The Bicycle Loses Ground as a Symbol of Childhood Liberty

Penny Gaines wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

Well, now, let's not be too alarmist here. Kids need
physical activity, but there's no magic to having to walk or
bike everywhere. For those who live in areas where that isn't
particularly suitable, they just have to find other means of
physical activity--of which there are plenty. While bicycling
is a great means of exercise, it is actually possible to be
physically fit for a lifetime without even owning a bicycle,
much less riding one ;-)

However if you build activity in your lifestyle, it is much easier to
maintain it when life gets particularly hectic.

For instance, my family will take stairs where at all feasable, rather
then waiting for a lift/elevator. Our local multi-storey car parks have
up to six floors, and we will almost always use the stairs, regardless
of whether we need to go up one flight or up all six.

For various reasons this year has been rather busy, and it has
been easy for us to drop sporting activities. However, we continue
to just use stairs without thinking about, and walk most places in the
village without thinking about it.

Certainly, we could work at including physical activity in our lives,
but it is much easier if it is just part of what we do, not an extra.

Sure, but as always that depends on the environment
in which you live. While everyone can do *some* walking
as part of their everyday lives, some live in situations
where walking to do their errands just isn't feasible.
Some live in areas where biking doesn't work well for one
reason or another. *Everyone* can make choices about how
to live an active life, and that's all that's important,
not that everyone choose the same activity or two. There
isn't an activity that works well for everyone. What is
easy for you to incorporate into your life may be challenging
for me, and vice versa.
So, I don't buy arguments that suggest if you don't
do X, you're doomed to a sedentary, unhealthy life. We all
just have to make choices that make sense in the context we
live in.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
news
Sure, but as always that depends on the environment
in which you live. While everyone can do *some* walking
as part of their everyday lives, some live in situations
where walking to do their errands just isn't feasible.

Right. I could walk anywhere in San Francisco. It's just not feasible
here. The blocks are driving length, not walking length. The stores are
just as well. Walking to the stores to the post office to mail a letter
would mean spending the whole day walking just to mail a letter. I'm not
even sure if I'd get there and back in a day. It takes me 45 minutes just
to walk to the first major intersection and the post office is much further
than that. The streets are not pedestrian friendly, either. There aren't
always sidewalks along the way to the post office, and there are numerous
cars and a high speed limit.

"toypup" wrote in message
m...

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
news
Sure, but as always that depends on the environment
in which you live. While everyone can do *some* walking
as part of their everyday lives, some live in situations
where walking to do their errands just isn't feasible.

Right. I could walk anywhere in San Francisco. It's just not feasible
here. The blocks are driving length, not walking length. The stores are
just as well. Walking to the stores to the post office to mail a letter
would mean spending the whole day walking just to mail a letter. I'm not
even sure if I'd get there and back in a day. It takes me 45 minutes just
to walk to the first major intersection and the post office is much
further than that. The streets are not pedestrian friendly, either.
There aren't always sidewalks along the way to the post office, and there
are numerous cars and a high speed limit.


So, why'd you choose to live in such a place?

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

In article et, Claire
Petersky says...


"toypup" wrote in message
om...

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
news
Sure, but as always that depends on the environment
in which you live. While everyone can do *some* walking
as part of their everyday lives, some live in situations
where walking to do their errands just isn't feasible.

Right. I could walk anywhere in San Francisco. It's just not feasible
here. The blocks are driving length, not walking length. The stores are
just as well. Walking to the stores to the post office to mail a letter
would mean spending the whole day walking just to mail a letter. I'm not
even sure if I'd get there and back in a day. It takes me 45 minutes just
to walk to the first major intersection and the post office is much
further than that. The streets are not pedestrian friendly, either.
There aren't always sidewalks along the way to the post office, and there
are numerous cars and a high speed limit.


So, why'd you choose to live in such a place?


Well - it's a good question, and a large one.

The answer is that the settlement patterns in the U.S. have favored sprawling
suburbs and exurbs for a long time, and that's driven by the market. Everyone
seems to want a whole bunch of land, and things like sidewalks are eschewed as
trappings from urban life (which is dumb, as small towns always had them, but
many going to suburbs and exurbs don't have much real small town experience).
People who *aren't* actually intersted in all that feel obliged to go for all
that for the sake of resale value and maintaining their investments.

In the meantime, older close in suburbs and urban areas, where they are deemed
of value, get the housing prices jacked up sky high as rather upscale salaried
professionals are tending to these areas, and there is speculation as well.
Which leaves the middle classes to look to the outer suburbs with the more
spread out settlement.

So, any given person of moderate means, like myself, find the easy options
limited, and the tradeoffs huge if they *do* want a more urban life.

I think this will reverse as energy costs become prohibitive to support all
that, though.

My town was rural; now it's in outer reaches of exurban NYC. The town board is
planning a closely settled downtown area, with a mix of residential, and streets
laid out with bike lanes. It's definately the right direction, but it's
unbelievable how controversial this is - people object traffic in this area
(there will be a stop light or two now between their workplaces and their
exurban homes 5 miles or so on the other side..), they object to the density,
decrying it as "urban", which is a Bad Thing to them as they regard themsevles
as refugees from urban problems. To me, since I've lived everywhere from Air
Force bases to true small towns in Wisconsin to cookie-cutter suburbs, this is
builidng a true small town environment to allay the development pressure all
over the rest of the once-rural town. But try telling the folks moving in from
suburban and urban NYC that... they have the house-in-country-with-a-lot-of-land
dream and think themselves authoritative on how Bad such a town area would be.

Banty

"Claire Petersky" wrote in message
nk.net...

"toypup" wrote in message
m...

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
news
Sure, but as always that depends on the environment
in which you live. While everyone can do *some* walking
as part of their everyday lives, some live in situations
where walking to do their errands just isn't feasible.

Right. I could walk anywhere in San Francisco. It's just not feasible
here. The blocks are driving length, not walking length. The stores are
just as well. Walking to the stores to the post office to mail a letter
would mean spending the whole day walking just to mail a letter. I'm not
even sure if I'd get there and back in a day. It takes me 45 minutes
just to walk to the first major intersection and the post office is much
further than that. The streets are not pedestrian friendly, either.
There aren't always sidewalks along the way to the post office, and there
are numerous cars and a high speed limit.


So, why'd you choose to live in such a place?

Because there are lots of factors that I consider when choosing my residence
and walking to shops is not really up there for me. I can get my workout in
other ways.

"toypup" wrote in message
et...

Because there are lots of factors that I consider when choosing my
residence and walking to shops is not really up there for me.

I can understand that some folks don't mind slavery to their automobile. For
me, it would feel very constricting. But as you note, there's trade-offs.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Claire Petersky wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
c. wrote:

fgoodwin wrote:
Barbara wrote:

The points are valid - we used to ride our bikes everywhere as kids 30
years ago, and I'd love nothing more than for my kids to have that same
freedom. But, thanks in part to the internet pedophiles are around
every corner,

Oh yes! Oh yes! See: http://eclectech.co.uk/dailymailpicnic.php

------------------------------
That's a delusion produced by sensationalist media, nothing more.
Your child's chance of getting "snatched" is MUCH LESS than it was
when WE were kids, the public is simply deluded by the prevalence
of these steamy stories in the media to sell more papers!!

people are driving too fast, not paying enough attention,
-------------------------------
Kids can be taught to ride the sidewalks and cross streets carefully.
If you don't teach them this they are endangeed by YOU!

And the way you teach your kids how to be a safe pedestrian and how to be a
safe bicyclist is by them walking and riding with you.
------------------
Neither of my parents rode bicycles as adults, but they were perfectly
able to teach us how to ride merely by admonition about dangers, and
questioning us about scenarios.
Steve

c. wrote:
fgoodwin wrote:
Barbara wrote:

Good Lord! A 10 year-old article? Where are you digging this stuff
up?


It may be ten years old, but the points made are still valid,
wouldn't you agree?


The points are valid - we used to ride our bikes everywhere as kids 30
years ago, and I'd love nothing more than for my kids to have that
same freedom. But, thanks in part to the internet pedophiles are
around every corner,

I would assume the percentage of pedophiles is the same as it's always been.
We are just more aware of them now, so it seems as if there are more. The
whole time we were riding bikes and having fun, pedophiles were out there
and danger was lurking, but here we are, safe and sound. Since it's no more
dangerous now (maybe even safer, thanks to things like Megan's Law and Amber
Alerts), than when you were young, why not let your kids ride their bikes?

people are driving too fast, not paying enough
attention, talking on cell phones, there aren't enough sidewalks or
undeveloped areas for kids to roam......irresponsible adults make it
virtually impossible for responsible adults to allow their kids to
cruise the neighborhood freely. Wishing things were different
doesn't make it so.

c.

--
nimue

"As an unwavering Republican, I have quite naturally burned more books
than I have read." Betty Bowers

English is our friend. We don't have to fight it.
Oprah

I go by my own common sense. My child did once get hit by a car riding
his bike. With his helmet on and taught all the safety rules. He was a
little shook up with a huge dent in his helmet, but otherwise okay.I
did realize at that moment that I could have lost him in one second.
Just one measly second and I would have lost him forever! I think there
is alot of danger out there. Missing and Exploited kids is an excellent
reference.You can also check the national sex offender registry for
predators that may live in your area.I hate that my kids don't get to
bike freely.There are alternatives though. Instead we bike together on
trails and at parks.It is not safe on the street we live on, and
statistics and hype does not have to tell me that. I've seen idiots
drive 50mph on our 15mph streets ...

http://www.missingkids.com/
http://www.registeredoffenderslist.org/
http://www.familywatchdog.us/


R. Steve Walz wrote:
c. wrote:

Cathy Weeks wrote:
c. wrote:

fgoodwin wrote:


The points are valid - we used to ride our bikes everywhere as kids 30
years ago, and I'd love nothing more than for my kids to have that same
freedom. But, thanks in part to the internet pedophiles are around
every corner, people are driving too fast, not paying enough attention,
talking on cell phones, there aren't enough sidewalks or undeveloped
areas for kids to roam......irresponsible adults make it virtually
impossible for responsible adults to allow their kids to cruise the
neighborhood freely. Wishing things were different doesn't make it so.


Um... Actually, we were just having a discussion about parental
perception of danger. And the actuality is that the world is a SAFER
place than it was 30years ago. But everyone assumes and thinks it's
less safe.

Cathy Weeks


That statement is way to broad to be applicable to my previous comment.
I'm sure in some ways the world at large is safer, and in others it is
probably less so. Some neighborhoods in the US are probably safer, some
are most probably not. Parents generally decide what they are willing
to risk and what they aren't based on what is happening in their own
locality, not what some obscure data says is happening on a global scale.

c.
--------------
No, that's exactly it, they DON'T! They go by the perception of danger
they get from the sensationalist media without regard to the genuine
statistics of risk, and they don't HAVE access to any LOCAL info except
to guess at it from anecdotes or their paranoia. They become over-
protective out of ignorance and delusional media anecdotes.
Steve