The essence of the bicycle
(Part 1 — which biker?)
With the rabid rush of the government’s rollout of building bicycle lanes all over the country, our articles in the last two weeks prompted me to rethink beyond the issue of bike lanes to the very essence of the bicycle itself, and its rider. But first, let’s clear up some ambiguities in the terms we use of the user — biker or cyclist. Apparently, they’re the same, derived from the word ‘bicycle.’ But in this country, we always use bikes for bicycles, and hence use biking, bikers, and bike lanes. In other countries, especially in the west, “bicycle” gave way to the terms, cycling, cyclists, and cycling paths.
The government, in its current mad rush to build bike lanes, succumbed to the tendency to lump all bicycle users as bikers and then, proceed to formulate policies, establish programs, and roll out the infrastructure … the bike lanes. This will have unwanted future consequences later because not all bikers are the same. It is imperative that bikers are duly identified and classified especially in terms of numbers as this has direct consequences on the design philosophy of the bike lanes. Not to mention the validity and qualification for taxpayers’ money the government will spend.
Basically, there are two kinds of bikers, classified as to use/trip qualification. You can ride your bike to work or school, do your business, run errands, shop, or go to any other destination similar to what you can do using your car, ride a jeepney or bus, or even walk. When you do this, your trip has the same classification as (and no difference to) the differentiated modes in transportation planning, as maybe applied to the car, bus, jeepney, LRT, etc. Similar to the other modes, the trip-purpose is very largely home-to-work. These are the bike-to-work (B2W) bikers.
Or, as many can readily attest, you can use your bike to pass the time, sight-seeing, for leisure and as a hobby, for exercise or generally reap the health benefits it carries. This class of bikers we can readily recognize because undeniably they have better (and more expensive) bikes with numerous flashy accessories, attired in colorful, ‘Tour de France’ biking gear, and ride mostly in groups. And you commonly see them on weekends, during holidays, and during special “biking” events. They are also more visible on Facebook and other social media.
Undeniably, there is a third group, albeit, AFAIK, smaller than the two, which I really admire. These are those who bike-to-work and are also bike enthusiasts on weekends beyond work. Depending on the use for the qualification, the third group maybe lumped together with B2W’ers. If you ask me which group is bigger, the B2W’ers will come out far more numerous even if we don’t include the “third” group. And it’s not a narrow margin. If we look at certain routes (covered by a CITOM count in 2009), B2W’ers outnumber the enthusiasts-leisure-exercise group up to 9 to 1! Alas, but the public don’t see that. In my article on June 18, 2019, they’re what I called “The Invisible Bicycle Rider” (https://tiny.one/streetlife190618).
The question is, which class of bikers does the government plan and build bike lanes for? And for whom can taxpayer’s money be used?
