Bicycles Have Evolved. Have We?
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
I saw my first recumbent bike as a child in the 1970s. I didn't know what it was but I did know that it made sense to me. I have been riding a recumbent (as it turns out, not that different then the one I saw over 40 years ago) for over 12 years now; and it's contribution to changing my interaction; no, my relationship with the world around me cannot be overstated by calling it eye-opening.
In my teens I was at competition level cycling. But coming from a small town, and a poor family there was no way I could ever compete. I cycled everywhere, as that was the only way I could get around. I would even ride to nearby towns 40 miles away, just to see if I could; alongside a 2-lane highway.
Cycling was how I explored my world. Computers & books fed my mind, cycling fed my heart and my insatiable wanderlust. But even with all the freedom that a bicycle gives you, that traditional diamond-frame upright bicycle limited that view to 4 feet infront of the bike. The uncomfortable hunch, bent neck, and numb genitals was a labour of love that while freeing me to explore, still left me shackled to a narrow view of the world. Riding a recumbent opened that view into a panoramic vista.
This is now the 3rd age of biking, electrically assisted cycling. The more people that try it, the more people will want to do it. It is fun in a way that awakens the inner glee that only comes from childhood. There will always be 'purists' that believe that the way they suffer is the only "real way to do it".
You don't have to suffer. Embrace the evolution, and enjoy the ride.
(1) It will extend my riding season to all 4 seasons
(2) It becomes a chair when I get to my destination. (I like to bike-camp)
FWIW, I had a bike meant for long-distance bike camping. I used an image search to find an example of the style of bike I had - http://www.madisonbikelife.com/2012/07/bike-touring-camping-... .
It's much more comfortable, looking forward, and in a seat meant for comfort, not speed.
That said, it wasn't so easy to find that style of bike given all of the mountain bikes and road bikes.
Still, it was easier than finding a recumbent, which is why my wife has.
She loves her trike, but there are some downsides. Some are specific to a trike (we've found it hard to find a bike shop that will work on it; biking on dirt paths is harder because of its width requirements).
One more generic problem is she often doesn't have the panoramic vista that I have. Most notably when we're biking through a field when the crops are high. All she sees is the plants, which I am usually able to see over.
OTOH, she loves the attention her trike gets. Lot of people want to try it out.
wrong saddle
> uncomfortable hunch, bent neck
wrong posture
That aside I like the idea of recumbents. I've test driven them several times, adjusted to my body, even with the Rohloff speed hub. Whee! Almost effortless 50 kph on flat grounds! Alas. Several things I don't like in reality. They are more heavy. Not good. Riding uphill is strange, depending on the seat you can push into the pedals, but it's not the same like you'd push from upright with your full body weight down into them. But the real deal breaker for me was more limited vision in flowing traffic from down there. Couldn't get used to it, and felt much more unsafe regarding situational awareness.
When riding a normal bike, I feel safer knowing I can quickly abandon the bike and dive to the side if needed.
Here's a random GIS that kinda gives the perspective: https://ebent.files.wordpress.com/2006/05/slipstream_pannier...
So my bike isn't of the 'laid down' variety.
It is harder to do a shoulder-check when changing lanes.
"Abandon the bike and dive to the side" is not an option. But, I don't ride in those kinds of traffic conditions either.
When I was in university I rode in Toronto. That city is so hostile towards cyclists that I had cars TRY to hit me; intentionally try to run me off the road, and worse. I never needed to dive off my bike there either. I wouldn't ride my recumbent there unless I could stick to dedicated and secure lanes.
I'm actually surprised that there isn't more direct action against overly aggressive drivers, "rolling coal", and the like, given how passionate cyclists often are about being cyclists. It's amazing how so many of them seem to take gratuitous threats to life and limb in stride. Perhaps that's survivorship bias, inasmuch as the people who don't have this reaction stop cycling instead (at least on roads).
Blame the politicians for refusing to fund separate infrastructure so bikes, cars, and pedestrians don't have to share the same piece of asphalt. As a car driver I don't want bikes in the lane with me. And as a pedestrian I don't want them on the sidewalk with me. We know the solution but refuse to implement it.
You are required to know the vehicle code in order to qualify for a drivers license. Right of way precedence is one of them. Being "pissed off" because another citizen is exercising their rights within the law isn't an excuse to harm them without repercussions.
Is akin to boating laws. By and large, take a kayak wherever you want. Bigger boats, though?
At a certain point, if you want to push it that far, you have to answer the question of why bicycle riders aren't required to have a driver license, carry insurance, register their bikes, and have license plates. Because if you think a bike can't cause a serious accident, you haven't driven the roads too much.
Bikes should have an actual bike lane dedicated to them. Full stop. Putting them on roadways just makes everyone less happy and less safe.
Because both the scale of destruction and death a cyclist is capable of is nowhere near that of someone driving even a small compact economy car, and the relation between damage caused vs suffered is nowhere as disproportionate?
A driver can plow through a crowd of dozens of people, killing and maiming, and not suffer the slightest injury.
> Because if you think a bike can't cause a serious accident, you haven't driven the roads too much.
Never has a cyclist damaged a building, much less obliterated a storefront or killed people sitting inside said building. Or taken out a traffic light, or telephone pole.
Never has a structural engineer had to evaluate a building or bridge after a cyclist hit it.
Never has a cyclist caused a mass casualty event.
A cyclist causing a death is so unheard of it's literally national news.
Even so, I so wish more people realised how on point your words are.
In Sydney getting on a bike is almost a death sentence. For a place with zero snow, it's shocking how scary it is.
When I commuted by bike to work, I would go at a gentle pace so that I didn't end up drenched in sweat. Lots of my coworkers also just cruised in and very few of them showered at the office after arriving. I think in cities, bike commuters generally just try to go at a safe speed that isn't too exhausting.
The furthest anyone in my office rode one way was about 10 miles, and that guy hustled and did competitions. He certainly was the outlier.
If I'd have had an E-bike, I would have gone about the same speed, but with less sweat.
Blame the politicians that there aren't enough separted Hugh speed car lanes.
It was a mistake to let them share paved roads with unprotected road users. That unfortunate bit of history almost scared everyone else off roads.
It's not too late to repair that.
Literally nobody cares when cyclists stay on the right and don’t obstruct the flow of traffic.
The one time I thought I might see some actual mayhem was after I waited in a long line of cars on a relatively narrow uphill street that were waiting for an opportunity to safely pass a slow moving bike. It went pretty well. But about halfway up that hill we got stopped at a light, and that bicyclist rode right up the line of cars to the front, and made everyone pass him again. LOL. Nobody actually did anything aggressive, but you could feel the unhappiness there. He was a dick. Most riders are not, just like most motorists are not.
It's easy to not witness something when you're not the subject of it. For example complaints of racism, sexism, etc by the victims in the workplace are often met with claims by white men that they 'rarely see it.'
I live in an area with basically no bike lanes. Few street lights. Yet we are fairly well known for being very favorable for cyclists. So it can happen. And make no mistake that there are some folks that hate sharing the road with cyclists. By and large, they act like adults and don't pitch fits.
To a large extent, it is the same in all cases. The heavier item has more responsibility to pay attention in mixed use areas. The really dangerous vehicles should be separated and put in dedicated lanes.
This is the crucial distinction which one must disregard in order to argue such equivalences.
The sad fact is most Americans view biking as a "hobby" and not a viable mode of transportation. So bikes don't belong on the road [0]. The politicians who make the laws, the police who enforce them, the judges who would oversee any trials, and the media who reports on this deaths all suffer from this "windshield perspective". They prioritize cars above all.
It's only recently with a new generation of urban planners are we finally seeing improvements in infrastructure and policy.
[0] - see this comment for a perfect example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31500161
What direction action could a cyclist take on a car driver that intentionally buzzed them while passing? I suppose if you happen to catch up to them at a light you could vandalize their car. Make a habit of doing that and you'll wind up the victim of an unfortunate accident that no one will be punished for.
Literally all we want is for people to be held legally accountable - in both the criminal and civil sense.
That aside, vigilantism is by and large something that only ingroups can "get away" with. When outgroups do them, things generally end very poorly for them. Politicians, press, police, courts, etc would never abide violence by cyclists. I mean, for chrissakes, cyclists are subject to incessant violence by motorists and nobody bats an eye.
But yeah, I don’t really take it in stride, I go home and whine about it, but getting spit on, called a faggot, driven off the road and hit by red light runners is just normal for biking in the US (and it doesn’t vary that much regionally either, when I lived in California people yelled slurs more, but maybe drove a little more reasonably than where I live now)
There is not really a natural coalition for this topic. Cycling is kinda seen as a crunchy or vaguely liberal thing, but in local politics the left is pretty strongly against doing anything punitive, for principled reasons. Which ok, no technological enforcement, no stronger license requirements, no more stringent vehicle inspections, I get why, but sorry, funding the bus system does nothing when a large part of the problem is people doing it on purpose. The guy doing 25 over the speed limit in the wrong lane running red lights is doing it for fun, not because his bus is 20 minute headings instead of 15.
Not by outlawing them like trying to outlaw guns, but by zoning.
More walkable cities, public transportation, etc. All good things I believe.
Bicycling is viewed by most Americans as a recreational or exercise activity, not as a legitimate primary means if transportation.
When you bike to work on a road, you are perceived of as recreating in front of someone trying to actually get somewhere "important" in a car.
Direct action by bicyclists gets perceived through the same lens.
https://www.ternbicycles.com/us/accessories/471/storm-shield
What people in the Netherlands found was that an ebike would allow them to do errands up to a distance of about 15km whereas with a pedal bike the distance was more like 5km before they would take their car.
My experience is similar. Ebikes in practice are more like a smaller car than they are like a bigger bike, when the roads or bike paths are suitable.
When riding it, it's an interesting thought experiment to imagine all the cars on the road also being e-bikes. It would be an amazingly different experience.
All that said, I'm a big fan of the right tool for the job. When I ride to the store, about 2 miles away, I ride my pedal bike. When I go all the way across town 7 miles away, I ride the e-bike (for speed/time reasons). When I need to pick up heavy or bulky items or go farther, I drive the car. I found that in the nice spring, summer, and fall months, I really didn't need the car very often.
I've found that renting a car when needed makes more financial sense and provides more flexibility depending my needs.
It would have worked better when I lived in a place with good public transportation.
Yes, like all things, there are jerks who will ruin it for everyone else, which is unfortunate when it seems to be a net benefit.
There is a ton of <X> hate in the <Y> world. Cars, bikes, iPhones, Androids, dogs, cats, you name it, everything is a team sport you have to win.
That's it.
Slow down.
I have given this advice to multiple people who were new to bike commuting and every single one looked at me like I was a Martian. A week later they said "You were right!"
I've biked in one hundred degree weather and arrived in barely a light sweat. Yes, I put on hiking shorts which were passable, and the lightest athletic shirt I owned, but I didn't need a shower.
I just budgeted a bunch of extra time that morning, and barely pressed the pedals, whereas usually I'd be pedaling decently hard the entire way, even down hills. Because I was expending virtually no effort - biking is more efficient than walking - and had a ~10mph breeze - I was comfortable.
It helps that I eat a decently varied diet so I don't have horrific BO, use soaps that aren't loaded with shitty artificial scents and chemicals, and wash my clothing with no softener and "free" detergent that lacks any sort of perfume.
Most people sweat just standing in 100 degree weather, so maybe you are unusual?
As a non-ebike rider I admit my lack of peripheral vision (age) is making the zoom! of an ebike or scooter past me increasingly scary, but the fact is, my declining vision is more of the issue than the ebike is.
E-bikes should take over in most cities. All but the most disabled can ride them. Cities like Taipei and Barcelona that already move on scooters would get much cleaner air and have the same low-cost mobility. New York makes no damn sense for cars. Even large spread-out cities are easily traversed on e-bikes. Assholes on e-bikes can be annoying but rarely deadly. Drivers who kill cyclists should be imprisoned until too old to drive again. Cars should all be required to have passive braking that won't come within 6 feet of a cyclist or pedestrian. regarding pedestrians, we could start by recognizing that "jaywalking" isn't a thing.
https://www.sheldonbrown.com/fixedgear.html
Are you sure you need a bicycle with gears? The purest, simplest kind of bicycle is the fixed-gear bicycle. Riding a fixed gear will make you a stronger, smoother cyclist...and it is a ton of fun!
Single speed isn’t just for flatlanders tho. My first exposure was of a guide in the hills of Sedona, AZ.
Edit: AZ, not NM.
Pointing to that page therefore seems likely to cause non-fixie enthusiasts to turn away.
I'm glad that you and many others enjoy fixed-wheeled bicycles. Fixies = good. Gears = good. Cargo bikes = good. Bakfiets = good. More bikes = good.
There were no bloody bicycle lanes, so could you do any speed you want in the middle of the road. Compare this to Netherlands and Deutschland were bicycle lanes are narrow, bumpy and with pedestrians with dogs in leash. And the polize and motorist force you to use them no matter what.
I even found out that there are sections of the Interstate you can ride on a bicycle, when there is no other roads, like east of Palm Springs.
Only one problem: People were so unaccustomed to seeing bicycles on the road, that they tried to give me a ride.
And of course in Texas I was threatened with a guns because illegally sleeping on someones precious dirt. In sane countries "illegal threat" is an actual and most severe crime.