usually hear and refute a number of arguments or topics that canaries, unaccustomed to urban transit bikes tend to wield without much reflection, and give a wrong and inappropriate use of bike for transportation. Try here address this issue
1) "The Canary terrain is not compatible with the urban bike" : this topic is often said to light without the slightest thought. Firstly, it is true that geography has a sharp canary and height difference, but it is also true that cities are plagued by roads that are passable on foot and other means of transport. Much of the territory of two of the largest cities of the archipelago, Las Palmas and La Laguna, are perfectly flat and suitable for bike traffic without much effort. San Sebastian de La Gomera, Arrecife, Puerto del Rosario and Valverde are also plenty of suitable places. Both Santa Cruz de Tenerife as Telde or Santa Cruz de la Palma areas have fully adequate for the traffic level roads for urban cycling. Also remember that the gap only makes it difficult to raise, not lower, so that in places where it enabled solutions such as the loan a bike with multiple bicycle parking type Bicing "of Barcelona, \u200b\u200bpower up the bike in the media public transport (as in Tenerife Tram) or the use of folding bikes, facilitate solutions and leave this topic without much validity. In fact Europe is not as flat as a beach drop offs in many cities as large as those here, and the bike is mostly used. In Oslo, for example, a port city, also is back, and people use the bike, as in all of Norway (the land of the fjords and huge cliffs).
2) "The weather is inconsistent" : Or hot, or too cold, that that Bicycles are for summer, is an argument often heard. The truth is that it does not stand alone, we just have to imagine the climate that anywhere in Europe or in Canada for much of the year, and the massive use of the bike. It is true that the canaries are more accustomed to using the umbrella of the raincoat, but from there to scare the rain is a stretch. Above boasts the "world's best climate , but unused.
3) "With the bike I sudo" Another fallacious argument. When I walk I can sweat or not, it depends on the heat to do, for your wardrobe step up and lead, we all know. For a bike is exactly the same. In fact, there is a pedaling rate, (each has its own) which is exactly equivalent to walking. In addition, on the downhills not make any effort. If one makes an effort to sweat too much, but it is not that we do not use the bike to run, but to move around the city.
4) "The bikes are dangerous" : Really what are the cars are dangerous or antisocial drivers. A bicycle is much slower than by car or motorbike, the falls are possible but less relevant at low speed. In fact one of the debates of the users is on the urban bike or helmet use. The legislation only requires use on trunk roads (I am in favor only of this application, since the use in urban areas has not proved effective in preventing accidents that can have, and limited mobility and visibility of the urban cyclist in addition to retract to other users of bike use, and projecting a false image of danger of it).
5) "The bike is slow " : The bike is a very effective means of transport for short distances, between 0 and 10 km. In urban areas is the fastest means of transport, and it is always faster than the car. In Madrid and Barcelona have found the time taken to travel between two points in the inner cities and surpassed all means of transport on asphalt. In fact, due to congestion and traffic lights, moving by car from the cities is painful and slow, it can be seen in any modern car that has electronic speedometer that helps illustrate the average speed of movement throughout the day , the computation usually return the harsh reality that is difficult to move more than 15-20 km / h on average for a city. Today, crossing the center of Santa Cruz de Tenerife and La Laguna, is much faster by bike than by car, at peak times, is even faster to walk than by car. Also I have not taken into account the time spent to park, sometimes as much or more as a move between two points in the car, and seconds in the case of the bike.
Well, it's all about arguments that you removed the false excuses for not promoting the use of the bike.
1) "The Canary terrain is not compatible with the urban bike" : this topic is often said to light without the slightest thought. Firstly, it is true that geography has a sharp canary and height difference, but it is also true that cities are plagued by roads that are passable on foot and other means of transport. Much of the territory of two of the largest cities of the archipelago, Las Palmas and La Laguna, are perfectly flat and suitable for bike traffic without much effort. San Sebastian de La Gomera, Arrecife, Puerto del Rosario and Valverde are also plenty of suitable places. Both Santa Cruz de Tenerife as Telde or Santa Cruz de la Palma areas have fully adequate for the traffic level roads for urban cycling. Also remember that the gap only makes it difficult to raise, not lower, so that in places where it enabled solutions such as the loan a bike with multiple bicycle parking type Bicing "of Barcelona, \u200b\u200bpower up the bike in the media public transport (as in Tenerife Tram) or the use of folding bikes, facilitate solutions and leave this topic without much validity. In fact Europe is not as flat as a beach drop offs in many cities as large as those here, and the bike is mostly used. In Oslo, for example, a port city, also is back, and people use the bike, as in all of Norway (the land of the fjords and huge cliffs).
2) "The weather is inconsistent" : Or hot, or too cold, that that Bicycles are for summer, is an argument often heard. The truth is that it does not stand alone, we just have to imagine the climate that anywhere in Europe or in Canada for much of the year, and the massive use of the bike. It is true that the canaries are more accustomed to using the umbrella of the raincoat, but from there to scare the rain is a stretch. Above boasts the "world's best climate , but unused.
3) "With the bike I sudo" Another fallacious argument. When I walk I can sweat or not, it depends on the heat to do, for your wardrobe step up and lead, we all know. For a bike is exactly the same. In fact, there is a pedaling rate, (each has its own) which is exactly equivalent to walking. In addition, on the downhills not make any effort. If one makes an effort to sweat too much, but it is not that we do not use the bike to run, but to move around the city.
4) "The bikes are dangerous" : Really what are the cars are dangerous or antisocial drivers. A bicycle is much slower than by car or motorbike, the falls are possible but less relevant at low speed. In fact one of the debates of the users is on the urban bike or helmet use. The legislation only requires use on trunk roads (I am in favor only of this application, since the use in urban areas has not proved effective in preventing accidents that can have, and limited mobility and visibility of the urban cyclist in addition to retract to other users of bike use, and projecting a false image of danger of it).
5) "The bike is slow " : The bike is a very effective means of transport for short distances, between 0 and 10 km. In urban areas is the fastest means of transport, and it is always faster than the car. In Madrid and Barcelona have found the time taken to travel between two points in the inner cities and surpassed all means of transport on asphalt. In fact, due to congestion and traffic lights, moving by car from the cities is painful and slow, it can be seen in any modern car that has electronic speedometer that helps illustrate the average speed of movement throughout the day , the computation usually return the harsh reality that is difficult to move more than 15-20 km / h on average for a city. Today, crossing the center of Santa Cruz de Tenerife and La Laguna, is much faster by bike than by car, at peak times, is even faster to walk than by car. Also I have not taken into account the time spent to park, sometimes as much or more as a move between two points in the car, and seconds in the case of the bike.
Well, it's all about arguments that you removed the false excuses for not promoting the use of the bike.
0 comments:
Post a Comment