Are Bike Kitchens Elitist by Choice?

Ever since we launched the Social Bike Business program I’ve been attracted to bike kitchens. It’s hard to imagine a better sort of place than these comfortable spaces where young people gather around the shared goal of repairing bicycles. But something always bothers me whenever I visit one.

For those not familiar with bike kitchens, the concept started in Los Angeles in the early 2000s when an eco-village turned an old kitchen into a shared bike repair area. This repair space was stocked with collectively owned tools and managed by volunteers who offered hands-off suggestions on repairs so that visitors would learn bike repair themselves. Word spread quickly about this cool concept and now, just over a decade later, you’d be hard pressed to find a large city in either the U.S. or Europe without something called a “bike kitchen.” Bike co-ops and collectives often follow a bike kitchen model.

I believe that most bike kitchens share many of the goals of Social Bike Business; that serving the bicycle needs of disadvantage people was once a top goal for them. My question in the title of this post comes from personal experience and my curiosity as to whether the shift I have noticed is intentional.

When I travel, I always buy a used bike to ride during my stay. If the bike I buy needs a specialty bike tool and there is a bike kitchen in that city, I go there first, usually to find it closed or that day set aside for particular sorts of people I wouldn’t describe myself as.

Even though bike kitchens haven’t been available when I’ve needed them, I often like to drop by before I leave their city to see what they do, hang out with fun bike folks, and even help out if they need me. I’ve enjoyed many a fun evening at bike kitchens.

What bothers me is that I rarely see impoverished people at bike kitchens. I also don’t see middle-aged or elderly people nor do I see people of different cultures or even types of cycling. The vast majority have been young people with plenty of income and time to spare, not the faces of the stress and oppression of poverty.

Something is keeping disadvantaged people away from the bike kitchens I’ve visited. The random hours and designated days for certain types of people would be a bit tough to figure out, but not impossible, especially if you’re desperate to get your bike fixed affordably. It could be the hands off, learn-by-experience principle—poverty is not just a lack of money, it is a lack of time as well. When a low-paying job steals your whole day and all your energy, it’s all you can do to get home and enjoy a few hours with your family before bedtime. You don’t have time to learn bike repair by trial and error.

Bike kitchens are fun. They have helped many a young person become a confident cyclist and often find a career with bicycles. This is very important for the growth of the bike culture in the U.S. and Europe.

Should I even worry that bike kitchens seem to have become elitist? Should they? Perhaps this elitism is deliberate as each group of volunteers realizes their limitations and focuses on helping people like themselves. Focusing limited resources is a good thing. Still, I can’t help wondering whether or not this is what most bike kitchens intend. Please offer your thoughts in the comments section.

“Invisible Riders,” a Timeless Article

Every so often we are fortunate enough to discover a piece of writing that becomes part of us, that continues to contribute to our view of the world. An article originally published back in 2005 in Bicycling Magazine called “Invisible Riders” is one such gem for me. I still draw inspiration and perspective from it as I work to overcome misconceptions about people who depend on their bike every day.

The article is a surprise, not only because it was the first and last of its kind to be published in a bicycle-enthusiasts’ magazine (that I know of...please send links to others if I’m wrong!), but because the author himself had set out to write a completely different article. His subjects for the article are day laborers in Los Angeles, California. Most are illegal immigrants from Mexico and were a bit nervous about taking part.

Most fascinating to me is not what the bicyclists told the reporter, but how the reporter changed as he wrote the article. Before he started, he envisioned an article about changing some of these riders into bike racers and enthusiasts. What he ended up writing was far more profound to him and his readers. We often do not even see these, the most prevalent sort of bicyclists in our cities, and because of this, transportation policies, bike shops, and even bicycle programs often don’t even consider accommodating their needs.

When I taught a university course on social change through bicycles, I made this article one of the required reading assignments. It always caused lively discussions with my students. Some even referred to it well after the course was over as we discussed their plans with bicycles for the future. It truly is a timeless piece and I’m glad to bring it back through this blog post.

Give the article a read. It’s only five pages long. My guess is that you will be as captivated by the reporter’s personal story as I continue to be.

Melting Scrap Aluminum for Bike Shift Levers

Tuesday was my second day using the flower pot furnace to melt all sorts of scrap aluminum in preparation for producing our Bike Shift Levers. These bike shift levers have only six parts and are designed for the needs of people who rely on their bikes every day. Two of the parts need to be cast from scrap aluminum so these shifters can be made anywhere in the world, even places without electricity.

We're still waiting for a machinist to make the first permanent mold, but in the meantime I get to learn all about melting this lovely stuff.

Here's my latest set up for the furnace. I started with a hand pump which worked great, but as a one gal operation I had a hard time keeping the air flow going and feeding the crucible with scrap. The hairdryer was magic!

This was the batch of window frames and other channel aluminum donated by one of my tennis buddies. I also did a batch of just bike parts, mostly cast. You should have seen the crank arms disappear! They were like ice melting in hot water, except the water is this gorgeous silver liquid, mmmmm....

Here's a shot of the crucible full of that silvery liquid and ready to pour.

And here's one of the batches poured into a cupcake pan to make ingots. I did four batches like this in three hours. The other two batches were a mix of lighting fixtures, cookware and other aluminum odds and ends. My earlier batch was all cans. I marked each ingot with its basic content so I can mix thin material with thick to increase the quality when I pour them into the mold. Each of these ingots contains enough aluminum for two shift levers when I remelt them.

I don't have to make ingots first, but it's a great way to learn the furnace, reduce the massive scrap pile I've accumulated and have fun with this mesmerizing stuff.

Stay tuned because I should have our mold later this spring and get to post photos of our first shift levers.

The Danger of Fiscal Sponsorship

I am stunned by the number of organizations I encounter that operate under the umbrella of another organization. Beware! This arrangement will strip your branding and will leave you at square one to restart your organization if you ever do break free. This excerpt from page 39 of Defying Poverty with Bicycles shows why you should avoid fiscal sponsorship:

“...In the U.S. and some other countries, the leaders of a new organization can choose to avoid incorporating by asking an incorporated nonprofit to become their ‘fiscal sponsor.’ This can look very enticing to new leaders who are already overwhelmed by all the tasks required to found an organization.

But don’t be deceived! Fiscal sponsorship becomes a cozy arrangement that is very difficult to escape. The most harmful problem with fiscal sponsorship is that the ‘mother’ organization must be mentioned in all communications. Also, all checks and credit card payments that go to your organization must be made payable to the mother organization, not yours. This means that all of your donors, grantors and customers will relate their experience with your program to the fiscal sponsor. If you and your fellow leaders eventually manage to break free of this fiscal sponsorship (and that’s a big if), none of these important people will have any connection to your organization. In other words, once you break free and incorporate your organization independently, it will be as if you are starting from day number one.

The other danger of fiscal sponsorship is that the fiscal sponsor, or mother organization, does all the administrative work, including taking the credit for your organization, and simply charges a fee such as ten percent of all income that comes to your organization. This is of course fair because otherwise an established nonprofit could not justify taking on the burden of being a fiscal sponsor. Also, because of the high level of responsibility they have for your organization, you and your team will have to hand over some leadership of your organization to them.

Once you and your team have settled into this arrangement, most of you will be tempted to remain there in order to avoid the responsibility of learning how to do tax returns and sending reports to your funders. I know of some nonprofits that have operated under fiscal sponsorship for more than a decade and I can easily bet they will never break free. They will also remain small—the ones I know of are either run by volunteers or have just one, underpaid staff member.

The most important danger of fiscal sponsorship in regards to Social Bike Business is that it will not allow the full implementation of the program. No fiscal sponsor would take on the responsibility and administration of such a complex program. Then consider that everything that includes the name of your organization must also show the name of the fiscal sponsor in order to give full disclosure. Imagine the sign you’ll hang on the front of your bicycle community center... with two names. Imagine your brochures, business cards and custom price tags, all with two names of the organizations that run the program. Would you shop at a place with such a suspicious dual personality?

My recommendation regarding fiscal sponsorship is: Don’t do it! And if you’ve unfortunately slipped into this cozy yet dangerous situation: Get out as soon as you can!”

Do We Need a Third Bike Industry?

Even the most casual observer will recognize two distinct bike industries: one enticing with the latest and greatest, the other enticing with the lowest prices. The first is the one I featured in my December post, Planned Obsolescence in the Bike Industry. This is the bike industry that has most blatantly forgotten people who live in or near poverty. Their obsession with high-tech, high-priced, fragile, disposable bikes and parts has segregated bicycling from the vast majority of the world’s inhabitants.

The other bike industry does not consider itself a bike industry. These mass merchants make and sell appliances, yard equipment, plastic swimming pools, exercise equipment, electronics and toys right alongside their bikes. In fact, if you want to find a bike in one of their stores, check the toy aisle. Their bikes and parts are just as fragile and disposable as those from the other bike industry. The main difference, besides missing those few months of noteworthy performance before they break, is the price. While I have to say this second, mass merchant bike industry does indeed recognize low-income patrons as their main customers, all they care about is wresting those few dollars from their wallets. Providing bicycles and parts designed for their needs isn’t part of their equation.

When I first began discussing Social Bike Business with our founding board, we assumed that every element would eventually become part of the first bike industry I describe above. Social bike shops would simply be another sort of niche shop along with those serving road racers or mountain bikers or triathletes. Social bike business career training programs would welcome those aspiring to serve high-end riders right along with those wanting to serve their low-income neighbors. The bikes and parts designed and manufactured through the program would be sold alongside the fragile jewelry-like parts in wholesale catalogs and bike shops.

I’m still holding out for this vision. Our Bike Shift Lever will hopefully be the first of many such bike parts to find its place in these channels.

Even so, as I watch this first bike industry veer even farther into elitism I have to wonder if a third bike industry is needed or would even work. A social bike industry focused entirely on the needs of impoverished customers would require its own channels just as the other two bike industries have created for their products. At first this seems a gargantuan task until we look at other socially designed productions such as for irrigation, medical supplies, wheelchairs and drinking water. Even some of the social bike programs in place have created their own supply channels already, out of necessity. Connecting a few dots with like-minded partners would result in local manufacturing and supply channels that would reach most areas of the world.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Should we give up on our wayward bike industry and focus on partners who truly want to serve the 80% of the world’s population living in or near poverty? Is our time better spent working with people who already have these ideals or trying to convince those in the established bike industry to add this new customer base along with products that serve their needs? In other words, do we need a third bike industry?

Handouts for Rich and Poor

This video takes on many of the uncomfortable reactions toward poverty programs such as free food, monetary assistance and other handouts. Interestingly, it shows completely opposite reactions when massive corporations receive handouts many times larger than those going to struggling people. The complete lack of any stigma over corporate handouts is very disturbing.

While social bike business programs are not at all about handouts, I still find it an important discussion because social businesses are not yet understood to be different from these programs. We often have to face similar, though misguided reactions from people tired of charity handouts.

Unfortunately, the video doesn't move much past revealing this disturbing situation. Take a look, see what you think and if you have further thoughts please offer them in the comments section.

The Contest Trap

Contests and competitions for social business ventures seem to be multiplying along with fast-pitch TV shows like Cupcake Wars, Shark Tank and American Idol here in the U.S. After an arduous application process, entrepreneurs tap dance a lightning-fast show for a panel of judges who declare whether they move on or lose. Over one hundred social venture contests serving North America are listed here. Hundreds more serve other continents. Each offers tantalizing funding and support to captivate any social entrepreneur with visions of a triumphant win. The numbers prove their effective marketing. Each boasts thousands of applicants each year.

These contests used to not bother me. The few I’ve investigated did not warrant the amount of work compared to the potential of winning; easy enough to ignore. But troubling accounts from contestants keep coming my way, many from social bike business ventures. Most tell of months of work only to be rejected. Others tell of hopeful climbs to the brink of winning, including time-consuming and expensive trips to pitch their idea again and again, only to be dropped from the final group.

The worst stories come from young entrepreneurs in developing countries who have stopped their work in order to join the “contest circuit.” Such entrepreneurs fit the profile of the ideal contestant and because they have a good chance of winning, find that their time spent generally nets a good income. The problem is they have no time left for their projects.

These contests bring all the disturbing elements of most charitable grant proposals including arduous application processes, unwieldy demands from the funders, disrespectful communication barricades, and cold rejections. On top of all this, they add this song and dance element.

This audition process is absolutely appropriate for Hollywood roles, American Idol and pitching nonessential products. Such industries depend on talent to increase sales. Like any for-profit venture, the bottom line requires that mediocre stars be jettisoned. This is sad for these talented folks, but such industries can only handle so many stars. There is no comparison to the flood of talent we need to combat poverty and suffering.

This win/lose game is no way to treat social entrepreneurs who have pledged their lives to helping our world. Rejection takes a heavy toll on passionate people and sends many away from the sector forever. There are too many problems yet to solve for us to rely on the most talented at pitching a project. Shy, awkward and introspective social entrepreneurs are just as likely to make an impact as those with an appealing stage presence.

The movie Moneyball offers some inspiration. It tells how the Oakland As baseball team shook the scouting world one season when they skipped over the most talented players and spent their budget instead on mediocre players. Each of these players had a particular gift that complimented the team as a whole. Their investment paid off and other teams soon followed.

Social business holds a far more important role than entertainment, cupcake sales or sports. Instead of punishing many thousands of social entrepreneurs each year or worse, distracting them away from their good work with promises of stardom, we need to reshape our support systems. We need to value the special gifts of every committed social entrepreneur and help them find their best role within the tremendous efforts ahead.

With so few social bike businesses underway, none of us can afford the distraction of such time-wasters. Have you taken part in a social venture contest? What was your experience like? Do you have ideas for creating a better system that offers assistance without disgrace? Even gentle ways of redirecting this contest fervor could go a long way. Please leave any comments that spring to mind.