Interesting post on gas prices and bikes

I've just finished that entire thread. Many excellent points were
raised and a good time was had by all chuckling over the grammar and
spelling.

But all kidding aside, i am just shocked, shocked, that the general
public isn't seriously considering cycling as an option.

There are 100,000,000 solo automobile commuters in the country and
450,000 bicycle commuters; 125,000 of them right here in my home town of
NYC. Of the 100,000,000, about 45,000,000 ride from, to, or through an
EPA non-attainment zone _and_ travel at commuting speeds less than the
posted speed limits (i.e. commute speed here in Manhattan is under 5
MPH.) Of those 45,000,000, about 70% are overweight (overweight is
strongly correlated with time spent in car commutes) and most of them
are trying to lose wheight, spending $600 - $1,000 per year in gym
memberships, home exercise equipment, and weight loss snake oil. Most
of those people are paying (them or their insurance companies) or will
be paying or are being targeted to pay $1,000 per year for blood
pressure, cholesterol, and/or type II diabetes medication (show of
hands, please, from anyone who had bloodwork before taking up cycling
and the current figures show a dramatic improvement.) As one poster
pointed out, just owning a car is an expensive burden. It works out to
about $3,000 per year for a family to have a supernumerary car kept just
for one person's commute. There are over 30,000,000 people in the US
with asthma, costing something like $20,000,000,000 per year, a good
chunk of that due to ozone and particulate exacerbation (for example,
you can count the cars on the Triboro Bridge at 8:00 AM and read a
weather report and get a good estimate of the number of people showing
up in Harlem Hospital with asthman attacks that afternoon.)

The flip side of that is that physical fitness and athletic prowess are
moderately to strongly correlated to career success and salary (show of
hands, anyone? I know it's true in my office, anyway.)

The typical car commute is 12 miles or less; a regular civilian should
be able to start out at 12 MPH and quickly work up to 16 MPH for a short
haul and many routes will be much shorter by bicycle (parks, back roads,
etc.) So what's the hold up? There are already laws in 11 states
mandating sales of zero emission vehicles, but they're all tied up in
court or in the clutches of the lobbying process. Why not have
automobile manufacturers buy pollution warrants from commuting cyclists
for unsold ZEVs? That might get some interest going with the general
public. Especially considering the fact that if standard car purchasers
pay a premium to subsidize mandated ZEVs, they get a little bit of air
quality improvement. But if they pay to physically remove cars from
rush hour roads, then they get where they are going _faster_ and get
even _more_ improvement in air quality.

My guess is that the press is biased against bicycles. Every day I ride
past Fox News, NBC, Reuters, and the New York Freaking Times and I see
streets filled with cars, allowed the precious grace of parking on
Mnahattan streets by virtue of their NYP plates. Their salaries are
paid for largely by car advertising, so I'm guessing they know which
side of the toast has the butter.

Andy Gee writes:

The typical car commute is 12 miles or less; a regular civilian should
be able to start out at 12 MPH and quickly work up to 16 MPH for a
short haul and many routes will be much shorter by bicycle (parks,
back roads, etc.) So what's the hold up?

It's really very simple: at 12 mph, a 12 mile commute takes one hour.
In a car here in Denver with the highway and rush hour, it takes about
20 minutes. Even at a 16 mph rate, that bike commute takes 45 minutes.
Who would spend more than twice the time to get where he's going?

I started cycling to work because a) my car was starting to fail and b)
it took the same amount of time (as everyone here knows, on non-highway
streets it's possible to keep up or surpass cars). My new place isn't
so good, but it's close enough, and I'm now keen enough on cycling, to
keep up with it.

But the normal person just wants to get where he's going ASAP.

Maybe electric-boosted cycles might help?

--
Robert Uhl http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl
The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass;
a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read.
--Pratchett

But all kidding aside, i am just shocked, shocked, that the general
public isn't seriously considering cycling as an option.

The true test of such sentiment is to post it during the dead of winter and
see how responses run. It's easy to talk about bicycles as being a great way
to commute during fair weather, but ultimately, the vast majority of people
are going to seek something more protective at the slightest possibility of
foul weather. Few people are crazy like me and rides no-matter-what (for my
regular Tuesday/Thursday-morning ride, which is *not* a commute... for that,
unfortunately, I must drive, since I'm dealing with merchandise transfers
between our two stores).

Realistically, if we're going to try and get large numbers of people to
commute by bicycle, we also need a significant alternative for those times
when it's just not practical. And that's a tough one. How do you design a
system where, if it's successful, you're dealing with huge numbers of people
who don't need public transit when the weather's nice, but suddenly flock to
it when things turn foul? Of course, being in that situation would be a much
better place than where we are now...

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Andy Gee" wrote in message
8.78...
I've just finished that entire thread. Many excellent points were
raised and a good time was had by all chuckling over the grammar and
spelling.

But all kidding aside, i am just shocked, shocked, that the general
public isn't seriously considering cycling as an option.

There are 100,000,000 solo automobile commuters in the country and
450,000 bicycle commuters; 125,000 of them right here in my home town of
NYC. Of the 100,000,000, about 45,000,000 ride from, to, or through an
EPA non-attainment zone _and_ travel at commuting speeds less than the
posted speed limits (i.e. commute speed here in Manhattan is under 5
MPH.) Of those 45,000,000, about 70% are overweight (overweight is
strongly correlated with time spent in car commutes) and most of them
are trying to lose wheight, spending $600 - $1,000 per year in gym
memberships, home exercise equipment, and weight loss snake oil. Most
of those people are paying (them or their insurance companies) or will
be paying or are being targeted to pay $1,000 per year for blood
pressure, cholesterol, and/or type II diabetes medication (show of
hands, please, from anyone who had bloodwork before taking up cycling
and the current figures show a dramatic improvement.) As one poster
pointed out, just owning a car is an expensive burden. It works out to
about $3,000 per year for a family to have a supernumerary car kept just
for one person's commute. There are over 30,000,000 people in the US
with asthma, costing something like $20,000,000,000 per year, a good
chunk of that due to ozone and particulate exacerbation (for example,
you can count the cars on the Triboro Bridge at 8:00 AM and read a
weather report and get a good estimate of the number of people showing
up in Harlem Hospital with asthman attacks that afternoon.)

The flip side of that is that physical fitness and athletic prowess are
moderately to strongly correlated to career success and salary (show of
hands, anyone? I know it's true in my office, anyway.)

The typical car commute is 12 miles or less; a regular civilian should
be able to start out at 12 MPH and quickly work up to 16 MPH for a short
haul and many routes will be much shorter by bicycle (parks, back roads,
etc.) So what's the hold up? There are already laws in 11 states
mandating sales of zero emission vehicles, but they're all tied up in
court or in the clutches of the lobbying process. Why not have
automobile manufacturers buy pollution warrants from commuting cyclists
for unsold ZEVs? That might get some interest going with the general
public. Especially considering the fact that if standard car purchasers
pay a premium to subsidize mandated ZEVs, they get a little bit of air
quality improvement. But if they pay to physically remove cars from
rush hour roads, then they get where they are going _faster_ and get
even _more_ improvement in air quality.

My guess is that the press is biased against bicycles. Every day I ride
past Fox News, NBC, Reuters, and the New York Freaking Times and I see
streets filled with cars, allowed the precious grace of parking on
Mnahattan streets by virtue of their NYP plates. Their salaries are
paid for largely by car advertising, so I'm guessing they know which
side of the toast has the butter.

In article ,
Andy Gee writes:

The typical car commute is 12 miles or less; a regular civilian should
be able to start out at 12 MPH and quickly work up to 16 MPH for a short
haul and many routes will be much shorter by bicycle (parks, back roads,
etc.) So what's the hold up?

*) A lot of non-cycling people are scared of the idea of riding
in the very traffic to which they themselves contribute when
/they/ drive.

*) A locked-in mindset that cars are the only seriously useful
private transportation mode.

*) Car-friendly but bicycle-hostile infrastructure (like certain
bridges can be.)

*) Once they've bought the car, they've got to get their money's
worth out of it; might as well use it. Which I think actually
boils down to being a mug's game, unless the car is used for
car-pooling, or is time-shared among a bunch of drivers, or
the car lasts 100 years with minimal maintenance.

*) Some day they might have to carry 1.5 tons of bark mulch.

*) Fear of perspiration.

*) As Mike J. suggests: weather.

*) This is only conjecture on my part, but I think many people
are self-conscious about their out-of-shapeness. Getting
back on a bicycle for the first time after n non-riding
decades is going to show the world (and themselves) just how
much they've let themselves go. I think a lot of folks don't
want to admit to, and certainly don't want to demonstrate their
weakness and shakiness on a bicycle. In that regard, I think
bike paths are a Good Thing because they give those people places
to go and [re]build their cycling prowess, with nobody lookin'.

*) "Having" to ferry the kids around town.

*) They'd get razzed a lot. As a lifetime non-driver I can attest
to the unrelenting pressure put on people to drive.

....

My guess is that the press is biased against bicycles.

Perhaps, but I think the press largely just reflects the views
of its audience -- maybe with a sprinkle of sugar and a cherry
on top.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

You have to change the whole culture. I don't see this ever happening
here in the US. The part that gets me is the total ignorance on part of
the general public. Ands it's jsut not about gas or health. I mean
things like if a woman hears, or guesses, you don't own a car and bike
everywhere you can forget about her and the majority of women. To them
only a loser would just own a bicycle. The truth? Only a loser would
own a car. I'm in minority. Maybe there's some other people like me in
this forum.

wrote in message
ups.com...

You have to change the whole culture. I don't see this ever happening
here in the US. The part that gets me is the total ignorance on part of
the general public. Ands it's jsut not about gas or health. I mean
things like if a woman hears, or guesses, you don't own a car and bike
everywhere you can forget about her and the majority of women. To them
only a loser would just own a bicycle. The truth? Only a loser would
own a car. I'm in minority. Maybe there's some other people like me in
this forum.

I'm sure there are. And I bet they never get laid either.

Cheto

"Robert Uhl" wrote in message
...

Maybe electric-boosted cycles might help?

How energy-efficient would the rechargable batteries be? Just curious, not
argumentative.

Robert Uhl wrote:

Andy Gee writes:

The typical car commute is 12 miles or less; a regular civilian should
be able to start out at 12 MPH and quickly work up to 16 MPH for a
short haul and many routes will be much shorter by bicycle (parks,
back roads, etc.) So what's the hold up?

It's really very simple: at 12 mph, a 12 mile commute takes one hour.
In a car here in Denver with the highway and rush hour, it takes about
20 minutes. Even at a 16 mph rate, that bike commute takes 45 minutes.
Who would spend more than twice the time to get where he's going?

Denver must have VERY little traffic. Hmmmm.

But even if "under ideal circumstances" a 12 mile drive would take 20
minutes, most people couldn't leave for work 20 minutes before they
have to be there - traffic is simply too unpredictable.

My wife works about 9 miles from the house. That drive can take
anywhere from 15 minutes to 45 minutes. Dealing with the Phoenix area
rush hour, she'd have to leave 30-35 minutes before she needs to be at
work to be reasonably sure of making it on time. If she rides her
bike, she needs to leave around 40 minutes before she has to be there
(adjusted for the fact she takes a shower at work - but she has to do
that at home if she drives in, so that's a wash - pun intended).

So she ends up spending 10-20 minutes extra to get in 80 minutes of
riding. She never has to worry about traffic jams on her bike, and
doesn't need to go to the gym on the days she rides.

Sounds like a good deal to me.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

Andy Gee wrote:

The typical car commute is 12 miles or less; a regular civilian should
be able to start out at 12 MPH and quickly work up to 16 MPH for a short
haul and many routes will be much shorter by bicycle (parks, back roads,
etc.) So what's the hold up? There are already laws in 11 states
mandating sales of zero emission vehicles, but they're all tied up in
court or in the clutches of the lobbying process. Why not have
automobile manufacturers buy pollution warrants from commuting cyclists
for unsold ZEVs? That might get some interest going with the general
public. Especially considering the fact that if standard car purchasers
pay a premium to subsidize mandated ZEVs, they get a little bit of air
quality improvement. But if they pay to physically remove cars from
rush hour roads, then they get where they are going _faster_ and get
even _more_ improvement in air quality.

Your expecting government to do something smart..... Will never happen,
especially as long as the car companies have lots of money, and can
contribute to politicians favourite charities (usually their re-election
fund). What is more likely is that as gas prices go up, people will
voluntarily reduce driving. Heck I would love to bike to work, but that
means biking at night through the worst part of town, no thanks.....
However it doesn't mean that I can't take transit, which I am soon going
to have to do, at over $1/Litre for gas, I can't afford it any more....

W












My guess is that the press is biased against bicycles. Every day I ride
past Fox News, NBC, Reuters, and the New York Freaking Times and I see
streets filled with cars, allowed the precious grace of parking on
Mnahattan streets by virtue of their NYP plates. Their salaries are
paid for largely by car advertising, so I'm guessing they know which
side of the toast has the butter.

"Mark Hickey" wrote ...
Robert Uhl wrote:

The typical car commute is 12 miles or less; a regular civilian should
be able to start out at 12 MPH and quickly work up to 16 MPH for a
short haul and many routes will be much shorter by bicycle (parks,
back roads, etc.) So what's the hold up?

It's really very simple: at 12 mph, a 12 mile commute takes one hour.
In a car here in Denver with the highway and rush hour, it takes about
20 minutes. Even at a 16 mph rate, that bike commute takes 45 minutes.
Who would spend more than twice the time to get where he's going?

Denver must have VERY little traffic. Hmmmm.

I'm not sure which highway Mr Uhl is doing his commuting on, but I don't see
too many people covering 12 miles in 20 minutes on I-25 during the evening
rush hour, and the radio traffic reports confirm my impression. It's true
that Denver's traffic issues pale in comparison to NYC, LA, or any big
European city, but a lot of people in that town would still have an easier
commute if they got out of their SUV's and cycled, took public transit,
walked, or did some combination of the three. Add in the health benefits and
the efficiency of combining commuting and working out and bicycle commuting
becomes even more attractive, even in a relatively car-friendly environment
like Denver. Factor in Denver's relatively benign climate, mostly flat
terrain, and decent network of cycle paths, and I really wonder why more
people don't cycle to and from work on a more regular basis.

To answer Mr. Uhl's question, I cycle to work and spend twice the time to
get where I'm going because it's a lot more fun than sitting in my car no
matter what the traffic is like, and because I like to get in some exercise
before and after a relatively sedentary day. Most of the economic benefit
comes from reduced maintenance costs and deferred replacement cost of my
car.
--
mark