02008-09-09 | Bicycle
However, countries with helmet laws could lose out on the benefits from the City Bike revolution. None of the present schemes requires cyclists to use a helmet and none are provided. As well as the practical difficulties of offering helmets to users at each bike station in a sufficient range of sizes, there are health and hygiene issues that make sharing helmets unacceptable.
Head lice can live two days away from a host and are endemic in the western world, especially among children. Fungal scalp infections (“tinea capitis”) spread by contact. They are usually caused by fungi of the genera Microsporum and Trichophyton. They may be serious (“kerion”) and can result in hair loss (alopecia) or even major skin loss. Then there are the less tangible but real fears people have about not wanting to wear an item of second hand clothing, especially one that has not been washed. Helmets left for days exposed to the elements could grow mould, especially in humid climates.
Just as important, City Bike schemes are the most successful if they are able to capture impromptu journeys on demand, with no pre-planning and the minimum of fuss for the client. The need to carry a helmet around just in case you will want to hire a bike, or to have to mess about adjusting a hired helmet to fit, would kill off a large part of the market.
(Via Copenhagenize)
Read on.
02008-09-08 | Bicycle
Why Not in America?
Bogotá imported some Dutch engineers to redesign traffic flows and improve infrastructure. Cycling jumped ten-fold in two years.
Even Portland, Oregon, America’s bicycle commuting capital, is a relatively recent and somewhat unlikely success story. Neither the city’s density nor its weather suggests that it should have the highest cycling rates in the country. Nevertheless, policies designed to encourage riding have boosted cycle trips 400% since 1991.
(Via WorldChanging)
02008-06-19 | Bicycle, Photos, Santa Fe
Rode my bike to Counter Culture for breakfast with Jon. I noticed the above sign and was glad that I was observing the new rule. We discussed some of the issues I brought up in my last entry. We tried to figure out what led to the bottomless coffee cup and unlimited buffet frame of mind in the first place. First of all there had to be a sense of abundance, e.g. we can obtain this food so cheaply, even if customers eat three plates full we WILL make a profit… but it is probably also true that managers recognized that their customers valued quantity over quality and therefore would not care if the bottomless coffee was actually damn weak and horrific. What do you think? Is this a phenomenon or the Seventies or Eighties, or did this start way back after the horrors of the depression. Jon and I managed to eat and talk for 100 minutes. I am always surprised how timeless a good conversation is/feels…
