Cycling is more environmentally friendly than other forms of transport. Why is it not popular in many places? And how to increase its popularity?
Once a popular means of transport, bicycles have been falling out of favor for the last several decades despite the tremendous range of benefits that they have to offer. With a view to reviving the popularity of bicycles, this essay will first examine the causes for the loss of popularity in bicycle use.
Among the contributing factors to the decline in bicycle use, the rise of motorized vehicles and an infrastructure system discouraging the use of bikes are the most prominent ones. Particularly, automobiles and other vehicles powered by fuel have gradually replaced the two-wheeled vehicle on the street. This is understandable as those modern modes of transport are substantially more efficient at transporting traffic participants from one place to another. Given the fast-paced world of the 21st century, the road systems are generally designed in a fashion which favors the flow of vehicles with an engine at the expense of those without one. To exemplify, most cities in the world establish road designs with multiple automobile lanes as opposed to none or a single cycle lane.
Although entirely substituting modern transports with a more primitive one (the bicycle) would seem like a far-fetched outlook, it is indeed possible to scale up the number of bikes on the street. Firstly, the general public should be educated about bicycles’ environmental benefits in terms of carbon emission, as bicycles are far less carbon intensive per kilometer travelled compared to other vehicles. This insight into the environmental sphere would encourage a great proportion of environmentally-conscious individuals to switch to bikes when possible. At the same time, to allow these bicycle converts to travel at ease, a greater number of cycle lanes could be incorporated to the road systems. The city of Amsterdam, for instance, is renowned as a bicycle-friendly city thanks to its well-structured cycling infrastructure with multiple cycle lanes.
To sum up, the rising popularity of motorized vehicles and biased road systems favoring these are to blame for the downfall of bikes. Efforts to alter the status quo would involve programs aiming to raise the environmental benefits of bikes and a change in the road system.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-03 | Roy An | 95 | view |
| 2023-10-25 | Linh Nguyen Khanh | 89 | view |
| 2023-08-31 | myhuyenueh94 | 89 | view |
| 2023-07-11 | Jenny_6902 | 11 | view |
| 2023-05-18 | hxyav | 61 | view |
- People think that government should increase the cost of fuel for cars and other vehicles to solve environmental problems Give your opinion 78
- Increased world demands for oil and gas have made it necessary to look for these sources of energy in remote untouched natural places Do you think the advantages of locating new sources of energy outweigh the disadvantages of damaging such places 56
- Some people believe that living in big cities is becoming more difficult Others believe that it as getting easier Discuss both views and give your own opinion 11
- Whether or not someone achieves their aims is mostly by a question of luck To what extent do you agree or disagree 84
- Some people claim that it is acceptable to use animals to medical research for the benefit of human beings while other people argue that it is wrong Discuss both view and give your opinion 84
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 208, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...er of bikes on the street. Firstly, the general public should be educated about bicycles’ envi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, look, well, for instance, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 13.1623246493 84% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 7.85571142285 76% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 10.4138276553 48% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 24.0651302605 46% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 41.998997996 152% => OK
Nominalization: 2.0 8.3376753507 24% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1876.0 1615.20841683 116% => OK
No of words: 354.0 315.596192385 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29943502825 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33761313653 4.20363070211 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19023494897 2.80592935109 114% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 176.041082164 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.579096045198 0.561755894193 103% => OK
syllable_count: 612.0 506.74238477 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.60771543086 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 6.0 2.52805611222 237% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.76152304609 126% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 20.2975951904 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 25.2740085899 49.4020404114 51% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 134.0 106.682146367 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2857142857 20.7667163134 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.28571428571 7.06120827912 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.67935871743 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.171351975026 0.244688304435 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0566202795434 0.084324248473 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0404889136502 0.0667982634062 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0987858639467 0.151304729494 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0308313144976 0.056905535591 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 13.0946893788 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 50.2224549098 75% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 11.3001002004 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.4159519038 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.69 8.58950901804 113% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 78.4519038076 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 9.78957915832 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 10.1190380762 119% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 84.2696629213 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 7.5 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.