The Problem with Bicycles
August 3, 2010 in Blogs by Jim Clemson
I recently read an article called “The problem with bicycles”, by Nathan Lewis in which he states that a bicycle centric city would not be any better for people than a car centered city. He says:
However, in a properly designed Traditional City, most people don’t need bicycles. This is true even today. In cities where people often do not own a car, such as New York or Hong Kong or Paris, these non-car-owning people usually do not own a bicycle either.
A bike is best as a least-desirable option, for those trips that are too long to walk comfortably, and not convenient by either train or bus. Ideally, these would be as few as possible, as a well-designed city should be a place where you can easily walk or ride a train (a bus if you have to) just about everywhere.
This is a great idea and one of the reasons why I am enthusiastic about the potential of the bike to change how we live. I agree with him that a city where personal transport was not necessary would be an ideal living arrangement. Imagine living in a city where you could walk to the local market for your groceries. Walk to your friend’s house. Walk to work or the train station or the bar. That would be a great place to live, and as he states it would be a real place designed for people as opposed to for vehicles.
Mr. Lewis makes little distinction between cars, bikes or even horses. They are all part of what he calls the “My Personal Transportation Device fixation” where we must have access to a radically individualist means of transport. This idea goes back farther into American cultural history than most people are aware.
Again I agree with all this. The fact is you’re required by society to have a possession to be a full member of that society it is a bad thing. Today most people have to own a car to be a fully participatory member of society. Imagine someone living in the suburbs without one and think about how that would affect their life. There are alternatives but they’re not equal. They’re only used by people who are forced to by circumstance or by an ideology that compels them to.
I can imagine a world where most people can live without a car or even a bike. Where trolleys, buses and trains can bring you where you can’t walk. Where a bicycle is a recreational vehicle only to be used when someone wants to get outside and get some exercise.
I can imagine it but the stark reality is that 150 years into the suburban experiment that world is not going to be a reality anytime soon. We live in a world where our grocery stores are too far to walk and our friends are scattered around a region the size of Rhode Island. To say that the bicycle should not be a viable option is to ignore that fact that we can not create a new world out of nothing. We have to work with what we have. It would be great if we could somehow find enough land and resources to build a great city where people are not compelled to participate in activities they would not support otherwise. But we live in that world.
I would ask Mr. Lewis given his views on the organization of cities, which system is better? An auto-centric model or a bike centric model? There are a great many benefits that a bike centered city would bring over that of the car. Many of which are what he states as being the basis for his views on urban design. For him to dismiss the bicycle because it doesn’t fit into his perfect view of the urban form is counter productive in a world based on reality. Ultimately, the bicycle is a better tool to base a city on than the car and it can allow us to retrofit the suburban model into something that is far more sustainable than it is now.


Come join us under the sun for an amazing day of bikes, beats, live art, & food! Mass Current & Pedal Movement bring you Cycles of Sound. Come one come all, but don’t forget to ride your bike to get a discount on the entry donation. Starts at 2PM ends at 10PM!!! 18+