kids bike seat green image
Lalala.
Or is it an exaggeration? And if it's true, why do they cycle so much in the Netherlands in particular? And for what do they use it? Only for recreation?
Answer
No it's not an exaggeration. It is incredibly common to use a bicycle for pretty much any journey within reason rather than a car or public transport. Those who are able will readily cycle to work & back every day (and virtually all kids attending local schools do so by bike), or at least to the local train station (and some have fold up bikes so they can use the other end as well)
It starts young. e.g. my 3 year old cycles his bike to playschool and my younger daughter has a seat on the back of my bike. Again completely normal thing to do for them. We go to our town centre by bike normally as a family because it is just as easy (and a lot cheaper when you consider the cost of parking), and with the exception of the Saturday shopping then I do all other shopping by bike as well (saddle bags on the back of my bike and a basket up front).
Of course people use them for recreation as well. There are some lovely national parks around the country (e.g. the Veluwe http://www.hogeveluwe.nl/default.asp?language=2) and other areas that are lovely to cycle around. I live in a area that within 2 mins by bike we can be in wide open green spaces and cycle for hours in the countryside.
Why? Well you have to consider a few factors. Firstly the Netherlands is incredibly flat and as a result it's very easy to cycle pretty much anywhere. I have lived in Norway and the UK and the idea of doing the same simply was not realistic in comparison
Secondly it's a small country with a lot of people for the small space and as a result very population dense. This means that if everyone did everything by car it would be a worse nightmare on the roads than what it is. To get to the playschool, shops, town centre then it's actually quicker by bike than car. I have also lived on the outskirts of Amsterdam and cycled into the centre all the time overtaking cars doing the same journey.
The country is very bike friendly and cycle lanes are normal as well. Motorists (generally) respect this fact and the traffic laws are in the favour of the cyclist most of the times. Again this is completely different to many other countries
So yes it's normal, yes it's great - but something that's not as easily replicated elsewhere in my opinion :0)
EDIT - I just posted mine and saw pretty much the same answer from Thijs, but ok at least this way you are sure of the facts and reasoning :0)
No it's not an exaggeration. It is incredibly common to use a bicycle for pretty much any journey within reason rather than a car or public transport. Those who are able will readily cycle to work & back every day (and virtually all kids attending local schools do so by bike), or at least to the local train station (and some have fold up bikes so they can use the other end as well)
It starts young. e.g. my 3 year old cycles his bike to playschool and my younger daughter has a seat on the back of my bike. Again completely normal thing to do for them. We go to our town centre by bike normally as a family because it is just as easy (and a lot cheaper when you consider the cost of parking), and with the exception of the Saturday shopping then I do all other shopping by bike as well (saddle bags on the back of my bike and a basket up front).
Of course people use them for recreation as well. There are some lovely national parks around the country (e.g. the Veluwe http://www.hogeveluwe.nl/default.asp?language=2) and other areas that are lovely to cycle around. I live in a area that within 2 mins by bike we can be in wide open green spaces and cycle for hours in the countryside.
Why? Well you have to consider a few factors. Firstly the Netherlands is incredibly flat and as a result it's very easy to cycle pretty much anywhere. I have lived in Norway and the UK and the idea of doing the same simply was not realistic in comparison
Secondly it's a small country with a lot of people for the small space and as a result very population dense. This means that if everyone did everything by car it would be a worse nightmare on the roads than what it is. To get to the playschool, shops, town centre then it's actually quicker by bike than car. I have also lived on the outskirts of Amsterdam and cycled into the centre all the time overtaking cars doing the same journey.
The country is very bike friendly and cycle lanes are normal as well. Motorists (generally) respect this fact and the traffic laws are in the favour of the cyclist most of the times. Again this is completely different to many other countries
So yes it's normal, yes it's great - but something that's not as easily replicated elsewhere in my opinion :0)
EDIT - I just posted mine and saw pretty much the same answer from Thijs, but ok at least this way you are sure of the facts and reasoning :0)
Why is there so much resistance to the one payer health care system in U.S?
Theresa W
Why is there so much resistance to the one payer health care system in U.S? a concept used in every other advanced country?
Answer
First, I want to explain that I've lived under both the US system, and the "one payer" system in Australia, so I have seen the pro's and con's of both. At present, I live in Australia. I'm not against one payer health care, I'm only answering your question in regards to why there is resistance to it, and to do that, I must tell you it's disadvantages (I'm assuming you know the advantages).
One of the first problems with "free" health care is that it's generally funded in a large way by income taxes, or by a separate tax that you pay alongside your income tax, and money for it is taken out of your check, so that, essentially, it is simply more income tax. I have found this amount to be almost exactly what I paid in the US for private insurance. For some it might be cheaper, for others..more expensive. But it does increase income taxes dramatically, putting more burden on an already overburdened working class.
"Free" healthcare leads to overuse of medical resources. When people have to pay for something, they automatically check themselves, and determine whether or not they really need this service they will have to pay for. When a person does not have to pay for a service, they are far more likely to use the service when it's not necessary, which clogs up doctor's offices, hospital beds and emergency rooms.
That is a very real problem here in Australia. The average wait here for a "non essential" surgery using the public system is 18 months, often more. And I'm not talking about facelifts or nose jobs. I'm talking about surgery for debilitating (but non life threatening) back pain, things like that. Getting a hospital bed using the public system can take days, weeks or months, and then you can't be choosy.
The morale of medical professionals is also undermined by this system. Overuse leads to shortages, which leads to overwork, which leads to low morale or staff just changing profession in frustration. It also pits the medical professionals against the public regarding their pay. Lets say, for instance, that the union for the doctors decide they aren't making enough money. So they demand a $20,000 a year increase. Now, if it were a private hospital paying them, the public would be more likely to say "Yes, they are fine doctors, and deserve more money". But when it's the public (ie. taxpayers) footing the bill, they are more likely to say "Greedy doctors, they make twice what I do anyway, what do they need with more?" The doctors (or nurses, or lab techs..whomever) then feel their work is unappreciated and undervalued, and they move on to greener pastures. This creates more staff shortages. It's a vicious cycle.
As a cost saving measure, it also tends toward the centralization of healthcare to the cities. Rural healthcare always suffer under this system, and in many cases, just cease to exist.
The thing though that I think bothers me the most is this: When a government starts supporting your health care, it gives them an implicit right to control your health.
They do this in subtle "good for you" ways. Kids here, by law, must wear helmets when riding their bikes. Horsemen/women must wear helmets as well. Then of course,there's the seat belt laws. All sorts of little "harmless" laws, where the government insists you protect yourself.
Then they go further, attacking those with "bad" habits. Smokers are taxed massively at the checkout stand. The reason, they say, is to support the extra money it will cost in increased medical services down the track due to the unhealthy habit. And yet still, smokers can be, and frequently are, refused certain services or surgeries because they smoke.
Now they are going after food. Unhealthy foods are taken out of the schools. Removing commercials that advertise unhealthy foods seems the next item on the agenda, and they are even discussing taking unhealthy foods out of the grocery stores, or at least making them more difficult to buy.
I hope I've outlined fairly well why some people might object. Again, it does have it's advantages, and I have no doubt that the US will socialize medical care soon. But it isn't quite the rosy picture some might imagine it to be, and there are good, legitimate reasons to object to it.
First, I want to explain that I've lived under both the US system, and the "one payer" system in Australia, so I have seen the pro's and con's of both. At present, I live in Australia. I'm not against one payer health care, I'm only answering your question in regards to why there is resistance to it, and to do that, I must tell you it's disadvantages (I'm assuming you know the advantages).
One of the first problems with "free" health care is that it's generally funded in a large way by income taxes, or by a separate tax that you pay alongside your income tax, and money for it is taken out of your check, so that, essentially, it is simply more income tax. I have found this amount to be almost exactly what I paid in the US for private insurance. For some it might be cheaper, for others..more expensive. But it does increase income taxes dramatically, putting more burden on an already overburdened working class.
"Free" healthcare leads to overuse of medical resources. When people have to pay for something, they automatically check themselves, and determine whether or not they really need this service they will have to pay for. When a person does not have to pay for a service, they are far more likely to use the service when it's not necessary, which clogs up doctor's offices, hospital beds and emergency rooms.
That is a very real problem here in Australia. The average wait here for a "non essential" surgery using the public system is 18 months, often more. And I'm not talking about facelifts or nose jobs. I'm talking about surgery for debilitating (but non life threatening) back pain, things like that. Getting a hospital bed using the public system can take days, weeks or months, and then you can't be choosy.
The morale of medical professionals is also undermined by this system. Overuse leads to shortages, which leads to overwork, which leads to low morale or staff just changing profession in frustration. It also pits the medical professionals against the public regarding their pay. Lets say, for instance, that the union for the doctors decide they aren't making enough money. So they demand a $20,000 a year increase. Now, if it were a private hospital paying them, the public would be more likely to say "Yes, they are fine doctors, and deserve more money". But when it's the public (ie. taxpayers) footing the bill, they are more likely to say "Greedy doctors, they make twice what I do anyway, what do they need with more?" The doctors (or nurses, or lab techs..whomever) then feel their work is unappreciated and undervalued, and they move on to greener pastures. This creates more staff shortages. It's a vicious cycle.
As a cost saving measure, it also tends toward the centralization of healthcare to the cities. Rural healthcare always suffer under this system, and in many cases, just cease to exist.
The thing though that I think bothers me the most is this: When a government starts supporting your health care, it gives them an implicit right to control your health.
They do this in subtle "good for you" ways. Kids here, by law, must wear helmets when riding their bikes. Horsemen/women must wear helmets as well. Then of course,there's the seat belt laws. All sorts of little "harmless" laws, where the government insists you protect yourself.
Then they go further, attacking those with "bad" habits. Smokers are taxed massively at the checkout stand. The reason, they say, is to support the extra money it will cost in increased medical services down the track due to the unhealthy habit. And yet still, smokers can be, and frequently are, refused certain services or surgeries because they smoke.
Now they are going after food. Unhealthy foods are taken out of the schools. Removing commercials that advertise unhealthy foods seems the next item on the agenda, and they are even discussing taking unhealthy foods out of the grocery stores, or at least making them more difficult to buy.
I hope I've outlined fairly well why some people might object. Again, it does have it's advantages, and I have no doubt that the US will socialize medical care soon. But it isn't quite the rosy picture some might imagine it to be, and there are good, legitimate reasons to object to it.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: Is it true that dutch people use their bicycle so much?
Rating: 94% based on 932 ratings. 4,1 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 94% based on 932 ratings. 4,1 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment