Signaling

With one exception, each of my bicycles has a bell.  They are effective in signaling pedestrians and other cyclists I pass (yes, even at my age).

Well, most of the time, anyway.  Sometimes folks are wearing headphones—not just any headphones, but the kind that seem to completely seal off outside sounds. I ring, I shout, they don’t hear me.  On more than one occasion, I’ve tapped people on the shoulder or brushed them.

I can almost understand why someone would design a bike around a horn loud enough to clear the way for a ship full of grain in the Bosporus Strait.

Is He Speaking With A Forked Path?

 You don’t have to read much of this blog to know or even infer my distaste for almost anything having to do with El Cheeto Grande, Ron De-Sanctimonious or George In-Santos.

But, to be fair, I’ll point out that our former (I hope)President and his wanna-but-I-hope-he-never-will-be successor—or the only living being capable of telling more lies than either—are unique among public office-holders in their meanness, maliciousness, mendaciousness or pure-and-simple dishonesty. 

I think now of Ronald Reagan’s assertion: “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” Oh, and don’t get me started on “weapons of mass destruction,”  Again, in the interests of fairness, I will point out that it wasn’t the first time a falsehood was the premise for bringing the United States to war.

Deliberately misinforming their constituents—or simply making ridiculous statements—is, unfortunately, becoming even more of a normal operating procedure as politicians have to prove their fidelity to the most extreme party leaders and voters. 

Even seemingly-moderate politicos are dancing in the conga line.  Mitt Romney—who may be the only presidential candidate to castigate an incumbent opponent for doing on a national level what he himself did in his state while he was governor —has fallen in line with his party’s anti-environment, anti-cyclist stance.  Or he is yet more proof that rich doesn’t always equal smart or well-informed.

Now, before I relate his coal-lump of wisdom,’I must clarify what I think of bike lanes.  I am in favor of them—if they are conceived, planned and executed in ways that actually make cycling safer, as well as more practical and enjoyable.  Too many lanes I’ve seen don’t accomplish any of those objectives and even do the exact opposite.  

So, in light of what I’ve just said, I can understand at least one aspect of opposition to bike lane construction.  But Mr. Romney claims that bike lane construction is “the height of stupidity” because “it means more cars backing up, creating more emissions.”

First of all, independent studies conducted by, among other institutions, Carnegie-Mellon and McGill Universities, show the exact opposite.  For one thing, a bike doesn’t emit the poisons that spew from tailpipes.  For another, the studies show that on streets where a traffic  or parking lane was turned into a bike lane, there was frequent or chronic traffic congestion before the bike lane was designated.

So…Mitt Romney is now part of an unfortunate tradition—and a dangerous recent development. Is he misinformed, disingenuous or malicious? Has he steered off his own path onto the one of, for today’s Republicans, least resistance?

Photo by Doug Pensinger, Getty Images

Cyclist Shot For Stopping To Help

It's bad enough that there are four guns for every three people in the United States of America.  Even worse is the potential for suicide and other kinds of self-harm, and for crimes that wouldn't have happened otherwise.  I am thinking, of course, about mass shootings, of which we've had three for every two days here in the US, and mass killings, nearly all of which happen by gunfire and of which we are on track to have nearly twice as many in 2023 as in any previous year.   

But I also have another kind of tragedy in mind:  the kind that unfolded just before noon yesterday in New Haven, Connecticut.  A man was cycling down Chapel Street, between Ferry and Poplar.  He stopped to help a driver who'd fallen asleep at the wheel. Another driver started to argue with the cyclist.  Then he shot him.

The cyclist went to the emergency room and is expected to survive.  But it makes me think about the times I've stopped to help people while I was riding.  What if someone else took issue, whether for a rational reason or not?  And what if that person had a
weapon? 

From Edmunds

For that matter, I have to wonder whether, one day, some motorist who resents my presence on "his" road might decide to make his point with the tip of a bullet?