What about teenagers with bikes?

Sure, there's teenagers riding in their Hummers. Whoop-dee. What about teens on BIKES, eh? Are there
many out in this ng? So much more fun than fording rivers and staying dry... Matt

 

Matt J wrote:
>
> Sure, there's teenagers riding in their Hummers. Whoop-dee. What about teens on BIKES, eh? Are
> there many out in this ng? So much more fun than fording rivers and staying dry...

I'm sorry to say that in the US, bicycle usage is in decline.

Don't know if that is a reflection of kids not pedaling around neighborhoods anymore, or if the
interest in road racing that brough many adults into bicycling has faded, or something else.

I do know that suburban development, which is largely entirely "car-centric" in nature, makes riding
around the neighborhood a risky business, even if a destination were near by.

Increasingly, destinations are not near by, nor easily ridable, and the rise of "organized
activities" in place of ad hoc play for children, has resulted in bicycling being dropped in favor
of soccer or peewee football, etc.

Too bad.

SMH

 

"Stephen Harding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Matt J wrote:
> >
> > Sure, there's teenagers riding in their Hummers. Whoop-dee. What about teens on BIKES, eh? Are
> > there many out in this ng? So much more fun than fording rivers and staying dry...
>
> I'm sorry to say that in the US, bicycle usage is in decline.
>
> Don't know if that is a reflection of kids not pedaling around neighborhoods anymore, or if the
> interest in road racing that brough many adults into bicycling has faded, or something else.

I attribute it to three things -- first, general laziness. Kids who spend their lives on the sofa
and don't do PE in school can't ride a bike a couple of blocks without feeling miserable. It won't
get better unless they start, and they won't start because it makes them feel miserable. The longer
they live this way, the worse it gets.

Second, there's a huge social stigma against not arriving by car. When I started high school,
biycles were the dominant form of transportation. But by the time my brother got there 7 years
later, almost no one rode a bike to school. The bike corrals that had been filled to overflowing
were empty. I'm not sure what prompted this, but it seems to be an image-consciousness thing. Cool
people drive cars, or have friends who drive cars. Those who ride a bike, walk, or take the bus
are losers.

Finally, and this is a big reason too, is parental paranoia from too much "gonnagitcha" TV
programming. There's a child molester hiding behind every tree, you know... (In fact the opposite is
true, there was a higher rate of such crime in the 70s.)

> I do know that suburban development, which is largely entirely "car-centric" in nature, makes
> riding around the neighborhood a risky business, even if a destination were near by.

> Increasingly, destinations are not near by, nor easily ridable,

This is true about real estate development, but the risk you cite is overblown, and so is the
distance. CA in the 70s was the same as the boomtowns of today, with isolated housing tracts and
no-rules development. Other countries have the same kind of suburban development we do, yet they're
still not as car-dependent as we are. People there just don't view having to walk or ride a few
miles as anything out of the ordinary.

But while we're on the subject of urban planning...

One of the worst examples I've seen lately is a housing tract in Myrtle Beach, SC, which is adjacent
to a junior high school, separated by a narrow strip of wooded open space (maybe 100 yards). The
housing is completely fenced in, with no breaks in the fence for kids to walk through to get to
school. This is a rather large tract, which takes a good ten minutes to drive from entrance to
deepest point. I can't imagine what the morning traffic is like (I hear it's horrendous). Of course,
the reason there are no breaks in the fence is that it wouldn't even occur to anyone to walk.

Not to mention that if you live at the deepest point and your house catches fire, or you have heart
attack, you could die waiting for emergency services to arrive.

> and the rise of "organized activities" in place of ad hoc play for children, has resulted in
> bicycling being dropped in favor of soccer or peewee football, etc.

When I was a kid, we had all these activities, and more (school and parks/rec budgets were still
relatively flush). We rode our bikes to get to them. We also rode to the beach with our surfboards
under our arms, to the park with our baseball gear, with model airplanes, whatever. Along with
bicycling, tennis was really big in the 70s. It seemed every bike had a couple of tennis balls
stuffed into the spokes. Today, people *drive* to the gym a few blocks away. We delivered newspapers
on our bikes -- can you imagine today's ten year olds carrying 100 newspapers (or even their parents
letting them)? The neighborhood I grew up in is still about the same, and still full of kids, except
the kids don't ride bikes anymore.

So environmental and practical considerations haven't changed much. The big change has
been cultural.

Matt O.

 

Matt O'Toole wrote:

> So environmental and practical considerations haven't changed much. The big change has been
> cultural.

When I was in High School in the later 60's, no one rode a bike to school. I and my best friend were
about the only ones who did so. We just liked to pedal or walk.

Some kids drove to school, but they either had to have a certain average grade and be seniors, or
have a job to go to immediately after school, requiring direct motor transport.

With the 70's came the "racing bike" or "10-speed" craze. Everyone was riding them and the school
bike racks were filled.

I ride by my old HS on my way to work and once again, the bike racks are empty (not a function of 0
degree weather!). No one seems to be riding a bike to school these days.

However the school parking lot is packed with student cars. It seems everyone who can drive does so.
In fact, the school parking lot has perhaps tripled in size from when I went to school there, yet HS
year class sizes are smaller.

SMH

 

Stephen Harding wrote:

> Don't know if that is a reflection of kids not pedaling around neighborhoods anymore, or if the
> interest in road racing that brough many adults into bicycling has faded, or something else.

I agree. When I was in elementary and junior high school, there were dozens of bikes at the school
each day. When I go to my daughter's school today, I see no bikes despite plenty of houses around.
And this is elementary school. Kids still ride them and I even see the occasional adult riding them
but yea, bikes are on the decline, especially for young teens. I think skateboarding, scooters
(nothing wrong with either) and such are partly to blame but laziness, video games and such are
another reason. And in high school, it is a social thing not to ride a bike or even to show up on
the bus anymore.

 

Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I'm sorry to say that in the US, bicycle usage is in decline.
>
> Don't know if that is a reflection of kids not pedaling around neighborhoods anymore, or if the
> interest in road racing that brough many adults into bicycling has faded, or something else.
>
> I do know that suburban development, which is largely entirely "car-centric" in nature, makes
> riding around the neighborhood a risky business, even if a destination were near by.
>
> Increasingly, destinations are not near by, nor easily ridable, and the rise of "organized
> activities" in place of ad hoc play for children, has resulted in bicycling being dropped in favor
> of soccer or peewee football, etc.
>
> Too bad.
>
>
> SMH

Well then maybe we should do something? I'm only 15, and I've got a speed-skater friend who rides
with me. Any way to get bike racing back into the mainstream? I remember the race scenes from
Breaking Away, and wonder why that can't still happen. What is there to do? Get cycling events on
network television? In starting a "bike club" at my high school, it's hard to get people to join -
what can we do in a situation like that? Matt

 

"SC Hiker Biker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Stephen Harding wrote:
>
> > Don't know if that is a reflection of kids not pedaling around neighborhoods anymore, or if the
> > interest in road racing that brough many adults into bicycling has faded, or something else.
>
> I agree. When I was in elementary and junior high school, there were dozens of bikes at the school
> each day. When I go to my daughter's school today, I see no bikes despite plenty of houses around.
> And this is elementary school.

> Kids still ride them and I even see the occasional adult riding them but yea, bikes are on the
> decline, especially for young teens. I think skateboarding, scooters (nothing wrong with either)
> and such are partly to blame but laziness, video games and such are another reason.

This is true too -- bike riding probably *was* kids' main activity in the mid-70s. Every vacant
lot had been turned into a BMX track. Our elementary school had a circular concrete path around
a playground. We threw sand on the corners and pretended we were "speedway" motorcycle racers,
"powersliding" our way around. This became so popular kids showed up an hour or two before
school to race.

Of course, this was influenced by motorcycle racing, which was very popular then too. Warren
Miller's film "On Any Sunday" was an unbelieveably huge hit, and either instigated or fueled what
became today's BMX. BMX bikes have 20" wheels not because of any technical reason, but because they
evolved from the modified Stingrays of the 70s.

Matt O.

 

Stephen Harding <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Matt J wrote:
> >
> > Sure, there's teenagers riding in their Hummers. Whoop-dee. What about teens on BIKES, eh? Are
> > there many out in this ng? So much more fun than fording rivers and staying dry...
>
> I'm sorry to say that in the US, bicycle usage is in decline.
>
> Don't know if that is a reflection of kids not pedaling around neighborhoods anymore, or if the
> interest in road racing that brough many adults into bicycling has faded, or something else.
>
> I do know that suburban development, which is largely entirely "car-centric" in nature, makes
> riding around the neighborhood a risky business, even if a destination were near by.

Or if there were a destination to ride to *at all*. Drive two miles to get a loaf of bread. Three to
go to school.

This starts a downward spiral; road traffic increases, making riding on those roads an even more
intimidating prospect, which means more automotive traffic.

Housing development in the suburbs continues unabated; roads that had been previously narrow,
two-lane, seldom-trafficked byways remain narrow and two-lane--but clogged with thousands of more
single-occupancy SUVs, full of people going to work, shops etc, all of which are moving at dozens of
miles per hour beyond posted legal speed limits. None of this helps the cause of the kid being sent
down to the market for bread, or who wants to ride over to the park to play ball.

Fear plays a part. Parents are more afraid for their children, even as their environment (in
statistical terms) gets safer and safer. Random crime, especially as directed at children, sells
papers and generates fear vastly out of proportion to its real danger. Riding a bicycle, then,
becomes a high-risk activity, which parents are unwilling to allow their children to do.

For suburban teens, the car-centricity of the culture (arising, as I have suggested briefly above,
from the pattern of land-use and development) puts them in a social bind. To have a social
life--indeed, contact with your friends--means to get out of the house. But getting out of the
house means driving--therefore driving at the earliest possible opportunity. The bicycle, because
cannot carry them safely anywhere (so everybody tells them, and so they come to believe) is a toy.
Young children play with toys; proper people--as of course all adolescents dream themselves to
be--drive cars.

[These same adolescents will spend a great deal of cash on bicycles, but largely on mountain bikes
which are rarely if ever ridden in a transportational role. The appeal is status--being as cool as
the gravity-game guys on TV--and excess: I have enough cash to spend on a superfluous toy. Witness
the proliferation of over-spec mountain bikes that make college campuses such paradises for
professional bicycle thieves]

So who does get around by bicycle in the suburbs? Where my family lives (Northern Virginia) two
sorts of people: the very affluent, and the very poor.

The very affluent see themselves as the good guys. They are mild-mannered, clark-kent suburbanites
who get on their bikes and go to the nearest train station to go to work.

The very poor bicycle-riders are largely recent immigrants from Central America, for whom the
bicycle is the only choice for transportation. I have seen groups of workmen riding surprising
distances on 20 year old bike boom relics in their work clothes. They ride on sidewalks. They ride
slowly. They are not "Effective Cyclists," they behave like pedestrians. They ride because tehy
can't afford to drive. They can't even afford to buy a new *xmart bike. But they ride.

[This of course leads me to speculate that perhaps bicycle activism is misdirected--that instead of
being directed at the middle-class buyers of nice bikes (I include myself, as I enjoy my
half-kilobuck machine), they should rather be directed to speak to those people which necessity
compels onto two wheels. Education as to rights and responsibilities in traffic, safety, proper
lighting, and the like, *in the appropriate language(s!)* will do a great deal of public good,
reducing accident rates and increasing confidence among these groups]

-Luigi

(the above has been exclusively about my observations on transportational cycling in the suburbs.
Cycling for sport and recreation (largely but not exclusively an elite hobby, I would argue) has
been excluded, as I could attach to that discussion more digressions than can be fixed to a
trailer-hitch bicycle carrier on a Suburban)

 

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> "Stephen Harding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Increasingly, destinations are not near by, nor easily ridable,
>
> One of the worst examples I've seen lately is a housing tract in Myrtle Beach, SC, which is
> adjacent to a junior high school, separated by a narrow strip of wooded open space (maybe 100
> yards). The housing is completely fenced in, with no breaks in the fence for kids to walk through
> to get to school. This is a rather large tract, which takes a good ten minutes to drive from
> entrance to deepest point. I can't imagine what the morning traffic is like (I hear it's
> horrendous). Of course, the reason there are no breaks in the fence is that it wouldn't even occur
> to anyone to walk.

There are many similar examples within two miles of me, here in NE Ohio. For example, there are
two adjacent housing developments with fences, etc. to separate them, because the less-expensive
one features homes worth "only" $150,000. Can't have such rabble roaming the classier
neighborhood, you know!

We've also got a large neighborhood next to a large township park, but no entry to the park. Park
officials actually want kids to be driven in via the five-lane strip-mall road, not bike in. The
theory is that unsupervised kids in a park might cause vandalism!

Our church is on a busy road, but backs up to quiet neighborhoods. No walking access through those
neighborhoods - you're forced to deal with the busy road. Once there was informal access down the
property line between two houses, but one house was sold. The new owner was horrified that people
were walking to church only 30 feet from his house.

I could go on. But the overriding idea is, anything but motorized access is not considered, or
actively discouraged. Unfortunately, it would take a concentrated, dedicated effort to have any hope
of changing this.

--
Frank Krygowski [email protected]

 

"Luigi de Guzman" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> The very poor bicycle-riders are largely recent immigrants from Central America, for whom the
> bicycle is the only choice for transportation. I have seen groups of workmen riding surprising
> distances on 20 year old bike boom relics in their work clothes. They ride on sidewalks. They ride
> slowly. They are not "Effective Cyclists," they behave like pedestrians. They ride because tehy
> can't afford to drive. They can't even afford to buy a new *xmart bike. But they ride.

I see a LOT of those guys in Cincinnati and Newport News. Some have actually graduated to the *mart
bikes. Full susp, 24" rims, ridden by an adult. But, as soon as they can, its into a car.
Frequently, a clapped out SUV or Lincoln. Soon to have the cool rims, and dingleballs hanging from
the mirror.

The building I work in has maybe a couple thousand people. I've seen 3 bike commuters. One guy on a
VW Trek(full commuter setup. lights, fenders, etc), one guy with a Bike E, and me.

>
> [This of course leads me to speculate that perhaps bicycle activism is misdirected--that instead
> of being directed at the middle-class buyers of nice bikes (I include myself, as I enjoy my
> half-kilobuck machine), they should rather be directed to speak to those people which necessity
> compels onto two wheels. Education as to rights and responsibilities in traffic, safety, proper
> lighting, and the like, *in the appropriate language(s!)* will do a great deal of public good,
> reducing accident rates and increasing confidence among these groups]

Not so sure about that. It seems to be working for those that do it. Riding slowly on the sidewalk,
and its not actually that *unsafe*. Just a wheeled pedestrian. And the sidewalks are usually VERY
empty. The trick is to ride very slowly. But it is faster than walking.

If all the rider can afford is a $25 bike, shelling out more for lights and batteries is a no go.

Pete

 

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:21:52 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc, Stephen Harding
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Increasingly, destinations are not near by, nor easily ridable, and the rise of "organized
> activities" in place of ad hoc play for children, has resulted in bicycling being dropped in favor
> of soccer or peewee football, etc.
>
the way to counter this is to start bike clubs in middle schools and carry them over into
high school. some of my club's members did that, with after school training rides and weekend
trail rides.

quite a few of them started competing in our club's mountain bike races, and were beating adults in
races by the time they entered high school. some of them are still riding their bikes a lot even
though they drive, but our school board sends the wrong message: they provide no secure place to
park bikes.

our new high school will have hundreds of car parking places, but they aren't planning bike lockers,
though i have testified at a number of meetings, urging them to do so. kids riding full suspension
MTBs are *not* going to ride them to school if they can be vandalized.

 

On 23 Jan 2003 15:30:23 -0800 in rec.bicycles.misc, [email protected] (Matt J) wrote:

> Well then maybe we should do something? I'm only 15, and I've got a speed-skater friend who rides
> with me. Any way to get bike racing back into the mainstream? I remember the race scenes from
> Breaking Away, and wonder why that can't still happen. What is there to do? Get cycling events on
> network television? In starting a "bike club" at my high school, it's hard to get people to join -
> what can we do in a situation like that?

not that he's not busy enough already, but i wish lance armstrong would spend a little more time
promoting junior racing, since that's where he got his start.

 

[email protected] (Hunrobe) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >[email protected] (Matt J)
>
> wrote:
>
> >Well then maybe we should do something? I'm only 15, and I've got a speed-skater friend who rides
> >with me. Any way to get bike racing back into the mainstream? I remember the race scenes from
> >Breaking Away, and wonder why that can't still happen. What is there to do? Get cycling events on
> >network television? In starting a "bike club" at my high school, it's hard to get people to join
> >- what can we do in a situation like that? Matt
>
>
> What to do: 1- Ignore the lack of mainstream interest in cycling. Nonconformity is not illegal or
> immoral.

> 4- Instead of starting a cycling club from scratch, look into joining an existing club. Just
> because those clubs don't generally meet at the local HS, that doesn't mean you won't be welcome.
> Yes, you may have to ride with some old farts but you *can* always bring along a peer or two.
> Three HS students would have a tough time starting their own club but they could have a blast
> riding with a larger group- if they can keep up with those old farts, that is. <g>
>
> Regards, Bob Hunt

Thanks for the encouragement. It's not the noncomformity I'm worried about -- that just makes things
harder. We've sort of tried to integrate the bike club with a group of "old farts" that two of the
teacher-sponsors ride with on weekends. The problem, however, is that we're not sure how to
introduce someone without intimidating them. 20 mph seems fast to new people... We'll keep working
on it as the weather getswarmer though. Matt

 

> > [This of course leads me to speculate that perhaps bicycle activism is misdirected--that instead
> > of being directed at the middle-class buyers of nice bikes (I include myself, as I enjoy my
> > half-kilobuck machine), they should rather be directed to speak to those people which necessity
> > compels onto two wheels. Education as to rights and responsibilities in traffic, safety, proper
> > lighting, and the like, *in the appropriate language(s!)* will do a great deal of public good,
> > reducing accident rates and increasing confidence among these groups]
>
> Not so sure about that. It seems to be working for those that do it. Riding slowly on the
> sidewalk, and its not actually that *unsafe*. Just a wheeled pedestrian. And the sidewalks are
> usually VERY empty. The trick is to ride very slowly. But it is faster than walking.

Granted. What they are doing, however--riding on the sidewalk--may in actual fact be unlawful,
depending on the jurisdiction.

My interest in this is not entirely altruistic. If motorists see that the only people who are riding
bicycles can't ride them on the road--where they have a legal right to be--it will perpetuate the
fiction that bicycles do not actually belong with normal traffic. This of course means more people
yelling at me to get off the road.

>
> If all the rider can afford is a $25 bike, shelling out more for lights and batteries is a no go.

Lights need not be expensive, just visible. a cheap clamp to attach a flashlight to the handlebars
for the front. Even a super-cheap old-style D-cell rear bicycle light--with a bulb rather than a
LED--would be an immense improvement in nighttime safety for all concerned.

-Luigi

 

MattJ wrote:

>Thanks for the encouragement. It's not the noncomformity I'm worried about -- that just makes
>things harder. We've sort of tried to integrate the bike club with a group of "old farts" that two
>of the teacher-sponsors ride with on weekends. The problem, however, is that we're not sure how to
>introduce someone without intimidating them. 20 mph seems fast to new people... We'll keep working
>on it as the weather gets warmer though.

This and some other comments bring up an issue that I would like info on
- How many local bike clubs (other than BMX or MTB) actually have programs or rides that welcome and
encourage kids to ride with them? My experience has been that the average club tends to ignore
teenagers and younger kids, other than lamenting the fact that kids don't seem to ride anymore. My
12-year-old granddaughter, who has been riding with me since she was old enough to stay upright on
a bike, has done her centuries, group rides, cross-state rides, etc., but complains that she is
usually the only person on most rides who is under 20 or so.

So, what's to be done, other than wringing hands about suburban design, the lack of school
facilities for bikes, and that the culture doesn't encourage it? So far I've seen little in the way
of realistic, constructive suggestions.

Alexander Gilchrist

 

Responding to Matt O'Toole:

I more remember the banana seat bikes then the BMX bikes (were they even called BMX in the 70's? I
don't recall). But yes, children if you noticed played a lot more outside back then. How things have
changed. I also can't recall remembering an adult riding a bike in the 70's.

 

Luigi de Guzman wrote:

> [This of course leads me to speculate that perhaps bicycle activism is misdirected--that instead
> of being directed at the middle-class buyers of nice bikes (I include myself, as I enjoy my
> half-kilobuck machine), they should rather be directed to speak to those people which necessity
> compels onto two wheels. Education as to rights and responsibilities in traffic, safety, proper
> lighting, and the like, *in the appropriate language(s!)* will do a great deal of public good,
> reducing accident rates and increasing confidence among these groups]

There are two make/break areas in promoting bicycle or alternate transport to my mind. These are
land use policies which you mention, and road design.

Land use policies of the post WWII years are beginning to be questioned. The concept of tract
housing, tract malls, and the entire design of suburban communities is undergoing some real change.
Newer ideas of mixing business and domicile areas, thus reducing or at least spreading out motor
traffic has potential. Development of communities where all citizen's household food/supplies,
social, and entertainment needs are within reasonable walking or bicycling distances is quite
attractive, and well recieved by people living in them, albeit usually at higher price.

Design of roadways allowing alternate means of transport better access is also very important.
Whether it be a clearly marked bike lane, just a wide road shoulder, or even a separate path, such
routes are more inviting to pedestrian or bicyclist (skateboarder, scoot, et. al.). You may argue
about the desireability of separate paths or lanes, but the roadway must become more "inviting" to
people choosing not to use a car.

In realist terms though, nothing is going to change until driving becomes more demanding in time
and/or money. Either taking your car out means hours of waiting in traffic and enduring the idiocy
of others stuck with you, or a day trip in the car clearly will take $100.00 out of your pocket due
to high fuel and insurance costs.

SMH

 

"Matt J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Thanks for the encouragement. It's not the noncomformity I'm worried about -- that just makes
> things harder. We've sort of tried to integrate the bike club with a group of "old farts" that two
> of the teacher-sponsors ride with on weekends. The problem, however, is that we're not sure how to
> introduce someone without intimidating them. 20 mph seems fast to new people... We'll keep working
> on it as the weather getswarmer though.

20mph is too fast for new people! (Or even a lot of old people!) The key is to have a couple of
riders who are patient enough to wait for everyone, and bring up the rear. This is how large group
rides are (or should be) organized. It's always someone's job to make sure everyone is looked after.

When I started mountain biking, I rode a bit with a group that met once a week. One of the riders,
who was particularly strong, would ride ahead with the fast group, then head down the mountain again
and bring up the rear, offering encouragement to the newbies and slowbies, making sure they felt
included and welcomed.

Seems to me you're doing a great job already. Keep plugging away -- your enthusiasm *will*
attract others.

Matt O.

 

[email protected] (Dennis P. Harris) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:21:52 -0500 in rec.bicycles.misc, Stephen Harding
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Increasingly, destinations are not near by, nor easily ridable, and the rise of "organized
> > activities" in place of ad hoc play for children, has resulted in bicycling being dropped in
> > favor of soccer or peewee football, etc.
> >
> the way to counter this is to start bike clubs in middle schools and carry them over into
> high school. some of my club's members did that, with after school training rides and weekend
> trail rides.
>
> quite a few of them started competing in our club's mountain bike races, and were beating adults
> in races by the time they entered high school. some of them are still riding their bikes a lot
> even though they drive, but our school board sends the wrong message: they provide no secure place
> to park bikes.
>
> our new high school will have hundreds of car parking places, but they aren't planning bike
> lockers, though i have testified at a number of meetings, urging them to do so. kids riding full
> suspension MTBs are *not* going to ride them to school if they can be vandalized.

Question:

Besides the already mentioned causes for the decline of cycling among young people.
- The relative cheapness of cars
- The way our suburbs are built
- The "regionalization" of schools
- Competition from other activities (e.g., video, internet, organized sports)

Compared with other industries (e.g., auto, video...) HOW MUCH MONEY AND EFFORT HAS THE BIKE
INDUSTRY (those who profit from manufacture and sale of bikes) SPENT IN THE PAST 12 YEARS TO PROMOTE
ITSELF, PARTICULARLY TO YOUNG PEOPLE AND NEW CYCLISTS? (i know that upper case means shouting, i'm
screaming. PS. Ads for dual-suspension-carbon-fiber bikes don't count. They're for already committed
cyclists. Selling one-size-fits-some machines through mass markets without any pre or post sale
support doesn't either. Pushing for TEA funds doesn't count. A child rides a bike, not a TEA fund.)

Case in point: Schools offer driver ed? Yes. Guess why. Schools offer cycling ed? No. Guess why.

Isaac

 

"Isaac Brumer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Compared with other industries (e.g., auto, video...) HOW MUCH MONEY AND EFFORT HAS THE BIKE
> INDUSTRY (those who profit from manufacture and sale of bikes) SPENT IN THE PAST 12 YEARS TO
> PROMOTE ITSELF, PARTICULARLY TO YOUNG PEOPLE AND NEW CYCLISTS? (i know that upper case means
> shouting, i'm screaming. PS. Ads for dual-suspension-carbon-fiber bikes don't count. They're for
> already committed cyclists. Selling one-size-fits-some machines through mass markets without any
> pre or post sale support doesn't either. Pushing for TEA funds doesn't count. A child rides a
> bike, not a TEA fund.)

Bike companies *do* spend a lot of money in this area, but probably not like you're thinking. Mostly
they're involved in racing and other major cycling events, but that's like preaching to the choir,
not evangelism. I do think they would benefit from real evangelism and lobbying.

The biggest obstacle I see is 20 years of gonnagitcha television having convinced parents their kids
are always in danger. Convincing parents their kids should ride bikes to school is a tough sell.

> Case in point: Schools offer driver ed? Yes. Guess why.

Not too many even do that anymore, at least not like they used to.

> Schools offer cycling ed? No. Guess why.

They used to -- we had several days of bike safety instruction every year when I was a kid.
Lectures, skills "rodeos," etc. Of course, kids rode bikes a lot then too, so it was a major
community concern.

I do believe that training kids in cycling and traffic skills from a young age makes them better
drivers later on. I'd like to get some statistics on this, but I'm not sure of the best way to
collect it, or even if it could be done.

Matt O.