This week, the on-line edition of the Los Angeles Times has asked two famous cyclists to debate the problems of cycling in Los Angeles and the merits of trying to promote cycling to relieve traffic congestion. In one corner is Will Campbell, L.A. cyclist and blogger, who blames autos for all the problems.
And in the other corner is: the Antiplanner. This was a surprise, as I’ve never cycled in L.A., which reduces my credibility a notch (see comment from Jon). But they wanted someone who is both an active cyclist and a skeptic of spending lots of money on dedicated bike paths and lanes.
Not Los Angeles.
If you live in a region that has no greyandgrey.com levitra sale dealer then you look for reseller/dealer who sells in other regions such as South Africa and the Carribbean. I would be happy to include niche revenue sharing social media websites if they exist. super cialis professional Correctly sensing that they had stumbled on to a goldmine, Pfizer quickly changed course and released greyandgrey.com generic cialis online as the first approved medical treatment for ED in humans. Needles are put at specific points of our body gets baffled and begins cialis uk killing our own body cells. The “dust up,” as the Times calls the series, is considering five questions:
Monday: Who’s to blame for auto-bike conflicts?
Tuesday: Are bike paths a good use of federal transportation dollars?
Wednesday: What cities provide a good model for L.A.?
Thursday: Should cities promote cycling as a way of relieving congestion?
Friday: Do movements like Critical Mass help or hurt the cycling cause?
Keep checking back with the Times Dust-Up site to see if the Antiplanner puts his chain in his spokes in answering any of these questions.
And this is the way planners roll
I have no problem with the government encoyraging cycling, but I think the appropriate silo for cycling is recreation, not transportation. Cycling is just not a realistic commuting option for most of the population. It can’t work for people with long commutes. It doesn’t work for people who are not physically fit, which knocks out a great deal of the work force. The use of cycling as an option is also highly dependent on weather conditions. I’d also note that it’s hard to imagine cycling as a viable commuting option in highly dense areas. Putting 100,000 bicycles on the streets at rush hour in NYC (even if you banned other surface tranit altogether) would be a recipe for chaos. So I don’t think the bike is compatible with the skyscraper — again as an option for the mass of commuters. That said, it’s a great niche activity for those who can indulge. But being a niche choice, it’s likely to slow down the surface transit options that will be the choice of the large majority of commuters.
In reply to Mr. Edder, I commute about 11 miles some days and it works like a dream for me. I travel on approximately .4 miles worth of high-traffic streets (though I cross quite a few, following all traffic laws) and never does a car have to squeeze past me or wait for me to move (while on that one busy street, I’m on the shoulder until I merge over to the left turn lane at a stoplight as traffic permits). I’m not saying it’s for everyone, but it works for me. I am one less car filling up the roads at rush hour so that all of you car-people can get there faster. I can ride in any weather conditions because I have spent a few hundred dollars on cold & wet weather gear. Once you count the 800 bucks I spent on my bike + accessories, that was a little more than one car payment on my last vehicle, not to mention gas, maintenance, insurance. Then there’s stress from road rage plus pollution (neither of which are easy to quantify but certainly aren’t “free”).
I admit to liking my bike lanes and paths, and do use a *really* nice bike path on the way to work for about 5 miles. But even without the bike path, I wouldn’t be in your way when you’re commuting–I don’t like to use high-traffic streets when I ride in general. So I don’t slow you down–hopefully you’ll permit me to stay in my “niche” as well as refraining from active destruction of the planet, fighting off the expansion of my waistline, and increasing my joy (I show up to work *very* happy after a nice ride =))
Veddie wrote “It doesn’t work for people who are not physically fit, which knocks out a great deal of the work force.”
That’s what gears are for. When I started cycling after 30 years of sedentary living I was a weak kitten. I was also 90 pounds overweight and asthmatic. I commuted daily and rode a little extra on the weekends. I know people who were fatter and did the same thing. Lack of fitness is not a show stopper.
He also wrote “The use of cycling as an option is also highly dependent on weather conditions.” What weather conditions are you talking about? Minneapolis/St. Paul has some some the most severe winter weather in America. That doesn’t stop people from bike commuting there.
And went on to say “I’d also note that it’s hard to imagine cycling as a viable commuting option in highly dense areas.”
Six to eight bikes safely and easily fit into the space used by a car on the road. 10 or 12 bikes can park in the space used by one car. If drivers became cyclists gridlock would evaporate.
Bicycling is only a niche because too many people are mesmerized by their car habit.
I’m an avid cyclist and often commute by bike, and the other benefit of cycling to work is that you blow off all your steam on the way home.
This results in you not having to kick the dog or beat the wife & kids, and by the time you get to work in the morning, you won’t go postal. In fact, after awhile you get grumpy if you don’t ride to work.
Objections such as those found by Jearl Pam are typical of those made by non-cyclists.
The biggest impediment to cycling I hear is the inattentive/cerebrally challenged driver problem, or the “them durn bicycles don’t b’long on no ding-dang road” problem.
BTW, there’s snow on the ground and I rode in today, and snow on the way for this afternoon. So what.
DS
Hold on there, you’re barking up the wrong tree. I do cycle. I once took a trip by bicycle across the state of North Dakota, I cycled extensively in Europe. I’ve cycled to work in NY on weekends and cycled to school in Chicago, I’ve taken part in cycle touring for charity and races for fun. I like cycling and think it should be encouraged and facilitated.
I still don’t see it as a realistic commuting or transportation option for more than a very small niche. For starters, take a look at the NY labor market. You can’t realistically expect that people can possibly commute by bike from NJ, CT, Queens or the Bronx into Manhattan. That’s where your office workers are. We cyclists know how to find creative ways to get across roads, natural barriers and navigate neighborhoods, but it’s just not realistic to think that you are going to have anything more than a vanishingly small minority of people undertake 20 mile round trip bike commutes, even under ideal weather conditions and during the times of year when the sun doesn’t wait until 7:30 to rise. I know it can be done, but I also know that it’s not for most people.
Biking also makes it difficult to, you know, transport stuff. Again, I know it can be done, I carried tons of stuff across Holland, but it’s not easy. It’s especially hard to transport other people. This makes using a bike a supremely unwieldy way to bunch trips such as dropping off a child at school on the way to work, or even taking home dry cleaning from work.
I don’t doubt that the presence of an occasional cyclist won’t slow traffic, but if you have a mass of cyclists, you need — I think — grade separated bike paths (which I am all for) to keep everyone from cyclist to driver safe and flowing smoothly. I’d love to see big cities put through traffic on major avenues underground and create greenways above for cyclists and runners, but again, I’m looking at this from a recreation perspective, not a commuting perspective. I know that some things work for the active, adventorous and flexible, but that doesn’t mean they work universally.
According to the 2002 DOT survey (available at bicycling.org), only 5% of riders used their bikes to commute to school/work (most common purposes were recreationa and exercise). Of all trips, more than half were 2 miles or less. Man, this country is out of shape. Money spent on bike paths may make for a better ride, but is about as useful for solving transportation problems as building skate parks and jet ski ramps.
The thoughts of the noted philosopher G.D. Patrick Carlin on bike paths and the people that use them (1:53).
youtube
RE poorly thought-thru objections in 6 & 7:
The Safeway where I get groceries is .9 miles from my place (caveat: cyclocomputer geek). Too far to walk on my schedule, but 5 minutes easy on the bike. I throw on the panniers, two sacks of groceries later I’m good.
That reduces auto trips. Similarly, going to any proximate amenity greater than one-half mile by bike rather than car saves a trip. This, see, lowers VMT and TPD. That is: fewer trips means less VMT and TPD.
Providing safe routes encourages cycling. Cycling reduces VMT and TPD.
See how easy that was to think through?
Sure we do.
DS
First, I’d like to start with a true story.
Once upon a time, in the UK, we had bus laybys. The bus would pull in off the road into this parking bay, whilst they were picking up passengers, so that following cars weren’t blocked. But most of the laybys have now been filled in, and now buses wait on the kerb edge, blocking the road for all of the following cars.
The reason is simple. The law said that car drivers had to give way to a bus signaling to pull out. This means that the bus could get out of the layby easily. But enough car drivers decided that the law didn’t apply to them, and they didn’t give way. Eventually, to get the buses running on time, the layby was filled in to give a straight kerb for the bus to stop against, partially or completely blocking the cars behind.
But we’re not done yet! Parking in the UK is generally in short supply. So, car drivers discovered a nice new place to park their cars (the bus stop), even though it is illegal. But enough car drivers decided that the law didn’t apply to them, and so the bus companies put in ‘bus boarders’, essentially bits of kerb which stick out into the road, preventing cars from parking.
In short, the car drivers, because of their willful and superstitious attempts to bust the system, caused delays to themselves which were entirely unnecessary. They put their feet in their mouths, before shooting themselves.
The push-me-shove-you between cyclists and car drivers is similar. The main obstacle to cars is rush-hour traffic, because there is only so much traffic space available, particularly at non-free-flow junctions. A car journey in rush hour may be 5 minutes of driving and 25 minutes of waiting. Also, there are other issues out there, like global warming. Car drivers are in a tight place, and they know it.
I have a controversial opinion. I think that the reasons things are so bad is because car drivers insist on driving so fast in the urban area. Above 20-25 mph, car drivers need to look right down the road, so they can see what’s happening in time. The UK urban speed limit is 30mph (with most drivers trying for 35mph). Because of the need to look right down the road, each car needs its own corridor to travel along, free of interference from other road users. This is the concept of ‘right of way’. To protect the ‘right of way’ requires traffic signals, signs, notices, instructions, orders, all treating car drivers like idiots. What can be more idiotic than sitting in a car, staring at a red light? When someone enters their ‘right of way’, the other person is clearly at fault, and hence the car driver uses their horn to indicate displeasure. The other car driver uses their horn right back. Car driving is stressful, and nasty. Cars block each other in, causing congestion. People don’t like cycling under these conditions, since they cannot keep up with free-flow traffic sections, and the car drivers are just so angry. The average speed of the traffic is no more than the horse and carriage.
Below 20mph, on the other hand, things are happening so slowly that car drivers can take the time to look around some. They can see other car drivers and anticipate their movements. They can interract, as pedestrians do – how many traffic signals are put into shopping malls to stop pedestrians colliding? Car drivers can keep moving, with the minimum of interference from the authorities, and the maximum of responsibility placed on car drivers – we’re now treating them like adults. Cyclists can take and hold the centre of the lane, making cycling practical, and if you look past the ubiquitous mountain bike it is possible to find bicycles which can cruise at 20mph. Cycling at these speeds is safer, since the cars aren’t overtaking and the impact speeds (if appropriate) are non-lethal. Transport planners measure congestion in PCUs. Because cyclists take up only 1/3 to 1/5 of the space of a car (1 car = 1PCU, 1 bicycle=0.2PCU), the congestion vanishes. The commute is nice, everyone is friendly, and the world spins faster on its axis. This is the approach behind the innovative work in Drachten and Bomhte, although I want to go a lot further. The Dutch are still relying on their cycle lanes, and sit-up-and-beg bicycles.
It is the story of the hare and the tortoise, writ large. As with bus laybys, car drivers are busy slitting their own throats, whilt complaining about a mess of their own making.
Forgot to mention, from the 2002 BTS Omnistats (published 2006), the average rider is a white male, under 44 years of age, with an annual income over $50K. George Carlin’s soft, white liberals. Not hard to see dropping tax $ for bike riders is a government-funded version of a health club membership. Exactly how many billions more will have to spent to have a measurable effect on traffic congestion?
BTW, besides keeping your eyes on the road, you guys should watch out for this.
Pfffft. Dedicated cyclists are hardly soft bodies.
I say that cyclists don’t need the p*nis compensation products to hide their lack of manliness, such as big ol’ pickups or other status vehicles.
And I fully agree with Francis King, the premise he uses is the basis for Context-Sensitive Design of streets (Complete Streets). Illinois has just passed a ‘complete streets’ bill, overriding the Governor’s veto – this new law requires the inclusion of safe bicycling and walking facilities in all projects in urbanized areas of IL. IL is the 6th state to pass such a bill, along with over 50 local jurisdictions in the U.S. of A.
DS
Perhaps Mr. King could then answer how many more billions it would take to say, get two per cent of the daily commuters off the road. I don’t want to shoot for too high a number, might dent that three per cent or so that ride public transit.
“Complete Streets” = better health club facilities. Boy, did George Carlin ever call it. Far more accurate observer tht Paul Ehrlich ever was.
Dan, you said:
“The Safeway where I get groceries is .9 miles from my place (caveat: cyclocomputer geek). Too far to walk on my schedule, but 5 minutes easy on the bike. I throw on the panniers, two sacks of groceries later I’m good.”
That’s an anecdote which is great, far as it goes, but do you really expect a single mother of three to do a wweek’s grocery shopping this way, in January, in the hills of western PA? Cycling is a niche activity. I like public cycling amenities, as I like public parks, running tracks and basketball courts. Bike paths won’t make a discernible dent as a transportation option. The fact that you can point to a few people who make it work only means that there are a few people who can make it work. That’s great for them, but it doesn’t equate to universal applicability.
I love to bike for fun not for work. I enjoy riding for exercise on side streets away from any traffic.
I don’t want to change.
I did the bike thing for 2 years in my early 20’s. I felt trapped by the time it took to ride across town to visit friends and have a social life. For some reason friends and relatives in Portland all didn’t live next door to me. Nothing more fun than riding home at 11pm and get up for work the next morning. NOT!
The Portland myth is we are a compact city.
In Portland it has been raining for days, my bet is a fraction of 1% of any trips are on bikes in the rain and standing at bus or Max stop looks miserable. I work out side most of the time and a nice warm, dry car is great this time a year!
If you want special bike lanes, signals, paths, etc. find a way for the users to pay for them.
This results in you not having to kick the dog or beat the wife & kids
wow dan what journal articles have you been reading! i guess women’s resource centres should be giving out bikes to battered women, for their boyfriends or husbands to use. biking – it makes you true humanitarian. doesnt it?
sorry Toohey (ooops…i mean Dan!) but i think abuse is probably correlated with income, genetic characteristics of the abuser (short fuses) or maybe alchohol or drug abuse. But of course I give you props, because the best way to generate support is to make what your supporting morally superior and “good” while making what you dont support morally inferior and “bad” or “evil.” Or do you disagree that pro-planning advocates engage in such a tactic (although anti-planners also engaged in such behavior, but i find it to be much more common among planners, environmentalists, etc).
DIE BIKE LANES! DIE!
If I never see another bike lane, I’ll be all the happier. I love cycling but nobody knows what the F to do with those things. Fellow cyclists blow through 4 way stops or come up alongside a car clearly signaling a right turn all the time. Cars for their part don’t know how to treat cyclists in them. Worse they’re often these narrow little things that squeeze cyclists right in the path of doors opening on parked cars. And all the time they just suddenly end. The worst one I’ve seen myself is going northbound on Hennipen Ave in dwntwn MPLS. You’re biking along and all of a sudden it’s gone. No warning, nothing. And they have you out in the middle of traffic. It’s a one-way north for regular street traffic. But there is a southbound lane for buses and taxis. And they stick two bike lanes inbetween the two of them. If you think you hated taxi cab drivers while in your car, do this on your bike and see how many times they zip past you only to make a left turn right in front of you (the design has you to their left) even though 3 seconds ago they just past you.
Give me dedicated bike paths clearly seperated from bike paths or simply make sure there are some nice big wide streets out there for me to bike on. Bike lanes don’t make anything better for the cyclists nor the cars.
BTW —> Having worked and lived in MPLStown for years, I’ve always suspected the census claims for winter cyclist commuters were total bullshit. You see a few brave souls even on the coldest of days but absolutely nothing even close to anything that is close to the number of bike commuters that you see during the summer. No way in hell are 25% of the summer bike commuters still commuting regularly during the winter. They may claim so on the survey but they’re not actually doing it.
prk166 said:
“DIE BIKE LANES! DIE!”
A sentiment with which I agree. The only people who want them is politicians (it’s cheap, and it makes them look like they’re doing something), and new cyclists who like the look of these facilites. It took about a week (and a car almost creaming me) to make me rethink.
Keen cyclists don’t want them, and aren’t asking car drivers to provide them.
“Perhaps Mr. King could then answer how many more billions it would take to say, get two per cent of the daily commuters off the road. I don’t want to shoot for too high a number, might dent that three per cent or so that ride public transit.”
Very little. $20 to train each cyclist properly – most cyclists can pay for this. The cyclists provide their own bicycles and sneakers (unlike transit). No need for cycle lanes, or cycle paths, or cycle tracks, or any of this frippery. Secure long-term parking for bicycles is a must, as bicycles are too easy to steal – but experience shows that cyclists are willing to pay for this too. The Sheffield Stand is only acceptable for short stays.
The key is getting the cars slowed down enough so that the cyclists can hold the lane. As I indicated above, high lane speeds can make the cars go slower. Lower speeds provide the motoring environment that most car drivers want, and don’t get.
How far can people go on their bicycles, when they’re trying to get somewhere? As a guide, I (not particularly fit) can get about 18mph on a hybrid bicycle for short periods, although my cruise speed is about 10mph. To get a cruise speed of 20mph, requires one or more of the following a) electrical power, internal or external – b) a reduction in air resistance, so that means a recumbent bicycle. Both forms of bicycle are currently expensive, as they are not mass-produced, and in the case of electric bicycles, the technology needs some work. As an example of what can be produced, I would like to introduce the bizarrely named eGo. (All electric vehicles MUST have silly names. It’s the law).
http://www.egovehicles.com/products/north-america/
At 20mph, that’s 10 miles in 30 minutes, or 20 miles in an hour. How many commutes are longer than that? And if they are…
The third option is the folding bicycle. It can be used with transit, to deal with the ‘last-mile’ problem, or it can be used with a taxi to get large items home without needing a car.
“That’s an anecdote which is great, far as it goes, but do you really expect a single mother of three to do a wweek’s grocery shopping this way, in January, in the hills of western PA?”
A car with a family in it is good environmentally. 30mpg * 4 people is 120mpg/person, the same as a bus. Providing quality transit like buses, trams and trains can be expensive. We should be getting the families off transit and into cars (freeing up seats), and getting single occupancy drivers out of their cars and into transit. This gives families freedom of mobility, and also nails congestion. That’s rational and logical, and yes, rationality and logic have very little to do with what happens today.
Why am I not surprised that the success of a planner’s transit program would require that adults go to school?
Just about everybody over the age of eight in this country knows how to ride a bicycle. Probably a third of those people under the age of 45 rode a bike last year. Out of all those riders about a half million rode to work or school. Of that half million a smaller percentage used their bikes as their primary commuting means.
So, people know how to ride and, at least according to the BTS info, the majority of people who do ride are not even dissatisfied with their riding conditions. They just don’t want to ride in any measurably effective numbers for a practical purpose. Offering riding classes for 20 bucks, 10 bucks, or free is not going to change that, because today bikes — like skateboards, rollerblades, and Segways — are viewed primarily as recreation.
Maybe the problem tho’ is that I’m not thinking big time, like a planner. Let’s see — we’ll start small. A program to educate 20,000 riders in a year. I’m sure there are at least that many in a CMSA only waiting for the proper schooling to turn into a regular rider like Randal O’Toole, for example. We’ll need to find 2000 enthusiastic instructors with support staff to do this during daylight hours in temperate seasons (two words — National Guard!), plus insurance, teaching materials, and facilities. Also, have to be careful not to do this in area where public transit riders would trade out.
At the end of the day, all you’ve done is given what appears to be a large (but statistically insignificant) number of people a very expensive form of gym membership.
The planner’s answer, of course, is more billions, more incentives, to make it work. Tell you what, throw in a a new custom Serotta and I’ll sign up.
“Just about everybody over the age of eight in this country knows how to ride a bicycle.”
If the USA is like the UK, almost everyone over the age of eight can pedal. Most can’t ride for toffee. They’re in the wrong position on the road, in the wrong gear, they don’t signal, they don’t shoulder check, they don’t know the rules of the road. They are a menace to themselves and others. They need training.
“Offering riding classes for 20 bucks, 10 bucks, or free is not going to change that, because today bikes  like skateboards, rollerblades, and Segways  are viewed primarily as recreation.”
So what makes you think that cars are for commuting? Because an advert on TV or in the press told you so. Adverts can tell people that bicycles are really neat for commuting, too, especially if a celebrity gives their endorcement.
“20,000 riders in a year.” – “2000 enthusiastic instructors”. It will take about four hours to train a cyclist (probably in groups of two). Four students per instructor times 2000 instructors times 330 non-holiday days makes 2.6 million per year. The population of the USA is 303 million. With 20,000 instructors (400 per state), you could get through the entire population in 12 years.
My apologies. I misunderstood your original assumptions. I mistakenly assumed this plan was taking place on the planet earth.
People once commonly rode bicycles to work. As personal transport, people put aside bicycles and chose cars. In the planner’s fantasy world, that choice was the result of GM buying all the streetcars, “adverts,” and just plain stupidity (evidenced by planners referring to “Murricans” who distrust the “gubmint”).
Ugh. I just realized I got hooked by troll bait. The “get through the entire population in 12 years†(303 million, including newborns, elderly, the comatose, the long, the short, and the tall?) and the indoctrination of the populace through “celebrity endorsements†should have been dead giveaways. Falling for that is about as gullible as a City Council member voting for a streetcar project after a night out on Charlie Hale’s expense account.
“People once commonly rode bicycles to work. As personal transport, people put aside bicycles and chose cars. In the planner’s fantasy world, that choice was the result of GM buying all the streetcars, “adverts,†and just plain stupidity (evidenced by planners referring to “Murricans†who distrust the “gubmintâ€Â).”
OK. Let’s start with streetcars. I know that GM didn’t buy up all the streetcars, not least because they didn’t get rid of the ones in the UK – but they were still ripped out. The reason is simple. Streetcars (what we call in the UK ‘trams’) were rubbish. They were uncomfortable, rattled a lot, and were expensive to run. The trams in the UK were, in many cases, scrapped after the Second World War, when the UK had no money, and the money that was supposed to be in the pot to pay for more trams had been spent on other things. The buses which replaced the trams on a one-for-one were superior in every way – only nostalgia says otherwise. That’s rather different from modern trams (so-called ‘super-trams’) which are smoother, and which have many carriages per train, and do not have a direct replacement by buses – although whether they are the answer to anything at all is a different point, and which is as strongly debated in the UK as in the USA. We’ve also noted that good quality buses get ripped out to the replaced by expensive trams, and, apart from running on old railway tracks which is cost-effective, many transport planners are skeptical about trams.
Now, however, we have the other myth put forwards as truth. People don’t choose cars. In the old days, the horse and carriages went at 12mph, and the bicycle at 20mph. Today, the speed limits in the UK go from 30mph through 70mph. If cars were still going at 12mph, there would be lots of bicycles, but now cars are going faster, bicycles have been forced off the roads. People travel further today, but that’s because they can – the UK commute has stayed constant at approximately 1hr maximum. Most households in the UK have bicycles, but only 2% of journeys are by bicycle, so access to bicycles isn’t the problem. Safety is. One US woman, driving her kids to a sports event, candidly referred to smaller cars than her SUV as ‘SUV-roadkill’. Now get rid of the 1-ton of armour plate, cut the speed down so you can’t keep up with the traffic, and what have you got? A bicycle. Americans aren’t being ‘stupid’ – the road setup is how it is, and they adapt by buying SUVs. If you want bicycles on the roads, then the USA (federally or by states) needs a major rethink on road policy. I don’t know why the idea of rethinking the assumptions upon which policy is based is considered to be controversial.
The only differences between the USA and the UK is that the USA historically was wealthier, had cheaper cars (e.g Model T Ford) – so the conversion to cars happended quicker – and more extreme weather. Of these, only the weather would put me off cycling, and that’s a technical challenge. I am a consultant doing work in the Middle East, and finding an answer to the heat is a challenge, but one which I’m not going to duck. At a time of rising congestion on the roads, and increasing obesity, we need to find a non-car way forwards. Bicycles are it.
Advertising spend only happens when it is proved that it helps the bottom line. In the UK, we have wall-to-wall adverts for cars, perfumes, and unhealthy food; but none for bicycles or buses – except Stagecoach’s latest goofy effort. Celebrity endorsement works, which is why celebrities get paid to do adverts. How does the advert profile in the US differ substantially? They wouldn’t be advertising for cars, if it didn’t sell more of them. In the same way, when the UK decided to cut the amount of smoking going on, they banned all tobacco advertising, except at the point of sale.
Finally the point about bicycle training. It was put forwards that it would be impossible to train up enough cyclists. I demonstrated that this is not the case. That’s all.
Ha, you think I’d fall for troll bait twice? Shame.
This thread did get me thinking on the ironies of national identities. For example, the country where the modern bicycle was invented has never produced a Tour de France winner.* Conversely, the country where apparently no one knows how to ride a bike properly has produced the greatest competitive road cyclist in history, and riders winning nine of the last 20 TdFs. Another irony: the country with the greatest growth in personal auto ownership and most drastic fall off in bicycle ridership (in fact, the only country where bikes were banned from a major city to reduce congestion) is China.**
In the public interest tho’ I have to reveal one very disturbing correlation I discovered. The average pop. growth and fertility rates for the countries of western Europe and the UK with the highest rate of bicycle usage are .248 and 1.577, respectively. The top first-world countries for auto ownership per person had PG and FT rates of .506 and 1.636. The top auto-owning nations that were not on the bike list had even higher PG and FT rates, .884 and 1.81. It is obvious that bicycle ridership it creating a health crisis of enormous proportions, and must be stopped before the populations in the cradles of public transit civilization die off.
*It is truly ironic that England can’t even win championships in sports that it invented. I would suggest a public program to get Brits off bikes and on to the playing fields.
**From a planner’s perspective, this is obviously due to the Chinese being capitalistic, obese, wealthy, advert-addled layabouts. A plan to teach a billion or so Chinese (I’ll leave out the newborns and comatose) how to ride properly should fix that.