The bicycle.

[vanlose kid]

[Burnt Hill]

Bikes are fine for local use, but many people commute long distance, many people have disabilities and health issues, many people just dont want to, and some peoples asses hurt. Public transportation is a great, partial, solution, hopefully powered by alternate fuels.
I imagine roads, particularly interstates, are primarily built for commerce, even if everyone were riding bikes, we'd still have tractor trailors and buses to contend with.
I am pro bike, their use is a great asset, but its not going to solve all our transportation issues.
Plus, who's going to clear the snow? Which my area gets 6 months of the year.

[barracuda]

Bikes are great, but they don't function well on water. Lakes and oceans without solid, ridable infrastructure will forever be a stopping point towards a better, healthier, less polluted world. And what about snow-covered mountainous regions? Or persons with no arms and legs?? Oh well.

A HIGH WHEEL THROUGH AFGHANISTAN

In 1884, the Englishman Thomas Stevens set out on what was probably the first cycle tour around the world, which included a passage through Afghanistan.

"...I heard Mr Thomas Stevens, after the dinner given in his honour by the Massachusetts Bicycle Club, make a brief, off-hand report of his adventures. He seemed like Jules Verne, telling his own wonderful performances, or like a con­temporary Sinbad the Sailor. We found that modern mechanical invention, instead of disenchanting the universe, had really afforded the means of explor­ing its marvels the more surely. Instead of going round the world with a rifle, for the purpose of killing something, - or with a bundle of tracts, in order to con­vert somebody, - this bold youth simply went around the globe to see the people who were on it; and since he always had something to show them as interesting as anything that they could show him, he made his way among all nations."

There has probably never been a more elegant line written in praise of the bicy­cle than that written in 1887 for the pref­ace to Around the World on a Bicycle by Thomas Stevens. His adventures seem all the more remarkable today because the modern mechanical invention was a high bicycle. With his neatly strapped luggage, including a tent that used the bicycle as a central support, Stevens travelled around the world with remarkable confidence:

"The war-like Afghans have great admi­ration for personal courage, and they evidently regard my arrival here without escort as a proof that I am possessed of a commendable share of that desirable quality. As the commander-in-chief and a few grim old warriors squatting near us exchange comments on the subject of my appearance here, and my willingness to proceed alone to Kandahar, notwith­standing the known probability of being murdered, their glances of mingled amusement and admiration are agree­ably convincing that I have touched a chord of sympathy in their rude, martial breasts."

The bicycle is soon famous in the local bazaars: "Fourteen farsakhs (fifty-six miles) an hour and nothing said about the conditions of the roads, is the average Herati's understanding of it; and many a grave, turbaned merchant in the bazaar, and wild warrior on the ramparts, indulges in day-dreams of an iron horse little less miraculous in its deeds than the winged steed of the air we read of in the Arabian Nights."

His bicycle was badly damaged by a horse and required extensive repairs by local gunsmiths. "The gunsmiths are quite expert workmen, considering the tools they have to work with, and when they happen to drill a hole a trifle crooked, they are full of apologies and remind me that this is Afghanistan and not Frangistan. They know and appreciate good material when they see it, and dur­ing the process of heating and stretching the spokes, loud and profuse are the praises bestowed upon the quality of the iron. As artisans interested in mechanical affairs, the ball-bearings of the pedals, one of which I take apart to show them, excites their profound admiration as evi­dence of the marvellous skill of the Ferenghis."

Unfortunately Stevens is not allowed to travel alone through Afghanistan to India and is escorted everywhere: "Outside the gate, at the suggestion of the young man in the bottle-green roundabout (jacket), I mount and ride, wheeling slowly along between the little files of soldiers. The soldiers are delighted at the novelty of their duty, and they swing briskly along as I pedal a little faster. They smile at the exertion necessary to keep up and falling in with their spirit of amusement, I grad­ually increase my speed, and finally shoot ahead of them entirely. Kiftan Sahib comes galloping after me on the gray, and with good-humoured anxi­ety motions for me to stop and let the sol­diers catch up. He it is upon whom the commander-in-chief has saddled the reponsibility for my safe-keeping, and this little display of levity and my ability to so easily out-distance the soldiers, awakens in him the spirit of apprehen­sion at once."

Stevens was eventually escorted back to Persia. From there he travels a round­about route to India, then ventures through China and Japan.

[Canadian_watcher]

Feilan!

I absolutely agree with 99% of your post. It is, veritably, what I meant all along. I shall specify:

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.

Okay, here's the 1%. I get that I was imprecise. I *do* mean that bicycles are a hazard to their riders (and also the drivers of any cars that might hit them because that's got to be psychologically scarring depending on the severity of the collision).. I do NOT mean that cars are more deserving of the public road. I do mean that the roads, in the VAST majority of urban centers, are not suitable for bikes AND cars, and I'm advocating that public monies be spent to give cyclists a place to SAFELY ride. I am never angry at cyclists when I'm driving. I don't wish them away - rather I wish that there wasn't such a danger to them, I drive carefully near them, and I have mini strokes watching how carelessly other drivers zip up to and around them. Perhaps it's a phobia, I don't know. anyway....

... 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.

Yes, exactly - pedestrians have their own infrastructure. (Gawd, isn't there another word I could use, that one is getting dull) Granted, they still dart out into traffic, causing a hazard (to whom? mostly to themselves, right? but a hazard it is, nonetheless.) the thing with cyclists is this: there are no separate spaces for them in most cities. They are mercilessly tossed out there with grandmas sitting on booster seats, peeking out from over the dashboard of V8 SUVs!!! Over 17,000 cyclists were injured/killed last year in Britain. And those are only the reported cases. That's outrageous. How many people were killed by guns in Britain last year? Does that make bikes more dangerous than guns, or what? Depends how you look at it.

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.

Well, my point isn't to lay blame. My point is that our roads, in general, are not friendly to cyclists and since there's no way to stop motor vehicle traffic at this point (except of course on select streets in very forward thinking municipalities) we ought to create a system that can be safe for everyone. Motorized wheelchairs and skateboards aren't allowed in traffic as bikes are. Why not? I don't see a big difference. I'd support them joining the mad crush of rush hour as much as I currently support cyclists doing so.

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.

totally.

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.

wholeheartedly agree!

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.

Oh for the love of.. would you people lighten up about the hobos? ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff...........!!!! I call myself a hobo. A bona fide hobo, OTOH, would smack me sideways if s/he heard that. You are all intelligent enough to know what I was getting at. I personally don't even consider 'hobo' an insult. Jaysus.

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.

Again, you think i'm speaking just for myself? you think I'm the only person who would have a hard time getting their kids to the babysitter's on a bike? I;m going to have to encourage you to grab a clue. no offense, but in the spirit of disdain with which you are treating me here, I feel justified in doing the same in retort.

Not one cyclist in this thread has even suggested such, rather they have said that some people can and do and choose to do.

I disagree. I believe that they are throwing the "you hate mother earth!!!!' argument out pretty heavily and for no good reason, which in my opinion equates to we should all be trying to rid ourselves of personal automobiles and if you don't support that unquestioningly you are a worthy target of slander.

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.

Quite. And that might involve building the necessary .. (damn it).. infrastructure to accommodate bikers to ride in convenience and safety, while those poor effers in cars polluting the earth ( I mean that sincerely) are stuck with the potholes, dangers & gridlock of the current maze.

What would Jane Jacobs do ...

don't know. she might want safer lanes for cyclists, though.

[Canadian_watcher]

Your kid was in kindergarten for four years?
apple doesn't fall far from the tree, I see.

I don't know why you insist on being so bitchy about this. I don't even know exactly what you mean. So: What do you mean, exactly?

I forgot to answer this earlier..
It was just a joke, Mac, and I can assure you I didn't have the slightest bitchy motivation for writing it.

[Spiro C. Thiery]

How can anyone disagree that bicycles on city streets are major hazards?

Yes, city streets can indeed be hazardous.

Bicycles are no use as a person's only means of transportation, unless that person is a bona fide hobo, since most people can't go anywhere soaking wet or frozen like a popsicle.

Horseshit. Outside of planes across the ocean and trains from one city to the next, I've ridden every day for well over 2000 days now as my only form of transportation and I'm no hobo, I need the bike to get to work.

I even rode on this day:

Thankfully, that one wasn't mine.

And why is my argument that there should be infrastructure built FOR bikes being ignored in favour of calling me a fossil fuel guzzling redneck climate change denying fat ass?

If your argument for the infrastructure amounts to this...

Bicycles on city streets are a major fucking hazard, particularly in the winter, and ought to be banned unless infrastructure is built to accommodate them.

..hard to imagine why a bicyclist would have a problem with that.

Finally (and this is key. no one is addressing it but like it or not it's reality, so someone should man up here)... Ya'll haven't tried to get kids off to school before work on a bike yet, have ya?

You're right, that is key, so in the interest of manning and womaning up:


Warning: Hobos!


I won't tell you how to live your life, stay outta mine, bub!

[Canadian_watcher]

Spiro, I'm not going to repeat myself AGAIN.. but see my last post to Feilan if you want to stop assuming you know what i mean and instead actually know what I mean.

I'll tell my friends who have 4 and 5 children each that they ought to bike them the six miles to the sitter, then turn around and go the twelve miles back to work. In the winter.

[Elvis]

No car---the new status symbol. I'm richer since my last car died, a day I'll never forget. Cars are for poor people, to get to their jobs. Me, I pedal 5 miles round trip to my job---uphill both ways

Also a part of the point. (btw Elvis, I am assuming you were being somewhat ironic?)

Not really; along the way there's a deep dip, so I face an uphill climb each way. If I had a car, I'd probably drive it to work, but I've turned down at least three "free" cars because I don't want the cost of maintaining, licensing, insuring and fueling it. The extra work going up that hill is good for me. If it rains cats & dogs, I take the bus.

Is there not a Pynchon book with a mention of hills that go up both ways somewhere in it? Maybe describing Ithaca and/or Cornell?

Or am I just....I don't know. It's unusual for me to remember something like that vaguely. With me, it's all er nuthin, like Ado Annie.

Getting senile, I guess.

I should pretend I didn't see the question, there's no way I can affect erudition on this. I've never read Pynchon, or much fiction at all for that matter. But in a quick search just now for "cycling fiction" I found a novel I want to read, and its Wikipedia article has some interesting info itself:

The Wheels of Chance is an early comic novel by H. G. Wells about an August 1895 cycling holiday, somewhat in the style of Three Men in a Boat. In 1922 it was adapted into a silent film The Wheels of Chance directed by Harold M. Shaw.

Plot introduction

The Wheels of Chance was written at the height of the cycling craze (1890–1905), when practical, comfortable bicycles first became widely and cheaply available and before the rise of the automobile (see History of the bicycle). The advent of the bicycle stirred sudden and profound changes in the social life of England. Even the working class could travel substantial distances, quickly and cheaply, and the very idea of travelling for pleasure became a possibility for thousands of people for the first time. This new freedom affected many. It began to weaken the rigid English class structure and it gave an especially powerful boost to the existing movement toward female emancipation. Wells explored these social changes in his story.

Plot

The hero of The Wheels of Chance, Mr. Hoopdriver, is a frustrated "draper's assistant"[2] in Putney, a badly-paid, grinding position (and one which Wells briefly held); and yet he owns a bicycle and is setting out on a bicycling tour of "the Southern Coast" on his annual ten days' holiday.

Hoopdriver survives his frustration by escaping in his imagination into a world of fantasy. He is not a skilled rider of his forty-three-pound bicycle, and his awkwardness reflects both Wells's own uncertainties in negotiating the English class system and his critical view of that society. Nonetheless, Hoopdriver is treated sympathetically: "But if you see how a mere counter-jumper, a cad on castors, and a fool to boot, may come to feel the little insufficiencies of life, and if he has to any extent won your sympathies, my end is attained."[3]

Hoopdriver's summer adventure begins lyrically:

Only those who toil six long days out of the seven, and all the year round, save for one brief glorious fortnight or ten days in the summer time, know the exquisite sensations of the First Holiday Morning. All the dreary, uninteresting routine drops from you suddenly, your chains fall about your feet. . . . There were thrushes in the Richmond Road, and a lark on Putney Heath. The freshness of dew was in the air; dew or the relics of an overnight shower glittered on the leaves and grass. . . . He wheeled his machine up Putney Hill, and his heart sang within him.[4]

Hoopdriver encounters a pretty young woman cycling alone and wearing rationals (bloomers). He dares not speak to the Young Lady in Grey, as he calls her, but their paths keep crossing. She is ultimately revealed to be Jessie Milton, a girl of seventeen who has run away from her stepmother in Surbiton, risking "ruin" at the hands of the bounder Bechamel, an unscrupulous older man who has promised to help the naive Jessie to establish herself an independent life but who is really intent on seducing her. Ironically, her flight has in part been inspired by liberal ideals of unconventionality that have been hypocrtically promoted by her stepmother's popular novels.

Hoopdriver half-inadvertently rescues her from Bechamel's clutches, and the two proceed to cycle across the south of England. Ashamed of his true circumstances, Hoopdriver spins droll tales of South African origins and the comforts of wealth until shame induces him to confess his true circumstances. But he also displays genuine courage, rebuking insolent travelers who insult Jessie's honor.

Hoopdriver's encounter inspires in him a desire to better himself, as well as impossibly romantic feelings toward Jessie. At last a party consisting of her stepmother, some of her stepmother's admirers, and her former schoolteacher catches up with them. Jessie returns home and Hoopdriver returns to the Drapery Emporium of Messrs. Antrobud and Co., but Jessie has promised to "send him some books" and has held out the vague prospect that "in six years' time" things may be different.[5]

Jessie's bookish and romantic education has kept her ignorant of the realities of life, and her ignorance contributes to the comedy of Hoopdriver's half-clever, half-ridiculous improvised stories of life in Africa. Jessie has her own aspirations: "She was going to Live her Own Life, with emphasis."[6] H.G. Wells's intention in The Wheels of Chance might be taken to be satirical, were his protagonists' circumstances so closely related to his own history and that of his second wife Catherine Robbins.

Setting

Wells used real places in plotting the novel, and the entire route can be followed on a map. Among the sites described in the novel are Ripley, Cobham, Guildford, Haslemere, Godalming, Milford, Midhurst, Chichester, Bognor (where, at the Vicuna Hotel, Hoopdriver comes to Jessie's rescue), Chichester Harbour, Havant, Botley, the hamlet of Wallenstock (where Hoopdriver defends Jessie's honor), Blandford (where Hoopdriver confesses his true identity to Jessie), Ringwood, Stoney Cross, and the Rufus Stone (where Hoopdriver says good-bye to Jessie).

Publication

The novel was paired with The Time Machine and included in the Everyman's Library (no. 915) in 1935.

The text of Wheels of Chance is available at several sites on the internet.

btw, compared2what, welcome back

[Spiro C. Thiery]

Spiro, I'm not going to repeat myself AGAIN..

There's that paternalistic tone again.

but see my last post to Feilan if you want to stop assuming you know what i mean and instead actually know what I mean.

Just because you went from standard bait-trolling on a thread that might be appreciated by cyclists, to concern trolling on behalf of us doesn't make your appeal any more attractive.

And by the way, if you're ribbing with the hobo comment, why can't it be ribbing back? Not every use of irony should have to have a winky.

I'll tell my friends who have 4 and 5 children each that they ought to bike them the six miles to the sitter, then turn around and go the twelve miles back to work. In the winter.

Canadian, I'm not going to repeat myself AGAIN..
I won't tell you how to live your life, stay outta mine.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Here's a question: why did the Maya (so far as we know) independently invent the wheel, and then (so far as we know) use it for nothing but children's toys?

Not for industry, agriculture, or even construction as far as anybody can tell at this distance - not even for war-chariots. Only for toys... toys that look like quad bikes.








Also, why has Kirkpatrick Macmillan not been mentioned yet? Not only does he have a strong claim to having invented the pedal-driven bicycle, but he was also the first known malefactor to menace and assault helpless pedestrians in the streets with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirkpatrick_Macmillan

A Glasgow newspaper reported in 1842 an accident in which an anonymous "gentleman from Dumfries-shire... bestride a velocipede... of ingenious design" knocked over a pedestrian in the Gorbals and was fined five British shillings. Johnston identified Macmillan as that gentleman.

This incident inspired the well-known Queen song "I Want To Ride My Velocipede".

[Canadian_watcher]

*sigh*

whatever. you all sound like the same person to me at this point. does anyone even read other members' posts within a thread anymore, or does everyone just follow their own? I feel like I have to say the same thing 30 times in one thread to each new ID who chimes in.

BTW, Spiro - I didn't tell anyone how they ought to operate on Earth. you dreamed that up.

[Saurian Tail]

I got in my hour earlier this evening. For the last decade, I've had rural roads pretty much right out my door. Living on the edge of a small town is good like that. I actually raced mountain and road bikes for 6 or 7 years until I got burnt out on the whole situation. Now I just ride for fun and exercise.

I commuted for several years when I lived in Northern Virginia. That was unbelievably fun. It was 14.5 miles each way and took only a few minutes longer by bike. In my experience, the inconvenience factor goes away as you develop a routine and acquire proper equipment.

In terms of the danger aspect there are definitely places I don't ride my bike. I'm not into gratuitous danger. Its a calculated risk.

[barracuda]

Here's a question: why did the Maya (so far as we know) independently invent the wheel, and then (so far as we know) use it for nothing but children's toys?

My first guess would be that once you have a large enough pool of labor waiting to do the bidding of a select cadre of elites, labor saving devices such as the wheel become so superfluous as to be out of mind. Sort of makes me wonder what great and simple inventions we're passing over on a daily basis for the exact same reasons now.

Also, why has Kirkpatrick Macmillan not been mentioned yet? Not only does he have a strong claim to having invented the pedal-driven bicycle, but he was also the first known malefactor to menace and assault helpless pedestrians in the streets with it.

Okay, Macmillan came out of nowhere and made a terrific bike, he really did. Rear drive, treadle pedals, awesome frame geometry: gnarly ride. Beats the hell out of the draisines coasting around with dandy-boys astride. The problem was his ideas never really went anywhere, and weren't passed on to the direct lineage of the evolution of the diamond frame, so his bike sits sort of outside the canon, alone and anomalous, but looking incredibly sharp.

[Spiro C. Thiery]

*sigh*
whatever. you all sound like the same person to me at this point. does anyone even read other members' posts within a thread anymore, or does everyone just follow their own? I feel like I have to say the same thing 30 times in one thread to each new ID who chimes in.

I understand that discussing an issue with multiple personages on an on-line forum can be taxing. But you chose to fan that flame with your first entry. Look, I hold no ill-will towards you personally....

BTW, Spiro - I didn't tell anyone how they ought to operate on Earth. you dreamed that up.

...but you very clearly advocated a ban on bicycle traffic in areas that do not meet your vague standard of accommodating infrastructure. Since we do, in fact, live together on Earth, I take the extended implications of that seriously. I happen to happily share the road with automotive traffic on a daily basis -- both with and without adequate demarcation. And since states are being swallowed up by the regional umbrella judicial decision-making, attitudes that call for my safety are too often a threat to my livelihood. When the hammer falls, it is most often a thinly veiled acquiescence to the industries that benefit most.

So excuse me if I don't consider your every argument with every poster on every page of this topic. My beef was simply with the quotes I originally cited, which were pretty unequivocal.

[AhabsOtherLeg]

Here's a question: why did the Maya (so far as we know) independently invent the wheel, and then (so far as we know) use it for nothing but children's toys?

My first guess would be that once you have a large enough pool of labor waiting to do the bidding of a select cadre of elites, labor saving devices such as the wheel become so superfluous as to be out of mind. Sort of makes me wonder what great and simple inventions we're passing over on a daily basis for the exact same reasons now.

Good answer. The easy availability of what amounted to slave labour would also explain why they didn't get round to domesticating large pack animals like oxen or horses to do heavy physical work for them. What use is a big grinding wheel, or a chariot, without tame oxen or horses to pull it?

It's still odd that they stuck wheels to their representations of animals though, obviously recognising the speed, strength and mobility of the real animals and trying to replicate it in toy form, but never quite made the leap of attaching actual animals to actual wheels and harnessing their speed and strength for the benefit of the community.

Okay, Macmillan made a terrific bike, he really did. Rear drive, treadle pedals, awesome frame geometry: gnarly ride. Beats the hell out of the draisines coasting around with dandy-boys astride. The problem was his ideas never really went anywhere, and weren't passed on to the direct lineage of the evolution of the diamond frame, so his bike sits sort of outside the canon, alone and anomalous.

That's what makes it so awesome.