On Wed, 01 Oct 2014 19:42:31 +0100, Mrcheerful wrote:

On 01/10/2014 19:17, Bret Cahill wrote:
That would all depend upon having a nice even level road.


Or a nice knobbly mountain bike.


In the


event of disaster neither of those are likely, whereas feet can
climb


over things very easily and going up hill (necessary to escape
tidal


waves ) is quite natural and simple on foot. I would imagine
that


poor quality knee joints are not too hot for cycling in any case.


Actually my knees work quite well on a bike because their movement
is


constrained by the pedals, so they tend not try to twist out of


alignment, which they can do when I'm walking, particularly on
uneven







ground.







Tennis players with bad knees -- basically all tennis players over
40 -- will often cycle for knee therapy.







Stay in lower gears and cycling actually makes knees better.





Then why do so many cyclists develop patellofemoral syndrome?



They aren't spinning. Higher gears will destroy the knees for the
same reason lugging down an engine 9not downshifting) will destroy
the piston rod bearings.



Cyclists also need to get out of the seat every now and then to save
their prostates.


You would think that 'pro' cyclists would know that by now.

Most know the risks well enough. As with professional boxing, football
or knee destroying tennis they just think the $ is worth the risk.

Anyway you seem to have abandoned any argument that bicycles wouldn't
be critical evacuating coastal areas from an approaching tsunami.


Bret Cahill




A bicycle would not be my weapon of choice for such escape, nor would it
be feasible for most people, yet everyone has feet.

Thank God I am not "most people"