What American Cities are Missing: Bikes by the Thousands

On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Joe the Aroma" wrote in messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comca st.com...

Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
simple enough to me.

Simple is as simple does ;-)


Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
car" and "want a car".

There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
cabs, etc.

Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
(thankfully). So a car is needed.

Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
scales are very different.

But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.

I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
live without a car. But it's a person's decision.

Take me, for example, do I NEED a motorcycle. No. It's back-up
transportation on a good day. It's less safe, has less pollution
control, and carries less. OTOH, it's a lot of fun to ride. I don't
NEED one, but I WANT one (okay, two or three depending on how you
count them).

Rather than fighting over a few cars that are in good shape. I think
the government would do better targetting the few worst pollution cars
out there -- the ones running too rich or burning oil. Getting the
worse 10% off the road through some incentive package would probably
do a lot to reduce air pollution.

"Pat" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Joe the Aroma" wrote in
messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comca st.com...

Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
simple enough to me.

Simple is as simple does ;-)


Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
car" and "want a car".

There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
cabs, etc.

Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
(thankfully). So a car is needed.

Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
scales are very different.

But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.

I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
live without a car. But it's a person's decision.

That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
are many who do.

-Amy

On Jun 4, 12:44 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Pat" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Jun 4, 9:49 am, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"Joe the Aroma" wrote in
messagenews:_tKdnbr_7I5HD_7bnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@comca st.com...

Which is because most people do not want to live without a car. Seems
simple enough to me.

Simple is as simple does ;-)

Amy, I think Joe has a point. There is a difference between "need a
car" and "want a car".

There are some folk who live in, say Manhattan, and never venture far
from home. They can easily live without a car. Their entire world
might be just a few square miles. They have busses, and trains, and
cabs, etc.

Then there are folk like me (and probably you) who live off the beaten
path who really need cars. There's no public tranportation around and
not much of a population base to support lots of retail, etc., nearby
(thankfully). So a car is needed.

Interestingly, a 20 mile trip to the store may sound like a huge
distance to someone from Manhattan but it's only about 20 minutes,
which is what they are probably walking to their store. The distance
scales are very different.

But there is another set of "tweeners" who probably don't "need" a car
but really enjoy the freedom of owning one. They don't have to wait
for the bus or the cab or rent a car for a night out.

I'm not sure how much conjection or pollution difference it would be
if they all sold their cars, but I guess that's not for me to decide.
If they an afford one, that's their choice. The best gov't can/should
do it to provide them with other choices so that maybe they decide to
live without a car. But it's a person's decision.

That's all anyone here is advocating for. I've never figured out why people
would argue to remove people's choices to walk/bike/use transit, but there
are many who do.

-Amy

I'd say that they are morons who live in cities, but I fear that that
would be redundant. ;-)

Fred Yaeger wrote:

what abt a quickfolding bikelike this?

http://www.bikefriday.com/tikit

I ordered a Tikit from Bike Friday 3 months ago. Got it about 2 weeks
ago. Massive backlog from initial rush for it. It was made available
to public in Feb.

been thinking abt getting one myself

In article ,
"Amy Blankenship" wrote:

Since you've made it
clear that physical abuse in one's vocation per se is not something you
object to across the board, then what, specifically, is it about pedicab
drivers that you *really* object to?

Based on his posting history, I'd wager that he's astroturfing for some
segment of the automobile industry. He's such a moron, though, that it
ends up doing more harm than good. I highly suggest a killfile entry.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, x-privat.org

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
.. .

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
wrote:
In article , Bolwerk
wrote:

From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
other forms of exercise.


Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet
and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
every day.

Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or
jog on?

The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
"self-abuse," should all be banned.

George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch
digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a
mild
occupational hazard.

Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing...



Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world
horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to do.

"George Conklin" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
.. .

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
wrote:
In article , Bolwerk
wrote:

From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
other forms of exercise.


Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on
feet
and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
every day.

Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk
or
jog on?

The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
"self-abuse," should all be banned.

George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics,
ditch
digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a
mild
occupational hazard.

Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing...



Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world
horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to
do.

So in other words, you have no valid objection to it. You just don't like
it.

On Jun 5, 9:56 am, "George Conklin"
wrote:
"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message

.. .





"Bolwerk" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:
In article , Bolwerk
wrote:

From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
other forms of exercise.

Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on feet
and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
every day.

Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk or
jog on?

The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
"self-abuse," should all be banned.

George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics, ditch
digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a
mild
occupational hazard.

Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing...

Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world
horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to do.


Still waiting for my example, George.

On Jun 5, 12:10 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
wrote:
"George Conklin" wrote in message

ink.net...





"Amy Blankenship" wrote in message
. ..

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
In article , Bolwerk
wrote:

From what I understand, cycling is better on your joints than most
other forms of exercise.

Unless done on a sufficiently soft surface, jogging is horrible on
feet
and leg joints. Yet, there are people I see jogging on the sidewalks
every day.

Should we ban jogging on the sidewalks? Or should we convert all our
sidewalks to barkdust, which is a much less damaging surface to walk
or
jog on?

The debate raging right now is whether "abusive" things, including
"self-abuse," should all be banned.

George says yes. He wants to ban carpentry, automobile mechanics,
ditch
digging, sewer cleaning, NASCAR, and anything else that might have a
mild
occupational hazard.

Ballet, pro football, mining, sewing...

Pedicabs are abusive of labor and there is no point in bring third-world
horrors to the USA just because you planners have no ideas about what to
do.

So in other words, you have no valid objection to it. You just don't like
it.

I think that pedicabs are like a lot of things. Yeah, they probably
are abusive or whatever, but if you are poor and starving and living
in a slum somewhere, is it better to have a pedicab and maybe make
some money or is it better to starve.

As for coming to America, who cares. We have lots of jobs, a minimum
wage, a permitting system, and things like OSHA. If a person doesn't
WANT to do it, then they don't HAVE to do it. It's a person's choice
or employment. If they want to do it, great. Why not? It beats the
heck out of a lot of other jobs out there.

I guess I see things in shades of gray, not in absolutes.

On May 29, 10:48 pm, Nobody wrote:
On 29 May 2007 13:57:53 -0700, John Kane wrote:



On May 28, 10:06 pm, Nobody wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 13:16:20 -0700, (Tom Keats)
wrote:

In article ,
Nobody writes:

It simply is not practicable (note the use of adjective), either by
wish or function.

It is for me, and for many others.

Yeah, but what youse who like this "challenge" in transportation don't
seem to appreciate, you're not even in the slightest minority.

We have enough presence to show up in modal share statistics
for numerous North American cities.

I lke to go biking for exercise, enjoyment...but for basic
transportation to and from my place of employment 10 km away? Go jump
in the closest pond.

10 km might be a bit much for a beginning rider.
But it doesn't take long to be able to easily
and routinely ride that distance, and even further.

It just does not make sense for most of us. As I say, it is not
"practicable". (And that's different than beng practical.)

Who exactly /is/ "most of us"?

And why are you so vehement about discouraging people
from cycle-commuting by denying its practice-ability?

Bloody hell, what you're suggesting is a situation of "enthusiasts"
dictating what they believe the rest of humanity should be doing.

I'm not discouraging anybody from doing anything.

So, regardless of distance, let's say, I can (i.e. "am able to") ride
a bicycle to work. Um, urban size dictates that is gonna be a
time-consuming, and in weather-challenging conditions, rather
unpleasant.

Depends on where you live and work. In Canada the median commuting
distance is 7.2 km or perhaps 15-20 minutes by bike[1]. Given that
that is the median time it is likely that for a lot of people the
distance is significantly less. In fact for female commuters it is 6.4
km.

Here is a simple bar chart showing a rough breakdown of who commutes
how far
http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png. Over 60% of
the Canadian working population have a less than 10 km (or 20-30
minute by bike) commute.

The way I see it there's lots of room for people to cycle (or even
GASP, walk) to work while some people clearly would find it difficult
or completely impractical.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

And how far are YOU going to cycle in Kingston in
December/January/February/March?

Well I only do about 1.5 km since I live near work. When working in
Ottawa my commute was 7.5 km and I did it all year round. Much
healthier and more relaxing than driving though I do recommend studded
tires for winter riding.

Sorry to take so long getting back to you. Next question?

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada



1. Commuting to Work, 2001 Census Catalogue no.: 97F0015XIE2001001
Unfortunately it does not give a breakdown by community size or
urban/rural split.

--clip ---