Slashdot Mirror


As Gas Prices Soar So Does City Biking

Hugh Pickens writes "As California's gas prices hit record highs, the millions of dollars spent in recent years on commuter bike lanes and public transportation projects in Los Angeles, San Francisco and other major cities are being seen in a new light by many drivers. Jason Dearen reports that San Francisco is seeing a 71-percent increase in cyclists in the past five years, and Los Angeles is reporting a 32 percent increase from 2009-2011. Both findings gibe with the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey, which found a 63 percent increase in bicycle commuters from 2000 to 2010 in the nation's 70 largest cities. 'In some ways it's a perfect storm of events that is starting to take place,' says Claire Bowin, head of policy planning for Los Angeles' planning department. Getting people out of cars 'is a very daunting task, but on other hand we have largely benefited from a growing community here that is demanding these things.' Los Angeles is building almost 1,600 miles of bike infrastructure (PDF) over the next five years. Los Angeles County's Metrolink, which features open train cars for bike riders is seeing record ridership. Changing attitudes about cars — caused by climate change — are helping these efforts as people in their twenties and thirties have adopted biking in larger numbers than previous generations (PDF)."

73 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Its the economy stupid! by James+McGuigan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Clinton said it... "Its the economy stupid!"

    1. Re:Its the economy stupid! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      If by "leading the way" you mean "stigmatizing bike riders as too poor to own a car", then you're right. I see about 1-2 people per month wearing spandex, which means they're riding recreationally. The rest are working poor...to be looked down upon, in the same way that normal Americans look down on rural residents.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Its the economy stupid! by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If by "leading the way" you mean "stigmatizing bike riders as too poor to own a car", then you're right. I see about 1-2 people per month wearing spandex, which means they're riding recreationally. The rest are working poor...to be looked down upon, in the same way that normal Americans look down on rural residents.

      Clothing style alone doesn't determine whether a cyclist is commuting or on a recreational ride. I wear cycling clothes (padded shorts, cycling jersey) on my commute because it's far enough that regular street clothes are not as comfortable as dedicated biking clothes, and no matter what I wear I'd need to chance when I got to work, so I choose to wear cycling attire.

    3. Re:Its the economy stupid! by Galestar · · Score: 4, Informative

      I live 20 min drive from work, 10 min bike. Driving in the downtown core of a major city is counter-productive.

      --
      AccountKiller
    4. Re:Its the economy stupid! by Shoten · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, China is going in the other direction. Car ownership in China has exploded in the last decade, and where once bicycles were everywhere, now traffic jams are prevalent. The level of pollution that comes from the cars is skyrocketing (on top of other forms as well) and the enormous numbers of novice drivers are causing major accidents. There are some people who are filing an insurance claim a month.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    5. Re:Its the economy stupid! by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's what it means in China. Bike riders don't have the folding money to spend on frivolities like specialized clothes to get that extra 0.1 mph in wind resistance.

      I don't wear the clothes for any performance benefit, it's purely for utilitarian reasons. The padded shorts are much more comfortable on a long ride (plus my work pants tend to wear out at the tops of my legs due to rubbing against the seat), and they are uncomfortably warm on warm day. The bright yellow cycling jersey makes me more visible, wicks away sweat to keep me cool, and has convenient back pockets to stash things like my wallet and cell phone. Further, my city's climate tends to be foggy, so when I wear my cotton work clothes on the bike, I arrive with my clothes damp.

      If I shopped around, I could probably find cycling clothes that look more like street clothes (like baggy mountain biking shorts), but I don't really choose my commute clothes based on what people think of them - I choose based on comfort and visibility.

    6. Re:Its the economy stupid! by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yup. I ride my bike to work downtown 3-4 days a week, but I drive a fancy shiny BMW on the weekends/road trips out of town. My 15 mile commute home takes the same 45 minutes by bike or car due to the lack of direct highways, school zones and traffic (also it's downhill all the way to my house) and only takes about 5-10 minutes longer to get to work than taking the car.
       
      Besides what I save on gas, bike repairs are hundreds of dollars cheaper and you can't get speeding/school zone speeding/stop sign/red light tickets on a bike, and I've effectively doubled the lifespan of my car. I'm down from 10,000-12,000 miles to 4,400 miles so far this year, and that includes monthly roadtrips to houston for sailing. Rather than replacing my "gently used" car every 4-5 years, at this rate I'll be able to hang on to this one for ten.
       
      Also I've lost 30 lbs and people have started asking me "what are you doing to stay in shape?" when I'm able to keep up with them at the lunch buffet yet keep losing weight.My company dropped my health insurance policy by $60 a month due to their "healthy habits" incentive program, I don't have to pay to park downtown ($5 a day). The $300 a year I put in to my bicycle more than pays for itself.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  2. Biking is better by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's healthier and it's more fun. The idea that the car equals freedom is pretty much dead these days if you live anywhere with a dense population. Cars are for the fat and lazy.

    1. Re:Biking is better by shilly · · Score: 2

      Nah. Cars are just tools, as are bikes, except they have worse externalities (pollution, injuries, etc). Car clubs help when you need to transport several people plus bulky / heavy goods at once. Car club + bike + public transport + shank's pony + Hailo-ordered taxi = excellent transport for London, and I'm sure many other cities too.

    2. Re:Biking is better by Gaygirlie · · Score: 2

      It's healthier and it's more fun

      It being fun is a matter of taste. Personally I enjoy driving a car much more.

    3. Re:Biking is better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...There really should be a better solution. I think super-slippery seat material and underpants might solve it. But I haven't found anything suitable yet. Also, actually, air resistance *is* a problem if you're quick. As are too soft wheels and road resistance. Optimizing those gave me 5 km/h speed improvement *each* (over the "I don't give a fuck" method). ...

      Look around, there is underwear available with a chamois ("shammy") insert for cycling. I've also taken a hammer and flattened painful seams in the seat area of jeans--use a zig-zag sewing machine to re-assemble the fabric without the bumps.

      I've spent some time measuring bike air resistance in wind tunnels and you are absolutely right about clothes. If you change from loose flapping clothes to tighter ones, you might see an air drag reduction of about 10%. The next step from tight normal clothes to spandex is worth about another 10%. Depending on your air drag and choice of tires (and tire pressure), these two sources of drag might be about equal at 12-15 mph, as soon as you are going faster, air drag dominates. Reference, "Bicycling Science":
          http://books.google.com/books/about/Bicycling_Science_3rd_Edition.html?id=0JJo6DlF9iMC

    4. Re:Biking is better by Zumbs · · Score: 2

      It's healthier and it's more fun.

      Sure it increases your fitness levels, but with all the smog and pollution I very much doubt that cycling or jogging to work is actually healthier for you.

      A number of studies have shown there is more air pollution inside cars than on bike lanes. The physical activity causes bikers to inhale more air and spend more time outside (unless there is a traffic jam), but the volume of toxic particles per km looks to be equivalent.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    5. Re:Biking is better by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Odd, my car club encourages us to not have any passengers and to drive as fast as possible without going anywhere. I spend a weekend driving the same route in a circle over and over and over again and trying to do it as fast as I possibly can.

      Car clubs in Great Britain are very different than what we have here.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:Biking is better by Zumbs · · Score: 4, Informative

      However, bike commuting is so incredibly slow, that if I biked I'd never have time to exercise other than bike riding

      Compared to what? I commute on bike each day, using 25 minutes each way. In a car, I would be using 15 minutes. For me, the saved time would not be used in a gym. It would most likely be used on my back side. Net result is 50 minutes of exercise each day that I would not be getting if I drove a car. I'm sure I'm not the only one in that situation.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    7. Re:Biking is better by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Riding a recumbent fixes this. Stop riding an out of date bicycle. I can ride 2X the distance in comfort on my recumbent than the best trained regular bike guy can. Plus it pisses them off that I can ride and take photos and eat some almonds, whine they are always standing on the pedals.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:Biking is better by Albanach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Deaths per mile traveled are spectacularly higher, and the bicycle always "loses" in an accident, even vs pedestrians, something to do with height of head above ground and road rash. People are notoriously bad at estimating risk, so that's no surprise that something supposedly health is actually unhealthy.

      You're "about" four times safer driving on road than biking. I realize its not politically correct but roads are for cars and motorcycles, not for bicycles. Use the correct tool for the job. Or at least buy sufficient life insurance for spouse and kids if you insist on biking.

      Statistics can be interpreted in many many ways.

      Deaths per mile are higher, deaths per hour on the road are much lower. Cycling encourages you to live close so you can reach amenities by bikes. Few cycling commuters live 20+ miles away from work, lots of car owners do.

      I commute four miles to work in 15 minutes by bike. Many others at the same location commute 10 miles in that time.

      So, if you pretend your bike is a car and do 15,000 miles a year on it, your figures might be right. Use a bike like most do and ride only a few thousand miles per year and your figures are misleading to the point of being ridiculous.

    9. Re:Biking is better by hankwang · · Score: 3, Informative

      Deaths per mile traveled are spectacularly higher, ... You're "about" four times safer driving on road than biking ... roads are for cars and motorcycles, not for bicycles.

      I would like to see a source for that. One of the first pages that I found on Google reads: "However, there is no reliable source of exposure data to really answer this question: we don't know how many miles bicyclists travel each year, and we don't know how long it takes them to cover these miles (and thus how long they are exposed to motor vehicle traffic).".

      Moreover, I think one of the points of TFA is that the bike infrastructures (i.e., bike lanes) is being expanded, which is likely to reduce the accident rate (per bike-mile) by quite a bit.

    10. Re:Biking is better by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Riding a recumbent fixes this

      The problem with recumbent cyclists riding in traffic is they're invisible. A cyclist riding a traditional bicycle with a blinking light on his helmet is up high and very visible to me as a driver - I give him space. Often with recumbent cyclists people don't see them until they're on top of them. I think if your region has lots of cycling infrastructure that keeps you separate from cars (Vancouver / Amsterdam) then recumbents make sense, but not if you're in traffic.

    11. Re:Biking is better by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Statistics can be interpreted in many many ways.

      Deaths per mile are higher, deaths per hour on the road are much lower

      So I get to spend more time going less distance and have a higher risk of death? Sounds like a win-win situation!

      Cycling encourages you to live close so you can reach amenities by bikes

      Living closer to work pays dividends whether you bike or not. For example, one could drive an EV. :)

      So, if you pretend your bike is a car and do 15,000 miles a year on it, your figures might be right. Use a bike like most do and ride only a few thousand miles per year and your figures are misleading to the point of being ridiculous.

      Apparently, many people have found that in order to find a job they have to work in a city, and in order to live like they want to live they have to live in suburbia, or even past it. I have a lot of problems with cities, most of them related to cars and the rest related to social inequity, which means that they'll probably continue for some time to say the least. I've tried living in them and it's not for me. But there does happen to be work there.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Biking is better by bobstreo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Odd, my car club encourages us to not have any passengers and to drive as fast as possible without going anywhere. I spend a weekend driving the same route in a circle over and over and over again and trying to do it as fast as I possibly can.

      Car clubs in Great Britain are very different than what we have here.

      If you don't use apple maps you probably won't have this problem.

    13. Re:Biking is better by hawguy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sure about that 25 minute figure? I figure I'm doing well if from door to door I can shower and change clothes in 10 minutes so you're somehow claiming it takes 15 minutes in car or on bike.... That also messes up your exercise claim of 50 minutes now you're down to only 30 minutes, which really isn't much (thats about how long I go for a walk every day at lunch, admittedly not "real" exercise). For example, my flex time commute is about 20 minutes when I avoid rush hour (which I almost always do). There's no way I can maintain 75 miles per hour for about 15 minutes on level ground on my bike, so that's an easy 90 minutes or so each way on a bike at realistic long distance (for a daily bike commuter) speeds. Add some shower time and realistic break time (water breaks when its over 100, knock the ice off when its below freezing, etc) and we're up to a good 4 hours of commute per day, vs 40 minutes in my car and 3 hrs 20 mins of some mixture of relaxing exercising /.-posting whatever.

      Obviously, biking is not for everyone, in this country it's very easy to design your life in such a way that biking is not a viable option.

      Here are my commute stats (I timed each trip several times over a few weeks):

      10 miles by car, 12 miles by bike:

      1. Car: 47 minutes average. This includes the walk to the parking garage to get my car, and more significantly, finding street parking and then walking several blocks to the office. Best case was 40 minutes, worst case was 1:20 when there was an accident on my commute route and I got stuck in stop and go traffic on the freeway.

      2. Bike: 66 minutes average. This includes 59 minutes for biking, and walking into the office, and 7 minutes changing clothes. Oddly, my biking time is almost always constant, ranging from 58 - 60 minutes. It's surprising since I ride through 8 traffic light intersections, so I thought my time would be a lot more variable. I've timed myself for over 60 rides, and the worst case was 65 minutes, but almost all of my rides have been from 58 - 60 minutes.

      3. Transit: 73 minutes average. This includes walking to the train station (5 minutes from home), making a train->bus connection, and walking from the bus stop to the office. Best case was 55 minutes, worst was 90 minutes.

      On thing I didn't include in these figures is the extra padding I have to allow -- even though on average it only takes about 45 minutes by car, I need to allow 60 minutes of travel time to work to account for delays, so I leave earlier. The same goes for transit, I have to add on another 20 - 30 minutes to my commute to account for delays. Since my bike commute time is so constant, I don't need to pad my departure time.

    14. Re:Biking is better by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      You're doing it wrong.

      I'm doing *what* wrong? When I'm driving I often don't see recumbents well. I'm not driving with my eyes closed, nor am I failing to use due care and attention. Granted, few if any of them seem to have a bright flag.

    15. Re:Biking is better by hey! · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your missing one of the greatest benefits of bike commuting. When you get to work you feel relaxed and energized.

      In any case, bike clothing is practical for cycling. Nobody in his right mind would wear it because of the way it looked. It's kind of like wearing leather for motorcycling; there are good, practical reasons for wearing leather while motorcycling despite the fact that most people look silly in it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:Biking is better by evilviper · · Score: 2

      That said, I maintain that any attempt to compare the miles the average cyclist travels to the miles the average car travels is ridiculous.

      No. Your stance makes no sense.

      If I need to go somewhere, I may be able to choose between a car and a bike, but I can't warp space and make my destination a shorter distance away. Travel time can vary for any number of reasons, but distance remains constant. Your statement that anyone who cycles will move closer to their destination is ridiculous on any number of levels.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    17. Re:Biking is better by Randle_Revar · · Score: 2

      I do not like gyms. I would rather ride in the rain than go to a gym.

    18. Re:Biking is better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's probably more people driving than riding bikes. Your statistics are skewed.

      How many zeppelin fatalities have there been in Denver over the same period?

    19. Re:Biking is better by Randle_Revar · · Score: 2

      I drive a Toyota Tercel in Seattle (and previously in Corvallis, OR). It is about as good a car as I have driven. I mean, as cars go it is pretty nice. Sometimes I wish for maybe 10-20 more horsepower, but that is about it. I have driven Priuses, they are generally ok, but too big. Brother's Lancer is too big, and a manual, which I hate, and while the power can be kind of nice for a minute, it is just too much. Long ago had a Ford LTD, that was a boat, not a car.

      No, driving is just not enjoyable. I have better uses to put my mind to. Even day dreaming is more useful than thinking about driving... and so of course I do a lot of day dreaming, which make things more dangerous than they already are (not insanely bad, I have pretty good auto pilot and I switch out of it quickly and easily so I haven't had an accident because of it yet, but it is Not Good). I didn't like driving in MT or in OR and really don't like it in Seattle.

      My main bike is a Specialized Secteur which I got for STP last year, I quite enjoy riding it (though not hauling it out of my apartment and down the stairs...next place has to have a better story for that).

  3. gotta stay healthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For me, at least, biking to work us also about avoiding atrophy. Sitting in front of dual monitors for 8+ hours each day does nothing positive for my figure, so in addition to saving on gas, cycling is helping to save muscle mass.

    I suggest that you try it, too.

  4. Just Think by Gonoff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you had the same fuel prices as we do in the UK, your "obesity epidemic" would be over,
    ($8.50 to $9 per US gallon depending on where you live)

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    1. Re:Just Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yet I keep hearing about the obesity epidemic in the UK - taxation and scaremongering are NOT the ways to change behaviour.

    2. Re:Just Think by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Informative

      And I wish we weren't so spread out where biking would make sense - commuting 16 - 20 miles one way on a bike isn't feasible.

      Yes it is. 15 miles one way is exactly my commute, I use a heavy mountainbike and I am fat. A lighter person on a light road bike would have it even easier.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    3. Re:Just Think by garcia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It has nothing to do with gas for me. It has to do with other costs: car cost, maintenance, taxes, insurance. My $700 bike with free yearly tuneups for life saves me a ton. Gas for a drive 5.1 miles one way is really negligible compared to the other costs.

    4. Re:Just Think by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      even if fuel went up that much, I think most folks would pay it

      Correct - When fuel prices go up people tend to cut back on other stuff, rather than stop driving. What fuel prices *do* influence is the type of car people buy when they buy a new car.

      What does reduce driving are the ancillary costs. Why does no one have a car in NYC? Not because fuel is expensive, but rather because parking it is expensive.

    5. Re:Just Think by mellon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Start riding. Thirty miles a day is a lot at first, because you aren't in shape, so you have to ramp up to it. You start out with maybe three easy miles a day, but do it consistently, every day. After a few weeks it'll seem easy, so start ramping up. Pay attention to how your butt feels after the ride—if it's seriously sore, you're going too far. But if you just keep adding miles, you'll get up to thirty in a month or two, depending on what kind of condition you're in. The main thing is that if you start off too aggressively, you'll injure yourself and stop, whereas if you start gradually, you'll be able to build up to the point where thirty miles in two bite-sized chunks is easy.

    6. Re:Just Think by oh2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope. The US problem is that you have built all your cities for cars instead of for people. Rural areas are about the same in any western country, you will need a car for some things. I live in Sweden and in the countryside most people need cars to get around as well. Our cities however are built for people, with sidewalks, bicycle lanes and decent public transport.

      Having a car engine designed for gas mileage instead of as a penis extension also helps a lot with gas costs. I was in the US last summer and drove around the south with my brother. The car was a small, normal car but it used at least 1.1 litre of gas per 10 km. A comparable car in Europe uses something like 0,6-0,7 litres per 10 km. Plenty of cars are avilable over here that use 0,4-0,5 litres per 10 km, and no, they arent just Priuses.

      --

      Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.

    7. Re:Just Think by zidium · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I live in Houston.

      It is **very** bike unfriendly. Most of the city streets do not have sidewalks. There are vast sections next to the highways that do not.

      My friend, lilo (founder of Freenode.net), was biking home one night at 11:30 PM just a short distance from the old Freenode headquarters when he was hit and killed by a 2-time-DUI driver and instantly killed.

      A coworker of mine used to bike 20 miles every week, just for exercise, until he was hit by an uninsured illegal alien driver. The driver was quickly deported to Mexico where he served no extra time (just a few weeks in total), while my coworker died.

      Everyone in Houston pretty much has these stories. ANd then there's teh road rage. There are so few bikers, the ones who try to bike in the streets get cokes thrown all over them, strings of profanities, chain car honking at them, road rage, etc. I once saw a guy in front of me swerve so hard into the biker's lane that the biker fell down. Then the guy rolled down his window and started cackling in laughter.

      That's what's it's like to bike in Houston...

      OH and did I mention most of the year it's close to 100% humidity, 95-110 F, and there are LEGIONS of mosquitos between early March and late September??? And it rains all the time. Who in their right mine would even ride a motorcycle in those conditions?!

      --
      Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
    8. Re:Just Think by dr2chase · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hi, 6', 220lbs, 52 here. 9.5 miles one-way over the 300' hill (max grade is 10%), 10.5 if I take the flat route, 12.5 if I take the fewer-cars-buy-groceries-on-the-way route. I have two advantages -- I raced as a kid, so I *knew* what was possible for "old" people, and I have a really bad attitude, which is a force that can be used for good.

      So. The first time sucked. The second time sucked. So did the third time. Somewhere in there I did a one-week, 300 mile bike trip with a bunch of boy scouts (sleeping, first three nights, involved finding a part to lie down on that was neither a sore muscle nor a poky bone -- i.e., none of the available parts). That helped a lot, but even afterwards I noticed definite improvement for the next few months.

      It continued to slowly get easier for the next three years, and since then has reached the don't-give-a-shit stage. The legs just go, though sometimes I'll noticed that they're sore if I do a lot 4 days in a row. So I would say it probably goes on a scale of weeks-months-years. I know that in the space of a few months there were substantial improvements in my blood chemistry (because you know, cholesterol, triglycerides, crap like that).

      What I recommend: (1) do NOT obsess about weight. The weight weenies have ruined cycling in this country. I break bike parts, because the weight weenies wanted to save a few more grams, and the manufacturers complied. I ride a bicycle that weighs 65 pounds. (2) Get good tires. I recommend Schwalbe; they sell sizes that fit very many bikes, excellent quality, low rolling resistance, durable. If you have an old mountain bike or hybrid, you might be able to manage Big Apples (huge slick tires) or Fat Franks. (3) You probably want to avoid those straight flat bars that so many mountain bikes come with. Why do they put those on bikes? I have no fucking idea, they are poison to my wrists, and the same for many of my friends. You want "North Road", "Albatross", "Porteur", or "Left Bank" (I recommend Left Bank). Don't be afraid to complain, don't be too afraid to spend a little money (filled up my wife's car today, that was the cost of a pair of handlebars). (4) Saddle. Not sure I can help you there; I seem to have an iron butt. Brooks leather saddles are popular, look nice, have modest snob appeal, and work for me, but they don't work for everyone. Be wary of the plush-fat-ass saddle; that's a great short-term solution that may not work for very many miles. A little padding might be all you need; you don't want to bruise, but all that squoshy stuff on some saddles will also provide friction over a large part of your butt, and may also squoosh into places that it is not welcome (use your imagination). A hard saddle might be improved by a seat cover, especially a slippery one that provides a trace of padding (Aardvark is the brand I like).

      The tire and handlebar advice are doubled if you must ride with traffic -- you want to see the cars, you want them to see you, and you want a tire that will be your friend if you have to eat a pothole or hop a curb because some clown failed to notice you in the road and you need to be elsewhere fast.

      Also, lights. I'm not organized enough to keep batteries charged, so I spent money for a dynamo hub, and just run my lights all the time, day and night. Modern LED lights are awesome, though pricy. I built my own (3 caps, 4 diodes, hex-puck mounted CREE power LEDs, stock lenses, aluminum angle for heat sink and mount, acrylic mirror to keep the light out of my eyes, and P clamps and bell clamps for mounting hardware).

    9. Re:Just Think by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

      Agreed.

      One thing I did was find routes that were interesting. I started with my "eight mile"--to the beach and back. Then I went to a 13 mile--to the beach, down the beach a ways, and then home. Then I went to a 15 mile--to the beach, down the beach a bit further, and home. Then I went to a 23 mile route--to the beach, all the way down the beach, and home.

      This is where I suddenly said, "Hey, it's only 13 miles to work..."

  5. Tracking by BSAtHome · · Score: 4, Funny

    Tracking commuters has been on the increase with the use of license-plate scaners. When you get them to use a bicycle, that advantage is no longer an option.

    So, either we need a very fast computer system to track bicycles based on the images, or we need legislation to ensure every bike has a proper license plate that can be scanned and tracked. Also, a locked down holding container should be placed on each bicycle for the Feds to place their GPS equipment. Last but not least, a mandatory encircled cross on the rider's coat which would make a remote killshots easier. You never know when you need to set an example of environmentalists.

    1. Re:Tracking by SpzToid · · Score: 2

      A lot of places, Kobnhavn and Amsterdam for example, have an extremely high density of parked bicycles (and city-sponsored parking) so a cop walking by with a RFID reader isn't anything like the police having to take 'custody' of a suspected stolen bike first.

      https://secure.flickr.com/photos/fmzs/3911308473/

      Now obviously the further you get from Centraal Station such bike density lessens, (as does bike theft), but you get the idea. A cop with a reader walking a beat can read a lot of RFID tags and possibly find a stolen bike or two.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
  6. How do you Americans do it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here in central Europe, the city centers are tight, and so it's easy and quick to get everywhere, while with cars, you barely fit through the tight streets and it's a parking nightmare. So pretty much everyone I know uses a bicycle or public transport by default, and only takes the car if it's further away, there's something to transport, or there's another good reason.

    But your cities and roads are far more spread out. And the environment is rather hostile to bike riders, from what I've been told. (Partially because apparently, many bike riders are rather crazy themselves and because the bike lanes are badly designed. [We have that too, though.])

    So: How do you do it? Because that sounds a lot more frustrating than what we've got.
    (And if you add the weight problem... Although that would probably quickly improve for bike riders.)

    P.S.: Was there ever a time when people rode the bike to everywhere, like Marty McFly? Or are those just TV stories?

    1. Re:How do you Americans do it? by baegucb · · Score: 3, Funny

      When I was a kid, a long long time ago, I asked my mother if they had bikes when she was a kid. She said of course they did. And I unthinkingly said, oh yeah, they had them in the 1800s.

    2. Re:How do you Americans do it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ... But your cities and roads are far more spread out.

      It's very different in different parts of the USA. Here in the suburbs outside Buffalo, NY, the land is mostly flat. It's easy to cycle, but as you say things are more spread out. I've been making about half my local trips by bike for the last 30 years...when the weather is above freezing.

      On the plus side, starting about 20(?) years ago, New York State roads (major roads) have mostly been rebuilt with wide shoulders/edges (average about 1.5 meters, marked by a white line) which is quite good for cycling. Most of the buildings are set far back from the road, so it's not a big problem to make the roads wider. As they are rebuilt now, many shoulders are being marked as bike lanes. A nearby overpass on a higher speed road has some features that are very scary for cycling--so I emailed to the cycling coordinator at the local Department of Transportation office. Within a few days he had taken a look and designed changes for the next time the road will be repaved (a couple of years from now--fingers crossed for a good result).

      Many local stores, banks and other utility destinations have "airlock" doors with room to leave a bike inside (between the two sets of doors). I don't lock my expensive bike, because it's inside, off the street. It might help that it's a "friendly" looking small-wheel Alex Moulton bike, not an aggressive mountain bike. The supermarkets (food stores) have plenty of room to take the bike inside and use it instead of a shopping cart.

      There are still some problems that limit utility cyclists to the hard core. Probably the major one is that car drivers have not been taught to respect cyclists, so we really have to look out for ourselves. I used to motorcycle all the time and bring that experience to cycling--I'm willing to be aggressive and take a lane when I need to (not often). County and town roads (not maintained by the State DOT) usually don't have the wide shoulder, but they also have less and slower traffic. Another problem is ice in the winter, lots of freeze-thaw cycles with our weather. The road crews don't always clear the snow & ice from the edge of the road--when it's like this, I don't even attempt to cycle.

      I've tried utility cycling in other states and often the major roads have little (or no) hard edge/shoulder, often with a nasty drop off to the gravel or dirt on the edge -- no consideration for cycling at all. Maybe others will comment on cycling conditions in their area?

  7. I've been bike commuting since 2002 by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ten years, and not because of gas prices, but because it's fun, and healthy.

    In 1999, I was 250lbs, had cholesterol over 300, moderate to severe hypertension, and was pre-diabetic. I was taking medications for all, and additional medications for other complications that were the result of my Americanized lifestyle.

    It started with walking to work, 3 miles each way. Then expanded into running 5Ks, and eventually cycling.

    Now, I'm 165lbs, and not on any medications, with normal vitals across the board. I ride my bike to work at least 3 days per week, usually going far enough out of my way to ride 30-40 miles every day - and 60-70/day on weekends.

    I think it's a travesty to sell cycling to work as a solution to a temporary problem, because people will quit the moment the problem goes away, or there is some other reason not to. Living an active lifestyle that includes daily exercise and human-powered commuting also helps solve America's obesity problem (and spiraling-out-of-control health costs) permanently. It's a shame more people won't pick it up, and that we can't bring ourselves to design towns and cities to allow for it.

    It costs far less to add 3 feet of bike lane to a road than it does to treat 1000 cases of advanced diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, cancer, and other life-ending diseases. The government and the taxpayer have a vested interest in policies that facilitate people being healthy when they reach Medicare age - not to mention the people themselves who still have to pay a heavy price for their lack of health.

    1. Re:I've been bike commuting since 2002 by SScorpio · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why it doesn't automatically give you a walk signal is beyond me.

      At most intersections pedestrians aren't trying to cross the road. So the lights are shorter to keep traffic following. By pressing the button it extends the amount of time on that cycle to give pedestrians time to safely cross the street.

  8. Winter Biking? by Max+Romantschuk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I live in the Helsinki area in Finland, and while for the most part Bike access is OK it seems the winters are almost impossible to solve. I used to bike all year round, and while it's quite enjoyable with the right equipment I kept running into the problem that the roads were plowed first and the bike lanes much later in the day, or sometimes not at all.

    Does anyone live in a city where the winter biking thing actually works? (One with snowfall, that is.) Just curious, really.

    --
    .: Max Romantschuk :: http://max.romantschuk.fi/
    1. Re:Winter Biking? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Not personally, but I know people who do. They use Nokian tyres.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:Winter Biking? by MtHuurne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It works here, in the south of the Netherlands. In my city, bus routes and bike lanes are the first places where snow is removed, often within a few hours after it fell. Also because a lot of people continue biking, even if the snow hasn't been removed, there will be tracks where the people who cycled before you have crushed the snow to the point where it melts. However, our winter day temperatures don't often stay below zero for more than a few days at a time, so a snow period seldom lasts for more than a week. I once visited the middle of Finland at the end of the winter and I think the snow that falls there during the winter doesn't melt until spring; I don't know if that is the case for the Helsinki area as well.

    3. Re:Winter Biking? by Tseax · · Score: 2

      What works for me in Canada is the so-called Fat Bike. I ride a model called a "Moonlander" which can be fitted with studs for the icier city riding.

    4. Re:Winter Biking? by Karljohan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Norrköping, Sweden, biking during the winter usually woks fine. The bike lanes use to be plowed quite quickly, but you need winter tires.

    5. Re:Winter Biking? by siouxgeonz · · Score: 2

      Works here reasonably well because our roads are less traveled... http://www.fcgov.com/streets/snow-additional.php Fort Collins does a good job, and Minneapolis has a large year-round cycling commuting community (evidence here: http://tcstreetsforpeople.org/node/1348 ) , as well as Chicago, Illinois per http://bikewinter.org/

    6. Re:Winter Biking? by neBelcnU · · Score: 4, Informative

      Minneapolis/St. Paul: It's becoming more common to see folks using incredibly fat-tired mountain bikes in all weathers, but regular bikes (even road bikes) are now seen every winter, even below 0F. Credit to determined riders and cities that make an effort. Bike trails are plowed by specialized equipment, although at a delay like you mentioned, riders still venture out on the streets. Thanks to all for using bike lights, even during the day.

    7. Re:Winter Biking? by jeti · · Score: 2

      If the bike lanes are not usable due to snow or ice, you're allowed to use the road in Germany.

    8. Re:Winter Biking? by Hazelfield · · Score: 3, Informative

      It works reasonably well in Stockholm. Maybe just because I seldom start off towards work until 8 am and by then the plowing is usually done even on the bike lanes. Over the last two winters with really heavy snowfall I was only forced to use some other transportation once or twice due to snow. (I chose not to take the bike on many more occasions but that's a different story.) I use studded tyres during the winter of course.

    9. Re:Winter Biking? by hankwang · · Score: 2

      A soft compound, knobby tire results in a smaller area, higher pressure and thus melting snow.

      The freezing-point depression of ice induced by pressure is 13 MPa/K. If you concentrate 100 kg (1 kN) on 1 cm2 of ice, the freezing point will go down from 0 C to -0.8 C. So that won't make much of a difference. And even if it would, it's not clear to me why this would help you while cycling in the snow.

  9. Wrong by stomv · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bicyclists darn sure do pay taxes for roads.
    Interstates are paid roughly 100% with federal gasoline taxes. Bicyclists don't pay those taxes, but don't use interstates either.
    State roads, depending on the state, are paid approx 10% - 50% with state gasoline taxes, the rest with general revenue. Bicyclists do pay general revenue.
    Local roads -- which are most roads -- are paid for with state/fed grants and a big chunk of local taxes. The most common local tax is property tax, and bicyclists typically live somewhere, and therefore pay the tax directly based on the home they own or indirectly through their rent.

    If gas taxes paid 100% of the road maintenance costs, US gas taxes would rival the UK.

    1. Re:Wrong by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Informative

      Besides, bicycles don't damage the road, they are far too light for that. Their ground pressure is similar to a pedestrian.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    2. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The damage caused by bikes and pedestrians does however pale compared to the damage done by weather and "normal" aging.

      A normal road used by pedestrians and cyclists will not break down significantly earlier than a normal road that is not used at all...

    3. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Everything will cause damage, if there's enough of it - it may take longer, but to suggest that the impact is zero is crazy to say the least.

      Road damage is proportional to the weight of the vehicle...raised to the fifth or sixth power (not a typo, damage is proportional to weight^5 or weight^6). Bicycles and cars don't damage roads, it's almost all caused by trucks...and freeze-thaw cycles in colder areas. Here's one paper summary (sorry, the full paper is behind a paywall).

      whoops, here's the link:
      http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00423118908968916#preview

    4. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed. Studies back in the 50's showed that vehicle induced road damage is proportional to the fourth power of axle loading. When people start screaming that bicycles should be taxed "fairly", I suggest that they're taxed at 1$/year, with the provision that all other vehicles are taxed proportionally.

    5. Re:Wrong by hawguy · · Score: 2

      The damage caused by bikes and pedestrians does however pale compared to the damage done by weather and "normal" aging.

      A normal road used by pedestrians and cyclists will not break down significantly earlier than a normal road that is not used at all...

      I can second that - my commute takes me through a park. In one area of the park, there's a section of mixed use bike+pedestrian path, a section of pedestrian-only path, and there's a short stub of path that goes to nowhere, it literally ends after about 20 feet at a fence (it used to be a path but it's been closed for years), so for the past few years it's gotten effectively no use at all.

      All 3 surfaces appear to be in about the same condition, some cracked pavement, some ripples apparently due to tree roots, but overall the paths are in decent shape, and the unused path looks about the same as the heavily used bike path.

    6. Re:Wrong by evilviper · · Score: 2

      bicyclists typically live somewhere

      I learn something new every day...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:Wrong by MartinSchou · · Score: 2

      Their ground pressure is similar to a pedestrian.

      Hogwash!

      I ride a bike (recumbent trike), and there's absolutely no WAY, that the ground pressure when I'm on my bike is the same as when I'm walking.

      If I'm being extremely generous, each my tires have something like 4 cm^2 (2x2 cm) touching the road at any one time.

      I'm 110 kg, my bike is 25, so that's 135 kg/4 cm^2 = 33.75 kg/cm^2.

      On foot, the worst case scenario is the front of one shoe on the road, and that's about 30 cm^2 and thus about 4 kg/cm^2.

  10. Unexamined Lives and All That by dangle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It took me a while to make the decision to bike to work. In retrospect, my whole life was colored by car culture. They're beautiful machines, and my friends and I spent large amounts of time talking about them and using them.

    I also finally realized that our understandable desire to make our lives more comfortable and effortless is ultimately unhealthy.

    All my notions and excuses left me, and I've been biking to work every day, unless snow and ice preclude it.

    It's such an amazing way to start and end the day, even though it's not glamorized on TV.

    On business a few years ago, a nice young man who was shuttling me into downtown Copenhagen in a company car described to me his intense interest in buying his own car, despite the tax disincentives to do so. And China is abandoning their bike culture, making single occupancy vehicle trips a sign of progress. And as an American I've found myself thinking: "It's not obligatory to copy every mistake we've made, feel free to learn from our bad examples."

    1. Re:Unexamined Lives and All That by pnot · · Score: 2

      It's such an amazing way to start and end the day, even though it's not glamorized on TV.

      Amen. On a bike I can see, hear, feel, and smell the world around me. I feel as though I'm part of the world. If I see something interesting, I can stop and check it out without worying about traffic flow or parking. In a car I'm in my own little coccoon, cut off from the world. The mental-health aspect of biking is probably at least as important as the physical-health aspect.

      Unfortunately it's an experience which is intrinsically hard to glamourize, and there's little financial incentive for anyone to do so. I suppose you could say that governments have an incentive, in terms of gradually improving the wellbeing of their citizens, but that kind of long-term thinking does not seem to be popular.

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Electric Bicycle by dr_leviathan · · Score: 2

    I'm a Californian who just bought an electric bicycle conversion kit: 350W hub motor, 36V + 12Ah lithium battery. I'm hoping I can use it for my commute which is 40 km each way. This bike's range should be about 50 km, but I'll be able to recharge it at work.

    I already have one electric bicycle but it is not a good solution for a long commute. It has a big motor (1.9kW) and 48V of lead acid batteries --> It can go plenty fast (60 km/hr) but it is rather heavy (45 kg) and doesn't have the range (25 km).

    --
    Religion is poison to rationality, and we lose sight of that at our own peril. -- Lurker2288
  13. the problems with more bicyclists by nimbius · · Score: 2

    are fundamental lack of training. we all get a license to drive, but any moron can hop on a schwinn and decide he wants to ride to work. West Hollywood and santa monica in particular are littered with assholes who weave unsafely back and forth across their lane, never check over their shoulder for traffic, stare down at the road instead of up, and frequently blow through stop signs, red lights and no turn lanes. They unpredictably merge from the road to the sidewalk in order to evade traffic control devices they might find tedious as well. My problem is that there are no repercussions for this stupidity other than the death of a cyclist because police often just dont care.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  14. Narrow studded tires, not "fat mountain tires" by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Informative

    For winter riding, you want relatively narrow tires with soft compound rubber, with studs. About the narrowest studded tire for 700c wheels is around 32mm.

    The studs are for ice.

    The soft compound is so the tire is compliant in colder temperatures.

    The narrowness helps cut through snow down to the road surface.

    A fat tire will ride on top of the snow, where there's zero traction.

  15. Gasoline == freedom to go places by Whatsmynickname · · Score: 2

    I know I'm going to get modded down by the hard core cycling nerds here, but having the ability to afford gas at reasonable prices means I can go places that I would normally NOT be able to go by bicycle or mass transportation. Locally that means many hiking places and recently a drive to the Sierra Nevada for hiking and fall leaves.

    I know exactly how it feels to not be able to drive, and your whole world you can access shrinks rather tremendously. In some areas, you may not miss much, but in California and southwest in general there are whole worlds to see out there with easy access by car. Yeah yeah you MAY be able to swing it with a bicycle + train, but the logistics would be MUCH harder to do. And there are many places out west which don't accommodate mass transit very well.

    Hey, and this is coming from a cycling nerd to move to California BECAUSE OF cycling and the weather to do so! And I've done a LOT of commuting by bicycle BEFORE it became fashionable or hip. All I'm saying is there's a balance and a place for cars as well as a place for bicycles.

  16. The US needs more practical bikes by An+Ominous+Cow+Erred · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Part of the problem with biking culture in the US it is an evolution of racing/track/BMX bikes. These are designed for weight reduction and aerodynamics rather than comfort. Exposed chains are almost universal, necessitating having your leg cuff rolled up or rubber banded, if you try to wear normal clothes.

    Meanwhile in places like The Netherlands and Denmark, bikes are built to be practical for normal people in normal clothes to ride in a comfortable position. Step-through bikes are the norm and are not considered "women's" bikes.

    The first image on this page is a Dutch-style bike. The lower pics are the closest thing America has to offer. http://clevercycles.com/blog/2007/06/26/dutchness/

    Notice on the Dutch bike:

    1) UPRIGHT POSTURE -- for comfort rather than aerodynamics
    2) FULL CHAIN CASE -- So you can wear *regular clothes* without getting grease all over them or having them get caught in the gears.
    3) COAT GUARD OVER REAR WHEEL -- If you wear loose, long clothes like coats, jackets, or skirts (or a tux), it will not get caught in the rear spokes.
    4) LARGE FENDERS -- Also to keep your clothes clean if the ground is wet or dirty!

    These things add weight to the bike or add wind resistance. Sports bikes in the US shun all these things. Unfortunately, sports bike design has affected even "city" bikes in the US, which means that people barely remember what a full chain case or coat guard are anymore.

    In the Netherlands, people go out clubbing on their bikes wearing their sexy outfits. Members of parliament bike to work wearing their suit and tie.

    If we want people to switch to bikes in the US, we need features like these so people don't have the inconvenience of having to change clothes or roll up their pant leg (and still risk grease or nicks on their calves). These are all obvious solutions that are just not as obvious to American bicyclists because they never see them now.

    1. Re:The US needs more practical bikes by xlsior · · Score: 3, Informative

      Step-through bikes are the norm and are not considered "women's" bikes.

      That one isn't true -- In the Netherlands step-through bikes are still considered a female model (originally made that way to accommodate wearing a skirt/dress), Men's bikes pretty much all have a horizontal bar closing the gap to increase structural integrity. That said, it's not that rare for men to ride a women's bike and vice-versa

      While a Dutch bike is comfortable to ride on flat surfaces, they are less suited for hilly terrain -- which is a non-issue in the Netherlands since the whole place is about a flat as can be. They suck to have to climb a hill or bridge on a windy day, though.

  17. Biking worth it for the health benefits alone by raahul_da_man · · Score: 2

    I've also recently bought a hybrid bicycle. Why should I pay $100 a week for a gym membership just to get my cardio up? Riding a bike gets me to work, gets me fit, gets my heart rate up and is good for the environmnet. Good for my wallet, good for my health!