Do bicycles and cars mix?

In rec.autos.driving wrote:
Also in many warm countries (such as summer in the Netherlands)
people seem to take two showers a day anyway.

Summer in the Netherlands is not "warm." Summer temperatures there
average about 19 degrees C, or roughly 67 degrees F.

Summers in Florida are warm. Average summer temperatures over much of
Florida are around 82 degrees F. Average *water* temperatures are in the
80s as well. Then there's the near 100% humidity.

Summers in Arizona are warm. In the Basin and Range region, average
summer temperatures run around 91 degrees F *for the year*. Average
temps for the summer months are well over 100 degrees, and the record
highs for the summer months are up around 120 degrees.

Summer in the Netherlands is not warm.

In rec.bicycles.soc George Conklin wrote:
: To make a city suitable for bicycles, you would have to compact the
: population into a very small area. This is what Smart Growth wants to do.
: Most people want a house, not a NYC-style 4-room apartment of 450 square
: feet.

Are you saying most people can afford a house? :-)

Also it's possible to build rather densely with small buildings,
around here you get the same density with sparsely built
highrises. Both styles would be more than adequate for commuting
by cycling. Did you have some special needs in mind because you
suggested that population density would need to be very high?

--
Risto Varanka | http://www.helsinki.fi/~rvaranka/hpv/hpv.html
varis at no spam please iki fi

"George Conklin" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Tanya Quinn" wrote in message
om...
Or even in sunny and mild Northern California, for that matter. After a
trip
of even 5 km (= 3 miles), people are sweaty and stinky. These bicycle

Only if you're in really bad shape..

Only if it very cold outside does the body not react to strong excercise.

If you are not a couch potato, a 15 minute bicycle ride at an easy
pace (5 km @ 20km/h or 12.5 mph) is NOT strong exercise.

"George Conklin" wrote in message thlink.net...
A
society can have good standards of living without cars, and, in the case
of New Dehli (which is a city, not all of India), the last thing they need
to do is get more cars.

You need to tell that to people who live in India. You are imposing
your values on India.

In a highly populated urban area, perhaps your standard of living
could increase (by certain people's standards, everyone measures
standard of living differently) by owning and using a car but only if
very few other people make that same choice. In a large metropolis
there is not undeveloped land to build more roads, and the roads that
do exist will quickly become congested. So instead of being able to
ride a bicycle or take public transport at a reasonably quick pace on
roads that still have space, one gets to sit in traffic jams often.
How is spending a lot of money for a vehicle to travel at a slower
speed than you were going before an increase in standard of living by
any measure?

Daniel J Stern wrote in message ...
On 26 Nov 2003, Tanya Quinn wrote:

Why does riding a bike to work mean a lower standard of living?

Are you for real? You *seriously* can't see the blindingly obvious answer
to this question?

DS

Okay perhaps some people will see having to exercise or deal with
dressing for the elements as a lower standard of living. But it
doesn't mean that's universal. I meant that as a question that it
doesn't *have* to mean that, not that it never means that. Here are
some for and against:

Higher standard of living:
.. low cost means of transportation = more disposable income to spend
elsewhere
.. active method of transporation = healthier body, less stress, can
enjoy good food without worrying about weight gain, more energy
overall
.. avoid traffic jams and congestion = less stress, more personal time
.. simple to park = saves money, less stress, more likely to stop and
enjoy more places
.. easy to stop and chat to friends or neighbours you pass by on foot
or cycle = sociable


Lower standard of living:
.. having to exercise mildly (ow that might be too much for my body to
handle)
.. having no steel cage to protect you from the other steel cages that
you are afraid won't follow the traffic rules and smash into you
.. having no steel cage to stop you from getting a bit wet or cold
(raincoats and insulated clothing were invented for a reason)
.. could take more time if you have a particularly speedy auto route to
work. (few lights, highway) but more time isn't necessarily bad if
something is inherently enjoyable in of itself.

So yeah if you're paranoid and think exercise is bad for you, then
maybe a bike would lead to a lower standard of living. Nobody is
suggesting to bike for long-haul trips (though that can be fun its not
usually time effective) - its biking for short-haul trips where the
time spent biking is pretty comparable to the automobile.

George Conklin wrote:
Only if it very cold outside does the body not react to strong excercise.

Why in the world does commuting to work have to be strong exercise?
If you lived 1/4 mile from work, would you run full speed and then
claim that walking to work gets you too sweaty?
Mitch.

"George Conklin" wrote in message
To make a city suitable for bicycles, you would have to compact the
population into a very small area. This is what Smart Growth wants to do.
Most people want a house, not a NYC-style 4-room apartment of 450 square
feet.

Lots of towns with low populations are very suitable for bicycling in.
You don't need super high density in order to bicycle. A bicycle can
cover quite a bit of range in a short period of time. 10 mile trips in
any direction are very easy to do. As well when you dedicate less land
to the automobile - narrower instead of wide roads, less parking
spaces (or moving them underground and out of prime public space),
less gas stations and garages, houses without sprawling two or three
car garages sticking out the side of them, it becomes possible to have
a mix of housing choices for people to live in that aren't all
concrete boxes in the sky and density that makes it easier to walk and
have sustainable public transport as well. Bicycles don't need
density, although denser places will have shorter rides, more pleasant
scenery and slower moving traffic making more people comfortable
riding a bicycle.

In article .net, George Conklin wrote:

To make a city suitable for bicycles, you would have to compact the
population into a very small area. This is what Smart Growth wants to do.
Most people want a house, not a NYC-style 4-room apartment of 450 square
feet.

Really all that is needed to make a city suitablefor bicycles is a grided
street system. The city of chicago as it is, is suitable for bicycles.
Most older suburbs are or were suitable for bicycles. It's when people
decide not to have grided streets that it becomes a problem for all traffic,
including bicycle users.

In article , Daniel J Stern wrote:
On 26 Nov 2003, Tanya Quinn wrote:

Why does riding a bike to work mean a lower standard of living?

Are you for real? You *seriously* can't see the blindingly obvious answer
to this question?

bicycle need not equal cheap. Hell my best bicycle is worth more than
my worst car.

Folks,

You are arguing with a bunch of dunderheads who crosspost to this newsgroup
just to argue. George and co. have no idea what they are talking about. They
have never cycle commuted, nor experienced the pleasure and improved
lifestyle that cycle commuting offers. They will not get it because they do
not want to. Each person has their own version of reality and to George,
pollution, traffic density, road deaths, road damage, and the like, is
simply "collateral damage." You cannot change his reality, so don't even
try.

That said, there is something to the argument that there are reasons why
cycle commuting isn't more popular. Some of us will make choices that are
different than most others. The fact that, in an urban environment, a
bicycle is as fast (or faster) than a car during commute hours isn't
important. The fact that you may need to deal with the elements, sweat, etc.
is, in their tiny minds, an insurmountable obstacle. They do not listen to
those of us who have done this for extended periods of time. Sure, I sweat.
Sure, I smell. So what? 10 minutes by the sink, a shower, or whatever solves
this quickly. This means that my effective travel time is a bit longer than
the time I spend on the road. Again, so what? I still would, in San Jose,
for example, reach work 10-20 minutes before someone who left my house at
the same time (on the average day, though at times, such as early morning
Sundays, or holidays where the company where I worked did not get the day
off, cars are faster).

Cars are a tremendous waste of resources and the environment when they move
1 person point-to-point. The physics aren't arguable. The economics aren't
arguable. So when George and Co. spout garbage saying that cars are a
economic boon to a society and that they improve the quality of life, they
are referring only to those, like themselves, who are narrow-minded,
sedentary, wasteful, and who have no compassion for others. Ignore them,
just as they ignore the fact that war with Iraq, and other arab states, is
about oil.

Rick

"Baxter" wrote in message
...
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Daniel J Stern" wrote in message
...
On 26 Nov 2003, Tanya Quinn wrote:

Why does riding a bike to work mean a lower standard of living?

Are you for real? You *seriously* can't see the blindingly obvious
answer
to this question?

The blindingly obvious answer is: No, riding a bike to work does NOT mean
a
lower standard of living.