What made the last big bike boom? The next?

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 16:35:16 GMT, Simon Brooke wrote:

Well, I drive what gets sold in the US as an Isuzu Amigo. I don't know
whether you would count it as an SUV, although it is by UK
standards. I drive it mainly for pulling large boats around and for
forestry work. It has a two litre four cylinder petrol engine and does
better than 35 MPG on road. Living where I live (remote rural area) and
doing what I do (among other things, secretary of a forestry charity)
it seems a reasonable choice of vehicle, and I don't see it as 'silly'
at all.

The 'silly' users are the ones that live somewhere like Reading, and use
them for taking the kids to school (1 mile) and shopping at Tescos - we
all know you need to engage 4 wheel drive to get into a car park.

A bientot
Paul
--
Paul Floyd http://paulf.free.fr (for what it's worth)
Surgery: ennobled Gerald.

RE/
I don't think its so much sloth and greed, but convienence that
gets people off their bikes and into cars. People just want to get to places
now. A car helps you do that

Somebody I know was in a high-level urban planning session in Shanghai about 12
years back.

A group of Australians were presenting and one guy was going on and on about how
fortunate Chinese cities were to have all these bikes and so few cars...and how
they should try to build something into the plans to try to keep it that way.

As he was going on-and-on in English and somebody was translating, this one
career civil engineer in his fifties started muttering to himself in Mandarin
and finally sort of burst out with something.

The Australian guy asked the translator what he was saying, but the translator
danced around it - giving a more-or-less evasive rendering.

What the guy actually said was "You are sooooo full of ****! Have you *ever*
tried living where you always have to go everywhere by bicycle or bus?"
-----------------------
PeteCresswell

Art Harris wrote:
I agree with that too. But I think it has to start with kids riding
bikes. Most kids don't seem too interested. I have to wonder whether I
would have taken up cycling as an adult if I hadn't learned to enjoy
it as a kid.

Me too. When I was a kid, everybody rode a bike, and nobody tried to
tell us it was more dangerous than kids running around on our feet.
There were no "safety equipment" makers trying to scare the @^%*@
out of our parents in an effort to sell crap to them either.

The current issue of Good Housekeeping has an article on the
best states to raise children in. I opened it up and the first
thing I saw was high praise for Florida having one of the most
restrictive bike helmet laws in the country. Yep, keep them inside
playing video games, that's the way to help them live long healthy
lives. Then when they are 16 you can let them ride a bike without a hat.
(fat chance, when they are 16 they want a car)
Mitch

RE/
I think for much of the U.S. it is already too late. The location of
suburbia, especially in sprawling cities, will keep people driving no matter
what. Jobs are now scattered across the city, so the old notion of going
downtown to work is largely lost (I've seen figures that place less than 30%
of the total workforce in downtown on average). Because of the distances,
people aren't likely to seek out bicycles as a viable form of transport.

Plus, there's the condition of the roads/behavior of drivers.

I'm in a suburb of Philadelphia where I could ride a bike to work in 15 minutes
max (I can walk it in 38 minutes).....but if somebody rode that route every day
they wouldn't last a year: areas with no shoulder, cars doing 50-60 in 25mph
zones while the drivers talk on cell phones, people careening around blind
corners with one wheel a foot over the double line....and so-on and so-forth...

I think cell phones have had a major deliterous effect. People talking on them
is bad news...but I'm seeing people writing things down while they talk....dunno
how they're able to *do* that....I don't think I could...
-----------------------
PeteCresswell

"(Pete Cresswell)" wrote:

Based on those anecdotes I'd guess there's been 600% inflation -
absolute minimum - maybe 800% since 1958.

Good guess -- it's 634%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

--
Ray Heindl
(remove the X to reply)

In article , says...
Art Harris wrote:
I agree with that too. But I think it has to start with kids riding
bikes. Most kids don't seem too interested. I have to wonder whether I
would have taken up cycling as an adult if I hadn't learned to enjoy
it as a kid.

Me too. When I was a kid, everybody rode a bike, and nobody tried to
tell us it was more dangerous than kids running around on our feet.
There were no "safety equipment" makers trying to scare the @^%*@
out of our parents in an effort to sell crap to them either.

The current issue of Good Housekeeping has an article on the
best states to raise children in. I opened it up and the first
thing I saw was high praise for Florida having one of the most
restrictive bike helmet laws in the country. Yep, keep them inside
playing video games, that's the way to help them live long healthy
lives. Then when they are 16 you can let them ride a bike without a hat.

Since when does requiring helmets equate to "keep them inside playing
video games"? Requiring some protection for their heads while they're
still learning to handle their bikes and ride on busy roads is fine by
me. I require my kids to wear a helmet any time they're on human-
powered wheels in the road, whether it's on a bike, scooter or roller
blades. They whined at first, but now it's a habit and they grab their
helmets automatically when they go out, and it doesn't seem to have any
effect on their desire to go out and roll around.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

David Kerber wrote:
I require my kids to wear a helmet any time they're on human-
powered wheels in the road, whether it's on a bike, scooter or roller
blades.

That may be fine for you, but how many parents believe the scare-mongering
sales tactics and decide the safest thing for their kids is to not get
them a bike?
Mitch.

"Mitch Haley" wrote in message
...
David Kerber wrote:
I require my kids to wear a helmet any time they're on human-
powered wheels in the road, whether it's on a bike, scooter or roller
blades.

That may be fine for you, but how many parents believe the scare-mongering
sales tactics and decide the safest thing for their kids is to not get
them a bike?


I'm a parent and a keen cyclist. Here in Australia it has been about 20
years since mandatory helmets were introduced.

As a kid, I didn't like the idea too much, but got used to it soon enough.
When everyone else is wearing a helmet, they no longer look all that dorky
(relitively speaking).

Just because helmets are mandated, does not make scare-mongering more
prevalent - probably less so. We have no adverts to promote the use of
helmets here, no posters in shops, no attempts to sway parents that their
kids need helmets. When a kid gets a bike, they just end up with a helmet as
well. Simple as that.

And growing up always wearing helmets means that they do not question them -
they are just part of their cycling gear - like wheels or lights etc.

You can argue easily that they may not protect you from certain injuries. It
is much harder to argue that they provide no additional safety. I can feel
more comfortable as a parent that in making sure my son has a helmet on, I
am doing what I can to protect him as far as equipment goes. Of course
education and instruction will always have more impact than just wearing a
helmet.

Cheers,

Tim

"(Pete Cresswell)" wrote:

Somebody I know was in a high-level urban planning session in Shanghai about 12
years back.

A group of Australians were presenting and one guy was going on and on about how
fortunate Chinese cities were to have all these bikes and so few cars...and how
they should try to build something into the plans to try to keep it that way.

As he was going on-and-on in English and somebody was translating, this one
career civil engineer in his fifties started muttering to himself in Mandarin
and finally sort of burst out with something.

The Australian guy asked the translator what he was saying, but the translator
danced around it - giving a more-or-less evasive rendering.

What the guy actually said was "You are sooooo full of ****! Have you *ever*
tried living where you always have to go everywhere by bicycle or bus?"

Back then, some of the city governments in China were pushing for
everyone to get off their bikes and into cars. It seems they decided
that a major indicator of a modern society was that no one rides
bikes, but drives instead. Sigh...

When I moved to Beijing in the early 90's, there weren't all that many
cars, and cycling was quick and easy (in a relative way that would
take far too long to explain...). Last time I was there, there were
so many cars clogging up the (too few) roads that they were spilling
over onto the bike roads (separate facilities). End result, no one
could go anywhere very fast, but the bikes were still considerably
quicker than the cars (there is some justice).

There's a lot more fat Chinese people in Beijing than there used to
be, too...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Art Harris wrote:

Jeff Potter wrote:
I'm not sure it has to happen at the expense of cars. They appear to be here
to stay. Why can't bikes be ADDED to them?

I agree; hope I didn't imply anything to the contrary.

People getting out in the fresh air and exploring around could become
popular---as long as some open roads remain.

I agree with that too. But I think it has to start with kids riding
bikes. Most kids don't seem too interested. I have to wonder whether I
would have taken up cycling as an adult if I hadn't learned to enjoy
it as a kid.

Art Harris

I rode as a kid, and I hear you loud and clear. Young adults and kids today are
in the majority not into bicycling like kids were 40 or 50 years ago.
Nonetheless, bicycyling is too valuable a resource for the common person to let it
go. I am optimistic that human powered transport eg: bicycles will exist for a
long time.
The pluses are too great and simple:
human powered
simple maintenance
low tech parts
light for a person to pick up and store
Bicycles are powerful tools, a true extension of the human operator. Don't secon
guess them. They are useful and valuable today, and will be for decades to come.
Kind regards, Bernie