Can you make it to the market on a bike?



"Jens Müller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Jens Müller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:

> How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here
> in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting
> killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path.

In the US bikes and pedestrians have the highest death rates of all forms of
transportation except motorcycles. I think the rate is two and times higher
than cars according to a recent news report. I have not tried to find the
statistics.
 
On Jul 23, 7:12 pm, Jens Müller <[email protected]> wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > "Jens Müller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >>> Always use the bike paths whenever you can. They are much more pleasant
> >>> than using the mean streets where you have to compete with motorized
> >>> vehicles.
> >> Always avoid bike paths when it is legally possible. It is much safer that
> >> way.
>
> > Admittedly a bike path that gets too crowded can be somewhat dangerous,yet
> > you are not going to get killed on it unless you do something really stupid.
> > On the other hand, it is easy to get killed on the street when you mixing
> > with motor vehicles. They are all going fast and you are going slow, a
> > recipe for disaster.
>
> How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me?
>
> They can overtake, but then they are on another lane.

Well, they can make a mistake when they are on the phone or something
and you get run over. And you'll be lucky if they stop. Hit-and-runs
are way too common.
>
> How many people get killed with bikes on the carriageway each year? Here
> in Germany, you can count them on one hand. But there are dozens getting
> killed by turning cars whose drivers don't look at the bike path.

Not many people dare to face fast traffic. People here not just fail
to see bikers, they fail to see cars and other major obstacles when
they are distracted.
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Why the hell would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small
> distances?

Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I believe
that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an exceptionally low
number of people that are involved in bike/car accidents but trust me, You
don't want to be the person on the bike.
 
Jeff Grippe wrote:
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> Why the hell would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small
>> distances?
>
> Because I will never share a road again with cars in this country. I believe
> that even in Worthington, it isn't safe It may be an exceptionally low
> number of people that are involved in bike/car accidents but trust me, You
> don't want to be the person on the bike.

Look at the numbers of people who get totalled while driving or riding
in cars. That isn't safe either (especially when they get hit by
trucks...).

While your own personal misfortune will have an understandably big
impact on your risk assessments, it is the case that it's a bad way to
play the odds for any subsequent events.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "archierob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:Ay%[email protected]...
>> Well done!
>>
>> One only has to read Bill Bryson's book 'Notes from a Big Country' to
>> realise just how pervasive the automobile is in America. Trying to get
>> anywhere other than by car is difficult - even crossing over the road
>> from his hotel to a diner. The one anecdote that made me howl with
>> laughter was when he returned to the US for a while and invited his
>> neighbours to dinner -they came by car! They drove down their drive,
>> turned left and then drove up his drive.
>
> The thing that amazes me the most is that in small town America everyone
> drives everywhere, even if it is only a few blocks. No wonder we are all
> turning into fat slobs.
>
> I will NEVER drive my car in town. I use it strictly for going to other
> towns in the vicinity. You can go anywhere in this town of Worthington,
> Minnesota (12,000 pop.) in 15 minutes by bicycle at the most. Why the hell
> would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small distances. And
> yet, EVERYONE does!

The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
perfect sense.

If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.
 
Jack May wrote:

> The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
> multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
> perfect sense.

Which is why I use a bigger bike. I've carried a two seater sofa on my
freight bike with no great trouble, and it easily fits a trolley load of
groceries. Doesn't take significantly longer, and any degree which it
is longer is easily repaid by me being fitter and healthier and not
spending so much on the car, so I lose less time elsewhere.

> If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.

There's more to time than the immediate short term trip. But even if
that is all there is to it then a bike will often be quicker. Bikes
routinely work quicker than cars in congested urban settings: if that
weren't the case, cycle couriers wouldn't exist.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
In rec.bicycles.misc Jack May <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I will NEVER drive my car in town. I use it strictly for going to other
> > towns in the vicinity. You can go anywhere in this town of Worthington,
> > Minnesota (12,000 pop.) in 15 minutes by bicycle at the most. Why the hell
> > would anyone except an idiot want to drive these very small distances. And
> > yet, EVERYONE does!

> The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
> multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
> perfect sense.

> If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.

There's a cycling web page out there (someone here will have heard of
it, or you could Google it) that recounts the experience of a guy who put
a Hobbes meter in his car. A Hobbes meter looks like an odometer, but
measures time. After about four years owning the car he read the two
meters, did the math, and discovered that he and his car had been
averaging 17 mph. People think of their cars move them along at 40 mph or
whatever because that's what the speed limits signs say, but they forget
that they spend a lot of time at red lights, stuck in traffic jams, etc.
My 6 mile commute to work only takes me five or ten minutes longer than
driving does.
And this person's calculations didn't take into account the fact that
he was also spending part of every work day earning the money to pay for
his car. Figure that in and that average mph number might easily go below
10 mph, slower than a lot of bikes.
I got thinking of all this last Saturday, when I spent $500 on car
repairs and then tried to get to a wedding and got stuck for 45 minutes on
I-15 because of a horrible accident that brought no less than four ground
ambulances and a helicopter to the scene where the SUV had crashed and
burned.

Bill


__o | I used to think that I was cool, running around on fossil fuel
_`\(,_ | Until I saw what I was doing was driving down the road to ruin.
(_)/ (_) | - James Taylor
 
On my old commute, ~4 miles each way, my commute time by car was
anywhere from 12 minutes to 25 minutes, depending on traffic, lights,
etc. If I really lucked out (hit green for all 7 lights) I could
drive it in 10. In rush hour, I'd have to sit through 2-3 cycles at
some lights. 20 minutes was the norm.

By bike, I'd do the same distance in ~15 minutes. During the rush-
hour peak I was almost guaranteed to make better time by bike since I
never had to sit at a light for more than one cycle.

Another time-saving benefit to using a bike is no parking hassles.
Most stores in our area now have bike racks. Most of those are right
near the front door: easy-peasy. I really appreciate this during the
holiday shopping season(!)


- JR
 
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:01:11 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
wrote, in part::
\
> People think of their cars move them along at 40 mph or
>whatever because that's what the speed limits signs say, but they forget
>that they spend a lot of time at red lights, stuck in traffic jams, etc.
>My 6 mile commute to work only takes me five or ten minutes longer than
>driving does.
> And this person's calculations didn't take into account the fact that
>he was also spending part of every work day earning the money to pay for
>his car. Figure that in and that average mph number might easily go below
>10 mph, slower than a lot of bikes.

"The typical American male devotes more than 1,600 hours a year to
his car. He sits in it while it goes and while it stands idling. He
parks it and searches for it. He earns the money to put down on it
and to meet the monthly installments. He works to pay for petrol,
tolls, insurance, taxes and tickets. He spends four of his sixteen
waking hours on the road or gathering resources for it. And this
figure does not take account of the time consumed by other activities
dictated by transport: time spent in hospitals, traffic courts and
garages: time spent watching automobile commercials or attending
consumer education meetings to improve quality of the next buy.

The model American puts in 1,600 hours to get 7,500 miles:
less than five miles an hour."

- Ivan Illich

--
zk
 
[email protected] wrote:

>
>> If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.
>
> There's a cycling web page out there (someone here will have heard of
> it, or you could Google it) that recounts the experience of a guy who put
> a Hobbes meter in his car. A Hobbes meter looks like an odometer, but
> measures time. After about four years owning the car he read the two
> meters, did the math, and discovered that he and his car had been
> averaging 17 mph. People think of their cars move them along at 40 mph or
> whatever because that's what the speed limits signs say,

Hah, speed limits! Doesn't your highway require the driver (in addition
to obeying speed limits) to adjust his speed to the road, traffic,
weather, sight and other conditions, the properties of his vehicle and
the cargo and his personal abilities? That's the important speed limit.
 
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jack May wrote:
>
>> The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
>> multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
>> perfect sense.
>
> Which is why I use a bigger bike. I've carried a two seater sofa on my
> freight bike with no great trouble, and it easily fits a trolley load of
> groceries. Doesn't take significantly longer, and any degree which it is
> longer is easily repaid by me being fitter and healthier and not spending
> so much on the car, so I lose less time elsewhere.
>
>> If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.
>
> There's more to time than the immediate short term trip. But even if that
> is all there is to it then a bike will often be quicker. Bikes routinely
> work quicker than cars in congested urban settings: if that weren't the
> case, cycle couriers wouldn't exist.

But very few of us live in a congested urban area.

If we ride the bike to the store, there is usually no place to lock it up
making it vulnerable to being stolen and making it a very expensive trip.
 
In rec.bicycles.misc Jack May <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Jack May wrote:
>>
>>> The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
>>> multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
>>> perfect sense.
>>
>> Which is why I use a bigger bike. I've carried a two seater sofa on my
>> freight bike with no great trouble, and it easily fits a trolley load of
>> groceries. Doesn't take significantly longer, and any degree which it is
>> longer is easily repaid by me being fitter and healthier and not spending
>> so much on the car, so I lose less time elsewhere.
>>
>>> If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.
>>
>> There's more to time than the immediate short term trip. But even if that
>> is all there is to it then a bike will often be quicker. Bikes routinely
>> work quicker than cars in congested urban settings: if that weren't the
>> case, cycle couriers wouldn't exist.
>
> But very few of us live in a congested urban area.

I don't know about that assertion. More people live in cities than in
rural areas, and the proportion is still shifting towards cities.

Surely someone must live in these huge bustling metropolises. Or are
they perhaps populated by ghosts?
>
> If we ride the bike to the store, there is usually no place to lock it up
> making it vulnerable to being stolen and making it a very expensive trip.

I have trouble believing there are no sign posts, newspaper boxes, light
poles, telephone poles, pipes, or anything else you can lock to
everywhere you go. I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm simply saying
that I've never been somewhere I couldn't lock up if I was willing to
walk one hundred foot.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
I don't know everything, but I know a Matrix who does
 
"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> There's more to time than the immediate short term trip. But even if
>> that is all there is to it then a bike will often be quicker. Bikes
>> routinely work quicker than cars in congested urban settings: if that
>> weren't the case, cycle couriers wouldn't exist.
>
> But very few of us live in a congested urban area.
>
> If we ride the bike to the store, there is usually no place to lock it up
> making it vulnerable to being stolen and making it a very expensive trip.

Having no place to lock it up is normally merely a failure to apply
imagination. I can nearly always find such a place.

FWIW we don't live in a congested urban area, yet we use bikes for most
shopping. Things like being able to bring the shopping into the house
without having the tedium of car-unloading trips make the bike more
convenient, any time benefit the car may have for the journey is miniscule
(of the order of 5 minutes), and avoiding the use of the car for trips that
short means it actually lasts rather than wearing out.

cheers,
clive
 
In rec.bicycles.misc Jack May <[email protected]> wrote:

> The Census says the average comute in th US is 12.1 miles and takes 22.5
> minutes for an average speed of 32,3 MPH. Do you want to attempt
> occasionally to tell truth?

This is an average figure, which means there are longer and shorter
commutes. I know a man, for instance, who used to drive 80 miles each way
to and from work, 800 miles per week, +/- 40,000 miles per year. For such
people bicycling does not make sense. Moving closer to the office (as he
eventually did) does.
Shorter commutes, particularly those made in urban areas and at rush
hours, are on the other side of the curve. A couple of months back I was
in a hurry to get to another wedding and took what I thought would be a
shorter, quicker route. I ended up taking thirty minutes to cover the
last mile of the trip. I literally could have gotten to my destination
faster by walking, and I found myself wishing with all my heart for my
bike, even though I don't like to show up at weddings bathed in sweat.
Here's another car-related figure. The American Automobile Association
(they of the famous AAA bumper stickers) says that the average car costs
its owner $650 per month by the time all costs are factored in. The
Census figure takes only driving time into account. This one counts
money, from which we can draw conclusions about the time spent earning
that money. Add that into the commuter's road time and then figure out
his average MPH, and you're down there where a bike becomes a smart
alternative.


Bill

__o | Harry: How could a troll get in?
_`\(,_ | Ron: Not on its own. Trolls are really stupid.
(_)/ (_) |
 
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:39:44 -0700, breeze "Jack May"
<[email protected]> missed it when he wrote:

>> The model American puts in 1,600 hours to get 7,500 miles:
>> less than five miles an hour."
>
>The Census says the average comute in th US is 12.1 miles and takes 22.5
>minutes for an average speed of 32,3 MPH. Do you want to attempt
>occasionally to tell truth?

Car addicts never do the full accounting. 1600 hours includes time
spent to earn the money to pay for your driving habit. It didn't
include the time you spend in hospitals, courts and garages.

Car addicts don't like to figure in the externalities connected with
their transportation choice. Those externalities end up costing
non-drivers $2.70 for every dollar the driver spends on their car.

Your census figures only demonstrate that the average commuter's
destination is well within bicycling range.

Consider too that there are fewer variables to delay a bicycle so
that commuters can be pretty sure that they're going to arrive on
time regardless of traffic situations.
--
zk
 
On Jul 24, 9:23 am, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
> multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
> perfect sense.
>
> If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.

I live downtown, and can't realistically drive to work - it would cost
me about $150 a week to park at my office. So if I take transit, I'd
have to come home, get a vehicle, hen go shopping.

With the bike, I shop on my way home. No extra trips required, really.
I usually avoid the mega stores, as you waste too much time standing
in line. When I do use the supermarket, I either bring my bike buckets
or take a free cardboard box (which I recycle later.) With the buckets
and the top of the rack, my bike has about the same grocery capacity
as a Suzuki Swift (my last car.)

It just takes some thought.
 
"Jack May" <[email protected]> writes:

> The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
> multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
> perfect sense.

Multiple trips (e.g., on separate days) to "bring back a small amount of
food" means the food you eat is fresher. It's a "quality of life" thing.
Plus, you get some exercise, and most people don't get enough.

You don't really "minimize time" by increasing your chance of spending
weeks in intensive care recovering from a heart attack caused by a poor
diet and lack of exercise.

> If your time is not very valuable, a bike makes sense.

"One size fits all" thinking. :) A bike makes perfect sense if
you end up taking the time you "save" by using a car and spending
that time on an exercise bike in your garage or basement. And for
some (e.g., in very congested areas) a bicycle is faster than a
car because on a bicyle, you only wait at a light for one cycle
of it at most.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jack May" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
>> multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
>> perfect sense.
>
> Multiple trips (e.g., on separate days) to "bring back a small amount of
> food" means the food you eat is fresher. It's a "quality of life" thing.
> Plus, you get some exercise, and most people don't get enough.

Not to mention, if you buy a week's worth of groceries or more at a time,
the chances go up that something will happen that you didn't plan on that
will mean that you don't use one or more days' allocation of groceries. If
you count the money wasted and the environmental cost of buying food you are
not going to eat, buying 1-2 days' perishables makes sense. If you have to
work an extra hour a week due to buying food you're not eating, then you
could have spent the time shopping and have fresher food to boot.
 
On Jul 24, 8:25 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > "Jack May" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >> The goal of most people is to minimize time. They do not want to make
> >> multiple trips to bring back a small amount of food or supplies. Makes
> >> perfect sense.
>
> > Multiple trips (e.g., on separate days) to "bring back a small amount of
> > food" means the food you eat is fresher. It's a "quality of life" thing.
> > Plus, you get some exercise, and most people don't get enough.
>
> Not to mention, if you buy a week's worth of groceries or more at a time,
> the chances go up that something will happen that you didn't plan on that
> will mean that you don't use one or more days' allocation of groceries. If
> you count the money wasted and the environmental cost of buying food you are
> not going to eat, buying 1-2 days' perishables makes sense. If you have to
> work an extra hour a week due to buying food you're not eating, then you
> could have spent the time shopping and have fresher food to boot.

Excellent points, Bill and Amy. I've become so accustomed to shopping
this way I didn't even list those benefits. Another bonus for meat
eaters is if you're in your local butcher shop every couple of days,
they remember you and will do extra cuts for you without a hassle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Bike Dealer mag cover bent market health?
Replies
31
Views
3K
Recumbent bicycles
Jeff Potter
J
G
A Dragonflyer on the market
Replies
0
Views
483
Recumbent bicycles
gotbent
G
S
RANS should look to Low End Market
Replies
2
Views
598
Recumbent bicycles
dlhii
D
T
Market research, responses needed please!!
Replies
0
Views
3K
Recumbent bicycles
trike2005
T
C
  • Locked
Wireless Computers for recumbents Revisited or a new look at some GPS on the market
Replies
4
Views
847
Recumbent bicycles
John Riley
J
Top Bottom Back