Sunday, 10 August 2014

Bikes for Transport

I tend to avoid the term 'road bike'. To me (being an old geezer), it is a 'racing bike'. Drop handlebars, head down, bum up, it's all about getting there as quickly, or perhaps as efficiently, as possible.

A 'road bike' is not really a bike that is well designed for the road. No built-in lights, mudguards, storage etc. Often accompanied by special pedals, shoes, clothes. The equivalent in motor vehicle terms would be something like this:

Should we fill our towns and cities with thousands of these?
Not quite a racing car, street legal, but stripped to the bone. Probably comes with some H&S advice to 'wear safety equipment'. Sound familiar?

Now imagine most of the cars you saw on the road looked like (and were driven like) this? What would be your perception of car drivers? Imagine if there were hundreds, or perhaps thousands of them all out for a 'motorsportife'?

We are culturally indoctrinated to blindly accept millions of 'ordinary' cars on our roads, but how could we fail to notice these?

In order to progress cycling as transport, so eloquently advocated by Chris Boardman, we have to change public perception of the bicycle.

There will be no political will to do the best for this country until people demand it. Politicians will do nothing to risk the low hanging votes. Nothing will change until there is the political will to allocate funding. Nothing will change until we have leaders who have the best interests of the nation uppermost in their mind. We have to make that happen.

While ever cycling is regarded as a 'sport', it will be treated as such. We have to separate sport cycling from transport cycling.

We have to ride different bikes.

In Italy recently, the driving was absolutely tedious. As in the UK: zero pleasure. However, on the borrowed bike I was transformed. It was an upright, staid affair, with a basket on the front. No head down rush, just flowing. This is what transport cycling should be.

Or should we fill our towns and cities with thousands of these?Italy: the birthplace of chic. Chic sells anything, but cycle chic is probably the most under utilized tool in the armoury of active travel advocates.

Here is the UK version of cycle chic: helmets. No, no, no, no, NO! For crying out loud! Wrong again. Go to the back of the class and hand out pencils. And make sure you do your homework properly next time.

Now let's try Copenhagen. Better. Much better. Now look at the bikes. Bikes you can ride in normal clothes. Bikes that can carry things.

This is what we need to sell.

People on bikes. Not cyclists. Just people.




Update: A follow up post after feedback on Twitter.

1 comment:

  1. I've ridden "racing bikes" for years. Yet I've always found myself advocating "ride what you like, when you like". I think part of the problem with utility riding is that the correct advice doesnt permeate out from those experienced riders out into potential user groups who could switch.

    To do this you have to a) learn a bit about a bikes (most people who currently ride probably treat their first bike like someone treats their first car, they love it but they're not that up on the tech its constructed from or how it came to be); and b) you have somehow put across these technologies, techniques and routes available to a potential user base in a language they can understand. At the moment that potential user base is coming from the excitement of seeing Wiggins and Froome during the summer.

    Even on a "racing bike" you can often do things like shopping. I do this myself from time to time with the help of saddle bags, rucksacks or pannier racks on a particular bike. I can commute to work on any bike, to be fair. I don't think its the bike itself that is leading to this skew - but the riders we currently have - in not having the skills to promote what can be. This is no negative reflection on those riders - just that it will take time to acquire such converse.

    ReplyDelete