearing, plus there are seasons when kids aren't as likely to go outside, there is some merit in this. And what's to say the kid won't enjoy it so much they might start asking for a real bike, and before you know it, this thing is collecting dust in the basement, while they're outside riding around enjoying the good weather.

Gotta get exercise somehow.

Koffee and Portent, I see where you're coming from and agree with you 100%, I just don't think it's the right apraoch, that's all. I mean how long is a small child going to ride an exercise bike, maybe a few minutes a day, just because their attention span isn't as long as an adult's; but I guess it's better than nothing. It just seems like more of a marketing ploy toward parents than a breakthrough in child fitness products.

Anyway, I think the answer to the whole problem of giving young kids exercise is to bring them to the park and let 'em run around for an hour or two.

Another $.02.

Better that we give some of the underemployed people jobs building public service projects like winterized swimming pools, ice rinks, tennis courts, and yes, multi-use paths. I know that those paths are not the answer for cyclists looking to go somewhere, but they are important as a training ground and exercise area available to everyone, including pedestrians, rollerbladers and cyclists. If we want to show how roadways can be shared, with everyone respecting everyone else's right to exist too, we should make real efforts to share multiuse paths with our less vehicular brethern. We need to fight the trend that puts autos and their interests first. It is a public health issue.

If we want to show how roadways can be shared, with everyone respecting everyone else's right to exist too, we should make real efforts to share multiuse paths with our less vehicular brethern.

I'm not exactly agreeing here. I don't believe bike paths should be multi-use. I'm not advocating we have bike paths and force bikes off the road (that's to you, Chris L!!!), but I do think if there are bike paths, they should be for the BIKES, not the rollerbladers, walkers, etc. It's too much use for the paths, and it's irritating to have to constantly bob and weave and slam on the brakes and deal with pedestrians who are too unaware to acknowledge that there are faster vehicles out there.

I mainly stick to roads now anyway.

I guess the exercise bike is a good thing if you don't have any place to ride. But I have to say that they really don't have the attention span for something like that so it will be another toy that gathers dust. I would be afraid they would grow up to be the kind of people who go to the gym for spinning class on sunny 70 degree days. Fisher Price used to make little trike kind of things to ride around on that I think would be more productive.

reminds me of today: went to gf's little cousins' place. they had bicycles but their parents too busy to really teach them to ride. no problem i'll try to be patient and teach them, course not in a day's work. but when i saw their bikes they were so improperly assembled it really bugged me. when i was young as a child i had great times riding my 20" huffy. but that bike at least was properly assembled. sad to see that kids today get turned off by shyt bikes...

I think we need to be clear in understanding how an individual path was built. If it was built as a multi-use path we need to accept that it is a multi-use path. In fact, most of the paths that are built by cities are built as multi-use to increase the user base. To expect exclusive use bike paths to be built by the city for us to use is just like motorists expecting exclusive use of the roadways. Yes, motorists get them because of the lobbying of the car and oil industries. I don't see the combined forces of Cannondale, Trek, and all the other cycle industry bringing that kind of lobbying force to our aid. The only way we get paths is by grassroots efforts, and that often involves pedestrian groups as well. Maybe we should push for more generous paths that make it easier to pass a roller-blader whose skating moves them laterally more than a cycle, it's part of their sport. Instead of being cycling purists, maybe we should be more of exercise advocates. Thats why I posted my comments on multi-use paths on this thread, because it was about exercise for young kids.

But I have to say that they really don't have the attention span for something like

True, true. But can you not see it? Instead of taking their kids out side to ride or what ever, the parents will hook up the playstation controls to the bars.

Originally posted by dirtbikedude
True, true. But can you not see it? Instead of taking their kids out side to ride or what ever, the parents will hook up the playstation controls to the bars.

Funny, sad, but funny and it will be true more of a game boy or DVD player. and of course your Cell phone cradle can't forget that.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Jean Beetham Smith
The only way we get paths is by grassroots efforts, and that often involves pedestrian groups as well. Maybe we should push for more generous paths that make it easier to pass a roller-blader whose skating moves them laterally more than a cycle, it's part of their sport. Instead of being cycling purists, maybe we should be more of exercise advocates. Thats why I posted my comments on multi-use paths on this thread, because it was about exercise for young kids.

Pedestrian groups are a very strong ally in the trail movement so and like you mentioned they are public lands but wider trail may not make a difference I find in Hi traffic areas like through th UW campus the just walk 4 abreast instead of 2 but parallel trails could work.