We’ve got a question from Producer-at-Large John. He asks: Why does a bike seem to be just the right speed to facilitate a deeper level of comprehension of the world? Cars are too fast. Sometimes a kid in the backseat will look up from a phone and say, “Oh, we’re here?” And walking is good, but limits our range. The bike is like Goldilocks. Not too fast. Not too slow. What gives?
I love this question. As it happens, I took it on in the second column I ever wrote for Bicycle Guide. That said, my view has evolved since then. In 1996, I suggested that it was the right pace at which to appreciate the world. A cyclist has the ability to experience the world and its contours at a rate that allows a picture of an environment to emerge.
I don’t want to say it doesn’t happen when you’re in a car or truck, but the passenger in a vehicle is insulated in a way that doesn’t allow the experience to be as visceral. That said, I know drivers who would argue that pulling half a G in a turn is plenty visceral, but much of what is communicated has to do with the car’s engine, suspension and tires.
And as John notes, at a walking pace we can’t cover much territory, or, if we do, we cover it at such a slow pace, it’s hard to form a coherent picture.
Cycling, whether we are road cycling, mountain biking or gravel riding, gives us a more immediate and richer experience of a landscape. And yes, the difference between mountain biking and road riding is significant, but I believe that they do the same thing, even though they approach a landscape on a different scale.
I’m going to take a bit of a turn here: This is the sort of stuff that I think about when I’m riding. Seriously, it’s weird in here with me.
That said, one thing I’ve thought a lot about is how trails and roads have in common the fact that they are prepared surfaces. To ride a road—whether gravel or asphalt—or to ride a trail is to ride on land that we have altered to suit our purpose. And one of the things I’ve considered is whether our changing the landscape makes our experience of the land less accurate, less legitimate, less honest.
I came down on the side of the positive. I love how a flow trail takes in the contours of the land. Switchbacks, whether paved or dirt, are a measure of the possible.
Returning to the bigger picture, and John’s question, I no longer see cycling as the right pace. It’s the right pace for me. It’s the right pace for many of us. But these days I like to grant that for some people, the bike is too fast, too stimulating. Hikers and runners like their pace and it would be arrogant of me to dismiss something that brings them a pleasure that I cannot claim is less than mine. The same can be said of people who ride motorcycles or like to go for long drives. It’s a pace that works for them.
I will say that I think cycling shares in common with skiing, both Nordic and Alpine, skateboarding, motorcycles and a few other activities the fact that they are particularly well-suited to the pace required to induce flow. That’s ultimately the answer: We love cycling because it brings us flow. Cyclists are cyclists because cycling is the right pace for them to reach flow.