Hi, I'm Rob, and this is a wandering diatribe of sorts, focused on the very real, human existential tragedy that is/was my cycling career. Yeah, yeah, I still ride, but not quite like I used to. Now I'd love to do 700km weeks again, sure, but somehow I don't think so. It's just not gonna happen. 100km weeks, yep; maybe even 200km. But that doesn't mean I can't bore you to tears with my 'life history on the bike'. It's optional, though. I was sucked into the vortex with my first ride on a too-large Alcon 28" fixed wheeler, and haven't stopped riding since.
Bikes are magic carpets - they were when I was 16 and remain so today (and I'm much older now!). You get on a bike and - unlike a car or motorbike - you empower the machine. In return you get a buzz out of achieving something physical, pleasurable and testing. You may still like driving a car, but riding a bike puts you in touch with the air, the temperature, shade and sun; it connects you, rather than isolating you in a steel and glass cocoon. But this blog could just as well be about business, music, mythology, philosophy, photography or art...
You can check the lot out right here.
Whatever fits: if it has a recommended torque setting, can be imagined or digitised, it's in.
| We do try to cover our costs by selling mugs, teeshirts, hats, bags, stickers and images... | ||||
|
The A2W large mug! |
The GTVeloce mug! |
OODB large mug! |
The Tipo116 large mug! |
Yet another mug! |
I have to respond to this Sydney Morning Herald editorial titled "Something in the air", Friday March 17 2006. Whilst it's not specifically about bikes or bike-bashing (something the Herald is recently familiar with!) it reflects a pro-car media bias that not only reinforces the naive view that cars (and their drivers) are somehow "innocent" of environmental harm but does nothing to address the pollution and general bike-unfriendliness that comes with increasing traffic. The article begins with the sub-heading "Cars are demonised as the primary cause of pollution but are such claims true? JOHN CADOGAN dispels some myths". It's a good article in that it brings many interesting and useful pieces of information together, but it's thrust is biased - possibly by ignorance or simple laziness rather than intent - and consequently weak in its analysis. It's to be expected that journalists with an interest of any sort will find it easy to succumb to subjectivity but sad nonetheless that the "Drive" section of a popular Australian newspaper can only reinforce the current state of mind and cannot think beyond the short term.
OK, I like (and drive) cars. But we should also consider the crisis in species extinctions (including our own if we don't do something!), much but not all of it due to global warming; and the enormous damage that cars do to our local environment and our social structures (as in no-one walks any more, making our streets 'unsafe' and so on). To just blankly write off criticism is silly and impedes reasoned thought and action. To rebut the claim (whether it be true or not) that "Cars are demonised as the primary cause of pollution" with shallow analysis of just one aspect of a car's environmental footprint is overwhelmingly weak.
OK, I'll get to my point. This editorial makes a case for comparing the gross output volume of pollutants by cars with such things as energy generation and distribution. It (rightly)paints a bleak picture of Australia's greenhouse-unfriendly coal-fired power stations and draws the conclusion that the blame lies more fairly there, rather than with cars. Well, yes, we must do something about reducing all forms of greenhouse gas emission, but to compare power station gross output with the gases pumped out of cars is misleading. Cars do not just appear as if by magic. They are elaborately transformed by the application of energy to raw materials. They are shipped around as material, as parts and as final product. They are serviced and repaired, recycled and discarded. They also demand roads (with signage and policing), parking lots, fuel distribution and garaging. These are not inconsequential matters, in fact the fuel burn is likely to be just (grant me some license here) 30-60% of the total energy budget for each car (dependent on size and use). So the greenhouse emissions are likely be be up to 70% higher than what is quoted in the Herald editorial. It may be less, but not by much.
You could argue that we don't need to garage cars, but we do. When we had no cars we had stables and we had trams and trains - houses did not need 1, 2 or 3 car garages and we didn't build them. We also built narrower streets. Houses could be closer together, footpaths wider. Shops were closer to us and obesity rates were lower. We exercised more and shared more community resources, like transport. It's true that we'd still need roads for buses and trucks, and bike paths for cycles, but higher-standard roads and freeways would be much reduced in number and 'urban sprawl' much reduced. Don't think it'd work? How does New York City work? I'm not saying NYC is an ideal of any sort but they do manage quite nicely with low rates of car ownership.
Bottom line? You must factor in the whole footprint. We haven't even looked at death and injury and the resources needed to address these car-related 'aftershocks'. Cars "own" that footprint - something not reflected in this Herald editorial or in new car prices for that matter. Don't look at just one statistic and tell me that it proves anything. Proper analysis means doing some hard work. Do that analysis and write that article, it'd be very interesting to read.
Meanwhile, get on your bike!January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]

|
Brain Lateralization Test Results
|
| Right Brain (40%) The right hemisphere is the visual, figurative, artistic, and intuitive side of the brain. Left Brain (70%) The left hemisphere is the logical, articulate, assertive, and practical side of the brain |
|
INTJ - "Mastermind". Introverted intellectual with a preference for finding certainty. A builder of systems and the applier of theoretical models. 2.1% of total population.
|
These posts represent my opinions only and may have little or no association with the facts as you see them. Look elsewhere, think, make up your own minds. If I quote someone else I attribute.
If I recommend a web site it's because I use it myself. If an advert appears
it's because I affiliate with Google and others similar in nature and usually means nothing more than that...
the Internet is a wild and untamed place folks, so please tread warily.
My opinions are just that and do not constitute advice or legal opinion
of any sort.
All original material is copyright 2008 by myself, too, in accord with the Creative Commons licence (see below).
| We do try to cover our costs by selling mugs, teeshirts, hats, bags, stickers and images... | ||||
|
The A2W large mug! |
The GTVeloce mug! |
OODB large mug! |
The Tipo116 large mug! |
Yet another mug! |