It's interesting how people can read the same article and draw completely opposite conclusions: "The point of the article is exactly that these machines for the first time stand to take drivers off the road, not cyclists." As I and at least one other person read it, these things are more likely to get bicyclists out of exercise than cars off the road.
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Richard Schwinn <[email protected] > wrote: > Agreed on the power plant issue - but it's still less than the impact of a > car. The point of the article is exactly that these machines for the first > time stand to take drivers off the road, not cyclists. In places like China > and India, it's how they can bypass the car culture in which we in America > are caught. > > The work done to civilize the world for cyclists also makes it easier for > these people to get out of their cars. No doubt it will create problems, > but far more opportunities. > > > Jym Dyer wrote: > > They don't stink. They don't make harsh noises. > > > =v= Well, not at the point of use. The stink and noise goes > somewhere else, at the power plant, generally over where the > poor people live. Out of sight, out of mind. > > > > They mean one less car on the road. > > > =v= Or they could also mean one less human-powered bike on the > road, as per the story's headline. For decades I've seen the > marketing for these gadgets directed as those of us on bikes, > not those driving cars. That's not an effort to replace cars > and, unsurprisingly, there's no evidence that it's doing so. > <_Jym_> > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing > [email protected]http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > >
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
