The bicycle.

[vanlose kid]

hey!



We have already looked this week at why the Dutch are so keen on bicycles here. Another nation that just can't seem to get enough of bikes is Denmark. This is particularly true of the country's capital, Copenhagen. The city already provides free bicycles in the city centre, and careful pro-bicycle planning has meant that 30% of residents cycle to work. Visitors will be amazed at the vast array of bicycles whizzing around the streets, but one in particular seems to have become an icon for the city's cyclists. The Christiania Bike is actually not a bike at all, but a load carrying tricycle that can be, and is, used for anything from transporting kids to getting the shopping home. Even the city’s postal service runs a 100-strong fleet of these pollution-free trikes. Originally built in 1978 as a transport alternative for the car-free autonomous zone of Christiania, the bike soon became common on Copenhagen’s streets. The popularity of the trike is not limited to Denmark. Dealerships can now be found in numerous German cities, including Hannover, Berlin, Frankfurt and Köln. Switzerland is also getting in on the act, and over 100 Londoners have already bought this congestion-charge busting vehicle from the UK dealership. [Written by: Sami Grover]

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/christi ... -city.html













*

[82_28]

I do not have a bicycle, although I did covet one I saw recently. "Look at that!" I whispered breathily, and then: "I wish bicycles didn't hurt my ass so much and that I could conceivably ride one more than two weeks a year here where I live."

The point is, they don't have to hurt your ass. The technology exists to ride free of ass-pain, no matter the existing condition of your tired, old ass!

Streets are, and always have been, for vehicles other than bikes.

You seriously could not be more mistaken. City streets at the turn of the last century were dirt roads, and cycling clubs such as the American Wheelmen lobbied the government to pave them in order to accommodate bicycles. Cyclists created modern roadway infrastructure.

but until that happens, those bike-riding tot-toting parents are being negligent.

No, they are actively working towards making daily life more healthy and friendly to the planet. Meanwhile, you are complaining about it and advocating for the supremacy of the fossil fuel way of life. Which is, sadly, an anachronism.

Oh heck no! I don't wanna be associated with the police! Uncle.. UNCLE!

Too late. Anyone who mocks bike riders as "hobos" deserves to be lumped in with all sorts of bad elements.

That *is* a fun fact, it harkens back to a time when people had a whole different sort of life. One I wish we could choose to have again, at least in part. Yeah, like back when going to work meant they went out to the back forty where it didn't matter if they were wet, or if their hoe got wet. Not so fun updated facts: Today we work much further away from our homes, we have children we need to get to daycares or schools on the way to and from, and we are burdened by moisture sensitive technology/paperwork. There aren't green grocers and butchers in between our factory jobs and our walk up apartments any more, so riding a little bike with your kid hanging off the handle bars and trying to get across six lanes of traffic for a pre-cooked chicken is the option for bike riders of today.

But fuck yeah, bring it on! Ban the car!

Banning of autos from inner city streets is already happening around the world. You need to catch up with the times. Sorry, but the convenience-based automotive lifestyle you cherish so much is coming to a very hot finale.

Yep. Agree with everything barracuda says. Every main street here in Seattle wasn't necessarily made for bikes per se, but they were made for street cars and for horse drawn buggies and shit. The thoroughfares are all on long streetcar/trolley lines when they ran to the forested hinterlands -- now veritable ghettos. When some of the asphalt chips off you can routinely see the old iron tracks and cobblestone popping out -- almost as if to reclaim it all.

I see your points C and understand, but the technology of yesteryear as well as today exists in such a fashion that fixing this shit is easier than ever.

[barracuda]

Good Roads Movement

The Good Roads Movement occurred in the United States between the late 1870s and the 1920s. Advocates for improved roads led by bicyclists turned local agitation into a national political movement.

Outside cities, roads were dirt or gravel; mud in the winter and dust in the summer. Early organizers cited Europe where road construction and maintenance was supported by national and local governments. In its early years, the main goal of the movement was education for road building in rural areas between cities and to help rural populations gain the social and economic benefits enjoyed by cities where citizens benefited from railroads, trolleys and paved streets. Even more than traditional vehicles, the newly invented bicycles could benefit from good country roads.

The Good Roads Movement was officially founded in May 1880, when bicycle enthusiasts, riding clubs and manufacturers met in Newport, Rhode Island to form the League of American Wheelmen to support the burgeoning use of bicycles and to protect their interests from legislative discrimination. The League quickly went national and in 1892 began publishing Good Roads Magazine. In three years circulation reached a million. Early movement advocates enlisted the help of journalists, farmers, politicians and engineers in the project of improving the nation's roadways, but the movement took off when it was adopted by bicyclists.

Groups across the country held road conventions and public demonstrations, published material on the benefits of good roads and endeavoured to influence legislators on local, state and national levels. Good road advocates involved themselves in local politics. Support for candidates often became crucial factors in elections. Not only advocating road improvements for bicyclists, the League pressed the idea to farmers and rural communities, publishing literature such as the famous pamphlet, The Gospel of Good Roads.

New Jersey became the first state to pass a law providing for a state to participate in road-building projects. In 1893, the U.S. Department of Agriculture initiated a systematic evaluation of existing highway systems. In that same year, Charles Duryea produced the first American gasoline-powered vehicle, and Rural Free Delivery began. By June 1894, "Many of the railway companies [had] made concessions in transporting road materials ranging from half rates to free carriage."[1]

[Burnt Hill]

I am pro bike , definitely, Its not feasible for me to travel to work on one, distance and hills and time factors.
That being said, while driving, I too find bikes a road hazard. Now of course i am cautious and polite to them, I used to gently beep my horn when approaching, but my wife pointed out that it was more likely to cause an accident, as some bikers turned to look and swerved a bit.
I think the fact that when we have bike tours around the lake the speed limit is lowered, many warnings posting along with tons of road cones placed, reveals the hazardous nature.
That wouldnt be done if it were entirely safe, and if we were all riding bikes that would be the norm- until legitimate bike lanes are made on all roads.
Now what bothers me about this thread is some of the remarks to C_w. She has an alternate opinion, thats fine! Shes tempered her remarks with wings and winks, but it still gets personal.
Bikes do hurt your ass! I bought one last year that stated and pictured an ergonomic seat, still hurt my ass! I know I can invest in a new seat, but thats more money! Small point, but its a point.
Regardless of history, roads are made for motor vehicles, to suggest anything else is silly! Yes some newer roads are incorporating bike lanes that great! Bikes arent allowed on interstates at all, why is that?
I too used to deliver my youngest to school on a bike towing a carriage of sorts, but I lived in town at the time, it was a short distance, and they quickly outgrew the practicality of it.
So again, while I am pro bike, I agree they are a hazard on the road. Lets discuss amicably(something I havent always been so good at!).
And remember that you cant prove someones opinion wrong, its healthier to discuss on equal ground, even if ones opinion is obscure.
On Edit- pointing out my US centric, Upstate NY specific POV.

[barracuda]

I too find bikes a road hazard. Now of course i am cautious and polite to them, I used to gently beep my horn when approaching, but my wife pointed out that it was more likely to cause an accident, as some bikers turned to look and swerved a bit.
I think the fact that when we have bike tours around the lake the speed limit is lowered, many warnings posting along with tons of road cones placed, reveals the hazardous nature.

Yes, automobiles can be a hazard to cyclists.

That wouldnt be done if it were entirely safe, and if we were all riding bikes that would be the norm- until legitimate bike lanes are made on all roads.

At least where I live, cyclists have exactly the same right-of-way as autos on most roads where there is no bike lane:

Bicycle Use. VC 21200

Every person riding a bicycle upon a street or highway has all the rights and is subject to all the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle.

Most drivers aren't aware of this, which is why "Share the Road" signs are regularly posted along motorways here. But it is the law.

Now what bothers me about this thread is some of the remarks to C_w. She has an alternate opinion, thats fine! Shes tempered her remarks with wings and winks, but it still gets personal.

"Tempered her remarks with wings and winks?" What does that even mean, dude? She trolled the thread, and got what she came for.

Bikes do hurt your ass! I bought one last year that stated and pictured an ergonomic seat, still hurt my ass! I know I can invest in a new seat, but thats more money! Small point, but its a point.

It's a stupid point. "My shoes hurt!" is not an argument against shoe-wearing, or walking. The cost of the finest bicycle seat in the world - a Brooks, imho - is less than the cost of a single car tire, or maybe two gas fill-ups.

Regardless of history, roads are made for motor vehicles, to suggest anything else is silly! Yes some newer roads are incorporating bike lanes that great! Bikes arent allowed on interstates at all, why is that?

Again, the law around here states otherwise. Roads are made for vehicles of all sorts, cars, trucks, motorcycles, and bikes. Freeways are made for motorized vehicles only, and that information is usually posted at the entrance to one.

[Feilan]

Canadian_Watcher wrote:

I gave evidence of the hazardousness above. I did a google search of just the last 24 hours and if I hadn't gotten bored to death of copy and pasting urls my five item list could have been at least a 25 item list. Dead cyclists - a great many of them just in the last 20 hours or so. That isn't hazardous? None of them were out on a country road, a bike path, or other infrastructure built for bicycles and NOT for cars/trucks/etc.

Y'see ... when I hear about another dead cyclist I don't take it as (further) evidence that bicycle and rider constitute a hazard - If something is a hazard it poses a danger to something else. If you could find a bag of links to incidents of bicycles and their riders causing motorist fatalities in the dozens whilst pedaling off unscathed, you'd have an argument. Maybe the argument is that bicycles are a hazard to their riders because cars are bigger, faster and more deserving of the public road. That's just feeble.

One might - I will - point out that undeniably, too many cyclists are no better than their worst counterparts behind the wheel. One is too many. Safe cycling and the strictest adherence to safe practices in traffic ought to be every pedalers prime directive. It is not. Cyclists can and do contribute to their collisions with motorists. Though relatively rare by comparison with the number of accidents involving motorists, collisions between cyclists and pedestrians do occur. I say that even the near miss is a horrible thing because of how the accumulation of near misses causes all parties to become increasingly anxious, alienated from one another, and hair-trigger hostile about the sharing of public space.

I maintain that it DOES NOT have to be that way. We can and should focus on how to share the road. We can and should adhere to the rules pertaining to doing that safely. Pedestrians have sidewalks and crosswalks. They should stick to them and vehicle operators bloody well ought to stay out of them, ie. sidewalks - always, crosswalks - always when pedestrians have the right of way. Where those are insufficient to enable pedestrian access to safe transit, all parties should be pleased to solve that problem with more of both wherever needed.

Driving a car implies a super serious obligation to bear in mind the angular momentum of their vehicle in motion and the deadly impact they can have on living things - those living things driving other cars as well as those walking, standing around and cycling. Wouldn't we agree that because cars are such inherently dangerous things, when driving near ... oh, say ... a school or a park where children might leap out at any moment because y'know, they're children, that the onus is ultimately on the driver to take the utmost care and practice the highest level of situational awareness possible? Sure we would. I think that should be the prime directive of all drivers at all times in all places. Will that prevent all accidents? No, but it sure as hell will take a huge bite out of them. A cursory glance at PHYSICS will tell you which of these three things ( P's, C's or M's) is most inherently hazardous.

Just as the angular momentum of a motor vehicle outstrips everyone else on the road, the angular momentum of a bicycle outstrips that of a pedestrian.
Though there are accidents involving bicycles and pedestrians, they are a tiny number compared to the number of dead cyclists who bounce off of / are run over by a motor vehicle. That fact aside, it is just as critical for cyclists to be as perfectly mindful as possible of their responsibility toward everyone's safety on the road. Much remains to be said and done about the sad fact that this is not yet the case.

Bicycles run clean, are cheap to own and operate, and a means of getting great exercise for free. They present an excellent way to transit the urban landscape, especially for those who cannot afford and/or do not want to own and maintain a car. Walking in combination with public transit is similarly beneficial to those who do it and those who breathe a little easier as a result of so many lesser carbon foot prints. It seems only rational to me that enhancing these two modes of urban transit should rise to the top of the urban planning agenda as positive answers to very troubling questions like carbon emissions, traffic congestion, road safety ... not to mention the health crisis of inactivity and obesity in North America.

At the very least, the public roadways in any city would need to maintain space for cabs, delivery trucks, police cars, ambulances, the conduct of business like construction, civil infrastructure construction and maintenance and the like ... the one thing we need a lot less of - especially with a lot of creative thinking and real commitment to improving public transit and bicycle lanes - is the private car.

I'm not suggesting a ban of course, but serious discouragements would be in order if they were carefully thought out and implemented alongside the enhancements previously mentioned. This is downtown talk - what about the burbs? Suburban planning is NOT SUSTAINABLE. It's NOT HEALTHY either. Suburbs need to adapt and evolve to a new reality. No community of human beings should revolve around one's dependance on a private car. The suburb is a demonstrable FUCK UP.

Obviously, none of this will happen overnight. It won't happen at all with well-meaning smart people talking about banning bicycles and declaring those that rely on bicycles for transit as bona fide hobos. As usual the way forward is to engage everyone in a conversation about inclusion and enlightened disinterest. That means we don't make public policy decisions based on one person's opinion about what a pain in the ass life would be if we all had to get our kids to school by bike in the rain. Not one cyclist in this thread has even suggested such, rather they have said that some people can and do and choose to do. Bikes could disappear altogether in some kind of unforeseen rapture of spiritually perfected vehicles ascending to heaven and it wouldn't change the fact that Toronto is not and never will be able to absorb hundreds of thousands - nay - millions of private car owners along with all the other necessary traffic I mentioned and get them all to the ______ on time with a cheerful demeanor.

Were cities like Toronto to embrace the challenge of truly rethinking and recreating themselves as communities of people first, a lot of excitement and good could come of it. What would Jane Jacobs do ...?




Hey jshan - Last night I dreamed of riding my bike in your town. Your bike lanes are the stuff of dreams!!! Pictured below - the seriously endangered Toronto bike lane ... such as it is

[StarmanSkye]

I had the great pleasure to visit Copenhagen in the late summer of 1990, so saw firsthand the remarkable culture of mass-public bicycle transport as a routine practice for many, many thousands of inner-city commuters. I thought it was absolutely wonderful. As a kid, I used to bicycle quite enthusiasticly, even on snow-covered back-country roads. As a motorcyclist I am used to dressing appropriately for all weather conditions, so there's little reason why bicycling -- esp. on bike-friendly roadways -- isn't practical for reasonable commuting distances. I tend to think mass-public bicycling is a natural complement to the best civilizing values of deliberate, voluntary simplicity and sustainable, genuine community-enhancing culture.

I can imagine that in the 20 years since, biking in modern, enlightened cities like Copenhagen has become even more popular and practical, with a LOT of spin-off benefits including better health, better-integrated transportation development, economy and improved quality-of-life.

[vanlose kid]

[barracuda]

Brooks, man... be sure to regularly use saddle soap.

Will the post-oil future be bicycle-free?

Posted by Gail the Actuary on June 20, 2010 - 10:47am in The Oil Drum: Campfire
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: bicycle, kurt cobb, paved roads [list all tags]
This is guest post by Kurt Cobb.

U. S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood may soon be nominated for heresy-of-the-year award for an impromptu speech at the 2010 National Bike Summit in March. In that speech he said federal transportation policy will no longer favor automobiles over bicyclists and walkers.

As anyone who regularly rides a bicycle knows, this change is big precisely because automobiles and bicycles share much of the same infrastructure. But this very fact may bode ill for the bicycle in a post-oil future.

This distressing line of thought occurred to me recently as I was finishing James Howard Kunstler's beautifully written post-oil novel, A World Made by Hand. I spotted not a single bicycle in its 317 pages. Why? Because in the novel the roads upon which one might ride are crumbling beyond passable. These roads are navigable on foot or by horse, but not particularly by anything on wheels.

But, wait, you may say, bicycles don't need good roads! We'll use trail bikes instead. All well and good. Still, where will the rubber for the tires come from? What we use now is synthetic rubber made from oil. Perhaps we'll get latex from such places as Brazil and Malaysia, that is, unless world trade has broken down. And, the way in which bicycles are made today, we'll need aluminum smelting operations for all the aluminum parts, even if only for repairs.

As simple as a bicycle is compared to a car, there is much that ties it to the energy-intensive, global logistics chain. No doubt we could make bicycle frames out of something other than aluminum. But again, we must ultimately come back to the question of right-of-way. If we assume that there will not be sufficient resources to run a nationwide fleet of private automobiles and therefore neither the political will nor the financial capability to pay for the upkeep of our road system, then we must also assume that the bicycle as a widespread form of transportation will not be practical. Some locales may maintain a few bike trails. But it is hard to see highways being maintained just so bicycles can ride on them.

Let's go back a bit in history to understand why. Bicycles came of age in the latter half of the 19th century. As such they were manufactured on the industrial model. Bicycle owners became a potent force for the paving of roads upon which they could then ride. Ironically, the industrial methods for the manufacture of bicycles and the paved roads which bicycle owners championed became the basis for mass-produced automobiles--automobiles which ultimately usurped the roads from bicycles.

Now, my apprehension about the future of the bicycle posits that industrial society has sunk into a pretty sorry state and that no forms of motorized land transport for which it is worth maintaining roads survive. But even if we maintain main roads for, say, intercity buses, that would still leave all the side roads--roads ideal for bicycle riding--without maintenance.

I'm ashamed to say that until reading Kunstler's novel it had never occurred to me just how dependent my bicycle is on the automotive infrastructure. Could it be true that the bicycle's viability is linked to that of the automobile? Having said all this, I'm hoping someone will talk me down and explain how we might be able to have a future filled with bicycling no matter what the fate of the automobile.

[Burnt Hill]

Okay I just spoke with our county road supervisor (he's a friend, not sure if thats his title). I asked what considerations they make for bicycle use, He said none. He said that the roads were specifically designed, repaired and maintained based on motor vehicle traffic. He mentioned that they do recieve petitions for bicycle lanes,
specifically for the route I mentioned earlier for bike tours. As of now, no fundings, and no plans to build.
Thats my point, the roads are made for motor vehicles, thats why we need bike lanes.
None of this means that bicycles and pedestrians cant use the roads, other than interstates,why is that? Not neccesary to respond- of course its because it wouldnt be safe! No doubt there is one somewhere that has incorporated safe bike lanes though, that would be great!
Of course pedestrians and bicycles should have the appropriate right of way, and can also recieve ticket when not in compliance.
Again this is a pretty rural county, things are different elsewhere.
I am in favor of biking, driving and safety!
Yes, share the road!
And respect others opinions for the sake of enlightening discourse!
On Edit, our area does have an excellent bike , pedestrian trail that connects two counties, + 20 miles long, built specifically with donations and grants- no motorized vehicles allowed and no funding from the DOT.

[barracuda]

Okay I just spoke with our county road supervisor (he's a friend, not sure if thats his title). I asked what considerations they make for bicycle use, He said none. He said that the roads were specifically designed, repaired and maintained based on motor vehicle traffic. He mentioned that they do recieve petitions for bicycle lanes,
specifically for the route I mentioned earlier for bike tours. As of now, no fundings, and no plans to build.

Civic infrastructure certainly ought to built on the basis of codes designed to accommodate the heaviest usage. It just makes common sense. Bicycles travel perfectly well upon roads designed to bear motor traffic, last time I checked.

I'm sorry to hear that the municipality you live in hasn't yet risen to the sensible accommodation of cycling. But to be fair, that's a disability, not an advantage for the people living there.

other than interstates,why is that?

I can't really think of a single good reason. The hegemony of the automobile has usurped all sorts of viable, productive, and healthy alternatives, unfortunately.

[yathrib]

After the Bicycle comes the Tricycle!

[Burnt Hill]

Okay I just spoke with our county road supervisor (he's a friend, not sure if thats his title). I asked what considerations they make for bicycle use, He said none. He said that the roads were specifically designed, repaired and maintained based on motor vehicle traffic. He mentioned that they do recieve petitions for bicycle lanes,
specifically for the route I mentioned earlier for bike tours. As of now, no fundings, and no plans to build.

Civic infrastructure certainly ought to built on the basis of codes designed to accommodate the heaviest usage. It just makes common sense. Bicycles travel perfectly well upon roads designed to bear motor traffic, last time I checked.

Agreed, and it is, just no codes to include designing for bike traffic, the usage is calculated with box counters trigged by air cords placed across the road, not sure if a bikes weight would trigger that, but it would still be counted as a motor vehicle.

I'm sorry to hear that the municipality you live in hasn't yet risen to the sensible accommodation of cycling. But to be fair, that's a disability, not an advantage for the people living there.

Me too, but it is funding, not lack of sensibility, we have a ton of bike traffic due to great scenery, I only recall one major car/bike accident in the last couple of years. The counties on both sides of us are way more ahead of the curve here. And way more fiscally secure.

other than interstates,why is that?

I can't really think of a single good reason. The hegemony of the automobile has usurped all sorts of viable, productive, and healthy alternatives, unfortunately.

Thats true.
And just to reinforce my point, if the roads were completely safe for bicycles, we wouldn't need to incorporate bike lanes. Which I hope we continue to do.

[Perelandra]

Those cargo trikes are so cool. I have one, my old lady bike, only the american (made in China, probly) kind, cargo in the back. I can ride easily around my old, low-traffic, small neighborhood with confidence, but wouldn't go much farther. Must get more practice!

My childhood did not include learning to ride a bike as a necessary milestone. I think I learned to ride around age eleven. A bike for each child would have been unthinkable and my sibling and I shared an old used cruiser named Betsy for a number of years. As a result, I've never been a great rider, and I have the scars on my knees from falling on Venice Beach to prove it.

My SO raced bikes in college in LA and used it as transport and has some great bike stories. He once, going about 30 mph, took out a pedestrian who'd made a bad judgement. His handlebars were broken. They crawled away and patched each other up and went on. Crazy.

[Luther Blissett]

The roads may not be built for bicycles, but the world wasn't built for automobiles.

We're all going to burn to death before civilization adopts the bicycle over any combustion engine.

Roads in rural areas are being allowed to return to nature because maintenance cannot be afforded any longer. This will only increase until it spreads to more populated areas. Then the roads will be for no one. Then the forest will be a desert and we will be dinosaurs instead of bacteria.