21 Jan 2010
Dear Wade Wallace……
Dear, Wade, I found an interesting little essay (see below) on a US blog called; Utility cycling.
Its called; Thoughts on Re-Imaging the bicycle.
It raises some of the questions I’ve been asking myself and you, and so I’m including it in this letter to you.
Before that, a note to the reader as to why I write to Wade Wallace .
What’s especially significant about Wade’s blog is that he has broken through to the Mainstream press.
His blog is now carried by our major newspaper chain, the Fairfax papers. Thus Cycling tips becomes the blog face of cycling to a much larger public.
A visit to Cycling tips will show its dominated by the sports aspect of cycling. Lycra is everywhere.
I wrote to Wade saying that his masthead also promises that he’s interested in bikes as transport, and that’s not the Lycra look.
Was he prepared to do stories of the sort that would appeal to those of us who just want a use a bike to get around, and in our regular clothes?
We’re not riding fast bikes, most of us. Just practical bikes, some of them sit-ups like they use all over Europe
Wade wrote back very candidly, and has given me permission to quote him.
Dear Mike, Thanks for taking the time to explain all this to me. I understand where you’re coming from and can appreciate your passion.
I have to be cognizant of my readership however. I did a reader survey last year where thousands of people responded. I have a very good idea of why these people come to my site. That reason is escapism and to learn more about cycling (in particular bike racing).
If I were to stray away from that, I would lose readers ….. I’m not here to be everything to everybody. I’ve chosen a particular niche who I share a passion with. There are many different types of cyclists out there. I cannot cater to them all.
Wade.
We’ve exchanged a few more letters since. I understand his caution but what this means that one sort of bike culture, the sport and racing culture, is getting all the attention.
As long as this is true, I suspect we’ll never use bikes for transport to anything like the degree they do in Europe.
This means we”ll keep missing out on all the advantages they bring, unclogged cities, lower emissions, and better health for the average Australian.
I’m sure you know that we are now the most obese nation on earth. Did you also know we spend 58 billion a year, much of it public money, dealing with the consequences?
It’s very serious, Wade, this situation we are in, and the future we face as a consequence.
The humble bike can be part of the solution, and that has to be a fair topic on blogs representing cycling like yours.
Yours is the only one going into the MSM , isn’t it? .
Your readers are having a great time racing around in Lycra, and no one would deny them that. They are not obese. They are not a drain on the health budget, and they are having a great time.
But they shouldn’t be the only game, or even the main game, in town. Riders here should encouraged to look like these riders in Amsterdam as well.
It’s not just me, Melanie Meyers in the US, writing in the blog, Utility cycling, is saying similar things> Here’s Melanie.
Thoughts on Re-Imaging the Bicycle
Posted on 02. Nov, 2009 by Melanie Meyers
I have just been catching up on many of the posts recently about Mikael Colville-Andersen’s lecture tour through the United States.
Colville-Andersen’s blog Copanhagenize.com is a must-read (and oftentimes, view, as there are numerous videos, as well) for sage advice and insight into what makes cycling possible in Copenhagen and around the world.
Although I have not had the opportunity to attend one of Colville-Andersen’s lectures, reviewing a handful of posts from those who did – most notably from Bike Portland and Cyclelicios.us, who had some great coverage – has inspired me to respond.
One of the most resounding messages from the lectures is that in order for cycling to be more appealing to the masses in the United States, it needs to be “re-branded” so that there is less emphasis on the subcultures of cycling.
Cycling subcultures are negative, it has been argued, as they alienate cyclists from “regular citizens” and make cyclists seem like “the other”. Of course, Colville-Andersen has covered numerous other issues in his lectures, but it is this particular issue to which I would like to respond today.
I agree with Colville-Andersen’s criticism of branding and marketing of cycling (especially in the U.S.) as focusing too much on what I would refer to as sport cycling.
As Colville-Andersen puts it, this kind of marketing makes cycling seem “dangerous and sweaty” and does undoubtedly limit the potential for non-cyclists to feel a connection to or need for the bicycle.
In Copenhagen, he points out, people ride bicycles because they are the easiest and most efficient way to get from point A to point B and not necessarily because bicycles are “cool”.
At the same time, I feel a need to quickly defend sport and recreation forms of cycling, because they are different from what I consider to be utility cycling.
I race bikes; I take it seriously; I work really hard; and I want equipment that caters to my sport (yes, that includes lycra). In this sense, I am no different from a football player, a baseball player, or any other athlete who uses specialized equipment.
For sport cyclists, the bicycle is essential to the sport. The bicycle is to a sport cyclist what a football is to a football team. Take away the football, and there is no football game. Take away the bicycle, and there is no bicycle race.
However, it’s really not so simple. The bicycle industry in the U.S. (And in Australia too. Ed.) has focused primarily on sport and recreational cycling for many years, and this is quite clear when a “regular citizen” walks into a bike shop and is overwhelmed by strange materials, high price tags, and uncomfortable looking equipment.
This is problematic, as it does alienate and intimidate people who do not need or want this kind of equipment.
It can be difficult for someone who wants a transportation bicycle (a tool for getting around) that suits his or her needs when bike shops are brimming over with high-tech, expensive equipment.
I completely agree that the bicycle needs to be re-branded in order to appeal to the average person. However, this raises the question of who is to do the re-branding?
The bicycle industry obviously, but who else? The bicycle industry has already dug itself into a sport and recreation cycling hole of sorts, so in order to actually have an impact, the re branding is going to need to be more extensive.
The biggest issue that I see here is the bicycle itself. The bicycle is multi-functional and multi-faceted. This is good and bad. According to Colville-Andersen, for many cyclists in Copenhagen, the bicycle is like a vacuum cleaner.
It’s a tool, and not too many people get very excited about their vacuums. For others, the bicycle is a piece of sporting equipment, for yet others it is a symbol of resistance and counter-culture.
Unfortunately, for the masses, the bicycle appears to be largely ignored or even worse, disliked.
So what is to be done? Here we have an object – the bicycle – that has many different personalities and uses depending on who is using it and in what context.
Colville-Andersen is right, subcultures in cycling are indeed problematic, as they inherently leave behind many, while only bringing along a few.
However, I don’t think subcultures in cycling are entirely bad either, as they also allow people to build community among like-minded individuals, which can make cycling more fun.
Given that the bicycle and cycling can be so diverse, this is not necessarily wrong or bad.
Nonetheless, the question remains, how do we make cycling more appealing to the masses? Clearly, focusing on sport and recreation cycling equipment is not an appropriate way to appeal to the masses.
But is re branding the bicycle the right strategy, and if it is, how could it be approached? Who should help with such a the rebranding – or re imagining?
The power of the popular imagination is incredibly strong. To that end, I think it is really important to define utility cycling in order to efficiently impress and speak to the popular imagination in a clear and concise way.
There needs to be coherence and consistency to the concept of utility cycling in order to make it seem manageable, appealing, easy, and natural.
Why not make cycling seem as simple and necessary as vacuuming? Vacuums clean your carpet, but what do bicycles do for you?
As always, I welcome your thoughts. By Melanie Meyers originally in Community building
Do visit the original post to see the interesting comments it provoked
I left my own comment. I suggested that re branding the utility bike can be done by upping the status of the Sit-up bike.
These stately machines, preferred all over Europe for just getting around, are not only safer and more comfortable, but they fly the flag we need.
The say; “This sort of cycling is different. This is for you, the no racer.”
I also pointed out that the most likely way for the stately bike, now seen as being very slow and low status, to gain respect, is the coming of Bike Share.
The Velibs in Paris, the Bixis in Montreal and soon, London.
These bikes are invariably sit-up, and as riders and, as non riders get used to them, they will change the image of the sit up bike.
David Hembrow explains their appeal
and Dr. Ian Charlton, who rides both sit-up bikes and racing bikes, suggest they compliment each other
Mike, your response from Wade is very telling. Not only does it show (as you mention), how singular cycling in Australia really is – it also tells me something else – how much corporate influence there is on it. Once the corporations get their hand in the market, they hold on to it as strongly as they can.
It would be extremely unfortunate if I had to write articles on topics that keep the corporate big wigs happy. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with blogging to make your living, but I’m sure as hell glad I have the freedom to write about whatever I want to write about and not be a puppet for a lycra manufacturer
James
January 21st, 2010 at 3:59 pmpermalink
[...] this article: Situp-cycle.com » Blog Archive » Dear Wade Wallace…… Share and [...]
Situp-cycle.com » Blog Archive » Dear Wade Wallace…… | Drakz Free Online Service
January 22nd, 2010 at 11:04 ampermalink
[...] You find the original post here http://www.situp-cycle.com/ … | Mike Rubbo [...]
Dear Wade Wallace……
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:42 pmpermalink
Michael,
Thanks for taking the time to write this blog post. I find it very interesting and you’ve introduced me to a form of cycling that I never knew had such a passionate community. It seems that any form of cyclist is very passionate about what they do. You can’t say that about many other sports!
The type of cycling that I’m deeply involved in is quite different however. I do use a bike to get to work, go to the store, go to a friend’s place, etc. But what would I write about that would interest people? I’m sure there’s heaps, but my passion lays somewhere else and therefore I can only write about the cycling culture that I immerse myself in.
The reason newspapers only write about the lycra side of cycling is because it’s newsworthy. Lance Armstrong, the Tour de France, etc are of great interest to people, have lots of drama and excitement associated with it. What would there be to consistently write about in terms of news and popular interest if there wasn’t bike racing? A story about my ride to work would not be a very good to read. Just like my jog around the Botanical gardens is not newsworthy, the NY Marathon certainly is. I understand that and I don’t expect it to be any different.
You carry a very different view and I respect that. I encourage you to share your passion with the thousands of other cyclists like yourself and do everything you can to nurture that niche. You’re very influential and I’m certain you’ll do very well.
All my best!
Kind regards,
Wade
wade wallace
January 25th, 2010 at 6:29 pmpermalink
Hi, Wade, you show yourself to be a very good sport to respond like this to my challenge.
I think you are wrong though, utility cycling will become very newsworthy.
Our cites are being strangled by cars. Europe has proved that a great burden can be lifted off cities by the humble bike, with benefits in public health at the same time. Since transport stories are front page almost daily, it’s a mystery to me why the bike, as an option, is not getting proper consideration. It is everywhere else
The usual reason given is that conditions here are too different for us to emulate those European successes, and so they are not relevant. We like to claim our distances are greater, for example. David Hembrow, whose blog is linked here, and who commutes 60 kms. a day by pedal power in Holland, proves that’s not true.
What holding us back then? our climate is superior. Finding what the blockage is, physical, attitudinal, whatever, is a huge story I would think.
Some say it’s the helmets we are forced to wear but which are a matter of choice in Europe, that these are holding back utility cycling .
If they’ve crimped utility cycling, here, that’s not true of sports cycling. Racers and risk takers love helmets and would wear them to the last competitor, optional or not . That’s an interesting story angle on the perennial helmet debate, I guess.
Then, there’s the story about Bike share, the street rental systems which are sweeping the world. That’s a big bike story and nothing to do with racing. 10,000 Bixies are due on the streets of London any day now.
They are coming to Melbourne too, or so they say. But will they? can they? given our helmet laws. That’s a big story, I believe . It’s revenue and tourist story as well, since these bike share schemes bring visitors, and they spread the tourist dollar around like turbo charged garden sprinklers. Cities love them. Ask Montreal.
Lastly, shall I put the cat amongst the pigeons and suggest the really big story, has to be whether the dominant cycle culture, the one you write about , bears some responsibility for Australia coming last, or near to, in utility cycling, world wide.
Why? How could it? Well, all the experts agree that to grow utility bike use, you have to make it safe and fun. They also agree that the way to do that, is to have separate bike-ways so that bikes and cars are kept separate and cyclists going to work feel safe and happy.
Such Bike-ways cost big money and can’t happen without strong public pressure. There is little such pressure, here, and the reason in part is because the sport and leisure cycling lobby don’t care much about bike ways.
They wont oppose them, but they don’t particularly want them either. The Lycra crowd are happy on the existing roads, either riding single file, two abreast as the law allows, or taking the whole road for special events. They’d like motorists to behave better for sure, but they are no about to quit the field because of road rage.
They have little interest in bike-ways into cites, sure to be clogged with slower riders and perhaps, worse still, with pedestrians, all in their way. Every ride is a training ride to some degree for the sports rider, and that is better done on the road.
The second reason why the dominant culture impedes utility riding is that the machine you need for such riding , the bike of choice in the big bike transport countries, has been made something of a pariah here . I’m talking the stately sit up bike with rack, mudguards, lights enclosed chain, etc.
This sort of bike is pretty much despised here, as a wimp machine, by serious riders, and bike shops actively discourage people from getting them . Many complaints, relayed to me by people who’ve been steered away from these comfortable machines, convinces me this is true, though they are creeping in here and there, but on sufferance. When the stately sit-up is the main bike on offer, filling shop windows, we will be getting near to a utility bike culture
Why sport cyclists feel threatened by these bike, I have yet to find out. and i pan to do so in upcoming films. But right now , wade, no can deny they’re rare, nor that they are the bike of choice in the big utility biking countries .
Thanks again, Wade, for being part of the debate. Mike Rubbo
Mike Rubbo
January 26th, 2010 at 12:10 ampermalink