I was just looking over some photos from the San Diego Custom Bicycle Show, and noticed an interesting detail on the excellent Rene Herse model that was on display. This bike has Nitto Randonneur handlebars, and uses some kind of fancy STI shifting system, that quite honestly, I’ve never set up and don’t fully understand. Notice the brake cables coming up and over the handlebars under the shellac’d cloth tape. I wonder if you could get the same effect by switching out traditional brake levers to be on the “wrong” side. Left on the right, and vice versa?

In today’s New York Times, a front-page story tells about both the success of the Vélib program in Paris, and frustrations among officials and Parisians regarding the abuse of the bicycles. Nearly 80 percent of the original fleet have been stolen or damaged. These events have caused some reflection and frustration in Paris:

“The symbol of a fixed-up, eco-friendly city has become a new source for criminality,” Le Monde mourned in an editorial over the summer. “The Vélib’ was aimed at civilizing city travel. It has increased incivilities.”

The story turns to the interesting and troubling crisis of identity and migration currently unfolding in France, pitting French ideals of freedom, civility, and solidarity against the chaos and violence among North African populations frustrated by the contradictions of suburban blight just outside the “City of Light.”

Bruno Marzloff, a sociologist who specializes in transportation, said, “One must relate this to other incivilities, and especially the burning of cars,” referring to gangs of immigrant youths burning cars during riots in the suburbs in 2005.

He said he believed there was social revolt behind Vélib’ vandalism, especially for suburban residents, many of them poor immigrants who feel excluded from the glamorous side of Paris.

“It is an outcry, a form of rebellion; this violence is not gratuitous,” Mr. Marzloff said. “There is an element of negligence that means, ‘We don’t have the right to mobility like other people, to get to Paris it’s a huge pain, we don’t have cars, and when we do, it’s too expensive and too far.’ ”

Its an interesting story, and worth reading. I think there is more to the problem than just the frustrations of immigrant suburban youth, as wealthy white Parisian kids are fully capable of dumb stunts and vandalizm. The Vélib program has been held up as one of the most successful and influential bike-share programs in the world. The degree of its success will continue to inform and provoke city governments around the world to set up similar programs.

The story also suggests the civility and responsibility of bicycling. Of course cycling is a beautiful cultural practice – and one doesn’t have to sit on a Parisian bench with an espresso watching elegantly appointed Parisians glide along to understand this. But it helps. The bicycle is also, of course, an elegant and beautiful machine.

Admittedly, there’s a sense of smug altruism that overcomes me in certain moments while bicycling. Riding represents responsible participation in civic life, riding not only for transportation, exercise, and enjoyment, but also for the greater good: taking small steps to combat climate change; reducing dependence on fossil fuels; and provoking planners and officials to rethink urban space. In many ways, bicycling is the opposite of disregard and selfishness. Perhaps this is why red light runners and rule flaunters on bikes cause such frustration among responsible bicyclers. This may also be why bicycling theft is such a low-down, snake belly form of criminality!

While riding, many of us see some of the least civic-minded behavior by motorists. Texting, phoning, middle fingers, aggressive and dangerous behavior. But we also see some of the best and most facilitative behaviors: care, caution, regard for others. Well… sometimes, anyway. Perhaps if more people walked or bicycled for utility reasons, we’d all be more inclined to exercise awareness and regard for each other. Or, like the suburban youth pinned for Vélib vandalization, if people feel detachment and resentment toward the freedom afforded by bicycling, we should expect continued aggression toward both bicycles and bicyclers.

A recent article in the Times Business section told about an increasing number of business travelers who are trying, sometimes successfully, to take their bicycle, or at least their riding, along with them. As more people commute to work on a bicycle, there have sprouted up more options for folks trying to ride while on a trip:

“Recent efforts have made biking easier and safer. Hotels often offer bicycle rentals, and many American cities have created bike paths and lanes, improved markings on streets and installed bicycle traffic lights. And public-private bicycle sharing programs, based in large part on the success of European models, have begun or are in development in more than a dozen of the largest cities in the United States”

Traveling with a bicycle continues to pose vexing problems. The article documents some of them most common problems: paying inordinate amounts to greedy airlines for a regular-sized bike box; the inaccessibility and low quality of rental bikes; and not being able to use bike share programs in Europe because of our old style credit cards. I encountered this last problem while in Paris in 2008. I couldn’t have been more frustrated when the Velib payment machine wouldn’t take my card – as I watch Parisians float along on their shared bicycles.

Rentals might be OK for an afternoon of bike-path cruising, but I would like to ride one of my own bicycles, set up with components of my choosing and fit to my riding style — and I don’t think I’m alone. So, the best option is to take a bike with you. In order to avoid airline charges, it has to weigh less than 50 lbs and generally fit within 62 inches (length + width + height). There are, of course, folding bikes that fit within these limitations. Bromptons and Bike Friday travel bikes fit the bill very well. Once you get over the initial feelings of being a bear on a circus bike, they are actually pretty cool:

I had an old Brompton for a while. It was a three speed internal hub, with generator lights front and back. It folded very, very small and people liked the way it looked. It reminded my of a cramped version of my old Raleigh 3-speed. It wasn’t terribly comfortable over longer distances and I swapped it for another folder that rode more like a regular bike:

The Bike Friday Tikit rides much more like a full sized bicycle, fits to my preferred riding style, and will take full-sized double panniers on the front rack. Its darn fun to ride and I’ve done a 100 mile ride on it – not the most comfortable over the long distance, but great scenery in Eastern Kansas. The Tikit can be set up in a more randonneuring style that would make it more comfortable, but I have flat bars on it now. I also traveled to Chicago, where I met my brother on his regular bike and we rode ALL over town. I was able to see much more than on previous trips to Chicago – from Wrigleyville to Wicker Park, South Side, and Hyde Park. It was a gas. It was also incredible to get to my hotel, open my hard shell suitcase, and assemble a funcitonal bicycle in 10 minutes.

One of the benefits of a folder is that you can use it a lot around home. If you don’t bring a lock (or don’t want to lock up in a shady area), you can wheel it into a cafe, theater, hotel, bar, or grocer. It can also be stashed in the trunk of someone picking you up by car (gasp!). But they don’t ride exactly the same as a regular-sized bike. Granted, they ride better than some poorly-designed full-sized contraptions. There are three other viable options for a full-sized bicycle without charges: a Ritchey Breakaway (which packas a bit larger than the 62 inches, so fly at your own risk), a Surly Travelers Check, or a custom S&S coupler job or Breakaway lugs. I think a very useful travel bicycle would be a S&S coupled fixie. Less cables, clean lines, and fun city riding. Velohobo has an excellent set-up here.

Traveling with a bike is one of the best ways to experience a place — especially large cities where there are great neighborhoods off the beaten path.

Slate has a very thoughtful piece about cyclists, the law, and advocacy. Its not a perfect article, but its easy to surmise that Christopher Beam, the author, is also cyclist, rather than the typical reporter who temporarily adopts cycling in order to complete an assignment.

The piece reflects on one of the most pressing problems for everyday cyclists and cycling advocates alike: following laws that are mostly made for motorized traffic. Coming to a complete stop makes sense when you’re enclosed in and slinging around several hundred pounds of metal and glass. But on a bicycle, with better vision, a higher position, and lighter momentum, stop signs ought to work more like yield signs, as described in the Idaho Stop Law.

This is an ongoing discussion, but Beam does interesting work of outlining the debate between “vehicularists” and “facilitators”:

Today’s cycling activists generally split into two groups: “vehicularists” and “facilitators.” Proponents of “vehicular cycling” believe bikes should act as cars: occupy full lanes, stop at red lights, use a hand signal at least 100 feet ahead of a turn. That’s the best way to make cars—and policymakers—aware of bicycles and to respect them as equals on the road. When it comes to making roads safe for bikes, vehicularists tend to favor training, education (most cities offer bike safety classes), and enforcement. Cyclists should not grouse about moving violations, the vehicularists argue. It is a sign that they’re being treated as equals.

Facilitators, meanwhile, say we should change the laws and the environment to recognize the innate differences between bikes and cars. That means special facilities like bike lanes, bike paths (elevated trails separate from the road), and even Copenhagen-style traffic lights for bikes. It would also mean changing car-centric laws that don’t make sense for bikes, like the rule that says you need to come to a complete stop at a stop sign.

So, do we want to be recognized as vehicles, or have special lanes and bikeways made for us to separate cyclists from motorized traffic?

The debate rages on. Facilitators point to the aesthetic benefits of bike paths. Vehicularists point to statistics that bikeways actually increase the number of accidents. (Partly because segregating bikes makes it more dangerous for cyclists who stay on the roads, partly because intersections involving bike paths can be especially hazardous.) Facilitators say bike paths create more bikers. Vehicularists say the push for paths is the result of more bikers, not vice versa. Facilitators say bike paths are helpful for beginners and older cyclists, who might not want to brave the open road. You know who else liked bike paths? say vehicularists. Hitler.

Part of the problem has to do with how Beam and others set these arguments up as presenting mutually exclusive choices.

I want both. I’d love to see more bikeways. When given the choice, I’d almost always choose to ride where motorized vehicles are not. This is especially the case when riding with my children or loaded down with groceries – and when I want some peace, beauty, and the absence of the noise, heat, and fumes caused by internal combustion engines. When I need to ride with motorized traffic, I will ride as traffic. I’d like budgetary decisions to allocate more funds for bicycle infrastructure. But I will not give up my rights and obligations as the operator of a vehicle when on a bike. Why can’t we have both?