Cyclist Safety - Is it Really that Hard to Understand??

I found this on the Internet, from the govt of the state of Georgia.

GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 13-17 - FINAL REPORT
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IN THE [Georgia] HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL - July 2016
http://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/ggp/query:_ca:%22GA+T700.R4+M1+2016+B53%22

Abstract: An accurate understanding of the expected effectiveness of bicycle and pedestrian safety countermeasures is needed to support decisions about how to best allocate limited public resources to increase safety for non-motorized users. However, the kind of data necessary for developing Highway Safety Manual (HSM)–style safety performance functions for bicycle and pedestrian treatments are not currently available. Limited research has been done to date about the impact of bicycle and pedestrian treatments, and most studies are not robust enough to draw broad conclusions. Most agencies surveyed valued safety as a key component of their decision to implement infrastructure, but most did not collect enough exposure and crash data to adequately assess the safety impacts. The two major challenges in using crash records for bicycle safety research are that crashes in general and cyclist crashes specifically are underreported, and pedestrian and bicycle crashes are rare events. Therefore, GDOT should pursue case-control approaches in the immediate and build toward more robust data collection, including new sources for bicycle and pedestrian crash data, counts for exposure data, and site-specific before-and-after treatment data collection.

As I read this, bicycle and pedestrian accidents are sufficiently rare and/or not reported that their approach will be to wait until there are more reported accidents and then study the subject. But in the meanwhile . . . after all, those resources that you might allocate are limited. Etc.

Also, the pseudo-military phrasing, "expected effectiveness of bicycle and pedestrian safety countermeasures," sounds like it concerned with measures to oppose rather than support safety, but who knows. And why do they refer to "bicycle and pedestrian safety" and not "cyclist and pedestrian safety?"

Strange.

All Possible Bike Accessories

A bike of 1896 shown equipped with all possible accessories

www.loc.gov/resource/sn84031792/1896-05-10/ed-1/?sp=50
Title-The journal, May 10, 1896
Place of Publication-New York [N.Y.]
Library of Congress

"I wonder what a bicycle would look like equipped with all the accessories that are advertised!"

The Wheel has undertaken to gratify the curious. The illustration shows just how a wheel would look under the conditions stated. The picture is not overdrawn. Every accessory that is shown is actually on the market and offered for sale. Enumerated they are as follows: Lamp, bell, pneumatic brake, double handle-bar, canopy, camera, luggage carrier, waterproof cape, watch and watch holder, match box, speed Indicator, cyclometer, fork pump, continuous alarm (on front axle), balancer, cradle spring, child's seat, anatomical saddle, back support, rubber, mud-guards, handle-bar buffer, tool bag, tourists' case, spring pedals, toe clips, portable stand, changeable gear, gear case and temporary tire repairer. Twenty-nine articles in all. The Wheel

Today the possible accessory choices boggle the mind. I happened up the site of a newish bike company that offers as options:

Safety Features

Front/rear lights
Turn Signals
Intuitive brake light
Laser emitted “bike lane”
Front and rear camera
Collision detection

Tech Features

Built-in WiFi Hotspot
USB ports to power devices
Bluetooth Connectivity
GPS and Anti-theft Protection
Centralized Battery System
Power Generation Systems
App supported​

Low Maintenance

Make our bikes “hassle-free”
Belt drive
Less wear than a chain
No oil needed
Internally geared hub
Ease of shifting
No derailleur
No “cross chain” issues
All cables and power sources built into the frame​

Good Lord. I don't think that more complex systems than cars are equipped with (such as laser generated "bike lanes" you provide for yourself) make much sense but I could be wrong about that but I'm absolutely sure front and rear cameras are not safety equipment, they are a tool for assuring better results if you end up in court, and maybe as a way to record some travels for amusement's sake.

I guess Tech Features is to be understood as "distractions for when you are stopped" (or at least most of it). I particularly like "power general systems" in the plural. Whatever.

The low maintenance aspects - well, I guess that there is something to some of that, but there are always tradeoffs - and TANSTAAFL.

First Aid for Injured Wheelmen (the 1896 Advice)

Accidents happen, to all sorts of people, including Sir Richard Branson as well as more regular folks - and have since the first years of cycling. This article's presentation of corrective first aid measures seems pretty intense!


The Journal, May 10, 1896, New York [N.Y.] Library of Congress
www.loc.gov/resource/sn84031792/1896-05-10/ed-1/?sp=46

In the same way with the vast army of bicycle riders. The chance of Injury to any particular person at any particular time is very small, indeed, but when an accident does occur, as with the railroad, we agree In regarding bicycling as a very dangerous sport. The bicycle is new to the human race, but the body, with its nervous system, its heart, its lungs, and all its other organs, is the same old machine. The condition in which a patient is found after a fearful fall from an 1896 model bicycle presents the same symptoms, involves the same principles and calls for the same remedies as if he had been hurled from a chariot In the first century.

The article goes on in considerable detail, which can be read here. Yikes!

Remote Control Brake for Your Kid's Bike - God Help Mankind

Ugh. That's all I can say about this one.

"MiniBrake: to make cycling safer for kids all over the world!"

This YouTube video was mentioned by the NYC Bikesnob blog - it seems to represent a new low in parenting. Or something. The young Hungarian developers of this idea have setup an IndieGoGo project to fund commercial production of these devices, which are a remote control brake system for kids' bikes. If your child is riding off into danger as you talk on your cell phone (as shown in the video!), you just punch a button on a remote and the brake is applied. Since the remote has a range of 50 meters, the brake automatically applies if it moves out of range of the remote, and also applies if the battery is running low.

I suppose I could launch into my personal list of the reasons why I have problems with this, but I think each of us can do that for ourselves.

Note that they maintain that, "MiniBrake does not replace parental care and prudence!" Umm. And, "The product contains a „black box”, which logs all braking events." Oh great, already heading down the Strava path, if only for "braking events."

They have had this funding opportunity open for five days and raised about $3,300 of their $75,000 target, which they hope to achieve by May 11. Well, who knows.

Addendum: This isn't a new idea - as we know, there are few new ideas with bicycles. Some British folks came up with "Bike Stoppa" (but URL appears dead) in 2008 - it was written up news article but they seem to have ceased production, although someone sold one for several dollars used on eBay as recently as March of last year. It probably doesn't say much for the commercial chances of this endeavor for the Hungarians that the British version failed.

Driving, Smartphoning, Biking

OK, at this point we were both stopped

A bit east of 14th St, traveling west on Independence Avenue SE (in Washington DC), I found myself pacing alongside a new-ish Mercedes with a fellow driving and typing on his phone.

People in cars should keep in mind that for a cyclist, nothing can be worse than finding oneself "sharing" the road with a driver whose attention is diverted in this way. This guy is an accident waiting to happen - and if it's with a cyclist, the Mercedes wins (and the cyclist loses).

I'll confess - I didn't take this while we were still moving but only after he stopped and I stopped alongside. But it tells you something about his engagement with the outside world that he was oblivious to me alongside while driving and when I stopped and took his picture.

What I really don't get is when people like this guy, in order to (sort of) do two things at once do them both poorly - or at least the driving part. It's a dead giveaway that you don't have your mind on the task at hand when an old guy like me can keep up with your Mercedes.

Belling the Bike (Not the Cat)

With the trails busier, some use bells to indicate they are passing but most don't (where I ride, anyway). I saw someone the other day with "jingle bells" on his handlebars, ringing more or less continuously, although not very noticeably.

I then happened upon this ad from 1898 - for the the Saks [chain] stores, in Washington DC. "Looking towards spring season sales of bicycles and bicycle 'sundries.'"


Full ad is here, with many bike accessory prices from 1898 (not just bells)

The "continuously ringing bicycle bell" is apparently not a new idea.

Bicycle Bells. Easily the best, pronounced by all the most expert riders, is the Saks' Continuous Ringing Bell. It "winds like a watch," is simple of mechanism, nothing to get out of order, and will ring from 10 to 20 minutes with one winding .... $1.

A dollar for a bicycle bell is pretty pricey for those times. The ad lists a "single stroke, large size" bell for only 12 cents. More exotic "bell grips, a handy combination of grip and bell" were 25 cents (each - unfortunately no illustration of what these looked like). In general, by 1898 the prices for bicycles had collapsed to a considerable degree - the Spalding price was only $50 for their best bicycle, down from more like 100 dollars a few years earlier.

Turn Signals for Bikes; or, Bad Ideas Persist

I have a daily Google "news alert" that brings up random news items that are the equivalent of running a search in news.google.com on the keyword "bicycle" for the preceding 24 hours. It doesn't generate much of interest for the most part.

I was amused to see an item about bike turn signals in a blog called cleantechnica.com, the "#1 cleantech or clean energy site in the United States." The author asks the question, "Why didn’t someone come up with this a long time ago?! Turn signals for bicyclists would be very useful and could go a long way towards reducing bicycle-vehicle collisions." He then quotes from and points to a longer piece on some other site that gives more details about a do-it-yourself solution to this perceived problem. The inventor asserts that, "unfortunately, few people know hand signals anymore, so [he] decided to make his own wearable turn signals that he could put on his arms and turn on by lifting his arm up from his side." These signals "use a mercury tilt switch and some electroluminescent (EL) panels that light up to show big bright arrows every time he lifts up the arm that corresponds with the direction he wants to move."

This CleanTechnica site lets you embed an entire page (more or less) in your blog entry. So here is the page:

Turn Signals for Bicyclists! (DIY) (via Clean Technica)

  Why didn’t someone come up with this a long time ago?! Turn signals for bicyclists would be very useful and could go a long way towards reducing bicycle-vehicle collisions. From lifehacker: Unfortunately, few people know hand signals anymore, so Instructables user CTY1995 decided to make his…

"Lamps On All Vehicles" (1896 Newspaper Article)

1896 article about lighting for bicycles and other vehicles

The article text is as follows:

The District division of the League of American Wheelmen is still working for the interests of the bicycle rider.

In answer to a request from the Commissioners, Chief Consul Robertson yesterday mailed to them his reasons for thinking that all vehicles should carry lamps [at] night. The letter reads:

"August 29. 1896.
"Hon. Commissioners, District of Columbia.

"Gentlemen: In reply to your request that I should submit facts showing the necessity for all kinds of vehicles carrying lamps, I would respectfully submit the following reasons:

"Bicycles have been adjudged by the courts all ever the country as vehicles with equal rights on the streets and roads.

"Bicycles are required to carry lights. Private and business vehicles are not so restricted. According to this discrimination a bicycle for hire (which is a public vehicle) should be required to carry a light, but not the machine used as a private conveyance.

An electric bicycle light, shown in the article

"A number of business houses require their drivers to carry a light within or about their vehicles, more for their own safely than for that of others. This can also be said of some of the owners of private carriages. At times it is very difficult to determine the direction in which a vehicle is traveling, or on which side ot the street it happens to lie, by the noise occasioned by the horses' feet. A light would show just what part of the street it occupies. One might advance the argument that if it were approaching it would be on the left hand side of the street, and on the right hand side if going in the same direction. This would be so if everyone obeyed the rules of the road, but unfortunately, this is not so, and more wagons are on the incorrect than on the correct side, else there would be less necessity for lamps on horse-propelled vehicles.

"A carriage or wagon is often collided with by both bicycles and other vehicles. This is especially the case when drawn up alongside of a curb awaiting the owner. In this instance the horse, not being in motion, no noise is made. A vehicle in this connection occupies the same relation to the street as a pile of mortar or bricks, and should be provided with a light. It is it temporary obstruction, and one is more liable to danger than if it were known to be there, like mortar or bricks.

"A cycler generally leaves his lamp lighted when stopping before a house, because he knows his machine is in danger
of collision if he does not take this precaution.

"Therefore, I would respectfully request that all vehicle, be required to carry lamps.

"Very respectfully,
"WM. T. ROBERTSON,
"Chief Consul D. C. Div. L. A. W [League of American Wheelmen]

Urban Bikers' Tricks & Tips (Book Review)

Urban Bikers' Tricks & Tips by Dave Glowacz

My rating: 1 of 5 stars

I'm not going to pretend this is an unbiased book review - after I got annoyed by some of what the author said on certain subjects, I realized I could nitpick the thing here there and everywhere - in a box, with a fox, and so on. So, off we go!


My main complaint about this book is that it is chock full of really dumb so-called advice. Self-styled as "Mr Bike" the author says he is a certified instructor for the League of American Bicyclists - presumably for LAB courses he teaches he sticks to their instructional materials because I doubt they would support his more dubious and often outright illegal suggestions.

Mr Bike's view is that one can be a "sly biker" who "knows how to read traffic well" and therefore can "beat traffic without scaring peds or making motorists hit their brakes." That all sounds pretty good, but his specific strategies can be questionable - with yellow lights, he advocates "maintain your speed" when looking at an oncoming car waiting to turn left, but "be ready to go round the car, stop, or make an emergency turn." Slow down? No, that would "make yourself a target."

Much of the "sly biker" advice is situational and detailed and I think kind of absurd. There are six pages of left turn scenarios! This advice typically assumes that you, the reader, have little ability to think through such things on your own, that instead you will remember Mr Bike's book and that on page 86 he covered this very type of thing and you should . . . no, that ain't gonna happen. Of course since Mr Bike seems to have little of what I consider common sense there is no particular reason for him to think you have any, either.

The bike does have bike selection and mechanical troubleshooting sections, but they aren't as detailed as the left turn information. I don't know what to do with a book that says that for a rubbing derailleur, for example, that the solution is "have a mechanic clean and adjust the derailleur."

At various places Mr Bike admits some of his advice isn't legal, but I can't really see why a LAB instructor should be advocating under "what to do about conflicts [with motorists]: fight back" that you can "grab the antenna and bend it as you go by." A helpful sidebar does opine that "in most fights between cyclists and motorists, cyclists lose." But to try to even the odds, Mr Bike notes that a U-lock is potential weapon and there is a section on acquiring and using pepper spray.


This illustration of bicyclist self-defense from 111 years ago is better than what I observed in Mr Bike's book

Mr Bike contradicts himself. Much of his advice advocates the sort of cyclist behavior that motorists do in fact notice and that increaes the present motorist-cyclist friction - but in places he shows an awareness that it would be good if folks thought better of cyclists - "when biking in crosswalks or on sidewalks, slow down and always yield to people walking. That way peds will think well of bikers." Until the peds get back into their cars and meet you on the road, anyway, if you follow this book's advice.

Mr Bike's use of statistics to make some points is peculiar - for example, in a sidebar advocating cycling on roads, he notes "you've already taken bigger risks - more bike crashes happen on off-street paths than in traffic. Why? On paths, people bike next to walkers, runners, skaters." Well, yes - if by "bigger risk" he means risk of a crash, that's true, but the risk of a serious crash as far as consequences to the cyclist are higher when you are out with the cars.

Under "special techniques" he advocates drafting behind motor vehicles - vans are good if you can see through their windows, now there is a helpful hint - and "skitching" (grabbing onto a vehicle) and hitching a ride. One is just dumb and the other is both dumb and illegal.

My daughter commented, "maybe he is just kidding?" I wish.

In addition to all that, there is a "do it on the cheap" advice that I think isn't very good. For example, there is a complex explanation of how to build a "do it yourself" headlight system for less than 100 bucks, but even when the most recent edition of this book was published you could buy over 100 lumens of LED headlight for under $100 - now you can get 150 lumens for say $65. No urban biker needs more than that.

The title page lists 11 illustrators and two photographers whose efforts contribute to an extremely random and often busy graphic look for most pages. (Just thought I'd add that while I'm complaining.)

On the plus side, the photographs of how to load a bike onto a transit bus bike rack were taken in Seattle and are so old, the buses are ones that I drove when I lived there more than twenty years ago. (No, I don't recognize individual buses, just the series numbers.) Seattle no longer uses bus bike racks like the one shown in the book, but most cities do, I think. Mr Bike makes loading a bike into such a rack into an 11 step process that looks pretty complicated.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

I think there is more useful good advice in this 1896 Washington Times article I blogged about earlier that includes such common sense suggestions as "Many of the accidents we read of every day could be avoided if the riders would regulate their pace according to their skill in managing the wheel under difficulties" and "Do not ride in the middle of a path or driveway. You are liable to meet with an accident, and cannot recover for damages to your wheel unless you observe the rules or the road." Or my favorite - "Always preserve your dignity and pay no attention to small boys or dogs, both of which are perfectly harmless to the average wheelman."

I'm not sure "dignity" is in Mr Bike's vocabulary.

View my list of cycling books and reviews in Goodreads.

What is a Scorcher (of the 1890s)?

The question came up on another blog as to "what is a scorcher?" in reference to an 1896 pledge by a cyclist not to be one. A cyclist who was a scorcher was commonly understood to ride aggressively at high speeds outside of controlled races risking crashes with other riders, pedestrians, and others. The scorcher was also commonly criticized for his (or her) less than upright seat on the bicycle. (This posture, however, was perfectly OK during a race . . . ) Since the bicycles of the day either had no brakes at all or generally poor ones compared to what we are used to today, the potential for mayhem was that much greater.


A "scorcher" in costume in an 1896 parade in Washington DC

The phrase "scorcher" was well enough known that someone dressed as a devil riding a bike would be understood to be spoofing the idea of being one. This scorcher, however, is sitting up nicely. From the Washington DC Morning Times of July 15, 1896.



A woman could also be a scorcher

Note her aggressive position on the bicycle, not to mention her mannish attire, as portrayed in Dr. Neesen's Book on Wheeling.

And we have this poem from an 1896 issue of the L.A.W Bulletin and Good Roads.

THE INTROSPECTIVE SCORCHER.

I am the scorcher!
Please observe
The curve
That appertains unto my spine!
With head ducked low
I go
O'er man and beast, and woe
Unto the thing
That fails to scamper when I ting-a-ling!
Let people jaw
And go to law
To try to check my gate.
If that's their game!
I hate
To kill folks, but I'll do it just the same,
I guess,
Unless
They clear the track for me;
Because, you see,
I am the scorcher, full of zeal,
And just the thing I look like on the wheel!

The problem with this fellow is his less than upright posture

A rider's "incorrect position" as shown in The Bicycle: Its Selection, Riding and Care from 1892.

Yes, as much as anything, the problem with scorchers seems to have been their aggressive posture, although why it was OK for the race track but not OK on city streets is a mystery.

Commuting and Bike Lighting

Alas, Daylight Savings Time is over, and it is the season for commuting home in darkness. While there are certain entertaining challenges to this, mostly I find myself having to resist being super annoyed with an ever-increasing number of fellow bike riders.

My approach is perfect, of course. Well, not really, but I think it is OK.

Part one is a good headlight that doesn't blink. I bought a NiteRider Sol 115 lumen headlight three years ago (almost exactly) for $99. In areas where it is truly dark on moonless, cloudless nights (the clouds can reflect a lot of city light back down, it seems) you can see the details of the trail reasonably well. On the other hand, it isn't so bright that it blinds oncoming cyclists.

Part two is to have a couple of those blinking red things on the back. At the moment I have only one because although I bought three; two are broken. The idea was to have the same bracket on several bikes so I could move them from bike to bike easily, but I wasn't expecting them to fail quite so readily. I do not recommend the "ViewPoint Flashback 5 LED Mini Tail Light" - the circuit boards are too fragile.

Part three is to add a yellow reflective belt for enhanced visibility from the rear. I particularly like this one - "3M Scotchlite (TM) Reflective Material Waist Belt" - Home Depot sells them for 11 dollars. When I ride with a messenger bag, I wrap it around the bag and it helps with visibility from the rear. When I ride a bag with panniers, I make the belt as long as it can be and wear it like a sash, which enhances visibility front and rear.


The NiteRider "Sol" 115 lumen + headlight I use

The "the more the better" approach is getting more popular all the time, thanks I suppose to the falling price of good (as in bright) lighting. For the same $99 you can buy 250 lumens worth of NiteRider bike light at Performance. (For only another 50, you can have 600!) While I have no doubt it is wonderful to light up the trail ahead with all that light, most cyclists are pretty poor at aiming their lights so as to avoid blinding oncoming riders and I don't think the manufacturors have spent enough time focusing the light output particularly well, either.

The "headlight on head" approach is also more popular since you can now bolt 250 lumens to your helmet with a self-contained battery (no cord to a battery in your back pocket etc.). This generally is worse for the oncoming cyclists than 250 lumens bolted to a handlebar. The headlight on helmet makes a lot of sense for bombing through forests at night on a mountain bike, but that isn't what we are talking about here.

The blinky light approach has evolved to include the super-bright blinky option. 100s of lumens, flashing! Right in your face! Well, obviously I find this annoying. Am I the only one? Anyway, I don't see how this would "scale" - let's say instead of the relatively small number of people riding home in the dark on bikes we have now that we had four times as many. It would be miserable if half of them had these lights. It's bad enough now as far as I'm concerned.

The retrograde approach of little or no light has yet to disappear - perhaps they are protesting the people with too much light by having none at all? I don't know, but they're still out there, sometimes in pretty dark circumstances.

A couple of nights ago I was entertained by a fellow who was in this last group meeting up with someone in the "power light on head" category in front of me on the trail. The underpowered fellow had an anemic headlight using a CVS brand C battery or two purchased several years ago, I would guess - completely useless for seeing the way ahead (and not much for "being seen" either). He was charging along in the dark going south under the many bridges on the GW Parkway (Mount Vernon) trail near the 14th Street bridge. Apparently he forgot that the trail takes a dogleg left and an oncoming bike with both 100s of lumens on the handlebars and on the rider's head blinded him - he rode right off the trail into the grass, but surprisingly didn't lose control. Apparently embarrassed, he tried to power back onto the trail but then the wet leaves kicked in and he almost crashed as he spun out.

No doubt to solve this he went to Performance (or the equivalent) and bought 1,000 lumens of help so as to join the "more is better" club.

Oh well.

500 Hurt in New York City by Bikes - Good? Bad?

The Wall Street Journal (that is mostly behind a paywall, so no point in linking to it) has an amazingly bad article titled "A Different Spin on the Dangers of Urban Cycling" - the first sentence states, "Two recent studies appear to expose cyclists as a potent urban menace." I guess for this fellow it appears that way.

The first study he quotes compares soot accumulation in the lungs of five (5!) cyclists who commute by bike in London with Londoners who don't. The cyclists had higher levels of black carbon in their lungs. When I think of something as an "potent urban menace" I am thinking it means to other people and not to themselves. But it says cycling is bad, so he tosses that into his article.

The second study has been reduced by the Internet (and the Wall Street Journal) to "500 pedestrians hurt by bikes in NYC a year." The study, done at Hunter College, was more nuanced that that and tried to determine if more or fewer pedestrians were injured by cyclists over a four year period - their conclusion was that despite more cycling and cycling infrastructure, the number has dropped (slightly). So this is a good metric - that is, even if we want to think that cyclists are a potent urban menace, it seems to be declining, or anyway not growing at the rate that cycling is growing. No one suggests that the 500 figure is good but there are questions such as, "compared to what?" and "is it going up or down?" that these articles typically ignore.

Different publications draw different conclusions - the New York Daily News takes the view it suggests a "need for tougher enforcement" which I guess is step beyond the Wall Street Journal position. But a physical fitness advocacy group takes the position that this is good news since the number isn't growing - "The city says that while bike use is up, the total number of accidents is stable. According to a Hunter College study, some 500 pedestrians are hurt each year by cyclists. At Bike New York, there is nothing but optimism." Kind of oddly put, but anyway.

This takes the "is the glass half full or half empty to new heights (or lows, depending on your point of view). And it does nothing for confidence in the Wall Street Journal.

Another point of view is provided by the trailer for the new bike messenger movie set in NYC - it makes it look like it is the messengers and the taxi drivers who are having dramatic traffic interactions.

Bad Street Crossing for Bikes

Hoping traffic clears, then he'll finish crossing

This kind of thing is crazy - this cyclist, having seen this intersection before, assumes that the traffic pattern is the same every day. The cross traffic has the green light. Traffic from the left clears and then, usually, traffic from the right. So if you go out as he has done and wait in the middle, it should be possible to get across once the traffic from the right clears (without waiting for a green light, that is).

But what are motorists to think of this? They have the green light, and there you are in the middle of the road. There is no center island. And sometimes the traffic pattern doesn't work out and traffic ends up coming from both directions at the same time, and there you are, in the middle of the road with no place to hide.

Complex Landscape of Bicycle Safety

My Google "news alert" for news items on the Internet about bicycles brings a strange collection of cycling safety-related items this morning.

A short article in the Economist takes the lesson from commuter cyclist Michael Wang's fatal accident in Seattle (actually, from three recent fatal cyclist acidents in the Seattle area) that, "with a very few exceptions, America is no place for cyclists" because it isn't safe - "dying while cycling is three to five times more likely in America than in Denmark, Germany or the Netherlands."

The article concludes that traffic calming, dedicated cycle tracks, and stop lights and traffic laws that favor cyclists work together to create a safer environment for cycling. Portland, Oregon is given credit for following this approach while Seattle flunks - "Nearly 6% of commuters bike to work in Portland, the highest proportion in America. But in five out of the past ten years there have been no cycling deaths there. In the nearby Seattle area, where cycling is popular but traffic calming is not, three cyclists have been killed in the past few weeks."

Meanwhile a Danish design award, in the category of "play," was given to the Hovding "airbag helmet," from Sweden. (I did a short blog post about this helmet earlier when it garnered attention for its unusual approach.) The designers of this "helmet" (that inflates on impact from a collar) won 100,000 Euros! The problem this "helmet" solves is that, "people would rather get hurt than mess up their hair." And a typical helmet may be "too sporty" for the rider's particular sense of style. The theory is that a significant number of these helmet-refuseniks will then buy these 500 dollar helmet-substitute collars (that appear to require recharging, among other issues). Some statistics related to head injuries and fatalities in western Europe are tossed in to support the need for this product. (For the same countries that the Economist says are safe.)



The Danish design committee seems completely at odds with the Dutch cyclists interviewed in this 2011 video who were asked about cycling and helmets - they seem to regard their everyday cycling as entirely safe, and most state they would refuse to wear helmets if required to (much less a rechargable helmet-like collar that costs as much as ten helmets). They are asked when they started cycling (typically, at age three-four), why they use a bicycle for transport (a not-very-surprising list, from "good for the environment" to "less expensive" etc.), how many days per week (typically five to seven), and "why don't you wear a helmet." The answers to this question are much more varied, but do include "because I look like crap" but also (my favorite) "because only Germans do that" and "it's safe without" and "it's very safe."

The last question is whether the person would wear a helmet if it became required by law in Holland - the typical answer is "no" with some explanations such as "you really don't need one" and "you (the typical cyclist) are not traveling very fast." One commented (after indicating she would follow the law) that "I don't think I would ride so often then." (The Australian doing the interview also asked if a Dutch cyclist, visiting Australia, would follow their helmet law - but the answers weren't so interesting to that one.)

This is a somewhat disjoint post, I realize - but then so is much of my thinking about this topic. No more disjoint than the reality of cycling safety, I suspect.

Increased Visibility, Increased Safety?

Project Aura: Bicycle Safety Lighting System from Project AURA on Vimeo.

Project Aura is a clever idea to increase the visibility of cyclists at night, particularly from the side. Since the system is driven by the wheels spinning, they added in a feature that the lighting changes from white to red when the bike slows down, something like a brake light on a car, although not facing to the rear.

As can be seen from the video, it's a dramatic lighting system. In order to focus attention on the Aura system, the video of the bike at night includes no headlight and no rear reflector, although their Vimeo page notes that "By law (in Pennsylvania, the laws vary state by state) a front headlamp and rear reflector are required, use of a rear blinky is up to the rider's discretion."

I have two problems with this thing - first, when you look at Aura's other information, it is clear that this isn't a particularly simple system - having a spinning light system attached to both wheels for a typical cyclist would be a big pain to maintain, adding needless weight and maintenance issues (not to mention cost) to what is, in the end, the delightful simplicity of a typical bike. Moreover there can be too much of a good thing - making the bike this visible by jazzing it up like this could be a traffic distraction. For motor vehicles there are laws about such things - you have to have certain lights, but you can't bolt lights of any color and type all over your car. It does seem wise to have your bike highly visible at night from the sides; the easiest way to achieve this seems to be to wear something visible and reflectorized on your upper body.

MonkeyLectric from Jade Ajani on Vimeo.

Apparently there are 'arty' spoke lighting systems with a focus more on misguided bike bling than safety.

All of that is better than a home lighting system that is "pendant lights . . . constructed with spokes and hubs remaining from the destruction of bike rims." I guess if you don't stay out of accidents with good lighting, your ride can become a lighting system itself. Weird.

Is Cycling Safe? The Product Development View

Since I ride a bike more than a 100 miles a week on average, I think about bike safety a bit. Mostly I ride on bike paths or bike trails (or whatever they are properly called) although of course they are used by pedestrians, runners, etc - but not motor vehicles! And it is the motor vehicles that represent the significant safety problem for cyclists.

In the Seattle area, supposedly a very bike friendly region, two middle-aged cyclists were recently killed within a period of less than two weeks, one by a truck that went onto the shoulder where the cyclist was riding and another when an SUV made a left turn once oncoming car traffic had cleared, but not the oncoming cyclist. (In the second case, the driver got out, ascertained there was an accident, then drove away - hit and run.) Even though I read about cyclists getting killed all the time, for some reason these two events bother me.

At a conference recently (that had nothing to do with cycling) I heard a presentation by someone from Kickstarter, an organization (well, it's a commmercial company, actually) that provides a vehicle for getting start-up funding for various kinds of endeavors through their web site. Many are small cultural projects but others are efforts to start sales of products of one sort or another.

As it happens, Mr. Bikesnob NYC had a recent blog entry about a Kickstarter project for a bike turn signal system that is built into a left cycling glove. Kickstarter seeks solicitation primarily through videos; the "you turn" fundraiser video is below.



Mr. Bikesnob has lots of fun spoofing this Kickstarter video in various ways, although he leaves aside the main question I had (at first) which is whether the fellow is serious - the circuitry in the glove detects whether the cyclist points his hand up (for a right turn) or out to the left (for a left turn) and activates one of two LED arrows built into the glove. Yes, but . . . we inherited the "left hand straight up = right turn" thing from people driving cars (from when turn signals for cars were not always present!) and most cyclists now use their right arms to signal right turns. Since the left brake lever is for the front brake (also known as the brake that works best) I never signal right turns with my left hand - common sense dictates using my right hand to signal, stuck out to the right, and keeping my left hand on that brake lever. So if you wanted LED turn signals combined with gloves, it would be simplest to put a single arrow on each glove - assuming you think it makes sense to have such digital signals at all.

But I digress.

The real question I have is whether attempts to buttress cyclists' safety through developing new products to buy and use is a good approach. That it is an American approach, that much is obvious, but is it going to make it safer for cyclists?

Frankly I'm doubtful. The two things I believe that are needed to improve the safety of people on bicycles (vis a vis cars, trucks, etc.) is more people on bicycles, which inevitably leads to a lower accident rate for the cyclists; and, in tandem with that, a change in our transportation culture such that the "complete streets" concept makes sense to more and more people.

Of course, common sense says that cyclists are safer when they are visible to motorists if they use roads. (And of course there are laws requiring reflectors, lights, etc. for certain conditions.) This product, however, seems to contribute more to making cyclists more car-like, which doesn't seem particularly helpful. An LED turn signal system for bicycles contributes mostly to making cycling seem more dangerous and more complicated than it should be. The more safety equipment we pile onto cyclists, the less appealing it becomes, thus defeating the "more cyclists = fewer accidents" strategy.

Kickstarter has another cycling funding project - a bicycle brake light system.



It is suggested that having a brake light like a car's (that comes on when the brakes are applied) "has the potential to save many lives." As with the glove-signal system, it seems more to add to the complexity of cycling and to the impression that it is dangerous. Having a light or lights and a reflector to make a cyclist visible when it is dark and to take other measures to increase one's visibility to motorists makes good common sense but "I failed to realize the bicycle was stopping and therefore ran into it" isn't the problem I read about with cyclists hit by cars from the rear, it's the "I wasn't expecting a cyclist at that location, I didn't see him/her, and . . . " situations that are the problem. As the number of cyclists increases, the motorists get used to them, and expect to interact with them in their daily drives (and stop running into them so much). Also, eventually (a la Amsterdam) more and more drivers will be sometimes-cyclists, which can only help.

Now I'll get off my soapbox, such as it is. I'll put forth my thinking on bicycle helmets another time . . .

PS I asked a fellow from the Netherlands recently if he commuted by bike to work on Capitol Hill - his answer? "No, so many here talk about friends they know who got killed riding their bikes. No one in the Netherlands is ever killed riding their bike! It seems too dangerous."

Unusual Bike Commuter Hazard - a Black Bear

Newspaper article reports that a Florida man was removed from his bike by a black bear, managing however not to suffer any serious injuries.


Something that might be more frightening than an angry motorist

More Accurate Video of Dutch Cyclists

One of the blogs I follow was the source for a video that ended up having zillions of page views, apparently because so many outside of the Netherlands found its depiction of cycling so confounding, according to a recent post. I used it in a earlier post myself.

The speeded-up version of Dutch commuters that received so much attention

The speeded up version does reduce the "boredom factor" and makes it clear more quickly how many cyclists are moving to and fro in such a business-like way.

Now however the blogger has released a real-time version, which I think makes the same points just as nicely.



Real-time video of same intersection

At about 45 seconds, a father (presumably) takes off from a stop with his son on a bike to his right (and daughter riding in a seat and behind him), putting his hand on his back to help get him up to speed. Don't see much of that here.

The mix of bikes is interesting, too, and easier to observe at the slower speed. Bikes in the Netherlands are obviously more about urban transportation and (much)less about sport - I saw only one or two drop handle road bikes among all these. Of course, part of that may well be that cycles are required to have a headlight and tail light and most of these bikes, used daily, have fenders (with the tail light built into the rear fender).

I find it interesting how practically everyone seems to be following the rules (or laws, I suppose). There are the occasional riders who don't stop for the light, but they are very few. And of course the sheer volume, even in real-time, makes an impression compared to the Washington DC area. Even in real time, the left turns by some of the cyclists seem almost choreographed. Of course, the real-time version takes five minutes and the speeded-up version takes only two. . .

Rights of Cyclists on the Road (1895)

From page of Cycling for Health and Pleasure, published in 1895:

Rights of Cyclists on the Road. — The right of the cycle on the road is the same as that of other vehicles, — neither more nor less, — and is so held by the courts. Wheelmen have, in some places, been put to considerable labor and expense to establish this fact; but have done so with uniform success, chiefly through the efforts of the League. Of course, when the cycle makes its first appearance in new regions, the blind conservatism which seems to be inherent in human nature is apt to breed prejudice against it; but moderation and experience, with firm prosecution of any case of infringement of rights, will soon put things on a right basis.

The more things change, the more they stay the same

Keeping in mind that this was before there were cars on these "highways" mentioned, it goes on to say:

In many localities wheelmen have been accorded advantages much in excess of their rights. They have been granted the privilege of using side paths and even paved walks; no objection has been made to their coasting on crowded hills, and forcing other vehicles from their track; and they have been permitted to ride at racing speed, even on crowded highways. Such concessions have had the effect of making many wheelmen very careless of the rights of pedestrians, and of those of drivers of wagons and carriages, while asserting their own rights and privileges to the full. By so doing they have intensified the prejudice already existing in some quarters against the sport, and have aroused the prejudice of others whose rights have been infringed by being rudely driven from their path, or portion of the road, by the necessity of giving ample space to some reckless rider. It is not only bad form and worse manners to act in this way, but it is most wretched policy, for it injures the whole body of wheelmen in the eyes of the public.

Where roads are bad and wheelmen are permitted to use side paths, they ought to reciprocate the privilege accorded them by extending every possible courtesy to pedestrians, never warning them off the path by bell or whistle, but rather, by riding slowly and requesting the pedestrians to kindly allow their passage, and thanking them when they have done so. There are many cyclists who are thoughtless in these matters, and there are others who pretend to believe that it is pusillanimous to extend such courtesies ; but they ought to remember that they are on a path only by courtesy, and are bound, in common decency, to return that courtesy.

In summary, cyclists have equal rights, but they should behave reasonably towards others. And if they have been accorded special rights, courtesy is to be expected.

An 1890s View On Safety

Title page of the popular 1890s book, "Cycling for Health and Pleasure

The view on crashes between two bikes would probably not meet with the approval of modern litigators. From page 67 of Cycling for Health and Pleasure, published in 1895:

Riders ought to observe all the rules of the road, and not court disaster or engender ill feeling by disregarding them. It is very common for a number of wheelmen to divide, both on meeting and passing vehicles, and in so doing increase the chance of frightening horses, and make collisions far more probable. In the case of collision between two bicycles, it should be remembered that the aggressor will receive the less damage if the machines are of equal strength, so that if a collision is actually unavoidable, it is worth while to become the aggressor if possible, or at least to endeavor to give as much shock as you receive.

"Cycling for Health and Pleasure" was apparently popular - the Library of Congress has editions from 1890, 1895 and 1896. The 1890 version was published by the small "Wheelman Press" while the later editions were published by the large commercial publisher Mead, Dodd.