I'm Jazzed

January's just done, and I'm at 253 miles. I don't think I had this many miles last year until it was into April. This is going to be a great year for cycling, and a good year for this blog, too. I think I've found a rhythm to posting that won't wear me out. Some of my posts will be longer compilations (like the Cargo bikes and the more recent Winter Cycle clothing) that frankly take a long time to put together. So I'll try and intersperse little "easy" ones, to keep the conversation going.

Speaking of conversation, I'd love to hear more from the people who visit. Feel free to comment -- I've put virtually no restrictions on it, and I won't remove stuff unless it's spam. I'd love to hear especially from people who might want to write articles on cycling. If there is some interest from folks who want to write once in a while but who don't want to have to write on a regular basis, let me know, and we can accommodate.

Today, I began some drawing work in the CAD program I use (Vectorworks Architect) for some upcoming bike-safety diagrams. The image at right is my prototypical cycle commuter, but I don't have a name for him (/her) yet. Feel free to make suggestions....

Conflicted

Three times in the last week of cycling (twice on a single day) I've had it happen: On a two lane road with no-passing stripes, a motorist coming up on me from behind passes me wide on the left at a relatively high rate of speed. In doing so, they pay more attention to me than to (argh!) the oncoming traffic, and they narrowly miss an oncoming motorist who (understandably) honks.

I'm conflicted about this. On one hand, I'm grateful that the motorist behind is giving me a wide berth (particularly since they're hauling right along), but I'm distressed (to say the least) that these guys are creating what amounts to a dangerous situation.

So: Slow The Hell Down if you're a motorist passing a cyclist. Wait until the road is clear and you can cross over the double-yellow line without endangering anyone. Patience, dammit! And if you're the oncoming guy and see my light, it wouldn't hurt to hug the curb a little.

Winter Cycle Clothing Guidelines

I've promised an article on my "system" for active winter dressing, so herewith I'm going to lay out what has worked for me so far this winter. I hope that you who are thinking about doing some serious cycling find this helpful, but first some general observations. The chart at lower right shows how I progressively dress for cold weather. (NB: All temperatures in this list are the temperature after "wind chill" is considered.) I think it's pretty self-explanatory, although I discuss some clothing articles at more length below.

Adaptation: To me, one of the continually-remarkable things about cold-weather cycling is the way our bodies adapt when in use. I call it remarkable because it seems like I have to consciously remind myself that it's going to happen. If I dress to be comfortable for the first 7 minutes of cycling in the cold, it usually means I'm going to sweat up my gear thoroughly by the end of my 9 mile commute (and be pretty miserable at the end). So what I do is I suffer (just a teeny bit) for the first mile and a half, until I make it to the top of my first decent hill. By the time I've ridden that far, I'm quite comfortable. By "comfortable" I don't mean that I'm toasty warm, but I'm not feeling chilly, either, and the engine is just humming along. It is a bit of a strange sensation, feeling a little cold, but being very confident that the discomfort will pass, and it always does. It's a good exercise in delayed gratification.

Core vs. Extremities: If you spend some time looking at the clothing chart, you'll see that I act earlier to protect my extremities (hands, head, feet) than I do to protect my core (torso and legs). For one thing, my windproof shell does an excellent job of protecting my core (this makes me think that windproof tights would work as well as two layers of tights in very cold weather, but I already have the two pairs of tights in my hard-to-find tall size, and windproof tights (assuming I could find them in large-talls) would set me back $100-$150, so I'll live with the inconvenience of putting on two pairs of tights when it's truly frigid outside.

By far the most difficult "extremities" problem is hands. I've discussed before my approach to gloves / mittens, and I've found the "Zoidbergs" with poly liners good down only to the about 20° F. (given my commute distance). Below that temperature, you can help comfort by wearing latex gloves against your skin as vapor barriers to prevent chapping. I recommend also applying a very thin coating of some anti-chap hand cream as soon as you can after riding. Chapped fingers are no fun.

Discussions on Particular Items of Clothing:

1. Tunic: I think finding a high-quality fleece tunic is fairly critical. This tunic from REI [UPDATE 10-19-09: the previous item is no longer available; this is the replacement] is what I use, and I like it quite a lot. It's stretchy, it's available in tall sizes, the fleece is very soft and comfy against my skin, it's very thermally forgiving, and it will dry quickly hanging on the back of my office door.

2. Windproof shell: There are many brands and varieties of windproof shell available. I've had mine for several years now, and I'll probably have to replace it in the next year or so. The one I have I bought several years ago at the LL Bean store in Freeport, ME, and I've worn it so much that replacing it will seem like replacing a friend. But the zipper has only so much time left. In any case: requirements are: reflectivity, drawstring or elastic waist (or both), big enough to fit over a couple of winter layers, but not excessively floppy, zipper pockets, velcro wind flaps over the zippers, and a stowable hood. This is the closest thing that Bean has to what I use now. In a perfect world, it would have under-arm "pit zips," but sigh, no.

3. Vapor barriers for feet: This makes a surprising difference in foot warmth. I use newspaper bags for simplicity, economy, and convenience. For weather that's not too cold, you can just pull them on over your wool socks. But your feet will definitely feel, uh, rather humid at the end of your ride, so it feels good to "unsack" your feet at the end of the ride to let 'em air out. This article suggests that I'm doing it wrong, and ought to wear the VB under my socks, so in colder weather I've worn thin sock liners (old dress socks work just fine) under the bags. VB socks are available from hunting-fishing places also, but the paper bags are a pretty green solution, and zero cost (if you're one of the dinosaurs still reading newpapers!)

4. Headwear: I've become pretty attached to wearing a balaclava in temperatures below freezing, although above freezing, a thin fleece stocking-cap will do fine. In very cold weather, I might be tempted to put the (windproof) hood up on my parka.

So, that's about it. Nothing earth-shattering here, and (as always) your mileage may vary (along with your cold-bloodedness), so you can adjust the temps at the top of the chart. Remember to keep in mind some of my other recommendations for winter cycling, and get out there.

Disposable Bike Helmets

I've often wondered what the actual cost of producing a bike helmet is. I mean the vacuum-formed-with-foam variety. Well, now I know. It's something less than 4 bucks. No, really. You can go to this site and buy as many bike helmets as you want for $3.65 each (plus shipping, which if you order 36 helmets or more is $1.00 per helmet. You can get free shipping if you're willing to buy 20 cases, or 720 helmets.)

Now you or I don't need even a single case (36 units) of helmets, but this is an interesting proposition for a police department, a club, or anyone who is teaching people to ride and needs an economical helmet. At $3.65 each, the helmets are almost disposable. And, they meet CPSC safety standards!

An Attaboy on a Snowy Day

Unlike the city of Boulder, CO, the city of Columbia, MD, does not assiduously maintain its bike paths in winter snows. A stretch of no more than 1/2 mile of a pedestrian/bike trail is part of my daily commute; it parallels a busy stretch of road that tends to be full of distracted drivers.

Yesterday morning, the trail had not been cleared and (taking a deep breath, knowing that some patience was going to be involved) I got on the road, named Little Patuxent Parkway. I took my line well out in the roadway in the right lane of a four-lane undivided street -- I wasn't going to be pinned against the curb by heedless drivers on my one day that I was forced to ride this stretch.

True to form, a clueless driver got in behind me and slowed down. For some inexplicable reason, the driver, even though it was two lanes in our direction and the traffic was light, couldn't bring herself to pull out and move around me. Instead, she kept creeping along, got frustrated (no surprise) and began honking at me. My general approach when faced with such clueless behavior is to ignore it (particularly when I have on my Zoidbergs and therefore am constrained to be polite—no "flipping the bird", so to speak.) So I did here, until I made my turn and the driver passed, whereupon I yelled at the top of my voice, "WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM?"

Unbeknownst to me, there was a pedestrian who had witnessed the entire sequence, and he was on the street I turned on to. As I was accelerating, I saw him pull down his hood, give me a big smile, and say, "Hey, good job!"

I won't ever know if he was complimenting me on my comments to the motorist, my lack of profanity, or simply the fact that I was out commuting on a morning when the wind-chill was in the mid-teens. But I'll take it anyway.

The LightLane, a Better Mousetrap?

It seems to me that people over-value ideas, and under-value the hard sweaty work it takes to get ideas to be really fruitful implemen- tations. I remember Rich Diehl, a friend and employer, once saying to me, "One doesn't patent ideas; one patents implementations," and he was absolutely correct. Which brings me to the LightLane.

The LightLane is a concept from Alex Tee and Evan Gant of Altitude (I'm not 100% sure what "Altitude" is. A design firm, maybe?) Here's what they say about it:

A close brush with a distracted driver is enough to intimidate the most avid bikers from riding at night. The problem isn’t just about visibility, as safety lights are effective at capturing the attention of a driver. However, these lights are typically constrained to the bike frame, which highlights only a fraction of the bike’s envelope. Bike lanes have proven to be an effective method of protecting cyclists on congested roads. One key is that the lane establishes a well defined boundary beyond the envelope of the bicycle, providing a greater margin of safety between the car and the cyclist. Yet, only a small fraction of streets have dedicated bike lanes, and with an installation cost of $5,000 to $50,000 per mile, we shouldn’t expect to find them everywhere anytime soon. Instead of adapting cycling to established bike lanes, the bike lane should adapt to the cyclists. This is the idea behind the LightLane. Our system projects a crisply defined virtual bike lane onto pavement, using a laser, providing the driver with a familiar boundary to avoid. With a wider margin of safety, bikers will regain their confidence to ride at night, making the bike a more viable commuting alternative.

The LightLane is an idea (NOT an implementation, if I am to interpret the Photoshop job as the work-in-progress.) Not a bad idea, although not by any means fully fleshed out. The concept of defining in a clearly visible way a "safe zone" around a bicycle using a stroked laser is interesting. But it doesn't seem remotely ready for prime time, in my opinion. It looks to me like Tee and Gant might be trying to solve the wrong problem here:

• Firstly, if (as they admit) high-intensity bike lights "are effective at capturing the attention of a driver", then the rest of the problem is simply a matter of obeying the rules of the road. What makes the "envelope" around bicycles any different from the reasonable safe clearance given any other vehicle by a safe driver?
• Secondly, does this concept work in the day time, or is it conceived strictly as a replacement for bike lighting? (I can't imagine the laser that would be sufficiently bright to light up a virtual bike lane in the daytime without burning holes in things, if you know what I mean.)
• Thirdly, the device as shown seems to be oriented more towards overtaking cars rather than cars ahead. It's been shown through accident statistics that very few accidents occur from cars overtaking bikes. Far more often, collisions occur when cars pull out in front of bicyclists (see below) or when they turn left in front of them, both as a result of not seeing the approaching bike. This device doesn't seem to significantly increase forward visibility of the bicylist, although it might in certain terrain.
  
• Fourthly, and possibly most importantly, it seems to me that a (regular) bike lane has value precisely because it provides a zone of protection for a cyclist that has been agreed to by statute. It's there day and night, and it doesn't move around. The "virtual bike lane" does (at least in theory) make the cyclist more visible in certain situations, but that's really the limit of it. It should really be billed as an alternative night-lighting arrangement and compared to other such devices, and not as a alternative to infrastructures, which it really doesn't provide.
• Lastly, even if all these issues could be dealt with, could this device be produced at any reasonable cost?

All these criticisms aside, I can think of things you could do with stroked laser type lighting. The idea of creating a virtual envelope around a bike might have merit, but I think it needs to be a 3D envelope, which almost suggests something more holographic. (I'm not sure this is possible with current technology). I could also conceive of a training aid to teach cyclists how to "find their line" in the traffic lane, although this is something that should be projected ahead of the cyclist, and should probably have some sonic detection to help the cyclist move out around parked cars, and this of course would add complexity and cost.

All in all, it's hard to see how this is much of an improvement over conventional night lighting for bicyclists. I'm put in mind of the Trek bicycle ad that they ran on OLN during the Tour de France, where they showed a cycle commuter at dusk on (presumably) a Trek bike, but with no headlight! (Hey, doofus, why do you think that car is pulling out in front of you? It's because he can't see you!)


Well, hmm, this has been a bit of a wandering post. I guess the point I want to make is about "the better mousetrap". I'm not seeing where projecting a lane on the pavement around me is going to increase my visibility to drivers all that much, while simply using a conventional light device doesn't do a bad job of it.

Cold Weather and Adhesives: A tale in 3 chapters

Chapter 1: Late last fall when it was quite cold, I had an "interesting" experience. My helmet (a Giro Atlas) delaminated—the shell peeled right away from the foam core of the thing. Strangely and excitingly, it happened while I was riding. I made a quick decision to not stop (it was cold, after all) and try and recover the shell on my morning ride to work, which I did.

I wrote the customer service wing of Giro and they kindly sent me replacement tape (adhesive tape around the perimeter is what holds the standard vacuum-plastic-foam helmet together) with instructions on how to repair it.

I was surprised (stunned, really) about how the thing just let go all at once. Clearly (it seemed to me at the time) this was a temperature-related occurence. I'm now using (for extreme cold weather riding) a Bern helmet using their "Zip-mold" technology, quite a different thing from the vacuum-plastic-foam approach.

Chapter 2: Cycling in to work about 6 weeks ago, when I was about a mile from the office, I experienced a sudden flat. Since I was so close, I just got off and walked the bike in. When I got the tube out of the tire, I was surprised to find that the cause of the flat was a Slime Skab peel-and-stick patch that had just let go. I immediately thought of my helmet and began to wonder about how cold weather affects adhesives. (I also began a more philosophical rumination about how our lives depend on adhesives, but that's for a different time.)

When I was fixing the tire that day, I was concerned about the "wrinkly" appearance of the Skabs (I had several on this particular tube). I compared them to the appearance of a Park peel-and-stick that I also had on this tube. (This is, admittedly, a rather "road-weary" tube.) The Park patch was more rigid, but perfectly flat, while the Skabs were thin and pliable, but all wrinkled.

Chapter 3: Earlier this week, a second Skab developed a leak. I replaced it, but I must say the cold weather reliability (or lack thereof) of the Skabs has me concerned. At the moment, I would not recommend the use of Skabs if you're going to be cycling in significantly cold (below freezing) weather. Reliability of your cycling system needs to be high in extreme weather conditions. I'm not calling it a matter of life and death, but a flat at the wrong time (for no good reason) can be a matter of significant discomfort.

Epilogue: If you're going to be cycling in cold weather and you use peel-and-stick tire repair, go with Parks.

Immigrant Bike Commuters

If you live in an urban environment, you've seen them. Adult immigrants (almost always Latinos) cycling in work clothes on Wal-mart bikes, too slowly, on streets that are too busy, with no helmets. Every time I see a such an immigrant commuter, I cringe, out of worry for their well-being. I know they are just trying to get to or from work in the most cost-effective way possible.

Hector Rapalo (shown at right) was killed over the Christmas holidays in Islip, NY while on a bicycle. There's not much to the story. The police report is here, and here's an editorial in the New York Times (from Jan. 11) that drew my attention to this particular incident. The editorial also mentions the cases of Santos Javier Ramos and Enrique Aguilar-Gamez. The editorial suggests that some of the hit-and-runs (and yes, there are multiple ones) are hate crimes. My general good-naturedness makes me want to doubt this, but then I went to this comments posting on the Ramos incident, and frankly, too many of the comments are pretty sickening in their xenophobia and racism.

The NYT editorial generalizes a little too much: it says, "Bicyclists and suburbs are an uneasy fit," with which I utterly disagree. More accurately, unskilled bicyclists and commuting are an uneasy fit, and it makes no difference your skin color or national origin, although (I submit) the economic status, access to Internet, and language barrier of Latino immigrants exacerbates the situation for them.

So, how can we make this situation better? I can think of several ideas, all of which are "unfunded mandates":

1. An initiative on the part of the League of American Bicyclists to provide Spanish-language and/or bilingual versions of the "Road 1" course;
2. Concurrent with (1) above, scholarships from HHS or INS to help legal immigrants (or for that matter, low-income Americans) to attend these classes;
3. Since most of these bikes (I suspect) are $80-to-$100 models bought at Wal-Mart, I'd like to see Wal-Mart provide a certificate for a free or very low-cost ANSI-compliant helmet (nothing fancy, to be sure) for every bike sold;

I'm no policy whiz—I really don't know what I'm doing in this area. But there is simply no defensible reason for the the least-affluent in our society to be deprived of access to information that will make them safer as they try to use cost-effective, environmentally-friendly transport.

Thanksgiving 2008

I'm very thankful to be a cycle-commuter. It greatly increases my health (mental as well as physical), it saves me money, and it does its part to save the planet. It has such a salutary effect on my lifestyle that I'm sure I would bore to tears anyone who asked me why I cycle and was willing to stand around and hear the answer.

One of the questions I therefore ask myself (repeatedly) is, "Since cycling provides so many benefits, why don't more people cycle? What would it take to get more people on the road?" Certainly one (oft repeated here) obstacle is the irrational fear of traffic. (Irrational, that is, for people with traffic cycling skills.) Once a cyclist has a high skill level, it's no problem to cycle in American traffic.

However, it's just not rational to expect a large number of people to somehow magically develop these skills. So in the absence of [insert magical event here], how do we change the environment (and I use the word "environment" in the broadest sense) to effect this desirable change?

I'm not the only person who has been asking this. Fortunately. (If I were, very little would have gotten done.) Dr. John Pucher is a professor in the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University, and he has studied bicycle use in all its variants across the world. Pucher's bio page is here , so I won't repeat it. Suffice it to say that this guy is doing important work in the areas of public policy and public health. He (along with a Rutgers PhD candidate, Ralph Buehler) have written a well researched white paper (PDF) and an excellent presentation (in both video and slideshow form) on the topic "Cycling for Everyone" which studies cycle use worldwide, and which focuses on the ways governments can encourage cycling utilization by policy in the following areas:

• Better facilities and traffic engineering
• Integration of biking with public transport
• Traffic calming of resiential neighborhoods
• Mixed-use zoning and improved urban design
• Traffic education
• Traffic regulations and enforcement

He's given this presentation in various forms in fora in New York City (4/2007), Louisville, KY (4/2007), Vancouver, BC (5/2008) and at the League of American Bicyclists National Bike Summit in Washington, DC (3/2007). So this is no big secret by any means, but it's definitely information that bears repeating, and passing on.

The presentation is in some ways a laundry list, and I think that there are some implementations in Europe that will have difficulty finding acceptance in the US (30-kph speed limit zones for example) but there are many that are already "mainstream" practices in the US, e.g. traffice calming and bike carriers on public transit. The really good news here is, all the policy research has been done. Now it's only a matter of using that research to bludgeon convince our legislators that this stuff is important for our health, our well-being, and our energy policy also. I think the League has done good work in this area, and that's why I'm a member of it.

So, hats off to you, John Pucher. Here's wishing you success in getting your policies put in place. And, as long as we're being thankful, thank you for the good work you've done and continue to do.

Cycling Deep into Winter

Well, OK, everyone seems to be putting up posts on "Winter Cycling Tips". Here's one over at Paul Dorn's excellent commuting website, and here's another. Now that I've been cycling for a couple of weeks in weather that is often-if-not-mostly below freezing, I guess I can offer some ideas.

Planning: Winter, with its short days and questionable road conditions, is no time to experiment with new routes, at least during the early morning and early evening hours of your regular commute. Stick to the routes you know; if you want to develop some new routes, do it over the weekend, during the day.

Clothing / Accessories / Equipment: I like a layer of full-on fleece (say Polartec 200 gauge) next to my skin, topped with a wind-proof (but uninsulated) shell, and full tights. For mid-20 to 30 deg F. weather, this is really enough clothing. If it gets down into the zero degree range, I might add another layer, but it's possible to sweat this up pretty thoroughly in sub-freezing weather. I find that I warm up about 1.5 miles into my ride, where I hit my first significant uphill. Truth is, where you're exercising, you adapt pretty well thermally.

Protection of Extremities: I have a thin fleece cap that fits under my helmet (I'm probably going to add a balaclava), and I use SmartWool hiking socks. So far I haven't found the need to go to a second layer of socks -- I probably would use a vapor barrier wrap made from bread sacks or newspaper bags before I went to a full-on multilayer sock approach. (For a good discussion of why you want vapor barriers at your feet, go to this link at the venerable Stephenson "Warmlite" site.) The big difficulty I find is keeping my hands sufficiently warm. I wear a light Polartec glove liner under full winter cycling gloves, and my fingers still hurt from the cold at the end of a 9-mile ride. Better to hurt than to have lost feeling, I guess. The next step is to go to "lobster gloves" -- I've ordered some from LL Bean (Pearl Izumi brand) and maybe can find some comfort.

Other Equipment: One thing you'll need is sunglasses for the morning commute. The sun is low in the sky, and creates a lot of glare. If you don't wear glasses anyway, you'll need eye protection for the evening commute, also. One other thing that I've found, is that it's extremely handy to have a visor on your helmet. This is so you can put your head down to deflect the headlight beams of oncoming cars on dark roads. This keeps you from getting blinded.

Outfitting the bike: Mudguards (fenders) are essential, of course. Lights that meet the legal minimums also. I like the blinking-LED variety, for the way they conserve batteries. I've also added a large amber auto-reflector to supplement the standard red rear light. If I know the weather is going to be inclement, I don't plan to ride. But I carry extra clothing (a full rain outfit and the aforementioned newspaper bags) to keep me reasonably dry if the weather turns foul. As for tires, you can research and buy studded tires at Peter White's excellent website. For me, right now, if the weather is such that I'd need studded tires so I can ride on ice, hmm. I think I'll not ride that day. That doesn't mean you can't, though.

Motivation: Many of the other blog articles on winter cycling talk about motivation and getting going. It is true that the first mile is the hardest. I think the strategy that has been most successful for me is to just not quit, not get out of the habit. I do think that deep winter would be a challenging time to start a cycle-commuting habit, to say the least. I feel like any week where I can ride 3 days or more is a good week, and I've had mostly good weeks since the end of summer.

If you're planning on regular winter cycling, I hope these little tips have been useful. Be safe!

2539.7

..is what it reads on my cyclo-computer odometer (which I reset on January 1) right now. It being just past the Ides of November, I expect I may (if I'm lucky) get in 3 or at most 4 weeks more of commuting in before the end of the year. This past week, I got in 3 days, had one day lost to bad weather, and one day lost because of having to make a business trip into Washington, DC.

My goal for the year was to displace 3,000 miles of car travel. To me, this meant 3,000 miles of trips that I would have made anyway in a car — commuting, errands, etc., so recreational cycling wouldn't technically count. I feel like I've gotten pretty close, no matter what the rest of the year looks like. I'm particularly happy in comparison to last year, when I cycled only about 2200 miles, over 500 of which were weekend recreational miles. (Nothing wrong with them, except they don't displace auto miles.) I got a late start this year, no cycling in January, which was pretty inclement, and precious little in February. I'm just going to have to get out more in winter if I want to make my goal next year, which I'm setting at 3,300 miles. (You read it here first.)

So, (shifting gears here a little,) as part of the Great Financial Bailout of 2008, the Bicycle Commuting Act was passed. This allows employers to provide fringe benefits to their bicycle-commuting employees of up to $20 and provide various tax incentives for same. I don't know how a "bicycle commuter" is defined; there are several guys at my office who are "bicycle decorators", i.e., they use bikes for office decor, but they don't ride them very much. One article I read says that if you ride your bike 60% of the time, you would be considered a bicycle commuter. So I broke out my calculator:

48 weeks* x 5 days x 17.6 miles in my RT commute = 4224 miles per year at 100% utilization.

(* I figured 52 weeks - 3 weeks vacation - 1 week holidays)

So at 60% utilization, 4224 x 0.6 = 2534.4 miles. This means that on my last ride home this past week, I became a bicycle commuter for the year. Whoo-hoo!

Seriously, I do a good amount of business travel, which should fairly be excluded. And there are other extenuating circumstance -- no one should have to cycle in a downpour. Not only is it not fun, it's dangerous. But I know that by US standards, I'm a cycling fiend. It just goes to show that the bar for defining "cycle commuter" has not been set too low by our friends in Congress.

For a NY Times article on the Bicycle Commuting Act, go here. For more information on the Congressional Bike Caucus (presumably a good place to write to do some informal lobbying,) go here.

The Skills vs. Infrastructure Debate

Regular readers of this blog know that from time to time I bloviate on about "vehicular bicycling skills." (It might be more accurate to say that this is one of the primary ongoing themes to be found in this blog.) Not all of this blog's readers, however, might know that there is an ongoing if ill-focused debate among interested parties that touches on this issue. The debate is between proponents of INFRASTRUCTURE vs. those who promote SKILLS DEVELOPMENT. (It is entirely possible to be a proponent of both these things. Let's, just for the moment, be partisan about this, hey? It's so much fun to argue, even if it is with oneself.)

The "infrastructure" argument asserts that bicyclists need more environmental protection from motorists, and the way to make that happen is with new bike-lane infrastructure. This argument tends to support the intuitive position of people who think they would like to cycle more but are not currently doing so, i.e., "Gee, if only there were more bike lanes like in Europe, then I would get out and cycle on a much more regular, even frequent, basis."

The "bicycling skills development" argument asserts that if bicyclists learn and use the rules of "vehicular bicycling," then additional infrastructure not only isn't necessary, but can have negative effects such as creating confusion (if poorly engineered), creating a false sense of security for unskilled cyclists, and (ultimately) relegating cyclists to "second-class" vehicular status (because of the additional confinement of the bike lane -- e.g., if a bike lane exists but is not used, even if for a good reason, is the cyclist liable?) and ultimately driving (so to speak) the cyclist off the roadways. The "skills" argument seems to be adopted more by people who are actually regular cycle commuters.

I believe it to be the case that bicycle accident statistics tend to bear out the "skills" arguments rather than the "infrastructure" argument. See my earlier post here.

I personally think that bicyclists need more education and skills development to be safer. I commute regularly by bicycle, and the stupid (i.e., dangerous) things I've seen cyclists do is breathtaking. This includes inexperienced cyclists, who are still in the "toy-bike" mode, as well as experienced road riders (who are nonetheless inexperienced vehicular cyclists) who believe, since they are so experienced, the "rules of the road" don't apply to their seasoned selves.

If the problem could be described as a problem of educational infrastructure rather than transportation infrastructure, then what is the best approach? I don't see this as something that can or will be taught in public schools -- they certainly have enough problems, not the least budgetary. But the educational infrastructure needs a curriculum, a venue, teachers, and a funding source.

A curriculum could be developed by interested parties drawing from the LAB curriculum (which the LAB tends to keep under rather tight control, as their training courses serve as a funding source) and other sources, such as Forester's Effective Cycling curriculum (but much abbreviated). Of course, the curriculum should be regularized on a national basis, while being scrupulous to minor variations within the governing state's "rules of the road". The cost to do this would be a few tens of thousands of dollars, I would think.

The venue for this education should be diffuse, locally-based, and trusted. I think a good candidate would be the public library system. Public libraries are available and currently serve a well-recognized educational role. They typically have many outreach programs, which a bicycle-skills program could join. They have large parking lots for basic skills training. They have a good image.

The teachers will of course be drawn from the ranks of current practitioners.

Funding is of course always an issue. How is this to be controlled and paid for? Will the state DOT have any say, will they want control or licensing authority? (I assume driver-training schools are licensed by the state DOTs.) Would this ultimately be linked with (and at least partially paid for by) a cyclist-licensing program? Others have broached the subject of testing and licensing bicyclists, and I think it's perhaps an idea whose time has come.

No Impact Man and the Senator

Colin Beavan, aka "No Impact Man" in New York City (hello again New York!) had a close call with a car (driven by a rather self-important sounding State Senator) in downtown NYC a couple of days ago that turned into a rather ugly incident. Details here. I really like NIM's writing and sentiment, but I wonder about his cycling skills. NIM allowed himself to get caught in a driver's blind spot in a situation where he had no safe outlet. This is a highly dangerous place to be. It's arguable that he did the right thing (safety wise) by striking the car (as long as he didn't sustain a hand injury), but far better to never get caught in this situation in the first place.

This leads to a handy rule for safe vehicular cycling: If you're riding on a trafficked street and there is not ample shoulder (or adjacent turn lane) space as an escape area, you have to "get out there" in the lane to force an accommodation by the driver. This is one of the rather non-intuitive aspects of safety in bike commuting, I admit, but there it is.

Just added No Impact Man to my blogr0ll. It's worth visiting.

Back from Vacation

..A vacation from this blog. My younger daughter, no stranger to blogging, says I just overdid it in August. No doubt she's right.

I've been thinking that I really need to put up my principles of safe practical cycling. This requires some preparation, though, (creation of graphics, etc.) so I've been putting it off and getting immersed in political blogs. Enough, as the politicians are so fond of saying. So look for a series in this area coming up.

As for right now, I just want to talk about a very eventful commute home last night. My commute is 9 miles, more or less, but last night had a series of interesting observations. First, it's worth noting that yesterday, I probably saw more bicyclists on the road than I ever have on a weekday. It's early fall weather and the cool evenings here in the Baltimore area are perfect for recreational cycling. So, by milepost, here's what I saw last night:

Mile 3.1: Cyclist (young, fit looking female but in street clothes) riding without a helmet, wrong way on a narrow sidewalk, across a bridge where if she came down off the curb, she would be in the oncoming traffic. (I almost stopped to lecture her, but restrained myself.)

Mile 3.2: Father and daughter cycling, same direction as traffic, her on the sidewalk (with traffic), him on the street. Both with helmets. The same sidewalk as the young lady above. Interesting lesson soon.

Mile 4.1: Passed by a young road rider, maybe in his late 20s. He said "hello, sir" (I gritted my teeth -- hate those "sirs".) I picked it up a little and kept with him for about 1/2 mile. At the end of this section, he ran a red light, crossed 2 lanes of traffic and made an illegal left turn to continue on his way. Sigh.

Mile 5.3: Passed an inexperienced rider (with helmet, but laboring in too tall a gear, and taking frequent coasting breaks) to arrive at my "nemesis" stop light - a demand-based unit that my bike won't trigger. (I've got to get organized and use this trick from Instructables!) While waiting for the light to change, passed (in the right turn lane) by a doofus, waving and smiling, apparently trying to identify with me, because he had a bike strapped to the back of his car.

Mile 7.9: Stopped at a red light in the left turn lane, ready to make the home stretch. (Only two more hills to go!) I'm all alone until a driver comes up in the right turn lane, rolls down his window, and we have a conversation:

Him: "You know, you're the first cyclist I've ever seen obeying traffic laws."
Me: "Well, I commute a lot, and this is the only way to be safe. You wouldn't believe the crazy stuff I see cyclists doing."
Him: "You be safe, and God bless you." (takes off.)

Mile 8.5: I came up on a rec cyclist as dusk was beginning to fall and it was getting dark (7:10 pm). This cyclist (female) was moving along pretty well, but had no lights, no reflector in back, nothing. She was very lucky the cars were making space for her on a busy street (typical of suburban MD -- posted speed limit 30 mph, typical speeds 40-45 mph.)

So. There you have it. Encounters with 6 cyclists and 2 motorists. Of the 6 cyclists, 3 (being generous here) were making mistakes that could turn out to cause serious accidents. I've talked before about cyclist education, but this really illustrates my point. Cyclists in the US have a very poor skill level. Until we have a way to develop vehicular cycling skills, there will be accidents (bike lanes or no.)

Not all days are like this. Some are more interesting than others.

Safety Equipment I - Bells

The laws of the State of Maryland (where I live) has this to say about how a bicycle ridden on public byways is to be equipped:

By law, all bicycles must be equipped with:

• Brakes that enable the operator to make the braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement.
• An audible device (bell or horn) that can be heard for at least 100 feet. Sirens and whistles are prohibited.
• A white beam headlight, visible at a distance of 500 feet, and a red rear reflector, visible at a distance of 600 feet, if ridden at night or during unfavorable light conditions.
• A safety seat, firmly secured to the bicycle, or a trailer must be used if traveling with a small child.
• A bicycle basket, rack or bag must be used in transporting small articles so that both hands may be kept on the handlebars.

For the longest time, even though I'm a safety fanatic, I ignored the bell requirement. After all, I reasoned, I can yell, "Bicycle!" or "On your left!" much louder than any silly bell. But a couple of weeks ago, after a close brush with a car, I dug a bell that I bought several years ago out of my parts box and installed it. It's one of those "incredibells," very compact. They don't muck up the looks of your bike nor do they get in the way if properly installed.

I was motivated after the close brush because I realized that if I were in an accident, my not being fully and properly equipped according to the state law would weaken my position in any litigation. A bike bell seems like a small burden to bolster your standing in this way.

In the two weeks that I've had the bell installed, I've made an interesting observation. Bike bells work. They work to alert people ahead of you that there's a "bike back," and they seem to be effective for two reasons:

• They don't require the hearer to understand English, and
• They are universally (or almost so) recognized as the sound of a bicycle

So, I say, if you ride on the street, make sure your bike's properly and legally equipped. You might just find that things work more smoothly to boot.

Your Bike's Sound System

I think that these kids in Queens have an idea of "bike sound system" that is different from mine.

The other day I was passing another commuter on my way in to work. A younger guy, nice bike, not slow, but kind of wobbling a little. It's my experience that when you pass a cyclist, you say, "on your left" or "on your right," not too loud, just to be courteous. Well, I said, "on your left" as I was beginning to pass, and the cyclist didn't respond. Hmph, I thought. Then I looked and noticed he had earbuds in place. I think this is dangerous, particularly if you use the isolation kind of earbud. (I also wonder if having his ears stopped up contributed to his wobbling.)

Well, there are new earphones on the block that use bone conduction to transfer the sound, and don't obstruct the ear canal, thus allowing sensing of ambient sound. Finally a system for safe cyclists! These are called "Zelco outis" (I guess they pronounce "outi" as "outie", like a belly button.) You can read a little more about them on Gizmodo.

It would be great to pick up Morning Edition as I bike in to work. Or All Things Considered as I go home. I think I'm going to have to get a pair of these.

It looks like these list for a little over a hundred dollars, but they're being heavily discounted. I'd love to hear from someone who has used them, and will gladly post on this blog any reviews from cyclists. So let me hear.

Vehicular Cycling in Beijing

Sometimes, I wish people who weren't vehicular cyclists would get trained before they try to write about it.

Katie Thomas, a sportswriter for the (wait for it) New York Times, writes in an article today that urban cycling is nerve-wracking. Nerve-wracking, that is, for an inexperienced cyclist. For an experienced one, such as Jason McCartney, a member of the US Olympic cycling team, it's "giddy" fun.

I'll give Thomas some credit. She admits her inexperience by calling her own idea "archair arrogance". And, she offers a good one-sentence description of vehicular cycling: "It required looking over one’s shoulder, moving into an open space in traffic, and trying to avoid pedestrians — all at once." But by describing the experience as "not for the faint of heart" and as implying that left turns across traffic were tantamount to taking one's life in one's hands, she in effect portrays vehicular cycling as not for ordinary people. And that's just wrong.

See "A Relaxing Ride, but Not for the Faint of Heart".

Good Cop / Bad Cop

Here's the good cop, pictured at right. Tom Casady, Chief of Police, Lincoln, NE. This guy makes me think that living in Lincoln, Nebraska might not be such a bad thing. (And I have to admit, this is the absolute first thing to make me think this.) Read his post on bicycles and cars sharing the road here. The rest of his blog is an interesting insight into medium-sized-town policing. Update: Tom has a good sense of humor. When discussing how to avoid the "door prize", he says, "A row of parallel-parked cars is risky, and cyclists generally need to move out to the left by the approximate length of a 1972 Monte Carlo's door." (The link to the car image is by him.)

Here's the bad cop, also pictured at right. Patrick Pogan, rookie policeman in New York City. This guy brutally tackled a cyclist at a Critical Mass demonstration in NYC. The video is of course on YouTube here. I have (like about so many other things) mixed emotions about Critical Mass, because I feel like their manifestations are unnecessarily confrontational. (I mean, I holler at rude or oblivious drivers, but it's always for a reason.) The NYPD police union is defending him, more here. Good luck. If the video is admissible, it sure looks like an assault to me. I mean, this &*%^! cop didn't even flag the cyclist down!

Be your own judge.

Ghost Cycles, or: A Plea for Cyclist Education

A family friend, Ann Chou, sent me to this link on New York Magazine about "Ghost Riders" or Ghost Bicycles. I must say that I have mixed emotions about this phenomenon. In some ways I feel it is very touching to have remembrances of this kind.

However, I also wonder about what it is exactly that these displays are trying to say. Are they:

• sad, simple, heartfelt memorials?
• some kind of political statement about bicyclists getting insufficient protection?
• warnings about the dangers of practical bicyling?

The placard in the photo at right says that Franco Scorcia, age 72, was "killed by a car" on December 6, 2007. It seems to me that this description is inadequate. What really happened, I wonder? I don't know the particular circumstances of Franco's accident, but I do know that I've seen cyclists in urban settings do a number of things that put themselves at risk, often without their realizing it. Things like riding on sidewalks that cross streets and driveways, riding the wrong way on streets, crossing against traffic lights, and generally being unaware of developing traffic situations.

In my thousands of miles of cycle commuting, it is my experience that motorists generally do their best to keep cyclists safe. There are ignorant and impatient motorists, of course, but the truth is this: If a cyclist is going to use the roadway in proximity to automotive traffic, (and mind you, I think that this is a great idea!) then the cyclist, and no one else, is primarily responsible for his own safety.

This may sound a little unforgiving. It may even be unforgiving, but it is by no means impossible or unattainable by an ordinary citizen. All that is needed is education and some practice. I'll pick this theme up again at the bottom of this post.

In the spirit of running the numbers, let's look at the actual causes of serious injury and death in bicycle and automobile-bicycle accidents. The chart at right comes directly from the sixth edition of the Effective Cycling Instructors Manual, published by John Forester on his website. It presents some pretty non-intuitive numbers, I think, in that motorist error accounts for less than ten percent of serious bicycle accidents. The simple fact that "cyclist error" accounts for one half of the serious accidents suggests that there is some serious educating to be acquired by those who would become practical cyclists.

So, let's say you're motivated to begin some practical cycling, say to work or even to a nearby commerical area for some shopping. You've tuned up your bike, you've put together some activewear to ride in, and you've looked at routes on Google maps. What's the next thing to do? Well, it depends on how you might learn best:

• If you want classroom training, take a class sanctioned by the League of American Bicyclists as described on this page of their website;
• If you're a self-paced web kind of person, you can go here to see the League's presentations (which are pretty bare-bones kind of PowerPoint slides, but they do have script content to accompany them.)
• If you want a really complete book, go get a copy of the Bible, Effective Cycling by John Forester. Forester is the Godfather of what is known as "Vehicular Cycling", a protocol governing the safe conduction of bicycles and bicyclists in automotive traffic. It's basically what I've practiced for years.

I might point out that the protocol taught by the League and that taught by Forester don't agree on all points. Forester's is a little more "hard core" and his tone is more strident, but his information is unassailable. There's nothing that will ever magically make cycling as convenient as motoring; you have to plan more, organize more, work more and (yes) sweat more. But honestly, integrating cycling into your daily life has such sweet rewards.

Thanks, Ann, for the Ghost Cycles link. (I've just added Ann's blog, Sit, Billy., to my blog list. Go visit!)

Cycling tragedy

This is a tragic event that did not need to happen. I am so very sorry this happened, and my sincere condolences go out to those immediately affected, but one way of looking at this is that it was a poorly-prepared-for stunt. Before you can even apply the rules of effective cycling in moving from place to place, you must choose your route carefully.

If these cyclists were aware that (as the article states) "the road was built in the sixties so it is unchanged ... narrow and very scary- dead straight and flat so everyone speeds, and when the trucks pass by you are either almost blown off the road or sucked into its draft", then why did they not cycle with a follow-car with emergency blinkers on? If they were not aware of this, then why didn't they do their homework?

A long cross-country cycle ride, even one with sympathetic roads, requires planning. This may sound harsh, but I think these people are candidates for the Darwin Awards.

I find it hard to see how this event, even had it come off as planned, relates to the reality of everyday practical cycling. Practical cycling is cycling to and from work and errands. This is where bicycles can displace cars. But even doing that in areas where you are familiar with the roads, you must plan your route.

Luckily, this is much, much easier to do than it used to be. Google Maps has an "avoid highways" option when getting directions, and the drag-t0-alter feature makes tuning a trip for cycling very easy. Google Maps is one of those things that can improve the safety and practicality of cycing. It makes modern-day cycling much easier.

Updated: Here's an article on Internet mapping for bicyclists.