Cycling is more environmentally friendly than other forms of transport. Why is it not popular in many places? And how to increase its popularity?
In recent years, advocating for the decrease of pollution imprints was critical, among which is for cycling as a commuting method because of its unpopularity despite the positive impacts on the environment it brings to the table. In the following paragraphs, I will be discussing various possible causes of the aversion to bicycles in the transportation industry in addition to some feasible solutions to this issue.
There are numerous dissuasions to the use of bicycles for transportation purposes. Chief among these is the natural exhaustion of energy and time, for cyclists will have to exert more physical effort to justify the zero-carbon footprints of this means of transport. This proved unbeneficial for urban dwellers, as the pace of city life hindered them from sparing any time or strength for even their most basic needs, not to say anything about such exhaustion as cycling. Moreover, the lack of government assistance also plays a role in deterring potential bike commuters, with the lack of infrastructures in many cities as authorities mainly focus on catering to the needs of the more widespread automobile drivers with little regard for cyclers. Hence, these disadvantages eclipsed the benefits of reducing pollution for many, restraining the number of bicycles in traffic.
Regardless, several measures could tackle this problem. First and foremost, the facilitation of a friendly environment for cyclists will be necessary for the enticement of the public's participation. To illustrate, the construction of bike lanes in downtown areas will provide bicycles with safer and faster commutes than four-wheelers. In complement, it also enables employees, previously impeded from cycling to their workplaces due to the shortage of suitable routes, to join the movement. Additionally, implementing administrative actions for the priorities of the cycling community can motivate the populace to switch to eco-friendly transport modes. Policies such as restricting fuel-based vehicles in city centres or raising the awareness of the masses through encouragement and education programmes can help visualize a difference in the number of bikers hitting the road.
In conclusion, while multiple obstacles exist in developing bike-friendly cities, the vision is not improbable. With the proper spending and incentivizing from the executives, an upturn in bike riders should be conceivable.
| 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 |
- Petroleum is the dominant fuel source for various vehicles nowadays Therefore a rise in its price is often suggested to reduce the growing number of conveyances on the road However although such intervention can have some effect on the problem in my opini 95
- Some people think that employers should not be concerned about how employees dress at work but the quality of work only To what extent do you agree or disagree 96
- There are social medical and technical problems associated with the use of mobile phones What form do they take Do you agree that the problems outweigh the benefits of mobile phones 92
- Some people today believe that it is acceptable to use physical force to discipline children but others feel it is completely unacceptable Discuss this view and give your opinion 95
- The table and charts below give information on the police budget for 2017 and 2018 in one area of Britain The table shows where the money came from and the charts show how it was distributed 93
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 176, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'publics'' or 'public's'?
Suggestion: publics'; public's
... be necessary for the enticement of the publics participation. To illustrate, the const...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, if, moreover, so, well, while, in addition, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 13.1623246493 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 7.85571142285 102% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 10.4138276553 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 1.0 7.30460921844 14% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 24.0651302605 54% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 41.998997996 148% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 8.3376753507 240% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2039.0 1615.20841683 126% => OK
No of words: 363.0 315.596192385 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.61707988981 5.12529762239 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3649236973 4.20363070211 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.23423486756 2.80592935109 115% => OK
Unique words: 223.0 176.041082164 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.614325068871 0.561755894193 109% => OK
syllable_count: 639.9 506.74238477 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.60771543086 112% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 5.43587174349 74% => OK
Article: 5.0 2.52805611222 198% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.10420841683 95% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 0.809619238477 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.76152304609 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 16.0721442886 93% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 20.2975951904 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.2031079187 49.4020404114 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.933333333 106.682146367 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2 20.7667163134 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.73333333333 7.06120827912 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.67935871743 92% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
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: 0.0909082596248 0.244688304435 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0299523604841 0.084324248473 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0265510432 0.0667982634062 40% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0520905578827 0.151304729494 34% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0184786857121 0.056905535591 32% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.1 13.0946893788 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 50.2224549098 60% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 11.3001002004 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.61 12.4159519038 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.92 8.58950901804 127% => OK
difficult_words: 140.0 78.4519038076 178% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 9.78957915832 143% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.1190380762 115% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 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.