Annual Dillons Bus Photo Op

Dillons bus driver demonstrating his "split the lane" right turn technique

This is just lazy driving, in my view. But I only drove a city bus for 12 years so what do I know.

Anyway, as with a year ago when I saw some less than excellent driving from these people, I took a photo and then I wrote an email:

This was taken with a cell phone camera, so the quality is not terribly good. This is proceeding west in Independence Ave SW, just approaching the intersection at 7th SW. This would have been around 4:30-4:40? Today. I don't wear a watch.

This is a common practice with Dillons buses making this turn - splitting the two right lanes. Here you have a photograph illustrating what I see often enough. It's just sloppy and dangerous - and completely unnecessary! This bus is turning into three lanes, so if the bus was entirely in the right lane on Independence it would be no problem to swing around the corner even if the nearest southbound lane has a vehicle in it. The bus ain't that long.

The only reason for this approach is to make it simpler to intimidate pedestrians by having four-five feet to turn in the direction of the crosswalk to the right without actually going into the crosswalk. I grant you, waiting until the crosswalk clears if the bus stays patiently in the right lane, where it belongs, isn't much fun - but what this driver is doing is putting the problem in the lap of everyone in two lanes behind the bus. Do you want your buses sideswiped? This is asking for it.

I was on a bicycle, by the way, and had plenty of room to ride right by (on the left) and from my personal perspective this is great since he blocked traffic and I got on down the road. But otherwise it's awful.

The last time I took a picture of a Dillons bus - the "open the door with a full lane open to the right so the passengers can get run over" technique

Little Lost CaBi Bike

Unlocked, in front of the U.S. Botanic Garden, middle of the day

I went for a mid-day run and below the Capitol (in Washington DC) this CaBi bikeshare bike was sitting like this, unlocked, in front of the U.S. Botanic Garden. No one around seemed connected with it. CaBi bikes don't come with locks - the idea is you ride from one docking station to another, so why do you need a lock? On the other hand, if someone makes off with one charged to a particular account, there is a 1,000 dollar charge.



Still here twenty minutes or so later, but someone stood it up anyway

When I was heading back, it was still here. That someone had stood the thing up led me to think it really was here unattended. It now had some tourist brochures shoved in behind the seatpost. My guess would be that someone found it improperly docked (not locked in) and took it for a little joy ride. I called CaBi (their number is on the bike) and they were going to send someone to investigate - nobody around paid the slightest attention to my interest in this bike - if someone had really left it like this, out of their sight, the person was being a bit lax.

A problem for CaBi would be that this area is restricted for delivery sorts of trucks, like the one CaBi uses to ferry bikes around. Someone would have to walk a few blocks.

Later in the day when I went home it was gone.

Springs, Not Air, for Bike Tires (1896 Patents)

For whatever reason, in December of 1896, more than one clever (or not so clever) inventor decided that they could make their fortune with a tire that required no air (or at least was only optionally inflatable). All three of the patent applications below were made with one month ~


Patent number 573,907

The patent above is straightforward in intent:

This invention relates to tires, being especially designed for use upon bicycles and other vehicles, and the object in view is to provide a mechanical tire resembling in action a cushion or pneumatic tire, the elasticity being obtained through the medium of a series of springs disposed around the wheel-rim and incased within a suitable sheath or cover, thus dispensing with the necessity for a pneumatic tire and avoiding the disadvantages of frequent puncturing and repair incident to the use of pneumatic tires.

The design is simple enough - one wonders if the inventor built a prototype that worked. Why are we still riding around on tires filled with troublesome air?



Patent number 573,920, part a

The next submission to the Patent Office seems to have decided a more complex approach was called for - in fact, he patented two separate spring systems as possible ways to solve the problem. (See above, and below.)



Patent number 573,920, part b

Just before 1896 ended, we have the submission below - the simplest approach yet. The inventor takes a more middle of the road approach - air is optional, not required:

If preferred, my improved tire may be used without being inflated, the spring D serving to maintain the tire in its proper position and to give elasticity thereto; but said tire may also be inflated with air in the usual manner, if desired, and by the usual means, and in this event both the air and the spring serves to give elasticity to the tire and to maintain it in the proper form.

Patent number 574,015

Alas, 115 years on, we are still riding around on tires that get punctures.

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."

Ideas for Bicycle Saddles (1896)

Google presents zillions of digitized patent applications - in the 1890s there were so many patent applications related to cycling that there was magazine, Cycling Monthly, that was nothing but patent and trademark applications related to bicycles. Not surprisingly it is more entertaining to page through that (if one works in a large library where there are some issues) and then bring up the Google versions rather than try to find 1890s patent applications for bicycle stuff directly in Google.

One quickly realizes that then as now, there is a sense that there must be a better bicycle saddle. The following examples are all from 1896 ~


Patent number 554,337

The notion in the above "invention" is that really you just want to sit on a couple of springs.



Patent number 556,250

Above is something like the opposite view to the previous patent - no, what you really want to do is sit on a shaped piece of wood! Oh, with a slit in the middle.



Patent number 557,238

Above, the well-known view even today (perhaps even more so today) that a wider base of support is key.


Patent number 558,917

A rather complex contoured approach . . .



Patent number 562,919

The last example here (but hardly the last patent application for bicycle saddles from 1896) is an "add on" to an existing saddle the would provide inflatable cushions held in place by their invention.

Bicycle "Body Shield" (Patent, 1896)

Patent from Google that demonstrates that while the basic bicycle design hasn't changed much, ideas for how to improve cycling have had their ups and downs.


Has every crazy idea been patented?

The object of the invention is to provide a new and improved body-shield more especially designed for use by bicyclists,boatmen, or other persons exposed to the force of the wind, the shield being arranged to not only break the force of the wind against the body of a bicycle-rider, but also to protect the throat, breast, face, and ears of the rider and at the same time permit the rider to easily get on or off the bicycle.

Pleasing 1896 Overman Bicycle Poster

Victor Bicycles, Overman Wheel Co.

Poster advertisement for Overman Wheel Company's Victor bicycles, showing a woman watching another woman riding a bicycle. Includes art nouveau style flowers.

From the Library of Congress.