My car doesn't cost me $9K/year thank goodness. But if we moved to Memphis proper I can guarantee our living expenses would increase by more than $9K per year over what it is now. For one thing it would be moving farther, much farther, away from work - no bike commuting. We wouldn't even consider it unless I had some really awesome job offer at a place in the city. But it would be hard to leave where I've been for over 9 years now.

The author's general point is a good one. You may or may not agree with everything he says (e.g. helmets are unnecessary), but his general point is that cycling culture in the US is largely based on one aspect of cycling, namely cycling as sport rather than cycling as transportation. I think where I may disagree with the author is that he puts primary blame for this state of affairs on cyclists themselves. I think the blame, if that is the right word, should be on the the cycling industry which sees more profit in promoting the fantasy that a $3,000 bike and full team kit can transform you into Lance.

I agree with your overall point, but I believe the author of the article focused on the wrong things that could create demand for cycling, better understanding and tolerance for cyclists on the roads.
People don't ride because they don't like to mingle with cars, and there aren't enough bike paths to make their commute happen. Also, people may live too far, by being priced out or just by happenstance, to cycle commute effectively.
I think those 2 forces are far more damaging than wearing spandex and riding ultra-lightweight roadies that are way out of people's price range.

If we the existing cyclists want to encourage more people to do it, and the only barrier is the spandex and the pricy bikes, then leading a ride in casual clothing and helping people to maintain their bikes for easier performance (e.g. change out knobby tires for smoother ones) should create a giant spike in commuting.

It should be obvious that those aren't the only barriers.

The harder problems remains as to how to convince people that riding on the road is ok (and getting drivers used to sharing the road with us) - that might be solved with people doing their parts leading novices to gain confidence. As to getting people to live and work close enough, that take a lot of resolve - I took the conscious step to live close to work and close to groceries, enough that driving daily isn't exactly cost effective for me. But that's because I'm a single guy that doesn't do the school run.

We might be able to alleviate the distance issue by having dedicated bike paths that are not interrupted by traffic and cuts across the city, but that depends a lot on the geography and existing road networks (Ottawa for the win for this one). I can maintain speed on the bike paths without stop and go, and I'm can match a bus pretty well because of it.

That still doesn't address the needs for families with school runs, which leads to other things like how to take groceries for family of 4 by bike (can be done, but takes dedication)

If the issues are as simplistic as trading in spandex, helmets and aggressive road bikes to get 25% more people bike commuting, I think most of us will do that.

Yes, agreed (the first part of your statement). Thanks for clarifying.

I don't know what you are driving (or if you have two cars/married/a s.o.), but you might be surprised at how much it does actually cost each year. If you factor in gas, oil, tires, brakes and other items that get replaced due to regular wear. Add to that costs for stuff that just breaks. And insurance plus depreciation it comes out to much more than most realize.

I don't miss your larger point though. I might also believe that, depending on where you actually relocate, food costs would be higher as well.

94 Acura Integra GS-R with 329,000 miles. Believe me it ain't gonna depreciate any more. :p I do everything on the car myself. Fuel for the past year is less than $1700. Tags are less than $100, and insurance for both our cars is less than $1K per year. I get 2-3 years on brakes, 2-3 years on tires. *edit - here it is, in the past year I spent a total of $2,362 on gas, oil, and other maintenance and repairs, not including tags and insurance* Yes I had to spend about $400 in January replacing the battery and distributor, and I'm about to spend another $250 replacing the head gasket and a few other parts, but that's not typical. I'd say the car has been a monument of reliability. Typically I've had to spend more fixing my wife's 96 Toyota Corolla than my Integra.

Couldn't help but be reminded of this by your kids comment...

http://bikeforums.net/attachment.php...hmentid=321827

All in all, I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head with this. When I contemplated bicycle commuting (and this was long before I knew more about bicycles/was a BF member), many of the reasons you listed actually were the things keeping me [if only in my mind] from bike-commuting. I don't think most people with any modicum of sense really believe that one has to wear a full kit in order to commute. It's just that, as a society based on so many instantaneous interactions, most people see bike commuting as "too much work", whereas it's actually not that bad, once one gets their own little routine/system going.

Take too long and too much work are what kept me from trying it for close to a year (from May of last year when I got back into bikes until just a few weeks ago). But now I have done it, several times now, and boy am I glad I finally took the plunge! :)

I know the feeling! The only "bad" part of bike-commuting is the day when I decide not to. I feel downright lethargic and worthless.

What a great article! I have to agree with it wholeheartedly. I live in a small-to-midsize Ontario city, and you can drive from one end to the other in 30 minutes. Cycling only takes twice as long at best - probably less once you work out the routes. And most places are within 20 minutes. The problem is the lack of infrastructure: getting squeezed to one side while the cars and trucks rumble by isn't much fun.

But the cycling culture he talks about is right to the point. Even the look of cycling can be hard on the eyes. When I first got back on the bike over a year ago, I was amazed at how... ugly a good number of bikes were when I went shopping. The swooshes and aggressive line art, coupled with colours that could make you vomit, were too much. Whatever happened to clean and attractive? I had to ask myself if 10 years from now could I live with looking at the bike, and "no" came up frequently.

And I couldn't get comfortable on a number of them, and I'm fairly active and fit, so I wasn't above trying out more aggressive postures. Hybrids seemed too, well, blah... racing styled bikes were great, but I couldn't see myself commuting or running errands on them, and the comfort bikes seemed pokey. I wanted a bike that I remember from my youth where I just rode the bloody thing everywhere and anywhere.

Spandex! It has it's place, but for the most part, I don't want to look like a rolling advertisement. Bicycling Times is a great magazine - very practical, interesting, and to the point. Bicycling, on the other hand, has some good articles and features, but it perpetuates the 20% of the high end cycling that 80% of the population will never achieve or even arguably desire. It just kills me that the latest edition of Bicycling was supposedly the definitive issue on urban cycling: the article was what? 8 pages? It did feature, I think, the blogger of Lovely Bicycle! - a real credit there - but the rest of the magazine was the norm. Bicycling Times, on the other hand, is all about cycling on a daily basis.

No offense to the racers out there! If you're happy where you are, more power to you. But if cycling is to become (again) a true societal movement, it has to appeal to the masses, not the elite.

As for helmets... well, I have to disagree with the author and all the naysayers. I wear a helmet, and for any activity that you can go significantly faster than a walk or a run, wear a helmet. Sure they might not protect you in a severe collision - nothing can - but it's all the other incidents that can make a difference. Even a simple stumble and fall can be dangerous. Your skull + concrete edge = a bloody mess. Arguing that a helmet is not needed because it will be insignificant in a severe collision is like arguing because the car I'm driving will get crushed when I get run over by a semi-tractor trailer, there's no point in wearing my seat belt or enabling the air bags. Well, I know the helmet issue is practically pointless to argue on this forum, but that's my 5 cents worth (they've gotten rid of the penny in Canada - no two cents anymore!).

We need to get rid of our pennies, too.

Why are we so hung up on what cyclists wear? Commuting I'll wear jeans and cotton T with no helmet and no one cares. Or I'll wear bibs and jersey with designer sunglasses (outside the helmet straps naturally), and no one cares. Any bizarre combination thereof - no one cares and there's no difference in how people drive around me. I think it's all a red herring and a way to label other people, nothing more to it than that.

You can take my Penny Farthing when you pry it off my cold, metal cleats...

It's probably not hard to find routes that are more relaxed and less heavily trafficked - I wouldn't bike across town on the same route I would drive. And almost nobody commutes in spandex, although I do have some bike specific clothes I may wear on recreational/fitness rides, as it is more suitable for that purpose. If you shop around I am sure you can find a bike that suits you. There must be a local bike shop (LBS) in town that caters more to utility riders than to racers. Or you could always come to Toronto and go to Urbane Cyclist, MEC, Bateman's, Curbside, Bikes on Wheels, Dukes or any of probably of dozens of bike shops that have a good range of options for commuters. Personally, I commute on a rehabilitated 1984 Trek tour bike, and if I were to buy new I might get a cyclocross-inspired bike.

Most of my responses to the article itself have been covered:

- The general idea of the article is grand.

- I wear a helmet because my head is extremely useful to me, and a helmet decreases the chance of injury should I hit my head at high speed.

- It would be terrific if all cyclists were better at following rules of the road. As a cyclist and car driver, nothing makes me more upset than seeing people cycling dangerously, giving us all a bad name.

- Seeing some people wearing lycra (And I guess helmets, too. Whatever.) is not a barrier to other people riding. I don't wear lycra because I don't like it. The fact that some other people do has never made me question whether or not I should be riding.

- US cities are mostly more sprawled out than European cities, and it's easier to own a car here. Thus, our cycling infrastructure is never going to be as good, and bike commuting will never be as popular.

One additional thing that really bothers me is this guy selling himself as a physician. He's not. He's a chiropractor. In America, if you are calling yourself a physician, you better be an MD or a DO. He's using a false title to give his words more credence, and it makes me think everything he has to say is BS.

Ooh, good catch. Maybe he's riled-up because he has an untreated subluxation. :lol: