Personally, I barely know how to ride a bike and find the aesthetics of the whole bike-riding enterprise kind of abhorrent. Still, the fact remains that building a bike-friendly city like Portland is very good public policy in terms of public health and the environment, so it's nice to see that some people are also making money thanks to the way the city's early adoption of bike-friendly policies.
« Pakistan Through the Ages | Main | Hitler Analogies »
Bikes
06 Nov 2007 04:47 pm
Comments (81)
But surely you'd look sweet upon the seat of this one, Matt.
That's all heartwarming and shit, and I really do think it's a great idea to make cities as non-auto-dependent as possible (and if being bike-friendly is part of that, good for them)...but the reality is, bikes are never going to be a viable transit option for more than a tiny (extremely physically fit) fraction of the populace. The attention they get is way out of proportion to the extent to which they're actually helping anything.
(Full disclosure: I live in San Francisco, where bicyclists are a) unbelievably self-righteous, b) oblivious to the rights and safety of pedestrians, and c) contemptuous of traffic laws.)
Tom, bicyclists are like that pretty much everywhere. I say this as someone who used to commute by bike. It's simply not possible to get people on bikes to obey traffic laws that were designed for cars. When the only carbon you're burning is what you ate for breakfast, all Stop signs start to look like Yield signs and pedestrian crossings suddenly become fun and challenging obstacle courses.
I don't think you're right, Tom. Granted, you have to have some reasonable fitness to ride (like not being morbidly obese), but here in Japan nearly everyone I see, from children to grannies is on a bike.
It's the sports mindset that makes people think cycling isn't for them. If you adopt a utilitarian mindset, it becomes a lot simpler. For the past 3 1/2 years my main mode of transport has been the bike, and it's worked well for me. At my new job I have to cycle all the way, sometimes 10km, so I got a better bike for handling the hill in between. But I could have done ok with my 5-speed basket bike that I picked up for $100. Certainly a lot cheaper than a car.
bikes are never going to be a viable transit option for more than a tiny (extremely physically fit) fraction of the populace.
You are so right! To be obese and drive to work alone in one's own car is a bedrock American lifestyle value that can never change. The far-out wackos who try to promote "bicycling" as a valid method of transportation are even crazier than those nutjobs who claim "homosexuals" deserve the same rights as regular people!
Fortunately, a few clear-thinking individuals like Tom Hilton can see this hoax for the scam it is.
your aversion to biking is not surprising, given your press photo.
Wow, that's four Tom Hilton pile-ons in two minutes. I think mine was funniest, though. ;)
I think the long distances between home and workplace are more of an impediment to widespread cycling than the general fat-lazy-slobbiness of Americans.
Shouldn't you be able to get McArdle to teach you how to ride a bike, Matthew? You know, after a bloggingheads.tv session or on the way home from the office?
Yeah, living in the Bay Area makes me feel like being a bicycle-riding person means I should buy some Italian bicycle paraphenalia and run over pedestrians and annoy people with Critical Mass.
I'm tired of riding slowly down residential streets on my flea market mountain bike and then suddenly, *whizz* come 5 spandex wearers on racing bikes, taking up the whole traffic lane, creating a traffic jam because they are still going more slowly than the cars that wish they would just scoot over into the bike lane (which the city of Berkeley put there for specifically that purpose).
Or seeing the particularly Californian class of spoiled middle-aged hyperliberal ladies who also slowly tool down the traffic lanes, screeching at drivers who nicely ask them to move into the bike lane (the ladies give give some quasi-political reason why the drivers are the blameworthy oens), or, at night, obliviously run right into pedestrians -- and claim innocence because the pedestrians "weren't wearing white". Sorry, a bit of a personal rant there.
It was much more fun to be a bicyclist in Chicago where I used to live, where you were just another sort of pedestrian, a faster one -- but there was no massive ideological/aesthetic package you had to buy into, or suffer the effects of.
American parents today mostly don't want their kids to ride bikes -- too much chance of brain damage from an accident. In the neighborhood where I grew up in the San Fernando Valley, as traffic has soared, bike ridership has dropped by 90% since I was a kid.
Another problem is that schoolbooks today are so heavy that riding to school with a 20 pound backpack makes a child dangerously top-heavy.
I think the long distances between home and workplace are more of an impediment to widespread cycling than the general fat-lazy-slobbiness of Americans.
That's obviously true for 2007. The real issue for the future (as I see it) is whether--as oil becomes prohibitively expensive--people adapt by adopting what are now seen as unreasonable and extreme measures (e.g., bicycling to work), or whether society just collapses.
Bicycle riding today is basically a fun form of exercise for yuppies, not a serious means of transportation. The next generation doesn't ride much at all.
I'm with Johnny: what aesthetics? Spandex or sweat? As for the first- I never touch the stuff. As for the second- It is a bit of a challenge to bike to work in August and look reasonably presentable but it is possible. Just a change of clothes and a washcloth to the face.
The reward is to avoid traffic and transit; more control over the timing of your trip; and obviously the exercise and pleasing experience of riding through the city.
Needless to say I totally disagree that cycling cannot become a meaningful component of the transportation system. No, places like Marietta Georgia aren't going to become centers of cycling but hundreds of cities and towns throughout the country could be great cycling towns if there were simply a place marked out for them on the road.
I think the long distances between home and workplace are more of an impediment to widespread cycling than the general fat-lazy-slobbiness of Americans.
True, but one affects the other. Some say one lead to the other, which is that because the distances from home to work to shopping and recreation for the average American are too far to reach any way other than car, Americans have adopted a totally sedintary lifestyle that leads to obesity.
Bicycle riding today is basically a fun form of exercise for yuppies, not a serious means of transportation.
This is just... retarded. There's no other way to put it.
"but the reality is, bikes are never going to be a viable transit option for more than a tiny (extremely physically fit) fraction of the populace."
Tom, you're basing too much on your own experience. Take a look at this, from a fellow San Franciscan:
http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/
These are photos of ordinary, middle class people of all ages, living in a wealthy cold-climate city, who use their bikes as their primary means of transportation, no matter where they are going.
Bicycle riding today is basically a fun form of exercise for yuppies, not a serious means of transportation.
Balls, Sailer. When I ride up Lincoln Ave. at night, there are many dozens of other bike riders there too, commuting home - almost all of them in their 20s. It's the most efficient form of transport ever invented. Yes, there is the yuppie-hobbiest contingent, with their $2k bikes, but most riders in the city are nothing like that. No, it's not a very good mode for the suburbs. So?
Make me drive a car or take crappy public transportation, and I will be fatter, much more stressed out, and crabby.
I don't doubt that there are 20-something bike riders like you. But most of the population is younger or older, and they aren't riding.
I realize that very few of Matt's readers have kids, but show me where children are biking to schools in large numbers, which they did in the 1970s. I'm sure it's still true some places, but the San Fernando Valley is a pretty average place in a lot of ways, and youth bike ridership has fallen off a cliff here.
Remember also that bicycles also serve as transporation for the homeless and working poor. I lived in Jacksonville FL, which has very poor public transportation. When I commuted to work, often the only other cyclists were people with low-wage jobs hustling to work.
You are so right! To be obese and drive to work alone in one's own car is a bedrock American lifestyle value that can never change. The far-out wackos who try to promote "bicycling" as a valid method of transportation are even crazier than those nutjobs who claim "homosexuals" deserve the same rights as regular people!
Gee, you just totally proved that bicyclists aren't assholes! Good for you!
On a less snarky note here are just a few of the things that are terribly wrong about your comment:
1) The first false dichotomy is between bicycling and solo driving. That these are not the only alternatives is so obvious I shouldn't have to point it out, but since that's the first premise of your comment, apparently I do. I happen to commute by some combination of public transit and walking (the balance between the two depending on weather, hourse, etc.). I do most of my shopping on foot. I wouldn't even consider driving to work. (I wouldn't consider taking a job or living in any place where I would have to drive to work.)
2) The second false dichotomy (which is an extension of the first) is between being gung-ho on bicycling and being pro-automobile. Had you visited my blog, you would know I'm not the latter. In fact, just yesterday evening, you'd have found a post arguing against a measure to increase parking in San Francisco (and in favor of the city's transit-first policy).
3) The third false dichotomy is between people fit enough to use bikes as a primary means of transportation, and people who are (in your view) entirely to blame for their inability to do so ('morbidly obese'). I'm sure disabled people and seniors (among others) would be happy to know how morally superior to them you feel. In Davis, maybe, lots of people can use bikes for transportation because Davis is dead flat. In San Francisco, the number of people able to do so is much smaller because we have hills. In much of the country, it's not feasible because (as Al pointed out) the settlement patterns are too diffuse.
4) And speaking of Davis, which is absolutely the best-case scenario for U.S. cities (flat terrain, very bike-friendly civic culture, extensive network of bike paths, etc.), something like 21% of the people use their bikes for transportation. That's pretty much the upper limit for Gringolandian cities.
Bloix, that's possible in a place like Amsterdam which is a) extremely flat, and b) extremely dense (which both encourages human-powered transportation and discourages driving). That's not really reproducible here in Gringolandia.
Oops--not Al, Blah. About the work/home distance.
And let me just say how charming it is to be told that Americans are now so fat and lazy that they can't even learn how to ride a bike.
And cowardly- that's what I calls it when people get all bent out of shape about bicyclists, but you can bet they are careful never to get mad at a trucker. I used to drive a pretty ugly truck and it was falling down funny how much respect you got from the horn-tooters.
Let's qualify this a little. Sure there are fat cowardly slobs who will rot in front of a tv instead of riding a bike when they can't afford gasoline.
Then there are other people like the couple in their 80s I saw the other day, both loading about 50 pounds of groceries into their bicycle carrying baskets. Yes, losing weight helps- when they shed that 3000-pound car, their life expectancy and quality of life rose dramatically.
It's kinda sad, but for a lot of Americans their car became all that they could ever hope to be. Pretty soon, they'll have to choose- car or house? I hope they bought the model with a built-in tv.
I grew up driving to school even though it was only about 3 miles away. Now I bike to work every day because the city of Boulder makes it easy with lots of bike paths and bike lanes. I pretty much go everywhere by bike. And no, I don't ride an expensive bike or wear spandex. That does not have to be park of the equation.
Tom, this whole post is about bike-friendly cities. 21% is pretty impressive, and I think stands as an argument in favor of pro-bike policies' effectiveness where they make sense, whatever else happens in "Gringolandia," whatever or wherever that is.
One problem with biking is that the "fun form of exercise for yuppies" view has dominated the bicycle market in the US for a while. There are mountain bikes and road racing bikes, and that's it. Only in the last couple years are you starting to see (mostly mail-order) companies selling bikes that make sense for use as an urban transportation alternative, with the upright riding position, internal geared hubs, fenders, baskets, and chainguards that make running errands and commuting comfortable and safe.
"When I commuted to work, often the only other cyclists were people with low-wage jobs hustling to work."
Yup, that's LA these days.
Look, I rode my bike to school most of the time from the 7th grade onward. I loved it. But virtually no parents in Los Angeles let their kids do it anymore.
tps12, as I said, I'm all in favor of bike-friendly policies as one component of making cities less auto-dependent. I just don't think that in most places it'll ever have a major impact, much less be the primary component of an overall strategy for reducing auto use. Very few places have the combination of factors that Davis has.
Portland, by the way, is notorious for its lack of children. So much land has been set aside for bike paths and nature preserves and the like that many people with kids can't afford to live there anymore because the supply of available land to buy is so low. It's a demographic dead-end.
What are the "aesthetics of the whole bike-riding enterprise" and what's abhorrent about them?
I honestly don't know what you're talking about on this one.
I go out and ride my bike 5-10 miles a day, and use my bike to run whatever small errands I can out here in the burbs. It never occurred to me that I was doing something aesthetically abhorrent. I would be very curious to know what it is.
Strikes me as one of those rushed posts folks would like to go back and write more comprehensibly!
Gee, you just totally proved that bicyclists aren't assholes! Good for you!
Even worse than a garden-variety asshole: during the year (long ago now) when I lived in San Francisco, I was a bike messenger.
Tom, I'm sorry if I was unduly snarky. I'm willing to grant that I implied points 1 and 2, which you have correctly refuted.
Points 3 and 4 are more debatable. Despite the legendary hilliness of the city, anyone in good health living and working in the San Francisco city limits could, if necessary, easily commute to work year-round by bike. (I'll grant an exemption for the elderly, the disabled, and anyone living on Lombard Street or its few topgraphically-comparable areas in the city.) My point is that doing so isn't impossible--people just don't want to, which is, I feel, an important difference.
As a bicyclist with a 3 year old, no car, and a college fund containing the money I don't spend on a car, I find the notion that having a child means you need a car to be preposterously stupid.
Re jonnybutter
"Yes, there is the yuppie-hobbiest contingent, with their $2k bikes,"
A $2000 bike? Where has Mr. jonnybutter been living? A Serotta Ottrott with Campangnolo Record components will set one back some $9500!
Strangely (at least to me) not discussed in this thread is the impact of topography on whether or not a city is 'bikeable.'
The notion of biking to work on the east coast & midwest seems pleasant enough to me (flat and/or rolling hills) but I can't imagine trying to do so in SF/Seattle with their constant, sudden & severe elevation changes.
First, there are generally speaking two categories of riders: "roadies", and those who do real biking:
http://www.youtube.com/OutdoorLifestyleCom
I've spent hours on the LosAngelesRiver BikePath (i.e., no cars), which can be used to go from north of downtown to LosFeliz/Glendale, and I have yet to see someone looking like they came from work. In fact, there's only one street crossing between just north of downtown and those areas. So, that's pretty bike-friendly, yet I haven't seen anyone taking advantage of it.
..but the reality is, bikes are never going to be a viable transit option for more than a tiny (extremely physically fit) fraction of the populace.
Crap. (Pardon my French.) In August, when I bought my bike, I was a late middle-age, chronically-ill bozo. I've been riding my bike to work since then. I have all my limbs, but other than that, you couldn't pick a less likely candidate. I hadn't exercised since I was 23. I've become a bit fitter over the last couple of months, but biking in the city really isn't that demanding of an activity. I wish it had more magic to restore the abandoned fitness of youth, but that would take a more focused regimen.
You guys really don't understand the aesthetic problems of a bicycle? It's not the sweat or the spandex. It's just the fact that a grown man, or woman, looks completely ridiculous riding a bicycle. Riding a racing bike in proper cycling gear is actually the least silly-looking option. The pictures of European bike-riders convey some of this, but you really have to see the bike-rider in motion to appreciate the aesthetic horror.
I believe P.J. O'Rourke said all there is to say about this, in "A Cool and Logical Analysis of the Bicycle Menace." Here's a copy:
http://www.bikereader.com/contributors/misc/menace.html
I second BFR's comment about terrain. I still can't wrap my head around the fact that San Francisco is a big bicycle town. Every time I'm there I see someone riding a bike up a hill, nearly in tears, and going far slower than the people on foot.
"When I commuted to work, often the only other cyclists were people with low-wage jobs hustling to work."
Yup, that's LA these days.
That's been L.A. pretty much for decades, probably since the dawn of inexpensive cars. Not just these days.
Bicycle riding in the US has always mostly been more of a hobby or youthful diversion than serious transportation. That hasn't changed at all from Sailer's youth.
There are serious commuters I see all the time in L.A. Mostly, they don't stick out too much, because they ride ugly bikes and dress in regular clothes. Rusty, tattered old beach cruisers rule in these circles. Often, these commuters also sport the kind of scary brown skin that gets Sailer yearning for the fabled white L.A. of yesteryear.
L.A. is generally pretty friendly to bicyclists. It is interesting for my kids to occasionally get crap for riding on the sidewalks on the way to school, or the crap I get for riding in the street. But it's nothing like the horror stories I hear from other parts of the country.
I'd avoid reading too much into the idea that kids, or adults riding fewer bicycles to school/work has much significance. This seems to be one of those data points that people can use to prove whatever axe they have to grind.
Apology accepted, James Gary.
Points 3 and 4 are more debatable. Despite the legendary hilliness of the city, anyone in good health living and working in the San Francisco city limits could, if necessary, easily commute to work year-round by bike....My point is that doing so isn't impossible--people just don't want to, which is, I feel, an important difference.
Well, I'm in above-average shape (I can haul a 40-lb. pack up a trail rising 3,500', which puts me at least above average) and maybe 10 years ago I was in much better shape (I'm getting old, alas) and at my peak there is no way in hell I'd have been capable of riding a bike in San Francisco. It's much more difficult than walking, and I think people who have invested the time and effort in acquiring that particular skill grossly underestimate its difficulty.
In any case, here's my bottom line: if bicycling works for you, good for you. It's when bicyclists disparage everyone who doesn't ride (including those of us who are doing the right thing by taking public transit and/or walking--which a lot of cyclists do ("fat cowardly slobs"? Fuck you very much, serial catowner)--that I get really, really cranky.
I've spent hours on the LosAngelesRiver BikePath (i.e., no cars), which can be used to go from north of downtown to LosFeliz/Glendale, and I have yet to see someone looking like they came from work. In fact, there's only one street crossing between just north of downtown and those areas. So, that's pretty bike-friendly, yet I haven't seen anyone taking advantage of it.
It seems you may have answered your own question. That path sounds like it doesn't actually go anywhere that's convenient to actual commuters.
It's not the sweat or the spandex. It's just the fact that a grown man, or woman, looks completely ridiculous riding a bicycle.
Yes. I know. The wife makes me wear the damn helmet. At first, I decided to ride with a certain amount of decorum. But here's the kicker: going down hills fast is just as much fun for a middle-aged bozo as it is for a 10 year old. And there's something else: riding a bike demands constant attention. There's not much coasting when you're riding on surface streets during rush hour. As a result, you're forced to pay attention and to be more awake. I know some of you younger guys don't have a clue what I'm talking about, but middle age brings a terrible familiarity to ordinary tasks. Riding a bike to work absolutely smashes that for the commute. So, 40 minutes a day, life gets juiced.
I agree, San Francisco seems like a place where only bicycling enthusiasts could love riding.
But the idea that one must be perfectly fit to ride is silly. I ride every day. I suppose I'm actually fit enough to do such an activity on a daily basis, as it's something I actually accomplish, but my body shape would make Matt Y. look like Barney Fife in comparison. Bicycling is simply a fun and practical activity where I live. If people have a problem with the way I look when I ride, they can buy me a car.
I know some of you younger guys don't have a clue what I'm talking about, but middle age brings a terrible familiarity to ordinary tasks. Riding a bike to work absolutely smashes that for the commute. So, 40 minutes a day, life gets juiced.
Terrain matters. There's nothing wrong with getting your kicks going 50 mph downhill or feeling the euphoria of cresting a ridge - but there's no effing way I want to do that every day on the way to work, especially carrying a computer bag, change of clothes and a kid or two god-forbid. Add traffic to the mix - then no thank you very much.
I've spent hours on the LosAngelesRiver BikePath (i.e., no cars), which can be used to go from north of downtown to LosFeliz/Glendale, and I have yet to see someone looking like they came from work. In fact, there's only one street crossing between just north of downtown and those areas. So, that's pretty bike-friendly, yet I haven't seen anyone taking advantage of it.
I like the stretch from Los Feliz up into the valley - eight or ten lanes of the 5 to your left, the concrete ditch of the river to your right, high tension towers astride the path, it's got that great aging infrastructure vibe all the kids love these days - but you try to ride that at rush hour, and you'll take a significant and noticable performance hit from the air impurity.
And I don't have a segue, but I'll probably never get a better chance to bring this up, so I'll mention I've been building a bike at the Bicycle Kitchen, down by LACC. They're a public bicycle repair shop that encourages you to build bikes out of donated frames and spare parts, with instructors hanging around to teach you what does what. It's pretty impressive, and I'm going tonight to mount a rear deraileur and true a wheel, and that should be it, and I'll walk out with about $350 worth of bike for $75. I think the shop took its inspiration from a similar setup in another city, and there are already two or three more around LA (I think Venice, Eagle Rock-ish, and somewhere in the valley) descended from this one.
Yes, some may think bikers wearing spandex look silly, but at least they have a practical reason. I can't think of a single reason why businessmen hang strips of cloth from their necks.
Fashion wise, in SF, I don't why there are so many bikers riding fixed gears, which make said hills even more difficult.
Tom Hilton is basically correct, about San Francisco, at least. Here, bike riding IS feasible - as long as you don't live on one of the main hills. There is plenty of flat places in SF where you can ride a bike effectively. More importantly, San Francisco itself is a fairly small town and most parts can be reached within half an hour of travel - if you can avoid the hills, which is not easy.
"Even worse than a garden-variety asshole: during the year (long ago now) when I lived in San Francisco, I was a bike messenger."
Yes, bike messengers are major assholes. They're fortunately also short lived because they insist on flying down off California Street into the Montgomery Street intersection which is a guaranteed way to die.
I do see too many bikers riding on the sidewalk and trying to squeeze themselves and their bikes into the same construction walkway that pedestrians are trying to walk through. This is called stupid. There is a reason there are roads and laws requiring bikers to use them.
Biking can be a very efficient way to travel around if your lifestyle fits it. If your lifestyle doesn't fit it - namely, your job is thirty miles away from where you live - then a car or public transportation is required. And as everyone knows, public transportation is incredibly inefficient in supporting anyone's particular lifestyle, even if it's supposedly efficient at saving the environment. Standing around for fifteen minutes to half an hour waiting for a bus is not my idea of efficiency. Neither is walking everywhere. A bike is better than that, but if where you're going is far off, a car is even better. Plus you can haul stuff in a car that you can't on a bike - bike carriers not withstanding.
Not to mention that the city of San Francisco is never so peaceful and quiet as when there is a Muni strike going on. Those buses - at least the diesels, being replaced by electrics these days slowly - make the largest amount of noise in the city. Cars and trucks don't even come close.
And that's just the way it is. There is no one transportation mode that is "correct" for everybody or everywhere.
People who claim "well, if EVERYBODY WOULD DO X, everything would all be better" are usually wrong.
The exception is where X is rational thinking.
And there's something else: riding a bike demands constant attention.
Yet another reason why Muni is superior to commuting by bike (or driving, for that matter). That's reading time for me.
"It's just the fact that a grown man, or woman, looks completely ridiculous riding a bicycle."
That's because you're not used to seeing one. I'm 28 and maybe sometimes forget to untuck my pant leg from my sock, but other than that, I look pretty normal, as does everyone else I see on a bike in this town. The guys in spandex with helmets are the ones who look out of place. I've seen old people who look like a light breeze would kill them cycle along. Granted, at a glacial pace, but still.
The American mindset is that bikes are for recreation and sport, and the only commuters are the poor ones who can't even afford bus fare and probably stole that bike from a little girl. I think this has been borne out by the comments here.
While yes, settlement patterns are a reason that people don't cycle, we as a society have no one else to blame. Back home in the suburbs of Indianapolis, cycling to work would've been impossible. It was a 40-minute commute by car on the freeway from my folks' place. Maybe 2 hours or more cycling at full speed. And there's no public transport because Hoosiers are cheap bastards.
If you plan your life better, a cycling (or walking/public transport - Tom's right that cycling isn't the only alternative) lifestyle is possible, but whining that you live too far away is not an excuse unless you still live with your parents.
Am I a yuppie when I ride my 2k racing bike and a redneck when I ride my 4k ATV?
When daylight savings time ended, that killed my bike commuting. Even with bike lights, I don't think people should ride in traffic after dark.
The sad thing about the $2k racing bike---actually around here that's nothing; there are >$10k Sevens at CityCycle in SF---is that is usually a concession of age. Young bikers who have the time to stay fit can't afford such bikes. After years of riding cheapo wheels, I finally sprung for some Ksyriums, but I had a sick feeling the as I did so that I had peaked.
that's sad -- bike riding is a true joy, and one of the essentially modern experiences (speed without friction was not particularly available until 100 or so years ago).
Re: >$10k bikes. Remember when Kerry was getting all that flak for riding an ~$10k bike? Everyone here was going, "Yeah, he's rich, why can't he afford a GOOD bike? My wheels cost more than his frame".
Yes, and if I remember right, Kerry had himself made a custom frame (not surprising, given his height.) I thought that was to be applauded. Keep the artisans afloat if you've got the cash. Similarly ridiculous was him getting attacked for windsurfing; elitist? windsurfing?
Re: I think the long distances between home and workplace are more of an impediment to widespread cycling
There's also the probvlem of needing to run errands to and from work and the need to pick up and drop off kids and other passengers. There's also a weather issue: bikes are dangerous in rain, snow and ice. And no, contrary to myth, rubber tires do not protect cyclists from lightning strikes (here in Florida you do not shrug off lightning; you get the hell under cover unless you want to end up a crispy critter). I love cycling, I'm going out to spin through the neighborhood in just a few minutes, and I miss the days when I had plenty of time to indulge in it more. But I am under no illusions that it can be anything other than a worthwhile form of exercize and, only in some special circumstances, an alternative to motorized transport when weather, distance and dress codes permit.
Re: The real issue for the future (as I see it) is whether--as oil becomes prohibitively expensive--people adapt by adopting what are now seen as unreasonable and extreme measures (e.g., bicycling to work), or whether society just collapses.
More likely they will adapt by using more mass transit and redesigning cities so at least some amenities can be accessed on foot or by bike. Meanwhile, electric cars and maybe fuel cell vehicles will replace gasoline-driven vehicles in the long-run.
Re: and obviously the exercise and pleasing experience of riding through the city.
You would not find riding through my city "pleasing". The traffic just plain sucks here, and too few neighborhood streets go anywhere worthwhile to serve as an alternative to the main thoroughfares.
Re: I wouldn't consider taking a job or living in any place where I would have to drive to work.)
Most people don't have that option. In today's job market you really have to be ultra-flexible about where you live and the ability to commute twenty miles or more.
Re: So much land has been set aside for bike paths and nature preserves and the like that many people with kids can't afford to live there anymore because the supply of available land to buy is so low.
Don't be silly. Bike paths and lanes do not take up residential land. They may take up road-space and right-of-ways besides roads, and that's it. But that space is lost to the road anyway. No one would be building a house on it.
Re: Even with bike lights, I don't think people should ride in traffic after dark.
If you can stay on neighborhood streets with good street lighting you're OK at night. I got around Ann Arbor that way when I was in college. All the neighborhoods connected into one another if you know them well enough, and there were occasional traffic lights allowing you to cross the main roads safely. Too many newer subdivisions though are nothing but cul de sacs making it impossible to avoid main highways.
The "aesthetics" of bike riding look very different in the US than in Europe. Here, lots of folks dress in ridiculous bike-racer costumes just to commute to work. In Europe, people wear normal clothes on their bikes, unless they really are in the Tour de France or something. It's just a means of transportation.
"show me where children are biking to schools in large numbers, which they did in the 1970s"
Lessee, enough parents driving their kids to school, means more traffic (and now with a higher % of more dangerous SUVs), which means it's not safe to bike, which means more parents driving their kids to school...
It's a perfect circle!
Portland's success with bike friendly policies could not have happened without the progressive land use policies that have the same effect all over Oregon. Each city has an "urban growth boundary" to prevent sprawl and therefore even smaller cities, such as Eugene, have widespread success with bike friendly policies.
But these policies are part of a larger scheme of alternatives to automobiles including mass transit. I grew up in Fort Worth, Texas, and there is absolutely no way that biking is a viable transportation option there because of the distances required to go anywhere. In Portland, however, you can bike across town in well under an hour, and if you don't feel like biking, there is convenient and reliable bus and train service.
Portland's success with biking and transportation in general is a result of a comprehensive policy containing urban sprawl and emphasizing alternatives to autos. That is what the rest of America should focus on. The land use restrictions also prevent the intrusion of big box stores and chain restaurants in favor of preserving independent business that is well established in individual neighborhoods and thus leads to distinct neighborhood cultures.
Where has Mr. jonnybutter been living? A Serotta Ottrott with Campangnolo Record components will set one back some $9500!
I obviously know nothing about high-end biking! I just buy used bikes/parts and fix em up. Wouldn't really want to use a $2k, much less a $9.5k, for daily city travel. The Chicago streets beat the hell out of bikes.
I know bikes don't work for everybody, but they're worth thinking about. I do think they are worth the little bit of extra time they take (except when they're *faster* than driving, which certainly happens). I think people don't realize how stressful it is to drive, except on the most open of roads. When I sold my car a few years ago, I quickly noticed a large decrease in my stress; and the exercize you get riding the bike works out the rest. You don't need a gym OR a car.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned scooters. I see a lot of potential in the idea of a city where a lot of people ride scooters to work. The big limiting factor is that city streets aren't safe for scooters. Bike lanes that allow small scooters could solve that problem.
Atrios had a post about the cycling situation in Barcelona a while ago. Just goes to show how different the thinking can be. http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_09_09_archive.html#7686425729435396914
"I think people don't realize how stressful it is to drive, except on the most open of roads. When I sold my car a few years ago, I quickly noticed a large decrease in my stress; and the exercize you get riding the bike works out the rest. You don't need a gym OR a car."
Definitely! I'm one of those people who's always in a hurry, even when I'm not going anywhere important, so driving was constantly stressful, not to mention the $50/week in gas it ate up (I stopped driving when it was $.88/gal - 4 years ago!). Since I've changed jobs and cycle exclusively, I'm debating dropping the gym membership too.
I wonder about aesthetics of stop-and-go traffic on an interstate during rush hours. In LA and Chicagoland you can often develop superior speeds on a bicycles, and are those commuters in cars really looking any better? A huge amount of metal boxes, each with a mammal or two in it?
I bike to work more often than not, and I have 4 miles and 250 ft uphill each way. This is leisurely 20 minutes, you do not want to sweat it on the way to work. Biking at night is not a problem at all, you just need reflectors and lights, and to keep in mind that the others may fail to see you. Twighlight time is more dangerous, do not assume people who want to enter the road etc. can see you.
Rain is not that bad on a bike. People keep a change of cloths in the office and a towel. Snow and ice is clearly a hazard, and thunderstorms too -- even if a lightning will not hit you but a tree next to you, a falling branch can hit you. Thit says that a bicyclists has to have some other transportation options. In my case, we have one car for two adults in the family.
I visiting Germany this year. Here, very few people use any kind of special clothing for bicycling, and a LOT of people bicycle. (The cheapest fuel is 5 Euro per gallon.) A few seem modbidly obese. Once I have seen a guy who was compressing his gut with every stroke on the pedals. Aesthetics were perhaps wanting, but spirit of dedication was awesome. The area has elevation differences of 200 ft or more, but most people both work and live close to the level of Rhine river.
last word about aesthetics: in summer, I usually bike in tight denim shorts. They are exceedingly difficult to find, at least, for males. It seems that gods of aesthetics decreed that men are supposed to have shorts which are ridiculpusly voluminous (which is bad for aerodynamics), while women should have shorts which are ridiculously skimpy (unless you are a svelte teenager), To me, those misbegotten foot-wide mid-calf shorts are a serious aesthetic pollutant (or foot-wide tights in skimpy shorts).
Let's leave the cosmetics aside. It's not for everyone, but for some a really fast road bike is an extraordinary ~ride~. I bought an entry level triathlon bike last Spring (a Cervelo Dual, appreciably less than $2K). It's a rocketship, and god knows what riding a P3C must be like.
Gotta love this "aesthetics of bicycling" thread.
'Cuz god knows, nothing rocks aesthetically like a 300-pound guy in the latest Fartmobile. Add his 300-pound wife and a couple of sartorially challenged children, and there you have it- American Gothic.
$98 a barrel. Thank heavens we're the sole remaining superpower and don't have to worry about our currency crashing and oil prices rising out of control.
Re: "...find the aesthetics of the whole bike-riding enterprise kind of abhorrent."
What do you mean, the loud spandex outfits? You don't have to wear them to bike. I bike to work year round wearing regular clothes. Biking in the dark may be a little dangerous, but its also a beautiful and exhilarating experience.
Re: "Bicycle riding today is basically a fun form of exercise for yuppies, not a serious means of transportation."
Yuppie is one of those meaningless slurs. The fact that a certain type of "bad" person--a "yuppie"--may like to do it makes it nonserious?
For the last time, it's not the spandex that makes bicycling aesthetically objectionable. It's the actual act of a grown person riding a bicycle -- it just looks silly. I'm sorry to have to break it you. I ride my bike occasionally, and I know how silly I look. I thought everyone knew.
I wear wool, not spandex on my 25 mile round-trip commute from NNJ to midtown Manhattan. And I look fucking good doing it. Anyone who doesn't think so: SMBBD. If I'm tooling around my town -- trips to the post office, and such -- I wear whatever happens to be on my body at the time. What's so hard to comprehend about using the right tool for the job.
Maybe Too Many Steves is just silly-looking, on or off a bike.
I side with Tom that bicycling is part of a well-balanced diet of transportation alternatives. But his feelings about a small minority of cyclists evinces itself as a passive form of assholery. Population mass is key. That's why mass-transit options don't work in spread-out or sparsely populated regions. So there's not much hope in converting, say, Orlando to a biking town like Portland or Amsterdam. But consider NYC. If the city weren't so goddamn bike hostile -- and what other conclusion could one come to about a town that puts sets up bike lanes to be taxi-door-lanes -- I could easily envision tens or hundreds of thousands of people making their daily rounds by bike. One out of five, like Davis, CA? Maybe not. But 100k trips per day, given proper bike lanes is easily attainable. I'm "the guy who rides a bike to work every day." But countless coworkers all have the same comment when they see me on the elevator with my [Oregon-made] BikeFriday folder: "I'd ride to work, too, if the streets weren't so dangerous, and if I had a place to park my bike at work."
Seriously, people, put aside your prejudices -- against spandex, blood dopers, messengers, etc. Part of the reason cyclists act like outlaws, victims, or self-styled-saviors is that even supposedly sympathetic groups pigeonhole them there. It's like the argument the Billos of the world make, that Ward Churchill represents the left -- as if one irresponsible actor typifies hundreds of others who are reasonable and law-abiding. Make biking palatable to the urban masses and suddenly you've GOT grannies, kids, "sararimen," and average Janes/Joes on two wheels.
Matt,
If you want to properly ridicule bike culture styles, I highly recommend reading Bike Snob NYC. He will break down everything from the spandex-clad roadie to the pathlete to the tight denim short-wearing fixed gear freestyling hipster.
Then buy a bike and helmet and do more bike-blogging.
like the stretch from Los Feliz up into the valley - eight or ten lanes of the 5 to your left, the concrete ditch of the river to your right, high tension towers astride the path, it's got that great aging infrastructure vibe all the kids love these days
You seem to have forgot the bums.
Climbing hills isn't that difficult; that's why they have low gears. If there's little or no traffic you can also go a little to the left and then a little to the right instead of going straight up. Or, you can just walk it through the hard parts. And, if you think a gradual grade over asphalt is difficult, try varying grades over dirt and rocks.
"act of a grown person riding a bicycle"???!!!
a whiff of cultural bias from claustrophobic suburbia?
I am rolling my eyes, but perhaps a better answer would be with a tribute to Leonard Cohen: 'We are ugly but we have the music'.
To make some apt musical references:
"Biking in the dark" (Sinatra, see Jim W)
"Sometimes I feel like a lonely bicyclist pedaling against the wind
Chorus: Against the wind, against the wind..."
Matt, Sorry but the aesthetics of strong legs and lifted butts are reason enough! Not to mention the aesthetics of the insides of my arteries! I started biking to work in SF and anywhere else I can as a mid-40s professional and the payoff as to how I feel and look is immense! Get with it! It feels and looks good and it is the greenest way to commute!
And, if you think a gradual grade over asphalt is difficult, try varying grades over dirt and rocks.
For me the hardest are sharp turns while moving up a grade. You lose your momentum like flushing the can. On my ride home, the steepest grade comes right before I turn onto my street. It's change-of-shift time, too, and I'm trying to peddle, at the end of the day, up a steep grade while 30 or 40 drivers are thinking end-of-the-day thoughts with end-of-the-day distractions.
Here in Seattle there are several nice biking trails that connect the suburbs and work areas. I ride to work in summer on a paved trail. I hate the Lance Armstrong wannabes who flash by on their road bikes wearing those ugly outfits. They never "use voice or bell when passing" and get way too close to me as I glide along at 12-15 mph. But for me biking is still a great stress reliever and no-brainer form of exercise in summer. I see birds, fish, river otter, bunnies, etc on my ride. What a civilized way to get from point to point. The silence is fabulous. And in summer here the humidity and temp are low enough to prevent me from having to shower or change clothes. It's fabulous.
Someone please explain why tight fitting racing gear ('spandex') looks bad? A chacun son gout, but am I really alone in enjoying the visuals of ~fit~ cyclists in road gear?
Hypatia,
I hate the Lance Armstrong wannabes who flash by on their road bikes wearing those ugly outfits. They never "use voice or bell when passing" and get way too close to me as I glide along at 12-15 mph.
There is a real problem of roadies not signaling their intention to pass. Glad you like cycling regardless!
As a Laurent Fabian wannabe, may I point out the converse problem? That is, slower cyclists not keeping to the right hand side, or riding 2 or 3 abreast on the bike path, instead of single file.
I hate the Lance Armstrong wannabes who flash by on their road bikes wearing those ugly outfits. They never "use voice or bell when passing" and get way too close to me as I glide along at 12-15 mph.
--and--
As a Laurent Fabian wannabe, may I point out the converse problem? That is, slower cyclists not keeping to the right hand side, or riding 2 or 3 abreast on the bike path, instead of single file.
All y'all can fight that out amongst yourselves. What pisses me off is bicyclists riding on the ped-only paths (and sidewalks), which is endemic here in SF.
And Jamey, if that really is a 'small minority' of bicyclists, then I sure would like to (just once!) see a law-abiding bicyclist call one of those assholes on it. Something tells me that'll happen about the time I see a bicyclist stop at a stop sign--which is the 17th of fucking Never.
Re: "Someone please explain why tight fitting racing gear ('spandex') looks bad?"
Its not the tight fittingness, its the loud obnoxious colors on a lot of them. And those lime neon green jackets...yech.
Having said that, I can't say I particularly care if I look goofy on a bike...its not like anyone's forcing me to watch myself.
As for the stop sign thing: its much easier on a bike to slow down at a stop sign, look around, and then proceed without ever really stopping. Plus, if you arrive at a stop sign about the same time as a car, the problem is that drivers are usually so timid and indecisive (and I live in the Boston area!) that its often easiest to just force the issue rather than wait for them to finally make up their mind about what to do.
its the loud obnoxious colors on a lot of them. And those lime neon green jackets.
I agree that this kit doesn't go everywhere. But there is a natural selection explanation here. Those skeletons transfixed by aluminum tubes that you see so often by the roadside? Those were the riders who didn't wear lime neon.
As for the stop sign thing: its much easier on a bike to slow down at a stop sign, look around, and then proceed without ever really stopping.
Known in some circles as a 'California stop'. And that would actually be refreshing; I almost never see bicyclists even slow down at intersections.
Plus, if you arrive at a stop sign about the same time as a car, the problem is that drivers are usually so timid and indecisive (and I live in the Boston area!) that its often easiest to just force the issue rather than wait for them to finally make up their mind about what to do.
We're getting a little off-topic here, but that's one reason I always enforce my right of way at stop signs (and, of course, always yield the right of way to other cars when it's rightfully theirs). People may think they're being polite by just sitting there, but they're really just gumming up the works.
its the loud obnoxious colors on a lot of them. And those lime neon green jackets.
There is also some fun surrealism here... Check out the DVD of the 2007 Giro D'Italia. It's about Danilo Di Luca, with the total-Eastwood title: "The Killer Rides In". And he rides in wearing a pale pink body suit...
Comments closed November 20, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
If I couldn't ride my bike, I'd be a very depressed guy. Even here in Chicago, lots of people (including me) ride all year. It's cheap PR for Hizzoner da mayor to put in lots of bike lanes (just paint on the roads) and all the busses and trains allow bikes (which is wholly aside from the funding problems with the CTA; the city spends essentially bupkis - $3 million per year - on rapid transit).
What 'aesthetics' are you talking about?? The goofy spandex clothing? I kind of agree with you, if that's what you mean. Otherwise...
Posted by jonnybutter | November 6, 2007 5:04 PM