Frayed World

DC cyclists: Fines for skipping red lights coming

2013-07-08T20:40:00.001-04:00

We all knew that it was coming. Just over a week ago, I was stopped for the first time after having cycled through a red light (that was just about to change). The first thing I was told is that it is a $25 for each time you are caught skipping a red light. It sets off warning signs when the first reason we are given for obeying a law is that we will be punished. Anyway, I decided to see how obeying car traffic rules would be over the last week. There are some positive sides - I didn't risk a car coming the other way and hitting me. So that is nice. But thanks some little things I like to call 'eyes' I rarely seem to have this problem anyway. On balance, I felt a lot less safe. Here is why:

1. I couldn't get away from traffic at the lights by going a little before them. More dangerous for me and more annoying for them. It is especially scary when cars need to turn right soon after lights and cut right in front or right behind you.

2. Turning left at lights became quite dangerous. I couldn't turn when I spotted a clear safe moment but rather I found myself in the middle of the road with cars coming in both directions. I tried to counter this at times by making myself big and blocking a large part of the lane. Not something all cars appreciated.

3. I used the pavement more. I tend to stay off the pavement when I can but I started to use it more when I saw one of the above coming up.

Possibly I can adapt to all of these things and my behaviour should be taken with a pinch of salt. It is difficult to analyse your own behaviour. It reminds me a little of an economist friend who decided to record each day how many cigarettes he smoked along with information such as did he drink? was he bored? stressed? have an argument?

Still, I am going to keep watching.

For those interested, it was just north of Du Pont Circle. I don't think they are giving fines yet but want the word to be spread that they would start some time soon. So there we go. I am helping the word get out.

Safe cycling!

Should cyclists obey the same rules as car drivers?

2013-05-14T19:04:00.003-04:00

I have thought a little about this over the last few years and especially since a pedestrian kindly pointed out that "it's red for you too" as I glided perfectly safely though a red like. He was, as I was reminded shortly afterwards, correct.

But should cyclists and drivers be expected to follow the same rules? Henry Graber at the Atlantic Cities thinks that we should Never Fine Cyclists. I don't know if 'never' is the right way to think about it but I agree that there is no reason why bikes and cars should be treated equally.

Fines exist for cars because they put other people and property in danger. The fine is higher the more the (perceived) risk of a manoeuvre has been. The average car weighs about 1.5 tonnes in Europe. You can do a lot more damage with that than with a bike that weighs a few kilos. It also takes longer to stop in a car than on a bike and you can go faster. This makes both the likelihood of doing harm and the level of potential harm higher with a car. It is perfectly reasonable to have different standards. Just like the fines are higher for not following gun rules than for not following knife rules.

Then there are moments that happen quite regularly when it is actually safer if cyclists do not obey rules. While this can also be true for cars (speed to get away from a driver weaving all over the lane), it is likely to be less so because the rules were made for car safety, not bike safety. One nice example of this is crossing an empty junction to avoid a line of stressed rush-hour drivers waiting at the light. Getting ahead of them gets you out of their way. This is especially important on one junction on my morning commute, after which cars slip onto a lane to go right. With the bike lane on the right and cars cutting across lanes, this is an accident waiting to happen. I don't mind admitting that I am happy when I have got though that.

If rules were made for cyclists that were more appropriate then we could enforce those. In the last example, it would mean allowing cyclists to cross a junction earlier than cars. This already happens for pedestrians (in DC at least).

There are other reasons to make rules easier for cyclists. When one person chooses to drive, there is a cost for the community. If we favour cyclists, we would encourage people to cycle rather than drive, reducing the social cost. My bicycle pollutes your children's air less than your car does. It takes up less space, is more social, keeps me fitter (reducing medical costs and making me much nicer to look at :) ), releases less carbon dioxide and looks cooler than your car (yes, seriously). Society should encourage me to ride.

So when those rules for bikes are designed, they should consider the benefits of biking and the lower risks and design the rules accordingly.

400 ppm. What could possibly go wrong?

2013-05-11T15:28:00.000-04:00

Graph kindly borrowed from The Economist article this week: The only good news about the Earth's record greenhouse gas levels is that they have been well measured.

Hurricane Sandy: 72 American deaths and 1.2% of GDP of the affected states.

Bangkok flooding: World surge in rice prices and economic growth slashed.

Texas drought and wildfires: Cost to homeowners exceed $100 million and farmers $7.6 billion.

Summer heatwaves in Europe: 2,200 deaths per day in France and 70,000 in total across Europe in 2003

Freezing winters: deaths across Europe and economic growth harmed.

Ocean acidification (it absorbs your carbon): No more fish n'chips.

Green schemes may push up fuel bills

2013-05-06T18:45:00.002-04:00

"Leading energy companies have told the government it needs urgently to review the costs of its latest green energy programme, which one group claims could add as much as £100 a year to household power bills."

Yes. And that is kind of the point. Dirty energy should be more expensive. After all, someone is already paying for it. And the chances are that person is way poorer than the average blog reader (check how rich you are compared with the rest of the world here), however squeezed people are right now.

If dirty energy prices rise, it would encourage energy saving efforts (around 6% of energy consumed in western homes is from phantom loads - i.e. when you leave your TV on stand-by or you leave a cell phone charger plugged in with no cell phone attached). Plenty of other money-saving efforts still remain. Putting in energy-saving bulbs will save money. Getting your loft insulated will save money (and you can sort out your junk at the same time).

Read the rest of the FT article HERE (behind firewall, register for a free article).

Sentences of note

2013-03-03T12:25:00.001-05:00

"In the US nearly half of all water withdrawals is used for cooling thermo-electric power plants."

From a Guardian Science debate series on the 'Water, food and energy nexus'. (Watch or listen as a podcast.)

The economic value of natural resources

2013-02-09T19:53:00.002-05:00

Ecuador has a lot of oil sitting beneath its beautiful and bio-diverse Yasuni National Park. If the Economist is right, it will soon need to tap that wealth. But the government has cultivated a 'green' image and doesn't want to touch the oil (although it expoits it elsewhere and even has loans from China that will be repaid in future oil production). It has proposed that it would be prepared to leave at least this oil in the ground, and maintain the Yasuni if the international community compensate half of the oil value that it would forego. The idea is that the trees an environment have both an intrinsic value by existing and provide a valuable service for the whole world; absorbing CO2. I have already contributed to the environment bonds.

This week, one of my favourite podcasts, Planet Money, have an excellent episode on the Yasuni Park and the difficulties in how to compensate countries for maintaining their environments when it would be more profitable for them to destroy them. We need to find a better way to price nature and decide who should pay for it.

Courses on climate change: Free online!

2012-12-12T21:55:00.001-05:00

Yesterday I registered for two Coursera courses:

- Introduction to sustainability; and
- Climate literacy: Navigating climate conversations

You can register too. Just sayin' :)

Natural gas and climate change

2012-12-11T18:57:00.002-05:00

Natural gas is cleaner than many alternatives, notably coal. It could help to reduce US carbon dioxide emissions from around 18 tonnes per person today to around 14 by 2040.

Unfortunately, that is nowhere near enough. I went to an interesting presentation last week on the 'Economic Implications of Moving Toward Global Convergence in Carbon Emissions'. I learned that taking into consideration population growth, the sustainable level per person per year is around 2 tonnes. That is around the India's level today.

A carbon tax imposed only in the developed world can help. But even a tax of around $250 per tonne would not be sufficient to achieve convergence at sustainable levels. A tax around this level would increase the price of petrol by around $4 per gallon. That sounds like a lot but it really isn't. Americans are still drastically under-paying for petrol compared with Europe and even compared with plenty of developing countries, which can least afford it. Unfortunately, carbon is currently trading at around $10 per tonne in the EU. Still some way to go.

Tradable green energy certificates in Romania

2012-07-30T13:42:00.000-04:00

This story from Agerpres appeared in my in-box today but I can't find the internet link:

"As many as 36,9000 green certificates namely 15,200 in the first session and 21,700 in the second session, were traded on the Centralized Green Certificates Market (PCCV), in July 2012, read data OPCOM energy market operator made public.

Five purchase and 32 sale bids were launched and the closure price amounted to 241.05 lei per certificate in the first July session. Eight purchase and 26 sale bids were launched in the second session, when the closure price was 240.98 lei per certificate.

As many as 388,003 green certificates have been traded on PCCV, since early this year. The green certificate is a document attesting 1MWh electricity generated from renewable energy sources. The renewable energy sources eligible to participate in the Green Certificate negotiation system are the water energy made use of in the power plants having an installed power of utmost 10MW, the wind energy, the sun energy and the geothermal energy and the associated fuel gases, biomass, biogas, waste and mud fermentation gas from the wastewater treatment plants.

The mandatory annual quota for 2012 amounts to 8.3 percent of the electricity supplied by each supplier to the end users.

The national targets for the electricity consumption amount to 35 percent and to 38 percent in the perspective of the year 2015 and 2020 respectively."

Sentences of note

2012-03-25T21:21:00.003-04:00

"Murle raids for cattle and a far more valuable commodity, children, have prompted Dinka and Nuer warriors to retaliate in kind."

Well, that certainly jumped out at me anyway. From THIS article in this week's economist.

Development and military expenditure

2012-03-25T21:19:00.001-04:00

A quote from this week's Economist: "Military analysts at IHS Jane’s say that South-East Asian countries together increased defence spending by 13.5% last year, to $24.5 billion. The figure is projected to rise to $40 billion by 2016. According to SIPRI, arms deliveries to Malaysia jumped eightfold in 2005-09, compared with the previous five years. Indonesia’s spending grew by 84% in that period."

The full article is HERE.

What. if anything, should this imply for development expenditure? I must confess, I am actually not at all sure. Does it matter in any way at all? Thoughts?

Does climate change fuel terrorism?

2012-03-17T19:31:00.001-04:00

Here are a few paragraphs from an article on the more general topic strife in the Sahal in this week's Economist.

Low precipitation may seem normal near the Sahara. In fact, much of the Sahel normally gets enough rain to allow modest farming. But a rise in water temperatures in the nearby Gulf of Guinea has shifted the flow of rain clouds southwards, meteorologists say. Livestock have died in droves. Long-term overgrazing and fast population growth have made the problem worse.

Oxfam, an aid agency, warns of a humanitarian disaster, with more than 1m children facing severe malnutrition. Villagers in Chad already dig up ant hills to gather grain the ants have stored. But the worst-affected place is now Niger, a landlocked country of 15m people which, even in normal times, accounts for a sixth of global child deaths from malnutrition. Save the Children, another aid agency, says that the situation in Niger has worsened since September, when a lack of rain led to crop failures of up to 80%.

Misery has made the Sahel’s thousands of unemployed an easy target for recruiters from extremist groups. Their main base lies across Niger’s badly patrolled border with Algeria, where the Sahel becomes outright desert. A two-decade-old Islamist insurgency there has adopted the mantle of global jihad and renamed itself al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Having failed to dislodge the military regime along Algeria’s densely populated Mediterranean coast, these extremists are increasingly focused on the sandy hinterland.

Read the full article.

Weather insurance

2012-03-17T13:14:00.002-04:00

Climate change is causing more weather extremes and more micro climates. Those who rely on agriculture in developing countries are hit extremely harshly. Mongolia, a country which relies on livestock, saw 25% of its stock die in 2010 resulting, largely from arctic oscillations. The World Bank (amongst plenty of others) is working on a number of weather insurance schemes and I attended an interesting seminar about some of these a few weeks ago.

The aim is to insure households against effects of climate change and some of my own research suggests that this is a good idea. Households are often able to cope when they suffer from idiosyncratic shocks and people bind together in villages to help. But few households are able to defend against the kind of weather shocks that can decimate entire villages or areas.

There are great challenges however when implementing such schemes. The first challenge is to decide when to pay out. The schemes presented in the seminar require publicly available indexes. For example, a publicly available index of rainfall. When it falls below a certain level, if your farm is within a certain radius of the weather station you receive a payout. This was the case in an example in Hondurus presented. In Mongolia, an index of livestock death was used. In both cases, the aim is that an individual farmer cannot influence the likelihood of payout. They also ensure that a farmer who suffers less because he has made investment to protect himself from climate change is not penalised because he has been hit less hard. This encourages such investments. Finally, the index is public, clear and verifiable helping to win trust and gain buy-in.

There are problems though. The first is often weather stations. They often don't exist in sufficient numbers and relevant places in developing countries, so a network may have to be set up. A second issue comes in managing the scheme. Some experiences show that the scheme stops becoming viable when just a key employee or two, with the relevant expertise, leave an insurance company. In nomadic places like Mongolia, sales agents have to chase herds around the country to sell insurance! This makes the costs very high. An Indian example extended to groundwater levels which is a function of the previous monsoon. Therefore insurance has to be purchased prior to the monsoon.

Overall, the practical implementation of these schemes seems challenging but the benefits in the face of climate change, extremely high, when the schemes work.

One of my favourite things about the World Bank is the openness. You can read all about these different projects online. Here are links to the different documents: Mongolia ; India ; Central America.

Geo-engineering and climate change

2012-03-17T12:39:00.002-04:00

I recently attended an absolutely superb seminar given by Prof. Edward Parson on geo-engineering. I occasionally hear interesting things about some of the possibilities on my favourite science podcasts from the Guardian Science, Scientific American and Nature but it is not really a topic I know much about. I learnt some fascinating things from this seminar.

Some simple examples of geo-engineering include painting roads and house roofs white so that they reflect the sun. More advanced examples include putting reflexive (e.g. sulphur) particles into the stratosphere which can reflect heat. As it happens, there is an article on today's BBC suggesting that cloud whitening towers could be built to slow warming across the Arctic.

The single main message that geo-engineering massively widen the climate possibilities, in both the good and bad directions. In the best case, it may have the capacity to solve global warming. In the worst case scenario, it can wipe humanity off the face of the earth and re-create 'snowball earth'.

Good things:

* Within a couple of years it can achieve the kind of cooling that it would take decades of carbon capture to achieve. And this an be achieved by putting reflexive particles into the atmosphere from almost anywhere. We know this because Mount Pinatuba erupted it cooled the earth by around half a degree Celsius and this lasted for a few years.

* It is cheap. The direct costs of doing this are probably just a few billion dollars a year. Basically nothing.

* When placed into the lower atmosphere they could reduce some of the more local effects of climate change such as tornadoes, floods etc.

Problems:

* They don't solve everything. As pointed out by The God Species (one of my favourite books on climate change), the earth has many boundaries and crossing any one of them can have severe consequences.

* These technologies do not control earth and water temperatures in the same way so we are left with a much drier earth. This could effect things like the monsoon upon which billions of people rely.

* There may be ozone depletion which is worse that currently estimated. We will make the sky whiter and we are putting acid into the sky which will come down in the rain.

One option would be to use geo-engineering to buy time or just on a local level. But this itself carries the human-behaviour risk that we come to rely on these technologies and don't make the efforts we should to reduce climate change. In addition, if we use geo-engineering to, say, keep the planet 5 degrees cooler than it would be given the pollution we cause, and then one day we are unable or unwilling to use the technology, the earth would very suddenly gain those 5 degrees with all of the consequences.

We then have issues related international cooperation and conflict. Who has the right to decide to use this technology? Many large, wealthy and technologically advanced countries have the ability to do this and there would be winners and losers. Could it create international conflict? Could it be used as a tool for international conflict? If a country or group of countries take the lead, even if it is with the best intentions, there would be some losers. How do we compensate those losers? What if something goes wrong, the leaders could be blamed for it and perhaps accused of deliberately behaving in a malevolent way even when no such intentions existed.

How do we create international laws and institutions which are capable of addressing these issues?

On the other hand, without this option, we could be heading for disaster already. We could behave badly and take humanity on a path to destruction. But we could also simply be unlucky. Even if we do everything we should do, climate change might still place human existence in peril. If we arrive at this point and have not already tested this technology, then we risk either not being able to develop it quickly or using it in a dangerous way.

Therefore, we somehow want to have the option to use this technology. BUT without it in any way causing a moral hazard problem - i.e. without it changing human behaviour. Knowing that we MIGHT be able to call on this in the future is not a good reason not to behave correctly now. AND we need to be able to think carefully about the scientific and institutional international context including all of the risks. Geo-engineering has the capacity to save humanity or kill us. Abandoning it has severe consequences and so might developing it if we are unable to manage it. Should be fun to watch the scientific progress and follow the emotional debates it will generate.

Buy your own environment bonds

2012-03-17T10:18:00.000-04:00

Ecuador has lots of oil sitting beneath its rainforest. It could chop down the forest and become richer almost overnight. But you and your children would have less nice clean air to breath, and the world would lose one of its most diverse ecosystems - and who knows what medications might be found there in the future if it is left unharmed. This poor country would lose about USD 7bn if it does not tap this oil. But if the world contributes just half of these losses then it will be prepared to forego the lost resources. Effectively, a relatively poor country is prepared to subsidise your clean air. Pretty generous, I'd say.

I bought a 'green bond' some time ago. You can contribute just $5 if you like and, if ever the decision is taken to pump the oil, the government has to give you the money back. The scheme is administered by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The returns are in-kind. You and those around you get cleaner air; you keep the opportunity to visit this part of the world any time in your life; you get to feel good that you are doing something for the world and that you are helping to compensate a poor country for part of its losses (you like to give a little something back :) ) and occasionally you receive emails giving you updates and reminding you what a fantastic human being you are. And it's one of those emails that prompted me to write this entry.

You can read about the scheme and buy your green bonds HERE. The Yasuni National Park website about the scheme is HERE (in Spanish) and an analysis of the scheme by the World Resources Institute is HERE.

"The effects of climate change will principally be felt by poor people in poor countries"

2012-03-06T08:49:00.001-05:00

I went to a discussion yesterday with the authors of the different chapters of the soon-to-be released Oxford Companion to the Economics of Africa. The whole conversation was interesting but I found climate change to be perhaps the most scary part. Here are a couple of things that jumped out at me:

- Simulations suggest that if the surface temperature of the plane increased by 2 degrees Celsius, the cost in terms of world GDP would be around 3 to 4%. That is not very much. For most people in developed countries, that would be like not getting a real wage increase for a couple of years. You could probably live with that. But, if the billion poorest people in the world lost half of their daily income, that is around two thirds of one percent of world GDP. Practically nothing for the world. But pretty tough for them. Given that most of the cost of climate change will fall on them, this is worrying.

- The best defence poor countries can have against climate change is their own development. So it is difficult to insist that out of their own resources they should make changes in terms of energy use, infrastructure development etc. So developed countries should pay for, for example, the development of low emissions energy networks or transport infrastructure.

- Unless the well-to-do of the world get themselves together to do something about climate change, the worst sufferers will be in places that look like Africa.

- Whilst googling to find a picture to put here, I found this book, which I have just ordered. I'll write about it another time.

Why I love my Brompton

2012-03-03T11:34:00.002-05:00

1. Isn't she a beauty?

2. The greenness of a bike combined with the practicality of having the option to take a cab after a few beers.

- fits easily in the boot of a cab and metro

3. Safe: solidly (hand-)made

4. Folds up wonderfully small and is carry-able

5. It takes under 30 seconds to fold and unfold

6. The gearing is *amazing*. You can comfortably get up steep hills but you can build up impressive speeds on straight stretches of road. (Mine has six gears)

7. Loads of fantastic little features like the bag that clips on the front (and looks professional enough when slung over the shoulder), the nicely tucked away pump, the foldaway pedal, the little bag it packs away into.

8. Much easier to duck onto and cycle on pavements than normal bikes because it is smaller and less disturbing for pedestrians.

9. Carry it in to restaurants/bars - no need to search for a place to lock it up and then worry about it getting stolen. Even better, the people who give snide remarks about it being a 'children's bike' look like the ones who would be most likely to steal it.

10. There is a World Championship! (see the video)

Learn more about Bromptons HERE.

You can buy them in DC from Bicycle Space.

Will higher fuel prices hurt you significantly?

2012-03-01T12:09:00.000-05:00

Apparently, Gingrich sees lower fuel prices as his ticket to the White House. You can vote in today's pole as to whether higher fuel prices will hurt you significantly. (HT: The Daily Beast). Of course, it doesn't matter if they would hurt you significantly; your current low fuel prices are basically a plundering of the poor by the relatively rich (and if you are reading this, you are relatively rich). And if the nice Mr Gingrich lowers your fuel bill even more, it is a lot less free than you think.

Amazing new cyclewear

2012-02-29T19:07:00.002-05:00

The Sporty Supaheroe* cycle jacket has "intelligent" sensors and dynamic LEDs meaning that it could glow bright red at the back when the cyclist is breaking. The range should be released later this year by the utopeproject. I want one! (HT: SS)

*The name is not my fault

The Oil Curse: How Petroleum Wealth Shapes the Development of Nations

2012-02-28T13:54:00.000-05:00

I just attended a presentation by Micheal L Ross on his book: The Oil Curse: How Petroleum Wealth Shapes the Development of Nations. I learnt a some very interesting things in a short time that thought I would share whilst wolfing down my lunch*.

-- Oil countries have higher birth rates and lower female participation rates in the labour force. Possibly due to the fact that Dutch Disease kills sectors in which women tend to participate, such as the export manufacturing and agriculture sectors.

-- Oil-producers have considerably less open budgeting processes than non-oil producers.

-- Since the end of the cold war there has been a significant reduction in the number of civil wars in countries. But this reduction comes entirely from non-oil producing countries.

--The number of democracies has increased significantly since the end of the cold war but this is entirely in non-oil producing countries.

-- The oil curse only started to appear following the price hikes/wave of nationalisations that occurred in the 1970s. Prior to this, oil producing countries were no more likely to have a civil war, no more likely to be a dictatorship and their budgets were as transparent as other countries.

-- Countries with only off-shore oil are significantly less likely to have a civil war than countries with some on-shore oil - in fact they are about as likely as non-oil producers to have a civil war. This suggests that tribal, ethnic, regional tensions are exacerbated if those in oil-producing regions do not feel they get their fair share and the ability of fighters for these causes can use oil to prolong fighting.

-- There are currently only about five major oil producers in sub-Saharan Africa but this is likely to double or even triple by 2050 as more exploration is done on the continent, as oil demand increases, supply runs out elsewhere and the resulting price increases make it viable to produce in the region. This makes it important to try to address some of these issues.

So, you see, oil isn't all good.

*A part of the 'Insights into the exciting lives of economists' series

Climate change and its link to life

2012-02-26T16:39:00.004-05:00

I came across THIS nice little collection of articles on how climate change effects life. I think it might be being done for a class.

Market forces to combat climate change

2012-02-26T16:31:00.000-05:00

David Frum argues that the best way for the (US) government to reduce oil dependence is to 'do nothing'. By 'do nothing' he seems to mean tax dirty energy and reduce income taxes by an equivalent amount*. If consumers really value polluting, they will spend all of their reduced taxation on that, if not, they can maybe use their extra cash to buy a bike and cut down on petrol. Given that 40% of trips in the US are under 2 miles and 90% of these are done by car, this seems possible even with current sprawling suburbs. Although there are issues, some independent-minded folk from Raleigh, North Carolina have been trying to figure out how to make Americans walk more (a short, fun video). I think that higher taxes on fuel are a practical and moral obligation.

Unfortunately, maybe your kid will learn that climate change is a big hoax in school. And Newt Gingrich seems to think that a free-market supporting American government should intervene to guarantee cheap petrol (HT:JK). The flip side is that taxes would have to rise to pay for the increased subsidies and there will be more floods, droughts, forest fires across America as a result of the increased pollution. It doesn't seem like such a fantastic deal.

* In the sense that this means no net change in the burden on the taxpayer, this is 'doing nothing'. But I think he undersells himself in that changing behavioural incentives to minimise negative externalities is a difficult and important part of governing a country.

Who cares about climate change?

2012-02-22T05:42:00.001-05:00

58% of Americans, 68% of Europeans and a full 99% of people who live on small islands. That is what I learnt in a nice little seminar I went to yesterday chaired by Andrew Steer, the World Bank's special envoy for climate change. The Maldives puts some of its tourist dollars into a special trust so that they can eventually buy a new homeland when they go under the sea. Not a bad idea... The US Navy apparently assumes a 1.2 meter rise in sea levels by the end of the century and some of the island nations are working on the possibility of up to 5 meters.

ReCYCLE in Lesotho

2012-02-21T06:07:00.003-05:00

Bikes are really taking off in Africa! Global Cycle Solutions are doing a great job making them a 'vehicle of transformation' in Tanzania, you can join the Zambia bike challenge, or the Uganda bike challenge, there is a possibility of manufacturing bikes for the first time in Africa.

Just posted by the wonderful folk at Kick4Life Lesotho is this great little video on their program using bikes to collect rubbish and recycle it: ReCYCLE.

Bikes to be manufactured in Africa

2012-02-12T12:59:00.001-05:00

"Across Africa they are used to carry infants, lug sacks of grain and ferry boxes of vegetables and crates of chickens to and from markets. In Rwanda, people careen down hills astride homemade wooden versions bereft of brakes. The bicycle is a part of everyday life for many Africans. Yet, despite demand, there is no mass-market African bicycle manufacturer."

Read the rest of the article HERE (gated - create a free FT account to read)