rOn Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:14:52 -0800 (PST), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach
On Feb 14, 7:16 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
On Feb 14, 9:51 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
Is cycling so safe that you will take the kids with you?
I have _always_ taken my kids on rides. Our son rode with us, in town
and in the country, since he could balance. Our daughter rode even
earlier, from age 3, as soon as she could reach the highly modified
rear pedals on our tandem.
Quit the fear mongering.
- Frank Krygowski
Wait, you are being vague. Have you taken your kids on the roads
everywhere you went? I've never seen such feat in my life. ;)
I have never taken my kids _everywhere_ I went, no matter what means of
transportation I used. But with bicycling, as with any activity, I
chose the surroundings to match their skills, and I helped them learn to
increase their skills.
So my kids didn't commute with me to my city-center job, or ride back
home at rush hour on one of the busiest routes. But from an early age,
they did ride to friends' houses or to playgrounds on their own. They
rode across the suburban landscape on routes I suggested to get to
distant parks. They probably did the same on routes that I didn't plan,
because they confessed years later to wider, unapproved wanderings.
They rode with us on country roads, and on long bicycle tours, including
overseas. IIRC, their lifetime total injuries from cycling are five
scraped knees between them.
Quit the fear mongering.
--
- Frank Krygowski
I tried that with my daughter. That's probably why her mother would
keep her away from me, which ultimately led to our growing apart.
So in that, too, you were not successful. You're in no position to
give advice.
- Frank Krygowski
Yeah, I do give advice. Either the bicycle or your kids. Try not to
leave them orphan either.
Strange. My kids, living in Riverside, CA had bikes practically from
the time that they could walk. they are all grown now but none of the
them were ever injured on a bike, crashed and burned, evidenced any
fear of riding. that is two boys and a girl. All intrepid bicycle
riders, wheelie's. jumping curbs, all that stuff.
Probably good genetics, eh?
Probably Riverside, CA, is --or was-- a nice and safe community for
kids to hang out loose. NICE COMMUNITIES TODAY ARE ALMOST SYNONYMOUS
WITH GATED COMMUNITIES. You do see a bunch of kids maybe getting
together and doing BMX, but that's not bicycling. They are simply
monkeying around and chances are they are poor kids who got no strict
parents --maybe in the black neighborhoods where they live more
"outside the cage."
I'd say kids truly "roaming free" would take a bike to school or to
their friends' house alone. What's the number for this? It must much
lower than the average adult population, which is already pretty low.
But do you have to show for your advice. The 99% of Americans that do
not ride bikes because they are afraid are not with you. That's why
they are talking revolution.
Are you saying that 99% of the Americans don't ride a bike. That seems
a little strong.... lets see.
In 2007 the population of the US was 301,300,000 according to the
Census Bureau so if 99% are afraid to ride that leaves 1% brave
people, or 301,300 that do ride. correct?
But the National Sporting Goods Association stated that in 2007 some
37,400,000 people participated in bicycling.
Now there seems to be a bit of ambiguity here. You say 1% or 302,300
and the Sporting Goods guys say it is 34,400,000, a fairly substantial
difference, one might saw.
The problem seems to be whether to accept the figures of the U.S.
Census Bureau and the Sporting Goods Association, or the Tibetan
Monkey.
It appears that the American public is not as cowardly as you appear
singularly intent on proving.
The American public is not cowardly, just cautious and wise. They
don't want to get hurt. The lower classes, who'd benefit most from
riding a bike, can't even afford to get hurt or go to the doctor. This
is typical class struggle where the poor is between a rock and a hard
place.
The TibetanMonkey sources are right. The TibetanMonkey never lies. The
TibetanMonkey is backed up by the infinite wisdom invested in the
Internet...
Let's see. I don't want to see the numbers of riders because that
includes a whole chunk of riders who use the bike for exercise and are
not interested in giving any PRACTICAL USE to the bike. Commuting is a
good way to measure those Americans committed to bicycling, and the
number is...
MY LATEST SOURCE TOLD ME THAT .4% OF AMERICANS COMMUTE BY BIKE, which
is consistent with the numbers broken down by cities:
"I want to detail bicycling and carpooling. First, while bicycling is
growing it still has the lowest share of any mode. While bikers do
comprise more than 5% of total commuters in the city of Portland, that
number falls to less than 2% for the metro area as a whole. Many
cities including New York fail to have bicycling commuting shares of
1% and many metro areas have bicycling shares below 0.5% including
Cincinnati at 0.1%."
http://reason.org/blog/show/americans-commute-differently-in-ce
Now figure that there's another minority --must be very small indeed--
that goes shopping with the bike. That would probably give you a
number under 1%. I go to the supermarket, which is nice and accessible
by bike, and there are few bikes out there sometimes. Perhaps the
ratio is 100/1 in favor of cars. Bikes don't have panniers or anything
to have a comfortable and safe ride home with, say, 20 lbs of
groceries. They are just improvised monkeys that hop on a bike and got
and get milk.
Imagine the revolution now and let's say the 99% they talk about were
able to at least go to the stores in their community, go to the parks
and theaters. Imagine that people don't count on being harassed and
looked down upon for riding a bike. Imagine communities that are safe
and full of people. Imagine no gated communities.
For this reason alone people would join the revolution.
