Cool.

My take is that the Europeans in question are the significant percentage of cyclists there who prefer practical and reliable bicycles to get to a destination. These cyclists do not share the stereotyped North American cyclists 's obsession with maximizing speed and theoretical efficiency, or at least looking and acting the part.

In places where bicycle commuting is considered an activity practiced by normal people of all sizes, shapes and ages, cyclists are aware that a slower/relaxed cycling pace can often save time for commuting at the typical distances. Changing outfits, cool down periods and extra showers necessary in the name of maximizing speed and efficiency and cycling with stripped down lightweight racer-boy cycles does not always add up to maximum efficiency in use of time. Nor does the "pain IS gain" philosophy of cyclist training considered a serious way to commute or get about town.

Carrying an expensive high tech lightweight bicycle around like a ball and chain at every location because of security concerns doesn't appeal to European commuter/ recreational cyclists in the same way that it does to the sterotyped North American enthusiast. Locking up a heavyweight outside seems much more efficient and speedy, IMO.

European cyclists in general may have a very different perspective on cycling "efficiency" than found at many North American cycling clubs or Internet discussion group.

My take is that the Europeans in question are the significant percentage of cyclists there who prefer practical and reliable bicycles to get to a destination. These cyclists do not share the stereotyped North American cyclist's obsession with maximizing speed and theoretical efficiency, or at least looking and acting the part.

In places where bicycle commuting is considered an activity practiced by normal people of all sizes, shapes and ages, cyclists are aware that a slower/relaxed cycling pace can often save time for commuting at the typical distances. Changing outfits, cool down periods and extra showers necessary in the name of maximizing speed and efficiency and cycling with stripped down lightweight racer-boy cycles does not always add up to maximum efficiency in use of time. Nor is the "pain IS gain" philosophy of cyclist training considered a serious way to commute or get about town.

Carrying an expensive high tech lightweight bicycle around like a ball and chain at every location because of security concerns doesn't appeal to European commuter/ recreational cyclists in the same way that it does to the sterotyped North American enthusiast. Locking up a heavyweight outside seems much more efficient and speedy, IMO.

European cyclists in general may have a very different perspective on cycling "efficiency" and the relative priorities of speed vis-à-vis comfort, than found among many North American cycling club enthusiasts or Internet discussion group participants.

I couldn't agree more. Folk's who post anything here that is NOT in line with the wanna be racer,MTB
hero image is soon roundly trounced by the wanna be's. As to the European, especially the Dutch,view
of cycling just makes way more sense to me. Way more.

Sure, you can have bike races that are fun to watch just don't try to make me feel guilty that I'm not
a wanna be also. These Dutch bikes are just , to me, the best thing since canned beer. So damn practical.

The sad part is that , to my knowledge, Worksman it the last , and only, American bike maker that
still makes tough no nonsense bikes for just plain utility. It's also sad that Worksman may never
make bikes like the Dutch bikes because there is no market in the U.S. It's also sad that the Dutch
avoid selling in the U.S. due to the fear of lawsuits when some idiot crashes.

[QUOTE=I-Like-To-Bike]In places where bicycle commuting is considered an activity practiced by normal people of all sizes, shapes and ages, cyclists are aware that a slower/relaxed cycling pace can often save time for commuting at the typical distances. Changing outfits, cool down periods and extra showers necessary in the name of maximizing speed and efficiency and cycling with stripped down lightweight racer-boy cycles does not always add up to maximum efficiency in use of time. Nor is the "pain IS gain" philosophy of cyclist training considered a serious way to commute or get about town.
[QUOTE]
I agree. My commute is only 3 miles round trip, and although it's lots of fun on the road bike, it's not worth the hassle of changing clothes and shoes. So unless I'm going for a ride after work, I take the Target MTB with platform pedals, rack, and ridiculous looking plastic basket. All I need is a chainguard. It weighs around 37 lbs plus whatever load I'm carrying, and it's a pretty good workout. But I won't take it on trips of over 10 or so miles round trip. It's just too heavy. I will eventually build myself a better utility bike when I figure out what configuration I want.

I would say in Europe the bicycle is many peoples FIRST car. They only use the car for things that can't be done easily on a bike, like moving furniture. When I spent some time in Denmark the first Dane I met said he commutes in to school because it is "only 7 km". As a non-cyclist, I was floored. Copenhagen was my first experience as a bike commuter, and it was fantastic. Lots of utilitarian bikes, or old "beater" road bikes.

While I don't think I would personally choose to commute on one (though I can respect those who do, or who get around on any kind of bicycle), that's not true. Mike Flanigan of ANT Bikes makes very nice Dutch-style commuters and other utility bikes. In fact, I chatted with him just today because he's giving away a utility bike at a charity ride I was in. Broadway Bicycle School here in Boston--well Cambridge, actually--will also build you one though they build them using either recycled frames or ANT frames depending on the model selected.

Finally, very nice commuters can be built out of general purpose mountain bike or even road bike frames. Some of the best utility bikes I've seen have been steel mountain bike frames with slicks, fenders, racks, and so on.

What is true is that the marketing to that particular market niche is extremely weak in this country.

(edit: looks like Flanigan is no longer a dirty word in Bike Forums land.)

(Sniff Sniff) It's beautiful, just so beautiful.

It's nice to know that "ANT" exist. It's just to bad that his bikes are more than an average person
will pay for any bike,but that's due to economies of scale. He's a one man shop and Worksman is
a small factory in NYC. Maybe someday these bike will be truly needed but until then I'll just build
my own. Sigh..........

Wannabes???? Nice insult. I guess people that only ride bikes for recreation all want to "be like Lance"? It's not only the vehicle drivers that think this. I wonder where they got that attitude???? Suggestive comments from cyclists???? I myself see way too many assumptions on both sides for them to mean anything real in a discussion. Maybe what those others are doing is responding to stereotyped attacks on themselves.
If a company wants to make a utility bike in America, it will have to focus on the machine being efficient, and that's where a heavy bike just won't cut it. Being efficient is ingrained into our culture, and it will be harder to convince most Americans to slow down to the speed of European life. While steel is nice, the ones that will become the most popular on this side of the pond will be made of aluminum.
Is it really the fear of lawsuits when people crash that keep European companies from selling here, or are the companies afraid to take responsibility for the quality of their product? The Italian bicycle companies don't have any problems selling bikes here.

I don't know, you can order a Euro-style crusier at almost any bike shop, choosing from European built bikes to Trek or Cannondale (both US compainies sell bikes overseas). Even REI is selling commuter bikes! You can't get the Asian built commuters from Giant or Fuji however, although that is likely to change soon.

As far as recreational bikes, 99% of non-cyclists would pick an old MTB with a gel covered seat, basket and bell over Lance's Trek. I toured in Germany on a crappy 3 speed with a sleeping bag tied to the handle bars. Had to push the beast up a couple of hills and made only about 60 km day, but the word for the day is....recreation! It was a total blast! I guess I could of ingored the whole Rine river valley and kept my eye on my computer and heart monitor and done the whole trip in 16 hours of pure hammering. What the hell was I thinking! Letting cycling performance take a back seat to my vacation. I guess I'll never be in the Tour de Fance unless I really rethink my current cycling commitments

The biggest lie you'll ever hear at the LBS or cycling club is the Myth of the Light Bike. I'm about 5'11" and weigh about 200 lbs. If wanted to be a fast bike racer (and at 40 yrs old that's really a joke) I would stop drinking beer and eating Mexican food until I was racing weight (about 165-170?). Buying a sub 20 pound bike for a $1000 isn't really make me much faster than steel framed used bike at 23-24 pounds. (that's what a good road bike weighed in the mid 80s) If I'm not worried about speed and riding for transportation or recreation, bike weight matters even less.

I really support competitive cycling, but understand that 90% riders have no wish to do it and should pick a bike that really suits their needs.

Efficiency? MUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Can anyone spell SUV?

If anything, I'd be saying that the US is renowned for copious waste, not efficiency. One needs only look at the motor industry to see that. The SUV being the choice of car for soccer moms in the US whilst the hatch or small car is the choice in Europe.

heheheh efficiency...

I think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle regarding imports from Europe. The market is not large enough to justify the cost of marketing and distribution and the market is also dangerous for manufacturers because of the litigious nature of said market. The added cost of insurance does little to encourage these manufacturers.

That's so true. I match you almost exactly in height, weight and age. I've vowed not to spend a dime on lightening my bike until I get back to the 165 I weighed in college.

It's pretty hilarious to consider that a 200-lb person, suffering the typical effects of surrendering most locomotive function to a steel cage upwards of 30 times too heavy to lift, might blame the pain of climbing a hill on a bicycle on the "inefficiency" of a frame weighing 2 lbs - or even 15 lbs - more than another.

Look, folks, these euro bikes are very likable for what they're designed to do-- short rides, load hauling, riding to the corner pub at night, etc. Do not underestimate them as neighbourhood errand runners. But when I've gotta go more than a mile, I'm riding something light, manuvarable, and fast-- today, my sub 17 pound 1973 PX10E fixie. I'm not riding the Vello Kombi across Richmond.

However, if I had to weed down my bikes to, say five, the VK euro city utility bike would certainly be among them. I'm not sure it would make it if I had to cut 'em down to three, tho. It would be hard to give up it's chick-magnet appeal, though.

Those bikes are great, wish we saw more of them (or those styles) over here in the US.

I see bums riding around on bikes all the time, some of them carrying heavy loads of... something or other. I wonder how strong they are?

I was walking down a street in the Netherlands and watched a woman come out of her house, unlock her bike, step on the left peddle with her right foot to start the bike in motion smoothly hop on the seat, switch her foot to the right peddle and peddle away, the whole time she was holding a cell phone in her left hand and carrying on a conversation on it. Oh and the street was cobblestoned. I'd say those people have bicycles fairly well ingrained into their lives.

I rented one of those bikes while I was there, they are not easy to ride if you are not used to them. The seating position is very upright (notice how tall the quill and headset are) and the bike seems long and it is heavy. Once you get used to it its fun, especially when you are in a pack of ten commuters.
The best thing is seeing a parent (those bikes are not considered "girls" bikes, everyone rides them) carrying a couple of kids to school while on his way to work. You just don't get that kind of intimate familial experiance in a SUV.

back in the early 70's, my (then kid) sister was riding with my dutch cousin on one of those bikes. all fun and games until her foot got caught in the spokes. it had the same kind of guard as the one currently being sold.

Not a comment on the utilitarian Dutch bikes (I luv 'em!) but generally about carrying small children on bikes. If I take a tumble so be it, you can usually roll or baill off the bike and tumble - I'll grow new skin and even bones heal eventually, but the thought of my child smacking the pavement just sends shivers down my spine. I don't know, maybe I'm a little irrational about it because I'm so protective of my kids, but it seems to me that it's a looong way down for a little kid from the back of an adult sized bike... even at a very slow speed.

A few more pictures I took in various places in Holland and Belgium.

There seemed to be absolutely no worry about carrying babies and toddlers in bikes up front. The red bike in the campground had a basket on front with a baby... the couple were on tour, and the guy did admit that hills were a little more effort, but otherwise... great! The mum rode a diamond frame, though. It was pictured at Brugge, as was the kid trailer.

The one with the front "tent" over the babe in front was just a commuting journey. Mum had no problem with me riding alongside and taking a picture. It was pictured at Ypres.

The triple-seat was in Amsterdam. I'd have to check for the bicycle taxi, but I also think that was Brugge.

The mini-mini bike was at the Velocity Conference in Paris. I really loved that. I *have* to build one sometime!

they are cool bikes and all but how is it that you couldn't make a nice touring frame into a commuter every bit as nice by adding a nice set of fenders and racks... throw on some more upright bars to adjust for comfory if you wish and viola... your very own american "euro-styled" ride.

one reason we might prefer lighter bikes with larger gaer ranges over here is we have bigger hills... you see a granny gear on any of those? a typical dutch city bike in the colorado mountains would be pretty darn useless...

I hear ya. On the other hand, you don't think your kid's ever gonna fall off the monkey bars, take a tumble from a tree, jump off the neighbor's garage...

I bet they won't be wearing a helmet then.

-Trevor, who remembers riding around on the back of his parents bikes Rerun Van Pelt-style.

You are absolutely right. But the problem with the mass market is that one solution is offered to a multitude of problems. If you have any doubt, just look at the gear specification for off-the-shelf touring bicycles, which might be good for moderately flat terrai but won't do for most in the mountains.

And, challenging terrain shouldn't mean giving up on alternative thought... what's wrong with specifying bikes like those shown in Holland with the granny gear you demand? Gearing is not the issue, rather the configuration of the frame... because it is so foreign to mainstream cycling. The debate is like mixte versus compact versus full diamond frame versus MTB versus steel versus aluminium versus carbon versus...

I don't want to start a debate but to point out another issue with what you've said...Your fears are rational in that your child might get hurt should your bike topple over and they hit the ground. But, if you get in an accident in an automobile, the forces are 30-60 times that of the gravity that will be pulling your kid towards the ground off the bike. Yet people don't think twice about loading their kid into a car.