On Dec 1, 11:38*pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"Forrest Hodge" wrote in message

I'll take your word for it. If I have to be somewhere 125 miles away I'd
rather drive there and be there in about 1/3 of the time it takes to bike.
That's not to say I dislike the bicycle, I don't and I do bike for
exercise (though not for 125 miles). But the majority of the time if you
live in the suburbs or a rural area, the car is a much more practical
means of conveyance.

Forest Hodge is quite right about the suburbs and rural areas not being
friendly to cyclists. Large cities and small towns are the best venues for
cycling whether they have bike paths or not. However, some rural areas, like
Wisconsin for instance, do have lots of county blacktops which are fine for
cycling, but here in Minnesota it is mostly gravel roads in the countryside.
A gravel road will wear you down, especially on a recumbent.

You guys need to get in touch with the urban jungle. There's no place
to ride a bike in America, even less so in the city where people are
forced onto the sidewalks, passing the bucket down to the pedestrian.

You may load you bike on the car and go some place, but that defeats
the purpose of the bicycle as a practical vehicle.

There's simply a MONOPOLY by the automobile and oil industry.