"Make Us Bicyclists Look Good"

Last Monday I took the day off - as the end of the "leave year" (accumulated vacation time) is approaching, I have more than I can "carry over" so I am having many three day weekends. The weather was slightly odd for November since it got up to 70 degrees (F - around 19-20 C). I did a counterclockwise circuit, riding north along the Potomac and then heading up near Rosslyn on a trail that runs along I-66. In Rosslyn while waiting at a light to cross, I looked down and found the stenciled message below.


This means you!

This is an area that I am not crazy about riding in, but since it isn't a very long part of what is otherwise a ride I enjoy, no worries. The reason I don't like it is that after miles of riding on trails, here it is necessary to ride on the sidewalk - although there aren't many pedestrians. This location, where Lee Highway crosses Fort Myer Drive, feels like as a cyclist one is intruding on the automotive bliss (or hell) the the drivers are experiencing. Because of a curve in the road for the oncoming one way traffic, a person would be crazy to venture to cross three lanes of traffic that can come zipping out of D.C. So there is time to contemplate this statement painted on the sidewalk.

I have blogged about my views on the "cyclists should model model behavior" before. I don't care much for it as a priority - to summarize my thinking.


Another Flickr user in DC has a similar photo

To me, this statement - "make us bicyclists look good" - begs the question, look good to (or for?) who? (Or whom, I suppose.) And for what purpose? Make us bicyclists look good to the motorists so they will respect our law-abiding nature? (And not run us over.) Really? Keep in mind almost all of these same motorists are from time to time committing all sorts of small traffic infractions (exceeding posted speed limits, not making full stops at stop signs, talking on cell phones, texting, on and on).


The classic Disney cartoon portraying motorist behavior

This 1950 Disney cartoon, with Goofy portraying the crazed "Mr. Wheeler" when behind the wheel and the calm "Mr. Walker" while on foot, demonstrates the reality I see - most drivers, looking for an advantage in getting down the road more quickly themselves, aren't spending mental energy toting up a positive karma scores for cyclists when they see one who is 100 percent law abiding. If you get in their way, they'll remember that - not in a good way, of course - but if you stay out of their way, they are down the road. Bye!

"Dangerous States" Where Insurance Companies Hope to Sell You Coverage

Hope to sell you policies and make bigger profits.

Insurance Business America, on online publication, has an article, "The Most Dangerous States for Cyclists" - it's a little strange to read.

Florida is the most hostile state for bicyclists, with 6.56 cyclist fatalities per million people in 2011, according to data from the US Department of Transportation. Louisiana and Oregon follow close behind, with 3.93 and 3.87 deaths per million.

This publication is arguing for special bicycling insurance policies - "For cyclists in these states, certain insurance policies are vital." They even get the League of American Bicyclists to provide an endorsement: ""Claims against any of your existing policies may result in an increase in premiums," said Scott Williams, membership director for the League. "But filing bike-related claims under a bike-specific policy may protect you from rate increases—and provide additional, supplemental coverage." Plus the national authority on bike law, Bob Mionske - "And cyclist insurance isn’t just for people who bicycle professionally, says bicycle attorney Robert Mionske. Producers would do well to recommend cyclist insurance to all clients who regularly ride a bike and don’t have proper coverage elsewhere."

Comprehensive cycling policies are only $250 to $300 a year for most riders, this article says, and concludes that, "there is a "big movement" in the insurance industry for bicycle coverage, which may pay off handsomely for producers in at-risk states." Yay, more profits for insurance companies!!

Probably it is better if people outside of an industry don't read these sorts of things.


Bicycle insurance was around before there were cars, as a matter of fact

Ad from the Evening star. (Washington, D.C.), 15 Oct. 1895.

Negotiating for Cyclist Safety - the NYTimes Editorial View

Today the NYTimes has an opinion piece titled, "Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclist?" It takes a meandering approach to the subject, so summarizing it accurately isn't something I am going to try to do, but a few aspects jump out at me.

It's a step in some direction (whether forward or back may vary depending on one's perspective) that someone has published something in a broad circulation publication that says we have a car culture that tolerates cyclists getting killed on a pretty regular basis with no legal consequences for motorists who are at fault, unless the motorist flees (hit-and-run) or was drunk. And he ties this to the obvious point that in car-cyclist crashes, "only cyclists have much to fear." The apparent answer to the question in the title of the piece is, "yes, generally it is OK to kill cyclists with your car." That's radical, even for the NYTimes.

In fact, it reminds me of one of the reoccurring rants from Bike Snob NYC, who in recent months has revisited the lack of culpability for motorists who kill cyclists often. But Mr. Snob brings approaches the subject with several differences that I think are significant.

For one thing, Mr. Snob usually brings in the pedestrians, and points out that the better way to think of this problem isn't "all powerful (and protected, in several senses) motorists vs vulnerable cyclists" - he adds in the vulnerable pedestrians. Because when you look at the highway statistics, what you see is that motorists kill a lot more pedestrians than cyclists. The way to look at this is to use the "Complete Streets" model - not reducing the conversation to "a vs b" when it really should be a discussion of what serves all the road users so that none are at high risk is better, and to his credit, that is the way Mr. Snob approaches it (even though he is not particularly pedestrian oriented otherwise).

I find it exceptionally annoying that the NYTimes' author drags into his discussion that he sees cyclists routinely "ignore traffic laws" - that much of the problem must come from that. This seems to come up all the time - those scofflaw cyclists, it's all their fault. Strictly speaking, the scofflaw aspect only means that the cyclist is at fault when the cyclist (let's say) doesn't stop for a light and gets into an accident. That one breaks certain laws from time to time and then is in an accident that is the motorist's fault does not absolve the motorist because the cyclist can be presumed to have been breaking laws frequently elsewhere.


Under the NYTimes writer's logic, this dopey cyclist who is "running" (slowly) a red light is inciting motorists

This fixation on getting cyclists to "obey the law" can be seen in news publications often - yesterday, for example, the "Kearney View" (of Nebraska) has an opinion piece Follow Safety Codes Bicycling on City Streets that is a very politely stated reminder from a motorist that cyclists have rules that they need to follow - but based on the two-times wrong statement that "unsafe cycling puts everyone on the road in danger." Uh no - it isn't all on the cyclists and it isn't the same risk for everyone.

The NYTimes writer closes with this: "So here’s my proposal: Every time you get on a bike, from this moment forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere to help drivers (and police officers) view cyclists as predictable users of the road who deserve respect. And every time you get behind the wheel, remember that even the slightest inattention can maim or kill a human being enjoying a legitimate form of transportation."

For me, this "we cyclists can (or gotta, more like it) earn the motorists' respect!" approach is just baloney. The only legislative change advocated for in the piece, stronger penalties for motorists who kill cyclists, is made dependent on that "obey laws/earn respect" mantra.

I am reminded of the Norwegian video that looks at motorist-cyclist interactions that I blogged about recently. The video carefully avoids strong suggestions of fault and rather draws out the often ambiguous nature of cyclist-motorist interactions. It is a "be careful out there" message without the "be legal" argument thrown in.

If we want to focus on passing laws to improve this situation, I think budget laws that direct more resources to Complete Streets style infrastructure is more important long term. And short term.

Hmm.

Cycling Propaganda the Norwegian Way

This video, which is from a Norwegian government agency and features the well known Norwegian cyclist Thor Hushovd, has been out for a while. In the U.S. such things when presented on television are known as "PSAs" - a "public service announcement," or advertisement that is provided for public benefit (generally at no cost).


In Norwegian only, no closed captioning in English - however little is said ~

"'Del veien' is Norwegian Public Roads Administration (NPRA) campaign to increase understanding between cyclists and drivers in the traffic." - according to the YouTube information for the video. Their agency web page doesn't provide more information (unless you speak Norwegian). The video shows different situations where the cyclist, Hushovd, almost has serious crashes with different motor vehicles, yet (miraculously) arrives home in one piece - the punch line is "for those who don't have nine lives" (in Norwegian) - it makes sense when you watch it.

I would imagine a fair amount of thought went into coming up with different seven different "interactions" between motor vehicles and the cyclist (in one case, while he is riding with a group). Although set in a village, each of close calls is an illustration of a typical high risk situation where cyclists and motorists can end up crashing in a more urban setting. There is a little of everything, which is remarkable in the 45 seconds allotted. Also, if one (whether cyclist or motorist) stops to think about each of these situations, it isn't so obvious who is at fault in most of them - so (apparently) the notion from the government agency is to "increase understanding between cyclists and drivers in the traffic" by showing the ambiguity in how they sometimes interact. I read this as quite different than the usual American approach, that to me can be summarized as, "if we (but particularly those cyclists) all obey the law, everything will be OK." Laws are fine up to point, but you can't legislate common sense, and you can't rely on traffic laws to provide guidance for every aspect of what works on the road for safety and what doesn't. Or so it seems to me.

As an example of this American thinking, the NYTimes had a recent "debate" with different viewpoints expressed - "should the laws and infrastructure be altered to recognize differences between bikes and cars, or should cyclists be treated the same as drivers?" was the question discussed. The differing responses to a considerable extent lined up on opposite sides by choosing to focus either on "laws" or on "infrastructure," ignoring the "and" in the question (that suggests both should be addressed). The perennial American stalwart of "vehicular cycling" John Forester presents his usual view, that "cyclists are fully capable of obeying the rules of the road; they fare best when they act, and are treated, as drivers of vehicles" while the expert from Copenhagen points out that there cyclists are "separate but more than equal" - but not in terms of the law, but in terms of infrastructure that means they get where they are going (up to certain urban-typical distances) faster on average than motorists.


A 3:50 minute mini-documentary on how the one-minute video was made

In the English speaking blogs mentioning the Norwegian video that I have seen there is just a pointer to the 60 second YouTube presentation but the Norwegian agency also have this short video on the making of the video, which is interesting even if one doesn't understand Norwegian - cramming as many different cycling-motor vehicle scenarios into one short video turns out to have been a pretty elaborate (and by the look, expensive) project. One assumes that Norway's oil wealth makes possible such productions from a government agency.

Kickstarter Your Solution to Cycling's Dangers

I wasn't intending to do consecutive posts on Kickstarter bicycle-related projects, but I bumped into a news item that brought another example of a bicycling related Kickstarter to my attention:

"Rideye is a black box for bicyclists-There are ways to get from point A to B other than driving a car. There’s the bus, walking, or bicycling . . . The most dangerous method of the aforementioned list though, is riding your bike."

Rideye solves this by providing evidence of motorist bad behavior for your future court case- you know, after you are injured. The story goes on (since it a "coolest gadgets" site) to talk about the many technical attributes of the device (that I'm not much interested in - and I'm not going to address the "most dangerous" statement, which is based on ???).


This oversubscribed Kickstarter makes a compelling argument for a product to insure your safety - well, actually not so much

The device's main claim to being a "black box" rather than simply a GoPro Hero clone is that it has a crash sensor that stops the recording (in the event of a crash ~) - this may seem superfluous except that since the device records in a 2.5 hour loop, if it didn't shut off when there is a crash, it could easily record over your evidence. (I personally find this the weakest aspect of the whole idea - if I'm going to video what happens on the chance of an accident, I for sure want video of what happens after the accident, like audio of the driver when he/she jumps out of their car and shouts, "oh my God, I didn't see you! It's all my fault." Oh well. You don't get that with this because it will have shut down.)

I get the idea that if a motorist does something illegal and you record it on video you have some better chance in court, but I don't get how that helps with safety in the usual sense. While aviation blackboxes are in part about assigning blame they are mostly about trying to prevent future crashes by understanding past ones. How a blackbox that helps assign blame helps making a particular cyclist who buys one more safe is not at all clear. The Kickstarter states, "Last year my friend was seriously injured in a hit-and-run doing the thing he loved most, and I promised him he would never have to ride with that fear again." If by having a camera to record your crashes you somehow feel better protected against the physical injuries you might suffer, there is some logic working there that I don't get. At all.

Not to say that video isn't useful for legal cases involving cyclists who are involved in accidents that are not their fault - it can be. There is a very long (and depressing) blog post on GreaterGreaterWashington that described in detail how a cyclist used Metro DC police video to show he was not at fault (and despite police assumptions that he, the cyclist, was at fault). So if you want to have video of you riding for that reason, for evidence, that's great - but it does nothing for safety. The Kickstarter's statement, "Let's make cycling safer for everyone" is simply baloney.


In the first few seconds sample Rideye camera records copious evidence that will cause no end of legal troubles if he later crashes

Where I live and ride (Virginia and also ride in D.C.) we have contributory negligence - in fact, we have pure contributory negligence, which means that if my negligence as a cyclist contributed to the accident even 1 percent, I may be unable to get $ from someone whose 99 percent of negligence caused me harm. So if I was going to use this device, it would be important to record my own legally pristine cycling behavior at all times, or else what's the point? In the above "sample video" at 22 seconds, the cyclist rides between a parked car and a car in a traffic lane - so if the car door opens or something else happens, what is the defense? "The space was wider than my handlebars, so going into it at 12 to 15 mph made excellent sense."


From Russia, without the slightest love, a bike crash video from a bike cam - it's ok, he survives apparently with no serious injury

As a completely different way to think about this, I would point out that for cars, Russia leads the way with dashboard cameras used in this sort of blackbox let's-record-possible-evidence-in-case-we-crash kind of way. (And to my surprise, I found the above example of a bike cam video from Russia, too.) Doesn't this validate the Rideye Kickstarter? Well, sure, if you want to agree that for cyclists America = Russia. And based on the GreaterGreaterWashington blog post, maybe that is true. But keep in mind what the situation is in today's Russia - if you don't have video evidence, the first problem you have is with police bribery (not the courts) - in other words, you want to have video evidence so that you don't get in a bidding war with other drivers over how the accident is described by the Russian traffic cops. "But officer, my video shows . . . " And of course none of this Russian dash board cam stuff has improved the safety as far as how Russian drivers operate their vehicles even one iota - search "russia dash cam crash compilation" in Google if you don't believe me. (Also, you can look at the relevant portion of the entry in Wikipedia about Russian transportation - hey, didn't I get a master's degree about transportation in that country? No, since it was 30 years ago it was about Soviet transportation, so a different country. But . . . same Russians.)

Is it really that bad here? And is this really useful for cyclists?

Personally my impression from comments on the videos is that mostly people look at this and compare it pricewise to GoPro Hero products - they want video of their cycling, not possible evidence.

How Not to Drive a Bus

It has been more than two years since I had a blog post about crummy bus driving from Dillon's Bus Co., the folks who in my view provide the best (or worst) examples of how not to operate a transit vehicle in the District of Columbia.


Having cut me off, the bus ends up occupying two lanes

Here is my email sent to Dillon's yesterday after I encountered the bus shown above on my commute home:

Complaint: Your bus, I believe 9167 but the license plate is clearly visible in the attached, was following me on my bicycle on Independence Ave SW heading west around 4:30 pm. Between 3rd and 4th he moved to the left lane, to pass me on my bicycle. Moving at around 20 mph. However a passenger was waiting for him at 4th so he then moved back into the right lane, cutting me off.

I will grant he signaled his lane change. I could see the person who was waving him down, so it was no surprise to me that he was going to try to move into my lane.

This left his bus, as shown in the photo, with the back end occupying almost all of the second lane out and the front end occupying the curb lane, blocking traffic at the light (before it changed). I rode around him to take this photo.

* If you have a bus stop in the next block, is it really wise to try to pass a road bike? I am legally entitled to my lane.

* Isn't blocking two lanes while stopping to pick up passengers frowned on by Dillon's? It should be. If the driver had stayed in his lane behind me he would have arrived at the stop approximately 2 seconds later than he did and been completely in the curb lane where he and his bus belong.

Thanks for your attention.

Yes, I have written before. I am aware that people who complain more than once are often ignored as "serial complainers" - fine. Have it your way, if that's your way.

I added the last part because after my first email Dillon's stopped answering - but I only write like once a year, so this is hardly that often. If their drivers drove buses safely I wouldn't have to write at all.

I was a city bus driver for 12 years, although this was quite a while ago. Still, I know poor driving when I see it.

Trail Safety Enhancements

The newly configured transition from crosswalk to trail

As Mr. Lenin said, one step forward and two steps back. Or did he say two steps forward and one step back? I can't keep that straight.

This is at Walter Reed and Arlington Mill Road in Arlington (Virginia). The Country does occasional maintenance on the trails that sometimes is difficult to understand, although most of this effort seems OK.

Previously there were two steel bollard-type posts that sat in steel sleeves that were in the asphalt - the sleeves stuck out of the asphalt an inch or two and the steel post could be locked to the sleeve.


The previous hazard - helpfully marked by someone with yellow paint

A while ago one of the steel posts disappeared, leaving the sleeve as a hazard - you wouldn't want to ride your bike over this bit of metal poking out of the asphalt. Eventually someone (from the County? one assumes) came along and painted it yellow like this. It then stayed like this for a month or so.


How long will this piece of plastic last?

Finally the County came along and removed the remaining steel post and both the sleeves and installed this plastic thing. I guess a bicycle is an "authorized vehicle" (ha ha). Typically these plastic bollards (if that is what one calls them) don't stay in place very long, but the mounting thing that would remain if the plastic strip disappears wouldn't be the same kind of hazard for cyclists as the previous steel sleeve - but still, it won't be something you want to run into directly since it could cause a rider to lose control.

Often these developments feel like an evolution of compromises . . .

Lawyer Lips, Cams & Skewers

For much of cycling history, a simple nut was fine for most bikes to keep the wheels on

One of the things I most appreciate about bicycles is that the basic design of the "safety bicycle" developed in the 1890s is highly efficient and has come down to today as what most people recognize as your basic bicycle. Of course, in 100-years there have been some nominal improvements, some good and some not so good. The ones that are often not so good are those that are the most significant departure from basic simplicity and elegance of design.

Which brings me to "lawyer lips," cams, and skewers. You need some kind of fastener to hold the wheel's axle to the bicycle in the "dropouts" that are a metal slot for the axle to fit into (and to "drop out" of when not tightened). For many years, as shown above, the simple design was a threaded end to the axle, a washer, and a nut that could be tightened.


The two types of skewers to hold your wheel on your bike

The problem with this, of course, is that it required carrying a tool to loosen the nut to take the wheel of to make repairs. So the "quick release" skewer was invented. Sheldon Brown has gone to the trouble to describe the two types of skewers in detail, so I will try not to duplicate his efforts, but suffice to say that the first version, the "enclosed cam" skewer (the upper one in the photo above), is considered to be superior in holding power to the "exposed cam" skewer, a later design believed to be cheaper to produce but marketed as being lighter in weight, thus ringing the bell of cyclists for whom lighter is always better.


My experience with exposed cam skewers intersects with disk brakes on this
Traitor (yeah that's a company name) Ruben bike

A few years ago, while forgetting that simple design is generally better, I decided that this Traitor Ruben would be a wonderful replacement for my long-serving REI heavy steel commuter bike for riding in bad weather. And the Avid BB-7 disk brakes do provide excellent stopping mostly (except when they don't, but that's a separate blog post) in rainy weather, which is nice. So I bought the thing.


One could argue this does not look like "simple design" - anyway, as shown the skewer is removed showing the dropout more clearly

So now we get to "lawyer lips" - as it turns out, Wikipedia even has an article on "lawyer lips", explaining that they are "tabs fitted to the fork ends on the front fork of bicycles . . . to prevent a wheel from leaving the fork if the quick release skewer comes undone." Sheldon Brown also has an entry in his glossary about "lawyer lips" that is useful for background. The "lawyer" part is that if the fork has such lips, then you probably aren't going to be able to sue the manufacturer when you have an accident after a wheel falls off, because the manufacturer can show they did everything possible to prevent that happening even when the skewer is loose.


The Traitor Ruben front fork has one "lawyer lip" - enough, I guess

Unfortunately however the disk brake on the back introduces another wrinkle. The disk brake, when applied, generates considerable torque that tries to stop the bike, but also given the way the dropout is oriented on this thing, to yank the wheel out of the dropouts. About a year ago I had this happen and I thought the problem was that a bike shop had not tightened the skewer properly. The other day it happened again and I did a little reading (thanks Internet!) and realized this is more likely a design problem. The dropout is oriented poorly, exacerbating the problem (I think), plus they could have lawyer lips for the back dropout (although that is apparently not much done, if at all) and finally they used the crummy skewers.

There isn't much I can do about the dropout orientation or the lack of lips, but I have replaced the skewer with an enclosed cam skewer. So, safe to ride?


The brake should have been put on the lower chain stay, and not the seat stay, so the torque would automatically seat the axle in the dropouts, even with a loose skewer

I now think of this bike as my "purchase in haste, repair at leisure" bike. Live and learn. . .

Cyclists Annoying Cyclists, or Drivers? Or Both.

Bicycling magazine has had an increase in ad revenue but it's apparently too much to hope that the magazine would be more pleasing to read (at least for me). Fancy road bikes for "only" $2,xxx dollars, products you don't need from Rapha and the like, and then there's the edgy interview with "Alleycat Racer Lucas Brunelle."

Q: Do you worry that you're making drivers hate cyclists?

A: Mostly it's other riders who get pissed. . . But motorists generally don't have a problem with us. We're not blocking traffic like Critical Mass. We know when we're in the way, which most riders don't.

Well, maybe. Mr. Brunelle is a videographer (according to Wikipedia) who made the movie for which the following is the trailer, which glorifies riding in as many risky ways as possible in an urban environment.



A heroic fellow, no doubt. Of course nothing's perfect - in order to make these videos, he has to ride his bike like this:


Cameras facing fore and aft, all strapped to his head

Anyway, I'm pretty sure he is at least partially wrong about who is mad at whom and why. The cyclists who ride more or less like rational people, rightly in my view, of course are annoyed by someone who is out there making cylists look like idiots - but the motorists are plenty unhappy as well. Since they are in their hermetically sealed cars or other vehicles, this point seems to not to have made its way into Brunelle's conciousness plus he is likely most often leaving them behind in traffic. So that's good (for him) as long as nothing goes wrong - because I don't think anyone will be rushing to help him.

I'm puzzled why Bicycling magazine seems to be suggesting that something about this guy is worthy of admiration.

Police Unity Tour on GW Trail

Sunday, mid-day - despite the excellent weather, not really that many riders out - any many were part of a local event supporting a national "Police Unity Tour" (by bike). The riders had event numbers on their clothes.


Came up upon this fellow heading north on the GW trail near National Airport


Riding with gun

I guess maybe this is a work-related activity? I don't see the need for this guy to be riding with his sidearm. I wasn't able to work out what jurisdiction he was from.

Florida Leads Nation . . . in Cyclists Killed by Cars

Well, and pedestrians too. That's what this article from a Florida newspaper says.

Florida leads the nation in bicycling and pedestrian fatalities. Gancarz is at least the 20th bicyclist to be killed since July while riding on area roads.

According to the article, "blame" (as determined after the fact) was split evenly between drivers and cyclists.

One of the first books about travel by bike I read was by Barbara Savage, who in the 1980s went around the world with her husband by bike and wrote Miles from Nowhere. I recall that they found Florida to be one of the least friendly states for cyclists - have things not changed in 25 years? (Barbara Savage died in an accident with a truck while cycling after returning to California . . .)