Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Paul Sanchez
2659 Followers
Columbine Phoenix
1283 Followers
Columbine Phoenix
1283 Followers
Janine Wallace
4729 Followers
Janine Wallace
4729 Followers
Janine Wallace
4729 Followers
Weird Ralph
3262 Followers
Weird Ralph
3262 Followers
pantagesAug 8, 2010
Digg Patriot Article.
appleofdischordAug 8, 2010
but bicycles are socialist.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
You know Stalin rode a bicycle?
/s
pryckAug 8, 2010
Hipsterfags
ianmgullAug 8, 2010
lol @ Fatties
theosterAug 8, 2010
Hipst*YAAWWN*erfags...so....tired....
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
sorry you are so hostile towards exercise
theosterAug 8, 2010
*YAAAWWN*
worldsdayAug 8, 2010
This is a good thing!
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
I know the article is based on America but this is also true for UK, specifically London. Its not such a good thing though, since people are forced to either walk or cycle since travelling costs go up every 6 months. Their almost at £3(or $5) for a one way bus ride. And theres absolutely no change in service. The transporation is still s**t, with no proper heating for winter or air con for summer.
/rant. But i f**king hate public transportation in the UK.
simonnAug 9, 2010
Also true in Australia. Although the transport share is smaller, the increases in cycling over the past 2 years have been amazing. Even through winter. I hardly ever saw another cyclist through winter until this year.
Count yourself lucky as far as public transport goes. Seriously, in the grand scheme, London is pretty good. You should try living in Sydney. My commute is the equivalent of Barnet to the City in distance. Takes > 2 hours by public transport if everything runs on time, which it never does. Takes me between 55 mins (quickest ever) to 75 mins (if I do not really want to get out of breath) to cycle, and that includes about 500M of climbing in both directions. FWIW, same distance by car is 45 mins (just before peak) to 90 mins (peak).
skinturtleAug 8, 2010
Man this'll really piss the GOP off. All those people not buying gasoline?...Ohhh the outrage!!
mwrlAug 8, 2010
This might be shocking, but many of these programs are appointed by the GOP. Democrats are outraged due to the loss in tax revenue.
Why the GOP? It was more along the lines of safely keeping bikes and walkers off major roads and causing traffic slow down. Most on the right support bike lanes in order to force those on bikes to stay out of the motoring lanes.
loonacyAug 8, 2010
Anecdotal:
Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes is warning voters that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's policies, particularly his efforts to boost bike riding, are "converting Denver into a United Nations community."
http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_15673894
craftyguyAug 8, 2010
I know I'll be dugg down into oblivion for bringing this up, but when will states start requiring people to pay for bike registration to cover the costs of all this new biking infrastructure they are putting in? I know Portland, OR is spending a ridiculous amount of money to place bike lanes right in the middle of city streets.
So not only are motorists paying for the roads, but they are also paying to have lanes converted so they can't even use them. People do not realize that it's like relying on an alcohol tax to fund AA..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlmorgAug 8, 2010
The infrastructure is already there; they are just creating room for bicyclists. Moreover, I don't have a car but I pay taxes that go to roads which are, for the most part, used by cars; I don't care, though, because, oddly enough, I think it's ok for some of my money to benefit others.
drdepoyAug 8, 2010
Yes, I pay taxes that go towards road infrastructure in the form of state, federal and local taxes.
The truth is that pavement laid for automobiles must be resurfaced about once every 5 years or so. If there were only cyclists, this would be more like 20 or 30 years. Most pedestrian and cycling programs are added onto already planned road maintenance, and the costs of doing this are minuscule compared to the cost of the auto related maintenance.
rainierbeerAug 8, 2010
Most of the cost of bicycle improvement in Portland, OR is paid from monies collected through property taxes, which people pay if they own property or pay indirectly if they rent. Gasoline taxes and vehicle registration typically pay for major infrastructure improvement and highway programs, which city cyclists do not generally benefit from.
craftyguyAug 8, 2010
@mlmorg
The roads are there, but they will no longer be if they are not maintained. If Portland continues to push cars off the roads, then either 1) new taxes will have to be levied against EVERYONE to pay for maintenance, 2) bicycle registration
I do not think it is right for non-bicycle riders to pay for their infrastructure, just like I do not think it is right for non-drivers to have to pay for streets.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
zb757Aug 8, 2010
Because no one will pay the registration
acqua206Aug 9, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
nextAug 9, 2010
@craftyguy
Gasoline taxes are not the primary source of transportation revenue. And of course, as drdepoy has essentially said, it saves wear and tear on the roadway for every cyclist NOT driving a car.
Oh, and interestingly enough, Portland has generally allocated about 1% of its transportation budget to cycling infrastructure. It takes very little money to do these transportation projects. The biggest hurdle in most areas is motorists upset that they might lose a lane of traffic and such.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
Guess its high time to tax bicycles and shoes then!
kanockAug 8, 2010
Great stuff, but I expect most of these people are fit and healthy already.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
id still rather see more bike and walking paths than fast food restaurants
ianmgullAug 8, 2010
I smoked for 12 years. I bought a bike and quit. I was in terrible shape but 1.5 years later I can hang with the some of the pros. Just completed my first 50 mile ride yesterday. It isn't as hard as many may think.
/coolstorybro
webchimp32Aug 8, 2010
Sorry, but you can't cool your own story bro.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
Cool story bro.
kolop1Aug 8, 2010
I ride a bike as part of a regular exorcise routine.
rootsm3Aug 8, 2010
And did it get all the demons out?
stillhateyouAug 8, 2010
It's good that people are walking and biking more, but Critical Mass can suck my ass.
hipmanAug 8, 2010
Why the hate?.
sneezyxAug 8, 2010
Because he drives and they get in his way. Boo hoo hoo!
stillhateyouAug 8, 2010
No, all the hate because those f**ks have an excessively large sense of entitlement and think that they don't need to obey traffic laws.
sunnycutsAug 8, 2010
Ride a bicycle on a regular basis and your view on who has the entitlement and who obeys the rules of the road will change.
stillhateyouAug 8, 2010
No in fact my view wouldn't change. Aside from speed, most drivers(and most cyclists), obey the law. They stop at stop signs and red lights and observe the proper right of way. The only time I see people who think it's okay to run red lights and act like the road belongs only to them is Critical Mass. If they want to do that, then they should go downtown and get a permit from the city, just like everyone else who wants to obstruct the road has to do.
rambleAug 8, 2010
I'm a cyclist and I think Critical Mass are a bunch of misguided d**kh**ds.
atai1638Aug 9, 2010
I agree with you that CM sucks. Critical mass kinda attracts all the bats**t crazy cyclists pissing drivers on the road. It just gives other cyclists a bad name.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
xestrelAug 8, 2010
It's excellent to ride or walk to work or to stores. It's great that this number seems to be going up. However, this infographic seems to mostly hammer home the factor that DOT spending on riding/walking is rising _VERY_ fast, and if that spending has any influence on the actual rise in person-powered transport, it's very inefficient at best.
If I interpret the image correctly, spending has increased by a factor of 200 since 1990 (6 Million to 1.2 Billion!), while biking and walking as increase by less than a factor of 2.5.
Pretty infographic, but what's the real story here?
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
think recovery act.....im sure a nice chunk of that $1.2B is coming from there..... which is ok with me... better than it going towards the "war"
nextAug 9, 2010
The real story here is: build it and they will come.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
they almost look like nerds...... now i want some nerds
widgetkingAug 8, 2010
Nice!
theosterAug 8, 2010
i gotta give NYC credit for their huge push for bikes in the city. more lanes being made, more racks, and last year they passed a law that mandates buildings of a certain occupancy must allow a certain square footage per number of people for interior bike storage.
heading to Central Park now :)
maildaveAug 8, 2010
Huge push for bikes that the police steal at will, without proper signage or any notification where your bike went, or why it was taken.
theosterAug 8, 2010
gotta ask where you chained it and quite frankly how you think they should leave notification. (and this is NOT an endorsement of the corrupt bunch of assh**es that is the NYPD)
maildaveAug 9, 2010
This is the incident to which I am referring:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/04/22/nypd-celebrates-earth-day-with-massive-houston-street-bike-clipping/
There's also this:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/28/rnc.bike.protest/index.html
and this:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/ex-officer-avoids-jail-time-in-arrest-of-times-square-bicyclist/
I'm not even a bicycle activist, I just wouldn't exactly call us a utopia or a model for other cities, and we really should be. (I can't really find anything juicy on the Hacid's quasi-legal removal of the south Williamsburg bike lane)
tpartyanimalAug 8, 2010
What part of the constitution allows the federal government to spend money on this?
bobojonesAug 8, 2010
I'll take the "general welfare" clause for $400 Alex.
drdepoyAug 8, 2010
What part of the constitution allows the government to legislate marriage?
tpartyanimalAug 8, 2010
The federal government has no power to legislate marriage. The states have that power, and I wish they would stay out of it as well.
nextAug 9, 2010
I think even most libertarians agree that the government is able to spend money on roads...unless you think it's something the states should specifically fund? In which case, would you post this comment in a thread about roads? Stop being an assh**e.
tpartyanimalAug 9, 2010
I agree entirely that road building is an important government function. But the US is a country of laws, the highest of which is the constitution. I suggest you read it.
Amendment 10 states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The powers delegated to the federal government are enumerated in Article 1, section 8.
So unless these bicycle paths are "post roads", the federal government is forbidden from building them, and they must be built by the states. Subverting the rule of law is a dangerous bicycle path to go down.
nextAug 9, 2010
That's really interesting. I had never really thought about the meaning of "post roads".
However, there are many roads the federal government funds that aren't used for moving mail, and most bicycle infrastructure uses existing road ways, regardless. Separated bike paths tend to be separate projects with strange grant funding sources, such as rail-trail conversions.
Are you against the federal government funding roadways that are not specifically required for USPS? What about pedestrian amenities such as sidewalks? If so, I can respect your position, as it really does appear to have some constitutional merit. Although, of course, there are countless things they fund that are patently unconstitutional (unless you really do agree with the abuse of the interstate commerce clause).
gerrylazloAug 8, 2010
I'd like to bike more for my day to day, but it's impossible without risking my life to the point of absurdity. I can't think of a single road withing 20 miles that has a bike lane on it.
mesasoneAug 9, 2010
Weird, there are 12 foot wide bike lanes everywhere I look.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
I'm all for cycling to work.. but unless your city is outfitted with bike lanes kindly stay the F off my tiny two-lane roads. You create MANY problems for motorists. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mesasoneAug 9, 2010
QQ. Cyclist have every legal right to use roads. Self important, overly aggressive drivers and poor urban planning create MANY problems for motorists - and cyclists - a like.
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
Sure, it's your legal right. Now let's look at the problems:
1) Severe danger to self and motorists.
2) Cause long line of traffic to build up behind - results in a lot of braking, thus wasting gas. So much for green transportation - you simply transfer your fuel burden to other motorists by forcing them to brake.
3) Forces drivers to make risky maneuvers to pass you. Driving into oncoming traffic lane, etc.
4) Increases stress levels for everyone involved.
5) Increases commute time for motorists.
If your community has bike lanes, then none of these things apply. If they don't, then take a look again at that list and consider the traffic, safety, and environmental impacts of your cycling. Yes, I said environmental impacts. Cycling isn't as green as you'd like to think when an individual cyclist affects hundreds of motorists on a single morning commute, forcing them to brake more frequently and waste gas. Cyclists can't maintain the posted speed limits and this causes MAJOR issues if there are no dedicated bike lanes.
Worse, I rarely see cyclists using sidewalks. They claim this is dangerous to pedestrians. Maybe in some areas.. however in my area the sidewalks tend to be double-width and perfectly suited for cyclists. I rarely see pedestrians on them and even so, a cyclist should be more aware of his surroundings compared to a vehicle due to the lower speed and open nature of a bicycle.
mesasoneAug 11, 2010
1) Severe danger? Distracted drivers are a danger to everybody on the road, not just cyclists. Cyclists who do not follow the rules of the road and ride unpredictably, ignoring traffic control, right of ways, and not checking/signaling before turns and lane changes are dangerous. Safe and alert drivers and cyclists a like can share the road with out issue.
2) A cyclist does not cause traffic to build up behind them, unless they are doing it on purpose - intentionally impeding traffic is illegal regardless of whether you are on a bike or in a car. If you can not pass a cyclist, that would suggest poor urban planning leading to congested roads. The cyclist has little to do with it. In regards to the reduced green factor - you're really grasping at straws there buddy.
3) Nobody is forcing you to make a risky maneuver. Use some common sense and pass when it is safe. If the road is so packed full of traffic that you can't pass safely, this would again suggest poor urban planning and development. The road clearly can't handle the traffic and the cyclist has nothing to do with it.
4) Get over it. People get themselves worked up over the stupidest things, and there is nothing I can do about it. If they weren't wringing about a cyclist on the road, it would be something else.
5) I don't see how having to slow down up for 10-15 seconds max while you wait for the appropriate opportunity is realistically contributing to commute times. There are dozens of other factors that contribute more signficantly to the length of time spent on your commute, any of which can work against you on any given day and cause you to have a slightly longer commute. A responsible adult takes this into account and gives themselves enough time to get to where they need to be even if something comes up.
Finally, sidewalks are for pedestrians, and many cities and towns in fact have ordinances against the use of bicycles on sidewalks.
Ultimately, we can both at least agree that urban planning and development in this country needs to be looked it. The problem is much bigger than just the fact that the city engineers did not take cyclists into account. We've allowed our cities and metro areas to sprawl out over massive chunks of land, and have poorly thought out roadways to link our suburban enclaves with the rest of the metro region, resulting in long commutes and traffic jams.
At the end of the day, we live in the United States of America, where we follow the rule of law - not the rule of opinion.
Lastly, I realize my reply is fairly antagonistic, but my dinner and ready and frankly I don't feel like rewriting it right now, so it will be posted "as-is". Take that for what it's worth.
relentlewisAug 8, 2010
here in the UK we have a 'cycle to work scheme' where bicycles can be purchased at a considerably discounted price through your employer. Its a really great incentive to get more people to use their bikes instead of cars!
thanatosstAug 8, 2010
I'd bike more places if I could take a shower once I arrived. No way will I bike a few miles in 90+ degree weather when I have to be around people for the rest of the day.
drdepoyAug 8, 2010
You can go into the bathroom and sponge off your face and extremities, put on deodorant, and change clothes. It takes 5 minutes and can be done at any place with a sink. I do it every day just about, and it isn't a big deal.
vgssAug 8, 2010
Extremities isn't the problem. It's your core and crotch. No one wants to deal with that at quarter to nine in the morning.
gerrylazloAug 8, 2010
Yeah, I really want to get up every morning, get dressed, and then change again at work 20 mins later after a whore's bath. No thanks. And I like biking.
nextAug 9, 2010
It's actually pretty nice to wake up, throw on bike clothes, ride in, then get cleaned up and dressed at work. I'm actually awake when I get ready, which I wouldn't be at home that early.
ianmgullAug 8, 2010
And again a wave of people make unprovoked excuses. Feeling guilty??
scottixAug 8, 2010
I have a walk score of 92 :)
http://www.walkscore.com/
sclubdevinAug 8, 2010
89 here. I don't know how you can get a better score than mine unless there is a hardware store on your block.
sclubdevinAug 8, 2010
Mine is 89. I don't know how you can have a better score than mine unless you have a hardware store on your block. Pretty much all the things on the list are right around the corner for me.
scottixAug 8, 2010
Lets see across the street; Borders, Movie Theater, 10 International restaurants, Peets, Dentist, carpool, bus stop, college, Subway
2 Blocks away; Post Office, Amtrak, Breakfast place, furniture store, wine store, gas station, fedex Kinkos, Denny's, Wells Fargo, Various nic nack stores,
3 Blocks away; Marshals, Starbucks, Jamba Juice, Trader Joes, Burger King, Bev Mo, Ross, Metro PCS, Freeway, Hotels, Men's Warehouse
3.5 - 4 Blocks (no im not done); Another movie theater, Gap, Nike, Apple, Att, Parking Structure, PF Changs, CPK, Elephant bar, Baja fresh, Barnes and Nobles, Old Navy, more restaurants, Sunglass hut, J. Jill, Steve Madden Shoes, E3 furniture, Ikea
I'm sure there are some I missed haha.
paulsaboAug 8, 2010
28...
socalcoveAug 8, 2010
83 where am at curently, And yeah its pretty damn walkable.
71 for where am moving to next month. DOH
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
You also have a picture of a car as your profile photo
sfhandymanAug 8, 2010
My walkscore is 95 :) I live in San Francisco, Downtown. I sold my truck 7 years ago when I moved here. I walk almost everywhere.
cyrixAug 8, 2010
Huh, I got a 98 for my town, which is actually really surprising. Though I suppose the fact it's a college town is why.
dukeonkledAug 8, 2010
I got a 20. It's funny because I walk just about everywhere.
iboxAug 8, 2010
I got a 0 :( still get around on my bike pretty well.
gbarberiAug 8, 2010
Where I live is a 75; where I work in NYC is a 100.
mesasoneAug 9, 2010
I've got only a score of 69, but I don't feel that accurately reflects my area... there is nothing, save for maybe a doctors office, that is not with in walking distance (approx. half mile) from my apartment. Dry cleaners, dentist, optometrist, grocery store, movie theater, tons of places to eat, etc. And I have two bus lines that practically that go right past my door that will take me to the University or downtown Iowa City, but apparently the local transit departments do not post their data online (or something?), so that maybe dragging my score down.
bahamut240Aug 9, 2010
My last apartment in Chicago's Lakeview neighborhood got a 100. Now I am at 79. =(
kd1sAug 8, 2010
I walk 1.2 miles to the bus hub in my city then another quarter mile to the job after a bus ride.
Biking really isn't a safe option because the roadway I'd have to take is potholed, and heavily trafficked. There is barely provision for pedestrians let alone bikes.
sclubdevinAug 8, 2010
I just moved into Baltimore city and still have to drive to the suburbs for work, and god I wish I had a job I could walk or bike to. I love being able to walk to get food, beer, and basically anything I could really want. If only Baltimore were more bike-friendly
drdepoyAug 8, 2010
!!!!!!!!!!!
Baltimore has _HUGE_ biking culture! Take a trip around Homewood or Mount Vernon districts during the day, and you will see no shortage of hipsters riding bikes. I used to ride from Towson to the Inner Harbor a few times a month without any problem. Velocipede is the name of the local Co-op, and is right across the street from the Charles Theater.
Here is a link to a Baltimore bike map, with trails and bike lanes highlighted:
http://www.citypaper.com/news/bikes/map.asp
bcronosAug 8, 2010
How about the bicyclists start paying their own way instead of using my gas taxes etc?
nextAug 9, 2010
You should consider doing more research into how roads are funded, (it's more than the gas tax) as well as the impact of your two ton SUV versus my 30lbs road bike.
Something tells me you're just against cyclists being on the road, or do you equally s**t up digg comments complaining about hybrids and electric vehicles?
bcronosAug 9, 2010
I'm just against cyclists that think they have as much right to use the roads as I do with my (2 1/4 ton) SUV when they haven't paid a dime. Those roads wouldn't exist if if wasn't for the cars and trucks paying for them. Buy a license for your bike for $50 a year and we're even.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nextAug 9, 2010
@bcronos: As I said, I pay to fund the roadways through other sources, including income taxes and such.
Considering that my bike doesn't damage the roads anywhere near as much as an automobile, why would I pay as much as you? I can't even take advantage of the gigantic freeways that the transportation budget is being used to build, maintain, and expand.
I think someone else said it in jest, but do you support licensing shoes, as people are able to freely walk on roadways? Beyond that, it's important to note that cyclists don't contribute to polluting water sources from the crap automobiles leave behind, don't cause messy accidents that cost us for the use of the judicial system, emergency services, etc. Your vehicle is a MUCH greater financial burden on the roadway (and society as a whole), so it makes sense that you pay more for it.
andyperfectAug 8, 2010
Does a 3x increase in the number of bikers and walkers really merit 200x more money being spent on such projects?
outlawstar13Aug 8, 2010
No. However, I guess a follow up question would be whether the 3x increase is all there will be or if there is more potential for growth, but there is a lag due to people's difficulty in changing their habits. For instance, I have had people here in West Virginia tell me about how when the interstate first opened it was practically empty, because people were still primarily using the old country roads that they HAD to use before.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
When they used to spend practically nothing, then yes.
nextAug 9, 2010
To expand on what NiftyG said:
So, if they spent nothing before, or maybe $5, we'd be talking about a 10000000000x increase, correct? That metric really means nothing, since ped/cyclist funding was basically on the verge of a statistical anomaly in the federal transportation budget.
c4m320nAug 8, 2010
I have to say just this year I have become quite addicted to taking hikes. In fact I just took an 18 mile hike last week. Oh that reminds me, I'm going to go hike now.
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
Dude! That's a really long freaking way to walk. I did just did 15 miles (and 4000 ft of elevation gain) and my legs were literally giving out from under me on the last stretch 0_0
twinklyjesusAug 8, 2010
You may see more people shooting rainbows and glitter out of their asses too. Nobody walking to work in Houston in the summer.
No one outside of urban dwellers in SF or Seattle will be walking to work anytime soon. Too, hot, cold, far or difficult due to things required to carry to work.
You can rant all you want about GOP and Tea Party blah blah blah, it ain't gonna change and you ain't doing anything but wankin' yourself.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nameivomAug 8, 2010
Houston? Isn't Houston one of the fattest cities in America?
(Sent from iDigg)
mesasoneAug 9, 2010
I can't speak for walking, but I get around all year round on a bike in Iowa City, Iowa. The heat tends to be a bit lower than Houston - though we do have stretches of 100 degree heat with 90% + humidity - but we also have the other extreme in the winter with temperatures reaching 30F below zero during cold snaps. It's certainly possible, although admittedly not practical for many families with where and how they've chosen to live.
Oh, and I'm not a student at the University - I hold down a well paying job.
bustaballsAug 8, 2010
Can anyone recommend a bike that won't break down after 2 weeks and is still affordable? I've bought probably 30+ bikes in my life and every time, they break after about 1-2 weeks.
tommyrAug 8, 2010
There are MANY great, sturdy bikes. Giant makes great comfort and commuter bikes for instance. Trek, Fuji, etc. A good bike will cost you more than the department store types. You get what you pay for. Expect to pay from $400 - $1,000 for a decent bike. My Giant Sedona cost me just under $400.
bustaballsAug 8, 2010
That might be my problem. I don't think I've ever paid more than $150 for a bike. However, I was unable to find a bike that I didn't have to assemble or pay $1000+ for. I probably need to go to a city with a bike shop.
tommyrAug 8, 2010
Yup, go to a local bike shop. It's the best way to go. Usually they throw in a free tune up into the deal and the advise and service is priceless.
zb757Aug 8, 2010
With those prices, I'm really glad my mom gave me her nice bike she doesn't use anymore. Apparently it cost round $300 in the 1980s and would be on the level of the $1200 bikes today. As a plus, still works fine, although I need new pedals and an adjustment on the rear brake
mesasoneAug 9, 2010
Learn how to do basic maintenance and take care of a job, and a decent "vintage" bike from craigslist will serve you well. Stay away from suspension mountain bikes (most of those are neglected Walmart bikes anyway), and other "Super" store brands. I'd highly recommend a touring bike from the 70's or 80's. I think a lot of people are scared away by drop bars (which most tourers will likely have) - and you can certainly switch them out if you don't like them - but they are really wonderful once you get used to them.
Another thing is to make sure you get a bike that fits, it's important not only for comfort but also performance - it's really amazing how much faster and easier you can get up hills, etc when your bike is properly adjusted.
Finally, you might look into seeing whether or not you have a local bike-coop. They can get you on the road for quite cheap and give you the skills to maintain your bike.
bahamut240Aug 9, 2010
Another problem with suspension bikes is that if you are in the city they are hard to lock up with a Ulock. The tire is too far away from the frame.
Closed AccountAug 8, 2010
For the price of 30+ "affordable" bikes you could have easily bought one really good bike and have been done with it.
Go to a good bike store and expect to pay a few hundred minimum for a bike. Another good place for bikes is REI.
bustaballsAug 8, 2010
You're right. However, when I get paid, I don't have $400+ spending money. I have to save for a month or two to even afford the cheap bikes. I'll be sure not to make the same mistake in the future, either way.
nextAug 9, 2010
@bustaballs
If you have the time, see if there's a local bike rescue or coop in your area. Just google "<yourtown> bike rescue" and see what comes up (or if you're in a larger area, whatever the region is).
If you're willing to learn and help rebuild a bike, they'll get you set up for cheap, as well as make sure you know how to do most maintenance necessary to stay on the road.
acqua206Aug 9, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
trent1492Aug 9, 2010
I bought one of those for my kid last October. Just last month the both of us bicycled across Montana. Me on Trek 7500 and he on a Fuji Newest 3.0. Good times - mostly.
bungdiddyAug 10, 2010
Just spend money and be done with it. Don't get your bike from a sporting goods store - go to a local bike shop and listen to their advice. Good bikes aren't cheap.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
http://digg.com/users/lostlyrics/gallery/4806866
€ 1300
bipolarruledoutAug 8, 2010
Is it population adjusted? What about vehicle adjusted? Because unless people are being born without legs now then these numbers don't mean much.
bcronosAug 9, 2010
I'm just against cyclists that think they have as much right to use the roads as I do with my (2 1/4 ton) SUV when they haven't paid a dime. Those roads wouldn't exist if if wasn't for the cars and trucks paying for them. Buy a license for your bike for $50 a year and we're even.
romantictireAug 10, 2010
I still ride my Toys R Us 22 speed mountain bike that I have had for over 16 years now. Replaced the chain, brakes and new tires and the bike is still comfortable to ride. Why don't they make crappy products that last any more?