I believe that this process really helped me save my sanity during that time of extended mental stress. I could literally air our my brain, and also get some mild physical activity after sitting in the library all day. I tried really hard not to think about my thesis, but just to take in the scenery, the light, the wind. Sometimes it rained. It was really healthy.
In contrast, I remember a former co-worker telling me about a road trip they once did. I think it was in Arizona, but I might be wrong. Anyway, after driving for many hours, they decided to take a break and just to walk down the road for a few minutes before hitting the road again.
So they pulled over and started walking. Sure enough, in no time, they get stopped by the cops who inquire what the heck the are doing! They weren't walking on the road or in any otherwise dangerous fashion -- but apparently in that area, just being out and about on foot was enough of a reason to be considered suspicious. :-)
I don't know how the interaction in question went, but it's possible they were just interpreting an earnestly concerned police officer as suspicious because of a (justifiable) distrust of police.
It's fascinating to read about inherent fear of being questioned. I don't think its ever crossed my mind, and its not uncommon to see cars parked along side random roads all through Oregon and Washington. I guess I'm lucky in this regard.
I wouldn't say the general population trust police officers. Being able to trust the police is a form of privilege that minorities, the poor, etc. often don't have. Most individuals from an upper-middle class background don't have reason to distrust the government.
The people on HN are probably an exception. I think perception of law enforcement depends largely on whether a person has found the authority figures in their life to be benevolent or malicious. Authority figures, especially law enforcement, tend to view those outside the norm with suspicion.
> Eller writes that Bradbury's inspiration for the story came when he was walking down Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles with a friend sometime in late 1949. On their walk, a police cruiser pulled up and asked what they were doing. Bradbury answered, "Well, we're putting one foot in front of the other." The policemen didn't appreciate Ray's joke and became suspicious of Bradbury and his friend for walking in an area where there were no pedestrians. Using this experience as inspiration he wrote "The Pedestrian", which he sent to his New York agent Don Congdon in March 1950. According to Eller, "[the story's] composition in the early months of 1950 predates Bradbury's conception of 'The Fireman,'" the short novella that would later evolve into Fahrenheit 451.
I have never felt more dystopian.
Maybe, this is an American thing. Some colleagues of me explain how, in a job trip to Atlanta, they decide to go back to the hotel walking. They could see the hotel from where they were, so, why not?
Sure enough, the police stopped them and wanted to know what was wrong.
They have a lot of fun explaining it.
I think that say something about how the city is designed.
I don't know anything about Atlanta but in Arizona, per parent comment's story, for example, it's strange to see people walking around because it's way too hot in 80% of the state to walk around for leisure. On top of that, the towns are so spread out that it makes no sense to walk from point A to point B.
So if people are walking around, they're doing so aimlessly in a climate that is not really conducive to doing so. It seems reasonable to think they're either in trouble or up to trouble.
I don't think it has anything to do with the temperature.
You see tons of people walking around in cities in equally hot or hotter climates, from Cairo to the tropics...
You're overlooking a lot of important factors.
Distance: I highly doubt people in Cairo are walking 10+ miles to the nearest market.
Attire: If walking around in the summer in Arizona raises suspicion, I cringe to imagine what suspicions would be raised by doing so in long flowing robes that cover skin head to toe.
Sweat: In my experience in the tropics, being a bit sweaty is quite normal and acceptable. In The South (the southeast) it seems more acceptable, but in the dry Arizona desert, it's not quite normal to be drenched in sweat.
Air conditioning: AC is everywhere in Arizona. As such, the mode of survival is getting from AC to AC as quickly as possible. If AC weren't everywhere, people would probably find sweat more acceptable, but... it is.
Skin tone: I'm pasty white and was born and raised in Arizona. In my travels to the tropics I never once ran into a person as white as me who enjoyed walking in the heat.
All of these together make walking pretty rare. Sure, if people didn't have another option besides walking you'd have a population of fit, well-tanned Arizonians all over the streets. Markets would probably be built closer to homes and suburbs would shrink. People wouldn't need cars and would probably be more comfortable without AC 24/7. As a result, a bit of sweatiness would come to be expected and wouldn't be a source of self-awareness. But that's not the reality of that region.
Most people drive cars, and most people prefer having some room to breathe, and there's no shortage of space, so lots are made big enough to have parking and empty space, etc.
There's not some kind of anti-walking design conspiracy here.
- Primary metric for road design and evaluation being "level of service", which means "how many cars can move through here in a given period of time". Pedestrians are second-class citizens.
- Minimum parking requirements subsidize car use and make urban environments pedestrian-unfriendly by spreading out points of interest.
- Zoning regulations mandating that most of a city's residential area consist of detached single-family homes on large lots, mixed-use generally limited or non-existent.
- Under-investment in transit (transit use is generally paired with walking at the start and end).
- Freeways running all the way into and through cities split urban areas into sections that are difficult to navigate between by walking.
I could go on and on about how American cities are hostile to walking, but that covers some of the big ones. It's true that these decisions have or had popular support, so it's not a conspiracy, but it was certainly designed.
Certain areas can be no loitering zones. Other areas are known drug zones and you can be arrested for going there without a clear purpose.
How could this be a lawful arrest?
What if you're a tourist or someone who got lost trying to go to find Ikea. They would hassle you and most likely give you a lecture then lead you out of the area.
These types of areas have signs. If you are interested why they have such areas watch Snow on the Bluff, it's a very accurate depiction.
Wait, the illegal possesion laws extend to the drugs being already in your blood?
Anyhow, we ended up eating in the hotel...
Walking in the USA. :)
That said there are cities or at least parts of cities in the US that are no problem. I've walked around San Francisco, New York City, Seattle amongst others and always felt perfectly safe. I think one big factor is public transport. If you have public transport you have people walking; at least to it and back.
Does your friend also cite Hobo Nick as inspiration?
Long back I had read an article or series in National Geographic about an American who did that - walked from coast to coast. Great story.
> Walk Across America is a nonfiction travel book first published in 1979. It was the first book written by travel author Peter Jenkins, with support from the National Geographic Society. The book depicts his journey from Alfred, New York to New Orleans, Louisiana. While upon his journey of self-discovery, he surmounted the travails of travel, engaged himself in others' lives, lost his best friend, experienced a religious conversion, and courted a new wife.
...and sometimes this attitude of "people who are walking around are suspicious" can lead to pretty dire consequences if your skin is the wrong color: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/indian-grandfather...
BBC Magazine strikes again.
No, they're not losing it, it's not "slowly dying". Did "people" at large ever have that? Having the time and energy to go aimlessly wandering was a luxurious privilege until very recently. If anything, the existence of "[a] number of recent books [that] have lauded the connection between walking - just for its own sake - and thinking" would suggest that walking is enjoying a renaissance - this time for the masses.
> Many now walk and text at the same time. There's been an increase in injuries to pedestrians in the US attributed to this. One study suggested texting even changed the manner in which people walked.
> It's not just texting. This is the era of the "smartphone map zombie" - people who only take occasional glances away from an electronic routefinder to avoid stepping in anything or being hit by a car.
This is pure Marie Antoinette. 200 years ago, peasants would only glance up from their plows to avoid hitting a rock in the field, or whatever, and surely the savants of the time deplored that as well.
Here's a thought: Most people walking around in the city aren't out on an Dickensque intellectually stimulating aimless wander, they're not out to tread a deep mental path in the words of Thoreau, they are in transit between two places, we could vulgarly call them "work" and "home", and the transit bit is an undesired period of downtime. You'll have to be an intellectual to problematise their choice of filling that period with something else than romantic observation of the very same surroundings they look at twice daily for years.
You just made this up....
Firstly, you have never been around since the beginning of humans, and secondly, you haven't even read any history books if you think humans have always been extremely busy and that somehow they are not now.
The opposite is actually true. Humans have had a lot more free time in the past. It is easy to find this information out on the internet. Humans were estimated to only work about 3 hours per day in some time periods. In others they had months at a time off.
"Altogether there were about 80 days of complete rest with over 70 partial holidays, that is, about three months of rest spread over the year."
Not sure about the veracity of that site, but that kind of leisure time is in keeping with much western history that I've read. Looking at a timeline, the Protestant work ethic seems to have played a pretty big role in shifting the work/leisure balance more towards work.
The word you're looking for is https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Dickensian
(I know it's not top-grade historic research, but they tried to highlight what was known about the 60s, and this matches the environment that inspired Bradbury's story about it.)
But why does strolling a baby or walking with a child necessarily "gain an aim"?
I'm asking because much of my walking is with my 2yo daughter, and I'd classify it as aimless walking. We'll just stroll around our neighborhood, taking whatever path strikes our fancy, and talk about the things we see: birds, squirrels, odd shaped leaves, puddles, people doing yard work – or just walk in silence and enjoy the fresh air. I guess I have the "aim" of getting a little physical activity and getting away from the distractions of technology, but if you dig deep enough, everything has a purpose – even if it's just to do something purposeless for a while.
Both sets of my grandparents, from opposite ends of the country, used to walk quite a lot without any real purpose for doing so. They did this well into their 80s, and so did their friends. It seemed just to be something they did, and always had done.
My parents, by contrast, almost never walk when they can drive, and will often drive to a park to let their dog off rather than walk her there and back. Many of my friends are the same. One goes so far as to drive five minutes, then deals with parking and paying for it, to get his lunch every day rather than simply walking for the same length of time -- he spends more time in traffic in his car than actually moving.
One colleague of mine at my last job was amazed that I walked from the train station to the office -- a walk of less than 10 minutes at a brisk pace; it didn't even occur to her to ask about how I'd covered the mile-and-a-half from my home to the train station at the other end. My total commute was about the same distance as hers, but it took me less time, cost me slightly less, and got me some exercise into the bargain.
Some evenings, my fiancée and I would go for a walk of a couple of miles just to get out of the house, or to enjoy warm weather, or just because.
Since leaving that job, I walk less overall. I also have a dog, now, the walking of whom replaced most of the purposeless walking I used to do in the evenings. Most of my walking, now, has 'purpose' because it's exercising the dog, or taking her out for toilet breaks.
Some places are actively hostile to walkers: building only arterial roads and refusing to build sidewalks to exclude walkers and the wrong sort of people (black or poor). Relatively few places are so hostile to drivers. So people grow a bias toward driving everywhere. Load your bicycle on the car and drive it there to ride around in circles.
The purposelessness here is the time between I want/need to write code or talk; that's most of the walk.
Edit: one of the findings is that you basically should not need any scrolling/dragging within small distances; like scrolling to a part of code and dragging your cursor to make changes for instance. This includes dragging/dropping the Scratch visual code; it doesn't work while walking.
For any one in this situation, I think any "code while walking" solution should be voice activated, as it may be important to have eyes and hands free over the terrain. Straight voice-to-code would be cumbersome. Something like a voice-to-UML might be better. But I think what we really need is to first define a visual logic language itself that can be easily translated into high level code. Thanks for sharing, and keep exploring. There are definitely others who would be interested ;)
That's why Google glasses got me excited, as it's a step towards that direction. I don't see this being too viable until I can control the computer with my thoughts, though, so we need the microchip in the brain (or something similar) still too.
But then I could work outside, walk while working, not be tethered to a desk or table all day. Can't wait for that time, hopefully it's not much more than a decade away.
Won't help the "bus factor"...
If by 'bus factor' you mean the business term of concentrating too much knowledge in one person and suddenly losing them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor), then that's something the company should already be taking into account anyway.
If by 'bus factor' you mean something regarding a computer system bus, like maybe it's too much info to carry and display portably maybe then you'll have to elaborate.
If by 'bus factor' you mean communication bandwidth or capability between me and these types of devices still being fairly non-existent, that's my reasoning for expecting there will be a microchip or something that allows me to direct any mouse/keyboard movements (or their equivalent) with my thoughts. Because having to gesture hololens style or dictating everything or navigating with a single button on the side of my glasses would suck, yes.
Might want to be a little more specific next time instead of throwing out a term without context.
Although I probably did come across as a pedant considering how straight I wrote it, so fair enough.
I just walk in my city to explore, preferably greener, quiet areas without car traffic, but I always plan a zone I'll go to. I use offline openstreetmap (OSMAND) on my smartphone. I try to go to different places when I can, but it's difficult as green places are too remote. Public transport can boost me, but I usually take off from home and try to make a looped route.
To me it helps "loosening" my focus, so I can think a little more creatively. I just talk with myself. I don't have a time where I know I have to go home, I don't plan. Walking is a physical exercise (at least for me, I sleep better), which make the blood flow, so you're not as much anxious when you sit for too long.
I don't want to sound like a crazy hobo, but cubicles, houses, apartments and dense urban areas can feel like prisons. It's not just about the physical exercise, it's about being in the large outdoors and not controlling your behavior because there are civilized people around you. If all you do is work and gym, it won't feel very good.
Maybe all of this is in my head, and my unconscious just pretends it's good. But I know that I can't be creative at home.
Also try to watch that speech about creativity by the monty python head guy. He gave really good insights about how to put oneself in a position where you can be creative. You need large spaces, relative silence, freedom from behaving like you want, etc.
I live in a relatively green area, but still my street alone (~660 houses)"wastes" around 40,000 m^2 of space compared to new high rises on the way near our local station. I'd love to see far more of the residential areas compressed like that, if only it meant a reasonable portion of additional land was turned into parks (and here's the problem - in practice this is of course additional housing, not replacing equivalent amount of less dense units). We do have a "country park" just 20 minutes walk away, so we're not in a bad spot, but it could be so much better.
If I was given Sim City like powers over London, I'd raze large parts of it outside of the centre, and replace it with super-dense hubs around the main rail hubs outside of the centre, connect them with a high speed orbital railway plus spokes out to the smaller cities further out, and free up ~half the current area of London for park lands. You could fit 30m+ people in London and still make it feel spacious and green compared to the scattered, busy suburban nightmares that covers large part of the outer reaches of London today.
You're describing the late 19th century ideal of Garden Cities. Clusters of towns, divided by green belts, and connected by railways and highways.
I'll speak for the US right now, there is so much country side, but it is completely inaccessible for pretty much anybody living in a city. What country-side there is near a metro, it's curated: park here, walk there, take a panoramic picture here, ... I worked in Belgium for a while, which is incredibly densely populated, and the country-side was so much more accessible. Walk out the door of your city house, and you'd be in a rural environment in 10 minutes, and you could go long distances never leaving those small roads. The USA has so much wilderness and country side, yet, it feels so much more remote, just because the cities are a sprawling mess and roads in the country-side only accommodate cars.
I guess if you're wealthy enough to live in a nice condo with thick concrete walls and floors and ceilings, and a condo association with lots of strict rules about what you can and can't do to annoy your neighbors, maybe it would be more pleasant--unless you want to practice a musical instrument or have a workshop or a garden or...
Human beings aren't made to be stacked on top of each other. You can do it, but it results in much more stressful living. People are happier and healthier when the population density is lower and they have room to breathe and have more space of their own.
I personally think the best places I've ever lived were areas where the housing stock is primarily three flats. You still have a lot of space, and you can find space to be alone when you want to be. The density enables a lot of amenities within walking distance, as well as making casually meeting neighbors easy. More densely populated neighborhoods have the lack of space you describe.
I moved to an area with a similar lot size, but all the houses are single family. It's borderline unwalkable, and it's still much more densely populated than the average suburb. The suburbs I think are the worst density imaginable. You are still close enough to other people to annoy one another, but not close enough to interact in a humanizing way. Most of your interactions will be only when someone intrudes into your bubble in some way.
I think there are a lot of benefits once you get up to a more rural density. You can have a shop, you have fresh air, and nature, etc.
The midpoint where you aren't stacked is the worst in my mind though.
The typical plan where I live is to have 3 or 4- story apartments in a square ring around a central yard. 100 years ago, that's where the pump, and the outhouse, and the pigs were located. Nowadays these are often play areas for the kids, small gardens, a BBQ area, and other ways to enjoy the outside while being isolated from the street noise and wind.
The building construction is quite solid. If we're making no noise, I can softly hear the piano upstairs playing. It's much nicer than the noise of the neighbors' lawnmowers when I lived in a house in the suburbs. My city has only about 60,000 people, so the noise even downtown isn't high. In the nearby big city of 500K people, buses, and trams, it's amazing how sound isolating triple-paned windows can be.
I think you're looking at solutions that are possible should one own a house, and missing that other solutions are possible with apartments.
In addition to the courtyard gardens, are also neighborhood plots, for those who are more serious into gardening. Many people who have a plot also have a little garden shed, with some furniture and such to make it sort of an escape from the house.
For a workshop, I joined the local maker's group, which is 4 blocks from where I live. They have a drill press, power saw, and other equipment for the rare times I need it.
There are also some lovely walking paths, the nearest dog park is 4 blocks the other way, and about 20 minute's walk away takes me to a part of the river set aside as a dog bathing area.
Of course if you want to keep a sled dog team, or do furniture building as a hobby, then your apartment options are limited. But for most people, being "stacked on top of each other" isn't a problem, and doesn't result in "much more stressful living."
I hate the feeling of rough bitten nails which became an unproductive distraction in itself.
Now, I clip instead. My nail grooming has become on point.
If it's your home office or you have a door its okay :)
I have no feeling some problem is out of my reach but still the nail biting happens.
Ever since I've started standing instead of sitting, walking around has decreased my nail biting.
Good cushioned footwear and insoles is a must to limit the damage at that range.
Your mileage may vary (apologies for the pun) but if you can, walk.
Anyway: walking is absolutely essential to me. I do most of my work outside, walking and thinking.
I'd imagine that spending the few hours it takes to walk 10-20 miles sitting instead would be far worse to long term health.
My finest work is accomplished in the pool, going back and forth. Been a swimmer all my life, and if I don't get at least a swim or two in each week, things start to turn to shit. It's my meditation, and despite being the most boring thing on earth for some people, it's one of my favorite things to do.
Many introverted mathematical minds would love it, but you gotta learn proper technique to be able to really get into a good careless rhythm. I highly recommend it.
It's a thinking man's sport.
For me, it's not a "thinking man's" sport out there. It's a "get out of this fast and alive" and keep an eye on my line of sight sport.
But if you're a swimmer, I do encourage open water swimming if you want a good rush. Exhilarating. Wear a bright colored cap and if you get the "willies", just get the F outta there. Live to swim another day.
I was thinking about tying myself to a rescue buoy. A bright colored cap is a great idea.
(Actually, swimming in ponds is probably much easier)
And yes, you have a different perspective of the city when you do it. Because it's easier to realize how places connect
Yes, it won't take you as far as a bike, but it's doable
You can walk to work if possible, get on an earlier stop if going by public transport, or, I dunno, just walk around the block if you have to park at your work.
Walking or riding slowly is what gives me time to ponder.
More often I'd walk around some trees around the university campus. When out for a stroll, I can take a different perspective on things and let my mind wander without being tempted to open a new tab and browse HackerNews or something. I think I've planned a lot of research just by walking around. Sitting in front of my computer, my mind is stuck in the mode of "Do something. Do something."
Is this Hiking?
According to Statistics Norway, 85% of the Norwegian population has taken a walk of 3 hours or less in the last 12 months (of 2014) and around half a walk of more than 3 hours.
I didn't find updated stats about frequency, but in 1998 46% of Norwegians went on walks for longer than 30 minutes at least 2 times a week . I don't have a reason to believe it has changed significantly.
In NOVA, we lived in a fairly dense townhouse development with significant vehicle traffic and going for walks was just not very pleasant (and the weather certainly wasn't as nice - especially in the winter). We've both lost a decent amount of weight since we moved here :)
I absolutely loathe big cities, which I know is a severe handicap for a software developer, especially since I've found remote work isn't actually a real thing. I do have a rather mundane job here (fairly low stress, 40 hrs/week CRUD stuff), but I'm not moving (besides, I have my side projects to keep me challenged) :)
When I find myself stuck and my mind starts to loop around, I need to force myself to take a purposeless walk, around my office's block or little more. During the walk I stop thinking about the problem for a while and then resume from a new angle. It normally works very well.
Prior to college, during college, and even now, my wife/wife-to-be and I took an hour walk in the evening (and sometimes morning). It's something I always use(d) to relieve stress.
The thing is, most people thought we were kind of weird. Back where we are from we literally used to walk next or through corn fields and the town was definitely not design for walking. We made it work, but I can see why walking is dying a slow death.
"A Philosophy of Walking" by Frédéric Gros
"Wanderlust" by Rebecca Soinit
"The Old Ways" by Robert Macfarlane (or really anything by him)
"Walking Home" by Simon Armitage
I'm always saddened to see so many people talking on their cell phones on my commute, especially in the public garden. It seems they either have no appreciation for walking or, worse, they're afraid to be alone with themselves.
During the week I walk a loop in the morning (9.5miles) and when I have to commute to NY, it's a few miles downtown,a brief lunchtime wander around, and a swift walk back up in the evening to Penn.
Part of my walking is for health reasons, part is due to a need to move about, part is meditation. My mind wanders while out for a good walk, it's the most liberating feeling I experience.
My wife and I go for longer walks on the weekend, sometimes we chat, but often time we walk together in silence. It's a guilty pleasure.
Used to think watching the waves would settle my mind. Being at the beach just makes me want to go surf.
Ive have had quite a few software design problems solve themselves during my 15min commute to work in the morning as well. I never listen to talk radio (NPR) as a result.
In German, there is a special verb for this, "flanieren". When I look it up, I get "to dander", which seems to be the root for "dandy".
need to be away from traffic, so you don't have to concentrate. a bike path - even better, a national/state park.
but to clarify, it helps to have a destination, even though it's not the "purpose".
I have to say though, I don't listen to entertainment podcasts but rather thoughtful ones like msdevshow, startalk radio, fullstack radio and the changelog among others.
I also have a dog, so walking at least 3 times a day is a must and I guess that changes things. But I used to walk everyday for at least 1 hour before my dog was born, now I just have company.
Sometimes I find a place to be very beautiful then I usually absorb the moment.
They are very, very different.
I can't believe these words are about to come off of my fingers, but -- if it works for you, then does it matter what a body of scientific research has to say about it? Because the benefits are at least in part subjective, this is a case where a sample size of one is sufficient.
Just a measure of creativity?
How about incorporating other factors as mentioned in these comments, some do seem more measurable than others.
Ironically, I think that walking to increase creativity, calmness, clarity of mind, reduce stress, increase fitness, etc is actually purposeful walking. Walking to not get any advantages is more of an interesting phenomena. Why do people do that?
Here's the poker stick I bought: https://www.amazon.ca/gp/aw/d/B0042SNCGA/ref=yo_ii_img?ie=UT...
Apart from that, go for a stiff 2 hour walk and then come back and tell me that it didn't do anything to your body. It's certainly not extreme sports, but it's still exercise, at least for your legs and your whole motion apparatus.
Well, why not ride a bicycle, and let both your mind AND your body benefit?
> Apart from that, go for a stiff 2 hour walk and then come back and tell me that it didn't do anything to your body.
I've tried this. I walked 1.5 hours a day, 5 times a week for about a year. Didn't lose a gram of body weight, while having a normal diet with limited refined sugars (I don't like sweet tastes). Switched to cycling (30 minutes a day), and feel much more in control now.
I can walk in the city and be relaxed; cycling in the city stresses me (I live in London). There are large parks nearby where I can walk without traffic and where I at least in the mornings could easily go 20-30 minutes without seeing either a person or a car, but where cycling isn't an option. If I could cycle along somewhere with no traffic I might very well feel differently, but walking and cycling are very different activities, and I suspect a lot of the differences in opinion have to do with whether or not cycling is viable as a relaxing activity near where people live.
> I've tried this. I walked 1.5 hours a day, 5 times a week for about a year. Didn't lose a gram of body weight, while having a normal diet with limited refined sugars (I don't like sweet tastes). Switched to cycling (30 minutes a day), and feel much more in control now.
If you walked 1.5 hours a day without losing a gram of body weight, you compensated by eating more or moving less the rest of the day. If cycling works better for you with the purpose of losing weight, then great. But that certainly does not mean walking did nothing to your body.
In any case, if your purpose was exercise, it's trivial to make walking hard: Walk with a weight vest (5kg-10kg will do wonders), or walk faster, or both.
If your mind is not on the road when you're cycling in a city then you're doing it wrong, unfortunatley.
Doors of parked cars opening, buses pulling out without indicating, drivers egressing from side-roads without checking, truck drivers underestimating their position when passing... Taking your mind off reading the road ahead even for a minute is an invitation to an accident.
Whereas on an early morning run or walk on the pavement / sidewalk / trail one's mind can wander and explore.
If one gives a purpose (in the form of training/wellness) to a walk whose foundation is being purposeless, he's defeating the point.
The different is, more abstractly, about the cultures of producing 24/7, versus allowing oneself "not to produce".
> Well, why not ride a bicycle, and let both your mind AND your body benefit?
Does that make walking a problem, compared to cycling?