What Won’t Get Them To Ride

 In my childhood and adolescence, I imagined England as a quintessential cycling country.  After all, those Raleigh, Dunelt, Philips and Dawes three-speed bikes—“English Racers”—took people between homes, farms, factories and schools. At least, that was the image of the country we got from movies and magazines.  And those “English Racers” seemed, on the eve of the ‘70’s Bike Boom, as exotic as the latest Tour de France or World Championship track bike looks today—never mind that three-speeds bore as much relation to those bikes as a hay wagon to a Formula 1 car.

In other words, to neophyte cyclists like me who had never been more than a state or two—let alone an ocean—away from home, Albion seemed like today’s Amsterdam or Copenhagen.

Of course, my first trip there—the first part of my first European bike tour, in 1980–would change that image for me.  To be sure, I saw more people riding for transportation and recreation than I encountered in New Jersey, where I had just graduated from Rutgers College.  But people, while helpful, wondered why an American would come to their country—to ride a bicycle.

Perhaps that experience, and subsequent visits, make something I read more plausible: According to a newly-released government survey, 7 out of 10 Britons never ride a bicycle.

Perhaps even less surprising are the reasons why people don’t ride and what might persuade them to get on the saddle.  They’re less surprising, at least to me, because they’re the same reasons I hear in my home city and nation of New York and the United States.

The chief reason why people on both sides of the pond won’t ride, they say, is that they wouldn’t feel safe. Where perceptions might diverge a bit is in what might make them safer.  While a majority New Yorkers and Americans say bike lanes might entice them, only 29 percent of English respondents cited them. On the other hand, the two most common improvements—safer roads and better road surfaces—were cited by 61 and 51 percent, respectively, of English people.

What accounts for their perceptions? I think it might be that even if the vast majority of English people don’t ride bicycles, many still have memories of parents, grandparents or other adults pedaling to the shop or classroom on the same roads used by motorists. In other words, they didn’t see cyclists segregated from traffic. 

Few Americans have such memories. Moreover, they grew up inculcated with the idea that bicycles were for kids who weren’t old enough to drive. 

So, the British survey is interesting in that it shows a common perception—cycling isn’t safe—but a difference in the perception of what could make it safer and therefore more appealing.

They Make Us Less Human

 Recently, Melissa Harris-Perry recalled cracking open a watermelon and, finding it un-ripe, left it for her chicken to nibble. She watched them from her porch, her hair wrapped in a scarf.  “I was probably somebody’s stereotype of a Black woman,” she quipped.

Had she sported the kind of hairdo Jennifer Aniston wore during her first few years on “Friends” or a designer suit, someone would have accused her of trying to be White.

Likewise, I have been accused of “overdoing “ it when I simply dressed as a woman my age might and condemned for fitting the same people’s stereotype of a trans woman even, if I say so myself, I have done no such thing since the first couple of years of my gender affirmation process.

So, I had a sense of deja vu when I read about an Australian study in which 30 percent of respondents said they saw cyclists as “less human” when they wore helmets, reflective vests or other safety gear

Photo by Robert Peri

Why does this matter? If the history of racism, sexism, homo- or trans-phobia showsl us anything, people are more likely to behave more aggressively toward those they regard as not-quite-human, or less human than themselves. 

In other words, it’s easier to rationalize violence against someone when the victim can be reduced to a stereotype, or de-humanized in some other way.

The findings of the Australian study, however, show (even if it wasn’t the intent of the researchers) that cyclists are in a Catch-22 situation.  If we wear safety gear, we’re less human and violence or simply carelessness against us is justifiable or, at least, excusable. But if we aren’t wearing helmets and day-glo vests (or even if we are), we are blamed even if the driver downed a whole bottle of vodka and drove at double the speed limit.

Tell Me: Who's Impeding Progress In D.C.?

Senate Judiciary Committee hearings can be all kinds of fun to listen to.  Sometimes you get to hear good uses of the Socratic method.  Other times, though--like yesterday--they're a unique spectacle because they bring a brilliant mind or a bold spirit in contact with the damndest asses this country has to offer.

To wit, I would have found Marsha Blackburn's lecturing of Ketanji Brown Jackson hilarious if the esteemed judge didn't have to endure the vapidity of the most ignorant member of Congress on this side of Louie Gohmert.  Ms.Blackburn completely butchered a speech Judge Brown-Jackson gave a few years ago.  Of course, almost any time a member of the Evangelfacist wing of the Republican Party utters the term "critical race theory," it never takes more than four of five more words to show that a) they don't know what it is and b.) they are making an issue out of something that isn't.  (I know a number of teachers at every level of education and have some familiarity with what they teach.  Not one of them has ever taught "critical race theory," and only one--who taught a graduate seminar--even mentioned it.)  

If she is the ditziest member of Congress, then Ted Cruz might be the most gratuitiously mean--and most sactimoniously dishonest.  That is, when he sticks to the topic at hand.  Thankfully, he didn't.  Instead of asking actual questions about the judge's  history or judicial philosophy, Cruz gave a speech or went on a rant, depending on your point of view.  But what really got me was when he said, "Supreme Court confirmations weren't always controversial" and gave the example of Bushrod Washington (George's nephew), whose confirmation took only one day. Surely he must have known about the nominee's relationship to our First President, the fact that he was a slaveowner, and that there were far fewer members of  Congress two centuries ago.  Oh, and has it occurred to him that Supreme Court confirmations are controversial, in part, because of folks like him.

I guess I shouldn't be so hard on them. After all, they found ways to express their racism without actually coming out and saying that Brown-Jackson is unqualified to be a Supreme Court judge because she's black--or, at least, because  the way she's black isn't like Clarence Thomas or Candace Owens.

I mention the proceedings for one very good reason:  They provide a contrast to something else that went on in Washington, DC.  What I'm about to mention actually served a purpose and may well have helped to accomplish something useful.  And the person responsible for it is one of my new heroes.

Zachary Petrizzo may not have brought the so-called "People's Convoy" to a standstill all by himself.  However, he did manage to slow down and frustrate the truckers who tried to do what their Canadian counterparts did in their country's capital:  tie it up to express their frustration with COVID rules.  While the haulers north of the border brought their city to a standstill to the point that citizens had difficulty getting to and from school, work and other everyday activities, the ones in the good ol' U S of A have been hobbled by breakdowns, permit denials and D.C. commuters whom the truckers believe are members of antifa.  And a lone bicyclist who did what even John Forester, the late author of "Effective Cycling" couldn't have done better.

You see, Mr. Petrizzo did exactly what any cyclist should do in his situation.  There was no bike lane or even a sidewalk, so he had to ride on the road.  And, he understood that "riding as far to the right as possible"--which most motorists believe cyclists are supposed to do--can get you "doored" or put you in other kinds of harm's way.  

What I especially love about what Mr. Petrizzo did, however, has nothing to do with whether or not he was giving a clinic on safe cycling.  When the road widened into multiple lanes, a driver pulled up alongside him and yelled, "JHey, what are you doing?  You've got a bunch of trucks behind you."

Petrizzo's response: "What's that?  I didn't hear you?  What did you say?"

"You've got a bunch of trucks behind you," the driver repeated.

Petrizzo cupped his hand to his ear.  "Can't hear you, sorry, it's too loud," he yelled as truck horns blared away.

His responses would have been just as appropriate if the estimable Ketanji Brown Jackson used them on two grandstanding politicians who, instead of interviewing her, lectured and tried to browbeat her 

A Girl Scout Makes Her Town Safe(r) For Cycling

 It's funny to think that I, a transgender woman, was once a Boy Scout (and altar boy).  I joined the Scouts, in part, to try to quell the nagging doubts  about my gender identity.  Although that part of the plan didn't work out, there were things I liked about Scouting.  Among them were the fact that it recognize, and even reward (via merit badges) for doing things I would have done anyway.  So I earned merit badges for reading (!) and cycling.

The requirements for the badge weren't terribly rigorous: a few rides of increasing length, knowledge of hand signals and the ability to fix a flat tire.  I certainly didn't have to do anything as original as Jordan Brown has done.

Jordan Brown

In addition to cycling and scouting (in her case, Girl Scouts), she and I have this in common: Middletown, and its high school, where she is a ninth-grader.

Her Middletown, though, is in Rhode Island. Mine  was in New Jersey. (What US state doesn't have a Middletown?) Oh, and hers is still called Middletown High, whereas mine became Middletown North when a second high school opened just after I graduated.

But I digress.  To earn the Silver Award, a Girl Scout must complete an in-depth project in which she identifies a need or issue in her community (whether local, state, national or international), researches it and plans a project to address the issue or need at its root cause.  It requires a minimum of 50 leadership hours to implement and includes requirements that the project can be sustained beyond the girl who creates it.  The project has to be proposed to, and approved by, an awards committee at the regional organization: in Jordan's case, the Girl Scouts of Southeastern New England (GSSNE).

As often as not, a need is identified through personal experience.  Ms. Brown's discerned the need to educate members of her community about bicycle safety after seeing a friend, who wasn't wearing a helmet, take a major fall on a bicycle.  As a result, she had planned to conduct six weeks of after-school programs, in partnership with Bike Newport, about bike safety and knowledge in Middletown's two elementary schools.

Those programs were to take place in March and April.  Brown had also planned to conduct a community event during the summer.  The COVID-19 pandemic, however, rendered those plans undoable as all of Rhode Island's schools closed from March onward and restrictions were still in place during the summer.

The initiative she took should be reason enough to give her the Silver, and Gold Awards, as well as any number of other accolades.  She embarked on an alternative project that she divided in two parts. The first involved the purchase and installation of two bike repair stations in Middletown:  one at the public library, the other at the Gaudet Middle School.  To fund the $2600 cost of those stations, she held two car washes (which netted $1200), requested and received funds from the Middletown Town Council and received private community donations.

To see this part of her project to completion, she worked with the Town Council,  facilities departments of the schools, superintendent of Middletown Public Schools, principal of Gaudet, town administrator and library director--in addition to Girl Scout representatives and local mentors and advisors.

The second part of Brown's project was educational.  Reaching out to her local community wasn't possible during the pandemic.  So, she created a Girl Scout Patch program based on safety and the history and social implications of the bicycle.  The patch program has been offered through GSSNE and Girl Scout Facebook groups throughout the country.  

On top of everything, Jordan designed the patch, of which 300 were originally produced and given, free of charge, to the first 300 girls who completed the program.  So successful was the program that Brown had to have another 500 patches made. 

Everything she did would have been impressive if an adult experienced in teaching, business or community organizing had done it.  That it was accomplished by a first-year high school student means that we'll hear more from, and about Jordan Brown.  I hope she gets to tout her accomplishments from the saddle of her bicycle!

This Bicycle Plan May Be Exceptional

One of my graduate school classmates described Cambridge, Massachusetts--his hometown--as "Paradise."  That was some years ago, but from what I hear, it's still a nice, albeit expensive place to live.

It's been a while since I've been there, but I do recall some nice bike riding--and lots of cyclists-- in the town.  The number of riders, I suppose, shouldn't have surprised me, given the number of college campuses in and around the city.

One thing that my former classmate probably liked about his native burg is this:  It's a nice place that tries to improve itself.  At least, that seems to be true when it comes to cyclability.

Photo by David L.Ryan of the Boston Globe staff

The 2015 Cambridge Bicycle Plan is more extensive and better thought-out than most other municipal bicycle plans. It calls for, among other things, a 20-mile network of protected bike lanes.  That, in itself, is impressive for a city that's about a quarter of the size of Manhattan, and a population of 113,630. What makes this plan all the more impressive is that it identifies particular streets and roads that need such lanes, and calls for them to be physically separated by more than lines painted on the street.

Now the plan is getting "teeth," according to Sam Feigenbaum, a volunteer with Cambridge Bicycle Safety, a local advocacy group.  The other day, a new Cycling Safety Ordinance was passed, mandating that the city add permanent protected bike lanes when doing reconstruction on any roads identified in the Safety Plan. "The intent of the Ordinance," according to Feigenbaum, is that if "the bike plan says a street needs a protected lane, that street will get a protected lane."  

Mayor Marc McGovern says that prior to passing the law, a lot of time was spent debating whether the roads under construction would have bike infrastructure. While there will be opportunities for community input, he explains, "people can expect that the city is moving in this direction."

While the plan allows the City Manager--Louis dePasquale--to nix a particular lane based on a street's physical features, the use of the road or financial constraints, he would have to provide a written analysis of why the lane couldn't be built.  But, he says, those instances should be "rare in a layman's sense of the word" as well as in the context of the Ordinance, meaning something that is "infrequent, irregular and exceptional."

Actually, those three words can describe most bicycle-related policy in most US jurisdictions--when it exists at all.  But, for its newly-passed Ordinance, Cambridge is indeed exceptional, whether or not it's the "paradise" my old classmate described.

You Should Wear A Helmet Because....

The other day, I wrote about Tessa Hull's lecture on female-identified cyclists during the first "bike boom" of the late 19th and early 20th Century.

I didn't attend the lecture:  It was on the other side of the continent.  But I did read the promotional material for the lecture, and a bit about Ms. Hull.  She laments the fact that, in some ways, female-identified cyclists of today are second-class citizens to a greater degree than they were 120 years ago, when advertisements showed women riding on the front of tandems and in packs.

So, wouldn't you know it?, yesterday I came across this:

It's part of a German cycling safety campaign.  The other photos, while they show men who aren't wearing much more than the women, are notable for their complete lack of bicycles.

Now, I'm sure that whoever created that campaign understands that some people won't wear helmets because, well, they're not sexy. (Of course, that depends on what you're into!;-)) Still, you have to wonder what is accomplished with a campaign that looks more like one created for safe sex (Yes, sex really is safer with a helmet. Don't ask how I know!) or, in the first photo, something to get "bros" to buy something that will make them feel more like men.

One thing that really surprises me is that the campaign was started in Germany.  If any country in the world should know about female empowerment, it should be Germany.  I don't agree with much of her politics, but you have to admit that Angela Merkel being, arguably, the most powerful person in Europe is testament to the fact that we don't have to take our clothes off to get people to do what we want them to do.

Oh, and she can't stand Donald Trump, and the feeling is mutual. That must count for something.  That alone is reason, I believe, why someone in Germany can, and should, come up with a more enlightened bicycle safety campaign than this one--or any I've seen in the US!

Fighting For Scraps At The Edge In The Mile High City

When I was writing for a local newspaper, a kinda-sorta-somewhat high-ranking (Is that vague, or what?) police officer admitted that  he didn't make arrests or even give summonses for some low-level offenses.  "Is it because you want to spend your time and energy on more important things?"

He shook his head.  When I reassured him that our conversation was off-the-record, he admitted that he doesn't give tickets or arrest people for some of those minor infractions because, well, he has committed "most of them" himself at some point or another in his life.  

Now, as I understand, here in New York, as in many other places, police officers are exempt from some of those charges.  The same holds true in Denver, where they cannot be charged with an offense they rarely ticket:  riding a bicycle on a sidewalk.

The Mile High City's statutes on this matter are similar to those in many other places:  The rule doesn't apply if the sidewalk is part of a designated bike route. Also, police who are riding their bikes as part of their uniformed duties, as well as other uniformed city, state and federal employees are exempt.  So are newspaper deliverers.

Denver police officers on the 16th Street Mall during the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

Oh, one other group of cyclists is allowed to ride on the sidewalk:  Those within one block of preparing to dismount their bikes.  That alone is probably a reason why cops don't enforce the policy:  How are they supposed to know that a cyclist is going to dismount on the next block?

But the vagueness of that part of the law is not the only reason why it's infrequently enforced in Colorado's capital. According to a recent report, the officers themselves admit that cycling on some of the city's streets is simply unsafe, and the sidewalk is the only viable alternative.  

One officer added that his exemption from the law is not the only reason he violates it.  "I'm not going to get hit," he explained.  He, perhaps not surprisingly, admitted that he has never ticketed anyone for the violation.

Jill Lancatore, Executive Director of the nonprofit advocacy group WalkDenver, says that officer's perception hit the nail on the head.  Though she acknowledges pedestrians are frustrated, she cautions against making the issue one of pedestrians vs. cyclists because "So much of our public right of way are dedicated to cars that everybody else is pushed to the fringes and we're fighting for scraps at the edge of the roadway."

I have not cycled in Denver but, based on what I saw in other parts of Colorado, I imagine it's more spread-out and car-centric than my hometown or places like San Francisco or Portland. From reports I've read, streets are particularly narrow, probably as a result of constraints of construction in the mountains.  That, in and of itself, is a reason to make cycling safer and thus more enticing to more people.  

But there is another reason:  In part because of its altitude, Denver has some of the worst air quality among major American cities.  So, working to make cycling safer can only help to improve residents' health as well as safety.

Until then, cyclists, pedestrians and other non-motorists will "fight for scraps at the edge," as Lancatore says.  And cops like the one I mentioned will look the other way.

If He Doesn't Think It Should Require Bravery, Why Should You?

"Riding a bicycle or crossing a street shouldn't require bravery."

I'm told that your insurance premiums increase automatically if you try to do either on Queens Boulevard.  But the words that opened this post weren't uttered by a fellow resident of my NYC borough.

That person also said he wants to see a network of cycle and walking routes "a 12-year-old would want to use".  

He explained "people do the easiest thing", so whatever is created to encourage cycling and walking must be "easy, attractive and safe--all three, in that order".  Otherwise, it will be all but impossible to entice drivers in his city--where 30 percent of all car trips are less than one kilometer in length--to trade four wheels for two wheels or feet.

Our cycling/pedestrian advocate isn't trying to turn his city into Portland.  Rather, he wants to alleviate its traffic problems, and to reduce levels of air pollution and obesity--which, he wisely points out, will save far greater amounts of money than would be initially spent on a practical, safe network of bicycle and pedestrian lanes.

That last argument could gain more traction in his country, which has a single-payer (i.e., taxpayer-funded) system of health care, than in the US or other nations with profit-driven health care systems.  

You might have guessed by now that the fellow is on the other side of the Atlantic.  Right you are:  He is British, and the city he's talking about is his home town of Manchester.

That fellow is Greater Manchester's Cycling and Walking Commissioner and a British Cycling policy advisor.  But you probably know him better for his exploits while pedaling on a world stage.

I am talking about none other than an Olympic Gold Medalist,erstwhile Hour Record holder and winner of six Tour de France stages:  Chris Boardman.  

If he doesn't think riding a bicycle or crossing a street should require bravery, why should you--or anyone else?

What If They Took Out The Traffic Lights?

Here's an experience that's in the "Don't Try This At Home" category:

Once, years ago, a NYPD officer pulled me over for riding through a red light on Broadway, just north of 23rd Street, in Manhattan.  He lectured me about how traffic lights are for everyone, and that I could endanger myself or others by not heeding them.  

At that time, I, as a cyclist, was even more of a minority than I am now.  Moreover, I was a messenger on duty that day, which made me even more of an outcast.  So I was not expecting that officer to understand what it was like to ride on city streets, let alone have any sympathy for me.

But I pointed out that I went through the red light ahead of two trucks that turned right when the light turned green.  Had I waited for the light, I could very well have ended up underneath one of those vehicles.

He put his pen down and looked at me.  I had the feeling he didn't trust me; after all, he'd probably heard all sorts of things from people who were trying to talk their way out of traffic summonses.  After what seemed like an endless silence, he said, "OK.  Just be careful."

"Good day, officer."

Now urban planners are starting, however slowly, something that cyclists have long known:  Following traffic signals doesn't always ensure a cyclist's, or a pedestrian's safety. If anything, at times--such as the situation I described--it can actually endanger us.  

Part of the reason for that is that, according to at least one study, signals can actually make drivers less attentive to their surroundings.  According to proponents of this idea, having fewer demarcations such as traffic lights, kerbs/curbs, traffic signs, road surface markings and regulations actually encourages cyclists, pedestrians and motorists to negotiate their movements with each other, usually through eye contact or hand signals.

The late Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman was one of the chief proponents of this urban planning concept, commonly known as "shared space".  His studies found that traffic safety and efficiency increased for all when public spaces were redesigned so that cyclists, motorists and pedestrians had to negotiate their movements with each other.  He went so far to say that the safest roads are those with the fewest marking, signs and traffic lights.

Meredith Glaser probably had his work in mind.  She's a researcher at the University of Amsterdam's Urban Cycling Institute (Can you imagine such a thing in the US?), which did a study of cycling in Alexanderplein, a busy intersection near the center of Amsterdam.  According to the study, about 40,000 cyclists ride through it every day--6000 an hour during peak times.  In addition, many pedestrians, automobiles and streetcars tranverse the crossroads every day.  

Institute researchers then asked 200 cyclists what they thought of the intersection.  "Chaotic" and "messy" were the most common responses.  Most said more traffic lights were necessary.

However, the researchers knew the city had a different plan:  The lights were shut off in May of last year.

While the lights were off,the researchers returned and asked another 150 cyclists for their thoughts.  About 60 percent said the intersection worked better without the signals.    The city's technical study found similar positive results, and no increase in the number of accidents.  In September, the city decided to remove the lights altogether, citing the fact that trams were not delayed and motor delays were cut in half.  In addition, bicycle traffic jams, usually caused by signals, were all but eliminated.

In the intervening year, the city has done similar things in other spots, with success.  Glaser thinks this could be a model for other cities in the world.  So does Dongho Chang, the Chief Traffic Engineer for the City of Seattle. "In an urban environment, you don't want a driver to be zoning out," he explains.  "You need them paying attention and looking for the unexpected."  He points out that only 8 percent of his city's intersections have traffic lights, but they account for 51 percent of accidents over the past 13 years.

Now, one obvious explanation is that the signalled intersections are the most heavily-trafficked and tend to have the most complex or complicated configurations.   Chang concedes as much, but also says that in such intersections, signals lead to dangerous behaviors such as speeding through a yellow light or accelerating quickly from a green.

Chang's, Glaser's and Monderman's points are well-taken.  However, they (perhaps surprisingly, in the case of Chang) fail to take into consideration something I, and other cyclists, know from experience:  Few American drivers have the level of awareness of cyclists most Dutch--or, for that matter, European--drivers have.  Seattle's drivers might be among the exceptions (I don't know:  I've never cycled there) but it's hard to imagine that even they have that level of awareness I found even in Montreal, less than an hour from the US, let alone cities in France, Belgium or the Netherlands.

Still, the work of the researchers and planners I've mentioned helps to indicate a greater truth:  Most cycling infrastructure, as it's currently planned, constructed and maintain doesn't make cycling--or walking or driving--safer.

They're So Funny I Forgot To Laugh

If you have ever taught a remedial class, you know that none of the students in them are happy.  I can't blame them, for a number of reasons.  What used to bother me, though, was that they sometimes directed their hostility--usually in passive-aggressive ways, but sometimes more covertly--toward me, even though, as I would point out, I was doing everything I could to keep them from repeating the class.

One day, in one of those classes, a student remarked that he'd seen me riding my bicycle on the way to class.  "How do you do it?" he wondered.

"I get on my bike and pedal," I said, somewhat impudently.

Another student, in the rear of the class, chimed in, "I'm going to run you over."

I stepped out of the room and summoned a campus security officer.  (This was before cell phones were widespread.)  I told the officer what happened.  "He had no business saying that to you," he declared.  Then he came to escort the student out of the room.

"I didn't mean it!  I was only kidding!," the student squealed.  The officer took him away, and I never saw or heard from him again.

Nearly two decades have passed since that incident.  Apparently, some things haven't changed:  Some guys (Sorry: It is usually dudes who engage in such behavior!) still think it's a joke to talk about putting cyclists' lives in danger--or, worse, actually doing it.  Some even think it's funny, or simply their "right" to kill cyclists for taking up "their" roadway.

Even when I was more of a fan than I am now, I used to watch many sports events--especially NFL games--with the sound turned off.  Most sports have their share of television announcers and commentators who were star performers in their day but have never grown up.  It always seemed to me that American football commentators in particular had the need to pepper their chatter with the kind of "humor" that only frat boys of all ages find funny.

Just within the past two days, two such commentators openly expressed their contempt for cyclists.  One actually engaged in behavior that could have maimed or killed a rider--or a jogger or a mother or father pushing a stroller--while the other, who wears his "Christianity" on his sleeve, said that he wants to kill cyclists.

First, to the one who was reckless:  

NFL writer Peter King sent this tweet of his car speeding through a bike lane.  "I told driver Jenny Vrentas to get to Qualcomm as fast as she could," captioned the photo. 


That he thought he was being funny makes sense, I guess, when you realize that he writes for Sports Illustrated, a rag that, as Bike Snob NYC points out, keeps itself in business by publishing a soft-core porn issue every year.  I admit that a long time ago, I actually used to read SI (Someone gave me a gift subscription.  I swear!).  Then again, I also used to read Mad Magazine.  Point is, my tastes grew up (or, at least, I like to believe so)--and, to be fair, I made a major life-change.  Sometimes I think SI's readership never graduated from their junior high-school locker rooms.  So of course they would think endangering cyclists (After all, if you don't have a motor, you're not a man) is just good fun.

Speaking of locker rooms:  Heath Evans played in the NFL for ten seasons.  It's fair to assume that he took a pretty fair number of hits.  So, perhaps, we could chalk up occasional incoherence or silliness on his part to a concussion or some other injury his own helmet couldn't prevent---and, perhaps, another player's helmet caused.  But even the most brain-damaged of former players doesn't casually talk about killing people.  

Apparently, Evans is in another category.  

If there is anything amusing about that tweet, it's that he used the word "Respectfully" before declaring his wish to hit cyclists with his car.  Maybe he is brain-damaged.  Or maybe he was one of those "student-athletes" who went to college on a football scholarship and took classes in tackling and trash-talking for his major, whatever it was.

(I think now of the coach who said of one of his players:  "He doesn't know the meaning of the word 'fear'.  In fact, I just saw his grades, and he doesn't know the meaning of a lot of words.")

Now, if he couldn't see the incongruity of his word choice, it's understandable that he could profess to be a Christian, or adherent of any other faith that instructs its followers to do unto others as they would do unto themselves, or to love their enemies.  Lots of other people have the same gap in their cognition:  Countless kings and generals have led their minions into war "in the name of God."

(Interesting that the NFL has so many players who are adamant about their faith.  Why is it that the most violent sports have the most doggedly religious players?)

Anyway, both King and Heath have gotten a lot of backlash on the Twittersphere.  But neither seems in danger of losing his job, or anything else that matters to him.  As long as guys like them can get away with, essentially, pinning targets to cyclists' backs, building all the bike lanes in the world isn't going to make us any safer.

N.B.:  Thanks to Alan Snel of Bicycle Stories and the inimitable Bike Snob NYC for their reporting on King and Heath.

Reflective Tape--Or Ruban Conspicuitif?

As a college instructor in New York, I teach, and have taught, many students whose first language is not English.  Some were and are wonderful writers and spoke the language very well, if with an accent.  Others, however, couldn't read much more than a telephone directory in the language of a country and city to which they try so hard to adapt.

Perhaps the most interesting of the non-native speakers I've encountered are the ones who can make themselves understood most of the time, but express what they are trying to say in ways no native speaker ever would.  As often as not, they are thinking in their native languages, which they translate literally, sometimes with the aid of electronic devices.  Sometimes this results in their using words that actually exist in the English language but you would rarely, if ever, hear in conversation.

I came across such a word in, of all places, an eBay listing for "conspicuity" tape.  Most of us in the English-speaking world would refer to it as "reflective" tape.  

"Conspicuity" Tapes

The seller is in China.  Now, I am not familiar with any of that country's languages, but I am guessing that whatever character they have in Mandarin or Cantonese or Fujian for what the seller was trying to say would translate, at least literally, into "conspicuity."  Now, perhaps you are more educated or literate than I am, but I feel confident that it's not a word you use very often.  I can't recall ever having used it at all.

To be fair, the word "reflective" can also mean "contemplative", and the word's literal translation into the seller's native language might reflect (no pun intended) that meaning more closely.  Also, to be fair,the seller did use the words "reflective," "safety" and "warning" in the listing title.  I guess he or she was trying to cover all bases, as the words "tape," "film" and "sticker" are also included.  

That last part  also interesting (at least to me) because I know that adhesive tapes--like hadlebar wraps as well as first-aid tapes--are referred to as "rubans adhesifs"--adhesive bands--in French.  On the other hand, the Velox "rim tape" you use on your Mavic rims is a "fond de jante"--rim base, or foundation.

Should I ask the seller of "conspicuity" tape whether he or she has "rim tape"?  

She Rides In Australia

A friend expressed consternation that today I cycled to Connecticut alone,  something I've done before.

I have also done that ride, and others, with friends.  But, she says, she wonders how I can ride alone.  

She is about a decade and a half older than I am and has not ridden a bike since she was a teenager.  That was typical for the place and time in which she grew up.  She says she'd thought about riding again but had difficulty finding other riders, particularly female ones.

"And the roads are so dangerous.  Don't you worry?"

I explained, as I've explained before, that I am careful but that cycling, while it has its risks, is really no more dangerous than any number of other things people do.  "To tell you the truth, I feel less safe crossing some streets--especially Queens and Northern Boulevards--as a pedestrian than I feel when I'm biking," I elaborated.

Her fear is a common one. In fact, a recent study shows that it's the main reason why women don't ride bikes.  To address that fear or reality, depending on one's point of view, Cycling Australia has initiated the "She Rides" program to get women to take to the same roads men ride every weekend.

Participation Coordinator Alex Bright said that while most women cycled as children, getting them back in the saddle as adults had been difficult.  In the hope of encouraging more women to ride, "We wanted to create a program that connected them with like minded women to help them get going and riding," she explained. "We wanted to provide a way to support women to get on their bikes because a lot of women feel unsafe on the road."

Members of a She Rides group in Parramatta, New South Wales

That program includes an eight-week course that now operates in 46 locations throughout Australia.  Charlene Bordley has coached three She Rides programs and says that while physical fitness is a benefit of riding, "it's also about mental fitness."  Riding for the first time in their adult lives--or, in some cases, for the first time in their lives, "is freedom for some people," she said.

Bordley, Bright and others involved with the program are doing something right:  Ninety percent of the women who have participated say they are more likely to ride on bike lanes or quiet roads than when they started, while 78 percent are more likely to ride busy streets.  

Manju Prajesh is one of those participants.  Even today, she still can't believe she now has the confidence to ride on the road.  "We have totally lost our fear," she says.

 

Death In The Sunshine State

Some people think Florida's climate makes it a cycling paradise.

Me, I prefer the change of seasons.  But I admit that I don't mind going there for a few days, and that I have had many enjoyable rides in the Sunshine State.

However, I am more cautious when cycling there than I am here in New York, or just about any place else.  Florida's roads--indeed, much of the state's infrastructure--is designed around the automobile.  And most drivers--I'm not talking only about the elderly ones--are not cyclists.

So I wasn't surprised to read, a few months ago, that in 2012, as many cyclists were killed by motor vehicles in Florida as in Great Britain, a country with three times as many people and many more cyclists.  That same report said that pedestrians are killed at four times the US national rate.

Having cycled some of the causeways that connect the innumerable islands, peninsulae and other outposts with the mainland, it's easy to understand why there are so many cyclists and pedestrians have fatal encounters with motorists.  Those causeways are, too often, more like speedways:  wide, flat, and without a shoulder.  Worst of all, speed limits are enforced loosely, if at all.

So it was that yesterday, on the Rickenbacker Causeway in Key Biscayne, two cyclists were struck.  One of them was killed; the other is in the hospital.  Even by Florida standards, it was a horrific accident.  A news helicopter caught the grisly aftermath:



http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Serious-Crash-Involving-Car-Bicyclist-in-Key-Biscayne-289277331.html

What Do Cyclists Want?

What do women want?

You weren't expecting to read that on this blog, were you? 

OK, so what do men want?

Although I am one of the few people who can plausibly answer both questions (!), this blog is not the place to do it.  After all, this  is a family blog. (ha, ha)  For that matter, I'm not so sure I could--or would want to--answer either or both on my other blog.  

So I'll stick to a sort-of related question:  What do cyclists want?

Please, please leave your answers to that in my comments section.  I don't want to prejudice you one way or another, but I think the San Luis Obispo County Bicycle Coalition came up with a very credible and useful answer.  Two years ago, 30 percent of SLOBC members said they wanted more bicycle education.  That was, by far, the most common response.

 

I will not argue against that.  SLOBC idenitified some obvious venues for bicycle safety education, including schools.  They also seem to have some innovative ideas about accomplishing their goal, such as making bicycle safety education a family endeavor.  That makes sense when you realize that the county--perhaps best known for its wines (Among California counties, only Sonoma and Napa produce more.) and San Simeon, the home of Hearst Castle--is mainly rural and suburban.  In fact, one of the stated goals of the Coalition's bicycle education is to help give more moms the confidence to ride with their kids in the park.

The other policies and ideas mentioned are all laudable and practical.  But I think that it leaves out one element that, to be fair, almost no one else (at least in the US) addresses:  educating motorists and other members of the public about cycling and cyclists.  As I have argued in other posts on this blog, the understanding drivers have of cyclists is what makes cycling in much of Europe safer than it is here.  Also, one doesn't find, on right side of the Atlantic, the sort of antagonism between cyclists and motorists that scares many Americans off cycling to work and leads to the angry diatribes against cyclists one often hears and reads in American media.

If anyone from SLOBC is reading this, I don't want to seem overly critical.  It seems like you are doing a lot to make your communities more bike-friendly.  And, I want to add that I haven't been there in a long time, but I recall much of SLO county as being quite lovely and having some of the best cycling in America.

 

Black Friday Bicycle Shaped Objects

"Toys come in boxes.  Real bicycles come assembled and ready to ride."

I don't remember who said that.  I'm guessing it was the proprietor or a salesperson in one of the bike shops in which I worked.  And I'm guessing the proprietor or salesperson was admonishing someone who brought in a department-store bicycle for assembly or who tried to assemble such a bike and made a bad thing hopeless.

I'm recalling that bit of wisdom, if not the sage who imparted it, because today is Black Friday.

For those of you who are not in the US, this day--the day after we give thanks and exchange heart-warming stories (or get into fights) with people with whom we would not sit at the same table at any other time--and give thanks for, well, whatever.   This is the day on which stores--mainly the big-box variety--run "sales" on some of the worst junk imaginable, much of which will end up under Christmas trees four weeks later and in landfills four years--or even four months--later.

The boxes full of stuff meant to be assembled into bicycle-shaped objects are among the sale items I'm talking about. One of the "big-box" retailers--which, thankfully, does not have a store anywhere near me--has offered, on each of the few Black Fridays--a "freestyle BMX" bike with pegs and helmet for $49.99 and boys' and girls' 20 inch bicycles for $29. 

If you're a vegan,  bear with me for a moment as I use an analogy most people (Americans, anyway) will understand.  It's scarcely possible to get a steak dinner, let alone a good one, for $29.  Add drinks and dessert and you'd be hard-pressed to keep the tab below $50.   At least, that's the case here in New York.

Now, you might be thinking that buying a cheap bike for a kid isn't such a bad idea because he or she will trash or outgrow it within a couple of years.   Or you might be on a tight budget (Trust me, I understand!) and are shopping for a few kids or grandkids.  I don't have kids or grandkids, but I understand the joy in seeing a kid's eyes light up on Christmas morning.  (I've experienced it with my nieces and nephews as well as the children of friends, if that counts.)   However, I'd think about what I'm teaching kids when I give them disposable junk.  

More to the point, though, I'd be concerned about giving a kid (or anyone) something that's potentially unsafe.  In bikes, as in most things, you get what you pay for (up to a point, anyway).  Cheap bikes are made cheaply, from cheap materials.  Now, if I were buying such a bike for a kid (which, of course, I wouldn't), I at least have some residual level of skill as a mechanic and could at least ensure the bike is properly assembled.  However, not everyone who buys such a bike can make such a claim. Nor can some of the "mechanics" employed by some stores that offer assembly.

If you were to bring such a bike to a shop to be assembled, you'll pay enough for the service that it, combined with the price of the bike, will total not much less than the price of  a bike shop bike.  Shops don't charge what they charge out of spite or to gouge customers:  Proper assembly and repair (which bikes in boxes sometimes need) takes time and therefore costs money.  And a mechanic in any bike shop worthy of the name wants to take the time to do it right because the shop's reputation rides on the work done in it.

So...If you really, truly, must participate in that orgy of consumerism called Black Friday--which has been likened to the running of the bulls--don't buy a bike, especially one for a kid, in a big-box store.  If you're a regular reader of this blog, I don't have to tell you that.  But you might want to tell your less-informed (about bikes, anyway) friends and relatives what I've said--or pass along this post.

This Manual Comes With An Invitation To The Undertaker

How many of you had bicycle safety classes--or were given safety manuals--when you were a kid?

I wasn't.  Perhaps it had something to do with being in Catholic school, and being in Brooklyn, until I was thirteen years old.  Then again, in suburban New Jersey--where my family moved--I didn't see such things.  Nor did my two youngest brothers, who were in early grades of elementary school.

Not encountering a bicycle safety class, manual or film seems all the more striking when I realize that my family moved just as the '70's Bike Boom started. It seemed that every kid in our neighborhood got a new ten-speed bike the first year I was there.  Some of those kids' parents also bought bikes for themselves.  (Those bikes may still be gathering dust in the same garages in which they were hung after said parents decided they were too old, out-of-shape or simply unmotivated to ride.)  I bought my first derailleur-equipped bicycle--a Schwinn Continental--a year after we moved.

But it seems that there were attempts to inculcate young people with notions (however misguided some were) about bicycle safety.  It also seems that the style of those attempts--or, at least, of the manual I'm going to show--hadn't changed in about 15 or 20 years.

These illustrations come from a 1969 manual: