"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ftr0ep$ua0$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> D_Frumious_B@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>> Papa Tom <TomMontalbano@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, very good point about how "smelling the roses" is relative. If
>>> all we wanted to do was get from Point A to Point B as quickly as
>>> possible, we would drive there. ANYBODY who takes a bicycle instead
of
>>> a car likely prefers to smell the roses to SOME extent!
>> There's a principle called "Fletcher's Law of Inverse Appreciation,"
>> named after the guru of backpacking. It sez that the amount of detail
>> you see is inversely pro****tional to the sophistication (and hence,
>> speed) of your means of trans****tation. You'll see more driving than
you
>> would flying, more biking than driving. And if you're REALLY more
>> interested in rose-smelling than in destination-reaching, your best
>> option is to walk.
>> Going that slow also has its drawbacks, of course. A bike is one of
the
>> best compromises between covering ground and still seeing
something.[...]
>
> I would choose a re***bent trike if I really want to see things. The
> riding position does not naturally have the rider looking down. Road
> hazards that could cause the single-track [1] vehicle rider to lose
> balance can easily be ignored, if the trike has properly wide and
durable
> tires.
Colin Fletcher was always a good read. I once wanted to hike through the
Grand Canyon like he did. But he is built like a horse and I am not, so I
had to give up on that idea.
But Fetcher is quite right. There is no better way to see things than to
walk - and walk slowly. A bicycle is way too fast to ever see much unless
you stop every now and then and look around you.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
|
