The Firefighters Got It Right, But The Reporter Didn't

Bike mishaps leave their riders in all sorts of predicaments.  Some, unfortunately, are tragic:  I have recounted a few on this blog. Others leave their riders in various states of incapacitation for varying periods of time.  The crash and "dooring" incident I suffered two years ago, within four months of each other, fall into that category:  Injuries and shock kept me off my bikes for a while.

Some predicaments are less dire--at least, if there is timely intervention.  So it was for a four-year-old boy in Madison, Wisconsin.  Firefighters found him with his foot entangled in spokes, which they cut.  The boy is fine but, of course, the bike wasn't rideable.  Kudos to the firefighters bought the necessary parts and fixed the kid's machine.

Now, you might have noticed something about the way I worded this post.  It has to do with the news account, which was obviously written by someone who isn't a cyclist.  The boy's foot was "caught in the spokes of one of his bicycle tires," according to the report.  After freeing the boy, the firefighters bought him " a new rim" and installed it.

I don't mean to nit-pick, but there is no such thing as the spokes of a bicycle tire.  The tire, usually made of some rubber compound, is the shoe, if you will, to the foot of a rim:  the round metal (or carbon fiber) part of a wheel that is attached to the hub (at the center of a wheel) by spokes.  The article got that right:  the spokes on that bike were, as they are on most bikes, wires.

The article noted, however, that the firefighters "bought a new rim" and "installed it for him."  Now, unless one of those firefighters is a wheelbuilder, he or she wouldn't have installed a rim:  It would have to be laced to the hub with spokes.  My guess is that the firefighters--bless their hearts--bought a whole wheel, with or without a tire, and installed it for him.  Most people, whatever their level of bike mechanic skills, can do that.

Anyway, I congratulate and thank the firefighters of Engine Company Number 10 in Madison, Wisconsin for what they did for that boy--whether or not a reporter got it right. 

It Wasn't About His Bike--Or Him

A guy in my neighborhood rides an old Raleigh three-speed--based on its graphics, I'd guess that it's from the 1960s--to the stores, the laundromat and, I imagine, anyplace else he has to be.  

I know nothing about the man:  He talks to no one.  I'd guess that he is a bit older than I am.  Perhaps he's retired, whether or not by choice. There's a good chance he's living alone, or with a roommate in a similar circumstance.  Is he widowed or divorced--or did he never marry?  Did his kids move away, or did he never have any?  Does he live in an apartment he moved into when the city still had rent control, or is he in other housing circumstances, for better or worse?

I see him--a gaunt, Ichabod Crane-like figure in aviator glasses--pedaling, at a fairly brisk clip, all over the neighborhood on that bike, with a dropped handlebar turned upside down. (The drops are closer to the saddle than the grip area of the original upright bars, which allows for a more upright riding position.)  Most of the other parts seem to be original, including the wheels (with a Sturmey Archer three-speed hub on the rear), but I don't think the tires have matched in the last thirty years or so.

Once, I was about to take a picture of that bike but the man appeared, obviously not pleased.  Though I'm something of a voyeur, I respected the man's wish for privacy or whatever.  So all you have is my description, however thin, of him and his bike.

An article I read reminded me of that man and his bike. The subject of the story was not as anonymous as the man in my neighborhood because, well, he couldn't be:  He was a high-ranking executive in a large regional bank.  All of his colleagues and subordinates knew that he pedaled to his office every day, in all conditions, including an ice storm that seemed to  expanded the Wollman Rink to include the rest of Central Park.  On another occasion, someone jokingly asked him whether he'd ridden his bike through that day's snowstorm.  In all sincerity, he replied, "Yes.  Do you want to borrow it?"

Robert G. Wilmers, the CEO of M&T Bank, got a flat on his way to work. By the time he was ready to ride home, someone had fixed it for him. He did, however, suffer a fate of too many New York cyclists:  One night, he came out of his office building to find the bike's frame, sans parts, chained up where he'd left it that morning.

Robert G. Wilmers' bike on display in Seneca One Tower, Buffalo, New York. 

Given that last anecdote, it's understandable that his old black Ross was what some would describe as a "Frankenbike."  The tires almost never matched and the parts where not always what one might expect to find on such a bike.  He seemed not to care, though:  For him, his bike, equipped with a front basket, was transportation, nothing more, nothing less, never mind that it seemed to clash, if you will, with the well-tailored suits he wore.

He continued to ride almost to the end of his life at age 83, five years ago.  Now his bike is on display in the lobby of Seneca One, the Buffalo, New York tower where M & T has a significant presence.  The bank was founded and is still headquartered in "The Queen City" and, although Wilmers lived in worked in New York City, people who knew him say he would have approved of not only the bike's new location, but the occasion for its installation:  About 175 volunteers from M&T and other Seneca tenants have assembled 50 youth bikes that will be given to children to help them get to school and simply enjoy riding.  

In other words, they're helping the kids ride the way Wilmers did.  For him, for them and for the man in my neighborhood, it's not about the bike--or themselves.

On Salman Rushdie And "Rolling Coal"

Once again, I am going to invoke the Howard Cosell rule. 

Two weeks ago, Salman Rushdie was attacked while giving a talk in Chautaqua, New York.  I actually wrote a reflection about it on another site, under a nom de plume I've been using.  I didn't mention it on this blog, until now, not because I couldn't relate it to anything else I've been writing here--if you've been following this blog, you know that I can relate almost anything to cycling and my life.  Rather, thinking about his attack was even more difficult than some of the other non-cycling events I've described.

For one thing, he is one of the world's best-known writers.  While my written words probably won't ever have the influence of his, I feel that the attack on him was an attack on me.  No one who is not doing harm to others deserves to have their freedom of expression--whether in the form of a creative work like a novel, the articulation of an idea or simply the way that person moves about in the world--inhibited, disrupted or ceased.  

But, perhaps more importantly, that attack reaffirmed for me that such attacks are not perpetrated by "others."  The young man who stabbed him was born and raised in the US nearly a decade after the Ayatollah Khomieni issued the fatwa calling for Rushdie's assassination.  In other words, although he was radicalized during a visit with his father in Lebanon four years ago, he is as much a domestic terrorist as those who stormed the Capitol on 6 January 2021, threatened to kill anyone who certify the election or impeach Donald Trump, plotted to kidnap and execute Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer--and who have murdered abortion providers.  

Oh, and I would put anyone who tries to negate the self-agency, let alone equality, of women and LGBTQIA people, in the same category.  Yes, I include the Supreme Court justices who voted to strike down Roe v Wade.  I am not a legal scholar, gender theorist or theologian, so please forgive me if I fail to understand the difference, in kind or in degree, of denying a novelist the right to use his language and creative powers, or a woman to do as she sees fit with her body, as they see fit.  

Call me paranoid or alarmist if you like, but I don't think it's a very long or particularly slippery slope from telling a woman or girl that she can't terminate a pregnancy to telling someone like me that I couldn't  access, not only medical procedures that have helped my body reflect my gender identity, but also the therapy, counseling and other support that have helped me not only to recover from the pain and trauma of living an inauthentic life, but also to use, and even treasure, the lessons and moments of joy I experienced along the way.

Or, for that matter, if a government can mandate--or radicalized mobs, whether they are based in Kansas or Kandahar, can intimidate--women and girls away from bodily autonomy, how far is it, really, from a ruler who doesn't allow women or girls to travel without male chaperones, or to ride a bicycle or drive a car at all? Does it really matter whether the ones who legislate or intimidate people from freely moving about in the way they choose, whether to get to work or school or for pleasure, have been elected to their offices, ascended to their thrones by birthright or take over the public space and discourse through aggressive displays of symbols like flags or by "rolling coal" with their SUVs and pickup trucks on steroids that take up the entire width of a roadway, including its shoulder?

Now, some of you think might be that I've stretched things a bit by comparing the attack on Salman Rushdie or the Supreme Court striking down Roe v Wade to the intimidation or harassment of cyclists.  But for me, at least, they are all personal and come from the same impulses: those of people who simply can't face a world that's changing.