In case some might not know, David Byrne was the lead singer of the Talking Heads and has since been involved in a number of artistic and musical projects. Most recently, he has become known for his cycling advocacy and for his book on the subject, Bicycle Diaries. Over the past year Byrne has been on tour giving talks throughout North America on the topic he describes as "Cities, Bicycles, and the Future of Getting Around". Cambridge, MA was his latest stop.
David Byrne came across as thoughtful, knowledgeable and funny. His talk was neither gimmicky nor too heavy on the advocacy; I would put it more into the category of Urban Planning. He summarised the history of how our un-neighborhoodly neighborhoods came to be the way they are and discussed potential solutions, with urban planning initiatives and the return of "everyday cycling" being the primary points of focus.
Jacqueline Douglas and Nicole Freedman (pictured above next to Byrne) discussed similar ideas, but applied them specifically to Boston - stressing activism and grassroot movements as catalysts of change. They noted that Boston's cycling infrastructure has basically been created from scratch over the past 2-3 years, and that the number of cyclists in the Boston area has increased dramatically over this period of time. Douglas and Freedman plan to continue this trend, with a particular emphasis on infrastructure in the form of traffic-segregated bike paths.
The large MIT lecture hall was full for the duration of the event, with the audience listening intently and enthusiastically.
Somewhat to my surprise, the Q&A panel following the individual talks did not result in much debate. Namely, I expected vehicular cyclists to comment on the segregated paths issue, but this did not happen. Perhaps there were not any in the audience? Or else the speakers so clearly allied themselves with the Amsterdam/Copenhagen model, that the vehicular cyclists decided not to bother stirring the pot.
Biking in Heels (the lady in red) got in the queue to ask a question - but alas they stopped right before it would have been her turn.
After the event was over, the most popular panelist was Assaf Biderman of the SENSEable City Lab - demonstrating the "Copenhagen Wheel" to those who wanted to try it.
The Copenhagen Wheel turns any existing bike into an electric bike and "differs from other electric bikes in that all components are elegantly packaged into one hub". The energy spent while pedaling and braking is used to power the motor, and tons of additional features (including route planning and pollution levels detection) are bundled inside the hub. 
The Copenhagen Wheel is meant to be a versatile option that will allow more of the population to cycle - including those who are elderly, have trouble handling hills, or do not feel fit enough to ride a bike. While I have no interest in electric bikes myself, I think that this option makes perfect sense for those who need it.
What does not make as much sense to me, is the decision that the prototype bike housing the Copenhagen Wheel should be a sleek, fixie-looking, diamond frame bike with aggressive geometry, narrow tires and "bullhorn" handlebars. It just doesn't seem to fit the population for whom the Copenhagen Wheel was designed. My suggestion to the SENSEable City Lab, is to put the wheel into a bike that is more accessible to the general public.
Also popular after the event was this nice woman from the LivableStreets Alliance, asking people to fill out requests for improvements they would like to see done to the Charles River bridges. Given that I almost get run over by cars 75% of the time I try to cross an intersection at the end of one of these bridges, I gladly filled out a form with my requests.All in all, Urban Revolutions was an interesting event to attend. If I seem detached in my descriptions, it is because to a large extent I felt that the panel was "preaching to the choir". I suspect that most of the audience had heard and internalised all that was brought up by the speakers long before coming to this event. Furthermore, for all the talk of "equity" and "equal access" that went on, the audience was almost entirely White, and dressed in a way that suggested a very narrow demographic. What exactly, then, was this event meant to achieve? Perhaps a sense of community among existing cyclists and supporters of "livable streets" ideas. At that it was a success. Despite my aversion to "activism", I am genuinely glad that cycling is becoming more commonplace and safer in Boston. And I am thankful to all who play a role in making this happen.
What does it mean, when we say that a bicycle manufacturer has a long history? There are manufacturers out there, whose names are legendary and whose origins date back more than a century. Bianchi was founded in 1885, Raleigh in 1887 and Gazelle in 1892. All three brands still exist today, and the company literature stresses their historical roots. After all, history means legacy, tradition, substance and trust - setting these brands apart from newcomers. But is it really accurate to connect the bikes currently produced under these brand names to their vintage predecessors? After all, Bianchi is now owned by Cycleurope, Gazelle by the Glide Buy Out Fund, and Raleigh by Derby International - venture capital conglomerates that own or manage a variety of brands. Not only has the ownership changed dramatically, but so have the basic designs, the methods production, the facilities, the country of production, and oftentimes the quality of the product. What is it then, that gives the manufacturer continuity?
After what seems like ages, beloved Patrizia has finally returned to me. This is my personal Bella Ciao bicycle that has undergone many customisations and served as the "Superba" prototype guineapig. Having spent months in various states of disassembly, she then endured a long stay at the rack-maker's workshop - all without a word of complaint. And now she is back, her slender curves enticing me with promises of a romantic Indian summer.
I am also reunited with the wonderful Ideale saddle I'd acquired in a trade some time ago. I had installed it on a vintage mixte I owned at the time, but after that bicycle was sold the saddle lived in my closet for over a year, waiting for the right moment to re-emerge. It looks and feels quite at home here.
Ideale was a French saddle manufacturer and the Model 6 is a wide, short-nosed women's saddle that was made some time in the '70s. Although some have drawn parallels between the vintage Ideale and contemporary Berthoud saddles, in my opinion they are nothing alike and Berthoud is not an Ideale remake.
Finally, I am reunited with the wooden grips I began to experiment with a few months back. I've decided to keep them on this bike, and they have been surprisingly comfortable. I thought that I might get blisters on my hands, but it hasn't happened. I am also happy to report that they haven't cracked or distorted despite plenty of humidity and temperature changes over the summer. I am not going to finish them with any kind of sealant, because I'd like to see what happens to them in the winter. Vintage collectors who are experienced with wooden grips have told me that if the grips are made "in the right way" they should not need any sealant and will be fine as they are. We'll see. While I'd be reluctant to recommend these for mainstream use, personally I love them.
Riding this particular bicycle always makes me realise how weird my tastes are. Responses to it have included "Ew, that colour!", "How can you ride with those things on the handlebars?" and "Is that a woman's army bike??" - all of which I've found oddly gratifying. Looking with fondness at her wooden grips, pukey powdercoat, trigger shifter and mottled 40 year old saddle makes me want to put my arm around Patrizia: "Looks like it's just you and me, babe."
On the edge of the meadow where the logging camp used to Lee and Tuffee check out the old truck.