Very true, and I certainly sympathise with e-bikers in the USA who have to cope with all sorts of legal variations and difficulties we don't have in the UK.
Yes, that is the walk alongside mode which can operate at up to 4 mph in the UK. It's for walking an e-bike up a hill too steep to cycle. On the continent it's 6 kph (3.7 mph).
I'm really torn on this.
but cycling is such a great form of exercise, it almost seems a sin not to push yourself to get fitter when you're on your bike, rather than just 'amble about'!
It definitely is a bad thing, precisely because it puts so many off attempting to cycle. They see the "peleton" belting along, 20 mph or more with big effort going in and many know they couldn't possibly do that. (Also see below)
No, it's economics that's been the real growth stimulus. The introduction of the London Congestion Charge by Ken Livingstone has resulted in London's cycling commuting tripling and London becoming the UK's chief cycling city. At the present rate of growth bikes will outnumber cars commuting in shortly. Elsewhere the ever rising cost of motoring and fareas have had similar effects. Sport helped cycling to grow on fine weekends, but it's economics that have made daily cycling commonplace.
As posted above, this intense cycling image deters too many. In the Netherlands a huge 70% of the Dutch population cycle daily and they are all visibly much fitter and slimmer than people here. The reason they all cycle even into extreme old age is that cycling there is done at much lower speeds anyone can manage and in normal street clothing without helmets. So it looks so normal no-one is put off and all happily do it.
You either disregarded, failed to mention, or it never occurred to you that these people are cycling on a pancake in a country where drugs are freely available!
Indeed it's largely flat but in an e-bike context that doesn't matter much. Their adoption of pedelecs is the largest proportionally in the world, a third of a million a year sold into a population only a little over a quarter of ours. There's nothing stopping us doing similar.You either disregarded, failed to mention, or it never occurred to you that these people are cycling on a pancake in a country where drugs are freely available!
It’s not a pancake, it only looks that after you’ve eaten their mushrooms....... or so I’m told.You either disregarded, failed to mention, or it never occurred to you that these people are cycling on a pancake in a country where drugs are freely available!
Although come to think of it, a pancake the size of Holland is exactly what I’d want after visiting one of their ‘coffee shops’ I imagine that might be the case for some.
I'm sure financial incentives have been a growth stimulus, but at least some effort into providing (at least perceived) safer car free routes etc would also be playing a big part. As well as there being huge awareness campaigns in the last few years into the need to be more fit and healthy.
I'm not going to contradict that as it may very well be true, however you seem to be applying bad science! i.e. you should not directly link a visibly fitter and slimmer nation to one item without looking at all the other factors in their culture as well.
Again, is that based on hard facts, or are you guessing? You are presenting it as fact, so one would think there is some data somewhere, but then ...
You seem to be blaming the lack of cycling in the UK on the fact that there are indeed keen cyclists out on the road, pushing themselves and wearing cycle specific clothing. Something tells me that might not really be the reason ..... maybe its stuff like weather, distance from workplace, human laziness when the easy car option is available ... stuff like that!
... however I wear cycling gear because ... er ... well because its specifically designed for cycling!?! hence another reason I don't understand this stance against wearing appropriate and optimum clothing that we seem to get so much of on this forum!)
)and more snow and ice in the Netherlands. The joke of the day is my GF out cycling with her friend who upon spotting cyclists with helmets on cries "Oh look! Germans!...
No, the fast moving commuting groups have often been referred to as the peleton in the media, and in here a few times, so it's valid to say that since it very accurately describes the scene.
We aren't speaking of kids but adult besuited office workers. For every occasion when someone might have the passing thought that it might just be for them, there'll be the bad weather or dense fast traffic putting them off. Not to mention just reading about a cyclist crushed under a truck. Basically your argument is too late to the party, those who could be atrracted to join in already have done, hence the very big increase in cycling. It's the intractable lot we need to convince, that ain't easy and lycra and sweaty brows certainly won't do it. Chelsea embankment evening rush hour:
Absolutely not. The very minor incentives before and for a long time after the congestion charge had no effect, it was the charge that resulted in a huge increase in cycling in London. It's only now that just one really safe route has been provided, until now it's been painted lines on existing roads and we all know how useless they are. Some even killed. As for fitness campaigns, it's the gyms that benefit. I know people who drive miles to a gym every evening and they laugh at my suggestion that if they cycled there they could just cycle straight back and save all the membership fees and a lot of time.
The science of the bleedin' obvious is very good science, it's a pity it's not applied more often. What other factors, speaking Dutch? Otherwise they are just like us, except for the waistlines.
Again it's blindingly obvious that the normal appearance will have wider appeal. A besuited city worker stands on the pavement looking at cyclists. A leaning forward, helmeted one in lycra rushes past at speed, grim faced, putting in lots of effort. Then a relaxed and upright normally street dressed cyclist pedals past at moderate speed with little effort. Which method would you think they'd find more readily appealing?
Of course there are all those other reasons and more as well, but we can't influence most of them. But the off-putting effect of the specialised clothing, sporting image of cycling is very real, whether you accept it or not. It's far outside what most of the population will consider.
Why is advancing arguments that are evidence for what I'm saying cherry picking? The way to oppose them is to show me evidence that what I'm saying isn't true.
Answered above. The way to make cycling really popular is to make it as natural and available as walking, just like some European countries have done. That means just step outside, get on your sensible bike and ride. No need for fancy clothing or cycle clips with a full chainguard, nor a helmet at sensible speeds. That's so available at all times that people do it routinely as automatically as they walk.
).
That was me, it shows what cycling should be like here in Britain if it's ever to become popular with the majority, rather than something done by only 3% of the population. Here it is again, showing how friendly and adaptable cycling as transport can be if public attitudes change and our police and authorities chill out instead of insisting on rigid conformity to nanny state rules. Please watch both parts one and two for a real eye opener as to what cycling can be:
I just spent 2 min doing some reading, and good old wikipedia states:
I don't disagree. But its the Lycra hate that I have a problem with. You don't have to get rid of fast cyclists to allow the above to happen. They are not mutually exclusive!
Again, I agree with you. However my previous point about not dissing' the lycra sports brigade, is that without those keen cyclists, cycling could very well have died out totally! And its high profile sports people like Chris Boardman promoting cycling nowadays that's helping things forward. And something tells me he didn't ride in jeans most of the time ....
Can't you see the obvious connection? When 70% cycle they are used to activity and so are much more likely to participate in sport. I'm sure it was the cycling first that led to the high level of sporting engagement.
Those sort of minor differences do not add up much at all, it's the big differences that do. Like our 3% cycling and their 70% cycling, that's very different.
Again I'm well aware of this and the great Dutch race cyclists over the years, but in comparison with their scale of utility cycling it's very small scale indeed.
You're missing the obvious again, the ratio of one to the other. Ours is inverted, the sport style cycling so dominant that our pathetically low level of utility cycling is scarcely seen. That's why so many find the idea of cycling offputting when they are led to believe that is how it has to be to fit in.
Absolutely, it was only roadies who kept British cycling alive from the 1960s to 1980. And that was the trouble, combined with the introduction of mountain biking emphasising the sporting nature. At least three quarters of our population have little idea of what utility cycling is or how it dominated our cycling long ago.
They're very useful for those times when you want to ride sidesaddle, to free up a leg, just for kicks.
They're also handy if one of your legs drops off, or your chain breaks, or your pedal drops off and so on.
Excellent. It would be good (and presumably easy?) therefore for you to actually back up what you claim with hard evidence?
That is indeed one possible connection.
Again, you're using a circular argument. There might very well be other social, political and historical issues that cause these differences and they might be the ones that mean cycling is far more popular over there.
You might be right, you might not. Again, if you have hard evidence to back this up, I'd be interested to see it.
I'm intrigued to find out how you think those figures 'kill my opposing arguments stone dead' and back yours up.
