On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 10:25:02 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-11-26 18:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:
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.
Ah yes, you have a magic energy shield around you so the fumes part
right in front of your face. Phhht. I can literally smell just about any
Diesel that comes by.
Cars have HEPA filters and a cocoon-like innard in whcih the operator
resideth, bicycles ... don't.
IOW, "Don't bother me with scientific studies. My own imagination is infallible."
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.
Good luck trying that where a metropolis is 30mi or closer. I sometimes
have to ride during rush our and then it's almost bumper to bumper.
Oh dear, you poor baby! Imagine! Sometimes having to ride in rush hour!
But I'm sure you've convinced those in power to add a completely separate bike facility along all of your routes, right? After all, you seem to think that's the only solution to your problem.
Oh - and I'm sure your completely separate bike paths will be hermetically sealed, and given their own supply of filtered and purified air, right? It wouldn't do to have them downwind from some cars. One can't be too careful!
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?
If you move to a place such as Folsom, chances are you will find bike
facilities to all of those or at least for the major part of the ride.
Why, that's wonderful! So everyone should just move to Folsom... whose bike mode share is about one percent, IIRC.
But as I recall, you weren't talking about moving to Folsom yourself. Last we heard, you were going to flee to some conservative bastion, some place that doesn't collect taxes from the innocent citizens and waste them on froufrou playthings like bike paths.
Which is why I prefer to do my errand rides there and not in other
communities. So do others. Which results in higher sales tax collections
there. Which results in even better bike path coverage. Which causes
more people to move there. Which ...
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.
I know how to ride.
And there's one of bicycling's biggest problems. Everyone over 12 thinks "I know how to ride." They can't imagine there's anything they don't already know, so they absolutely refuse to consider learning anything. It's Dunning-Kruger in full force.
--
- Frank Krygowski