So what, if bicycle dependence isn’t for everyone?

I have not made it clear, and perhaps it was not clear to me, that I see bicycle transport as part of an alternative lifestyle. Planners! Blame numbskull planners for any confusion. I have been mixing with too many lately (with one notable exception, who I met this morning). Let’s talk about planners who are 50 or over. In what century are these old fogies living, that they drag work-time conversations to the level of late night pub ramblings, about how we would each save the world, if only the planning department had total control? I thought that nonsense ended with Socrates.

For readers’ benefit, and so I don’t forget either, let me now say I am not proceeding toward some vision of an Ideal Republic with bikes in. I’m for a way of life that even some in The Netherlands would find austere. The success of bicycle oriented developments (BODs) though, should not be measured by how many people find these places appealing, to whatever degree, but by the degree to which some people find them appealing, whatever their number. It would be better if only a few BODs were ever built, and appeared to outsiders as intentional communities, than for the concept to proliferate, on the back of compromises made so that BODs suited everyone. Only when I have been drinking (which I haven’t much lately, I swear), do I slide into talking about the bicycling side of each city growing [quick sip] and GROWING [quick slug] and taking over all of the world! Oh to hell with it, here is a clip of me erring that way, if you have not seen it already:

With thanks to a reader who calls himself kfg, for helping me clarify this point in my mind, with these recent comments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.