Part 2

Once again note that none of this is academic study, and with it I only offer more questions, assumptions, and sterotypes.

So then the question remains. How has the image of the biker become so malighned, and why does it continue as such? I would argue there are several reasons. The first being that the bicycle is a symbol of autonomy. Almost anyone can ride a bike with little experience. Once you are on one you ca travel anywhere you want with the proper planning. It gives you access to places that cars and pedestrians can't go, and often allows you to travel there faster especially in cities. The transient nature of bikes is suspect to any observer. Much like anything transient it is hard to gain the trust of people and persecution is prevalent. Look at the sterotypes associated with carnies, gypsies, hitchikers, hobos, train hoppers, etc. A bicycle can blow a red light and get away with no consequence. To a motorist sitting at the light it's easy to get upset and some would argue jelous of the ability to break a law and get away. There is little way to track down a law breaking cyclist unless they are caught in the act. Thus the autonamy of the cyclist lends itself to an ability to act as an anonomous entity. Autonomy and transience are not values looked fondly upon in American society. And the emergence of the stereotype of bikers being lawless and dangerous.

Secondly I argue that bikers have long been associated with political dissidence. Although bikes have a presence in the country they are by and large an urban vehicle, because that is where they are most practical. Urban living brings alot of things among them larger populations with more things in common. This allows for groups of people to issue demand upon their local governments. With the first bike boom in the late 1890s' cyclists began issuing demands. Protest rides were held most often to improve the conditions of roads, and other issues i.e. bring attention to the womens suffrage movement. The most famous protest being the San Francisco bike protest of 1896 (http://processedworld.com/Issues/issue2001/pw2001_64-68_Great_Bicycle_Protest_of_1896.pdf) which is part of the influence for modern bike protest and celebration critical mass. Although with critical mass it is hard to pin down one specific cause it is fair to say that a large purpose is to represent cyclists rights on the road. The individual nature of bikers makes it hard to state that as every persons reason for riding though. This also brings out the argument against bicyle protest which I will get to later. Thus the innate political nature of bikes. Bikers in America are in a minority. As a minority we have different thoughts and demands than the majority. I would rather see more bike lanes than a new free way. That pisses alot of people off. Bikes and biker rights have always been marginalized, and as a result when bikers do make demands of their local authorites they are written off as being radicals. No one likes a radical. Thus more negative connotations of bikers as being rabble rousers with little respect for the law.

The third reason I see these sterotypes is pretty simple. Alot of them are true. Alot of bikers are people who besides not nessecarily desiring a car are not capable of buying them. While there are popular insurgences of bikeing where you see alot of "upstanding" people on bikes they are few and far between. In the periods of time between the bike is delegated to college students and the poor(same difference?) The poor have higher rates of alcoholism and incarceration. It's true that you see prisoners on work release from jail riding bike to work. And it's true that you see drunk bikers to drunk to drive or to poor to own/fix a car. There is a little truth to every stereotype, there is also a defence. Bikes can be hostile to drivers because drivers often show little regard for bikers on the road. Bikers may drink and do drugs because its an escape from the enviroment they live in or the circumstances they wish to escape. Or just to have a good time. Lets not forget that the prestigious Tour De France was originally run by amateur cyclists out of work and alcohol was served between stages to help with pain and as celebration.

But of course biking isn't entirely negative. There is also a legacy of prestige within it. A legacy that focuses on organized races, high end bikes, or simply the recreational biker (as opposed to the lifestyle biker?) These are the people that scoff at critical mass for being a bad image of bikers and counter-productive. After all if everyone felt that bikers were worthless there would be no place for the bike section at scheels or any of the bike assosiations regularly organizing races. Up to now I have been talking about the bikers place in American culture. I would argue that the side of biking that is widley accepted is a European import. As stated earlier the cyclist in America is in a minority. This is not so true in many parts of Europe and the rest of the world. Plenty of people rely on their bike as a mode of transpotration, recreation, and a way to do the work they do. An example of this is a bike converted into a knife sharpner and set up in the streets of Mexice (I know it's not Europe) or bicycle delivery services. Bikes are much more practical throughout densly populated parts of Europe and have been adopted out of nessecity. It is not simply by chance that most of the brands considered "high end" have emerged from Europe, not the U.S.(campagnolo,bianchi,gitane,) It has not been untill recently that US manufacturers have sought to challenge European dominence. The 1970s were largely dominated by japanese bicycles and it has been almost 70 years since an American bike manufaturer was considered of high pretige. My point it that most advances in mainstream cycling have been imported from other countries. Once again using the tour de france as an example. It is the most well known bicycle event in the world and it does not happen in the US, it happens in a country that has made room for bicyclists for generations. The legacy of the spandex clad cyclist is not of American orgin. The legacy of carbon fiber and the high end was born outside of the US. Thus the divide between "clean" recreational cyclists with alot of money burning a hole in their pocket to drop on a $5000 bike and the "other" bikers who afford what they can but put more focus on riding their bike than the components on it. The new fixed gear trend seems more comlicated as it has co-opted both the American "lawless" side of biking and the European tradition of the velodrome and performance into something entirely of its own, but thats something else.

I would argue a more American style of biking is found in BMX. Bmx is the story of kids on junker Stingrays doing tricks in vacant lots. Eventually making ramps and the story escalates from there. There is an inherant agressivness to bmx that I would argue make it charecteristic of American biking. Although the bikes and price range have changed dramatically I don't think it is a coincidence that BMX emerged from bored kids in California in the 70s rather than kids in Wales. I'm sure that the same could be argued of Mountain biking, but I'm not to familiar with the history of it. Yet another reason that you don't see many bmx part manufaturers based out of Europe. Of course there is an aspect of high end components in most forms of biking, but even the most high end BMX bike unlike high end road bikes is not considered respectable.

So what is the point of all this? Well I don't know. I guess it's just an attempt to explain the bikers place in society, wheteher that place be justified or not. Of course there are so many other elements to explore the new wave of fixed gear riders, the emergence of freak bike clubs, a bikes place, conflicts within cycling communities, etc. etc. but I think this is a start. And if nothing else it's something to think about next time we go out drinking on our bikes, buy expensive parts or are called "hippy fags" for passing a car on our bikes.