Saturday, 26 September 2009

What's the point?

Of long distance rides that is. Reading this article in the Guardian the other day goes some way to explaining why I wouldn't really submit myself for another long distcnce charitry bike ride. BAsically though it would still be a challenge and good way of raising funds, i couldn't quite justify what some people may think of as a bike riding joly for me. I think that things like London to Brighton and other organised events are very worthwhile, and even though there may be some charity fatigue, these events still help raise huge amounts of money for very worthwhile charities.

From the comments in that article though I was lead to the website for "This is not for charity". Another interesting trip which looks like great fun, and though teh fella has a manifesto which is admirable, I can't help thinking he's a bit too angry and idealistic. Essentially it's a self involved anc chosen kind of act to ride solo round the world or any kind of long distance, and as lonely and hard as it could be (and i've not even ventured to other cultures) it is a "lifestyle choice" and a bit much to expect the rest of the world to change because your eyes have been opened more!

Not really sure what my point is, but all these rides look like fun. The one thing i don't get with this and other world traversing rides as to why they go through EnZed. Obviously i can understand why you'd want to cycle round NZ, it's fucking brilliant.
The Road to Greymouth.
Fly Eye View
A True Kiwi Experience
But it's completly outr of the way of everywhere, and not really cycleable to or from from any other land mas, you're obviously going to have to cross a mass or water at some point, but over to a tiny island in the middle of the South Pacific seems a bit uneccessary no? and also a real shame if you're just going to cane through 100miles + a day insetad of actually enjoying it!

Anyway, each to thier own.

Thursday, 10 September 2009

Bike Paths

In an effort to ensure that I don't get too complacent with my updates, worth posting about the story i read in the times, and repeated here, today basically saying that bike paths aint necessarily the way forward in all situations. It may help encourage some onto the roads, but in fact offers a false sense of security. Similar to the situation where it has been stated that motorists give less room to cyclists wearing helmets, this new study say that often inappropriate cycle paths can inspire territorialism on the part of both the cyclist and the motorist. With bike riders feeling they must stick within the painted section of the road (often contending with potholes and drains), and drivers assuming that they can use all of the road upto the painted line, which invariably leaves no space for the rider.

Essentially as with the issue with helmets, the best way to make sure that cycling is safer is going to be with more training. Well along with a more forward thinking transport system and all that jazz, which I'm sure I'll be able to describe more succinctly in the coming years.