Kick Scooter - Comparison With The Bicycle

Comparison With The Bicycle

Unlike a kick scooter, a bicycle has a seat and drive train, which add speed, cost, weight and bulk. A folding scooter can be more easily carried than a folding bicycle or even a portable bicycle. Even a non-folding scooter is easier to manoeuvre between obstacles, as there are no protruding pedals. Thus a cyclist has advantages in longer journeys and open spaces, and a kick scooter in shorter and more crowded ones. Kickers seldom have a luggage rack, so the rider usually carries any cargo on their back.

At low speeds a bicycle is difficult to control while pedaling, which is why cyclists sometimes kick their way through dense traffic or in other conditions where they cannot take advantage of the speed of their machine. Thanks to the superior low-speed stability of a Kickbike, it is usually regarded as a kick scooter and permitted on footways where riding a bicycle is forbidden.

Since the feet are nearer the ground on a scooter, it is easier to step on and off than even a step-through frame bicycle, hence the rider can alternate walking and pushing as energy and route dictate. Large wheel scooters such as the Kickbike afford a more effective cross training workout than standard bicycles as the whole body is engaged in the effort of kicking. Pushing or kicking a large wheel scooter places less stress on the knee joints than pedaling a bicycle, so it is often preferred by people with knee problems. Although the bicycle is a much more effective and efficient long distance machine, in 2001 Jim Delzer propelled a Kickbike across the United States.

These factors aside, a bicycle is undoubtedly a vehicle more suited to rugged terrain or long roads, as the more compact scooter is less efficient when the aim is not easy manoeuvrability on a flat surface. This is shown in the use of bicycles outside of the city situation, except of course when trends influence either way, and fashion interferes with practicality.