They say a man becomes more sweeping in his generalisations as his stockpile of cycling gear grows. I have barely 5 or 6 bikes. I don’t have one of these, these, these or one of these. So would I go around nailing my stripes to overblown claims? No, I limit myself to claims such as this: wherever industry has vacated there will be bikes.
I think it’s because industry builds and abandons roads, rail routes and towpaths every day of the week, while purpose built infrastructure for bikes is a once in a generation occurrence. And as cyclists, we gladly accept anyone’s scraps.
I’m coming to see the whole of Tasmania as an abandoned primary industry site. Roads have been built here for logging that has moved to Malaysia, and for farming that is moving to China. As the roads empty of trucks, they fill with wannabe Richie Portes.
Consider, if you will, old Amsterdam. Is not the whole canal district a former docklands of sorts? And those aren’t “roads” beside the canals, but “towpaths” built for horses to haul laden barges. Now that the loading and unloading, and beasts of burden have gone, bikes have moved in.
I could go on adding examples to my own satisfaction, but would rather hear your contributions and/or objections, if you would be so kind to leave a reply.
If this is some kind of a law, then I would find it especially elegant that routes built to move around goods, are now being used to transport commodities that are of even greater value in a modern day knowledge economy: the creative ideas cyclists share when they meet in these former industrial areas, to admire each others bikes, or whatever we do when we randomly meet.