"Forrest Hodge" wrote in message
...
On 12/1/2010 6:50 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/1/2010 3:53 PM, Forrest Hodge wrote:
[...]
Because public transportation is everywhere, right. Where I live there
are no buses, no subways, no bike lanes. It would suicidal and
inefficient time-wise to bike to work. So consequently I drive
everywhere, and I might as well enjoy myself when I do it. If you really
want to get into semantics, it could be considered decedent and
unnecessary to ride a bike with 20 in or larger wheels or more than one
gear, because everyone should be able to peddle a fixed gear bike up a
steep hill and if you can't you're a "****head".

It is "pedal", not "peddle".

Small wheel are fine for long distances - I have done 125 mile rides in
less than 7 hours on bikes with ISO 305-mm and ISO 406-mm wheels.

I have never done a century in less than 12 hours. That means it is an all
day ride, from dawn to dusk. 100 miles is too many. 70 miles in one day is
enough for anyone.

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.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota