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.

Carbon vs Steel for Bike to Cross USA

Bruce Weber, a journalist for the NY Times, is at age 57 "recreating" an earlier cross country bike trip and is writing a serious of articles (and blog entries, and tweets, and ... and ...) about it. Also, given the nature of things, there is an "interactive" map that charts his progress.

To summarize his article in the Sunday NY Times today - it's been hard going so far. For better or worse, now many people can offer advice that is shared with all of us. The NY Times featured seven "emblematic" comments from the hundreds made so far, one of which suggests that it's his steel bike that's the problem.

I ride a lot. My best road bike cost $14,000 (custom full-carbon). I think you’re underserved by a steel bike. But then, I’m old (75), though I do log 5,000 miles per year cycling, in the U.S. and Europe.

The suggestion seems to be that an expensive carbon fiber frame bike would be better for this activity than the (presumed not expensive) steel frame bike. I do not believe that it is necessary to spend anything like that much money on a bike suitable for this and I strongly believe most carbon fiber bikes would be a poor choice for what Mr. Weber is doing.


A steel randonneuring bike, based on a 1982 steel bike frame

Looking at the second issue first - I wonder if the writer understands what Mr. Weber is doing. If you are on a supported ride, when your baggage is carried by a support team in motor vehicles (and all the meals arranged in advance, and so on) then riding a carbon fiber road bike would be great. Here however the rider is carrying everything with him in panniers, and the traditional (and seemingly reasonable) approach to that is to ride a randonneuring or touring bicycle, made of steel. You sacrifice some weight for the cycle in favor of strength as well as a bicycle geometry more suitable for hauling weight long distances reliably and comfortably over pure speed. It's simple, really - touring bikes are made of steel. And this is a touring bike situation.

As to cost, that's a different matter - certainly one can spend thousands (even more than $15,000 for one custom built by a builder who produces them one at a time) on a high-end steel touring bike - I would chose something like this Co-Motion steel touring bike (at around $3,500). The example in the photograph (that could have a rack and panniers added easily enough) is based on a steel frame exactly like one I bought on eBay for $117 (including shipping!) that one could then kit out in a suitable way for another thousand dollars or so. I tend to think that Mr. Carbon-Fiber-is-Best is partially correct that for a bike to ride across America, Mr. Weber has underspent in dollars and is paying for it otherwise. And eventually will pay for various fixes such that it would have been less expensive to buy a more expensive - and suitable - bike right at the start. He has already replaced the cassette with one that has cogs more suitable for climbing hills at slow speed, for example. Many other components on a lesser bike will have a predictable service life less than the distance represented by a cross country ride.

I have not been able to work out exactly what sort of bike Mr. Weber is riding - the photos seem (purposely?) to obscure that information. The type of bike, however, is obvious enough - it is the kind of "not a mountain bike, not a road bike, but what is it bike" that one sees around town often enough. Riding across the country seems like an activity for a purpose-built bicycle.

Bob Roll's "Two" Books

Bob Roll in his days with the 7-Eleven team

Lately I have given up Swedish detective novels (of which there seems to be a never-ending supply) in favor of cycling books of various sorts, from "policy tomes" (think Pedaling Revolution: How Cyclists Are Changing American Cities) to cycling travel narratives (now I'm reading Take a Seat: One Man, One Tandem and Twenty Thousand Miles of Possibilities and also the occasional book about professional cycle racing.

Which brings me to Bob Roll, and his "two" books. Bob Roll has been a cycle racing commentator for OLN and more recently Versus for the Tour de France following his racing career, but his first sports journalism efforts were writing for Velonews.

I work in a very large library in Washington DC. We don't have everything, but we have quite a lot (of books, anyway). Given Roll's performances for "Road-ID" ads (you can watch the regular ads on the Road-ID channel on YouTube, although you get the best sense of Bob during the first third of this "outtakes" collection video. He even talks about his books, saying, "I am an author - although the books aren't that good." He was joking.

So it seems plausible that a book by Bob Roll could be pretty funny. And, according to the very large database at the library where I work, Bob has written two "memoir" type books of his racing career! (Leaving aside two books he has co-written that are "how to understand the Tour de France" guides.) Fantastic!


The "bibliographic record" that describes Bob Roll's first book, from the very large database of such things

So, above is the description of Bob's first book, published in 1995 - 124 pages of Bob. It's a fun book, in a large paperback format with quite a few photos of Bob being amusing, or sometimes just racing his bike (without being amusing). Most of the text is taken from stuff he wrote for Velonews and is in the form of cycling race diary entries (he was writing while still racing at that point). It's a little random in spots.

Lourdes is a bizarre place. It's a sort of Kmart for Catholics, and provided a weird takeoff point for this final mountain stage.

And like that. So a little random.

Nevertheless, if in the right frame of mind, Bobke I (as I think of it) is a good (and quick) read.


The "bibliographic record" that describes Bob Roll's "second" book, from the very large database

Why do I put "second" in quotes?? Because once I got my hands on the "second" book and started reading, I thought, "wait a second, I read this book already!" And I had, mostly. The first two thirds of Bobke II is the same as Bobke I, except that it is now in a smaller paperback format (with more pages, yeah) and no photographs (boo! on taking out the photographs). And in fact, on the verso (that's "back side" for non-librarians) of the title page it says, "Part I [of Bobke II] was previously published as Bobke (VeloPress, 1995)." So, what one gets that is new in Bobke II is "Part II (of Bobke II)" and that amounts to about 65 pages. To paraphrase Bob, "ouch!"

Still, there is some good stuff in those 65 pages. There is a description of Bob's training rides in North Carolina with Lance Armstrong and there is probably the most amusing article-length first person description of a professional road race that I have ever read anywhere, although I may be heavily influenced by the central role of the Russian "Team Lada" cycle team in it. (I have some college degrees in Russian studies. Oh - and somewhat oddly, the full text of this story is online.)

I assume the reason that the publisher decided they could get away with this is that the number of copies of Bobke I printed and sold was tiny - at that time, the only reason anyone would know who Bob Roll was would be from being a bike racing nut (remember, 1995 was before Lance Armstrong won any Tours) and (or maybe or) reading Velonews. This isn't a huge market. By the time of Bobke II, in 2003, Bob had already put in several years as a TV commentator and although the audience was still skewed to people who were interested in cycling, thanks to Lance this was much larger market - so for the three people who accidentally bought Bobke II who already had Bobke I; well, they should be more careful.

I feel some affinity for Bob Roll, although for no good reason I suppose. Bob has a gap-toothed smile and I have a gap-toothed smile. Parked in that gap-toothed smile Bob has a tooth that (from the color) I would guess has a dead nerve and guess what, so do I. Bob thinks he's pretty funny and I would like to think I'm funny (but I concede wacky crazy funny to Bob). And Bob is a former professional bicycle racer and I like to sit on a bicycle from time to time and pedal to and from work.

At any rate, I hope I have cleared up the "two Bob Roll memoirs" situation sufficiently.

If after all this, you are still interested in some further amusement, I offer a link to a 1987 video from the 7 Eleven Cycling Team that I came upon while doing "research" for this blog post.


At 2:18 during this very dated video there are a couple of seconds of this Springer, attentively watching the bicycle race. This would be Springer with different interests than the one in our house.

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."