On 11/26/2017 12:29 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-26 09:16, AMuzi wrote:


This is a false dichotomy in that all of it can be true and likely is.
Choice is good, neither city nor rural life being perfect and humans
being by their nature a diverse lot.


Though as humans we need to recognize when we are damaging our bodies
and the denser the area the more that will happen. This is also why I'll
never understand people who say "Away with cycle paths, bicycles belong
on the road". I find that, sorry to say, stupid. Why would anyone in
their right mind want to travel alongside noisy and polluting combustion
engines buzzing by?

Another false dichotomy. Riding on the road does not mean ingesting
significant pollution. Several studies have shown that even in city
traffic, cyclists ingest less pollution than motor vehicle operators.
Other studies have shown that bicycle commuters live far longer than
those commuting by other means.

Besides, almost all of my riding involves relatively little traffic even
though I rarely use bike paths. I enjoy riding quiet roads, where I may
be passed by fewer than 20 cars per hour. But even on utility trips in
the city or its suburbs, I can usually choose quieter streets. On our
runs to the grocery store, we choose a route that gives us six miles
round trip. We'll typically be passed by only a dozen cars.

I suppose in some idealistic theory, we could convince the government to
build a separate bike trail between our house and that grocery. But what
if we need to get to the library instead? Or the pharmacy? Or the
hardware store? Or the doctor's office? Or my best friend's house?
Should I stay off my bike until the government builds separate paths to
each of those places, plus all the others I want to visit?

Sorry, Joerg. I chose instead to learn to ride on the roads, and I do so
in perfect comfort and safety. You should try that. https://abea.bike/
Even you can learn to do it.


--
- Frank Krygowski