Talk:Cycling in the United States

Size of the United States

IMO this needs to be mentioned where it explains why America has a car culture. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The two things are only connected in the minds of Americans who wish to excuse going from the best railway in the world (ca.1910) to one that Bulgaria would be ashamed of. Did the US suddenly change in size since then? Its population if anything only grew.... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I basically agree with Hobbitschuster's edit summary. China and the EU are very large but have less of a car culture than the US. (I don't know about Canada.) The US is a real outlier when it comes to cars. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Outside of cities the only thing you need to cycle is a bike that can deal with whatever trail there is. At least since the invention of beach cruisers and mountain bikes. Inside of cities the overall size of the country is as irrelevant as can be. With maybe a theoretical exception for Monaco or the likes but even then teeny tiny San Marino has more registered cars than people.... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It would be interesting to run a multiple regression and see what correlations show up with the data here. I suspect GDP per capita would have a strong correlation. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, from sad anecdotal evidence I can tell you that the Nicaragua numbers are way out of date... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me be more articulate in saying that population density is an issue here. Take a look at a map of Nevada, Utah, or Montana and compare it to a map of France. Also as a proud American I resent the fact that someone would blame us Americans for our railway system, which really is not bad. Americans drive cars for practical reasons, but at the same time American railroads are not terrible. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, in huge, low-population states, you have a point, but otherwise, to my knowledge, you don't. People who know the history of American transportation are aware not only of the time when its railroads were the envy of the world but that there was a time when you could take streetcars all the way from New York to Boston, and keep in mind that Los Angeles is one of the cities that had a fine trolley system back in the day. As I understand it, the main reasons the U.S. is a "car culture" are that: (1) there was a conspiracy by bus companies and so on to purchase trolley lines and slash the tracks and (2) the interstate highways were built with huge Federal investments that didn't go to other forms of transportation. —The preceding comment was added by Ikan Kekek (talk • contribs) 02:09, 12 September 2018

(edit conflict) I think population density may be more on the right track than the physical size of the country. But still, Uruguay (for instance) has low population density outside the Montevideo metro area but is still nothing like the US in terms of car culture. And anyway, US car culture isn't limited to sparsely populated states. In my experience there's a lot of car culture in comparatively dense North Carolina and California, for instance. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ikan, this can go on forever, but I totally disagree, not with the facts you provide but your view on why the US has a car culture. In the northeast US, it's different, but in the American West and Midwest there can be hundreds of miles between major cities and tens of miles between any settlements whatsoever. That makes cycling impossible. I think also w:Effects of the car on societies is useful to our discussion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Granger, I'm a Californian like you so I'm sure you'll recognize that most of California's people live around Los Angeles/San Diego, the Bay Area, and a few other points in the Central Valley. Apart from that, California is sparsely populated when you compare to European countries. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

SelfieCity, if you don't dispute the history I cite, why are you arguing that there's something inherent about American culture that causes it to favor cars? I agree that the average person wouldn't cycle hundreds of miles between two big cities through desert or forest, but that's not the general practice anywhere, and cycling and riding your own personal car aren't the only possible forms of transportation. What you're basically doing is taking events that happened following World War II as proof that American history could have been no other way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Ikan, here’s what I think: in America, non-car forms of transportation were popular until the car came along. The car changed everything. Thanks to Ford cars, the fast speed of the vehicles, and how useful they were for crossing low population density areas, they became and remained the main American form of transport. You’ve also got to remember that in America, people often travel across the country on vacations or whatever. For those things a car is useful. Meanwhile, Europeans don’t just load up the car and drive around their continent. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

History shows that it was post-World War II prosperity and the other factors I mentioned (conspiracy and huge highway funding) that created America's "love affair with the car", not Henry Ford's Model T and such. Cars were not widely owned in the U.S. before the 50s. You can see a chart on vehicle ownership per capita on this page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, yes, of course we agree that the road trip is something American, but that's not really the point. Why is it American? And I think that has a hell of a lot to do with a huge governmental investment in roads, a huge governmental neglect of other forms of transportation, and the conspiracy I keep referring to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

In an edit summary AndreCarrotflower made to the article being discussed here, he stated that every year many miles of cycle trails are added in the Buffalo area, with strong support from local government. I wouldn’t call that huge government neglect. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 04:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

that same edit summary counted "sharrows" as part of said infrastructure. Sharrows aren't "infrastructure" they're an insult to any thinking human being, especially cyclists... But anyway, back to the issue at hand. Our very own California guide compares its size with Sweden. Now which territory has the better domestic railway ans bike network? And which has more people? And which has (another frequent excuse) the better cycling weather? Hobbitschuster (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

SelfieCity, did you think the post-World War II era just began yesterday? Please, pay attention to the last 7 decades of history. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Look, I know about the last seven decades of history, and in America they have seen the car remain the primary form of transport. The government built interstate highways, not bicycle trails, for a reason: cars have been the primary form of transport in the USA for 100 years. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

That is laughably untrue. In no way was the Tin Lizzy or her predecessors the dominant form of transportation around 1918. Also, if you look at the history of the w:good roads movement, the government literally did build bike routes. And the whole highway mess didn't happen because people loved cars so much but because Eisenhower wanted to copy Hitler with his military use of limited access highways. A summarily stupid idea, as emulating Hitler usually is. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You guys are nuts! Eisenhower trying to imitate Hitler? As if anyone, especially a US President, would team up with the bus companies and Hitlers agenda to destroy public transportation? But I don’t care anymore. I’d rather just work on something productive here, something that will never be achieved in this discussion, especially when the opposition seems to know more conspiracy theories than facts! No offense but you need to get your facts straight. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Now you might be unaware of this but despite the first German Autobahn (unless you count AVUS) being opened in 1932 by then Cologne mayor Konrad Adenauer, and despite the plans being mostly drawn up in the 1920s, it was the Nazis that turned Autobahn building into this huge propaganda thing. Of course fascist Italy did that first, but then Hitler liked to copy the Duce. At any rate, the great street car scandal/conspiracy is a matter of public record in many of its aspects. The fact that Eisenhower served in Germany, liked the highways he saw there and was part of an earlier military convoy across the Lincoln highway is likewise. Eisenhower thought the Interstates of military value. Just like the Nazis did with the Autobahn. I am of a different opinion. And certainly a country less reliant on scarce gasoline for civilian transportation is more resilient in the face of being cut off from import markets. But no matter, I think the facts in dispute as relate to this article are either established or not contested any more... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You know what I'm thinking? I'm thinking this discussion proves that we shouldn't attempt to explain why there is a car culture; we should just say there is one. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Does anybody else second the motion to just declare the origins of US car culture some kind of "unknowable mystery" and move on? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the information about "why". We can always reinstate it if necessary. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Would you find issue with our wording at United States without a car? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

What's a "niche phenomenon"?

I think we might be talking about different things. Even if five percent of people are "avid cyclists" who ride their bike for utility every day, that would in my mind still count as niche in a 80% driving town.... And I am not sure there is any US city that has even that modal share of utility cycling (of course the US is hampered somewhat by only counting commute mode share and not other measures of same) Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

In Davis (California) I would guess around 15-25% of residents commute by bicycle, but it's certainly not a typical example. I think there are other US college towns that are more than 5%. But I see your point. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Red or blue?

Technically, a “city” in the United States is any incorporated settlement. Therefore, I think we should say that the larger cities are blue, not “most cities” which isn’t as clear. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

in common parlance a "city" is more substantial than a "town" and that latter one is more than a mere village. I'd say in the U.S. cities have at least one part that's more grid than cul de sac... Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thats how it is in most of the world, and it should be in all of the world IMO, but the US is different. I'd guess that most "towns", by the non American meaning of the word, are GOP/Conservative, along with rural areas, and most cities with 50,000 plus are going in the Liberal direction. Once you pass 150,000, the city will be Liberal dominated, and the from there the larger the city the more liberal it is. But local and state elections are different, like when Chris Christie won in New Jersey. And then its changing all the time too - the South and Midwest gets more and more Conservative, and the West gets more and more Liberal. To add to that, there are 100% Democrat voting areas in cities in pretty Conservative states like Pennsylvania and Republican voting country areas in New York State and California. So it's all very complicated. Definitely we dont need this much information in this article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me, that you are making it more complicated than it is. I don't think any American talking casually would say "let's go to the city" and refer to a 5000 people hamlet. Of course there are outliers like Fresno which had a GOP mayor quite recently, but even then you get stuff like a CSU mayor who evidently doesn't like cycling getting on a bike for PR in Erlangen. Or republican lawmakers who evidently enjoy the comforts of big city live in their seat of government but still railing against urbanites for votes. By the way, California is perhaps the only state getting polarized as a whole. Orange County went for Clinton in 2016. Hawai'i might appear similarly polarized, but Hawai'i has an ethnic makeup that equals a walk in the park for democrats. Especially since nobody there is voter suppressing. I really have to ask which kind of agenda is behind your doubting and denial of pretty obvious and relevant facts. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Agenda behind doubting and denial of obvious and relevant facts" What? I'm just going into the details, and clearly stating that I don't think we need all of this info on the website. What facts am I even denying here? I thought I was largely agreeing with you! --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the research Granger did in Talk:Fresno showed that many cities, from San Diego to Miami, have Republican mayors. I think that is related to this discussion. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

But I don't think it's debatable that in general, Democratic strength is in the cities, with a continuum toward Republican voting in the suburbs, exurbs and then rural areas. Right now, the suburbs and some of the exurbs are the major battlegrounds. Because these are generalizations, there are many exceptions to them, but the trend is clear, and even when Republicans run city and state governments, they are not always far right types who oppose government spending for health, welfare and transit. And as for Pennsylvania, if you think it's a pretty conservative state, you're ignoring the huge cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh plus some of the Philadelphia suburbs and closely divided areas of Northeastern Pennsylvania, and that's a heck of a large percentage of the state's population. Pennsylvania is a very good example, instead, of a state that on average leans just slightly toward the Democrats and is very close to 50/50 for each party. Watch how it votes this year and see if your appraisal of its overall conservatism is borne out. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think on the whole I agree with you. Yes, I guess you’re right, Pennsylvania is a “swing” state. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 13:41, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

"Pittsburgh in the West, Philly in the East, Kentucky in between". And before Trump it was considered a blue state. To some (including likely H. Clinton) even solidly so... Hobbitschuster (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Better quote

I don't care for the Simpsons quote currently in the article. It's off-color, and also involves a bit of wordplay that might be difficult for ESL readers (and doesn't work as well in text as it does aloud). Surely there's a better qutation about cycling we could use, preferably from some other well-known American.

How about

Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. —President John F. Kennedy

I can't verify whether this is an actual JFK quote, although maybe on WV we don't need to worry about that.

Other quotes I found after a quick Google search include

Ever bike? Now that’s something that makes life worth living!…Oh, to just grip your handlebars and lay down to it, and go ripping and tearing through streets and road, over railroad tracks and bridges, threading crowds, avoiding collisions, at twenty miles or more an hour, and wondering all the time when you’re going to smash up. Well, now, that’s something! And then go home again after three hours of it…and then to think that tomorrow I can do it all over again! —Jack London

or

If you worried about falling off the bike, you’d never get on. —Lance Armstrong

or

Next to a leisurely walk I enjoy a spin on my tandem bicycle. It is splendid to feel the wind blowing in my face and the springy motion of my iron steed. The rapid rush through the air gives me a delicious sense of strength and buoyancy, and the exercise makes my pulse dance and my heart sing. —Helen Keller

or

I delighted in the supreme sense of freedom that comes with the first mile of a bicycle journey. No bills, no messy relationships, no job. All I needed was stuffed into four sturdy panniers. —Dan Buettner

or

It is by riding a bicycle that you learn the contours of a country best, since you have to sweat up the hills and coast down them. Thus you remember them as they actually are, while in a motor car only a high hill impresses you, and you have no such accurate remembrance of country you have driven through as you gain by riding a bicycle. —Ernest Hemingway

I didn't take the time to try and source these quotations, either, but again I'm not sure that matters too much on WV. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The JFK one looks good; it's short and sweet. I do like the Hemingway one since it's actually about exploring a place by bike. On the other hand, it's so long. Indeed, all the others are pretty wordy.

That is of course with the exception of Lance Armstrong, but using the words of a discredited drug cheat would be less appropriate than sticking with Homer, in my view - and I agree the Simpsons quote is best delivered by the actors, not written down.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Any of those will do. /Yvwv (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we already use the Hemmingway quote in another article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, a shortened version is in the main cycling article. —The preceding comment was added by ThunderingTyphoons! (talk • contribs)

I'd prefer not to use a quotation we can't verify. After a few minutes of searching, I was able to verify all of the suggested quotations except the ones from John F. Kennedy and Dan Buettner. My favorite is the one from Jack London, even though it's long, but I'd also be happy with Helen Keller or even Lance Armstrong. I guess we should exclude the Hemingway quote since it's already used in a different article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

On English language varieties we use a quote and label it "attributed to George Bernard Shaw". But that's maybe not the same as this completely unverified JFK quote that sounds like anyone could have made it up. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Lists of quotes about cycling are a dime a dozen. Here are a bunch more short ones, in case one of them strikes someone's fancy a bit more:

Bicycling is a big part of the future. It has to be. There’s something wrong with a society that drives a car to work out in a gym. —Bill Nye the Science Guy

or

Melancholy is incompatible with bicycling. —James E. Starrs

or

A bicycle ride is a flight from sadness. —James E. Starrs

or

The bicycle, the bicycle surely, should always be the vehicle of novelists and poets. —Christopher Morley

or

Be at one with the universe. If you can’t do that, at least be at one with your bike. —Lennard Zinn

or

The bicycle enables us to escape many other machines: We use it for transportation, sport, recreation, and make it a way of life. —Jobst Brandt

or

When you ride hard on a mountain bike, sometimes you fall, otherwise you’re not riding hard. —President George W. Bush

or

Few articles ever used by man have created so great a revolution in social conditions as the bicycle. —U.S. Census Report of 1900

or

Suddenly the nickel-clad horse takes the bit in its mouth and goes slanting for the curbstone defying all prayers and all your powers to change its mind — your heart stands still, your breath hangs fire, your legs forget to work. —Mark Twain

--Bigpeteb (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the George W. Bush quote is quite good. Any of these would be better than the Simpsons quote. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need a quote in this article, but if anything I quite like the Mark Twain quote. It's more unexpected for an article about cycling, and it's lively and interesting. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Since everyone seems to support getting rid of the Simpsons quote, I've replaced it with the Mark Twain quote for now. If further discussion points to a different quote we can always change it again. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Complete page rewrite

Hello! I just updated the content on this page to better reflect the current state of cycling in the USA. I've obviously not been to all these places or ridden all these trails, but tried my best to research the highlights from across America. I've removed the previous content as it didn't make me excited about riding bikes. I was envisioning this as more of a page for the "dreaming" stage of travel. Please let me know if you think there's anything that should be added or removed to improve the article. Thanks! ButteBag (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Big improvement – thank you. I've restored some content about hand signals, which I think should be covered as a bit of practical advice because they very by country. I imagine Davis (California) might deserve a mention in the list of college towns – cycling is incredibly popular there, or at least it was when I last visited about a decade ago. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! I formatted the hand signals content to match the rest of the page. I also removed the image, it wasn't adding much imho. Thank you again! ButteBag (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Questionable claims

I have not been on a bike in decades & was never really serious about it, so take my opinions with salt.

The claims "Cycling is not an inherently dangerous undertaking." and "The jury is still out on the effectiveness of helmets." strike me as distinctly dubious. Pashley (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It is inherently risky, of course, in that 20 km/h (12 mph) is quite much if you fall, but many sports are much riskier, unless you have traffic or difficult terrain. Helmets in themselves do protect your head, if used correctly, but in some regions, drivers are less careful if you wear a helmet. Here in Finland I think helmets reduce risk for serious injuries by some 70 %, although I don't know what biases have been accounted for. –LPfi (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess anything is dangerous depending on risk tolerance. I think it's more about the environment in which you cycle. I think studies have shown the health benefits you gain from the exercise are better than the risks involved in not wearing a helmet. ButteBag (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah! OK. Yes, that I have heard too. So: If you are going off biking and can choose from taking your helmet or not, then you absolutely should take it. If you don't have a helmet and ponder whether you should go, then yes, go, the health benefits might be greater than the increased risk.

There is also the issue of whether to make the helmet compulsory, and I think the balance is towards just having a suitably strong recommendation, because having many bikers, so that drivers remember to watch out for them, is more effective in preventing serious injuries than helmets are.

–LPfi (talk) 19:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! Updated. ButteBag (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)