Which is the point and why it's fruitless to ask why someone would want something that you don't want.

If each position sucks, then yeah, you need to move around a lot.

I set up my position exactly where I like it.

This is the commuting forum. We're not riding a hundred miles at a time.

But I did 84 miles on my Gazelle the other weekend.............my normal weekend day rides are typically 40 to 60 miles, but the Gazelle is so comfortable I just want to keep on going. I got the Gazelle with the intention of it being my dedicated commuter, but I have decided I like it best for all my riding.

I also can't find a comfortable position on drops, to each is own.

The nice thing about sitting upright on a tall bike is I can see over most cars in traffic, and I'm eye level with the drivers of SUVs and most pickup trucks. Besides that, I prefer being able to comfortably and easily look all around taking in the scenery over the face-down-and-frown of drops.

But those guys buy BMX bikes, not dutchies

Non-drop doesn't have to be upright.

I have nothing against drop bars... rode 'em for years. I just never found them magically delicious, no matter how much I tried. One well placed flat or mildly swept back bar position works best for me. To each their own.

That's true, and I do like the slight lean that the bars on my Porteur allow when in the bend for hills or head winds. I rode drops for years too, and understand the advantages they offer, but now even the very mild drop of the Luterwassers on my 1935 Raleigh had become too much for my wrists and neck which forced me to swap them out for northroads. The thing I have against drops is they don't allow for an upright option.
Every style of bar has advantages and disadvantages that change with each individual, any claims of a particular styles inferiority or superiority are nothing more than personal opinion.

I'm eagerly awaiting a parcel from Holland, one of the items is a Gazelle "switch" stem that allows a wide range of height, angle, and reach adjustment with the flip of a lever, to match ones mood or conditions.

I think that it is really easy to think that Minneapolis uses a lot of salt...and that is what I thought when I moved there from Oregon...But...the reality is that as much as I was shocked at the salt coming from OR to MSP, I was shocked at how much more salt CPH uses than MSP. I also think that the weather pattern is way worse...but I was thinking about it and here is a comparison:

MSP commute:
One block on the road until I hit the Parkway and then Greenline the rest of the way to work.
Surface: smooth asphalt
salt use: moderate
bike care: kept in underground parking garage and sprayed down regularly in the car wash stall then towel dry and lube

CPH commute:
mix of bike paths, cobble stones, etc.
surface: varied, but some areas that are very rough
salt use: low on roads, but very high on bike paths
bike care: kept outside wipe down with cloth and lube, no access to running fresh water

I think the problem is that the Danes use more salt in copenhagen than is used in Minneapolis...which actually makes sense because you are dealing with a constant freeze thaw cycle (pretty much every day) versus minneapolis, which salts after a big snow fall, but after that there really wasn't much salt applied to the greenway and parkway...and the other problem is that I can't rinse the salt off here. so it builds up and then the freeze thaw cycle just makes that problem worse...

Just imagine what a "Dutch bike" would do to cycling in America if it was the only thing available. "Dutch bikes" have their uses in Holland but that's a pretty tiny area that is mostly flat. A "Dutch bike" in my city is mostly useless.

You could ride one around Denver's city center and, maybe, north and south on the Platte River but from where the Platte River comes out of the mountains to Commerce City (a distance of, roughly, 30 miles) you couldn't ride it west of the river. At the city's center, you couldn't ride it more than about 50 feet west of the river. There's a 300 foot climb there in about half a mile that is difficult enough on a multigeared bike.

On my commute, each and every day, I have to 700 feet of climbing. Someone in Amsterdam probably won't climb 700 feet in a month. People get all misty eyed over Amsterdam but that model doesn't fit everywhere.

Same here... I tried drop bars and didn't like them, drop bars are no more comfortable then my riser bars or flat bars with bar-ends.
Drop bars are for racing, not for commuting on city streets.

For you. You can't speak for anyone else...which is the problem with this kind of thread.

If you don't like drops, don't use them. But don't make pronouncements for the rest of us. I use drops, flats, and risers for commuting on city streets. I don't find one better...or worse... than the others.

You are discounting the self-image held by our hip comrades tackling mountains during every commute. And don't forget that our comrades commute in a country with the Rocky Mountains and 3000 miles between the coasts and therefore their hipness requires a bike to handle such commutes! At least a reader of these threads would think that is needed

Hipness comes in many different flavors, includding curmudgeonly. Feel free to ride any bike you like and I'll do the same. My way is better for me while your way is better for you. I have no problem with what you ride nor what you wear to ride. But it cuts both ways. You have no right to have a problem with what I ride nor how I dress to do it.

You are welcome to come to Denver anytime and try a ride to the west of the Platte river on a Dutch bike. Preferably in a wool plaid shirt and stiff Carharts with double fronts so that you don't look "hip".

...Oh, wait. That's what the "hip" people wear.

Holland (a province in The Netherlands) is relatively flat, The Netherlands is not. If you ride the route for races such as Amstel Gold you'll find out. And yet people still ride upright Dutch bikes in the hilly areas.

More so, these are the preferred bikes for people all over the world. They're ubiquitous in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Spain, France, China, and elsewhere. In the late 90's there was a move towards other styles but that lasted only about seven years and shops say that demand went back to Dutch uprights. That's what people who use their bicycles for daily transportation prefer. Some people with very long commutes (greater than maybe 15 miles) or lots of steep hills will ride hybrid or road bikes but even for longer commutes you still see far more uprights than anything.

This excuse that we can't use them here because we have hills is a fallacy.

This also ignores that even in the hilliest places the majority of shorter distance errands for eating, shopping, school, or groceries are relatively flat and that it is only for the longer distance trips that many hills are encountered. Ride the bike for the short local stuff and drive a car for the fewer trips that involve mountains.

No one said Dutch bikes can't be used on hills. It's just that some prefer not to. Any bike will work for almost any purpose, at least sometimes. Really, the search for the ideal bike is a little misguided. Just find the bike(s) you like. No need to call it the best for the purpose. Call it the bike you like the most.

Dutch bikes are ridden mostly by old ladies. As I am neither old nor a lady, I choose to ride something more appropriate.

The Amstel Gold race is held in a tiry little corner of The Netherlands that is almost Germany...hardly representitive of the rest of the country. Holland is more representive of The Netherlands terrain than where the Amstel Gold race is held. I've been to The Netherlands...it's dead flat, especially compared to just about anywhere in the US. Even Iowa has more hills.

Sales statistics don't agree with you. Mountain bikes outsell "city bikes" in Europe almost 5 to 1. Road bikes sell at about the same rate. Someone is buying...and riding... all those mountain bikes.

No one said that we "can't" ride them here in the US but most people don't want to. If they wanted them, the sales figures would reflect that.

You can't say what shorter distance riding is for the entire US. Some people, out of necessity, are going to ride short distances that are flat and some aren't. It's a big country with a very widely varied terrain.

[MENTION=152773]noglider[/MENTION], in a rarity, I'm going to disagree with you. There is certainly room for personal preference but I think that for some purposes there are bicycles that GENERALLY are better for that purpose than others. For road racing a drop bar carbon fiber road bike is usually best. For off road a mountain or fat tire. For long distance touring it's likely a touring bike.

For daily errands like riding to school, church, dinner, or the hardware store, as well as probably about 30% of commutes (that are less than four or five miles) a more upright bike with an enclosed chain, flat pedals, fenders, and sturdy racks is likely best for most people. They can be more easily ridden in any normal clothes and without having to tie pants legs up. They are more comfortable for most average people and don't leave you sweating and smelly in the folds of your skin from leaning forward. These aren't the bikes for Lance wanna-be's but for the average person who doesn't want to wear spandex they're quite appropriate.

The problem though is that bike shops in the U.S. don't sell these bikes. The average person shopping around a few LBS's won't likely see them. They'll see shops full of pseudo racing bikes, hybrids, and comfort bikes (that may look similar to a Dutch/English city bike but is vastly different in geometry and ride quality) and assume that something among these is the best option. As well, most U.S. consumers don't think about using their bicycle for anything other than weekend recreation. They'll drive a half mile to eat several times a week and then load their bikes on their car and drive 10 miles to a local recreational trail and spend an hour playing dodge-kid. Then when they do think about riding their bikes to dinner one night they find it a hassle because they have to roll up their pants and then end up with grease on their shoes and socks and they think that they have to wear a helmet (because it's too dangerous not to) and they get to dinner and have messed up sweaty hair from their helmet and sweat around their mid-section from leaning forward and grease on their socks (and then realize that they forgot to roll their socks down when they'd arrived 20 minutes ago) and then can't pick up groceries on the way home because they have no way to carry them. These people just decided that riding a bicycle for anything other than once a month recreation is for the birds.

The problem is the individual persons personal definition of what a "big hill" really is...Just because there are hills doesn't mean you need triple chain ring up front and a 9-10 speed cassette in the rear. Most areas with rolling terrain can be ridden with a single gear.
I've never ridden an IGH bike because I prefer FG/SS but I bet a 3 speed IGH with three gear ratios would be perfect for most situations. Do you really need 27 gears ??

[MENTION=179437]CrankyOne[/MENTION], actually, I agree with you. Some bikes are definitely better suited for one purpose or another. It's just that when you do the analysis as rationally as you can, a person may choose a bike that would mystify you. And it is fruitless to tell the person that they're wrong.

Your last paragraph is very well put. It would be nice if average Americans (and Canadians, I suppose) had a kinder eye towards this type of bike. The good news is that it is making inroads here. If you don't see it yet, you will see it eventually. My area is a sign of it. One of the most common types of bike locked up outside is the English three-speed. People lock their bikes up 24 hours a day here, since space is at such a premium, so I get to see what people are riding even when they're not on the bike. Dutch style bikes have also made inroads here.

Another sign of the change is the great acceptance that Citibike has had. That's our big bike sharing program. The program is insanely low-priced. They just increased annual membership from $98 to $150. That's still insanely low. Not only are people riding these bikes happily in huge numbers -- numbers beyond everyone's predictions --, there is a huge fraction of people who don't seem to be cyclephiles like us here on BF. These are just people who want to go places for the least amount of hassle, and they are discovering that bikes make a lot of sense. The bikes are extremely upright. They handle like French mopeds, which is to say you steer them rather than leaning them. They have three extremely low gears, drum brakes, fenders, dynamo lights, and skirt guards. They don't want us using them as cargo bikes, so they have small baskets in the front and nothing on the back. And even though I own too many bikes™, I am also a member of Citibike.

[MENTION=179437]CrankyOne[/MENTION], where are you? (And why don't you have your location in your profile?) I lived in the NJ suburbs from 1987 through 2013, and I saw an increase in the number of people going places on bikes in recent years. It's not immensely noticeable in some areas, but it is happening. If your area doesn't have a Complete Streets policy, get involved and push for one. I co-founded a non-profit in NJ, and we succeeded in getting one passed where I lived.

That sounds like an ideal commuting/errands bike. Big shame on all the bike shops out there for not selling these types of bikes. I wonder why bike shops don't sell 3 speed bikes anymore ??.

I'm telling you, they do ... here.

[MENTION=152773]noglider[/MENTION], I live most of the year in St Paul MN and the rest in Europe (based in Amsterdam).

I'm not a fan of complete streets initiatives. If they better defined how pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be designed and leaned more towards Dutch (or even Danish) standards I'd support it, but they stop way short of that and yet do promote designs such as bike lanes in the drivers side door zone of cars and two-way cycletracks through urban areas both of which I think are very dangerous.

I imagine getting more people onto bikes in St Paul would be hard, with the climate you have, but I don't really know. One day, I want to visit your city.

If you don't like Complete Streets, you can still advocate for whatever it is you want.

The weather doesn't seem to be a big issue. We're consistently ranked in the top 3 in the U.S. for bicycle commuting and a good number do so all year. The biggest obstacle we face is infrastructure. Neighborhoods with a lot of protected infrastructure have high numbers of people riding, elsewhere is low or no.