Rough Stuff From The Brothers

Back when mountain bikes were new--well, they weren't.  Not really.

When Gary Fisher, or whoever, broke his twentieth or thirtieth balloon-tire bomber frame while barreling down the fire trails of Marin County and decided to fashion a lighter, stronger frame with the same geometry--and provisions for multiple gears, dearailleurs and cantilever brakes--it wasn't a radical new idea.

That's not to say that it wasn't important, which would be like saying that Levi Strauss has had no effect on the way people dress.  At the time Gary Fisher, Keith Bontrager and those mountain-bike pioneers were introducing their rigs, almost no other Americans--or, for that matter, people in other parts of the cycling world--had seen a bike made for the rigors of trail riding.

The idea of such a bike has been around since the dawn of cycling itself.  It makes sense, when you think about it:  When the first vehicles we recognize as bicycles appeared about 130 or 140 years ago, there were few paved roads.  Riding even those could shake one's bones even more than the "boneshakers" of that time.  Bikes at that time had to withstand being ridden over ruts, rocks and sometimes roots.

Some might argue that the velos a ballon one still finds in the French countryside are forerunners of today's velos a tout terrain. Other possible ancestors of today's mountain bikes could also include any number of wide-tired bikes used for transportation and even recreation in various parts of the world.

In England, there was a genre called the "Rough Stuff" bike.  Jack Taylor Cycles, most renowned for their tandems, actually used the catchy phrase as the name for  one model  of single-rider bikes they made. 



Isn't it funny how so many ideas that seemed so radical in the 1980's are present on a bike designed three decades earlier?  I'm talking about the sloping top tube, high bottom bracket and small (compared to a typical road bike) diameter wheels.  Also, this bike has the Mafac cantilever brakes and Specialites TA ProVis 5 (a.k.a. Cyclotouriste) cranks. 

Before the tries and cables were replaced.

The bike was first produced from drawings submitted by a nature photographer.  In the early 1950's, photography equipment was much bigger, bulkier and heavier than it is now.  The built-in rear rack, like the whole bike, is built to withstand the rigors of carrying such a load in the wild.

Here is a BBC documentary about Jack--and his brothers/fellow builders Ken and Norman--that aired in 1986:


 

Curious George Rides A Bike

Normally, I can't bring myself to watch movies made from TV shows or books--especially books--that I liked when I was a kid.

A few years ago, someone persuaded me to watch the Curious George movie.  I was pleasantly surprised:  It mostly kept to the spirit of the books I loved as a small child.  My only real criticism of the movie was that it downplayed George's mischievousness, his most endearing quality.

Yesterday, on my way home from work, I saw a kid carrying a copy of Curious George Rides A Bike.  Perhaps there is hope for the current generation after all! ;-)

A Cloud Over Cyclists' Safety

120.

Why does that number matter?

It's how many cyclists were killed in traffic accidents in two different localities during 2012.

Take a guess as to which localities.

All right, I'll tell you the first one:  the United Kingdom. About 64 million people live in its 242,990 square kilometers of land.  About 43 percent of the people own or have access to a bicycle.  By this definition, the UK has 27.5 million cyclists, of whom 3 million cycle three times a week or more.

Now, what's the other place where 120 cyclists were killed in traffic accidents in 2012?

It's none other than Florida.

Yes, the Sunshine State, which is about two-thirds the size of Britain and has less than a third of its population. 

The fatality statistics come from an article on The Economist's blog.  It also mentions that Florida's pedestrian fatality rate is double the US average. In fact, according to the National Complete Streets Coalition, the four most dangerous cities for pedestrians in America are also the four largest cities in Florida:  Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa-St.Petersburg and Orlando.

The article rightly points out, "Florida's cities are routinely dangerous because they are designed for cars, not for people."  That is true:  Traffic lanes are wider in Florida's cities than they are in other urban areas of the United States, and speed limits are higher but not enforced. This encourages drivers to go faster than they should. 

What the article doesn't mention--and I know from a fairly extensive amount of cycling in Florida--is that those drivers are rarely cyclists themselves, and are thus unaware of what makes for a safe (let alone harmonious) existence between cyclists and motorists.  I have argued, in other posts on this blog, that this is the single most important factor, apart from the behavior of cyclists themselves, in determining the safety of cyclists.  Without this internal human infrastructure, so to speak (which is what much of Europe has), no number of bike lanes or traffic signals is going to make cycling safer in any city.

To its credit, Florida officials are looking into the issue of bicycle/pedestrian safety and, I believe, some localities are addressing the issue as best as they know how.  One problem, as The Economist article points out, is that the state also plans to continue with an economic model based on breakneck growth, all of it fueled by cars.  It is not an exaggeration to say that for every person added to the Sunshine State's population, another car is added to its roadways.

Interestingly, the author of the article seems to recognize that it's not a sustainable economic model.  And it's not a recipe for reducing the number of cyclists killed, no matter how many new bike paths are built.