Having the Elderly Ride Bikes

There are two crises: One with SS and another with traffic. There's too many cars, something people refuse to hear. The easy solution is to encourage seniors into riding bikes or trikes while improving their health. They simply can not own a car to receive benefits...

WASHINGTON (AP) — Laid-off workers and aging baby boomers are flooding Social Security's disability program with benefit claims, pushing the financially strapped system toward the brink of insolvency.

http://news.yahoo.com/social-securit...90119318..html

The elderly are going to be so healthy that I'm looking forward to join the club. I won't join AARP unless they embrace this policy. I know it's highly Utopian but also practical. The elderly are not the best drivers.


-----------------------------------------------------

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

On Monday, August 22, 2011 1:20:59 PM UTC-4, Conscience wrote:
On 2011-08-22 16:55:02 +0000, "Jeff Strickland" said:

As a matter of public policy, taking the car keys from seniors and
giving them a bike is probably not a good idea on several different
levels.

Having them ride a bike assumes they can keep their balance. Many
cannot. They use a cane or a walker, that they easliy can stow in the
back seat while driving.

It also assumes they can tolerate the physical exertion needed to
propel the bike. Many cannot. They use a cane or a walker, that they
easliy can stow in the back seat while driving.

It also assumes they only travel a few blocks, and never need to carry a load.

I believe that most seniors who don't ride, or haven't been riding,
would be a danger to themselves. It's not something they should take
up when they turn 65; you need to have been doing it for a while, and
in distances that are meaningful. A short ride for me is 15-20 miles,
depending on weather temps, and I ride at least 75 miles per week.

Yoga is also a good thing PROVIDED they have enough flexibility and
balance to get started. Both will improve with time, but only to a
certain degree. Again it comes down to how active the person has been
in their early years. I prefer Tai Chi.

Moral: Get, and stay, active in your early years. It's far easier to
keep what you have then try to gain what you don't when you're in your
sixties.

Or you'll end up a pencil-necked bass player.

Even if you start 10 years before actual retirement it should give a smooth transition. Bicycling can be hard or soft. Some elderly people I know ride trikes --where space is available. Currently most simply don't have an option.

They probably feel like vegetables unless they get moving. They will also be part of the solution --helping the planet-- not the problem. It would suck to be just another driver adding to the congestion and polluting.

On Monday, August 22, 2011 6:02:46 PM UTC-4, LilAbner wrote:
On 8/22/2011 5:47 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
On Monday, August 22, 2011 1:20:59 PM UTC-4, Conscience wrote:
On 2011-08-22 16:55:02 +0000, "Jeff said:

As a matter of public policy, taking the car keys from seniors and
giving them a bike is probably not a good idea on several different
levels.

Having them ride a bike assumes they can keep their balance. Many
cannot. They use a cane or a walker, that they easliy can stow in the
back seat while driving.

It also assumes they can tolerate the physical exertion needed to
propel the bike. Many cannot. They use a cane or a walker, that they
easliy can stow in the back seat while driving.

It also assumes they only travel a few blocks, and never need to carry a load.

I believe that most seniors who don't ride, or haven't been riding,
would be a danger to themselves. It's not something they should take
up when they turn 65; you need to have been doing it for a while, and
in distances that are meaningful. A short ride for me is 15-20 miles,
depending on weather temps, and I ride at least 75 miles per week.

Yoga is also a good thing PROVIDED they have enough flexibility and
balance to get started. Both will improve with time, but only to a
certain degree. Again it comes down to how active the person has been
in their early years. I prefer Tai Chi.

Moral: Get, and stay, active in your early years. It's far easier to
keep what you have then try to gain what you don't when you're in your
sixties.

Or you'll end up a pencil-necked bass player.

Even if you start 10 years before actual retirement it should give a smooth transition. Bicycling can be hard or soft. Some elderly people I know ride trikes --where space is available. Currently most simply don't have an option.

They probably feel like vegetables unless they get moving. They will also be part of the solution --helping the planet-- not the problem. It would suck to be just another driver adding to the congestion and polluting.
Yeah. We have these Biking Clubs or whatever, ride our country side.
They are pretty athletic. At the end of the ride they have pick ups and
vans to pick them up. They are exhausted. the ride usually follows the
same 20 or so mile route. I bet they go home and mow the lawn.
The idea you expouse is that everyone should ride a bike to save energy,
which isn't in short supply, nor is it going to be but that is all you
can do.Ride 20 miles each way every day, in hills and flat land, in 100
degree heat, and do a day's work.
I know what hard work is. Grand Pa walked about 15 miles to work, in the
coal mines and back. Some days he stayed in shacks, at the mines.
You think Grand Pa is going to do that?

I believe in doing THE BEST YOU CAN. Not a mile more, no less. If you you got pickup trucks to complement the ride, then it ain't much benefit. The name of the game is not only saving energy but doing something good for the world, which is to avoid pollution.

Me, for example, should be using a car to launch the bikes. But I refuse, even if it costs me my life. Around my community is NO MAN'S LAND for cyclists, and so I insist on them opening bike facilities for me.

On Monday, August 22, 2011 9:04:13 PM UTC-4, LilAbner wrote:
On 8/22/2011 6:24 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:

I believe in doing THE BEST YOU CAN. Not a mile more, no less. If you you got pickup trucks to complement the ride, then it ain't much benefit. The name of the game is not only saving energy but doing something good for the world, which is to avoid pollution.

Me, for example, should be using a car to launch the bikes. But I refuse, even if it costs me my life. Around my community is NO MAN'S LAND for cyclists, and so I insist on them opening bike facilities for me.
You refuse to think about it. The problem is not gasoline it is us. Too
many people. If you get rid of internal combustion engines your carbon
footprint simply shifts or spread around to whatever energy is used.
Regressing back to the 18th century or whatever you have in mind well...
you like horse power for 300,000,000 people. The exhaust catalytic
converters for that one would be fascinating. How many shovels you need?
Where would raise enough feed? How would you like an economy, you are
part of regressing, to medieval England. And so on.
There are simply too many people here.
Reducing the number is the only real thing America can do for Americans.
Close the doors and send the Illegals home.
If American can fix our problems, that is our concern. Rest assured the
rest of the globe is looking out for theirs not ours. Washington
continues to address the global economy and global governance.
They need to focus on maintenance, of the Republic and our economy not
to the demands, of Foreign and Global merchants and bankers and other
Countries like China etc.
Focus on America and Americans and not phony socialist agendas seeking
to control and manipulate Americans.
Bicycling as a solution to whatever is not going to create an idealized
and prosperous Republic. It won't get rid of pollution. It will further
stratify America into the ruling class and the herd.

The herd already drives Toyotas and the top predators drive SUVs. I don't know if you want it more stratified than that.

Bicycling is a democratic vehicle. It is developed in countries where people have high equality, such as Holland, Denmark and Germany.

I like to see PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY because if you don't save the planet nobody else will.

On Monday, August 22, 2011 11:49:33 PM UTC-4, LilAbner wrote:
On 8/22/2011 11:23 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:

I like to see PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY because if you don't save the planet nobody else will.
Riding a bike won't save the planet. I suggest a factual science course.
Global Warming is a fact the same as global cooling. Man is having an
impact but so is all life on the planet. The problem is not cars it is
us and cattle, and everything else Get rid of us, cattle, giraffs and
pine trees and ou still have volcanoes, and oceans and the sun. CO2 is
not a pollutant. Without CO2 there would be no life.
Revert humans to cave dwelling, fire and grazing and you still have
pollution.

Let the facts do the talking:

Introduction

It is possible that no invention has had as profound an effect on society as the passenger automobile. It did not take long after its introduction in the early part of this century for the auto to quickly become the primary means of transportation in the United States, where there are now 752 motor vehicles for every 1,000 people (World Almanac 211). While no other country can match the excessive automobile use of the U.S, it's not for lack of trying. Even in China, where the use of bicycles by its citizens is legendary, the number of cars has been doubling every five years for the past 30 years...

Pollution: General

Pollution by cars causes lung cancer, respiratory problems, urban smog, and acid rain (Brown 25). By 1970, after decades without government regulation, air quality had become a serious problem. The first federal Clean Air Act was passed during the Nixon Administration to curtail the ever-increasing amount of pollution caused by automobiles and industry, and Congress passed an updated version in 1990 (WRI 182). However, the Clean Air Act didn't prohibit pollution; it simply defined an "acceptable" amount. Further, the legislation addressed only certain airborne contaminants, while ignoring others. Perhaps most significantly, although bad air was outlawed, it still exists. More than half of the people in the U.S. live in areas that failed to meet federal air quality standards at least several days a year (30 Simple Energy Things You Can Do to Save the Earth, hereafter "30 Simple Things," 11), and around 80 million Americans live in areas that continually fail to meet these standards (WRI 63). Despite the Clean Air Acts, the reality is that air pollution continues to be a major public health problem.

http://bicycleuniverse.info/cars/pollutionpaper.html

***

In other words, when you drive unnecessarily YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

The elderly for the most part have no rush and enjoy different transportation schemes from hospitals and Medicare. And they have no dates anymore, so let them enjoy life slowly and pass something good to future generations. Actually it could be argued that their voting is very harmful.

On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 11:23:38 AM UTC-4, LilAbner wrote:
On 8/23/2011 9:51 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:

The elderly for the most part have no rush and enjoy different transportation schemes from hospitals and Medicare. And they have no dates anymore, so let them enjoy life slowly and pass something good to future generations. Actually it could be argued that their voting is very harmful.

unneccessarily as defined by you. When I go fishing I take the pu. It
suits the need where a bicycle won't. When I go to town I may take it or
the car because a bicycle won't. We don't enjoy the millions neccessary
to own a vehicle for every purpose. A bicycle is fine for riding with
the kids or up the block or around the area for a while. Otherwise it is
totally useless. At my age I'm not going to ride it in 100 degree heat
even to the local store. I'm nt going to ride it in the rin nor snow. If
it doesn't fit you definition I'm fine with that.
You don't know what you are talking about. You are just like the bunch
in DC that want to herd everyone to their designs flawed as they are.
You don't know which end is up. You don't have the answers nor clue.
You just have this inner city coffee shop liberal notion.

Unnecessarily is defined a radius around your home that you can do easily on a bike. For some it may be 1-2 miles, for others 5 and some others are looking to expand their horizon to 10 miles --like me. The goal may be to go to the market or to go to park.

What we need now is BIKE FACILITIES and some common sense from the seniors. The elders were the WISE MEN under Indian traditions. Since when they became Conservatives?