i've seen it huffing along on the sidewalk screaming at foot traffic as if IT was the problem. I never see a city bike on the street in los angeles. I always seem to catch them bombing through dense foot traffic or wiggling off curbs into oncoming traffic shaking fists held aloft at the sea of "cagers".

and yeah, LA is a terrible place for heavy bikes. the hills can be intense and only the messengers seem to be in proper shape to rock a SS/fixed--even though most of the ones I see ride 8+spd back ends and lots of doubles up front.

meh article.

30lb specialized sport bike? my allez is 20lb before rack/bag. "sport bike" makes me think it's just something with drops... but what on earth did they sell like that in the 30lb range? hah

I don't begrudge her not getting up the hill. I'm just not sure of the message that it sends to anyone who may have been contemplating commuting. And to me what is unfortunate is that her choice of bike made the climb more difficult than it had to be. I'm worried that the imagery used to promote that type of bike often doesn't jibe with reality once you try to use them on terrain and for distances they weren't intended for.

The other problem with the article is that it seemed to promote this idea that there are only two options. Spandex, and Carbon Fiber vs. Heels and "City Bikes" which are either imported or based on European models. Most of the commuters I see don't use either.

I wonder what motivated her to do the story in the first place. Was it an interest she had or was it just something an editor wanted her to do? Did her experience make her consider doing it more often or convince her that using a car is the only realistic option for her?

Ironically, an Xmart FS mountain bike with a triple might have got her up that hill.

it's a hell of a lot better suited to LA than a townie. LAPD cycle cops bomb hills with ease on their mountain bikes. I got passed by one going downhill once and had to laugh. it makes sense that he'd be able to get down with greater confidence because i got just a little air off a road imperfection (read: ridiculous humphole of doom) and felt like i was going to die whereas his bike soaked it up.

edit: and their triples/wide range back end don't hurt one bit for going back up.

The company I work at has a "reporting" section. Some of the stuff they come out with plain ridiculous, especially when they discuss Technology and Computers. They always pre-fix complex terms with "so-called" such as "the so-called TCP/IP network".

Yeah, they crazy.

Anything that gets more people on bikes is a win IMO. So, if this article inspires some Paris Hilton-loving chic chicks to ride a bike so they can look hot, more power to it.

Well, I was joking about that spandex, but not about the hill. Maybe if I saw the hill I'd have a different take. Minneapolis is a mostly flat place but the town I grew up in about 20 miles South of here was not. At least not where I lived. To get back to our house from town you had to climb a pretty big and long hill. Once you got to the top, you were rewarded by a mostly downhill trip the rest of the way. If you were on a decent bike and took some corners pretty fast, you could coast the rest of the 1.5 miles or so home.

My first car was a P.O.S. One of its many deficiencies was the fact that no two tires matched. Consequently when I was driving home from work in the winter if there was any snow or ice on that hill at all, the car would not make it up. Maybe halfway, and then the wheels would just spin as the car started to slide helplessly down. Many times I didn't even try. I'd park the car at the bottom of the hill and walk the rest of the way home. Sometimes it was well below zero. Maybe that's why I don't consider biking in the winter to be that big of deal.

Anyway no, I don't have much sympathy for somebody having to push a bike 1/2 mile up a hill in sunny California.

Commuter fail?

If it gets more people interested in biking i'm for it. However I wished she put in a week at least to go over the pros and cons of such a bike. "The next day I decided to change shoes, and boy what a difference" or "by the end of the week I was going up and down that hill with no problems". Instead I kind of wonder what kind of shape she is in. A little background such as "i'm 5'4 in my mid 30's and weigh more than I care to admit who hasn't been on a bike since i was a kid". I think such a qualifier might cause more people to identify with her.

I get all my cycling info from the WSJ. And my business news from Boy's Life.

Yeah, you just know she got back in her SUV the next day to go to work and thought "Man, I'm glad that's over."

What this guy said. ^^^^^^

Everyone needs a jumping on point. If this gets people nearer to that, we all win.

The WSJ article was directed to exactly who we all need to get into cycling if we ever want to achieve a more bike friendly less car centric infrastructure. Woman make up over half of the population and voters,and fact is that many of them are put off by the skinny seat, skinny tire, drop handlebar road bike. Manufacturer's are responding to this and I fully support them. When the average woman sees the bicycle as a safe, convenient, stylish way to get around town - all while dressing normally and looking her best, then we will be much closer to the tipping point of a bike friendly country.

And for those who seemed to have a problem with the author wearing wedge heels,check out the NY Times article in this same thread. It features two young woman hauling cargo around NYC on bikes, both wearing - wedge heels.

[QUOTE=And for those who seemed to have a problem with the author wearing wedge heels,check out the NY Times article in this same thread. It features two young woman hauling cargo around NYC on bikes, both wearing - wedge heels.[/QUOTE]

Go to Europe. They wear normal clothes there to ride to work. It's as much indicative of the culture as it is of the way towns and cities are laid out. Most were designed long before the advent of the automobile and the lifestyle they continue to live there reflects this. America has continually reinvented itself and it's cities every couple of decades causing us to have far more urban sprawl and a more car-based lifestyle. That is what needs to change, because only then will people be more willing to embrace different technologies. Our current technologies allow us to travel great distances very quickly and reasonably cheaply, so we build that way.

But, as one other poster has pointed out, road bikes reached their zenith in the 70s and mountain/hybrid bikes have been the popular choice ever since. In the bike rack outside my office, it's mostly mountain bikes, a few hybrids, and every once in a long while, a single road bike. (And a unicycle from time to time, but I think we can safely say that that has never been a fashionable choice. :D)
Hybrids and mountain bikes with step-through frames have been available for years and most probably weigh less and have more gears than a traditional Dutch bike. While I'm in favor of anything that gets more people on bikes, I can't help thinking that these cycle chic types are just making things harder than they need to be.

But isn't the ability to get back home without having to make a phone call at least as important as style?

Look, Apple has proven over the last decade that form matters, - a lot. The other part of their success is making what was once complicated - simple. At least simpler. So I get the appeal of Dutch bikes with 8 speed IGHs and being able to wear regular clothes. My wife as a good example, doesn't really get front derailleurs. I doubt she's alone.

Several people in this thread have said that if it gets someone on a bike then they're all for it. I think the bar needs to be set higher. Getting someone on a bike only for them to discover that reality doesn't quite match the pretty pictures ultimately does a disservice. There's enough unused bikes sitting in a garages as it is. The goal should be to give people the tools they need to be successful. In some cases that might be a Dutch type bike. In others cases it may be a bike that's better designed for going up hills. And I'm not talking about a road bike necessarily. There are ALL kinds of bikes.

So while in a lot of ways the article was positive, the ending would have been much, much better if she had taken the bike back to the bike shop and said, "I loved the bike, but couldn't get up the hills near my house" and have the LBS give her a different bike that does what really matters, and that's allow her to get from A to B. But also one that she still finds appealing and easy to use.

Maybe I'm overanalyzing and the people who the article is intended to appeal to can easily look past the fact that she didn't make it home. But that's where I get stuck. Her test of seeing if she could get back and forth to work on a bike failed and it was unclear whether she ever intended to try again. That's not such a great message to leave the readers with.

This article I liked.

You are missing the point. I don't have a problem with it, she had a problem with it! I don't care how many articles in how many newspapers and magazines show business women wearing heels when other shoes would better serve. The real women I see on the train platforms every day are dressed to the nines and wearing athletic shoes because that is what is practical for walking to their offices. I presume they have nice shoes in their bags or stashed under their desks at work. It is silly to wear awkward dress shoes while pedaling a bicycle and completely unnecessary. I increasingly see men on the trains doing the same thing and I certainly would myself except that my job is 100% compatible with sensible shoes so I have no need to do that.

The bike she picked (or was it picked for her?) may not have been the best choice. My wife's Fuji Saratoga is an upright, pedal forward, step through design with wide cushy tires and a wide "comfortable" seat (as much abuse as they get in articles like this a narrow seat is more comfortable if you are going any distance) and it is quite light. So there is no reason the desire to ride such a bike should be an impediment to bike commuting, there are good choices out there if you look for them. The Fuji does not have fenders, a rear rack, or a skirt guard but those could be added as needed.

Ken

Overall I like the story. It's a start and she did hit up on some truthful point. I only hope she does a follow up or a part 2 to show her readers that this will not be a one time thing.

Her quote in a 30lb specialized hit me close to home. My original bike was a Hardrock weighting in at 30 lbs bare. After rack, bags, lights gear and all, it weighted over 40 lbs. I cut out 6 lbs when I converted my road bike as my commuter, but still it weight close to 38 lbs. Climbing hills is not a problems but it gets old fast when I have to carry it up the stair three story high at the train station and then to the second floor in a narrow staircase at work. By Friday, I am screaming for my 18lbs bike and a backpack especially when the wider handicap fair gate is out of service and I have to lift the bike over my shoulder to clear the narrower fair gate when leaving the train station.

Her article to me was mostly generalization. She never spoke of those other factor such as flats, safety or even how life at home can affect our decision to commute by bike. It's hard to convince a husband that it is safe to commute when he himself is driving a large SUV. All this is another topic which I only hope the author does a follow up story.

I agree to an extent with a lot of the comments that have been posted here, but if the author got too "real" most readers (who have never tried cycle commuting) would dismiss cycle commuting as too difficult, or fringe behavior. The most difficult thing about bike commuting or getting someone to do it, is changing their mindset. The first part of this equation is to get people to visualize themselves riding to work: to that end, the article does its job. I agree with tjspiel that it would have been much MUCH better if the author had made it home too, but in actuality, that may be what happens to a someone who doesn't regularly ride a bike. If they can get a ride into work the next day and then ride the bike home, they are taking small bites, but hopefully getting closer to the goal of bike commuting.

I also think it's important for people to know that they don't have to be clad in lycra (not that there's anything wrong with that) or invest hundreds of dollars in bicycle specific clothing to ride back and forth to work, especially if their trip is 5 miles or less. As someone previously posted, commuters in Europe generally wear their work clothes on the bike.

I see people on bikes dressed in suits and work clothes once in a while, and I wonder why they don't dress appropriately for the activity and change when they get to work. There are many reasons to wear lycra, including that it doesn't flap around like a flag and it dries fairly quickly. I don't think most bike commuters wear lyrca as a fashion statement.

The main problem I see with the WSJ article is that the writer has the total experience of one commute under her belt, and she is now offering up advice to her readers. How about she tries the products she is describing for a year and then lets us know how it worked out. For example, the helmet cover without vents is a heat trap that would be chucked after the first ride. She couldn't even complete a single round trip commute on her "chic" bike.

The article is lame and does a disservice to people who are considering taking up bike commuting.

Never happens to me, I don't go fast enough.

I don't get wet, I have rain gear in case it rains.

Wow... a lot of people need to get over it.

All of us here live a bike-involved lifestyle; the writer does not, as the great majority of North America does not. Her article was as well-done as, for example, mine would have been after one spin in a new Mercedes for PBS' Motorweek. She wrote from the perspective of a neophyte, writing to other neophytes. She did OK with it. (IMO, either standards of journalism have slipped dangerously, or she was targeting a slightly "challenged" audience, simply because it read like something from a high school newspaper.)

It's not a concise treatise on the joys and benefits of a commuting lifestyle; it's one ride on a strange contraption.

Lycra is irrelevant. So is the Tour; they were literary devices.

Disservice is also done by those who can't see past their own way of doing something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z8xE...eature=channel

If anything just watch the first 10 secs. It's one of my favorite quotes for the non-cycling crowd that looks at my form of transportation in awe.

But of course if your trip is 15 miles or something like that, by all means get the spandex, dropped bars, super-light racing machine. For 7 miles (like in article) the Dutch bikes are perfectly suitable. I do it every day.

I actually think it's cool that people commute in suits if it works for them. It wouldn't for me. It would take too much time if I had to go slow enough not to sweat. But if my commute were only a couple of miles? Sure. I've commuted while wearing a tux when it was only a couple of miles.

Normally I wear lycra shorts and a technical shirt (not a jersey) because they're very practical for me and my style of riding.

I do agree with you though to a certain extent. Her experiment could have easily been a success with a different bike or maybe even just changing the rear cog to lower the gear range. The article starts out as a story about bike commuting for the non-athlete but it ends with her calling her "athletic" husband to bail her out. I don't know, what's the non-athlete going to take away from that?