NOTE: This post is rated R for mild strong language and intimations of gnostical turpitude.
Introduction
Let’s have a little fun before burying ourselves in a lot of
tedious text:
Daaaamn, is that a great crash, or what? I could watch that over and over again. In fact, I just did. So did you—don’t deny it. Really gets the pulse racing, doesn’t it?
Here’s another great clip:
Both of these fine films were shot at the Red Hook Criterium
in Brooklyn, part of a series of races that require the use of fixies—you know,
those track bikes hipsters ride that have no brakes and don’t allow coasting. Racing theses bikes on regular streets,
instead of on a velodrome, has proven a great formula for generating lots of
crowd-pleasing danger.
Is this kind of racing a good idea? Should it be promoted, or banned? That’s what I’m exploring with this post.
What’s great about the
Red Hook series
Anybody who’s ever raced a rinky-dink criterium in some
forlorn business park, with a tiny smattering of spectators (all of them
related in some way to the racers) will appreciate the fact that the Red Hook
series draws a massive crowd of spectators (17,000 in the case of London’s
event). There’s no doubt that this kind
of race is increasing the visibility of cycling.
You know what? I’m
getting bored with all these words.
Here’s a video compilation of Red Hook crashes from 2013:
The first crash is my favorite because the (amateur)
cameraman gets involved. I just wish
there was another camera angle so I could watch the third racer flip over the
fence onto the guy.
What’s lame about the
Red Hook series
The first lame thing about this series is that the whole
premise is just so fucking stupid: hey,
let’s make riders use the wrong equipment, and race in the dark, so that there’ll
be lots of cool crashes!
The next lame thing is that this race thinks it’s cool because
it attracts a lot of hipster types. According
to this Velonews article, “[Director] David Trimble held an unsanctioned, late-night race in Red Hook
as a challenge between bicycle messengers and local road racers” and “required
everyone to compete on a brake-less fixie, the preferred tool of bike porters.”
Of course once the race got big, the
messengers were no longer much of a factor, because we all know bike racing is
for the idle rich, who have time to follow special training plans involving
“efforts.” And yet, having started out
as this illegal underground thing, the race desperately clings to a self-professed
rebel mystique. This “teaser” documentary by Trimble, with its self-satisfied air, almost made me throw up into my
mouth. Of course it doesn’t mention the
crashes, which are obviously the point.
It’s a little like a commercial
for Oreos that celebrates the wholesome wheat flour without mentioning
the sugar and fat.
And why are fixies the “preferred tool” of tools? Because they’re stupid and unpractical, of
course. Their unsuitability for urban
riding makes them edgy and cool, kind of like cigarettes, so they naturally
appeal to vainglorious image-obsessed douchebags. Now, I want to pause here and point out that
not all bike messengers are like this.
Go to New York City sometime and check out the full spectrum of
messengers. A fair number of them are
just a step above homelessness and ride really crappy department store bikes
worth less than the lock they’re secured with.
I saw one poor dude who had to make do with a girl’s model. Not all messengers are narcissistic curators
of their self-important self-image.
I realize I’m getting into slippery territory here … if I
don’t like fixie-riding hipsters and the lycra-kitted bike dorks on $5,000 carbon-wheeled
track bikes who weirdly seek to emulate them, shouldn’t I want to watch videos of them crashing at high speed? Fair point.
In fact, when I watch that first video, I can’t help but be annoyed that it’s not edited more tightly. Check out this video here and you really appreciate the impressive capabilities of modern video-editing
software. Why does this albeit
spectacular bike crash video run for a full 43 seconds, when all the worthwhile
action is over after the first 11?
Meanwhile, the auteur obviously isn’t a bike racer himself because he
fails to pan correctly and we miss part of the crash. About 6 seconds in, you can hear the telltale
sound of a riding going down, just out of the frame, but the cameraman doesn’t
react. It’s a good thing more guys
stacked into the first guy, or we’d have missed the whole thing!
So yeah, there’s a part of me that says we should promote,
and indeed enhance, this version of the sport.
What I’d really like to see is one corner without fencing, where they
periodically allow spectators to blast racers with a fire hose. Wouldn’t that be spectacular? Or once in a while they splash oil across a
corner. Of course, the spectators shouldn’t
be off the hook here … they need to get involved in the carnage as well. Why not get a booze sponsor involved, and
create a drinking game for the spectators?
Every time there’s a crash, everybody has to do a shot. When some bozo gets sufficiently drunk, a
course marshal opens the fencing and pushes him out into the street where he
wobbles around a bit until a rider slams into him. Now we’re talking!
But that’s not actually where this Red Hook series is
heading. Naturally, as it grows and attracts
money, it becomes more mainstream, despite what the director would have you
believe. According to this article, “Trimble, who first organized the race in 2008 as a celebration of his
birthday, said he consciously tries to balance the race’s grassroots feel with
its growing popularity. ‘As for people
saying the atmosphere is getting more mainstream, it’s not like we have a bank
sponsor,’ Trimble said. ‘It’s gotten bigger but believe me, it’s grassroots.’”
Okay, first of all, what kind of self-absorbed dickwad
orchestrates his own birthday celebration?
Second, his “bank sponsor” comment is obviously bullshit given the event’s
current “six-figure sponsorship portfolio.”
If Rabobank or Citibank offered shitstacks of money to grow the event, Trimble
would accept it in a heartbeat. And
“grassroots” generally refers to an idealistic campaign to change society in
some useful way. How is a bike race
designed for maximum crashes achieving that?
The biggest problem
with Red Hook
Imagine if, after you watched that first crash video a dozen or so times, and forwarded it to
all your pals, somebody told you, “Hey, you know that second guy who went over
the fence? He ended up a
quadriplegic!” Suddenly this wouldn’t
seem like such fun, would it? And racers
do get maimed. As described here, a 15-year-old Red Hook participant had a terrible crash, was unconscious in
the hospital for two weeks, and had to have “his face rebuilt with 23 screws
and numerous metal plates.”
Yeah, I know, crashes do happen in traditional bike races,
but not nearly as often since racers are allowed to use proper (i.e., road)
bikes. When you watch a normal
criterium, the compelling spectacle isn’t how many riders crash, but how many
don’t. Go watch the Nevada City Classic criterium
sometime, and watch how expertly the racers carve the sharp downhill
corner. I wouldn’t take my family to
watch this race if I thought it made cycling look dangerous ... I mean, why
would I, when I’m trying to encourage my daughter to race, and my wife to let
her? A real criterium, where riders can
modulate their speed and keep that inside pedal up through the corners,
demonstrates how safe cycling can be, even at high speed.
The Red Hook series, on the other hand, gives newcomers to
the sport some cheap thrills while painting a picture of cyclists as total
madmen. Comments on the Red Hook crash compilation video include innocent questions, e.g., “are these bikes designed for racing?” and
“why do they race at night?” along with typical inane comments, e.g., “Brooklyn
girls be super ugly!!!” and “Y you crash bitch you only doing 5mph on the
stupid turn.” Clearly these are not cycling aficionados.
Is it just me, or is there a fundamental hypocrisy in play
when an event that calls itself “grassroots” actually undermines the idea that
cycling can be a safe, responsible activity?
As a person who wishes lots more people rode bikes instead of ensconcing
themselves in giant SUVs, I think watching a bike race should make people want
to ride bikes, not shudder and say, “Those dudes are crazy!”
And speaking of those dudes, I think it’s pretty disgusting
that they’re willing to be led around by their egos and seduced into riding a
brakeless bike, at night, in thrall to big crowds. I’m reminded of Olympic women volleyball
players who, for years, complied with the rule that they had to wear
bikinis. According to this article, one top player candidly acknowledged the
mentality behind this: “‘The people who
own the sport [the Fédération Internationale de Volleyball] want it to be
sexy,’ Johns told the Sunday Times. ‘I used to play in shorts and a T-shirt and
was reluctant to change. But if it gets volleyball attention, so be it.’” I can imagine a very similar quote from a Red
Hooker: “I used to ride a road bike so I
could brake and coast through turns, but the race organizers want it to be
dangerous.
My road rash really hurts but if it gets cycling attention, so be it.”
Does cycling need this
kind of attention?
Ultimately, to enjoy watching the true sport of bicycle
racing requires some sophistication. The
sport isn’t for everybody, and that’s totally fine. Other spectator sports are subtle, too. Think of baseball, with its bizarre tapestry
of strange rules, secret signals between players, and so forth … would it
benefit from a big dose of lowbrow, brute spectacle, like if after three balls
the pitcher was allowed to throw the next ball right at the batter with full
force? Or if the outfield were studded
with landmines?
Celebrating the crowd-pleasing savagery of the Red Hook
series seems pretty pointless. Does
cycling really need to grow as a spectator sport? I’d argue no.
What’s wrong with a sophisticated and elite—albeit somewhat rare—fan,
who responds to drama, and suffering, and tactical savvy, rather than mere
bloodshed? And even if you do want the
sport to attract more spectators, I doubt the Red Hook freak show is going to win over any true
fans—just a bunch of looky-loos who’ll eventually get bored and wander off to
go find a cockfight, or dogfight, or political rally. I myself have a limited appetite for bike crash
videos … sure, I had a little fun here, but I can’t picture myself engaging in
this coarse activity for long.
I say we treat the Red Hook races the same way we treat the
hipsters, with their ugly piercings, hackneyed tattoos, skinny jeans, and
fixies: that is, ignore them, and hope
they just go away.
--~--~--~--~--~--~--~---~--
The enjoyment of crashes of all types, in all sports and endeavors has long impressed me as an example of the ancient barbaric origins of humanity.
ReplyDeleteWho knows? Perhaps Trimble can be persuaded to spend some of his substantial budget on building proper velodromes where fixed gear racing can flourish safely.
Many of the people watch crits and circuit races not for the tactics or the actual racing, but for the excitement of a whole bunch of bikes wooshing by, which is the limit of their attention span. When the pack passes, its party time until the pack comes around again. And if there are crashes, its an added bonus not unlike seeing one in nascar.
ReplyDeleteIt is probably the same reason hockey and basketball changed from a skill and agility sport to violent checks and contacts once it comes to the US, and with hockey, they let the players fight uninterrupted until the ref thinks they had enough.
I think if they want to make it fair, they should allow any type of bikes, whether it is track pursuit specialist with their pursuit track bikes, crit specialist with their crit bikes, or any other type of bikes that those rider or specialists think they could do better with. There is no reason to limit it to fixed gear track bikes, they mind as well specify BMX bike for no reason but to see people pedal at 200rpm.
ReplyDeleteAlso, these 'American' sports seems to be more about the spectator, such as football, where the players' endurance doesn't have to last more than 10 seconds, or get constantly switched out. Versus the non American sports like cycling or soccer where its about the athletes, where they have to keep going, non-stop, but requires fans that has attention span of more than a few seconds.
I like the special equipment, special context aspect of the RHC. After all, that's kind of the point of ANY game or sport: the rules. I also like the thought that it's something some of my friends can race in, and that, with a little dedication, I might have participated in it myself. I like that it is unequivocally daring. Meanwhile, I agree; cycling does not need this kind of attention. But in a way, I think that its existence is not entirely unhealthy. It sort of organizes exposure to the risks and injuries (highlighting the fact that it's not cycling itself, but the manner and circumstances of the ride that may be dangerous) and serves as an outlet for daredevil tendencies.
ReplyDelete