"At $2/litre I will fix my bicycle, I will get more exercise, I will lose weight, I will get fitter, I will live longer, I will get more things done, I will sleep better, I will notice more things as I pass them by, I will meet more people, I will be more relaxed and less grumpy, I will take more pleasure in my family as we ride together and, who knows, I may even get lucky."
...commented Ian Mott at yesterday's blog post on peak oil.
And he continued,
"When I set out in 1979 to ride a bicycle from Singapore to Bangkok, bicycles had played only minor roles in my life before then. It took me three days to get up to 150km each day and a week for it to become routine. But the key to the adjustment was not fitness, but rather, all in the mind.
At some point I stopped focussing on how big the task was and simply headed off to the local store for breakfast. And instead of going back home I went the same distance further on. I did the same at morning tea, lunch, afternoon tea and dinner and I did the same the next day and the next.
I ate at roadside stalls and was welcomed into humble shacks, I slept on moonlit beaches and rubber plantations, I washed in creeks and rewarded myself with hot showers and a comfy bed from time to time. In the heat of tropical day and outrageous humidity, I provided my very own 15km/hour breeze to caress my temples. My lips were chaffed, my neck was sunburnt and my ass felt every single pothole.
But there was never a single moment when I did not feel 100% alive.
Now what, exactly, is all this about peak oil?"
Plenty of nthn Europeans and Asians get to work/school/daycare by bike. In some more progressive European countries they realise the economic benefits that Motty pointed out above of getting more bikes & fewer cars on the roads. They also realise the broad benefits from the health gains. (Also many european health funds and even employers will give financial or other incentives to people who exercise regularly, realising lower costs and higher productivity).
Hasbeen I'm familiar with backbreaking work in the country as that was my upbringing. The trip to school for me was a torturous long indirect bus each way (conditions permitting) or a much quicker direct cycle. I had to bike to the bus anyway, altho I'd prefer to take my horse but I nowhere to leave it while at school all day.
Taxes could be redirected into improvements that ultimately benefit all, eg fuel taxes should be paying to create safe cycleways for daily commutes and improve public transport to reduce urban car numbers & infrastructure pressure for more badly managed, overly expensive road projects that we'll never pay off.
Having separate safe lanes for bicycle and other non-car traffic could open up opportunities for designer quads & hybrid bikes & kiddy pods & the like. Right now we have too many safety restrictions on the types of vehicles that are allowed for much innovation to occur.
Hasbeen, you appear to be assuming that no-one else but you pays taxes and rates. I am fully aware of the fiscal imbalances between city and bush but the alternative to a $0.5 million/km "luxury" bikeway is another motorway at $50 million/KM that will only operate at capacity for 25 hours a week.
Don't mix the issues. A reduction in urban costs can only be of broader benefit. And your point about the length of commuting is only valid if there is no public transport interface. That is, ride to the train, ride the train with bike, ride from train to work.
And I see "mums on their way to daycare" on their bicycles every day. In fact, ten years ago I took my first born to pre-school by bicycle.
It now takes me 26 minutes to drive 1.3km to school and back to pick up the kids because of the traffic. Yes, they could walk but due to the fact that we no longer institutionalise our potentially dangerous mentally ill, that is a risk that few parents are willing to take. And bikes, in that sort of traffic are even more dangerous.
But yes, most will not use their own power, some for more valid reasons than others. But they can certainly switch to the designer quad bike (with screen, canopy and kid seats) whenever someone has the sense to market one.
Tinxi, has it ever occured to you that some of us have worked very hard physically. We, in the bush, have had to work harder as we more, & more, subsidise the city, with our products, & now our water. We can no longer afford labour, & have to do it all ourselves.
This tends to lead to damaged knees, & backs. Its cities that are full of non workers, & fat people.
Yes, my fuel taxes have paid five times over for our roads. It has also paid for your health system, [we don't have one in the bush any more], & the welfare system.
Anything we want is now user pays, in fact, we still pay for water, when the river is dry. So for the bush you could say we pay, even when we can't use it.
Ian, if its so valuable to you city folk, just make sure you pay for it, out of your local rates.
It is only a very small number of city people, basically, the more affluent, who can afford to live in suburbs near areas of high employment. In fact, its probably fair to say, the trendy suburbs.
Most city people live too far from their workplace to be able to cycle, & I can't see many mums, on their way to day care using a cycle.
We found it impossible to get a cycle path, for our kids to use to ride to school, but I suppose you could not pass the trendy test.
Wrong angle, Hasbeen. The imperative in urban landscapes is not cost recovery but congestion loss minimisation. And shifting 10,000 cars off a main road for even 5km has a higher return than building an extra lane for the next increment of 10,000 cars.
All major cities have moved beyond the increasing returns to scale part of the cost/volume relationship and are clearly into the avoiding diseconomies stage. And as long as they continue to grow then that will be the case.
maybe I was wrong!
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/thousands-buy-cycles/2006/07/15/1152637916782.html
hasbeen are ALL roads & related infrastructure are funded ONLY from petrol excises? Here's a proposal for ya: people who have mobility issues because they've let their health detoriate through neglect and laziness should have to pay additional taxes for roads and public transport and health care. Why should fit people's taxes and health insurance fees pay for the health limitations of lazy fatties with mobility issues? All of my forebears have been active, healthy, mobile and stronger than oxes well into their 70's. They go out fighting fit.
Use it OR lose it and pay more tax - that should be the neo-liberal govt granny state motto!!
I could not cycle as far as my nearest shop, to save my life, due to age related physical limitations.
I would be realy pissed off to see any more of my taxes, state, or council, spent on such a limited use item.
Now, if you were prepared to pay for them yourselves, with a cycle registration fee, that would be reasonable.