mac

Agreed. And I hardly ever commute by bicycle as well. I do expect to see a trend towards more fuel-efficient vehicles and motorcycles. The "bling, bling rides" can only be afforded by the wealthy as nearly every middle-class surbanite here in SoCal is maxed out on their mortgages and credit cards.

Another reason you won't see more commuters here in LA is based on geography. We're not flat like the fly-over states, but instead have hills and mountains.

mac

The actual "riding the bike" vs "sitting in traffic" is more convenient. But let's look at the overall picture: you have to spend time getting your bike ready in the morning; stretch out; packing your work clothes, toiletries, etc.; find a place to lock your bike and remove your panniers so they won't get stolen; clean up at the office; change; then change again at the end of the day; stretch out; get your bike ready (water bottles, etc.); attach your panniers; cycle home; clean up again, etc. That's why I don't commute. Actually riding my bike is fun. It's all the pre- and post- ride stuff that makes it a P.I.T.A. So I ride my motorcycle to work & home, then go for a bicycle ride in the evening.

If a bicyclist (and Libertarian) like me sees commuting a P.I.T.A., what are the chances that your average John Joe couch potato will take up bicycle commuting? None.

Roody

I know. A lot of people who haven't tried it say cycling is inconvenient. I have found it to be far more convenient than driving in my situation. I get to work far faster on my bike than on the bus, and a car is only a little faster (like 3 or 4 minutes) than the bike.

Most people work a full 8 hours every week just to earn enough money to pay for the "convenience" of driving a motor vehicle, so factor that fact into your calculations. I went from working 40 hours a week to 36 hours when I dumped my car, and still came out ahead. That's 4 hours every week for riding!

I don't find a need to get all duded up every time I go for a ride. Occasionally you have to put a little thought into selecting practical gear, but it soon becomes automatic. Those recreational cyclists who have to wear the "full kit" each time they ride should try some new gear. There are lots of ideas in the Commuting and Living Carfree subforums.

I sure don't care what form of transportation you use. All I ask of fellow cyclists is that you don't claim that the bike is "inconvenient" as basic transportation if you have never tried it.

(BTW, closetbiker--I thought you had great points in all 3 of your posts on this thread. Thanks.)

nathank

well, there are tons and tons of reasons, but the #1 reason is the power of advertising --- cars companies earn big bucks and virtually no one stands to earn big bucks if lots of Americans bike commute.

but yeah the reasons are:
1) savings
2) dealing with traffic/parking
3) health - i.e. weight loss
4) stress relief/fun

unfortunatley none of these reasons is big enough to overcome the preconceived idea that cycling is slow, dangerous, low-tech and uncool...

as to the Advocacy question i have to agree with Brian that it can really do something and that Portland is the best example!

LittleBigMan

Brian, I snapped my front brake cable this week. I just happened to be a block from a bike shop in Little Five Points (counter-culture haven,) so off I went to get it fixed.

As a young man worked on my old Moto, another guy came up and asked me if everything was ok, you know, good customer service. He must have noticed I felt a little out of place after browsing through all the expensive bikes and cycling gear. At about that time a guy dressed up to match both his bike and his helmet walked in, and I felt even more self-conscious in my casual clothing.

I suddenly remembered I needed to call my wife and I had left my cell phone at home, so I asked him if I could use the phone. He said "sure," and he brought the wireless phone over. He clicked it on, only to find that the other cyclist was using the line.

He pointed over to him and told me, "Uh, you can use it as soon as the guy in the pajamas is finished."

PaulH

I assume you ride a much longer distance than I do (5 miles), and that you do it faster, and on a less convenient bike (european city bike) for daily use. Everyone has their own situation, and I might well face the same issues if I lived and worked where you do.

Getting bike ready in the morning: Open door, roll bike out

Water bottle: This is a half hour ride, not a trek across the Gobi Desert. My bike has no holder for a water bottle anyway.

Stretch out: Huh? This is not the Olympic trials.

Find a place to lock: There's a rack in the parking garage at worl. It never moves.

Remove panniers: What panniers?

Clean up: Why? Should I clean up after a half hour walk at the same level of physical effort? This is 5 miles in 35-40 minutes, after all.

Change: I wear my suit and tie. I do carry the suit jacket on warm days.

Change again: See above

Attach panniers: See above

Clean up again: See above.

I agree that driving can be easier and more practical over longer distances. However, people like me who live close to work and in highly congested areas might be good candidates for bike commuting.

If a registered Republcan like me, who has never cycled recreationally and has no interest in doing so, finds cycle commuting much easier and more fun than driving, I would assume that a lot of people who live near work and shopping, in places where parking is hard to find, would like to do the same. Basically, I'm too lazy to drive either of my cars to work. When I do drive in, I worry about stuff like dents, and snowstorms. I'm pretty much a recreational motorist.

What it all boils down to is that we all have different environm,ents and what works for me may not work for you (and vice versa).

Paul

closetbiker

Maybe another way to try to reduce marginalization of cyclists is not just point out how we help clear up traffic on the roads by using less room than a car or truck, but to emphasize the fact that it is an individual who is riding that bike just as it is an individual that is driving that car and don't we all have rules that ensure equal rights and conduct that we each treat others by?

After all, if it was your best friend up ahead of you on a bike on the road while you were driving your car, wouldn't you cut him some slack rather than cut him off at the corner? If it was your Dad up there riding his bike because he just went through a by-pass and the doctors recomended exercise to help get his body back in shape, would you breeze him or admire his effort to be healthy? Is it acceptable to threaten relatively defenceless people just because you can? I could kick the ass of 99% of the jerks who honk and yell at me from their cars and those jerks would never do that to me if they were standing in front of me outside otheir cars, so why do they do it when they're driving? I'll tell you why. There's an element of dehumanization when someone is in traffic and you're "someone on a bike" and they're "someone in a car" but really the point is missed that it's a person in the car and on the bike and to get along we have to treat each other with the resect due them and not marginalize the group to remove the respect due them.

Aren't the people the important thing here? What would be the purpose to marginalize groups unless someone wants to elevate himself above others?

Marginalization of one group by a different group just seems to be an attempt for the group attempting marginalization to unjustly step over peoples equal rights by ignoring the unjustness against the individuals of that group by associating the action against a group and not the individual. If the group is not a popular or, even better, if it is a disliked group (disliked maybe because they are viewed as "different", in the minority, or "dangerous"), the marginalization seems to be even more justified, but it isn't.

LittleBigMan

Exactly, man. This brings to mind the question, "Why does any motorist need a 300 hp vehicle that goes from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds?" Answer: to elevate himself above the driver of the "average" vehicle.

Where does it all end?

mac

I fail to see what is wrong with that. That is competition, capitalism, the drive to better yourself than others. All those qualities built the US.

And, FWIW, the 2006 Pontiac GTO has 400hp.

LittleBigMan

Hey, that's cool if that's what you want, as long as you're willing to pay for the extra insurance and gas.

But unless you are racing someone else, there's no need for the horsepower. If you want to race, take it to the track.

closetbiker

But the public road system is not a place for competition amongst its' users. It lives or dies on co-operation.

mac

The Germans don't have any issues with their Autobahn. Though I'm not sure if the country is bicycle-friendly or not.

oscaregg

We will not crack the automobile culture until we lose our cheap oil permanently, which will mean losing a war in the Mideast. This officially marks me as a "bad person," but such a military loss would be, in the long run, a good thing.

mac

I'll bite my tongue on this since it isn't the politics forum, but I will say this: that is a very narrow-minded viewpoint of the world's geopolitics. The fallout from the US suffering a military loss in the Middle East would knock us down socially, politically, and economically.

Cheap oil is already gone due to the free-market and China's and India's demand for it. We are already seeing sales of SUVs drop off.

I-Like-To-Bike

I assume you have the same experience and knowledge of driving on the German Autobahn as you do with the bicycling conditions and issues in that country.

LittleBigMan

I believe this is true. Combine the rising demand for oil in China with the fact that the world's peak oil production is just around the bend, and you have a recipe for ever-increasing energy costs.

closetbiker

That's got nothing to do with the issue or the topic at hand.

The point is, should there be maginalization of a group, even if the group is a legitimate user group and beneficial to the system as a whole, if the group only makes up a small portion of the users of the road?

genec

Uh aren't you the guy with the 400 HP GTO that wants to do zero to 60?

Doesn't that bit about "no more cheap oil" kinda make that GTO rather null and void?

joejack951

Except for massive pile-ups of cars due to drivers not slowing down when conditions prohibit excessive speed. Based on what I've read in car-forums (yes, I WAS a Porsche fan for many years), I think the only reason it's not shut down completely is the revenue stream from the traffic cameras installed along much of it's length. Imagine the outrage you'd hear about in the country if you #1 had to pay thousands for your license, #2 had to replace tires every 2 years with original equipment ($$$) tires regardless of wear in addition to a much more severe inspection than we do here, and #3 on top of that could get a ticket in the mail for tailgating which was caught on camera (oh, and it's $$$ plus get too many and your license is suspended).

So yes it does work with lots of government control and with people who understand that driving is a privilege (that can easily and expensively be taken away), not a right.

PaulH

The same reason cyclists like having nice bikes. It feels pleasant to enjoy a good machine.

Paul

LittleBigMan

The pleasure of driving a nice machine is not limited to a gas-guzzling muscle car. The horsepower is unnecessary in normal, safe driving.

But it's a free country.

carless

Thanks, Brain. Incidentally I'll be in Oregon for Xmas (PDX-Eugene-Medford) with my bike.
My point is not as a downer or discouragement for the average cyclist, yet a cold slap for the uninitiated. Much like Bush Sr was amazed at a bar scanner, people who discover bicycles as transportation, should consider the general perception of society.
Most suburban households regard milk and bread getting as a combustion activity. There is a real divide among bikers themselves, and no clear model for using a bicycle to get food or run errands, a majority of auto trips. Rather than debate this ad nauseum, and rant about the tactics or superiority of methods to this end, we should acknowledge the stereotype and seek to change it.

carless

If you question people on their use of a bicycle, most are offended or aprehensive. Bicycles as transportation is a radical idea, startling in simplicity, and threatening in its class leveling status. The personalization of bicycles is a carry-over from cars's- as is the new year models. Bikes don't progress in technology in (linear pattern) incremenntel in 12 month cycles, dealers need new product every spring.

Roody

I agree very much with your first statement. Are you then saying that bike manufacturers try to follow the automaker's pattern of introducing new models, but, as with cars, most of the model changes are purely superficial and sure don't represent any "progress in technology"? I qwould agree with that also.

What have been the latest changes in bike technology? Most are trivial bling. Disc brakes are probably useful, but 10 speed cassettes are probably insignificant. Only time will tell for sure.