Jon Senior wrote:
> JNugent wrote:
>> For your good self (and for people like you), the bike is your
>> avocation. You do it because you like it, and that's absolutely
>> fine, though it would be better if you didn't let your fondness for
>> the world of bikes blind you to their (very obvious) shortcomings as
>> a means of transport for normal everyday use.
> Despite the obvious shortcomings, my bike _is_ my means of transport
> for "normal everyday use".
That does not militate against what I wrote. Not in the slightest.
However, I am grateful for your acceptance og the (obvious) point that nikes
have severe practical shortcomings when applied as a tentative solution to
the transport needs of most people. Some other bike-riders here have posted
the opposite of that - for reasons best known to themselves.
> I commute by bike. I shop by bike. When I
> need to travel long distance, I take my bike on a train. I have
> demonstrated time and again that I can reach most places in this city
> faster on a bike than I can by car... and no... I don't jump reds, or
> ride on the pavement.
Again, one would expect all of this. For you, your bike is among your prize
possessions, and you see the world of the bike as your own natural
environment. There is nothing wrong with that.
>> Most people don't care for cycling and will not be browbeaten into
>> accepting what they know - for a certainty - is nowhere near suited
>> to their needs (and in any event is not what they want even if it
>> *were* practical - which it isn't). Fact.
> No. Not fact... fiction.
Now you see... this is where you start getting very silly.
You can ride your bike and no-one will criticise you for it. Your choice to
ride it is your business, and not many people will try to talk you out of
it.
Your choice is accepted.
Please do others the same courtesy.
It isn't much to ask, is it?
> The same people also "know" that if they
> don't keep an eye on their kids they'll be kidnapped, abused and
> murdered by a stranger, despite the lack of evidence to support it.
> The same people "know" that because a man in a white coat just said
> so on TV, brand X will wash their whites... whiter than white! A
> great number of those same people who "know" that the bike is of no
> use to them, will complain about rising traffic levels as they sit in
> the traffic jam while picking up the newspaper from a shop half a
> mile from home. Can a bike replace a car for all people? No. But it
> can very practicably replace one for a great many journeys for a
> significant proportion of the population.
Why do you go off on these flights of fantasy?
Do you not understand that it makes you sound... odd? You are saying
(whether you realise it or not) that the majority are simply wrong (or
stupid) and that you are simply right (and clever). Is that what you *meant*
to say? Because that's your message, loud and clear.
Can't you just let others make their choices (on whatever basis makes them
happy) as they let you make yours?
If not, why not? Are you just better than them?
> What people have been browbeaten into accepting is that a car is an
> essential tool for life. They have it drilled into them from childhood
> through adverts and through the behaviour of their peer groups.
Now come on - that is nonsense.
The baby-boom generation (of which I am a younger-end member) were not
raised in households with cars. Not having had car-use "drilled into them
from childhood", they have made their choices - whatever they may be - in
the light of what they have discovered for themselves and their *own*
experiences, haven't they?
