A recent thread on the carfree list I subscribe to stirred up some discourse and thought. The thread was started with the following post by IanEnvironmental.
In response to those who think that cycling is not possible for many people…. with criterion for cycling includes flat landscapes, good weather and fit, healthy people who are not too old or too young – or so many assume.
I have seen people who do not fit the criteria so many have using cycling for shopping and visiting friends in their community. These include:
A person with severe learning difficulties on a tractor like quadricycle (four-wheeled cycle)
A man who can only walk with the aid of crutches using a tricycle to get to the shops
A blind man cycling on a tandem
A man with one arm cycling on a standard bicycle
Other less able-bodied people are discovering that they can continue to use bicycles for mobility by upgrading to an e-bike, or fitting a small petrol engine.
Young children are already towed in carts behind bikes, ride in cargo bicycles or have their own seats on a bicycle in front and/or behind and adult
Most of Copenhagen’s cyclists continue to cycle through the snow, the Japanese cycle in extremely humid conditions, and people in Africa cycle in high temperatures.
The human body does adapt and what at first appears to be terrain unsuitable for cycling soon becomes relatively easy to cycle.
We should not be agreeing that groups of people, with various abilities or of certain ages, or living in certain climates or on hilly terrain cannot cycle. We should be saying that they can – with a bit of enlightenment, the right equipment and a bit of training.
Yes, these groups CAN cycle and they Do cycle – perhaps not where you are, but where people have tried, they have found that they CAN! Others CAN, but won’t – or don’t know they can… — IanEnvironmental
First, let me say that I agree with IanEnvironmental completely. There are plenty of people worldwide who, at first glance, may appear to lack the ability to cycle yet manage the job day-in and day-out.
Second, let me offer up the observation that it’s not usually the above folks who quash the idea of a shift in transportation so readily. In fact, many of these people view their human powered transportation option as a method to achieve greater freedoms and expanded opportunities. Rather, in my experience, its people who are entirely capable of riding a bicycle, but who lack the motivation which routinely suggest that this mode of travel is “impossible”. And while out right denials of the mode are routinely rare when talking to an avowed cyclist (I just rode where and you wouldn’t want to hurt my feelings, right?) the excuses for straddling the saddle and moving one’s self around are exceptionally abundant.
More often than not these ideas come from a preconceived notion of what is and what is not convenient rather than any limitation of possibility. I would suggest that there are very few adults that recall the freedom that their bikes gave them as children. They understand the liberty that their car offers because they use this mode regularly and any change in that arrangement appears to them difficult. Unlike water, humans choose to take the path that appears to offer the least resistance (regardless of the reality of the situation).
I believe that there are only a couple of possibilities here that will help essentially lazy people choose the more efficient and workable solution and even then adoption won’t be universal. The first is the limiter of physical impossibility. If, for instance, the cost of driving exceeds anyone’s ability to pay then necessity will drive people to adopt a new mode. The bicycle becomes a candidate for widespread adoption in this case. It’s got everything most people are looking for at the cut throat rate of sweat equity. And not very much sweat either.
Changing the criteria of evaluation can have a positive effect on adoptive trends. This recent article
The Dutch bicycle is far less efficient than many of its contemporaries, yet its making very strong comeback because it’s now perceived to be a “sexy” mode of travel. Notice that the convenience or utility of the device are not items of consideration in the evaluation process commonly occurring. People buy Dutch frames and black nylon jackets because they “match”, they perceive that this course of action is “stylish”, and because they believe that the new image they present to the world will magically make them more likeable or competitive in some way.
Finally, mass adoption has an inherent power of persuasion. Consider for a moment a country that builds only infrastructure for a single mode of transportation. As any individual in that society comes of age he or she has inherited the possibility of that *one* mode of movement. It is unlikely that anyone will choose to craft their own mode of transportation outside of what is socially acceptable and supported. Anyone who chooses to glide by in the margins of the existing infrastructure (e.g. cyclists in the US) will also find themselves socially marginalized.
This arrangement is just fine if you’re ok with that marginal status (I’m an adult US citizen who rides his bike regardless of this fact of life), but you’re not behaving in a way that’s universally acceptable and most of your peers won’t understand your decision. If I wear knickers to work how “normal” am I really? Flip the above example on its head and the same will be true for anyone who chooses to drive a car in an as-yet fictionalized nation of cyclists.
I bring the following up because I get the impression that there are folks who’d like for things to change somewhat. I feel likewise; wouldn’t it be great if more of my neighbors rode where they needed to go? The list of benefits to the individual and to the commonwealth are surprisingly long. That said, I’ve also learned that it’s highly unlikely that the rational arguments (”you can do this”, “it’s a better way – here’s why”, or “you’re killing your own place on this planet”) will have any positive effect. Just something to think about.