The Real Frankenbikes

 These things are freaks.

That is Ian Bogost's verdict on eBikes.  He based it on several months of "trying to live with one," an experience on which he based his Atlantic article.  In essence, he says that eBikes occupy a no-rider's land between motorcycles and bicycles, offering little of the health benefit of the latter and none of the "cool" factor (in the eyes of some, anyway) the former lend their passengers.  

But he points to an even more important way in which eBikes are not really a compromise (unless, of course, you define a compromise as something that pleases neither side) between bicycles and motorcycles.  Rather, as he explains, the eBike's motor propels the rider further and faster than his or her own pedal power alone would have.  That leads inexperienced and unskilled riders--as the author confesses to having been--to veer off course and crash.  Or, that speed can tempt them into riding in traffic with SUVs and other bigger, more powerful vehicles.

Photo by Christopher Sadowski, for the New York Post.

That relative speed--and, too often, riders' lack of control--makes an eBike on a trail or bike lane "a greater risk to its rider, to fellow cyclists and to pedestrians."  Moreover, he says, "Walking the streets of New York City, it now feels just as likely that you might get mowed down by an eBike as a taxicab."  

I have never ridden an eBike, so take my endorsement of what he says for what it's worth.  I know cyclists who believe eBikes should be banned in New York.  I don't know whether I would go that far, as delivery workers (almost all of whom are immigrants) use them. I certainly think, however, that anything with a motor--whether an eBike or a razor scooter--should not be allowed on a lane or path designated for cyclists or pedestrians, especially ones as narrow as the one on the Queensborough-59th Street Bridge.  

Whatever develops, Ian Bogost's article doesn't give me any incentive to try an eBike.

What's That Bike Doing On The Railroad Tracks?

 In previous posts, I've written about bicycles that ended up in the canals of Amsterdam, Paris and Brooklyn as well as rivers like the Tiber and even larger bodies of water like Jamaica Bay.

Probably the most common reason why bikes meet the same fate as mob victims in the Gowanus Canal (accordig to legend, anyway) is theft:  The perps don't know what else to do with the bike once they've used it for a getaway or joyride or realize that someone will recognize it, especially if it's from a municipal bike-share program.  Old bikes also get dumped when their owners realize what it cost to fix them, or they don't realize those bikes can't be fixed.  Or, people just want to get rid of them because they're disused and decaying.

Whatever the reasons, none can rationalize tossing a two-wheeler into the turbid or turbulent waters of a canal, creek, river, lake, bay or ocean.  Particularly indefensible is an incident that seems to be part of a pattern developing in Leeds and other parts of the UK.

According to a BBC report, vandalism, tresspass and other kinds of anti-social behavior have been on the rise in and around British railway facilities.  The Cross Gates station in Leeds seems to have been particularly hard-hit by such incidents, which include young people leaving or tossing bicycles in or alongside railroad tracks.

The incident shown in the surveillance video also reflects a particular ritual that seems to have developed around the practice:  One young person abandons  the bike on the platform edge before one of his peers drops it onto the tracks.

That sequence of events suggests, to me,  that it might be some sort of gang ritual:  The first young man might be leaving it for the other to toss in order to prove something or another.  Or, perhaps, the first young man simply didn't want responsibility if the bike-tossing caused injury or damage.

Whatever their motivation, no bike, no matter how inexpensive or ratty, deserves such a fate.

Will He Lose The Election Along With His Bike?

 When I first became a dedicated cyclist, a brochure--distributed by Schwinn, if I recall correctly--exhorted us to lock our bikes if we were leaving them alone "even for a minute."

Good advice, that was--and is.  In fact, Rick Shone proved that it's doubly true--literally--today.

As part of his campaign to become Mayor of Winnipeg, Canada, he announced a cycling infrastructure plan that aims to, among other things, reduce bike theft.

Less than 90 minutes later, he drove his pickup truck at The Wilderness Supply, a store he owns, to talk to an employee.  He left his orange Rossin, converted into an urban single-speed in the back.  Two minutes later he returned. 

Guess what happened during those 120 seconds.

"I feel so stupid," he lamented.  He explained that he was "distracted by a question," which caused him to leave his truck and bike longer than he'd anticipated.

Of course, I hope he gets his bike back.  But I have to wonder whether that theft makes him look like a person of poor judgment and will hinder his candidacy--or whether it will underscore an issue to which he's bringing attention.

In short, will people be more or less likely to vote for him because he lost his bike through, as he admits, his own neglect?