The bicycle.

[Burnt Hill]

This amazing lightweight bike is made entirely out of cardboard
“Basically, the idea is like Japanese origami,” Gafni says. Folding the cardboard on itself both shapes it and increases its strength, to the point where it can easily support up to 300 pounds of adult human. Here’s a video that shows his process — cutting out forms from cardboard an inch thick, rolling cardboard into tubes, coating it with resin so it won’t melt in the rain, and slapping on a coat of paint:

Then you just strap on your cardboard bike helmet and go!
This bike is the most beautiful object made out of cardboard that I’ve ever seen. It’s incredibly lightweight, apparently, and Gafni argues that at a retail price of $60 to $90, it’ll be cheap enough that it won’t really be worth stealing (or would be easily replaced if someone does take it). And riders can pretend they’re 6 again, when a cardboard box could be imagined into any vehicle. Only now, it’s for real.

http://grist.org/list/this-amazing-lightweight-bike-is-made-entirely-out-of-cardboard/

[Allegro]

---

^ He plays a hot piano!

---

^ Someone’s on his way to work—or not .

[Luther Blissett]

Retrofitting the suburbs for the energy descent future
by David Holmgren (introduction Samuel Alexander)
Introduction by Samuel Alexander

David Holmgren, co-originator of the permaculture concept, has just published a Simplicity Institute Report, entitled "Retrofitting the Suburbs for the Energy Descent Future." I've provided a short overview of Holmgren's essay below, and the full report is available at the Simplicity Institute here: simplicityinstitute.org/publications. [The link for the essay is at the bottom of the page there.]

Sometimes well-meaning 'green' people like to imagine that the eco-cities of the future are going to look either like some techno-utopia - like the Jetson's, perhaps, except environmentally friendly - or some agrarian village, where everyone is living in cob houses that they built themselves. The fact is, however, that over the next few critical decades, most people are going to find themselves in an urban environment that already exists - suburbia. In other words, the houses that already exist are, in most cases, going to be the very houses that ordinary people will be living in over the next few decades (in the developed regions of the world, at least).

So while it is important to explore what role technology could play in building new houses in more resource and energy efficient ways, and while there is certainly a place for cob houses, etc., for those who have such alternatives as an option, the suburbs are still going to be here for the foreseeable future. We're hardly going to knock them all down and start again. It is important to recognise this reality, and not get too carried away with eco fairy tales about some distant future (although there is still a place for such visions).

Rather than dreaming of a radically new urban infrastructure, a more important and urgent task is to figure out how to make the best of the existing infrastructure - and that is precisely what David Holmgren does in his Simplicity Institute Report, entitled "Retrofitting the Suburbs for the Energy Descent Future." David has been at the forefront of the environmental movement for several decades now, both in Australia and worldwide, and this essay is another example of how he constantly pushes at the edge of the sustainability debate. He is a penetrating thinker that deserves our most serious attention.

As well as providing some guidance on the best things we can do to prepare for the coming decades and help transition to more sustainable suburbs, David also describes the Simplicity Institute's 'Simpler Way Project' as 'an extremely thorough and useful guidebook of practical actions for building resilience.' After reading David's essay, readers are encouraged to explore the Simpler Way Project and contribute to the discussion.

I also recommend David's website, where some of his books and essays are available.

[JackRiddler]

They stole my bicycle seat again, even though it was a cheap replacement, new pole but old battered seat. Probably the same unknown thief as last time (since it was in the same place). Fucking savage. Pole and seat each cost upwards of $30 new. I too easily grieve over such things.

[barracuda]

Lance Armstrong to be stripped of Tour de France titles 'within a week' after refusing to contest doping charges

The superstar cyclist, whose stirring victories after his comeback from cancer helped him transcend sports, chose not to pursue arbitration in the drug case brought against him by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. That was his last option in his bitter fight with USADA and his decision set the stage for the titles to be stripped and his name to be all but wiped from the record books of the sport he once ruled.

Travis Tygart, USADA's chief executive, left no doubt that was the next step. He said Armstrong would lose the titles as soon as Friday and be hit with a lifetime ban, even though he is retired and turning 41 next month.
Tygart said the UCI, the sport's governing body, was "bound to recognise our decision and impose it" as a signer of the World Anti-Doping Code.

"They have no choice but to strip the titles under the code," he said.

On Friday, the International Cycling Union said not so fast. The UCI, which had backed Armstrong's legal challenge to USADA's authority, cited the same World Anti-Doping Code in saying that it wanted the USADA to explain why Armstrong should lose his titles.

The UCI said the code requires this in cases "where no hearing occurs."

Armstrong clearly knew his legacy would be blemished by his decision. He said he has grown tired of defending himself in a seemingly never-ending fight against charges that he doped while piling up more Tour victories than anyone ever. He has consistently pointed to the hundreds of drug tests that he passed as proof of his innocence during his extraordinary run of Tour titles from 1999 to 2005.

"There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough.' For me, that time is now," Armstrong said Thursday night, hours before the deadline to enter arbitration. He called the USADA investigation an "unconstitutional witch hunt."

"I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999," he said. "The toll this has taken on my family and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense."

USADA treated Armstrong's decision as an admission of guilt, hanging the label of drug cheat on an athlete who was a hero to thousands for overcoming life-threatening testicular cancer and for his foundation's support for cancer research. Armstrong could lose other awards, event titles and cash earnings, and the International Olympic Committee might look at the bronze medal he won in the 2000 Games.

"It is a sad day for all of us who love sport and athletes," Tygart said. "It's a heartbreaking example of win-at-all-costs overtaking the fair and safe option. There's no success in cheating to win."

Johan Bruyneel, Armstrong's longtime coach, said the Texan is a victim of a legal process run amok.

"Lance has never withdrawn from a fair fight in his life so his decision today underlines what an unjust process this has been," Bruyneel wrote on his personal website on Friday.

While Tygart said the agency can strip the Tour titles, Armstrong disputed that, insisting his decision is not an admission of guilt but a refusal to enter an arbitration process he believes is unfair.

"USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles," he said. "I know who won those seven Tours, my team-mates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours."

Armstrong's comments notwithstanding, USADA has exercised its power to sanction athletes and strip their results regularly. Its website shows that it has issued 21 sanctions in 2012 so far in sports ranging from cycling to track to boxing to judo, with 17 of the athletes losing their results.

At the headquarters of Tour organiser ASO outside of Paris on Friday, spokesman Fabrice Tiano said Tour director Christian Prudhomme was not immediately available for comment because he was in urgent meetings about the case.

Armstrong walked away from the sport for good in 2011 without being charged following a two-year federal criminal investigation into many of the same accusations he faces from USADA.

The federal probe was closed in February, but USADA announced in June it had evidence Armstrong used banned substances and methods – and encouraged their use by team-mates. The agency also said it had blood tests from 2009 and 2010 that were "fully consistent" with blood doping.

Included in USADA's evidence were emails written by Armstrong's former U.S. Postal Service team-mate Floyd Landis, who was stripped of his 2006 Tour de France title after a positive drug test. Landis' emails to a USA Cycling official detailed allegations of a complex doping program on the team.

USADA also said it had 10 former Armstrong team-mates ready to testify against him. Other than suggesting they include Landis and Tyler Hamilton, both of whom have admitted to doping offences, the agency has refused to say who they are or specifically what they would say.

USADA maintains that Armstrong used banned substances as far back as 1996, including the blood-booster EPO and steroids, as well as blood transfusions.

"There is zero physical evidence to support (the) outlandish and heinous claims," Armstrong said. "The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of (doping) controls I have passed with flying colors."

Armstrong sued USADA in Austin, Texas, where he lives, in an attempt to block the case and was supported by the UCI. A judge threw out the case on Monday, siding with USADA despite questioning the agency's pursuit of Armstrong in his retirement.

"USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives," such as politics or publicity, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks wrote.

The ultra-competitive Armstrong still had the option to press his innocence in arbitration, which would have included a hearing during which evidence against him would have been presented. But the cyclist has said he believes most people have already made up their minds about whether he's a fraud or a persecuted hero.
And so he did something virtually unthinkable for him: He quit before a fight was over, a stunning move for an athlete who built his reputation on not only beating cancer, but forcing himself through gruelling off-season workouts no one else could match, then crushing his rivals in the Alps and the Pyrenees.

"Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances," he said. "I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities."

Although he had already been crowned a world champion and won individual stages at the Tour de France, Armstrong was still relatively unknown in the U.S. until he won the epic race for the first time in 1999. It was the ultimate comeback tale: When diagnosed with cancer, doctors had given him less than a 50 per cent chance of survival before surgery and brutal cycles of chemotherapy saved his life.

Armstrong's riveting victories, his work for cancer awareness and his gossip-page romances with rocker Sheryl Crow, fashion designer Tory Burch and actress Kate Hudson made him a figure who transcended sports.

His dominance of the Tour de France elevated the sport's popularity in the U.S. to unprecedented levels. His story and success helped sell millions of the "Livestrong" plastic yellow wrist bracelets, and enabled him to enlist law makers and global policymakers to promote cancer awareness and research. His Lance Armstrong Foundation has raised nearly $500 million since its founding in 1997.

Jeffery C. Gervey, chairman of the foundation, issued a statement of support.

"Faced with a biased process whose outcome seems predetermined, Lance chose to put his family and his foundation first," Gervey said. "The leadership of the Lance Armstrong Foundation remain incredibly proud of our founder's achievements, both on and off the bike."

Sponsor Nike also backed Armstrong.

"Lance has stated his innocence and has been unwavering on this position," the company said in a statement. "Nike plans to continue to support Lance and the Lance Armstrong Foundation, a foundation that Lance created to serve cancer survivors."

Questions surfaced even as Armstrong was on his way to his first Tour victory. He was leading the 1999 race when a trace amount of a banned anti-inflammatory corticosteroid was found in his urine; cycling officials said he was authorised to use a small amount of a cream to treat saddle sores.

After Armstrong's second victory in 2000, French judicial officials investigated his Postal Service team for drug use. That investigation ended with no charges, but the allegations kept coming.

Others close to Armstrong were caught up in the investigations, too: Bruyneel, the coach of Armstrong's teams, and three members of the medical staff and a consultant were also charged. Bruyneel is taking his case to arbitration, while two medical team staffers and consulting doctor Michele Ferrari didn't formally contest the charges and were issued lifetime bans by USADA. Ferrari later said he was innocent.

Armstrong was criticised for his relationship with Ferrari, who was banned by Italian authorities over doping charges in 2002. Former personal and team assistants accused Armstrong of having steroids in an apartment in Spain and disposing of syringes that were used for injections.

In 2004, a Dallas-based promotions company initially refused to pay him a $5 million bonus for winning his sixth Tour de France because it wanted to investigate allegations raised by media in Europe. Testimony in that case included former team-mate Frankie Andreu and his wife, Betsy, saying Armstrong told doctors during his 1996 cancer treatments that he had taken a cornucopia of steroids and performance-enhancing drugs.

Two books published in Europe, "L.A. Confidential" and "L.A. Official," also raised doping allegations and, in 2005, French magazine L'Equipe reported that retested urine samples from the 1999 Tour showed EPO use.
Armstrong fought every accusation with denials and, in some cases, lawsuits against media outlets that reported them.

He retired in 2005 and almost immediately considered a comeback before deciding to stay on the sidelines – in part because he didn't want to keep answering doping questions. Three years later, Armstrong was 36 and itching to ride again. He came back to finish third in the 2009 Tour de France.

Armstrong raced again in 2010 under the cloud of the federal investigation. Early last year, he quit for good, making a brief return as a triathlete until the USADA investigation shut him down.

"He had a right to contest the charges," WADA President John Fahey said after Armstrong's announcement. "He chose not to. The simple fact is that his refusal to examine the evidence means the charges had substance in them."

[JackRiddler]

I think the racing tights and superspeed probably have a counterproductive effect in advancing bike culture as the urban norm. The world's best, most practical short-distance A-to-B device becomes a hobby for fanatics with super-costly gear and brand-studded outfits. This creates an ingroup-outgroup dynamic that alienates most people. It skews the market toward high-end, shiny superfluities. I want to see protected bike lanes on every street, grandmas riding along without needing helmets. The sexy image should not be a literal steroid case crushing his crotch on a knife-seat, hunched over a flimsy contraption, playing the human engine at speeds that could mean death in a collision; but a normally dressed human of any shape, comfortably upright on a city bike with a big fat soft seat, effortlessly carrying baggage and groceries and maybe a baby, slow-riding safely; ten times faster and more convenient than walking, and a hundred times less expensive and bothersome than a car. With parking everywhere, cheap repair on every corner, and the death penalty for bike thieves.

[beeline]

Link

He built a $9 cardboard bike - and it works

Izhar Gafni, an Israeli inventor, was in a bike shop discussing his passion one day when the discussion turned to a man who had invented a cardboard canoe.

Gafni left the shop, but couldn't get the idea of a cardboard canoe out of his head.

"Bicycle is sort of my hobby," Gafni said in a video that's become a hit on the Internet. "It's what I do in my free time. It's in my soul."

"Suddenly, it just struck my mind," Gafni continued. "Why not make a bicycle out of cardboard?"

Gafni began a quest to fulfill that dream and spoke with three engineers, all of whom told him it would be impossible to make a working bike from cardboard.

He spoke with his wife, who urged him to pursue the idea anyway because she knew he "would drive everyone crazy" if he didn't try it.

Gafni had worked on stents, robotics and other machines in the past, he recounts in the video. He latched onto the idea of origami, which increases the tensile strength of paper through folding.

He began experimenting with folding corrugated cardboard, and succeeding in building a platform that could support a car.

So he knew he could make the cardboard strong. But his first prototype of a bicycle, "looked like a hybrid of packaging box and bike."

Gafni said he knew he had to make it look like a real bike for it to be successful.

"That's where the real challenge started," he said.

"I basically took everything I knew and focused it to work with the material to accomplish what I wanted to do: wheel structure, frame design and strength, transmission design, cardboard seats. And then things started to click together."

Gafni had created his dream. It cost him $9 to make and Gafni figures he could sell one for $50 or $60, according to one report.

"It's strong, it's durable, it's cheap," he said of the bike, which can be seen in the video. "What I like about it the most - it's made out of cardboard."

Edit: added vimeo

[NeonLX]

I inverted my bars so they are sticking upright, no problem. But I'm having a devil of a time rearranging the brake grips. Not a huge deal because I'm getting used to the "weird" position. I'm riding more and more--and enjoying it more as well.

As an avid transit user, I already dislike many auto drivers (unless I'm at the 1/4-mile track), but I'm REALLY starting to loathe them as a bike rider.

On edit: I wear normal old guy street clothes when I'm on the bike, and my two-wheeler is an ancient beater so I don't look at all like one of the zoomers wearing thousands of dollars worth of "lookit me" gear and riding a bike that cost more than many people's annual income.

[barracuda]

Why You Hate Cyclists

I'm an asshole cyclist. I'm that jerk weaving in and out of traffic, going the wrong way down a one-way street, and making a left on red. I'm truly a menace on the road.

But it’s not because I’m on a bike—I'm an asshole on the road no matter what. I’m also a stereotypical Jersey driver, someone who treats speed limits as speed minimums and curses those who disagree. And I'm just as bad as a pedestrian, another jaywalking smartphone zombie oblivious to the world beyond my glowing screen. If I’m moving, I’m an accident waiting to happen.

Biking is my primary means of transportation, so when someone defames cyclists, I feel particularly bad. The fact is, unlike me, most bicyclists are courteous, safe, law-abiding citizens who are quite willing and able to share the road. The Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia studied rider habits on some of Philly’s busier streets, using some rough metrics to measure the assholishness of bikers: counting the number of times they rode on sidewalks or went the wrong way on one-way streets. The citywide averages in 2010 were 13 percent for sidewalks and 1 percent for one-way streets at 12 locations where cyclists were observed, decreasing from 24 percent and 3 percent in 2006. There is no reason to believe that Philly has particularly respectful bicyclists—we’re not a city known for respectfulness, and our disdain for traffic laws is nationally renowned. Perhaps the simplest answer is also the right one: Cyclists are getting less aggressive.

A recent study by researchers at Rutgers and Virginia Tech supports that hypothesis. Data from nine major North American cities showed that, despite the total number of bike trips tripling between 1977 and 2009, fatalities per 10 million bike trips fell by 65 percent. While a number of factors contribute to lower accident rates, including increased helmet usage and more bike lanes, less aggressive bicyclists probably helped, too.

Despite such statistics, lots of drivers assume all people on bikes are assholes like me. In doing so, these motorists are making an inductive fallacy, not unlike saying, "Of course he beat me at basketball—he’s Asian like Jeremy Lin and Yao Ming." Now, you might be thinking to yourself that you’ve seen more than one or two suicidal cyclists in your day—that these roaches on two wheels are an infestation that’s practically begging to be squished underfoot (and by “foot” you mean “my Yukon Denali”).

First off—wow, that is disturbingly violent. Second, your estimate of the number of asshole cyclists and the degree of their assholery is skewed by what behavioral economists like Daniel Kahneman call the affect heuristic, which is a fancy way of saying that people make judgments by consulting their emotions instead of logic.

The affect heuristic explains how our minds take a difficult question (one that would require rigorous logic to answer) and substitutes it for an easier one. When our emotions get involved, we jump to pre-existing conclusions instead of exerting the mental effort to think of a bespoke answer. The affect heuristic helps explain why birthers still exist even though Obama released his birth certificate—it’s a powerful, negative emotional issue about which lots of people have already made up their minds. When it comes to cyclists, once some clown on two wheels almost kills himself with your car, you furiously decide that bicyclists are assholes, and that conclusion will be hard to shake regardless of countervailing facts, stats, or arguments.

If you are a city driver, you have undoubtedly been scared half to death by some maniac cutting across traffic like Frogger on a fixie. Such emotionally charged events stand out in our associative memory far more than mundane events, like a cyclist riding peacefully alongside your vehicle. The affect heuristic is compounded by the idea of negativity dominance—bad events stand out more than good ones. This causes you to overestimate both the amount and the severity of upsetting events, like almost getting some dirty hipster’s blood on your windshield.

Don't believe me? Well, ask yourself, what causes more deaths: strokes or all accidents combined? Tornadoes or asthma? Most people say accidents and tornadoes, and most people are wrong. In Thinking, Fast and Slow, Kahneman asks the reader these same questions before revealing, "strokes cause almost twice as many deaths as all accidents combined, but 80 percent of respondents judged accidental death to be likely. Tornadoes were seen as more frequent killers than asthma, although the latter caused 20 times more deaths." Kids careening on bikes are our urban tornadoes—somewhat rare, upsetting events that stick in our craw longer than they should, and seem like bigger problems than they really are.

Moreover, bicycling as a primary means of transportation—I’m not talking about occasional weekend riders here—is a foreign concept to many drivers, making them more sensitive to perceived differences between themselves and cyclists. People do this all the time, making false connections between distinguishing characteristics like geography, race, and religion and people’s qualities as human beings. Sometimes it is benign ("Mormons are really polite"), sometimes less so ("Republicans hate poor people"). But in this case, it’s a one-way street: Though most Americans don’t ride bikes, bikers are less likely to stereotype drivers because most of us also drive. The “otherness” of cyclists makes them stand out, and that helps drivers cement their negative conclusions. This is also why sentiments like “taxi drivers are awful” and “Jersey drivers are terrible” are common, but you don’t often hear someone say “all drivers suck.” People don’t like lumping themselves into whatever group they are making negative conclusions about, so we subconsciously seek out a distinguishing characteristic first.

Every time another bicyclist pulls some dickish stunt, the affect heuristic kicks in to reinforce the preconceived biases. The same isn’t true in reverse: The conviction that bicyclists are erratically moving hazards is not diminished by the repeated observance of safe and respectful riding. Facts and logical arguments that do not conform to the emotional conclusion are discounted or disregarded. But we’re not doomed to our initial prejudices: Once a person becomes aware of her biases, she is more able to engage rational thought processes to overcome the affect heuristic and dispel her inaccurate conclusions. So, study those stats bike haters!

As the studies show, more and more commuters are trading in their parking passes for bike locks. In light of those numbers, it’s heartening to hear that the number of fatalities per bike trip has decreased in Philadelphia, New York, and elsewhere. That suggests to me that these new-to-biking commuters are riding less aggressively than the old urban vanguard of bike messengers and Tour de France wannabes. If the present trends continue, we’ll see asshole bicyclists like me become an even smaller minority of bicyclists as a whole. And some of us are trying to get better. I’ve recognized that my bad behavior keeps others from taking up riding, and keeps politicians from investing in things I care about, like more bike lanes. So I’ve stopped riding on sidewalks and try to keep my illegal lefts to a minimum. But I’ve been a jerk for a real long time. So, let me say this to drivers, pedestrians, and my fellow riders alike: I’m sorry. See, aren’t cyclists the nicest, most polite people in the whole world?

[Elvis]

A safety reminder to cyclists:

In a line at a stoplight etc., never try to go around by passing a car on the right.

The car may suddenly turn right, right into you. (This happened to a young friend on a motorcycle, who thought he'd just sneak on by the line of cars. His broken leg never did heal properly.)

[dqueue]

Bicyclean

The bicyclean is a safe, affordable, and efficient alternative for harvesting electronic waste in developing regions. The bicyclean is a modified bicycle, where a processing chamber replaces the rear wheel and an external steel frame supports the rear hub. Processing of the circuit boards occurs within the sealed chamber and the particles are removed in a covered tray. A feed tube presses circuit board pieces into a large grinding wheel and become pulverized.

[beeline]

[barracuda]

Critical Mass anniversary a time to acknowledge what the movement has accomplished
By: SF Examiner Editorial | 09/26/12 6:33 PM
SF Examiner Editorial
The bicycle phenomenon known as Critical Mass started in San Francisco 20 years ago and has since been exported to many other cities around the world. Thousands of cyclists from across the globe are in town this week to celebrate the anniversary of a movement that has raised the profile of urban cycling.

The first Critical Mass ride in San Francisco was called Commute Clot, a name that carries with it one of the biggest criticisms of the ride: That drivers and, to a certain extent, public transit riders can be stuck in congestion while the pack of cyclists rides through the streets without obeying traffic laws. But at its core, Critical Mass is a political statement about the roads we all pay for and how they should be used. And in spite of the occasional inconvenience that accompanies Critical Mass, it has been very effective as a political movement.

After all, many reforms do not come from centrist ideas that emerge from government bureaucracies. The fringes of the left and right are often where changes start, and as ideas gain acceptance they are often watered down as they are embraced by centrists. The civil-rights movement started with illegal marches on the streets, not with congressional legislation. Same-sex marriage is just now being embraced at the federal level, decades after advocates started pushing for the right to wed.

Two decades ago, when Critical Mass started, the idea that bicyclists also deserved space on San Francisco’s streets was not as well-accepted as it is today. Cars ruled the road, and the dangerous space on the edges was where cyclists rode — if they were brave enough. But Critical Mass brought to the forefront the idea that bikes, too, deserved a safe space on the streets.

Whether you love or hate the Critical Mass rides — and, at times, both attitudes have been appropriate — they have pushed urban cycling issues into the mainstream in San Francisco and around the world. The idea of a physically separated bike lane on Market Street, the grand avenue of The City, would have been inconceivable 20 years ago. Today, not only is there a stretch of Market with such a lane, but talks about re-doing the street include proposals to make many more miles of the stretch safe for cyclists.

Critical Mass is not the only entity that deserves credit for the increase in cycling advocacy in The City. The San Francisco Bicycle Coalition tirelessly pushes for projects that will make cycling safer. And several lawmakers who are themselves cyclists support riding as a transportation option rather than just a recreational activity.

When the riders of Critical Mass hit the streets this Friday for the anniversary ride, they will stop cars in their tracks and halt Muni buses while the bikes go by. But instead of complaining about your own personal inconvenience, take the time to think about your mode of transportation and contemplate whether you have ever had to protest to make sure you were safe during your own commute.

Although by no means perfect, Critical Mass deserves recognition for what it has helped to accomplish in the past 20 years.



Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/edito ... z27smEidq9

[Hammer of Los]

...

Wow.

I love that art 'cuda.

I used to enjoy riding my brother's purple chopper.

A hand me down bike.

I don't dare cycle in the city though.

I was knocked over by a cyclist going through a red light once.

I was crossing on the green man and he went right into me.

I'm not even sure he apologised before getting up and riding off.

I was badly bruised.

Oh well.

Give up your cars.

Ride bikes.

...

[Seamus OBlimey]

...

I used to enjoy riding my brother's purple chopper.

...

Most uncomfortable ride ever.