Really not sure how they work their statistics out?
From where I live in Poole, Dorset, whichever direction I go, I can ride, mainly off road too.
44.
Bang in the shopping centre of Poole, Dorset it only gave it 31!
Chelsea in London, which is pure hell for cycling because of the volume of traffic and not much better for walkers with all the pollution it was given 75.
OMG...........OK, the parks are nice to walk in but Hyde Park in central London was given 91.
Sandbanks, Poole, Dorset is said to be the fourth most expensive place to live in the world and it was given 40!
I think the guys who do all the statistics have never considered cycling anywhere!
It was a bit of fun to do AND I did not think it would include the UK, thanks Trek.
Clock




Reply With Quote
My place scored a 23, but they didn't locate the neighborhood schools, libraries, the pub and restaurant at the end of our street, the dozen or so shopping centers (not to mention the entire downtown area) within a mile or three in various directions, the parks, my gym, the LBS ... They just don't have enough info about the place. And then too, you have to know what a person's trying to achieve by walking. Are you looking for convenience, or trying to stay in shape? Sonoma is flat, flat, flat (well, there are hills all around the town, but not in the town itself). Here I can get my Saturday workout just walking downtown and back to do my shopping, carrying the groceries back up a couple miles of 10-20% hills.
And then I can stop at the pub around the corner (it's even called Kvilhaugen, which means "Rest Stop Hill") to enjoy the view and a beer. But yeah, if by 80 they mean that an 80-year-old LOL can manage without a car, then they definitely got Mom's address right. 


