I am, naturally, sad. Sad for Parisians. Sad for the officials who looked after the building. Sad for the history lost.This beautiful structure survived through countless wars and changes in regimes. It is an extraordinary feat of architecture to have survived for as long as it has and thus a testament to the people who built it so many generations ago. It is also woven into the cultural fabric of French identity.
The flames had barely gone out and millionaires were already pledging hundreds of thousands for its restoration. It was the financial equivalent of thoughts and prayers or facebook profile picture filters.
Never mind how the church who owns (runs?) Notre Dame is one of the richest institutions on earth.
Where are the pledges of millionaires to end world hunger? If they had this expendable cash to throw at a building (which, again, did not need it), then they definitely have enough to help feed thousands of people or house countless more.
One might say the financial priorities of our world are wickedly askew.
Now, let's localise the scale a bit more to Newfoundland and Labrador, and everybody's favourite scandal du jour for this week. The Fence.
It went up, and then it came down. Taxpayer dollars were spent on a cedar fence -- which actually might have looked quite nice under any other circumstances -- and people didn't like it. The messaging was mixed depending on who spoke for Parks Canada on the issue, but the theme seemed to be trying to formalise a barrier between the road and performances in the valley.
Is the fence overkill? Sure. Signage and staff might have achieved the exact same goal. It apparently cost 65k. You could almost build a house for that much. But, if you ask me, the response was also heavy-handed and really speaks to what priorities we hold dear to our hearts.
After Rick Mercer's tweet (because, of course) on the 16th, the retribution was swift. By 6 a.m. on the 18th, a whole lot of cedar was being shipped off of signal hill.
An aside for this is that the blocked "view" is accessible almost literally anywhere else on this national historic site. Apparently people seeing The Tattoo historical recreation as well as Shakespeare By The Sea productions for free was a real issue. But to feel so collectively offended about something which was, at its worst, a minor inconvenience, is privileged.
This is a position I'll stand by.
Imagine if the people of St. John's just took half of their collective outrage and influence and applied it to issues like homelessness. Or climate change, as some people joked. Newfoundland and Labrador would be a helluva place to live.
Relating this back to the millionaires of Notre Dame, I certainly concede that the solutions to our social issues are harder to tackle than simply taking down some wood shortly after putting it up. It takes a lot of time and money that people don't necessarily have an abundance of.
Let me tell you a story in closing, though.
A couple weeks ago I was downtown walking my dog. A woman and her two daughters stopped and asked to pet him. We were on Water St and they were carrying bags of Subway soup. We made some small talk, and the woman told me she takes her daughters down whenever she can and they buy food for the homeless of the street. She's a single mother, she said, who can't afford $5 for every person she passes every day. But she does what she can, when she can.
Imagine for a moment if we shifted our priories from monuments and views, and turned them instead to social issues. What if companies invested less in hostile architecture and instead put the money into community shelters. The world would be a better place. And the most important word here is collective. No one person should be shouldered with solving everyone's problems. We're not all millionaires with oodles of time cash and time, but if there are enough of us pooling our resources then suddenly $10 between 10 people becomes $100. Twenty people providing an hour of volunteer time becomes 20 hours. The fence issue proves we're more than capable of coming together and solving problems, so let's send that in the right direction.
When people make a counter-argument to protected bike lanes or designated trails which are separated from roads, who are they thinking about? I don't know what image is in their head, but rhetoric seems to suggest dangerous riders zipping around corners with little to no regard for who may be out of sight. Perhaps downhill races come to mind, or a Tour De France peloton. Are those dangerous riders... predominantly male?
Let's take a moment and think about this logically, though: Who the St. John's bike lanes (and all truly-effective bike infrastructure) is actually for.
My sister and her son riding on the well-used bike trail in Corner Brook
The vulnerable road user. Yes, arguably all bike riders are vulnerable users. So are runners. Walkers. Babies in their strollers on the sidewalks. With cars being stuffed with more internal safety features and computerised gizmos subject to the same flaws of laptop mixed with high rates of "efficient" speed. Motorised vehicles are heavy, and fast. Basic physics make them deadly under the wrong circumstances. Everyone close to a road without a barrier is at risk, but we don't think about it very often.
Close proximity also means a prevalence of verbal abuse.
Designated lanes are good. Separated lanes are better. Physical safety is important, but there's something else at play. Socio-economic dynamics must also be kept in mind. As I've said previously, poor riding etiquette is a symptom of bad infrastructure. So-too are bad attitudes from car drivers personified in the form of harassment -- in particular, sexual harassment for women who ride.
I always think of this blog post from my dear friend Daniel Fuller. Following MUN Gazette and CBC Radio interviews about Bikemaps.org, Daniel received a message. He shared it with her permission. You can read it here.
In it, this person recounts commuter-riding as a woman. She talks about having an ashtray emptied in her face -- horrifying on its own, but made worse in the context of even more abhorrent behaviour. An important excerpt:
"...What has really affected me cycling has been the cat calling and comments about my body. The young men hanging out their window to take a picture of my spandex clad behind. The yelling about what they would do if I agreed to “ride” them. I have never experienced the harassment in all my years of running and cycling as i did this past summer. These experiences make me choose a different route, change my cycling gear and make me not want to ride. I know your research is in making cycling safe and I love the idea of separate bike lanes, and I use the bike lanes all the time and I hope to see more. But safety is both physical and emotional."
Distance and recreational riders will stick to the roads anyways because these routes provide the optimum conditions for endurance and speed training. These are athletes and triathletes who hope to compete, either locally, inter-provincially or on global stages. They deserve the right to do so. Safely.
Meanwhile if you look at the Bike Master Plan in its whole, the veins connect schools, government buildings, post-secondary institutions, malls and downtown shopping centres. These are places of education and employment and people can get to them with minimal proximity to motorised vehicles. MAMILs (Middle Aged Men in Lycra) or other athletes and enthusiasts aren't racing one another to these hubs. What they may do is ride on evenings in autumn when it's too dark to road ride and fat-bike season is just around the corner. During this time casual walkers are less likely to be out in droves and only the most hardcore runners will be out.
So, I'd posit the following: We're not building trails for fast riders. These will be transportation networks for those who need it, and want to do it safely.
A good indicator of proper bike conditions is how many women are riding. Here's a good article to read on the subject -- Basically, women don't ride because it is dangerous to do so. In fact, when you improve or build anything with women in mind, everyone benefits. The concept is called "Gender Mainstreaming" (more on the idea, here). A quote, below:
"Women used public transit more often and made more trips on foot than men. They were also more likely to split their time between work and family commitments like taking care of children and elderly parents. Recognizing this, city planners drafted a plan to improve pedestrian mobility and access to public transit.
Let's set aside for a quick moment the idea of women as primary caretakers, homemakers, and other outdated and sexist notions. That's a conversation for another blog post. Essentially, Gender Mainstreaming recognises that women see problems men simply don't (not an unusual notion / I can't wait to read this book). This includes transportation.
Imagine: Implementing a gender-based lens to responsible development of transportation infrastructure keeping health and environmental outcomes in mind. More families bicycle-commuting to school, workplaces, and back again at the end of the day. Ditching a van in favour of a healthy alternative. Cars don't burn many calories. To make it safe for people who choose to bike either alone or as a family is to encourage an active lifestyle in one of the country's most chronically unhealthy provinces. Bicycles are also ideal forms of transportation for middle-to-low income earners like part time working students or new Canadians. For these folks, a bus pass might not be in the books -- unless subsidised by their school -- let alone a car. For those who might have cars, parking fees add up. With the one-time cost of a single bicycle + bike lock they can achieve the same transportation goals. Maintenance costs much less by hundreds and parking is free.
Now, some men might read this and think "What about me!?", and it's exactly what I'm going for.
It's quite simple. If radical and effective change to bike-safe infrastructure (or any transportation at all) benefits women, then men, families, and low-income peoples will benefit.
If we consider protecting the women on roadways by increasing advocacy and awareness, hopefully discouraging any form of harassment, then everyone who continues to ride on the road will benefit.
"Dangerous" riding could still happen. I won't pretend otherwise. But, these trails are being made to create safe infrastructure and encourage new riders. If all they know starting out is an equitable environment, then they'll travel accordingly.
The benefits for everyone far outweigh the potential concerns, here. Let's get to work on progress.
Sound extreme? Ok. Sure. However, the new One-Metre (or Ellen's Law) rules currently in effect across the Atlantic Canadian provinces throughout the last three years was inspired by the tragic death of athlete Ellen Watters while she was on a training ride. In New Brunswick it was implemented quickly and efficiently, but too late for Ellen. This rule should have been in place long before she pedalled out of her driveway. Years beforehand.
Other provinces have followed-suit. Now a passing width of 1 to 1.5 metres is law in PEI, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland And Labrador. Great.
These are the cases making it to media. I myself was struck by an SUV in July 2017. Any person who rides a bike can tell you of near-daily, weekly, monthly, yearly incidents. It's an unacceptable part of riding in a car-culture. You'd think if people were in constant mortal danger, something would be done about it. And yet...
Let's not forget: Bike Riders have had a right to safe passage on the road for a very long time. Before cars, even. I'll never forget this thread from Kirsten Morry, which is worth reading (and a good resource for the actual laws governing road access)
Very short story: I was paused on my bicycle at a red light on Freshwater Road when a driver pulled up next to me, rolled down his window, and said “If you can’t keep up with the speed of traffic, you’re not allowed to be on the road.” Utterly untrue!
Meanwhile, bike riders aren't asking for much in order to save their lives. Slower speeds, more room, patience and respect, as well as maybe some protected lanes and trails in order to take out the guesswork. Considering car drivers are regularly killing other car drivers or pedestrians, this seems like a good move in general -- I'm not going to link to a news story here 'cause, frankly, a quick google can reveal myriad sad examples.
I won't say we're necessarily always getting half-measures, but bike riders are used to asking for a ruler while getting an inch. In some Newfoundland and Labrador communities, they're still being asked to prove their numbers in order to justify safe infrastructure or trails. This ignores a very old adage: "If you build it, they will come". Many people don't ride because they feel unsafe, and shouldn't have to go out of their way to prove their worth.
The counter-points are like broken records. "Cyclists should be licensed if they're on the roads" (a possibility they entertained in Charlottetown), "Cyclists are always breaking rules of the road", "Cyclists don't pay taxes for the roads". So-too are the facts: There isn't a direct line between car-related fees and road maintenance. It is largely paid for by municipal and provincial budgets collected through property taxes and general taxes. Most bicycle riders are home owners, and many of them own cars anyways. In fact, if you look at the prevalent MAMILs (Middle Aged Men In Lycra) who presumably piss off car drivers the most, they are high-earning parents of families who are constantly contributing to the local economy through income-tax, sales tax and more.
Ignoring the MAMIL's, these sorts of policies also affect low-income people who can't afford a car or constant bus fare. Making a bike-safe city will improve transportation for these folks when it comes to gainful employment and overall quality of life. It is also proven that good bicycle infrastructure helps the economy.
The notion of registration ignores the real issue: Unsafe infrastructure. Law breaking bike riders are symptoms of poor conditions where they're left with no choice. The solution is an integrated network of bike lanes (not just “share the road” signs), painted or separated, along a designated and efficient route allowing people to commute, or get out of town for recreational rides, safely. Some avenues can share the road, while others can take people along connecting paths. Good paths are the ones where kids can ride without fear.
Let's also not forget how car drivers quite regularly break all the rules to which they must abide in order to operate their multi-tonne death machines. The difference is when a person illegally operates a motorised vehicle, they are putting other lives at risk. When a bike rider breaks the rules, they are only risking their own lives. It's the difference between a dent on the hood of an SUV versus broken bones, or mortal wounds.
Which brings me to the St. John's Bike Master Plan, and where I fuckin' snapped. A couple of weeks ago, St. John's City Council released a comprehensive and detailed map (pun intended) for their intentions to make one of North America's oldest cities more bike-friendly. Naturally the pundits are out in full-force. Most recently, this Telegram letter to the editor lambastes council for poor public engagement to develop the plan. The author says the plan is too pro-cycling. Then there's this editorial, also from The Telegram, which generally goes down the same road (pun also intended). For those without the time to read either, folks are unhappy with the idea of taking public trails which already exist and making them bike friendly. They cite a loss of natural beauty and also claim many close-calls with bike riders who already use these trails, albeit illegally. The latter point is a fair criticism, but let's again remember: If we banned all road users because of a few foolish operators, there would be no cars in our roadways. And, natural beauty? If this was a real barrier, then the paths wouldn't exist already.
So, car drivers don't want bicycle riders on their roadways because slowing down and waiting to safely pass takes too long. Trail users reject bicycle riders because they are afraid of losing the status quo and, as with car drivers, refer to poor manners. For every little bit of progress towards safe, equitable transpiration, bike riders need to justify themselves to... everyone. The concerns of other trail users are indeed valid and should be taken into consideration. It means bike riders who do use the trails will hold themselves, and each other, accountable to good trail etiquette. But, to opine that these trails will become a bicycle highway is simply fearmongering. Those who ride on roads will continue to do so protected by the One-Metre rule. Shared pathways will open up an opportunity for new bicycle users to safely traverse the city, and they'll likely be polite to a fault. If not? Fine them.
Frankly, the "lack of public engagement" argument doesn't hold water any more. Counter-points to safe bike riding are well documented with each close call, life-altering collision, or death. A time for discussion is, honestly, over. People are defending their convenience against the lives of others -- because, indeed, they think of bicycle riders as "others". However, the benefits of bicycles to health, congestion, the environment and the economy are all so well documented. There is no more time to half-ass solutions for minority commuters and recreational bike riders because, frankly, they're going to do it anyways. The difference is whether they are going to do it safely, with the help of policy-makers and politicians, or not.
There's no longer any room for the CBC comments section on this issue. No more time to put up with anonymous threats. People are entitled to their opinions and editorials can print as many decisive sober-second-thoughts as they like, but change must take place, unequivocally, now.
Bike riders do not deserve to die for their choice to ride a bicycle. These are not "others" rolling around on two wheels. They are someone's child, no matter how old. They're parents, sisters, brothers, and friends. Safe pathways and trails need to be built for their sake. Not just in St. John's -- who are making great strides -- but everywhere. End of discussion.
"Newfoundland and Labrador retains the right to proofread and approve all social media, general media and fiction output from visitors. Thank you for bringing your money, but please leave your opinions at the door and double check your pronunciation of Newfoundland (Think: Understand)."
Is this the disclaimer we need at the bottom of Marine Atlantic's booking sites, or incoming Air Canada flights?
Last fall, Robin Short was crucified on the altar of salt meat and potatoes when the poor man said he was tired of our image outside the province. It's a wonder he wasn't deported for attacking our proud heritage of singing and dancing in the middle of Toronto Pearson Airport. Fast-forward to last week, when Anthony Bourdain's documentary was announced to be airing. "Great" we said, "but don't call us Newfie". Oh, and then media coverage focused on Bourdain's pronunciation of Newfoundland (I know it was more cheeky than anything, but... really?). Clearly he didn't see Mindy Kaling's tweet.
So, we @ him. We tweet CNN. We're the friendliest people in Canada, but my son don't look at us sideways. Follow our rules while you visit, please. This lucky American got to meet his girlfriend on Corner Brook on Monday, and lord help him if he tweets something off-colour afterwards. It's a wonder we don't have volunteer tourism advisers following his every move. Holy moly. Are we really so serious?
I don't think Anthony Bourdain will be revisiting any time soon. If he ever did think to recommend us, I'd say that goodwill is gone b'y. This week, he had to defend the Quebecois chefs who suggested he come to the island. The same province outraged about being called 'Newfies' were ticked off with the 'frenchies' and 'frogs' who were so prominently featured. And who the hell is St. Pierre, anyways!?
Um, okay.
We're dying for cash right now. Tourism might very well be the answer, honestly. People coming in from outside the province and spending their money with us. But we're not exactly screaming "come visit!" when offside of the tourism ads, we're berating personalities for not toeing our line. Sure, Anthony has probably had negative feedback before and it won't be the last time. He visits myriad cultures and can't get it all right. But c'mon, he ate some fish and had a good time. Is this how we want to be remembered?
In the conversation about immigration, it's well documented that when people enter Canada through Newfoundland and Labrador, they move on. If they stay, they struggle to feel welcome and settle. Meanwhile, we need them. With a quickly aging population from generations who would have an average of four to five or more children -- "and THEN they came out with the pill" my Nan used to say -- we're looking at a lot of some awfully wise people leaving the workforce without anyone to replace them. But, don't take away our jobs you CFAs.
Thank you so much for the free advertisement, Come From Away on Broadway; an award-winning musical about the charitable spirits of Newfoundland and Labradorians, who invited stranded people from around the world into their homes. Never mind that Claude Elliott is allegedly unsupportive of LGBTQ people, please come visit us CFA fans! Heck, film the movie here as well -- we could use the dollars. Before you arrive, consult this informative pamphlet about the exact words you should use while you're here. Please don't stay more than two months. And finally, please visit George Street. Don't mind what happened to that guy from Aquaman.
Nothing like some good old fashioned victim blaming to drive the narrative.
I was hit in July while riding my bicycle. While no bones were broken, I sustained some big hits to my legs and lower back. Miraculously, my neck and head were saved from immediate damage. Wear your helmet, kids.
The issue was soft tissue damage, and I suffer to this day. I have been regularly attending physiotherapy since the fall -- the delay brought on by a confusing-to-navigate compensation system, with mounds of paperwork and emails circulated before I got my first appointment. Alongside these sessions, I have had to buy tools for at-home therapy, also at the expense of their insurance company. So, yup. I'm one of the people apparently raising the premiums. Most of this is paid for by my own insurance through work, and the rest is covered by their insurance -- that's how the system works. When my insurance runs out, theirs will take over. I don't see stopping any time soon, because I notice the difference when I take a "break". It hurts.
Naturally, the victims are being blamed. People are trying to cap the benefits I take advantage of to keep moving like I did before the accident.
If I could take it back, you bet I would. I wish I didn't have to check in with a physiotherapist every other week, making sure my body is healing properly over half a year after the collision.
It would be naive to think people aren't taking advantage of the system through any variation of insurance fraud. Auto repair fraud is well documented in Canada , and likely happening in NL. Every cent affects the system like a pebble in a pond. People are also likely fraudulently claiming soft-tissue damage, as well. So, yes -- this is likely driving up premiums.
Right now, taxi drivers are also having a hard time. There is seemingly no mercy for them. "Drive safer", people are telling them. But, nobody seems to be accounting for their own driving habits.
A few weekends ago, St. John's saw ten collisions in one weekend. One was fatal. There were a few drunk drivers on the roads, of course. It was an anomalous weekend, but tallies of at least three and up are not uncommon. This is excluding the multiple vehicular accidents across the province.
We blame government for not fixing the roads, or demand better signage. We say bike riders shouldn't be on the black top, or pedestrians need to wear brighter clothing. We say there needs to be more police on our highways enforcing speed limits. These are all valid observations, but missing from the conversation each and every time is personal accountability. St. John's dealerships are selling more jeeps and trucks than ever before. More people are driving in more powerful vehicles than ever before, with more potential distractions. Getting a license is laughably easy, with no check-ins after the fact until you are a senior -- and that's assuming people are licensed while they drive.
You know what would keep our rates down? Fewer cars on the road. Better driving. Slower driving. Common sense in bad weather. Paying attention to the signage currently in place. Yielding right-of-ways. Watching out for pedestrians -- not slowing down to let them jaywalk, but to follow the rules of the road and not run them down.
Basically, before we cap pain and suffering insurance for people who need it, let's collectively agree to stop hitting other road users with our massive transportation machines.
In the wake of another horrific school shooting two weeks ago, some news broke in the outdoor industry a little over a week afterwards. The connection between guns to bike brands such as Camelback, Giro, Blackburn and Bell has been discovered. Vista Outdoor is the company that owns each of these quality labels. Vista Outdoor also makes a significant amount of its money from "shooting sports", and a brand called Savage Arms. So, guns. Ammo. Other hunting accessories, which does include semi-automatic rifles, similar to the infamous AR-15.
Many good friends have shared this fact with me and asked my opinion, which is this: I will continue to shop local and buy quality brands I trust. To think my money doesn't trickle upwards in a cascading reverse waterfall that will eventually mix with the currency spent on guns and ammo is naive, absolutely. However, at the end of the day I am more focused on supporting my local businesses rather than the labels.
In between writing articles about this latest controversy, industry journalists are likely looking at every brand in their mud room and digging into the background of each one. I would theorize that many of the outdoor brands you hold dear are distantly connected to guns. Look at Rapha; One of the most boutique and respected cycling apparel brands in the world was recently sold to Wal-Mart heirs for 200 GBP. Wal-Mart also dabbles heavily in gun sales.
Obviously, folks are calling for a boycott of any brands related to Vista Outdoor. This is alongside massive conglomerates distancing themselves from the NRA and gun companies, so the prevailing thought seems to be: do the same on a local level. Your money speaks louder than words. Now is the time for action. Show them what you think. Pull these brands off shelves, don't give them your business. All valid.
But, don't be so quick to pull your dollars away from, or judge, local businesses. In fact, let's not be quick to villify the brands themselves. If you want that Camelbak bottle, then buy it. If you just bought the cool Giro helmet, don't ask for a refund or throw it in your closet. Giro research and development into the Vanquish helmet didn't make its way into some sort of aerodynamic gun. They just happen to be owned by the same parent company.
These brands are not shell companies or gun-money laundering fronts. They are bike brands. Giro sponsors the massively popular Grinduro event, while Blackburn empowers the adventures of riders around the world through the Ranger Program. You will often see prize donations from these labels at your local events. Bell is a helmet company that, alongside Giro, is leading the way for industry helmet safety standards. These initiatives are more reflective of where your money really goes.
The people who represent and work for these brands are definitely feeling the pressure right now, and conflating the work they believe in with death and destruction is an unfair accusation. They just want to get people on bike trails, or keep people safe and hydrated. This article, shared by a good friend, says it quite well: "We've got these brands people have loved — and they are very, very good brands; they just happened to have been acquired by this company," Chandler said. "Unfortunately, it is their employees, who are our close associates and friends, who would suffer more than the wealthy, socially irresponsible parent company." It continues, "Small retail businesses are fighting as it is to stay afloat because of the threats of internet sales," he said. "Something like this — while not the nail in the coffin — doesn't help."
On the front lines it is unreasonable to expect your local shops to bear the brunt of this issue and pull everything off the wall. In many shops, these will result in bare walls... and then, what? The stock you see at your local level does not belong to the company any more. If your local store doesn't sell it, then Savage Arms (the gun company at issue here) are not the ones on the line financially. They won't even feel it. Your local shop will. When this blows over ('cause it will), and your local retailer puts the old stock back up, it will be harder to sell. The cool new thing will be out, and you'll want to buy that instead.
Of course, I applaud any business who may take such a stand. It's their choice to make. What I am saying is, any attempt to hold your money hostage until local shops meet your ethical demands is in itself an unethical course of action.
Okay, sure. The notion that tight financial returns will send a louder message to these companies isn't wrong. I would argue, however, that emailing, phone calls and social media callouts to the parent company are ultimately more effective in this day and age. Again, orders have already been made and the money has already changed hands. What you see in store has been paid for.
In light of this, it's disappointing to see Mountain Equipment Co-Op waffling on the issue. Why the double standard towards them? Well, they're worth several hundred thousand more to these companies, and Vista Outdoor. They are not pulling the associated brands from shelves, but selling them through and suspending upcoming orders. So, they're still going to make money, then turn around and spend less. It may send a loud message, but the brands and their employees will now take a stronger hit for the transgressions of their distant cousin.
This is especially interesting in light of the fact that Mountain Equipment Co-Op continues to carry Black Diamond. The Black Diamond brand is owned by Clarus (formerly Black Diamond Inc.), which acquired Sierra Bullets in August of 2017. I only address this because, let's be honest, your vitriol with Vista Outdoor's brands is based on the issue-du-jour. Such quick actions will only affect the neighbors who run your local shops. Savage Arms won't fold because you didn't buy a hydration pack.
Raise your voice where you feel it is needed, but be wary of who your bandwagon hopping will directly affect. It very well may result in some irreversible collateral damage.
I've decided to ride 1000km in the month of June for charity.
Specifically, the Great Cycle Challenge (Please read more and donate Here, if you'd like).
So what next?
A plan seems wise...
Just last month I decided to take my cycling just a little more seriously, and stick to a training plan. The ride I was preparing for at the time was the Bonne Bay Loop, and a specific long climb. The training plan I chose was the "15 Minute Climb", and promised to give me a shot at my best segment effort after four weeks of strict training.
The ride didn't actually happen for me (whoops) but I did learn discipline regarding preparation and early mornings; Laying kit out the night before so getting ready isn't tough, as well as getting enough sleep the night before. Things along those lines.
I also quit beer for a spell... but more on this at another time.
Looking ahead, I figure it's time to make a plan. Something I can strictly adhere to in order to give myself the best chances at cycling 1000km in one month, while still maintaining a social life and doing well at work.
Other people do it all the time, sure!
The Math.
I have 31 days to ride the distance. In those 31 Days I actually have four full weeks, which is nice to plan around.
Leading into week one I have what I'm calling three bonus days, to get started and get my legs moving. I do of course have the next week for prep as well, but plan on using this time to rest and get on an early morning schedule so when the riding starts, I'm used to it.
Thursday and Friday the 1st and 2nd I'll shoot for at least 50km between the two days. On the third I'll shoot for another 50, getting me 100km to start things off.
Sunday the 4th I'll be participating in a Sprockids training camp, so while there will be some riding I can't account for how much. So this could be a rest day, depending on time. We'll see.
If Sunday isn't an official rest day, Monday will be. Here is where I'll start my weekly schedules.
Mondays will start the week with rest days. From then on, I'm on a weekly schedule... and here's what I think it looks like.
Mondays and Fridays will become weekdays, leaving three days a week and then weekends to get in 225km / week.
The goal is to get 25kms on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. I have a good loop to provide this distance in my pre-work morning hours.
On weekends, I have the arduous task of squeezing in 150kms between two days, however I see fit to do so. The easiest breakdown will be 75km / day on weekends, but it might be more fun to shake it up and play with the distances and goals.
The Conclusion.
So, hypothetically.
Sunday: 75km
Monday: Rest.
Tuesday: 25km Goulds Loop
Wednesday: 25km Goulds Loop
Thursday: 25km Goulds Loop
Friday: Take 'er easy. Drink a beer. Maybe two.
Saturday: 75km
And, repeat.
At the outset, this seems doable. I'm not including any small evening rides with friends, or the St John's Shorttrack Series. Those will add kms as I go along. There will also be random commutes here and there, I'm sure. So I think this is an achievable goal. We'll see.
I do know now this plan brings me in at a 150km deficit heading into the final week. So I'll reevaluate once I have an idea of what toll this schedule takes on my life. Will I need to ride mornings and afternoons? Stay tuned.
I'm trying not to get worked up or feel too much pressure -- something I think I'll make the basis of my next blog post, regarding the mental aspect of all this.
