"My Bike Is Everything to Me"
kottke.org
kottke.org
When I lived in China, it was very easy to bike. China's infrastructure is new and it has dedicated lanes. It can be very stressful though because it's so dense, and since there's general lack of any culture or manners, people on scooters can be very rude and pushy. Also nobody would help you if you fall, they just keep passing by (source: fell 4-5 times in my 12 years in China).
Now I'm living in Bangkok which looks like cyclist's hell: horrible pavement, narrow roads, motorcycles, and constant traffic jams. However, I find it easier to bike since everybody are generally courteous to each other, and I fell once and had like 10 people rush to help me. Very heartwarming.
The point is, you can build a great biking infrastructure, but culture is very important as well.
[1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1230-marc...
Bicycle is "a band that rolls across the country on bicycles and rocks in towns and cities along the way. ... 'Heavy metal folk rap' is how the New York Times coined the band's sound."
Unfortunately the link to the band's page appears to be gone, and there's nothing on google about them. Rare to find something these days that has almost 0 web presence!
a) Biking as exists in the U.S. / Canada is a leisure-class demographic activity and not a "bread-and-butter" earning activity. If you did a survey of bicyclists you'd find they are of a certain tax bracket nowhere remotely close to low-income. Study after study shows they skew high income earners / well educated.
b) The average non-wealthy American wants thinks his tax money is going to keeping the road infrastructure in good repair.
c) Outside of well-heeled zip codes we are not going to see bike lane infrastructure be given priority over such more pressing concerns.
d) We could all have great things if we were not warring all the time to get small things passed, much less a luxury ( in the scheme of things ) like bike lane infrastructure.
I'm not even talking about the opposition from businesses here.[1]
[1]
S.F.
Several businesses along Valencia Street have posted signs in their windows that read, “This Bike Lane Is Killing Small Businesses and Our Vibrant Community,” with a QR code for the San Francisco Small Business Coalition. |
https://content.sfstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/in...
San Francisco Valencia Street Bike Lanes Bad for Business?
https://sfstandard.com/2023/12/08/san-francisco-small-busine...
Cambridge, Mass
‘It's a Disaster': Cambridge Store Owners Say Bike Lanes Are Bad for Business
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/its-a-disaster-cambridg...
This line of argument reminds me of the red-dots-airplane meme. In places where bad infrastructure makes cycling impractical as anything but a hobby, of course you mostly get lycra-wearing midlife crisis guys who do it as a hobby. In places where the infrastructure is actually good and safe, you get a whole spectrum of people riding.
Out of all the people I know the only person that does not ride a bike is my middle age father who owns a motorcycle. Even my nearly 90 year old grandma uses a tricycle (for safety) to do her grocery shopping.
[1]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1403896/cycling-particip...
EDIT: To be a bit more productive about this, I referenced Guerra et al. [1] which shows that cycle commuting seems to be negatively correlated to income in the US and sharply negatively correlated with single vehicle ownership and positively correlated with being male. But this is just commuting and we know that there's more to transportation than just commuting and commuters tend to be more male as a whole anyway.
[1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136192092...
People don't tend to notice the guy riding his Wal-Mart mountain bike on the sidewalk on his way to work.
And they also don't tend to notice all the sensible, practical, riders who know to take the (relatively) car free residential side streets en route to wherever they need to be.
Successful cycling cultures elevate the status of cycling, but they also denigrate the status of the car; people in these cultures are slightly embarrassed when they drive, because cars are recognised as being somewhat antisocial.
Another part of this problem is affordable housing. People can't live close to where they work. Reduce this problem along with improving biking infrastructure and you'll see an uptick in biking.
"Several businesses along Valencia Street have posted signs in their windows that read[...]"
Sure. Several businesses said the same thing about protected bus lanes, but studies have shown it's increased business for those on the path, because it makes it possible for _more_ customers to actually access their businesses.
Cars are fundamentally worse than public transportation or biking for small businesses as a whole, as they reduce density, and further consolidation, which favors larger businesses and hurts small businesses. The problem is that business owners tend to be drivers and their biases don't line up with reality, which is why you tend to see their personal politics interfere with their business interests.
Go over to Amsterdam and see how little bicycling actually gets done outside of the core that HN loves to throw up as this cycling utopia.
Real people have real world needs. Bicycling meets very few of those. Especially in places that have barely four months of precipitation-free bicycling weather. Please stop thinking the world is like the urban cores of a handful of cities.
If Amsterdam doesn't do it for you, try Utrecht.
woziacki’s income bracket also doesn’t apply here. You can get a decent second-hand bike here for 200-300 Euro (more than an order of magnitude cheaper than a car) and maintenance is much cheaper than a car, plus no vehicle taxes, road insurance, etc.
I cycled daily as a commuter when I lived in Atlanta. You wear a jacket and overpants. It’s just not that big a deal.
Portland is widely known for its cycling culture, and it rains all the time.
In Belgium around 32% cycle to their work. [2]
I would think that is a significant amount no?
I cycle to my work every day. It is around 9 KM and takes me around 20 minutes. For rain you have a rain suite, for winter you have a jacket. The amount of times I took the car in rainy Belgium is 4 times in 2023 because of storm conditions.
As more and more people are starting to see the hassle free transportation method of cycling, they also start taking the bike and infrastructure keeps improving.
[1] https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/visualisaties/verkeer-en-vervoer/pe...
[2] https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/04/15/ongeveer-32-procent-...
I have a seat that a kid can sit in comfortably for school drop off.
I carry rain pants and a waterproof shell in my cargo pockets on the bike, and my helmet has a magnetically held visor. Once you have a waterproof shell, weather is really not a deterrent until it's physically difficult to move the bike.
So, it's a mode of transport that covers nearly every trip, in nearly every condition, nearly year round.
When I go to the country to visit family, I take my bike. I can navigate just as well, but much slower in rural areas (most people drive faster on rural roads than in urban areas and the distances are longer.)
I'm also (believe it or not) a real person. Bikes absolutely work for real people who live real lives.
Nothing that you have written is original. These are the usual arguments against micro-mobility. They don't stand scrutiny, and they are actively being disproven across a growing number of locations around the world, small and large.
That sounds about right for a bike on a paved road, but I would assume over uneven ground the ratio of efficiency is less? Is a hiker on a trail that much less efficient than a mountain bike on the same trail? I would think that at higher slopes the efficency ratio goes down even more due to the mass of the bike?
When going uphill on difficult terrain with my mountain bike, I sometimes get passed by trail runners. If we continue on the same path, I pass them back on flat and downhill sections so it may be worth it. I can also bike quite a bit longer than I can trail run.
Sometimes I have to push or carry the bike and the efficiency isn’t great for sure but a mountain bike isn’t that heavy and you can use it as support too. But it’s slower than a hiker going uphill.
I experienced this this week. Started having lateral foot pain while walking and standing over the weekend. But no pain while pedaling. I walk considerably less when biking to work than driving to work because I keep my bike in my office instead of walking from the parking garage. What a relief it was to move without pain.
[0]: https://archive.org/details/towardhistoryofn00illi/page/134/...
"On January 20, 2021, Bradley was struck from behind by a motorist while riding his bicycle near his home in St. George, Utah, which resulted in a traumatic spinal cord injury in his neck that left him paralyzed.[39] A driver attempted to pass Bradley on the left in the same travel lane while Bradley himself was in the process of passing another car parked on the shoulder of the road."
So not really a bicycle accident, but a motorist accident? In case they would both have been riding bicycles, I doubt Mr Shawn Bradley would have been so unfortunate. Might sound like nitpicking, but in places actually designed for multi-modal traffic and not just for cars these accidents are very rare.
The sheriff said that there were no witnesses to the incident nor any indication that a vehicle was involved.
It bothered me (and was a financial burden) when that stuff was stolen. But when my $400 hybrid bike was stolen a few years later, it bothered me twice as much, if not more. I think because a bike is a durable, daily thing that you come to depend on, while expensive gadgets are just gadgets.
When a bike is stolen, the difficulty of replicating this "perfect setup" can be wildly disproportionate to the cost of the bike.
> I worked on both the retail and manufacturing side of bikes for a couple of decades, seeing it from the early days of MTB to its current form. I really love riding, but the moral high ground of the bicycle purist has also sheltered a commodity-driven, economically-rarified (in the US), and not very diverse industry from some necessary critique and change. Celebratory statements about bikes are often made by people who have the civic or trail infrastructure and economic freedom to experience just the positive sides of cycling. There are many places where the engineering advantages aren't enough, for reasons that include geography, climate, gender, and labor rights. There are also huge issues around the increases in traffic in formerly remote areas, due in part to the ease we can access those areas on our comfortable and fast bikes.
Last year I bought an ebike. I love it. Cycling is different with a ebike. Hills don't particularly matter, you choose the speed you want to go, and all leg energy simply moves you faster then that speed. You put in the same amount of workout, as much as you please, and when you get tired, the bike takes you home. You also reach much further distances then you normally would without, so you get to see more.
But my bike means nothing to me. I will replace it in an instant if the right opportunity knocks.
No more obesity epidemic. Cleaner cities. Cheaper cities! Less micro-particles from tires filling our waterways. Less traffic, things that actually need to be transported by cars can get where they are going faster.
But then how do the road construction firms and automobile manufacturers make their bread?
Now we just need to pressure the city to build actually bike infrastructure on the road...
It is not like your time in gym or being obsessed over diet would be useful to anyone else. They are you having hobbies, to large extend. An overweight person spending that time actively engaged with kids or on the job work more, by definition.
Ever heard of Europe?
Still too many SUVs here for my taste.
I think the optimal number of SUVs that should be allowed on the road should be exactly 0. For safety reasons, efficiency reasons, and ecological reasons..
My father was big into cycling. Diagnosed with diabetes as a juvenile, he believed if he stopped cycling he would die (unfortunately, the disease ultimately won, as it always does… but the last thing he was doing before going to the hospital for a 5 month ordeal after which he died was riding his bike). He participated in endurance races and tours, he rode his bike 20-30 miles each way to work and back almost every day of the week, the Tour de France was his Super Bowl and local or other international races were his college bowls. He spent a lot of time reading biographies of renowned cyclists. Some of my most cherished memories are our several TOSRV tours together on a heavy steel Japanese tandem, even the days of icy rain, baking sun, or when Dad had a reaction and I had to pedal us both… uphill with a headwind.
My riding dropped almost completely off, with spikes of interest here and there. I rode my bike multiple times a week to visit him in the hospital before he died, a 40 mile round trip. Those moments alone (other than the terrible traffic) were moments of respite and quiet in my fear and anxiety over my dad’s descent, my recent and failing marriage, my trouble with alcohol, my trouble with my career. He died and left me his bike, a Masi Gran Criterium that he bought around the time I was born, rode every day, painstakingly overhauled and sunk ungodly amounts of time and money into over the years he had it.
I rode it on and off. I’ve done a few smaller tours in the 2010s until I had a health concern. I rode it during the pandemic with my mom until I started getting bad saddle and wrist pains. I started becoming afraid something would happen to the Masi and I would lose a deep connection to my father. But I’ll be god damned if I don’t feel he’s right there beside me when I ride it, and all the world goes quiet except the soft clicking of the bike and the woosh of air blowing by. Yet, I keep making excuses for not riding.
I’m gonna get that god damned bike off the wall and go for a ride.
See eg here: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/12/11/e-bikes-are-radically-m...
But yes, a gas car is a worse thing still than a electric car, neither are sustainable. We need to cut car use rapidly to mitigate the climate disaster.
Trully one of the noblest inventions humanity has made.
How so?
Edit: From one of the links:
“I have had 38 orthopedic operations,” Walton told Bicycling. “Both my ankles are fused. I have an artificial knee. I have a new spine. I have broken countless bones. Every bone in both hands. Every bone in both feet; both legs. I have broken my back. I’ve had countless facial and cranial fractures. I spent my life falling down, getting hacked and fouled and getting in fights.”
Were I to break a single digit number of bones in a foot or hand, I am done.
Over 25 years I've cracked ribs a few times and dislocated a shoulder once from not being a good enough motorcycle rider. I am still riding motorcycles.
If you enjoy something enough _and_ are making a shitload of money doing it, I'd guess some people's injury list would get quite horrifying before they chose to be "done".
what does "low-key" mean here? seems an adverb.
> Walton knew: the bicycle is low-key one of humankind’s greatest inventions
I would sort of agree that it's a strange place to put it in this sentence. It kinda needs an em-dash or something:
"Walton knew: the bicycle is -- low-key -- one of humankind’s greatest inventions"
But I would edit that all out as it's not needed and disturbs the flow of the sentence.
I think what the author is trying to say is more, "underappreciated".
Walton knew: the bicycle is one of humankind’s most underappreciated, yet greatest inventions.
Perhaps in the vein of indoor plumbing, tho many people go without riding bikes, while none of us who have indoor plumbing would give it up.
Or maybe even "under the radar". You know the best place to eat in town, but it's just some hole in the wall managed by a single guy, but god-damn do those mashed potatoes slap.
Bicycle love isn't something advertised, like a car is. You get on a bike and you fall in love with it. Attraction over promotion.
Some similar examples found on the web:
“Astro Bot is low key one of the best Sony franchises and I’ll fight anyone who says otherwise.”
“Nitro navy is low key one of our fave colours on the Kreissage RS. What’s yours?”
“I think Flora is low key absolutely hysterical.”
“Am i the only one who thinks this soundtrack is lowkey really good?”
“Feels good, it's my first time buying a [chest] binder.... i saw reviews saying like oh i should've bought a smaller one but nope it is lowkey too small but i sure can squeeze myself into it and it looks great.”
See also:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/words-were-watching...
https://grammarist.com/idiom/low-key-and-lowkey/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskABrit/comments/11uizro/please_so...
It’s a bit similar to how one might start a statement with “Honestly…” - to flag that what’s coming might be more than usually challenging or blunt.
I don't think it's millennial slang; I'm almost 50 and I've heard it used this way all my life.
However, I was vaguely aware that it had some original, more technical meaning, specific to some discipline like composing music or something like that. My interest in investigating was limited, though, so I only asked GPT-4o, who claimed:
> Originally, the term "low-key" was used in reference to a lighting technique in photography and cinematography. It described a style that utilized less lighting to create a mood of intimacy, mystery, or dramatic contrast. This usage emphasized the subtle, understated nature of the lighting, which is less intense and less prominent than high-key lighting. Over time, "low-key" evolved to take on broader meanings, including understated, subdued, or not seeking attention, before arriving at its contemporary connotation of something or someone being low-profile or modest.
(I'll accept that, I guess, unless disputed/refuted here by the actually sentient.)
Not to be pedantic, but you’re off by a factor of 100 :)
75kg * 1000g/kg * 0.15cal/g * 0.001cal/kcal = 11.25kcal
Right? I would expect an order of magnitude higher. But if that is correct... damn. Bicycles are incredible.The .15cal/g is much closer to what I'm probably burning. According to my Garmin it was 540 calories which is 18kcal/km, and I weigh ~86kg which puts me at about .20cal/g, not much higher than Walton's number. And I was definitely not taking a casual pace, there was no coasting on that ride.
An interesting result of this is that if you're trying to lose weight, cycling isn't the most time-efficient way to burn calories!
Running is a much quicker way to burn calories. I hate running. :)
Certainly going to work by bike is better for weight itself then going by car.
"Certainly"? Not really. Depends entirely on your habits. If you get to work after your bike ride and eat a Snickers because it made you peckish, and you didn't do that when going by car, you've effectively done nothing for your weight.
It's true that exercise is good for you regardless. But it is orders of magnitude easier to ingest calories through food than it is to burn them through exercises.
If you go to work on bike regularly, your body don't even register it as something to triger you needing more food. If you are extra hungry after 30 min transport trip on bike, you are likely in very bad physical shape.
98% of diets end up failure in the long term, precisely because just skipping food does nit work in the long term. You end up miserable, tired, passive, anemic, underperfoming on the job.
Cycling is one of the very few sports (along with maybe swimming) that you can do for extreme amounts of time without acutely harming your body.
The issue that does affect people is that if you started with the bad diet, you probably don’t have the fitness to produce the required output that would overcome it.
If you manage to increase your fitness so that you sustain higher outputs however you absolutely can out-train your terrible diet!
Even with running - especially with running - you can easily burn enormous amounts of calories.
There are two problems with this saying.
First, nobody knows what a bad diet is in the context of this saying. How many calories are we talking? How poorly balanced is the diet? Let's take a basic example: assume the perfect diet for a sedentary person, well balanced, exactly the right amount of calories, etc. Then on top of it, this person eats a 200g pack of Haribo 4 times a week. Surely this makes that diet insanely bad, right? Well, not really, it's only about 500 excess kcal/day which would be very easily compensated if this person had an active lifestyle. So how insanely bad does the diet need to be until the argument actually works? This saying is usually directed at people who want to lose weight, surely nobody is trying to lose weight in good faith if they drink soda daily, eat donuts left and right, and some haribos to top it off.
The second problem, is that people are scarily sedentary and view what should be a completely normal amount of physical activity as impossible. So what upper bound are we putting on the "running" part of the saying?
Doing 1-2 hours of sport 4 times during the work week, plus one longer physical activity on the week end (e.g., half a day hike or bike ride) is a completely normal amount of sport.
If your goal is weight loss, and you have a choice between an extra hour of exercise, or eating one less Mars bar a week, skipping the Mars bar will be better for your weight loss.
If your goal is weight loss you should probably skip a mars bar every now and then, but I think you're underestimating what's possible after a bit of training and fitness improvement.
Counting kcal per hour of sport like that doesn't make any sense. 300kcal is 1h of brisk walking (non-sedentary people do it as part of their daily life, and probably don't count it toward their physical activity). It's also 1h of weight lifting, which most people would probably consider intensive sport. OTOH it's only 30min of jogging, which is a utterly trivial amount of sport for any healthy person. Those are rough approximations obviously.
After clicking the "reply" button of this post, I'm leaving for training with my sports club. 30min brisk walk each way to get there, and 1.5h of sport that is estimmated to burn 500kcal/h. Burning calories is trivial for active people.
Eating 3000 calories in one sitting is hard. Like, genuinely difficult, you're probably stuffing yourself uncomfortable and then in a food coma afterwards hard.
It reminds me of those silly TV shows with depressed 500lbs weirdos who just stuff their face all day. No-one normal is doing that. I mean christ it's only a bit less than half a kilo of straight mayonnaise.
This is all made more confusing by the fact that in most of the world "kcal" is just pronounced "calories" (ignoring the 'k' which is implied in this context), while in the US "Calories" (with a capital 'C') stands for kilo calories.
But back to your point, 0.15cal/g/km = 0.15kcal/kg/km indeed passes the intuition test. For a 100kg bike+rider package that would be 15kcal/km => 1500kcal for a 100km, which seems to be the correct order of magnitude. Of course this is an obvious oversimplification, but it gets the point its trying to make across.