J. Clarke wrote:
> tony cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 May 2009 09:27:56 +0100, "Mike" wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:35:13 -0400, tony cooper
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Having said that, from where I live it is a few hours drive into,
>>>>> or over the Sierras, North into Coastal Redwoods or over to Death
>>>>> Valley. I think of Hwy1 and Big Sur as "Local" and I never tire of
>>>>> it.
>>>>> Then there is Alaska, the North West including B.C.
>>> I think its a given the US has some great landscapes, they are of
>>> course as far away from parts of US as Iceland or Russia is from me
>>> in London. I can drive to the alps in a day, would I be right in
>>> assuming there are places in the middle of the US where its quite a
>>> trek to get anywhere interesting or some coast. Everywhere in UK the
>>> coast is in range of a strong cyclist, I see this as an advantage
>>> although I would visit some of the US national parks if they were
>>> not so far away.
>> Doesn't that depend on what you considering to be "interesting"? The
>> coast is interesting, but it's not the only thing that is of interest
>> people.
>
> FWIW, the distance from the northern tip of Maine to the southwesternmost
> corner of California is greater than the distance from London to Moscow. On
> the other hand, using the shortest route, people with some regularity dip a
> toe in the Atlantic and 50 hours later dip one in the Pacific and it's
> possible to visit all 49 states in under 10 days. The US is quite large,
> but our roads are also for the most part very good, if boring.
>
I sure wouldn't want to try that. For long trips, I would much rather fly.
I have been to 37 of the 50 US states, and hope to visit the rest before
I die, or get too old to enjoy them.
Not bad for a guy who never got out of Louisiana and Texas until he was 23!. |