Yes

[urbpan]

With perfect comic timing, the downpours hit me as I crossed into Watertown. I splashed the rest of the way home, not bothering to avoid huge puddles of clear water, warmed to bath temperatures on the blacktop.

Now the only question is, what shoes am I going to wear on vacation, since the pair I planned to wear are soaked?

Also: turil once remarked at how little the bicycle had changed in the past century. I wonder why as well. In particular, why must I balance on a flimsy tripod composed of my wrists and perineum? After a 15 mile commute, I'm guaranteed to have numb fingers and saddle sores.

The obvious answer is a recumbent. The problems with a recumbent are: The cyclist is basically sitting on the ground, whereas on a 'normal' bike you are at eyelevel with all but the tallest Escalades (man, that's an ugly car! what the hell does Ludacris see in them?), on a recumbent you are below the most tricked-out lowrider Lamborgini--it makes me nervous to see a rucumbent cyclist in city traffic, visibility flag or no. The second problem is that their awkward design would (I assume) make it nearly impossible to carry one onto the commuter rail, as I do a couple times a week with my bike. And last, they cost a couple thousand bucks.

Comments

Recumbant bikes

[agelena.livejournal.com]

I have a good friend who is a recumbent-bike owner. I sent an email asking about recumbent downsides, and his reply said that as far as downsides go, they are relatively high-cost, are fairly poor at hilll-climbing, and are somewhat awkward for storage and transport.

He sees the advantages as outweighing the downsides. They are faster than traditional bikes, more comfortable (no sore neck, hands, back), and the "unusual/conspicuity" of them improves safety in traffic.

If you want to know more, he is a veritable fountain of opinions--I could hook you two up.