That right there is actually the root of our problem; we are addicted to space; we invented "suburbs" to fool ourselves into thinking we have a relaxed country life, and we now have a situation where the average American commute is something like 25min by car -- way too far to be practical for cycling. And this sparsity also makes it inefficient/expensive to build public transportation. Only in the NE and a few of the biggest cities, does population density reach levels that make it practical to do anything other than driving a car everywhere.

I used to have that 25min each way driving commute, when I ever rode it was 2 hours each way. I don't have that much life to give up. I eventually woke up, and moved to a slightly smaller house so I could be within easy bike-commuting distance.

Reminds me of an interview I heard once where an urban planner was saying that the reason the US is wasting so much gas is not that we're all driving hummers. If we all lived close enough to work so that we only drove our hummers 5min each way, then it wouldn't matter that we all drove hummers!

Generalize much? "We" are not all like you.

Of course not "all", and of course many fewer of us that participate in a Bike-Commuting forum, but enough of "us" in the US are.

Lol, but this is exactly what one of the criticisms about helmet-safety ideology is - that the helmet is promoted as a magical device that instantly grants safety.

It's not controversial (to logical people) that the helmet only protects you if you would hit your head. Right? I mean that's pretty obvious.

If you're on dedicated bicycle infrastructure, and your front tire pops, the road is wet and your front tire slides out, you hit a pothole, you just got your bike tuned up and the brakes are suddenly far more forceful than they used to be (something that's happened to more than 1 person that I know) - and you fly off your bike and hit your head, that's the most likely place for a helmet to be helpful. Or, the most common injury I know of, you didn't give a jogger enough space when passing and he suddenly turns around immediately into your path...

Now if a car hits you and causes you to fly off your bike and hit your head - and your injuries aren't from being hit by the car - then the helmet is also helpful. But if your injuries are caused by the force of being hit by a 4,000 pound vehicle - your helmet doesn't help you. If you're run over by a car tire your helmet makes you no safer whatsoever. If you're killed by the force of a city bus impacting your body your helmet isn't going to help. If you fly off your bike into another car that tosses you into the air, a helmet is very unlikely to make a difference.

It seems like a helmet is far more likely to save your neck on a bike trail or mup where it only has to protect you against your own bodyweight, than it is on a street versus 4,000lb automobiles.

"Steely Dan" is probably right that these discussions will go nowhere, but the other argument is that wearing a helmet in your car - like they are required to in nascar and all other auto racing - would increase your safety even more than wearing a helmet on a bike. Yet we don't wear helmets in cars because it's to inconvenient, so why do we stigmatize people riding bikes as needing helmets?

It's a bit self-serving for the quack doctor to recommend against wearing helmets.

This description isn't **completely** off, but I still think it misses a few things -

1. I have a 20 minute commute by car, it's a little under an hour by bike (I've ridden it, so that's a real number not theoretical). Just saying - my general rule of thumb is that a bike commute if it has a good path / route is 2-3 times longer than by car, but I haven't seen a commute with a good bike route that's 20 minutes by car but 2 hours by bike (clearly without a good route it can be).

2. People like to bring up New York. Have you been to New York? I have, I stayed in someone's apartment that was considered "middle class" by New York standards - a 1 bedroom 600 square foot place that costs $3,200 / month. Yeah, I put the comma in there to be clear - for what I could rent a borderline mansion for in the suburbs here, you get a 600 square foot apartment for in New York. I don't think that's worth the tradeoff. Are sky high rent prices a natural result of incredibly pack population density?

3. I've known multiple people who have tried living a car-free lifestyle. They *always* go back to having a car. And it's not *just* about distance either - a lot of times it's about weather, you forgot how much easier it is to get in your car and drive somewhere when it's wet, cold, etc, than it is on a bike. And snow - living in Minnesota, a couple of times a year snow makes it impossible to drive. It's even worse on a bike - even with the best of gear, and even with idealized city plowing of bike trails, more than a couple of inches of snow makes it impossible to commute. Even a Pugsley will often be halted by 6 inches or more of snow, and even when you can make it through the snow your time to get anywhere is 2-3x longer.

And that's for someone who's in fairly good shape, and isn't dropping off small children, or needing the carry large objects...

Lets bring this back to the 5 point the article makes:

1. Stop selling fear.
   Agreed on principle, do not agree on the helmet stuff. I've done an endo as a kid and blacked out before. I'd like some kind of protection, even if it doesn't work at 50km/h or protect against concussions.
2. Start riding like adults.
   The complain by motorists (including myself when I do drive) is that cyclists are unpredictable. With drivers, because they're following some kind of rules, they're more predictable. Some of the stuff he listed is just basically a no-no (left turn from right hand side). Some, I think if all the cyclist act the same way, would make it easier for the motorists.
3. Save the spandex for when you need it.
   I like my junk, and I don't care about style, so I wear the bike shorts. If I feel conspicuous wearing bike shorts, then I wear it underneath a pair of real shorts. Commuting is mostly not fast enough for the tight clothing to matter, but I don't like pain in tender regions. I think it is unfair to blame all cyclist for the attire - That's like blaiming firefighters wearing protective clothing. They don't when they do need to. What we should be letting people understand that they can wear normal clothes, with some awareness that they should keep clothing out of the chains for safety and fashion reasons. We can recommend padded stuff to wear underneath if they are not comfortable with the styling. When people are pounding out 40-50km/h (and I see those people around here, cause they're faster than I and double back on the distances that I do), I won't blame them for wearing tight bike shorts.
4. Be nice to others.
   A lot of that is compromise on both sides. Stay out of sidewalks as much as we can, give people lots of heads up on multi-use paths. The slowest cyclist will have to pass pedestrians, saying hello or not is irrelevent. What is relevent is to give the pedestrian a heads up long enough so that they don't jump around. Also, know where you should pass. I'll be the first to admit I've made mistakes (including yesterday) where I've passed at places where I shouldn't, surprised by incoming traffic, and have to choose on braking hard or sprinting out of the way. Neither way is ideal, and I wasn't as nice as I should be. It's ok to try and put the pedal to the metal, as long as it's clear of hazards, and people are aware of what you're doing to do ahead of time.
5. Tell industry leaders to embrace the reality of a mature, cycling rich culture.
   I really don't agree with the author on this one. He deems that anyone who wants to cycle for sport as immature, and people who cycle in normal attires as adult. I'll be polite and call that shortsighted - cycling is not a transistor, there's no on/off, or right/wrong on this. I have friends that do it for leisure first, fitness second, and avoids road riding by getting on the sidewalk. I tend to see cycling as fitness and commute on equal footing, and head to the road before I ride on a busy sidewalk. Aside from the fact that I want to get him off the riding on the sidewalk part, I think it's perfectly find that we see cycling differently.
   
   I have friends that bombs down a mountain, and outclimbs me on a commuter, and he wear lycra shorts on commuter rides. Is he immature too?
   
   I push myself on a bike not because I'm immature, but because I would be working out hard enough to force myself to focus, and to learn discipline (like commuting instead of taking the bus), and to save a couple of bucks where I can. I don't pretend that this is the vision that other have, so let's find one that work for them. It doesn't have to mean that I should diminish my own views and desires on cycling, or to force my own way onto others.
   
   Just because we prefer speed and distance, doesn't mean we can't guide others to find their own cycling nirvana. It's like watching my friend outclimb me on a urban ride - even though he would much prefer getting caked in mud, he was there to help me find my own place in cycling.

I'm pretty sure Denmark has cooler temps than in Florida. For half the year, I'm dripping sweat just from walking 20 ft outside to the mailbox. The idea of wearing regular clothes to bike anywhere is absurd. I'd be a soggy mess. I wear cycling clothes when commuting to deal with the sweat. Fortunately I have showers at work. More employers need to provide showers.

Regarding not wearing helmets, I know someone who was just riding slowly down the sidewalk with his daughter. Fell over, hit his head, became a vegetable. Yes, not wearing a helmet can certainly kill you. You could probably make a similar argument for wearing a helmet when walking though.

But maybe not everybody else wants to see it so much...

There's another whole school of thought: cycling infrastructure should be designed so that the immature, inexperienced, impulsive brain of an 8 year old can safely navigate it.

My personal belief is that nothing would get adult cyclists back to their cars faster than true, full realized "8 to 80" infrastructure, but hey, you know, public discourse is a marketplace of ideas.

Part of that might be that my commute was 25min at best in a car, almost all freeway; and the bike route on surface roads is a little longer, and has to get across "mission gorge", so there's no avoiding some significant hillage (this was my approximate bike route). And part of it is surely that I'm not as strong a rider as you. There's no way I could average 20mph on even flat terrain without a serious tailwind. And the article is focusing on how to get the masses onto bikes, not just the athletic.

OK, now you're just asking for a flame war, posting that on the bike commuting thread! There's tons of guys around here that have been proudly (and sometimes even obnoxiously) car-free for decades. But I get it; since I moved and commute by bike full time, one car is essentially out of commission (but still once in a while we need to be in two places at the same time), and the wife loves to bike too, but face it, sometimes a family with three kids got to get places, and the minivan is the tool that makes more sense than forcing all 5 of us to kit up and ride our bikes 20 miles, hauling whatever stuff we need to use whenever we get wherever we're going.

That's fair, so if I'm going to bike into town and walk around, I wear shorts to cover the bike shorts. I don't want to walk around in the bike shorts any more than others want to see my crotch.

It doesn't mean the bike shorts has no value (it's useful if you ride long), or doesn't belong in a world where cycling is more pervasive. Nor does it mean that everyone that has bike shorts should be banned from wearing them, just because someone doesn't like the look.

Fair enough -- I just jumped on the punchline; you set up a high fastball, I had to hit it!

Of course everyone's commute, geographical layout and climate are exactly the same. Why else would one do it any differently?

My commute by car is 12.5 miles, and it takes me right at 20-22 minutes. Only a couple of traffic lights to deal with, but it's all 2-lane 35, 45, and 55 MPH rural roads. By bike I go about 14.5 miles (stay off the 55 MPH roads) and it take me right at 61-62 minutes. And believe me I'm a SLOW rider. But I still wear lycra because it's better. And my office has a shower, because it got us a LEED point towards being LEED Gold certified when we designed the building. :)

LEED gives you a point if you put in a shower and bike rack so that people can bike to work. I don't use the bike rack, though, I park my bike next to my desk inside. :thumb:

THIS! THIS right here is pure GOLD! I had never thought of it like that but that is SO TRUE! I've hated suburban sprawl ever since I first learned about it and its effects in architecture school. Me and my family have lived in "suburban" areas since 1993. I personally love the city and wish I could get out of the 'burbs and back into the city, but finances won't allow it right now (city property taxes are several times what mine are now, and in fact were just hiked even more this week).

We are not communists; people are not forced to live where they do, and on the whole Americans prioritize larger houses and yards over a short, bikable commute.

I'm glad this resonated with you. If you want to go more in depth, I think this is the interview in question, but I can't be sure. It was certainly one of these though...

Quoting the blurb,

And, they value the large house and yards, over a short commute because we subsidize the choice in favor of large houses, large yards, and long commutes.

In fact, the US government subsidizes fuel prices at about $7 per gallon.

Then don't look at it?


But we're not communists!
Almost everyone is entitled to a government subsidized food, house, car, energy, etc. If you're lucky you can even work for them (largest single employer in the USA, no?).
Wait.. maybe you are communists..

I know its a leap, but if you own your house, you could theoretically sell now, put the money in a decent savings account and rent in the city and potentially pay rent the rest of your life off the profits of the house. Considering the property tax, etc you pay on the property now too.

I'm part of the "helmet wearing, lycra wearing, fast riding, suburban living, gas guzzling car" crowd.

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=321271

haha not likely, my house is probably worth less than what I owe on it right now. Or I wouldn't get for it what I owe right now. But we're not behind on the payments so we just keep paying.

FWIW I bought the house we're in now back in 2006, precisely because it was less than 3 miles from my office. I was living with my parents at the time after college and commuting 100 miles a day (by car obviously haha), so I got my own place as soon as I had money saved up. But then 2 years after I bought the house, my office moved farther away from me (and closer to my boss heh, he's just 100 yards away, literally).

But as far as renting, most rental places that meet our needs are higher than our mortgage note. Plus I HAVE to have a garage with my air tools and all that stuff. :D

I see what you're saying, but that's assuming one has paid the house off/can make substantial profits off the sale. That being said, I keep telling people my age (30) and younger to rent as long as they can; especially if they can't afford a house at 35% or less of their monthly income. I remind them of all the money and energy you sink into maintenance and upkeep that you never see again, even if you get 100% return on the mortgage. When you rent, you pick up the phone and call the landlord, and it's on them. :)