Probably the question we’re most frequently asked by our non-bicycling friends and colleagues is, “Why do you ride bicycles for transportation?”

Underpinning everything we do here at EcoVelo is the desire to reduce our dependence on the automobile while encouraging others to do the same. We strongly believe reducing automobile use can improve our neighborhoods, our cities, and ultimately, the world. While this is reason enough to leave our car in the garage, truth be told, there are other, more personal (selfish?) reasons why we ride bikes, including:

• the feeling of well-being that comes with physical activity in the out-of-doors;
• the tangible health benefits that come from daily exercise;
• the surprising amount of money that can be saved by eliminating an automobile;
• the greater connection with our community that comes from being out and exposed to our neighbors;
• the increased appreciation of nature that comes from daily exposure to the elements; and perhaps most importantly for us,
• the sheer joy of sharing the experience with friends and family.

Taken together, these benefits make a compelling case for transportational bicycling, and on a personal level, they make bicycle riding an extremely important part of our daily lives!

—Alan & Michael

When approaching others about taking up bike commuting and utility riding, it’s important to remember that hopping on a bicycle and sharing the road with motorists can be quite intimidating to those who haven’t previously ridden bicycles as an adult. Those who are already riding bikes for sport or recreation may find it easy to make the transition to riding for transportation, but those with less experience need time and positive experiences to build their confidence as riders.

When talking with potential newcomers, suggesting an occasional short trip to a local grocery store or coffee shop might be better than suggesting they immediately jump into a full-fledged commute. In the case of my wife, she took short rides on backstreets and trails long before venturing out onto main arterials. Over time, she extended the length of her rides, and as those rides became longer, she also moved onto larger, busier streets. This slow building process enabled her to improve her skills and build her confidence at a rate that matched the conditions in which she was riding.

A number of studies have shown that the number one reason more people don’t ride bicycles is the fear of sharing the road with cars. The U.S. is sorely lacking in subjectively safe infrastructure in the form of separated bike lanes and trails, and unfortunately this is not likely to change in the near future. In the meantime, it’s important to remember how intimidating our roads can sometimes be. We should encourage newcomers by suggesting that it’s OK to start slow and small before eventually stepping up to the larger challenges when they’re ready.

With the popularity of European-style commuting bikes on the rise here in the U.S., the average weight of a typical transpo bike is also on the rise. U.S.-style hybrids, mountain bikes, and touring bikes, all commonly used for commuting here, averagely weigh in the 30-35 lb. range (for example, my fully outfitted Surly Long Haul Trucker weighs 32 lbs. with front and rear racks, kickstand, fenders, and lights). On the other hand, many traditional Euro-style city bikes tip the scales at 40-50 lbs. or more. This extra 10-15 lbs. is largely inconsequential for those who have point-to-point commutes over relatively flat terrain, but it can be a real problem for those who take their bike on transit as part of their commute.

Here’s a case in point. A friend purchased a Dutch city bike to use as her primary commuter. She liked the upright seating position, internal gears and brakes, full chain case, integrated lighting, and overall style of this type of bike. It’s a lovely bike that appeared to be perfect for her intended use. It was a little difficult to hoist onto the train, but she parked the bike in the aisle and all was good—for a while. Eventually, the conductors tired of too many bikes in the aisles (it’s a safety hazard) and they started making everyone place their bikes in the vertical wall racks. As it turns out, the bike is too heavy for her to hoist onto the racks, so now she’s looking at lighter weight alternatives.

Commuters and utility bicyclists are rarely accused of being “weight-weenies”; afterall, a 30+ lb. bike is anything but “light” by today’s standards. But, there are some circumstances where excess weight can be a real hindrance, even to the point that an otherwise perfectly matched bike becomes a mis-match for its intended use. So while we aren’t ready to start counting grams any time soon, it does behoove multi-modal bike commuters to keep an eye on overall weight when outfitting a bike that will be taken on trains and buses.

None of this is a dig at Euro/Dutch-style bikes. They’re wonderfully appointed and make perfect commuter/utility bikes for many people. They’ve been refined over many decades in some of the most bike-friendly countries in the world, and their functionality transfers well to many U.S. cities. They do tend to be heavy though, and since there’s a trend in commuting and transpo circles to show little-to-no regard to weight, it’s not a bad idea to remember that a bike can be so heavy as to severely hinder its functionality in a least some circumstances.

While I prefer the aesthetics of a delicate, high profile cantilever or a classic, dual-pivot caliper, I have to admit that nothing quite beats the overall performance of a high-quality, cable-actuated disc brake (also known as “mechanical” disc brakes) for year-round commuting. Drum/roller brakes are heavy and generally provide only mediocre braking performance, and most every other type of performance brake uses the rim wall for a braking surface, a fact that guarantees your rims will be toast long before your hubs go. Rim brakes can sometimes be poor performers in wet conditions, they make a mess in the rain, and the caliper variety rarely provide sufficient clearance for robust tires and fenders. Hydraulic discs are typically more powerful than mechanical discs, but arguably, the difficulties associated with cutting fluid lines and bleeding brake systems are not a fair trade for their slightly better performance over their easier to set-up and maintain cousins. A high-quality mechanical disc brake such as the Avid BB7 combines the simplicity and user-friendliness of cable actuation, with excellent all-weather performance and long-term, wheel-friendly reliability. Setting aside aesthetic considerations and tradition, cable-actuated discs are hard to beat from the standpoint of pure functionality.

Avid Cable-Actuated Disc Brakes →

Mixtes were traditionally known as “women’s” or “girls” bikes, the concept being a low top tube is more well-suited to riding and mounting/dismounting in a skirt. As that stereotype has begun to fade in recent years, more gender-neutral frame designs with low-slung top tubes are showing up. Two examples that come to mind are the Rivendell Yves Gomez and the Civia Loring. When I was a kid, a boy wouldn’t be caught dead on a “girls” frame, but these days, more people of both genders are appreciating the ease of use step-through frames provide.

Ironically, some of the most “macho” frames out there have steeply sloping top tubes and nearly qualify as “step-through”. I’m thinking of modern mountain bike frames and some compact road frames. These frames differ from traditional step-throughs in that they don’t have the seat tube that extends vertically above the sloping top tube (thus requiring extremely long seat posts), but otherwise the top tubes can be nearly as low as on some mixtes.

Take a look at the photo above. I think it’s interesting that these designs are fairly similar, yet because they come from different lineages our perceptions of them are so different. The Raleigh on the right is clearly gender neutral, yet the mixte is clearly a “woman’s” bike. Of course, the way they’re outfitted plays a big part in this case; the pale blue paint and wicker basket exude a definite feminine vibe, whereas the silver and black motif of the Raleigh is more “manly”.

Rivendell came up against this self-image issue frequently enough that they took their Betty Foy mixte, painted it black, and renamed it the “Yves Gomez” for those men who wanted a step-through but didn’t feel comfortable riding what they perceived to be a woman’s bike. I have to admit, if I was going to buy a Betty for myself, I’d probably go with the Yves version instead. That’s probably a reflection of my own insecurities more than anything… LOL.

A bike that does a great job of blurring the line between what is traditionally thought of as a woman’s bike and a man’s bike is the Civia Loring (above). The top tube just slightly swoops, and it’s just barely low enough to step over, yet the bike doesn’t clearly say “girl’s bike” or “boy’s bike”. The 2012 Gotham from Novara (below) does the same thing with its mixte-ish top tube and black paint. I think these designs are subtle and genius, and I really appreciate the fact that they so successfully mix up and mess with the old streotypes.

I cut my teeth on bikes in the 1970s and ‘80s when lugged steel and friction shifting were the norm. While I very much appreciate and enjoy the performance advantages of modern, high-tech commuters, I’m probably the most fond of old school bikes that are true to my roots. My Rivendell is a good example of a bike that draws style tips and technology from the past, but brings them forward to the present day in a functional package that doesn’t make compromises in performance. It’s a bike that’s at least as good as—if not better than—the vintage bikes from which it draws inspiration.

Velo Orange Polyvalent

With the rise of Cycle Chic and retro-chic over the past few years, we’re seeing an increasing number of new bikes that are designed to look like old bikes. From pseudo Dutch bikes, to French constructeur look-alikes, more-and-more of what I like to call “neo-vintage” designs are showing up on the market. Many of these bikes are quite attractive and provide a nice alternative to the somewhat generic bikes that have dominated the market for the past couple of decades.

Electra Ticino

Trek Cocoa

While many of these bikes are well made using modern materials and reliable components, there is a small minority that are merely low quality imports dressed up to look like something they’re not. In many ways, they’re not much different than the fully-suspended “mountain bikes” sold at big box stores; these fake MTBs aren’t actually built to be ridden off road, and some of these new retro-imposters also promise an unrealistic level of reliability and performance.

Walmart Hollandia

I’m excited about this new wave of vintage-inspired bikes. Because they’re visually attractive, I believe they’ll appeal to a wider audience than the generic “hybrids” that have been so prevalent for the past 20 years. My only worry is that because vintage bikes are becoming a fashion statement, we may see an increasing number of poorly designed and built bikes dressed up in vintage clothing. What we certainly don’t need is a new wave of neo-vintage bikes that promise more than they can deliver.

The idea that bicycling is a sport is still deeply ingrained in the psyche of most Americans. Replacing a car with a bicycle is still seen as a bit odd, if not completely eccentric. And the idea of riding a bike slowly, and in street clothes, is unthinkable for many people, bicyclists and non-bicyclists alike. We still have some work to do!

The fear of cars tops many surveys asking why people are resistant to bike commuting, but the fear of sweat is always up there too. In talking to people around my office, you’d think perspiring only ever happens on a bicycle and that it’s something to be avoided at all costs. Well, I have a pair of secrets for you: 1) a little sweat never hurt anyone; and 2) it’s possible to ride a bicycle and perspire no more than if you were taking a leisurely stroll around the neighborhood.

I think it’s that bicycling=sport thing that trips up many potential bike commuters, especially those who don’t see themselves as athletes. In many areas outside of our few bicycling meccas (Davis, Portland, Boulder, Minneapolis, etc.) the majority of our role models are racers-in-training, consequently many people don’t believe it’s possible to ride a bike as an adult any way other than full-tilt and in full-kit.

Consider the following. The difference in effort required between averaging 10mph or 15mph on a bicycle is about equivalent to the difference between a casual walk or a jog/run. In other words, it’s the difference between barely sweating or really sweating. Now consider the average bike commute is somewhere around 5 miles either direction. At 10mph, the commute will take 30 minutes, and at 15mph the commute will take 20 minutes. So for a difference of 20 minutes out of a person’s day (10 minutes either direction), it’s possible to completely ameliorate the issue of sweat and bicycling. Seems like a reasonable trade-off to me.

Of course, there are times and places where no amount of “taking it easy” will prevent someone from perspiring (Arizona in August at high noon, for example), but I’d argue that even walking will cause someone to perspire in those conditions, so an easy bike ride is no worse. And if a person’s inclination is to ride hard, there are still ways to overcome the sweat issue including showers at work (if they’re available), sponge baths, and various hygiene products.

Sweat and bicycling do not necessarily go hand-in-hand! Perhaps potential street-clothes-commuters need to take a lesson out of racing’s playbook and start using heart rate monitors, not to set a high target for fitness, but a low ceiling to stay cool and sweat-free.

As I was riding home the other night, with cars streaming by and not another bicyclist in sight, it suddenly dawned on me that we have a long way to go before we bike commuters “own” a significant portion of the urban/suburban landscape. Sure, there are bright spots such as Portland, Davis, Boulder, Minneapolis, and a handful of other unusually bike-friendly cities, but in most places, the reality on the ground is still fairly bleak. However you choose to spin it, it’s difficult to get past the fact that bicycles still only account for around 1% of the trips made in the U.S.¹.

There are many people working to improve that number, but everyone agrees it’s going to be a long time before our bicycle share approaches what we see in the bike-centric European countries. To put things in perspective, according to the same source cited above, the Netherlands has a bicycle mode share of approximately 30%. Education, political action, improvements in infrastructure, and rising gas prices may help to increase bicycle use in the U.S., but ultimately it’s going to take a profound change in the way we Americans think about personal transportation to break the spell of the automobile.

So what can we do as individuals to help move along this process? Supporting organizations such as The Alliance for Biking and Walking, the League of American Bicyclists, Bikes Belong, and the myriad other regional and local advocacy groups is a great start. These organizations work in the political and public realms to further the interests of all bicyclists. But on a personal level, perhaps even more effective is the act of simply riding our bikes everyday to set an example for those who have never considered using a bicycle for transportation. By using bicycles for transportation in our local communities, we demonstrate that bicycling is a simple and effective way to get around and get things done. The sight of average people doing practical things on bikes is a powerful image that helps to dispel the myth that bicycling is only for children, athletes, or the less fortunate in society. Changing that misperception is arguably one of the most effective things we can do to get more people riding.

Studies have shown that the number one reason people don’t ride their bikes more frequently is the fear of cars. Considering this, the most obvious way to help newcomers feel more comfortable is to provide high-quality, separated bikeways. While it’s unrealistic to hope for a 1-to-1 ratio of bikeways to roads, even short stretches of bikeways that connect adjacent neighborhoods and road networks may encourage newcomers to give bicycling a try.

Consider the above beautiful piece of bicycle-specific infrastructure in my hometown. It’s part of a relatively short trail network that connects four neighborhoods with a shopping area and a school. I often take this route when I run an errand to the market. The direct route takes me along a two lane, 50 mph road. I’ve ridden the road many times, and though I find it relatively benign, I can imagine it would be intimidating to an inexperienced rider. By instead taking a longer back route through a neighborhood that leads to the bikeway, I reduce my exposure to high speed traffic by approximately 75% while only adding about 5 minutes to my travel time. I suspect that for many people, just having the option could mean the difference between taking the bike or driving the car.

For the foreseeable future, bicyclists here in the U.S. will need to depend upon existing motor vehicle roadways, but strategically placed separated bikeways can serve as safe havens for novices in the process of developing the confidence and skills they need to share the road with cars, while also providing a pleasant respite for those already out there mixing it up with traffic on a regular basis.

“When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments. Here was a machine of precision and balance for the convenience of man. And (unlike subsequent inventions for man’s convenience) the more he used it, the fitter his body became. Here, for once, was a product of man’s brain that was entirely beneficial to those who used it, and of no harm or irritation to others. Progress should have stopped when man invented the bicycle.” —Elizabeth West

I agree with Ms. West in spirit, though I have to admit I love my laptop and digital camera. But when it comes to transportation, you have to wonder what the world would be like today if the internal combustion engine was never invented. It’s hard to imagine. One thing’s for certain; our love affair with the automobile and our continuing and overwhelming desire to “make thermodynamic whoopee with fossil fuels” as Kurt Vonnegut so wonderfully described it, has placed a major stress on our environment.

Most of us grew up in the age of the automobile (my Dad, who is in his mid-80s, is the only person I know who remembers getting around by horse and wagon), and consequently, the unnaturally high speeds made possible by the internal combustion engine seem natural to us. And as cars become safer and safer, we become more and more insulated from the dangers of driving at high speeds, hence the increasing number of people who multi-task behind the wheel, texting, plucking eyebrows, and trimming sideburns while driving with one knee (yup, seen ‘em all).

I believe we’re so accustomed to traveling at high speeds that we sometimes ride our bicycles as fast as we can without realizing what we’re doing. Let’s face it, bicycles seem impossibly slow when compared to almost any automobile, and if we’re not careful, this dramatic discrepancy in speed may compel us to race from light to light in a vain attempt to mimic a car. This is neither a pleasant, nor an efficient way to ride a bicycle (unless you’re training for a race or you enjoy sweating in your street clothes).

Instead of focusing on how slow I am compared to automobiles, I try to concentrate on how fast I am compared to pedestrians. Even at a comfortable pace, the bicycle multiplies a pedestrian’s speed and reach by a factor of four. When I focus on where I’d be if I were walking, instead focusing on where I’d be if I were driving a car, I find myself relaxing and slowing down to a more leisurely pace, basking in the knowledge that I’m getting there much faster than I would be otherwise.

Speed is relative, and how we think about it makes a tremendous difference in how we feel about it. So the next time you find yourself feeling a little slow and tired on your bike, just remember that you’re actually flying along at over four times the speed Mother Nature intended you to travel.

With the number of heated discussions related to bicycle safety that circulate around the internet, one might get the impression that riding a bicycle is dangerous. The statistics say otherwise. Following is a list compiled by Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. (Design News, 10-4-93) that compares the fatal risk associated with participating in various activities:

I’ve seen other similar lists, and while the numbers and activities may vary a bit, the overall message is the same: bicycling is relatively safe when compared to other common activities. So, for those who are unsure about bicycling, educate yourself, make informed choices about your equipment, ride responsibly, and get out there and have fun; the benefits of bicycling far outweigh the risks!

My wife and I have been riding together for a number of years now. We’re at the point where we ebb-and-flow together on the road without even thinking about it. As long as we’re on our usual bikes (a pair of Rivendells), we can ride for hours without either of us needing to say a thing about the pace.

It’s always interesting though, to bring a new bike into the mix. Because she rides her trusty Betty Foy most of the time, and we ride together so much, she acts as a baseline against which I can gauge the relative efficiency of any new bike we have on hand.

My new Civia is a good example. I rode it alone on my commute for two weeks before riding it with her on a weekend for the first time. I had pretty well convinced myself that it was less efficient than my Rivendell. I’m not 100% sure why I came to that conclusion, but it probably had to do with the general consensus that internal gear hubs are less efficient than derailleurs, and that the internal gear hub concentrates weight at the rear of the bike, making it feel heavier than it actually is.

Much to my surprise, on that first ride she had some trouble keeping up with me (if anything it’s usually the other way around). I kept finding myself absent-mindedly cruising along at what felt like our normal pace, then looking back to see her falling behind. It finally dawned on me that it was the bike. Subsequent rides on those two bikes confirmed my suspicion; in their current configurations, the Civia is more efficient than the Rivendell.

After thinking it through, this all makes sense. As we all know, a large majority of the effort we expend propelling a bicycle goes toward overcoming wind resistance. In the case of these two bikes, the Rivendell is set-up to place me in a comfortable, upright position. The Civia, on the other hand, has lower bars and a longer reach to the grip area which places me in a slightly less comfortable, but more aerodynamic position. I believe this difference in rider position explains the Civia’s higher efficiency, even with its potentially greater rolling resistance due to the internal gear hub and heavier tires. I’m pretty sure that reversing the cockpit set-ups would make the Rivendell at least slightly more efficient than the Civia.

Of course, none of this is anything but totally subjective. But I suppose that’s the point. We can make all kinds of assumptions about the efficiency of a bike based upon our pre-conceived notions regarding drivetrain efficiency, weight, handlebar height, etc., but it’s all conjecture until we get out on the road and see how a bike actually rolls along in a familiar setting.

A debate regarding the validity of separated bicycling facilities has continued non-stop for many years. On one side there is John Forester and the bicyclists and planners who support a strictly vehicular approach to bicycling, and on the other side we have John Pucher and the bicyclists and planners who support a system based upon separated facilities such as those seen in The Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany.

The vehicular side argues that we currently have a fully functional road network and bicycles are already classified as vehicles, so all we need to do is maintain our rights as road users and educate bicyclists on the techniques of riding a bicycle as a vehicle. One of the strongest arguments for this approach is that these goals are attainable and realistic.

The separated facilities side argues that until we do more to separate bicyclists from motor vehicles we’ll never see the numbers of bicyclists in the U.S. that we see in other parts of the world. Numerous studies support this notion, with the fear of cars often being cited as the number one reason people don’t ride their bikes more. One of the strongest arguments against separated facilities is the difficulty of creating such a system here in the U.S.

My thinking falls somewhere in the middle between these two opposing viewpoints.

On the one hand, when I ride on roads, I employ many of the principles of vehicular cycling as laid out in Forester’s Effective Cycling. Many of his techniques truly are “effective”, and with proper training and experience, they’ll serve riders well in a wide variety of situations. That said, I like to think of myself as a “pragmatic vehicular cyclist who rides as a vehicle when it’s appropriate, but then switches to a bike-pedestrian mode when conditions call for it.

On the other hand, I fully agree that the fear of auto traffic is one of the main obstacles we have to overcome before we’ll see a dramatic increase in bicycle use in the U.S. The data support this idea, and anecdotal evidence supports it as well. The fact that we see so much sidewalk riding suggests many casual bicyclists are fearful of cars. The studies tell us that bicycling is a relatively safe activity, and I believe this to be the case, but still, sharing the road with fast moving motor vehicles is frightening to many people on a gut level, regardless of what the numbers tell us. Personally, I find riding on a quiet separated path far preferable to riding on a busy roadway just feet from cars traveling at a high rate of speed.

Bicycling may be a relatively safe activity, but the perception that it’s dangerous is a major obstacle to increased ridership. We must find a way to build more separated facilities to make bicycling less intimidating to beginners and non-enthusiasts. We also need more training in vehicular cycling techniques to build rider skill and confidence for dealing with the realities on the ground as we build those new facilities. This combined approach will give us the best chance of growing bicycling for transportation in the U.S.

[A slightly different version of this article was originally posted in 2009. —ed.]

An article in today’s New York Times titled, “Across Europe, Irking Drivers Is Urban Policy” takes a look at how various European cities actively work to discourage automobile use. Policies such as closing roads to automobiles, levying congestion charges, instituting “environmental zones” where only low emission vehicles are allowed, and strictly limiting parking spaces have been successfully implemented across Europe as part of efforts to reduce automobile use and encourage bicycle and transit ridership.

I’ve mentioned here many times that I think it will take both carrots and sticks if we ever hope to see bicycle and public transit ridership in the U.S. reach the levels enjoyed in Europe. While the “carrot” measures such as high quality infrastructure and financial incentives are very important, I believe we also need to actively discourage automobile use by making it more expensive and less convenient, particularly for the short, urban trips that could so easily be made using alternative forms of transportation.

Read the Article →

Surveys show that a large majority of bicycle trips in the U.S. are made solely for recreation and exercise, with only a small percentage made for commuting and other utilitarian purposes. These numbers support my experience. I know many dedicated cyclists who ride their bikes long distances for recreation and/or training but don’t use their bikes for commuting or even short errands.

I believe these existing sport cyclists represent our best opportunity to increase the number of transportational bicyclists on the road. They already understand the health benefits of bicycling, they’re well-invested in gear, and they’re well-acclimated to riding in traffic and sharing the road with cars. The only thing missing is the desire to use their bicycle for transportation.

A majority of existing recruitment efforts appear to be directed at non-bicyclists, with what appears to be only minimal efforts directed at existing sport cyclists. These already enthusiastic riders are the low hanging fruit of transpo bicycle advocacy. I believe advocates need to bridge the gap between sport and transport and figure out a way to persuade these existing cyclists to consider using their bicycles to replace at least some of their car trips. Solving this puzzle is likely to result in a high success rate and good return on investment in the effort to get more people using bicycles for transportation.

I’m curious to know how you came to riding your bicycle for transportation as an adult. Did you start out riding for recreation or fitness first, then later come to use your bicycle for transportation, or did you take up riding for transportation right from the start?