gerv 

I can come up with a dozen good reasons for using a bicycle to get around. The environment. A good reaction to Peak Oil. Cheap. Good exercise. Fun. Replaces a gym membership. Did I mention it saves me money?

However, I was watching one of the Danish bicycle traffic videos (posted on LCF) the other day and a young pollster pointed out that bicycling was cited as the preferred way to travel by 56% of cyclists interviewed because "it's the most convenient way to get around."

That kind of floored me. How is cycling more convenient?

bmclaughlin807

Given that a HUGE number of trips are less than two miles and only for one or two small items, a bicycle would be WAY more convenient.

For one client at my last place of employment it took approx. 10 minutes to get from our office to theirs by bike. By car it took 15 once you counted finding a parking spot, getting the car locked up and then getting to the front door.

Had a coworker who left the office at the same time as me to visit the client... yes, he got to the parking lot a few seconds before me, but I was down to the door, gotten buzzed in and inside well before he got there. I was actually already sitting at a desk working on the problem I was there to fix when he walked up and mentioned something about beating me.... he was quite proud of himself, until I pointed out that I was inside, seated, and working before he made it in the door.

prathmann

Depends a lot on how inconvenient the alternatives are, and parking facilities play a big role. For example, when I visited my aunt in Germany her apartment building had no parking so she rented a space a couple blocks away. So any car trips first involved a walk to get the car and then after driving somewhere you had to find a parking spot there. Many of the stores and other businesses had no dedicated parking, so you had to drive around looking for a parking garage or maybe luck out and get one of the scarce on-street parking spots.

Of course one consequence of not having much parking space combined with very narrow streets is that the city was significantly more compact than most in the US. So the biking distances to run errands were shorter than here while the time and effort to drive was much higher. So yes, for many in-town errands it was substantially more convenient to bike rather than to drive.

cyclokitty 

For me, my bike is far more convenient than riding public transit. I don't have to wait for a bus or train. I don't have to schedule a grocery shopping trip during the non rush hour times to bring home groceries in a cart which isn't allowed during rush hours. I don't sit squished between people. I don't have to ride on congested roads and sit thru all of the scheduled stops.

For example, the bus to the more affordable grocery store is 15 minutes away but that doesn't include the 5 to 10 minutes of waiting for the bus to go to the store as well as the 5 to sometimes 20 minutes to wait for the bus come home. The whole trip can take upwards of an hour. By bike it's barely 15 minutes each way. AND I can buy whatever I can carry at any time of the day.

And it's cheaper. It's a $3.00 fare each way ($2.50 if I buy tokens) by public transit. Cost per trip on my bike is currently $200 divided by 356 days (basically what I paid for bike maintenance and new tires last year over a year of bike commuting).

Way way way more convenient for me to ride my bike versus my other choice, public transit.

bragi

I would agree with other posters that bicycling is much more convenient than driving in urban areas largely because of parking. In the central neighborhoods of Seattle, parking can be a nightmare, especially if you're delusional enough to think that you can find a place to park for free. But there are also other considerations, in addition to the ones mentioned by gerv. The main one is traffic density itself; driving around town can get very irritating and stressful, not even considering parking, but you can avoid most of that nonsense just by riding. Even if you need to ride on a busy, backed-up street, a bicycle's small size means you can squeeze through and keep going while cars are stuck in gridlock.

I should point out, though, that the convenience of bike parking is partly a function of the fact that not that many people use bicycles. Lately I've noticed that this advantage has decreased markedly. Just this evening, when I went to meet a friend in Ballard, it took me a few minutes to find a place to lock up my bike because of the sheer number of other bikes. It was still way easier than finding a place to park a car, but a year or two ago, I could have picked any number of places to lock up my bike.

Smallwheels

In urban areas it must be more convenient for bicycles just because of parking. I live a bit away from the main part of a small town. A car would be more convenient for me. My favorite grocery store is four and a quarter miles away. There is no parking problem at all in town. Only downtown has parking meters and most of the time there are spaces available.

If I take a job fifteen miles from my current home I'll try to move closer. The problem is that the job is on the edge of the city where there is ranch land. The few neighborhoods nearby don't have apartments and I definitely don't want to buy or rent a house.

AdamDZ

Of course it's more convenient, at least in big cities! One of the reasons I ride. Mass transit in NYC sucks big time. Running short errands by car is frustrating because of traffic and lack of parking plus high chances of getting into an accident and/or getting a parking ticket. If you live in rural area where "traffic" is something you see on TV, parking is not an issue and you have large distances to cover then a car would be more convenient.

I've run an errand last Saturday with my trailer: all the way to Manhattan, back to Brooklyn, stopped by LBS, then back to Queens stopped UPS (it was closed, duh...) and Post Office - all in just under 2 hours (about 25 miles) and it was fun and I got my exercise. Williamsburg bridge was packed with cars so were major approaches to it. Even with a trailer I was moving faster than traffic most of the time. Zero parking problems. It would take me around 2 hours just to drive to Manhattan and back, find parking on confusingly marked streets (or pay $25 for garage).

All while carrying quite a load that would be extremely tiresome if I were to carry it by hand on subway.

A.

ilynne

On thing that makes it more convenient: my bicycle always has fuel. That's more convenient than having to add a trip to the gas station.

harshbarj

Cycling for me is far more convenient than any other form of transit. First people in my neighborhood LOVE to break out car windows, a bicycle has no windows. Second, most stores have limited, if any, parking and light poles are everywhere. Almost all my trips are within 5km and at the most 18 km, so a bicycle works great for that distance.

cerewa

Leaving aside the issue of cost for cars and parking (which is a big issue) i'd say that biking is more convenient in a pretty limited set of circumstances. I live in a big city, close to a lot of the places I go, and that means biking is actually quite convenient, and driving not so much.

In other places, driving is pretty convenient.

If you take into account the hours you spend getting together the money to pay for your car though (and the inconveniences you live with while working) ditching your car might sound pretty good!

sauerwald

In the US, driving is largely convenient because it is so heavily subsidized. Our fuel is cheap, we spread everything out so that there is plenty of room for 'free' parking, we have a road system which is mostly paid for through general revenues, whereas non-private motor transit is much less subsidized. In much of europe, this is not the case. Once you remove the subsidies for motor vehicles, other, more efficient forms of transit become more convenient and popular.

Seattle Forrest

One place I go is Trader Joe's, because they're groceries are both yummy and affordable. I'm not the only person who knows this, though, and parking can kind of be a nightmare at the store in the University District. Not that walking a few blocks is a hardship or anything, but it's less fun if you buy lots of heavy groceries, especially stuff to drink. Also, they've put in bike lanes on pretty much every road leading to TJ's ( except I-5 ) and narrowed the auto lanes, including the parking lane, but people who park their cars here haven't got the message. Driving there is an ordeal. Cycling is vastly more convenient.

At work, we don't get parking passes, and are left to our own devices with street parking, which means folks move their cars every two hours. But there's a bike rack out front, and I don't have to break my train of thought while I'm debugging some nasty code.

There's a restaurant in a nearby neighborhood, about 3 miles from me overland ( it's a much shorter trip by kayak, and there's a public dock I use when I go this way ), that doesn't charge for drinks if you bring your water bottle instead of using one of their cups. But it's in a trendy part of the city, and when a friend drove me once, it took us about 20 minutes to find parking, and almost another 10 to walk in. I can leave my bike out front ( within view ) if they're busy, or bring it inside if they're not. Or, I can leave my kayak at the dock and walk the last few hundred yards; when I do this, I tend to bring my paddle with me, which makes the boat less attractive to casual theft.

Lots of people take public transit, and wait for the bus or trolley or what-have-you. A bus is nice in that it gives you reading time, but a bike works on your schedule...

myrridin

I suggest that many of these items are largely dependent upon local factors.

For instance not many trips in my area are less than two miles. Parking is rarely an issue. Summer temps frequently exceed 100 degrees (I don't want to drive an air conditioned car in that heat, much less ride a bike).

As to locking the car, I can lock the car far faster than I can lock my bike (two locks), and I am much more comfortable that the car will be in driveable condition when I get out of the store, than I am about the bike. That said I am trying to ride the bike for as many trips as possible, but I would hardly call it the most convenient transportation in my area of the world. And I wouldn't want to live in an area that was structured physically to make bike travel the most convenient mode of travel.

Seattle Forrest

81 % of America's 310 million people live in cities or suburbs.

bmclaughlin807

Are you lost? With an attitude like that, why the f$%^ would you be trolling....err.... I mean BROWSING the sub-forum titled "Living Car Free"?

bmclaughlin807

Another trick I like... I find that I almost always have to take three buses to get anywhere... one bus to get me to the bus that's going to take me most of the way, then that one long trip, then another shorter bus ride to get me to my final destination.

Or... I can ride my bike to the main bus I need to take, put it on the bike rack on the bus, then ride my bike the last leg of the trip. Faster, easier, much more convenient. Generally knocks at least a half hour off my trip.

myrridin

Simply not true. In 26 states the predominate funding for roads is through the gas tax, in the remaining 24, the gas tax represents a significant portion of the funding. Further, in addition to fuel taxes, tolls, vehicle taxes, etc. many communities charge "impact fees" to new home owners, essentially requiring a one-time payment to help fund the needed infrastructure required by the growth associated with building new homes. Now most local roads are built from general revenues and not a gas tax, but frankly the general revenues in that specific case are coming from the people who receive the benefit of those facilities, even if they never leave their home.

And you are putting the cart before the horse with claiming that parking is the reason everything is spread out. The main reason things are spread out in the US is that land is cheap. This is not a subsidy, but a free market. Its cheaper to build outside of the developed area, hence encouraging sprawl. Since we are a free society that is not likely to change, nor do many (if not most) of us believe it should change.

myrridin

I've spent time in a few areas of the country that are very "bike friendly" Specifically Portland, Davis and San Francisco. I don't like the population densities that are implied by being bike friendly. Frankly, I don't think most Americans do either, hence the endless movement aware from cities into sub-urbs.

And I have been reading this sub-forum, because I find it frequently contains useful information about things like locking ones bike, carrying goods, etc... I just tend to ignore the proselytizing and the true believers except when they are discussing something I find useful.

myrridin

Yep and very few of those cities (actually metropolitan areas since all of the top ten are agglomerations of many municipalities) are what most folks would classify as places where cycling is the most convenient option.

I currently live in the 4th or 5th largest urban area in the US, and have spent time in every one of the top 10 except Chicago. The only one of the top ten I have spent time where cycling might approach the most convenient form of transportation was San Francisco, and frankly the hills there made that unlikely.

bjjoondo 

Well at lest for my wife and I, I'd have to say, "NO"!!!!!!! From what we've been thru since we become, "carless", to us it seems the ONLY real asset to having a "CAR", is "it's very convenient". You don't have to schedule your time, like you do when you use a bicycle or a Bus, a 15-25 mile run to vist friends in the evening is a piece of cake in a car, but really tough on a bike/bus, especially in the winter months. I like all the aspects of not owing a car, "no payments, insurance, maint. cost", no parking spot hassles (we live in a apartment complex), etc. but there are times, I really MISS being able to just do something out of town at the "spare" of the moment.

Roody

Boy you sure live in a crummy area. I would never choose such a bad neighborhood.

Roody

Wrong. You respond to posts you claim to ignore, and ignore the posts you claim to find useful. As for proselytizing, the pot does it as well as the kettle.

johnr783

It can be cheap but it can also be expensive. It all depends on the type of rider you are. At first, I spent just as much on cycling gear and accessories as I did on gas. Bear in mind, this wasn't mainly on clothing. No, it was mainly on racks, kickstand, cyclometer, etc. Now, my purchases have pretty much plateaued.

As for the gym membership. I have heard that cyclists tend to have weak bone/muscular structure up top. Of course, we always make fun of this with comments of scrawny arms and whatnot. I still go to the gym so I can even out because, as I told that one girl on our first date, despite how good it sounds, being bottom-heavy actually gets pretty annoying. By the way, I get a free gym membership because I am a cycling instructor.

gerv 

One factor that could make bicycles super-convenient to my mind would be if bicycles could handle the distances that you find in a city. In my city, the bike is great for a 10 mile roundtrip to work, but if I need to go downtown at night, that's another 10-mile roundtrip. If I want to go to the best cinema, it's a 14 mile roundtrip.

That's a whole bunch of cycling and takes up a lot of time.

Now... I'm not saying these trips aren't fun, but I wouldn't call them convenient either.

Seems to me that the bicycle is convenient if you are making shorter trips... if everything you need is within a 2-3 mile radius and if you basically seldom need to leave that zone. I can see why Copenhagen might come close to fitting that bill, but LA or Chicago or for that matter Des Moines doesn't.

coldfeet

So can I, the most important? it keeps me sane. ( Well, less crazy. )
Population Density of Des Moines ( where you live ) 2,621.3 people per square mile.

Population Density of Copenhagen, 15,589.8 people per square mile