Bicycles Are Not Better

Bicycles are not better In the opinion piece “bicycles are not better” appearing in the motoring magazine, Mercedes Jensen, considers the issue of bike are a menace on the roads, getting too much support from governments and is no substitute for a car or public transport. The writer agrees that and he support three of ideas to define it, showing the bicycles are not better. His tone is judgmental and sarcastic as supported by the range of language techniques and visual material that he utilized to present his view. The writer’s point is that only 5 per cent lucky one can ride bike. By repeating of the “lucky that”, he make the series issue more lively and humorous. In this way, he support all the point of just a little people can ride bike to go to work. It is a funny way to explain the situation the reason why just a little people can ride bicycle.
Next point, the writer means that create bicycles lanes on major road are dangerous and prone to traffic jams. He uses appear to fair to explain that there is no fair. The bicycles already have plenty of trails around the city. Thus they do not need extra lanes on major roads. If do that it is dangerous and encourage more cyclists to use the major road and prone the traffic jam. He uses this fact to show the influences of people doing that way. To wake reader up, telling them, remind them, caution them. As well as he uses pun and sarcasm to stress that some lucky people should be satisfied, do not ask more.
Finally, the writer link bikes to the problem of losing confidence in the public transport system. He highlights the point that “better public transport should be available to people in the outer suburbs.” He uses appeal to public good to persuade people. That it is revealing flaws in bicycles and explain the effects.
To sum up, the writer using a lot of way to persuasive people that although bicycles are have more good advantage, it also has some more disadvantages. And the writer thought that the