Quote:
Originally posted by Mean Mr. Mustard+Aug 13 2005, 09:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mean Mr. Mustard @ Aug 13 2005, 09:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-InTheSlot@Aug 13 2005, 06:27 PM
@MeanMrMustard: About the bike paths, who wants to ride a bike 40 or 45 minutes to work as you claim you could do and get there nice and sweaty just in time for your presentation to the board?
|
Ok I did a little test as too how long it takes to get downtown riding a bike at above average speed on the pathways (didn't get caught either) and it took a grand total of 23 minutes and 50 seconds, less time actually than it would take if one were to be stuck in rushhour traffic or at least comparable time, as a result I really don't think that the arguement of time could come into consideration unless someone was living out in the boonies (I live out in Ranchlands - which is besides Crowfoot if you didn't know). Secondly the issue regarding sweat, I must say pretty much every major corporation has showers and other amenities which are available for use for those who do activities such as go for a run over lunch. You know what you have a meeting really early in the morning, drive in. But for the average day I see no reason as to why the shower at work would be such a horrible alternitive.
Plus that travel time would be cut down significantly with the establishment of the high speed bike paths where one doesn't have to continually slow down for pedestrians and other objects on the bike path.
Really you seem to be stretching pretty heavily for arguements against the building of high speed bike paths. It reduces gas consumption, increases exercise and thus creates a healthier population, increases safety for pretty much everyone on the road (especially cyclists, and to a lesser extent pedestrians on the bike paths who have a habit of walking pretty much everywhere without a care in the world or paying any attention at all, and even the average motorist who wouldn't have to look out for cyclists on the major roads and could pay more attention to the actual driving).
But you don't want to ride your bike into work, then don't but at the same time I see way to many advantages associated with the establishment of these paths to dismiss the idea out of hand. [/b][/quote]
You're telling me that you think you could bike to a place faster than you could travel by car? You said "above average speeds"...let's say that's 25mph, assuming the average person takes a lesiurely bike ride coasting at 15-20mph. (That might even be a little generous)
I have to believe that, even during some heavy traffic times, cars would be moving above 25mph. Unless there's an accident or some sort which renders bumper-to-bumper traffic which is always an exception, then your car should still provide faster transportation.
If you're still stubborn and refuse to accept it, I still go with the idea that even if you did implement these new bigger/wider sidewalks, it wouldn't necessarily eliminate any sort of heavy traffic periods on the highways nor reduce the amount of oil consumption via motor vehicle enough so that oil would no longer be an economic concern.
EDIT: Don't get my wrong here, I'm all for constructing new bike paths, I just don't think it will do any economic good. Like I said you might be able to some solve obesity problems by allowing more people to ride their bikes at once, but I don't see it being a solution to the world's oil usage.