Commuting - What the Dutch know about commuting that we can learn.

Found this site that details the Dutch bikes that the Dutch
and other Europeans use for everyday commuting & utility.
We could do well to copy these bikes as they are tired
and true. I copied many of the features over onto
my old Schwinn world tourist and they made a good
bike a great bike for commuting & utility.

http://www.cycle-heaven.co.uk/gazelle.html

I was admiring a Gazelle just the other day at a local bike shop. They also make "Dutch-style" commuters http://www.broadwaybicycleschool.com/broadwaybike.html. Nice bikes if that's your style. Often the American cyclocommuter rides in a fashion incompatible with these bikes or would like to use the same bike for weekend recreation as commuting, so something like that isn't appropriate.

There are bikes from major manufacturers as well as specialized bikes like Breezers that cater to this market.

I'll be interested to see how the retiring baby boomers and the coming transportational crisis affect this niche.

I saw this model at REI.
http://tinyurl.com/6l5pg
Decent price but a bit heavy. The Dutch bikes probably are as heavy. At least we are starting to think a little different. Charlie

Their philosophy of riding is so different. Riding is not an activity outside of everyday life. These bikes have dressguards! That means you can just hop on your bike and go, no matter what you are wearing. This is antithetical to the attitude toward cycling seen on this forum--even on this Commuting section.

While all those features are very utilitarian, I kind of like having a bike that doesn't remind me of a two-wheeled minivan. Sure, a minivan is great for hauling stuff around comfortably, but it's not much fun. I prefer my bike without a kickstand, or a bell, or a chaingaurd, or anytihng else I won't use. If that makes my bike a little "racier", well fine, I like it that way. :P

Yeah, their bikes are incredibly heavy and unwieldy. Bikes also have their own traffic lights.

I would always want to have a "fun" bike too. But most days I end up using it as basic transportation.

Bikes also have their own traffic lights.
They have those in my city in California.

We have bikes like that. If you want one, check out a Breezer (http://www.breezerbikes.com/). I looked at a Breezer before I got my commuter. I hated the upright position, but that's just me. Bikes like that are fine for toodling along a mile or two, but the weight and upright position would make long distances well, too long. That said, to each his own. Some people would hate the drops on my Cross Check. If a Breezer will get you on the road, more power to you.

The Dutch dont do hills.

While all those features are very utilitarian, I kind of like having a bike that doesn't remind me of a two-wheeled minivan.

I like my bike to be fast and utilitarian. To me, it's not a fast bike if i can't (quickly) go from getting ready for school to being in class. So for me, it's yes to the rack, lights, and fenders. As for bells, my voice is louder and less trouble. And I don't need a kickstand when I lock up by a pole. And I won't go without drop bars and good gearing, also for speed.

I like my bike to be fast and utilitarian. To me, it's not a fast bike if i can't (quickly) go from getting ready for school to being in class. So for me, it's yes to the rack, lights, and fenders. As for bells, my voice is louder and less trouble. And I don't need a kickstand when I lock up by a pole. And I won't go without drop bars and good gearing, also for speed.
Where do you stand on the dressguard? :)

Most of my commuting I do for exercise. My commute on a drop-bar road bike is long enough for my exercise needs but longer than my car commute. If I were to trade up for a heavier, more upright bike with fatter tires, it would take me longer to get to work. This would make me more likely to drive my car instead of cycling.

I own several bikes, including a fat tire flat-bar bike for utility use, but I prefer to commute on one of my drop-bar road bikes because they are faster and more fun. One of them has fenders, which makes it my choice in the rain; I have lighting solutions for all my bikes.

Americans who have a choice of transportation modes will chose those that make the most sense for them. The popularity of drop-bar road bikes for commuting in the USA is a reflection of the preferences of people who enjoy cycling regularly on roadways. There are lots of hybrid and upright bikes available, but most regular commuters eventually migrate to drop-bar road bikes if their commute distances are long enough for the greater speed to be a real advantage. The number of Americans who enjoy cycling enough to choose cycle commuting over motoring is increasing. By contrast, the percentage of Americans who cannot afford cars/parking and must choose cycle-commuting as their best option is declining, and will never be as high as what is seen in the Netherlands.

My main complaint about the Amnerican bike market regarding commuting is the lack of good dynamo based lighting systems and very sturdy rear reflector/lamp mounts. But I am able to make do with what is available.

I posted this in another thread below, but it's appropriate here too. Specialized's new commuter for the North American market. A lot like REI's:

http://www.specialized.com/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=9353&JServSessionIdroot=fmg90i46o8.j27008

Love those fenders and racks!

I saw this model at REI.
http://tinyurl.com/6l5pg
Decent price but a bit heavy. The Dutch bikes probably are as heavy. At least we are starting to think a little different. Charlie

Yeah, that actually is a pretty good deal. I like the fact that the tail light is powered by the generator hub, too. There's also a battery powered headlight as a backup to the generator light, with a handlebar switch. I wonder what that light is? A small halogen, or LED? I think the former would be a better idea, but either way it's kind of neat.

For just getting around town these bikes are a good idea, I think. Comfortable, and easy to use.

I think I like the chainguard on the Specialized Globe a little better, though. If you're going to buy a bike like this you should ensure that you can just get on and pedal, without using ankle bands.

I was just looking a bit more at the Specialized. I think it's an even better deal than the Navaro. It's $100 more MSRP, but you get a chainguard, a spindle bottom bracket, and an integrated lock. (The Navaro's got a square bottom bracket.) The Navaro does have the backup battery light, but I'd rather have the chainguard, I think.

The Globe has a better drivetrain for hills (MTB derailer) and the REI bike has a better all weather, less maintance drivetrain (8 speed hub) both these bikes are really the cat's meow for non-racer, non-club rider, I-don't-care-how-last-I-get-there riders.

There are tons of Dutch club riders riding the very best road bikes money can buy, just like here in the USA. The differance across the pond is the crush of humanity riding along on any kind of bike ever made. Yeah, you see rich guys tooling along on this Lexis style crusers, but lots of folks ride junk bikes. If it will roll, Europeans will peddle it! Bikes just don't rust away in the basement over there- they get ridden to death.... and then ridden some more!

WTF happened to the response about the dutch always being stoned? ???

What do the Chinese ride?

While I think those bikes are great utilitarian bikes, I'd never be caught dead on one. I ride an MTB at the moment and am looking at getting a road bike for more speed. I'll probably still ride the mtb around town on quick rides and just to get from point to point, but when I really want and get out and *ride*, I want a drop-bar road bike.

What do the Chinese ride?

Bikes. Not nearly as fancy as the ones on this page however.

I saw this model at REI.
http://tinyurl.com/6l5pg
Decent price but a bit heavy. The Dutch bikes probably are as heavy. At least we are starting to think a little different. Charlie

$699 for that bike. I think the rear and front hubs are worth almost that much alone. nice bike for getting around town for short distances.

Americans who have a choice of transportation modes will chose those that make the most sense for them. The popularity of drop-bar road bikes for commuting in the USA is a reflection of the preferences of people who enjoy cycling regularly on roadways. There are lots of hybrid and upright bikes available, but most regular commuters eventually migrate to drop-bar road bikes if their commute distances are long enough for the greater speed to be a real advantage. The number of Americans who enjoy cycling enough to choose cycle commuting over motoring is increasing. By contrast, the percentage of Americans who cannot afford cars/parking and must choose cycle-commuting as their best option is declining, and will never be as high as what is seen in the Netherlands.

i dont know where you're from but in my city the poor are getting poorer and are less able to afford cars than they were even 5 years ago. hence, they are buying cheap department store bikes-not road bikes with drop bars. the bicycle commuters you're talking about have the privilege of choosing between many expensive options. i think this illustrates why america doesn't have a stronger bike culture. if you're not part of the "club" you dont belong, elitest mentality. if you're not riding the proper bike you're not a "real" cyclist. rather than the majority of american commuters using drop bars, i think the majority of american commuters make around minimum wage, ride walmart bikes, dont wear lycra, and cant afford internet access to post here. the scene in america is too "sporty" and is not very open to utiliterian uses of bicycles outside of time trials.

i just shipped my Batavus (http://www.satanio.com/pics/Day_in_DK/images/DSC00796.jpg) back to San Francisco yesterday. it's only a three speed (internal hub) so i might have to upgrade it to a 5 speed to meet my SF commute. although, surprisingly my commute has very few hills. there are a number of ways to get around the city without having to tackle the serious hills. i'm really excited to try it.

after seeing the riding they're doing here in Copenhagen (almost exactly the same as the Netherlands), and doing a couple months of it myself, i feel like my philosophy has changed a bit. this style of riding is just more fun for me, and way more casual. YMMV. most examples have already been mentioned in this thread, and seen in the style of the bikes.

I'll admit I do carry quite a bit of crap on my commuter. Two headlights (battery powered), rear blinkie, bell, front bag w/map case, rear panniers, compass, 3 bottle cages, pump, cyclo-computer, front rack, I can't think of everything! Sure, my commuter is a little heavy and not very nimble. It fits me well. I also use it as a tourer.

I do have an old Raleigh racer I ride if I want to go fast. I use my commuter as transportation (grocery getter).

These bikes look a bit unwieldy to me. I'll stick with my Cannondale.

And the prices! Wow! I was in England two weeks ago, and it took $1.75 to get £1!

I do like those reflective "tyres". Cooool! Do they come in knobbies?

i dont know where you're from but in my city the poor are getting poorer and are less able to afford cars than they were even 5 years ago. hence, they are buying cheap department store bikes-not road bikes with drop bars. the bicycle commuters you're talking about have the privilege of choosing between many expensive options. i think this illustrates why america doesn't have a stronger bike culture. if you're not part of the "club" you dont belong, elitest mentality. if you're not riding the proper bike you're not a "real" cyclist. rather than the majority of american commuters using drop bars, i think the majority of american commuters make around minimum wage, ride walmart bikes, dont wear lycra, and cant afford internet access to post here. the scene in america is too "sporty" and is not very open to utiliterian uses of bicycles outside of time trials.

Certainly some cities have more economic problems than others. I'm fortunate to live where most of the bike commuting miles are cycled by people who bike because they want to, not because they feel that they have to.

We have a diverse group of cyclists in our local bike club, for which I am a club officer. A lot of our high-mileage cyclists use old (they prefer the term "vintage") bikes, and some of them use unconventional bikes like Bike Fridays and Moultons. These are all drop-bar bikes for reduced wind drag, but some of them are quite ungainly in appearance. The cyclists themselves don't dress very flashy when they commute - quite a contrast to the club rides or racing team training rides. There's no negative impression here of the dressed-down commuters; they are generally held in high esteem for their love of and proficiency at cycling. Experienced cyclists will sometimes suggest functional improvements in gear, such as recommending non-cotton clothing or better bicycle adjustment, but they rarely if ever talk about aesthetics - particularly if utilitarian performance is the issue.

I like to make utility rides on my rack-equipped 1983 Trek road bike, which I bought used for $150 a long time ago. I wear non-cotton pocket shorts and a non-cotton top while riding to the store to buy groceries, including pampers that just barely fit into my panniers. Glamour isn't what these trips are about, but I do appreciate a bike that gets me there with less effort and less time.

Check out Koga as well.

http://usa.koga.com/

Very nice Dutch bikes; spendy but well made.

i wasn't talking so much about the glamour of cycling so much as the tendancy of cycling to be seen as an expensive "hobby" in the sates. non cotten cycling specific clothing can be expensive for people just getting by. even the cheaper stuff at department stores. they also cant afford to have clothes just for riding their bikes. thats great that you have a cool club in your town and your commuters want to ride but the attitude that you have educate people about clothing a gearing is elitest. and again, i dont what town you're living but its not the norm. if you can afford to have more than one bike and have clothes just for biking you probably dont live in an area with department store bike commuters. and while some cities are more economically depressed than others, its a national trend that the income gap is widening. the majority of my clients(social work) ride mass transit or bike. very few if any have cars. from friends and coworkers across the country i hear this is the case.

i dont know where you're from but in my city the poor are getting poorer and are less able to afford cars than they were even 5 years ago. hence, they are buying cheap department store bikes-not road bikes with drop bars.

I don't see this at all. The poor who are riding bicycles in my city are Mexicans who can't get a license. Otherwise, the poor are able to buy cars because dealers will get you to sign any loan. In fact, you can walk out of the showroom with a new car even if you're making minimum wage. The poor are buying cars alright but they really can't afford them. This is why we have millions declaring bankruptcy each year because the population is funding their own personal transportation which averages 4-6K per year.

To really do cycling advocacy and safety education these days, you have to do it in Spanish.

The Dutch dont do hills.
chug chug chug...If your bike weight the same as the Dutch bikes, you wouldn't do hills either. The bike have a doudy appearance but too badk somebody can't design similar but sleeker stuff for a road bike ultra-light.

chug chug chug...If your bike weight the same as the Dutch bikes, you wouldn't do hills either.

It's not so much that we Dutchies avoid hills; we simply do not have any... :(

Maybe I am more European than I thought. Riding only heavier cruiser-style bikes with full fenders and chain-guards, I am never concerned with what I wear to work as I am generally protected. I'm not interested in being the fastest; just getting there cheap, fast and in style.

We have alot to learn from most European and Asian cities when we consider bicycle-commuting. The sooner our municipal governments wise-up, the better too.

SecretSatellite does touch on a topic I have discussed before. The vast majority of bicycle commuters, certainly of the ones I see, are doing it because they can't afford to do otherwise. These are the ones that are often struggling along on old clunky, squeaky beaters, riding about 5-6 mph on the wrong side of the road, no helmet, no lights, ignorant or oblivious of traffic laws. THESE are the commuters that we need to advocate for. No one in city or state planning really cares about someone like me who commutes 10 miles from the suburbs by choice. They wouldn't spend a nickel to improve infrastructure for the likes of me. Ironically, almost EVERYONE involved in cycling advocacy is closer to my profile than to the majority of commuters.

To respond to the original post, since my commute is 10 miles each way it is more comfortable and efficient to do it on a road type bike. However, my primary is an old touring bike with 32-35 mm wide tires, a powerful homemade light system, and usually loaded panniers. It is not lightweight by any means. Those dedicated "commuter" bikes seem designed more for people who live very close to their jobs and use their bikes throughout the day for very short trips.

No one in city or state planning really cares about someone like me who commutes 10 miles from the suburbs by choice. They wouldn't spend a nickel to improve infrastructure for the likes of me. Ironically, almost EVERYONE involved in cycling advocacy is closer to my profile than to the majority of commuters.

Ah, that's where you're wrong. You have disposable income, you're educated, you're the vocal minority. They care much more about you than the guy who's living from check to check, pays very little in taxes, and is unlikely to know how to go about raising a stink should someone cross him (or her).

Since when are city or state planning agencies most concerned about the low-income? There's no money in it.

edit: disagree? Think about the places that first receiving cycling accommodations or have the highest concentration. It's not residential areas where people live. It's not the projects. It's business districts where people spend money.

RainmanP and BostonRevor comments make me think that one way to make city planners aware of long-distance commuters is to make them realise that by not driving, they will:
- relieve highways of some rush hour traffic (as public transit does);
- have more disposable income to spend in restaurants, stores, etc..

It's a sad fact of our consumer society that we aren't considered as citizens, but rather as consumers first.

As for who cycles and Dutch vs North Americans, I think a lot depends on population density and distances to cover. Climate also plays a role.
The typical Dutch rider has:
- short distances to cover; many people ride 1-5 km to the store, shop, school, work... so bicycling is often the "lazy person alternative" to walking (ok, I'm cartooning a bit);
- a climate with less extremes; it's often cloudy, rainy, etc., but AFAIK, they don't have too many days above 30°C (86°F) or below freezing.

Most of my utilitarian cycling is done downtown Montréal and in the neighbouring Plateau, Mile-end and Outremont districts. Most of the bicyclists are dressed in civilian clothing and many ride decently kept bikes that are 15-30 years old. Straight bars or priest bars are abundant, but variety is paramount. Lights are not as frequent as I wish, but 50-60% of the people have at least a rear blinker (most streets are one ways) and 2/3 of the bikes have some sort of fenders. Why do people cycle? Sometimes to save on the expenses of car ownership, sometimes because the car isn't convenient (move it across the street twice a week, look for parking...), but often simply because bicycling is the fastest way to go from A to B, ride to daycare, get the kids to school, go shopping... There are also some who cycle for environmental/activist reasons, but I feel they are a minority.

There are times I ride outside of my regular district at rush hour (I had a day off, I visited a shop elsewhere, etc.), and then patterns are different and look more like those described by other posters, i.e. those who ride could (almost) afford their car but have decided to ride a bicycle instead.


Interesting note:
In my base district, about 2/3 of cyclists ride on rainy days and 1/3 ride throughout a good part of winter. But the further away we are from downtown, the less people ride on rainy or snowy days.

The reasons why most transportation planners care more about upper-income bike commuters than low-income carless bike commuters are the same as why they care more about upper-income rail riders than low-income bus riders: The upper income is where the political power is. The upper income commuters will vote for people and programs that will improve conditions for the ways that they like to commute; the lower income commuters are stuck with whatever exists and are unlikely to have the money or spare time to lobby effectively for anything better. Most people who are stuck without a car are more interested in working toward car ownership than working toward improving alternative transportation over a multi-year effort.

Where I live, transportation planners are more interested in influencing the travel habits of car owners than non-owners, because the planners want to reduce car traffic. That means that they cater to the preferences of car owners when designing alternatives to car use. Ironically, this has meant that much money has been spent on things that car owners say that they would like regardless of what the car owners would actually use for commuting. For example, we get recreational bike paths to nowhere, used mostly on weekends, instead of improvements where bike commuting happens most, and we get fancy suburban-connector commuter rail systems rather than expansion of bus systems in places where there is high ridership by carless people.

Where I live, automobile ownership is not prohibitively expensive for people with full time jobs. There's lots of free parking and lots of cheap used cars available. It's mostly students and part-time workers who cannot afford cars, and these groups are usually not politically active enough to make much of a long-term difference. I spent a few years without a car as a starving student, but it wasn't until recently, as a fully employed taxpayer, homeowner, and car owner, that I have become politically active to improve conditions for cyclists. I remember what it was like to bike for basic transportation, and so my advocacy is sensitive to that, but even I can see that the primary opportunity to increase bicycle commiting lies with the preferences of car owners who enjoy cycling. Love of cycling is the only reason I do it myself.

No one in city or state planning really cares about someone like me who commutes 10 miles from the suburbs by choice. They wouldn't spend a nickel to improve infrastructure for the likes of me. Ironically, almost EVERYONE involved in cycling advocacy is closer to my profile than to the majority of commuters.



Around here cities are majorly excited about bike commuting. One bike rack fits in a single parking stall and holds about 6 bikes. The cities have limits on parking lot sizes and companies must have a certain percentage of people who use mass transit, walking or other non-car transport means.

Bikes are in here...and it's usually not poor people riding them.

Most of the "bike-friendly" stuff happens in the Pac. N.W., bay area, college towns in the midwest and other places where education and incomes are higher than the national median. And I don't care what anybody says, many cyclists are elitist snobs. You don't see it too much on this forum, but check out almost all the other ones. Any time a newbie asks for advice on a purchase, they are told to spend >$1,000 and buy all kinds of custom parts and clothing. Here at least most of us are interested in integrating cycling into the real world!

By the way, before anyone gets too ticked off, I have no quarrels with wealthy people buying exorbitant bikes and gear--it's fun to look at and dream about. Please keep telling us about it. Just leave your snotty attitude at the door.

Yeah, Seattle is a long, long shot better for cycling than 95% of the the rest of the USA. I'm in Tacoma, only 30 miles down the road, and we have very few people riding for transportation, and most of them do so becuase of D.U.I. trouble. We have a liberal arts collage.... and this accounts for another part of our riders

One of the best things about cycling is that builds community. Suburban USA is cul-de-stacs of huge 1 family homes where the garage is the frount part of the house. Shopping is done at Walmart or some other faceless big box megastore. It isn't really much civic pride to any of this.... it makes America fat and lonely.

Bikes are part of cafe life. You can't hide on them like you can in a big SUV. You're in the weather. Kids can ride along with you when you pass though their 'hoods. Old people working in their yards will wave at you. People around here are always so friendly to me, even if they don't know me. I'm the bike guy!

In spite of the snow...I noticed by October the fad was beginning to pass coiciding with the fall of gas prices. By spring, I'll know for sure. Whatever.

The reasons why most transportation planners care more about upper-income bike commuters than low-income carless bike commuters are the same as why they care more about upper-income rail riders than low-income bus riders: The upper income is where the political power is. The upper income commuters will vote for people and programs that will improve conditions for the ways that they like to commute; the lower income commuters are stuck with whatever exists and are unlikely to have the money or spare time to lobby effectively for anything better. Most people who are stuck without a car are more interested in working toward car ownership than working toward improving alternative transportation over a multi-year effort.

Where I live, transportation planners are more interested in influencing the travel habits of car owners than non-owners, because the planners want to reduce car traffic. That means that they cater to the preferences of car owners when designing alternatives to car use. Ironically, this has meant that much money has been spent on things that car owners say that they would like regardless of what the car owners would actually use for commuting. For example, we get recreational bike paths to nowhere, used mostly on weekends, instead of improvements where bike commuting happens most, and we get fancy suburban-connector commuter rail systems rather than expansion of bus systems in places where there is high ridership by carless people.


This is an interesting observation.

We have a bus strike going on in Long Island but the railroad is not effected. Why? The railroads are funded very well and travel though good neighborhoods while the buses do not. In fact, the bus situation in Long Island is horrible!

This is always the case and not just in New York. Last year, a bus strike in Michigan went on for months and the mayor could have cared less because more people drive. This is the main reason why I moved to a town that has lightrail because the state funnels billions into the system and will not do this for the bus.

You have to understand that buses are subsidized by state and local taxes which is why they are disliked. A lot of small towns don't want to fund them and malls put the stops far from the entrances. This is the reason why I decided to get a bicycle in the first place. The high cost, long waiting times and overcrowded buses just made me sick to my stomach.

I don't see this at all. The poor who are riding bicycles in my city are Mexicans who can't get a license. Otherwise, the poor are able to buy cars because dealers will get you to sign any loan. In fact, you can walk out of the showroom with a new car even if you're making minimum wage. The poor are buying cars alright but they really can't afford them. This is why we have millions declaring bankruptcy each year because the population is funding their own personal transportation which averages 4-6K per year.Owning a car may cost even more than that. Further ownership of a car is funded with after tax dollars, so a person needs to earn considerably more. First, the employer must pay the payroll tax, which means that for every nominal dollar in your paycheck the employer pays about 7.5 cents. Then you pay 7.5 cents again. After that you pay about 28 cents on the dollar for the last dollar earned, which you would not need to earn if you didn't have a car, which goes to the federal government. It depends on the state what you marginal tax is on the remaining amount, and if you are earning a good income and own a house you get to deduct your state taxes on your federal form, but if not you pay the full marginal rate which is about 7.5 cents on the dollar in Maryland. So on the last $1.075 your employer pays you keep about 57 cents, if you are poor.That means that to support your 4-6K you have to get your employer to pay $7,544 to $11,316. This may vary somewhat from state to state and would be lower in states with no state income tax. On the other hand automobile ownership is a little more expensive in states with high sales taxes, or with high insurance rates.

Owning a car may cost even more than that. Further ownership of a car is funded with after tax dollars, so a person needs to earn considerably more. First, the employer must pay the payroll tax, which means that for every nominal dollar in your paycheck the employer pays about 7.5 cents. Then you pay 7.5 cents again. After that you pay about 28 cents on the dollar for the last dollar earned, which you would not need to earn if you didn't have a car, which goes to the federal government. It depends on the state what you marginal tax is on the remaining amount, and if you are earning a good income and own a house you get to deduct your state taxes on your federal form, but if not you pay the full marginal rate which is about 7.5 cents on the dollar in Maryland. So on the last $1.075 your employer pays you keep about 57 cents, if you are poor.That means that to support your 4-6K you have to get your employer to pay $7,544 to $11,316. This may vary somewhat from state to state and would be lower in states with no state income tax. On the other hand automobile ownership is a little more expensive in states with high sales taxes, or with high insurance rates.

Excellent.

We have a tax person here. I almost forgot one more thing.

This 4-6K per year does not include inflation, gas price hikes, unexpected break-ins and interest on the car loans.

I'd say a sizable proportion of the members of this forum are a bit overly concerned with being the butchest bikers out there. What with their fixies, their hatred of bike lanes, theie "I wouldn't be caught dead..." attitudes.

I've seen a middle-aged man riding his Breezer with his suit and tie around town and he looks very cool.

I for one went the 'bent route and I ride in my street clothes on my hilly 8.5 mile commute. It would be nice if I could wear a dress on my bike, but I'm afraid the skirt would fly up and show a bit more flesh than I would prefer.

I really don't care about being super butch on my bike. I just want to have a good time getting to work, which is what I don't have when driving to work.

I think if I got another upright bike I'd like an old Raleigh 3-speed like my first bike. I never should have gotten rid of it. My dad had one too and he would ride up San Marcos Pass over to Solvang on it, which if you are not familiar means he went from sea-level up the mountains more than 3000ft in 4 miles, then about 12 miles over to the valley on the other side of the mountains. It's not what you ride, it's where you go.

Excellent.

We have a tax person here. I almost forgot one more thing.

This 4-6K per year does not include inflation, gas price hikes, unexpected break-ins and interest on the car loans.I am a transportation economist (really), not a tax person, although I am also an attorney. Inflation is not particularly relevant, because your debt is inflated away, your salary goes up and your marginal costs go up. Break-ins must be weighed against bike theft and vandalism, and I am afraid bikes come out on the short end here. Gas price hikes are part of inflation, and have been very modest in real terms over the past 20 or so years. I can rember getting a brand-new mid size car for $7,000,in January 1981, and filling up with gas at $1.22 per gallon. The gas is about $1.80 this morning, less than 50% more. I don't think I could get a mid-size car for less than $10,500 today, probably not for less than $18,000.

[QUOTE=sggoodri]The reasons why most transportation planners care more about upper-income bike commuters than low-income carless bike commuters are the same as why they care more about upper-income rail riders than low-income bus riders: The upper income is where the political power is. [QUOTE]

Part of the reason is because the full timer's pay more in taxes. Cripes what I pay in taxes could buy a new car *every* year yet my car is 10yrs old

These bikes look a bit unwieldy to me. I'll stick with my Cannondale.

And the prices! Wow! I was in England two weeks ago, and it took $1.75 to get £1!

I do like those reflective "tyres". Cooool! Do they come in knobbies?

Anything quoted in pounds is going to sound expensive at the moment because the US$ is so weak. I'm surprised that most imports haven't gone up significantly in price.

I've not seen any knobbies with reflective sidewalls - most of them seem to semi-slick or treaded commuting/touring tyres like the Schwalbe Marathon.