Hilarious Reddit thread on walking in the US vs UK

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all, taking long walks (1+ hours) on pavement is awful on your knees & feet, even if you don’t feel the impact immediately.

Second, if not owning a car correlated with being fitter, those who do not own cars & whom are completely reliant on public transportation (including public buses) for their every need would be the fittest among us. Obviously, that is not the case.

Walking for an hour plus is awful on your knees and feet? The “impact” of WALKING? Is this some kind of troll post? How horrendously out of shape are you? Let me guess, if somebody does any amount of running their knees will explode by the time they are 60.

Unreal. Absent some health condition not of your own making, if you can’t walk 10 miles and you are under the age 65, you are doing life wrong. Most Americans can’t walk FIVE miles to save their life.

It’s not exclusively an American thing. I know plenty of sedentary Brits and continental Europeans. And even those that do walk a lot that just eat and drink poorly.

It’s like idiocracy sometimes. Where is the brawndo?

You missed the “on pavement” part. Versus on soft surfaces.

[Anonymous]

So suburban Brit’s really think they walk considerably more than suburban Americans?

[Anonymous]

This is why I love living in the suburbs of Boston. I have a single family home, can walk to the center of town in 10-15 minutes or can walk 5 minutes to the T and get pretty much anywhere. Sidewalks and green space galore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all, taking long walks (1+ hours) on pavement is awful on your knees & feet, even if you don’t feel the impact immediately.

Second, if not owning a car correlated with being fitter, those who do not own cars & whom are completely reliant on public transportation (including public buses) for their every need would be the fittest among us. Obviously, that is not the case.

Walking for an hour plus is awful on your knees and feet? The “impact” of WALKING? Is this some kind of troll post? How horrendously out of shape are you? Let me guess, if somebody does any amount of running their knees will explode by the time they are 60.

Unreal. Absent some health condition not of your own making, if you can’t walk 10 miles and you are under the age 65, you are doing life wrong. Most Americans can’t walk FIVE miles to save their life.

It’s not exclusively an American thing. I know plenty of sedentary Brits and continental Europeans. And even those that do walk a lot that just eat and drink poorly.

It’s like idiocracy sometimes. Where is the brawndo?

You missed the “on pavement” part. Versus on soft surfaces.

Maybe this is part of the troll post, just an extension. If not, I don't know what to say.

If you can't walk for an hour plus without it having "impact" on your knees or feet, you are doing it wrong. Unless you have some kind of medical condition that is not of your own making. Since that is probably not the case, this is just pathetic.

There are few things that are truly socialized I can get behind. But worker health exams like the Japanese companies do is one of them. Can't walk for an hour plus. Yeah, that will get you on a performance improvement plan over there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on whether you’re in a city/suburb/rural area. In some burbs in the US, it’s not possible to walk 30 min in one direction without hitting a 4-lane busy road that has no sidewalks or crosswalks.

I know and find that pretty sad. I would feel trapped. Never understood the appeal of suburbs.

You must be very well-off. Cities are for the rich, the young & the poor.

It’s very difficult to afford a good QOL as a middle class family in a city.

DP. For me good QOL includes being able to walk to shopping, dining and the library. So, I live in a city (Brooklyn) the way people in Europe live in the cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on whether you’re in a city/suburb/rural area. In some burbs in the US, it’s not possible to walk 30 min in one direction without hitting a 4-lane busy road that has no sidewalks or crosswalks.

I know and find that pretty sad. I would feel trapped. Never understood the appeal of suburbs.

You must be very well-off. Cities are for the rich, the young & the poor.

It’s very difficult to afford a good QOL as a middle class family in a city.

DP. For me good QOL includes being able to walk to shopping, dining and the library. So, I live in a city (Brooklyn) the way people in Europe live in the cities.

Most people can’t afford to both live in Brooklyn & give their kids a good education. And, live in a residence that’s more than 2 bedrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on whether you’re in a city/suburb/rural area. In some burbs in the US, it’s not possible to walk 30 min in one direction without hitting a 4-lane busy road that has no sidewalks or crosswalks.

I know and find that pretty sad. I would feel trapped. Never understood the appeal of suburbs.

Really? Not everyone can afford to own property in the city AND either send their kids to private or live in a safe neighborhood. Safe, walkable neighborhoods with good schools in cities are scarce & expensive.

[Anonymous]

I prefer to live outside DC. I walk plenty of places. We have a coffee shop in our neighborhood in Alexandria. We could walk to Del Ray or ride bikes if we wanted to. I guess we live in an ex-urb-ish area in that sense, maybe?

Life is what you make of it. You can figure out how to be more mobile during your day if you live in the suburbs if you make it a priority. Most people simply don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on whether you’re in a city/suburb/rural area. In some burbs in the US, it’s not possible to walk 30 min in one direction without hitting a 4-lane busy road that has no sidewalks or crosswalks.

I know and find that pretty sad. I would feel trapped. Never understood the appeal of suburbs.

You must be very well-off. Cities are for the rich, the young & the poor.

It’s very difficult to afford a good QOL as a middle class family in a city.

DP. For me good QOL includes being able to walk to shopping, dining and the library. So, I live in a city (Brooklyn) the way people in Europe live in the cities.

That describes my lifestyle in a suburb of Philly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all, taking long walks (1+ hours) on pavement is awful on your knees & feet, even if you don’t feel the impact immediately.

Second, if not owning a car correlated with being fitter, those who do not own cars & whom are completely reliant on public transportation (including public buses) for their every need would be the fittest among us. Obviously, that is not the case.

Walking for an hour plus is awful on your knees and feet? The “impact” of WALKING? Is this some kind of troll post? How horrendously out of shape are you? Let me guess, if somebody does any amount of running their knees will explode by the time they are 60.

Unreal. Absent some health condition not of your own making, if you can’t walk 10 miles and you are under the age 65, you are doing life wrong. Most Americans can’t walk FIVE miles to save their life.

It’s not exclusively an American thing. I know plenty of sedentary Brits and continental Europeans. And even those that do walk a lot that just eat and drink poorly.

It’s like idiocracy sometimes. Where is the brawndo?

You missed the “on pavement” part. Versus on soft surfaces.

Uh, you know people run on pavement for an hour (or several hours) without issues. Where on earth are you getting the idea that it's bad to *walk* on pavement for ONE hour? One has to be really out of shape (or quite elderly) to feel "impact" from walking for an hour on pavement.

And on your 2nd comment about public transportation... people that take public transportation in cities are generally quite fit and active. People in cities are generally much more fit because of all the walking/stairs they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First of all, taking long walks (1+ hours) on pavement is awful on your knees & feet, even if you don’t feel the impact immediately.

Second, if not owning a car correlated with being fitter, those who do not own cars & whom are completely reliant on public transportation (including public buses) for their every need would be the fittest among us. Obviously, that is not the case.

I’ve been running a few miles almost daily for 25 years and have zero problems with my knees or feet. People tell themselves lies to support their own inclinations.

[Anonymous]

I am English, 50 and walk a lot. My American wife does not. We literally live a 6-8 min walk from a library/rec center. I will walk there and back with DD and she will drive. I will walk with DD to a playground 10 mins away, she drives.
I think some of it is that in England it’s just socially expected. We have good sidewalks, crosswalks etc. in the US we put money into roads not pedestrian travel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all, taking long walks (1+ hours) on pavement is awful on your knees & feet, even if you don’t feel the impact immediately.

Second, if not owning a car correlated with being fitter, those who do not own cars & whom are completely reliant on public transportation (including public buses) for their every need would be the fittest among us. Obviously, that is not the case.

I’ve been running a few miles almost daily for 25 years and have zero problems with my knees or feet. People tell themselves lies to support their own inclinations.

So true. Running can strengthen knees and feet, but that's not convenient to some narratives.

[Anonymous]

I would love to live in a walkable area. My top picks would be a library; grocery store; store for detergent, toothpaste, etc.; gym/fitness center; and reasonably priced restaurant/bar. But I live in the US in the suburbs so not going to happen for me because in my area I can't afford to live in the cities where this might be possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Brits like to take the mickey out of how we hate to walk everywhere until they move to America and realize how spread out things are. They often forget that their entire country is the size of Florida. People in NYC walk exactly the same amount as people in London. People in the burbs walk exactly the same amount as people in East Bumble UK. I have lived in all four places. I am also married to a Brit who used to love making fun of me for this. Ten years of suburban living later, you best believe he’s driving that car from one end of the shopping center to the other.

Yep. I had British friends visiting me in SF and they wanted a day trip to the Grand Canyon. We went to Yosemite instead (overnight), and they quickly grew tired of walking and complained.

I do wish we had more sidewalks, paths, and crossings. I live close to a shopping center but don't walk there because of busy roads and incomplete sidewalks.