| The trouble: the bicycle does not have *dignity* as a form
of practical transportation in our society ... namely, American
society. The reasons are 20th-century-historical and structural.
This means it would be hard, very hard, to change this attitude.
For at least the whole century, our society has esteemed the
"labor saving device." (Before motorcars, when people had to
walk a lot, horses notwithstanding, bicycles *were* regarded
as labor-saving devices, and held in high esteem - this lasted
about 3 decades, until the motorcar became widespread.)
Result: physical exertion for practical reasons is held in
contempt by Americans. Sweat all you like on a Nautilus machine,
or on the squash courts, or for a sport or hobby, but not for
a practical purpose such as transportation, etc. Think I'm
overstating it? Just stop and think a minute: when do "respectable"
people exert themselves physically nowadays?
Hence, you get respect, at least from some quarters, if you
are biking for Sport, with lots of lycra, flashy colors and logos,
and a bike that costs more than cars used to. Just so you don't
do anything *practical* with it.
In the 70's, amid the oil/energy crisis, the image of the
business suited bicycle-commuter was promoted... but this never
really caught on. Part of the reason is structural, as mentioned
above: most Americans live quite far from work, daily shopping, etc.
The other structural aspect is lack of places to ride safely.
In both cases, the capital and cultural investment makes it
very hard to change these patterns.
In certain European countries (the Netherlands, most notably,
but also in England), practical bicycling is still accorded
dignity, and it is a strange feeling. There you really do see
the business-suited commuter, housewives, professionals, etc.,
heads held high, biking serenely to work. One department head where
I worked received for his 25th anniversary with the company a deluxe
touring/commuting bike (fenders, lights, chain-jacket, and all).
The bike-commuter may be an archaism even in Europe, though.
Europe now has Hypermarkets which dwarf our stores, and
about as many cars per capita, I'm sure, as we do, judging
from the automania and road-crowding. Can China be far behind?
You're quite incisive to look for bikes or their absence in SF -
SF represents our dreams, our intentions, however murkily.
I'll agree it looks pretty grim. But for decades, SF was
carried forth on the momentum of the Labor Saving Device.
PS: One work of science fiction does mention the bicycle:
this novel's future technology is the technology of our
(the writer's) time, and is introduced by the protagonist
into a backward world (mediaeval England). As the protag-
onist is about to be burned at the stake, he is rescued by
Lancelot and his fellow knights who appear out of a cloud
of dust, astride bicycles... horses wouldn't have made it
in time. (Perhaps an over-optimistic view of mediaeval roads.)
Title: "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" by Mark Twain
-john
|
|
It is curious that one cannot get a job with some 'manpower'
type agencies without owning a car. A bicycle is not considered
sufficient. I had no car for 8 years, and was turned down for
several jobs due to my choice of transportation. I believe this
form of discrimination should be outlawed, except for jobs directly
requiring the car.
One fellow, who did hire me, was surprized that I made it to
work when the people with cars were snowed in. When I refused
rides home, I occasionally explained that it was a waste of time
loading and unloading the bike. Also, it seemed the purpose of
having me as a passenger was so I could help push the car when it
got stuck.
Alan.
|
| >< Note 897.4 by CTCADM::ROTH "Lick Bush in '88" >
> There is only about 30 more years of crude oil left. When that runs
> out peoples lifestyles will be markedly altered.
Alternatives, roughly in order of likelihood:
- laser-powered vehicles,
- sedentary live-your-live-at-home culture,
- mass suicide,
- reversion to the stone age,
.
.
.
- human powered locomotion (walking, bicycling).
|