Already Caught Pokemon Shiny

Rationale for cycling

Cycling utility raises a strange paradox, while everyone knows the main advantages of cycling in the city, it is underused, at least in France. The bike
city has obvious advantages:

For users: speed, flexibility, economy, no problem of traffic jams or parking lots.

For the community: no pollution or noise, low consumption of space, facilities relatively inexpensive.
In our crowded cities, polluted and noisy, this mode of travel that has so many advantages should logically take its place.
Everyone tells her how this strange paradox, but the reasons most often Advances in conversations does little to resist analysis.
The urban bike also has drawbacks. But they are often overestimated by non cyclists and sometimes even by the cyclists themselves.

1. The bicycle in town is exceeded.

Wrong! In many cities in Europe, cycling is gaining ground: Copenhagen, Cologne, Milan ...
In France, tremors are felt in Strasbourg, Nantes, Grenoble, Rennes ... Paris with the Velib!
These cities have included: the bike is an excellent remedy against traffic congestion, air pollution, noise ...

2. People do not want to ride a bicycle in town.

Wrong! It is because car traffic that will drive more people to bike.
In all cities that have had the courage to moderate traffic, the population quickly regains the pleasure to travel by bicycle easily and safely.
As the car, cycling is an individualistic mode of travel which corresponds to the current aspirations.

3. Urban cycling, it's cultural. It is not the Netherlands!

Wrong! We encounter examples of cycling in cities throughout Europe, in Latin countries as in the Anglo-Saxon countries, France and elsewhere.
cyclists are likely to Avignon as Dunkirk. Everything is a matter of political will. Some mayors in France have decided to make their cycling city and making an argument Election (Strasbourg, Nantes, Lorient ...).

4. Cycling is tiring.

Wrong! It's less tiring than walking or the stress of traffic. Older people know this. Riding a bicycle in town is increasing its autonomy without getting tired. Get his bread by bicycle, it's not the Tour de France!
More than half of all trips urban car are less than 3 km.

5.The city cycling is very dangerous.

Wrong! Accident statistics show that using an urban two-wheelers is actually very dangerous.
But riding a bike, is 8 times less dangerous because cyclists are not speeding.
If, in addition, they choose their route, this is no more dangerous than driving a car.

6. Unable to prevent the theft of bicycles.

Wrong! Theft is not inevitable. That's because everyone is not interested in the issue, that So many flights. The cyclists themselves are very careless.
By attaching your bike to a fixed point in a place not too risky, with a high security U-lock, the risk is virtually zero.
By educating everyone, some municipalities have managed to halve flights (cf. Groningen in the Netherlands).

7. And then there's the weather ...

Wrong! There are only a few days a year where the weather really pose a problem.
And in this case, there are effective protections that cover you from head to toe:
what happen to a flawless rendezvous business meeting or a gallant (remember to remove your bicycle clips!).

8. Unable to run errands by bike ...

Wrong! We can shop elsewhere than in a hyper-market. This is often not much more expensive, cycling, transportation costs are insignificant. There is shopping a little more often but close. And then there is a wide range of bags and baskets.
In the Netherlands it is forbidden to build a hypermarket along a highway!

9. Cyclists impede the traffic.

Wrong! This is obviously the opposite: it is the motorists who obstruct traffic cyclist. A car takes 4 times more space while riding a bicycle on the pavement.
If 20% of journeys made by bike, there would be less traffic jams ...
Encouraging the practice of cycling is improving accessibility to the city center and revitalize its businesses.

10. Cyclists do anything. They do not respect the rules of the road
.

Wrong! It is impossible for a cyclist, to respect scrupulously the Code.
Example: even if it has priority, a cyclist avoids forcing the passage ... Because
feels vulnerable (no body), the cyclist is generally cautious.
The Code is not suitable for bicycle traffic, it is time to reform (as has just done recently in Belgium).

11. The cycling facilities is expensive.

Wrong! A bike path is not free, but it's about 20 to 50 times less expensive than bypass urban 2 x 2 channels (same ability to schedule). With the money
5 km of bypass it covers a large urban city with a comprehensive network of bikeways.

12. To make cycling facilities, it is a "pattern Director. "

Wrong! A blueprint is a lot of bureaucracy and it's impossible to follow to the letter. Better" guidelines "and a lot of pragmatism.
example: enjoy work road to make adjustments, make easy and safe, involve users in the projects and achievements, beginning with the needs of the most obvious: adapt the surroundings of schools, campuses, sports facilities ...

nice day ... In all bike course ;-)