In the middle of the journey of my life, I am--as always--a woman on a bike. Although I do not know where this road will lead, the way is not lost, for I have arrived here. And I am on my bicycle, again.
How would you like a lamp that gives off as much light as five 100-watt bulbs but weighs less than two?
Yes, for your bike.
Well, BYB Tech is promising with their Focus One light. What's more, the Italian start-up says you'll be able to regulate the amount of light and how often it flashes from a small button on the device, or from a remote handlebar control.
Those aren't the only promises or claims BYB Tech is making. While they don't claim to be the lightest bike light of all, they say that the Focus One is the "world's smallest 5000 lumens light" and that it will allow cyclists to be "seen like a car."
Of course, like almost any new technology, it isn't cheap to buy--or produce. To address the latter, BYB Tech has opened a Kickstarter campaign that will help them, well, kickstart production. If you want to buy one now, making a donation to the campaign will reduce your price for a unit.
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
If you've been reading this blog for a while, you know that I don't give a blanket endorsement to roadside bicycle lanes. Too many, at least in the US, are poorly-conceived, constructed and maintained. The worst sort of lanes are the ones that serve no pratical purpose-- the ones I call lanes from nowhere to nowhere--because they do nothing to encourage cycling as a practical alternative to driving for commuting, errands and other purpose-driven trips. And the most dangerous ones are the ones that separate motor traffic from cyclists by nothing more than a line on the pavement. As I've said on more than one occasion, "paint is not infrastructure."
Studies have shown that painted cycle lanes do nothing to reduce injuries and "advisory lanes"--one which motorists are allowed to enter--are worse than no lane at all: they increase the odds of injury by 30 percent.
The only news, for me, in those studies is the number: I know, from experience, that a painted is as much a margin of safety for cyclists as a swath of fishnet scotch-taped at the nose bridge offers against COVID-19 or any other contagious virus. And too often, motorists use "advisory" and even painted "bike-only" lanes to pass or double-park; the latter is often done by drivers of delivery trucks.
To be fair, drivers, until recently, have been inculcated with the notion that they are the "kings of the road": that motor vehicles take priority over cyclists and pedestrians. If they haven't cycled during their adult lives, it's hard for them to un-learn such an attitude. Also, some lanes, especially the "advisory" ones, aren't marked in ways that motorists can easily see, especially if they are driving large vehicles.
But some of the worst offenders, in my experience, are police officers in their "cruisers." I can't begin to tell you how many times I've seen them parked in the middle of lanes while munching on donuts and sipping coffee. And I've had a couple of close encounters with constabulary cars that weren't responding to an emergency call. At least, I don't think they were: their lights weren't flashing and their sirens weren't blaring.
Some have debated whether what was captured in that image was indeed a "close call" with a police car. However, Andrew Frogley on the Road.cc blog, who didn't think it was such a "close call," nonetheless agreed that one blogger had a legitimate question: "What's worse? The painted cycle lane or the close pass?"
Geoff Hickman had, I believe, the best answer: "One enables the other."
