The Real Presidential Race

I'm going to say something you've heard before:  This year's US Presidential campaign is the most dispiriting I've ever seen.  Perhaps it's the most depressing in history:  The only one I can imagine being worse is that of 1852, in which Franklin Pierce--probably the most undistinguished individual to occupy the White House--defeated Winifield Scott. (Quick question:  To which party did Scott belong?)  Tell me:  Would you have voted for either of those guys?

That contest, like this year's, features two major-party candidates that generate almost no enthusiasm:  People support one or the other, to the degree that they do, only because they think the other is worse.  Even the 1984 election, which ended in a landslide re-election for Ronald Reagan, wasn't nearly as soul-crushing:  At least his opponent, Walter Mondale, actually stood for some positive things.  And Reagan himself wasn't the volcano of bile and venom Trump has been on the campaign trail.

I also realize a reason why this year's election is so alienating:  It's the first in a long time in which neither candidate was seen on a bicycle.  In fact, it's difficult to imagine either of them ever having been on a bicycle.  Even Reagan seems to have had a more recent two-wheeled history than Hillary or Donald.

The 2004 election was another story.  I wasn't happy with the outcome, but at least I didn't cringe while voting for John Kerry.   And, quite honestly, this year's candidates almost make George W. Bush look good, at least to me.

John Kerry on his Serotta road bike during the 2004 campaign.

From a cyclist's perspective, though, that election was the best in recent memory.  Both candidates are avid cyclists, though Kerry is mainly a road rider while Bush favored mountain biking.  

George W. Bush on  the trail during the 2004 campaign.

Hmm...What if Bush had been a roadie or Kerry an off-road rider.  Now that would have made for a race!  I think Kerry would have won whether or not Bush cheated!

A yellow dog.

A Columbia Folding Bike--From England?

I came of age as a cyclist during the '70's Bike Boom of North America.  Ten-speeds were the bikes of choice.  Of US bike manufacturers, only Schwinn had been producing derailleur-equipped bikes in the years before the boom.  Other manufacturers--such as Columbia, Murray and AMF--began to offer "lightweight" bikes made of flash-welded gaspipe tubing with derailleurs and hand brakes.  To be fair, Schwinn's "lightweights"--with the exceptions of the Paramount and Superior--were also tanks with derailleurs fitted to them.  

AMF Hercules three-speed, made in England

A similar scenario played out during the 1950s and 1960s.  While the number of adult cyclists--and the demand for adult bicycles--were nowhere near as great as that of the 1970s, both increased gradually during those two decades.  And American bike manufacturers were not ready to produce the bike requested by adults:  three speed "English racers".  None--not even Schwinn--had ever made such a bike.

Schwinn responded in the way they would to the demand for ten-speeds in the 1970s:  they fitted their heavy frames with Sturmey-Archer three-speed hubs and called those bikes "lightweights".  On the other hand, other American bike companies did something that would have, in an earlier decade, seemed unthinkable:  they imported bikes and re-badged them.  

So, English three-speed bikes were sold under the brands of AMF (Hercules), Huffy and other American companies.  Strip away their decals and they are indistinguishable from Raleigh, Rudge or other English three-speed bikes of the time.

Columbia was another American manufacturer who imported English three-speeds.  That fact leads me to believe that this Columbia might also have been made by one of those British manufacturers:

The tell-tale signs of a Raleigh folding bike are there:  the brakes, the Sturmey-Archer hub, the cottered crank (at least in the style seen on that bike).  But the frame doesn't look like any of the folding or "shopper" bikes Raleigh was making at the time.  The frames of most such machines had, in essence, a down tube but no top tube.  The reverse is true on the Columbia in the photos. I wonder how that affects the ride.

I watched the bike on eBay a few months ago. No, I didn't buy it!  I admit, I was tempted: It would have been an interesting project.  Apparently, not many of those bikes were made, and from what I could find, Columbia offered them in only one year:  1966.

Fifty years later, no bike like it--or, for that matter, the old English three-speed--is made today.  And, of the bike brands mentioned in this post, only two exist today:  Schwinn and Raleigh.  Both are owned by conglomerates and their bikes are made for them in China or Taiwan.  Which means, of course, that it's unlikely that any bike like the Columbia folder will be made any time soon.

The Bike Lane Follies Never End

Sometimes I feel as if I could devote an entire blog to bike lanes that are poorly conceived, constructed, simply useless or bad in any number of other ways.

I've seen some doozies here in New York.  But the worst I've seen in The Big Apple is, apparently, sane compared to some that have been constructed in other parts of the US and world.

Some of the lanes I hear about are almost comically bad because it's simply impossible to understand how they can be imagined even by someone who has never seen a bike in his or her life.  When I'm in a charitable mood, I tell myself that the designers of such lanes assume that bicycles and cyclists possess extraordinary powers that mortal drivers and cars can't even dream of.

I mean, some are built as if we can pedal through steel columns or even stronger stuff.  As an example, check out this gem posted on the blog of Bike Shop Hub in Tucson, Arizona:

 

 Unfortunately, there's more where that came from--or, at least, where I found that gem.  Scroll down the page I've linked and check out, in particular, the ones posted by Marlo Stimpson and David Common.