Sunday, September 23, 2018

Bike-terialism, N+1 and how many bikes are too many?

Links to this post
How Many Bikes Do you Have? How Many is enough?


Let me start off by asking the reader "Are you a cyclist or a collector?" If you are a cyclist, chances are you at least own one bike, or a few bikes for the different types of riding you do. If you are a collector on the other hand, you either specialize in a type of bicycle or in a period of time when bicycles were designed in a specific way.


I am both a cyclist and a collector. My collection comes from years of being into cycling. Some bikes I would like to sell, but either can't procure a buyer for or I am offered way less than my asking price. Some bikes I bought, rode for a few years and was never able to move them on when I upgraded or changed preferences. Some bikes are loaner bikes that I let friends borrow when they visit. The truth is I dare not mention how many bikes I have. Some people think they have too many bikes when all they own are maybe 3 or 4 bikes. I'm just going to say that it's more than 4 bikes. 


My family has gotten used to the bike furniture and I am fortunate enough to have a wife that doesn't freak out about things like that. My bikes are all bought and paid for and I would actually feel guilty buying a brand new bike these days with all the other bikes that I already own. In the last couple of years I have added a few 90's mountain bikes to my collection, because that is the era where it all started for me. Most of these bikes I get on Craigslist or some other buy/sell online group page. They are never super expensive and seldom ever cost more than $100. 


Recently I have come to the realization that just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Sure, I can have a large collection of bikes, which I already do. It doesn't break the bank, it's financed mainly by bicycles that are sold, spare parts that I already own or my disposable income. However it's not the best use of my time or my space. In fact, sometimes it can be like being the custodian of my own museum. It goes against the grain of my life's motto of living simply. It also gives off the idea that I'm an affluent individual, which would be far from the truth. 


Lately I have been getting into the practice of letting things go. Literally giving away bikes to friends who I feel could use them. This year alone I have given away 5 or 6 bikes. I am getting to the point where soon I will be giving things away at quite a lost. I guess sometimes it cost money to simplify. Some bikes are harder to let go of than others, because they represent years worth of searching or an iconic and rare example of something that I might never again run into. The truth is I need to sell some of these things, but finding other collectors that will appreciate things and are willing to pay the asking price takes time. 


So this is why you should never get into owning too many bikes. If I could do it over again I would buy three bikes. One road bike, one mountain bike and one fixed gear bike. I would ride the fixed gear bike most of the time to avoid wear and tear on an expensive road bike, which I would race on and then only use the mountain bike on the trails. That's it. I would figure out my frame size, likely buy all three bikes used and spend no more than $600 on all 3 bikes. 


The smug engineer cyclist who came up with the whole N+1 theory is a stupid bike hoarder. An eternally and hopelessly single, dork of a man.When you start calling your garage a bike "stable" and your bikes "steeds" you know you've gone too far.  The formula that should of been come up with is a formula of contentment based on the number of bikes already owned. To me that number is three. Why three? Bicycle a triangle is the strongest geometric shape and has three sides. Three bikes used in rotation will still put light use on each one and will get maximum longevity out of  each bicycle. Any more than three and that can easily turn into bike-terialism. Materialism is the practice of valuing material things over human relationships and spiritual pursuits. Bike-terialism is materialism with bikes. We can't let bikes get in the way or physically or emotionally hide from view the more important things. 







I hope to one day be one of those normal people who has 3 bikes

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Why We Will Never Be Bike Friendly Like Europe

Links to this post
Why we will never be able to "Copenhagenize" Ourselves


Ah yes, another bicycle commuting blog post. There are many countless blog posts about bicycle commuting already out there. Bloggers like Bike Snob NYC and others have made a name for themselves narrating, oftentimes hilariously, about the daily life of bicycle commuters. People who are really passionate about bicycle commuting and a location's bike friendliness will never stop talking about it. That is, until they have more than one child and then realize that they will have to permanently park their Yuba in favor of a more practical minivan. About 8 years ago, youthful optimism drove a small movement to revive bicycle commuting in many parts of the country. Some millenials, then in their 20's and 30's would wax poetic about places like Berlin, Copenhagen and Amsterdam and tout them as model cities for pedestrian and bicycle road sharing (I should know, as I was one of those young millenials). Local initiatives were started to make "complete streets" and "transit oriented development". If cities didn't act fast enough some zealous advocates would spray paint bike lanes and do the job themselves. City council meetings started getting younger audiences, Critical Mass started to actually become a thing in Dallas and bike lanes were eventually painted in downtown. A small victory for some, but alas we did not win the battle. It can be argued that some city centers like downtown Dallas benefited and saw slightly improved conditions for cyclists. On the other hand, cycling fatalities in the area have also gone up. All that hoopla did nothing for the suburbs outside of Dallas. Bike trails don't really go anywhere, rather they are just glorified jogging paths. People don't really ride in to work unless they live within reasonable distance of a rail station or can access their work off a cycling path, which is the case for less than 1% of 1% of the people that live in the area. "Transit Oriented Development" became a catchphrase when developing overpriced mixed used retail projects that gentrified neighborhoods and priced out many from their homes. The whole movement fell flat on it's face and in my honest opinion, left a lot of it's supporters looking stupid.  


The number one reason why we will never see bike friendliness on the level that exists in other parts of the world is that the existing infrastructure of those old European cities was created a long, long time ago on a cultural mindset that placed emphasis on walking and having places for people to gather. In many cities in Europe there are promenades, or roads completely dedicated to pedestrian use. These roads are long and can sometimes span the length of the entire city. There are also plazas in abundance were people can walk to that also serve as natural barriers to slow down traffic that would otherwise be too fast for cyclists.  People in city centers usually live there and don't commute from the suburbs to get there. Those who do live there oftentimes use public transportation when they are not walking, such as taking a cab, train or bus ride. Many people in these cities do not own vehicles. Even those who do own vehicles opt for a small car that doesn't take much space on the road. Lifted trucks, Ford Excursions, Cadillac Escalades and Hummers need not apply in Europe.



On a recent visit to Europe, in Barcelona Spain. Las Ramblas is one of the most famous promenades in the world.
 This picture was taken in the morning before the hustle and bustle of the day started.
Very cleverly designed bikes are used as part of a city sponsored bike share program.

There is bicycle parking everywhere

Taxis and other public transportation are the primary way people get around.

"The emphasis is placed on pedestrian use, with everything else like cars, kept small".
Case and point this red Fiat 500 on the left of the picture.



On a recent visit to Europe, I was reminded why things can not be the same in the United States. They have been putting people before expansion for hundreds of years, modeling their infrastructure in a way that best suits the needs of their citizens. Every town in every country in Europe no matter how small, has a proud cultural identity and is reflected on how each city is distinct from the other. In addition to placing the emphasis on pedestrians, everything else from cars, roads, housing, ecetera is kept small. The united states in contrast, has a larger land mass that it is still expanding on. The cultural mindset of expanding is so deeply rooted even in the way people view their personal space. Spacial bubbles are larger, waistlines are larger, roads are larger, cars are larger. Everything is focused on expanding one's personal space. The more space a person takes up, the better. That is why we will never have what exists over there in the way of bike friendliness. All we will have is a romanticized view of  how things should be. A commuting bike should be some post apocalyptic-looking piece of metal that we use to get around, not a shiny status symbol that costs a couple of thousand dollars. An E-bike shouldn't be a deal breaker for bicycle commuting, unless someone is elderly or has special needs. Excuses for not riding a bike need to go out the window. For people to make that paradigm shift in their social collective consciousness, well let me just put it this way, it will never happen here. Hipsters can keep dreaming, but I doubt they are anymore. As millenials get older and start families, there is very little time to keep dreaming and keeping hopes alive. Oh well, maybe the next generation can pick up where we left off.