Can you make it to the market on a bike?



On Jul 24, 10:23 am, "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

What you do with your time is a matter of preference. Some join the
rat race, and some simply refuse. For the latter a bike makes sense.
 
On Jul 24, 4:29 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "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.-

Simply try not to shop there --and let them know.
 
On Jul 24, 5:08 pm, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> But you are not far from wrong. Essentially, it is NEVER 100% safe to be on
> the road with motor vehicles. That is why I am such a proponent of bike
> paths. Why there are not more of them is one of the eternal mysteries of
> life.

I think it has to with the lions considering the frugal bikes mere
peanuts.They are still important to the monkey though...

RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS

OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to
listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the
secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the word
of choice...

"The highest measure of democracy is neither the 'extent of freedom'
nor the 'extent of equality', but rather the highest measure of
participation" -A. d. Benoist

Then I'd assume that 50% of the American public and 80% of the young
who don't vote do not live in democracy. Or perhaps they see it as a
waste of time --and money.

"Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying)

"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book)

And this one...

"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the
government listens" -Alastair Farrugia

Which explains why bike lanes won't happen in the foreseeable future.
 
On Jul 24, 1:29 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>
> > 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.

True, perhaps. But for short enough trips, the other benefits of
cycling are worth the slight extra time, in my view. Certainly, up to
about two miles - if level terrain - the increased time is negligible.

>
> 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.

There may be no _official_ place to lock it up, but IME there's always
_some_ place I can lock it. You just have to be a little creative.

- Frank Krygowski
 
"Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.

That would be terrible. I ride my bike on errands, to sporting events, to
the market, and to lunch or dinner in our local entertainment districts. In
every area I've found places to park my bike. And in all those areas it is
closer than where I would have parked my car. You should complain to your
city transportation committee.
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well, I thought I'd never live long enough to do such a thing in
> America. It keeps me fit, and hungry enough to enjoy all that great
> (and not so great) food, as well as keeps me away from the crowd that
> uses an SUV to go and get a gallon of milk --or worse, cigarettes.
> Luckily in my new place I can do such a thing, if not by design by
> chance. I can ride leisurely my cruiser with huge baskets to the
> supermaket through some quiet, safe streets, about 0.7 mile. I bet
> most American are not so lucky, and I don't think the share of bicycle
> use for shopping and similar real life errands is any higher than the
> percentage that commutes by bike, about 1% or so, right?
>
> Regrettably, my happiness ends at this point as going any further
> places me right on major roads, where the major predators rule. And
> that's a jungle that makes me nervous. Great places are within biking
> distance, up to 15 miles, along parks, beaches and scenic places, but
> NO BIKE LANES are provided, and I just play it safe. As a matter of
> fact the need to enjoy all this made me found another way to get out
> there in the open air without being at the very bottom of the food
> chain. So I just got a scooter that allows me to drive with traffic,
> if not strictly pollution free, at least rewarding me with a good
> 80MPG.
>
> So this is my modest effort to fight Global Warming, and I hope I live
> long enough in these Darwinian roads to tell my offspring. And now off
> I go with my bike (buying nothing in particular, just going to the
> market for the hell of it)...
>
> WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
> http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
>
> BIKE FOR PEACE
> http://webspawner.com/users/bikeforpeace
>

what do you do with a gallon of milk - sounds much more dangerous than
cycling?
 
Jack May wrote:

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

For some values of "us". Actually, millions live in such areas, it's
entirely normal for a large slice of the population.

> 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.

For some values of "usually". I can't think of any stores round here
where I can't lock my bike. Do the stores round your way have no
signposts, lampposts, fenceposts? At the main grocery store I can lock
my bike right by the door: can't park anywhere near that close unless
you're disabled, so I'll be on my way while most people are wheeling
their trolleys over the parking lot.

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/
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I think it has to with the lions considering the frugal bikes mere
> peanuts.They are still important to the monkey though...
>
> RIDING A BIKE COSTS PEANUTS
>
> OK, since the lion (for whom "peanuts" is not important) refuses to
> listen to the monkey asking for bike facilities,* let's scrutinize the
> secrets ($$$) of the political jungle, where "democracy" is the word
> of choice...
>
> "The highest measure of democracy is neither the 'extent of freedom'
> nor the 'extent of equality', but rather the highest measure of
> participation" -A. d. Benoist
>
> Then I'd assume that 50% of the American public and 80% of the young
> who don't vote do not live in democracy. Or perhaps they see it as a
> waste of time --and money.
>
> "Remember the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, Rule" (saying)
>
> "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (title of book)
>
> And this one...
>
> "Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the
> government listens" -Alastair Farrugia
>
> Which explains why bike lanes won't happen in the foreseeable future.

Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor
do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm for bike lanes because they're a lot cheaper
than mass transit that probably will not be used. Bike riding is the perfect
antidote to many of our's, and society's, problems and I wish the naysays
would not lump this one in with the rest of what idiotic greens spout off.
 
Joe the Aroma wrote:

> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
> because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor
> do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

Or at least, bike lanes that are worth using. Lots of them aren't: they
tend to mean cyclists relinquish rights of way at any junctions, provide
routes inferior to the road (both in terms of condition and routing) and
give drivers the impression that bikes have no place on the roads.

The degree to which it is possible to cycle on the roads will, I'm sure,
vary from place to place, but in the UK it's generally not a problem,
and you look at the government's figures for accidents and you can see
that it isn't a problem (mile for mile, slightly less dangerous than
being a pedestrian). But the general /perception/ is that it's verging
on the suicidal to cycle on roads with motor traffic and thus we need
bike paths. The reality is that it isn't, and we don't.

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/
 
Jens Müller wrote:

> Hah, speed limits! Doesn't your highway require the driver (in addition
^
Should have been "highway code" ...

> 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.
 
Edward Dolan wrote:

>> How can they go fast when they are on the same lane as me?
>
> They will run right over you and then claim that they did not see you. If
> you really **** them off, they will do it on purpose.

Data, please. How often does that happen?

>> They can overtake, but then they are on another lane.
>
> Nope, they will shove you a right off the road. They do not want to be
> bothered overtaking a lowly cyclist.

You're driving too far on the right.

>> 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.
>
> That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is up
> to the cyclist to stop, look and listen.

No. The cyclist has right of way, at least according to our highway code.


> By the way, bike LANES on streets are worthless. Never trust them.
>
>> Do you have statistical data that would support your last sentence?
>
> I reek of commonsense. Too bad you do not have any!

"Common sense" ...

Common sense might say cycle paths are safer.

Surveys by the Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (Federal Highway
Institute) say that the accident probabiliy on crossings is 3 to 12
times higher on cycle paths than on the carriageway, depending on the
exact situation.

Surveys from Sweden show similiar results.

These surveys also tried to compare the accident probalities on the part
of the road between crossings. The couldn't find a clear trend, possibly
because there aren't enough accidents that you can mine any statistical
information from it.
 
Jens Müller 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.
>> That is the cyclist's fault. Wherever a bike path crosses a road, it is up
>> to the cyclist to stop, look and listen.
>
> No. The cyclist has right of way, at least according to our highway code.
>

That was a bit too short:

a) The cyclist has right of way ("Vorfahrt") with respect to vehicles on
the crossing street exactly when vehicles on the carriageway would have
- the cycle path is a part of the street, and Vorfahrt rules apply to
streets as a whole, not part of the street like carriageway or cycle path.

b) The cyclist driving straight ahead right of a turn-right lane (that's
where the bike path often is) has right of way (Vorrang) with respect to
any vehicle turning right. The same applies when the cyclist has to
drive on the left side on a cycle path wrt vehicles turning left.
 
"Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
....

> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
> because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor
> do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

However, is the reason that the vast majority of people do not bike because
they have grown up in a situation where it is inconceivable to do so? In
other words, has the fact that our infrastructure is so car-centric become
self-perpetuating because people have on some level given up any expectation
that they could ever take any other form of transportation to their
destination?
 
I'm sure you are right and even though I love to cycle, I'm not going to
play in traffic. At some point I'm just going to have to move closer to the
rail trails. You are correct that my risk assessment is probably incorrect.

Jeff
"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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]...
>
> "Jeff Grippe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
> Jeff, you are living in a very intense motor vehicle environment. The
> entire country is not like White Plains, New York.
>
> Quiet country roads can be quite safe except for the occasional drunken
> driver.

Well look at what happened to Stephen King. He was walking on a quite
country road and almost had his life taken by a drunken driver.

No matter how small the odds are of this happening to me again, they become
zero if I simply refuse to cycle where there are cars. I love to cycle but
its not the only thing that I enjoy doing.

Jeff
 
In rec.bicycles.misc Jeff Grippe <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jeff "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Jeff Grippe wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
> I'm sure you are right and even though I love to cycle, I'm not going to
> play in traffic. At some point I'm just going to have to move closer to the
> rail trails. You are correct that my risk assessment is probably incorrect.

Thinking back on it, both of my most injurious bike accidents took place
on bike trails and involved no cars. Considering that bike trails are
widely acknowledged to be more dangerous than road cycling, I shouldn't
be really surprised by that I suppose.

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
Work to Eat
Eat to Live
Live to Ride
Ride to Work.
 
"Joe the Aroma" <[email protected]> writes:

> Your idiotic platitudes aside, the reason why bike lanes won't happen is
> because of democracy, the vast majority of people do not bike and therefor
> do not demand bike lanes. Democracy in action.

We have plenty of bike lanes around here. Many are along routes
children use to ride their bicycles to school. It may surprise you,
but a "majority of people" have children and will support anything
that they think will reduce the chances of their children being
injured. Bike lanes are also popular with commuters, who feel more
comfortable when there is one. And our traffic engineers like them as
well - on expressways or similar heavily used road, the bike lanes
double as breakdown lanes or as areas where cars can merge into to let
emergency vehicles get by. The cost difference between a bike lane
versus a striped shoulder is basically zero.

In case there is any confusion, a bike lane is part of a road
and should not be confused with a bike path, which is a completely
separate facility. The paths are popular too, as they are really
bicycle/pedestrian paths.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
On Jul 24, 4:39 pm, "Jack May" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:01:11 +0000 (UTC), [email protected]
>
> > 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?
>
> http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~pgordon/pdf/commuting.pdf
> (page 4)

Jack
The problem here is that the authors apparently are using the
arethmetic mean. Unless the distribution is normal the mean is almost
certainly inflated by outliers. Do you know if anyone has done this
type of study using median commuting distance rather than mean ?

in Canada the median commute is about 7.5 km . The Canadian
situtation would seem quite different if you took the mean. If you
look at the actual distribution in Canada the majority of commuters
travel less than 10 km (6.2 miles). See http://ca.geocities.com/jrkrideau/cycling/commute.png.
I would not be terribly surprised to find a similar distribution,
althougth, perhaps with a slightly larger median value for US
commutes.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
 
"Zoot Katz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:39:44 -0700, breeze "Jack May"
> <[email protected]> missed it when he wrote:
>

>
> 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.


Oh here we go again with somebody throwing everything they can think of into
a cost number to pump it up as high as possible. Useless approach.
>
> Your census figures only demonstrate that the average commuter's
> destination is well within bicycling range.

So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all
your arguments are worthless. All technology survives or fails in an
evolutionary process. Bikes have lost the evolution game.
 
Jack May wrote:
>
> So what. If people consider a bike an inferior way to commute, then all
> your arguments are worthless. All technology survives or fails in an
> evolutionary process. Bikes have lost the evolution game.
>

Not lost. The environment is changing back towards conditions that
favour the bike. The dominance of cars may well prove to be a short
lived interlude.

Tony
 
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