Keeping Up With The Kardashians

Perhaps it won't surprise you to know that I've never watched any of the Kardashians' TV shows.  Part of the reason, I confess, is that I haven't looked at TV in a few years--except for the times I've watched reruns of The Golden Girls and Everybody Loves Raymond with my mother.  I haven't even owned a television set in about four years.

But even when I still had a television set, I wasn't spending my time with shows like The Kardashian Family.  I simply don't care about their antics.  I hear about some of them--the marriages, the divorces and such--from other people or during radio newscasts.  And whatever capacity I might have for schadenfreude isn't even stoked by events like Kim getting tied up and robbed of $10 million in jewelry in Paris.  

I must admit, though, that I got a laugh out of this:



For one thing, the sight of anyone over the age of four riding a bike in a furry pink jacket is just over-the-top hilarious.  For that matter, seeing someone who's supposed to be a fashion icon in such a jacket--on a bright red bicycle, no less--is comical.  

At least Kendall Jenner seems to have a sense of humor about herself.  As falls flat on her face, her glasses fall off her nose and her legs go up in the air.  If anything, I think she was happy about that last part:  She probably has more followers, on Twitter, Instagram and  TV, when her legs are up--though, perhaps, not as many as her half-sister got for being tied up.

The Last Miles, The Longest Miles

Paris and Los Angeles are "the last cities standing", if you will, in the contest to host the 2024 Olympics.

Upon visiting each city, Olympic Committee members noted that the City of Light and La-La Land both had, among other things, already-existing venues for hosting events.  So, while hosting the Games won't be cheap, it won't be quite as expensive as it would be in some other cities.  In other places, the need to construct everything from new stadiums to housing for athletes has spawned opposition from citizens who believe the money could be better spent on, say, hospitals or schools.  Thus, everyday people as well as high public officials in the home of Impressionism and the kingdom of the silver screen support their hometowns' bids for the 2024 Games.

The Olympic Committee, of course, also found vast differences between Paris and Los Angeles.  One of them is the distances athletes, spectators and others would have to travel to and from events.  Although its officials are making efforts to develop a real mass transportation system and to make their town more bike-friendly, L.A. is still considered the capital of car-centered culture.  The City of Angels was founded in 1781, but it didn't become one of the major cities of the United States until about World War I--which, of course, is the time the automobile literally changed the region's, and the nation's, landscape.

Paris, on the other hand, is a pretty compact city.  It's almost exactly the same size as the Bronx (with nearly three times the population).  Thus, most people can walk, cycle or take take mass transit to work, shop or do almost anything they need to do, and arrive in their destinations within minutes.  Paris, of course, has one of the largest bike-share programs in the world, and no point in "Paname" is more than 500 meters from a Metro (subway) station.

That difference is emblematic, not only of the two cities, but also (to a large degree) the countries of which they are part. You probably wish, as I do, that more people would ride bikes to work.  In fact, you might wish that you were one of the people who rides to work.  If you are, you have a lot of company:  In various surveys, people have said they would bike to work if they lived closer and there were facilities like secure parking and places where they could wash up and change clothes.

The fact that this country depends on the internal combustion engine more than almost any other is what has led people to live further from their workplaces than their peers in just about every other nation.  (The Tri-State area has now become the Quad-State Area, and Las Vegas has become a de facto suburb of L.A.)  Let's face it:  Someone who lives 200 kilometers away from his or her job isn't going to ride a bike to work, even if he or she were capable of doing so.  

The fact that this country and culture are so auto-dependent has led to what is one of the most vexing ironies of transportation.  It can be expressed thusly:  "The last miles are the longest."  So, as an example, it could take someone an hour to go the 30 miles from home to work in his or her car.  But the last three or four miles might take up half of that commuter's time.

The reason is that the last part of the commute is usually the most congested part.  Even if someone commutes on a bus or train, that last part is the longest, especially if the commuter is headed for a large terminal like New York's Penn Station or Port Authority Bus Terminal--and has to take a local bus or train from there.

Longtime New York Times fashion photographer Bill Cunningham rides to work in 2010.

Some folks in Bedford, Massachusetts are aware of this phenomenon.  So, they came up with an idea to encourage more of their town's workforce to ride their bikes to their jobs:  They designated parking spaces near the town line for people who would, after parking their cars, pedal the rest of the way.  

A year after this program's implementation, more people are riding to work. Still, Selectmen Margot Fleischman would like to see more people avail themselves to the option of pedaling from the town line to its center, which takes less time than driving.  While she is thinking of the benefits (and possibly pleasures) of cycling, she is also thinking about traffic congestion in the town's center.

If more people are willing to follow the lead of those who park and pedal, the last few miles of a commute will still be the longest only because of the anticipation and dread of facing bosses, customers or whom- or whatever the workday might bring!

Happy Mother's Day!

Here in the US, it's Mother's Day.

I've had a good relationship with my mother, so I am happy to send her flowers and a card.  Even so, I can't get over how sappy and sentimental some cards are.  I think only Valentine's Day brings out more of the music-box mindset than this day.

I found this card just a moment ago.  I like it, not only because it has a bicycle, butterflies and my favorite colors on it.  It might be a tad sentimental, but it's pretty and rather tasteful.  Had I found it sooner, I would have sent .  Sending an image of a card via e-mail just isn't the same; my mother doesn't do e-mail, anyway.  (In fact, she's never used a computer.)  But, maybe next year.

In any event, I wish all of you who are or have been mothers--whether biologically or in spirit--a Happy Mother's Day.  And to you too, Mom, just in case you happen to see this!

A New Weave?

Carbon fiber bikes first appeared about four decades ago.  For two decades, they were mainly curiosities or status symbols; they were ridden (if they were ridden) mainly for record attempts or by those who simply had to have the latest equipment.

When Trek and other companies started to make carbon fiber bikes priced within range of the best steel and aluminum bikes, parts and accessories with the "carbon weave" pattern became as fashionable as snakeskin or leopard often are among the haute couture crowd. I remember seeing handlebar tape, saddles and even tires with the "carbon basket", as some of us called it.

Well, it turns out that carbon fiber isn't the only material that's woven when used in bicycle frames.  Interestingly, this material has many of the same qualities that doomed the early carbon fiber frames but make them attractive (not just in visual ways) to many cyclists today:  It is strong but still flexible, which allows it to be shaped in a variety of ways.  But it is also brittle, and--like early carbon fiber materials--needs to be supported by other materials.

The material in question is bamboo.  Industrial designer Lance Rake (You've gotta love that name!) realized that to make bamboo stiff enough, he had to cut it into thin strips, weave it and  laminate it to another material.  This is more or less how early carbon fiber frames were made:  They fibers were wrapped around, and bonded to another material, usually aluminum. 

Now, you're never going to believe what Rake is laminating his bamboo fiber to.  Wait for it:  carbon fiber.  In another interesting parallel with early carbon fiber-frames, Rake's bamboo-laminate tubes are joined into carbon fiber lugs.  Most of the early carbon-fiber frames were bonded into aluminum lugs.  

The bike Rake is holding in his hands is fitted with mid-level components and weighs about 19 pounds--more or less what a similarly-equipped carbon fiber bike would weigh.

Will the new "must have" bike accessories have a bamboo-weave pattern?  Depending on the accessory, it might actually look good.  

No Idaho Stop In California--For Now, Anyway

Which is worse:

• a stupid, misguided, useless or pointless law that is passed by a legislative body

or

• a well-informed and well-conceived law that a legislative body votes against?

Yesterday's post concerned a mandate that may fit into the former category.  Today, unfortunately, I'm going to write about the latter.

As I've mentioned in an earlier post, way back in 1982, Idaho passed a law allowing cyclists to roll through an intersection at a red light if there is no cross-traffic.  Since then, no other US state has enacted similar legislation , though in 2011 a few Colorado municipalities adopted policies that allow cyclists to, in effect, treat "Stop" signs as "Yield" signs.  And the city of Paris, France has a statute allowing cyclists to do the same as long as they're making right turns, or going straight, through "T" junctions.

From the Portland Mercury

The so-called Idaho stop makes perfect sense because it allows cyclists to get out ahead of traffic and therefore be better seen by motorists, particularly those who are making right turns.  Even the policies of Paris and those Colorado communities are better than most others.

Recently, a bill that, if passed, would have given California cylists the same right that their peers in Idaho have enjoyed for more than three decades came up for a vote in the Golden State's Assembly.  After some intense lobbying (by, I think it's fair to assume, people who don't ride bikes), the bill was tabled.  Assembly member Jay Obernolte said the bill was being held up until the next legislative session so that "concerns" can be "worked out."

The one legitimate "concern" he mentioned came from groups representing the visually impaired, who say that people with vision problems could have difficulty hearing cyclists "whizzing by", as Sacrament Bee reporter Alexei Koseff put it.

That, in spite of researchers in the US and UK, working independently of each other and several years apart, coming to the conclusion that cyclists as well as motorists are safer when the "Idaho stop" is allowed.  Part of their research, of course, included a survey of Idaho's experience with its law.

Is This California Law A Lemon In Orange County?

Back in October,  a North Carolina law went into effect that, among other things, requires drivers in the Tar Heel State to give cyclists at least four feet of space while passing them.  At the time, both cyclists and motorists praised that provision of the law (House Bill 959), as well as another that allows drivers to cross the center line to pass a cyclist as long as there's "an assured clear distance" ahead and no oncoming traffic.

I have not seen any reports as to the effect the law is, or isn't, having on cyclists' safety.  To be fair, it may be too early to gauge because a change over the course of a few months in either direction could be just a statistical "blip".

Perhaps one could also say it's too early to tell whether a similar law the California Legislature passed in 2014 is having its desired effect.  That law, however, mandates only three feet when a motorist passes a cyclist.  Before the North Carolina's policy went into effect last fall, drivers were only required to give two feet.

I would like to hear what the folks in North Carolina say about their law next year.  If nothing else, it will be interesting whether they recount different experiences from what David Whiting, an Orange County Register columnist, reported after reviewing the coroner's records in his county.

Cyclists in the bike lane of the Pacific Coast Highway in Newport Beach, CA on 9 May.  From the Orange County Register.

Whiting, who says he has cycled roads in his area "for decades", writes that the past decade has averaged one cyclist killed by a motorist every month in Orange County.  That rate has been pretty consistent; so far this year, three cyclists have met their fates at the hands of motorists on Orange County roads.

For the purposes of his report, Whiting counted only those cyclists who were killed in encounters with motorized vehicles and not the ones (smaller in number) who were killed on trails, from falls or when they crashed into parked cars or other vehicles or objects--or the one who was run over by a train.  That makes sense:  Such deaths could not have been prevented by a two-, three- or four-foot, or any other distance, rule.

However, it also makes sense (or seems to) that such rules, whatever the correct or optimal distance may be, might prevent a few motorists from running down cyclists.  It is also fair to ask whether such rules actually work.

If Whiting's conclusion that the law is having little or no effect in Orange County is valid--which, I believe, may be the case--then I think it's necessary to ask why.  

Cyclist and advocate Bill Sellin, who has worked with the Orange County Transportation Authority, says the law has been good for "raising bicycling awareness" but otherwise "ineffective".  One problem, as he sees it, is that the penalties for passing cyclists close enough to scrape off their jerseys are lighter than those for littering.  Another problem, he says, is drunk and otherwise impaired driving.  But even more important, he says, is "addiction to cellphones".  Too many people, he explains, "are no longer paying attention to driving, but paying attention to a device".  

Sellin makes a lot of sense.  Perhaps a three- or four-foot rule, by itself, will not make cyclists safer.  However, if other laws are passed and, more important, enforced in tandem with it, we could see safer roads for both cyclists and motorists.  

Here in New York, we have a law against talking on cellphones while driving that is simply not enforced.  Some, especially among law enforcement in this city, argue that it's unenforceable or that there are "other priorities".  That, I don't understand:  A distracted driver is just as much of a danger, not only to cyclists, but to public safety in general, whether on city streets or rural highways.  

So is one who is intoxicated or under the influence, or with abilities impaired (which, by the way, are not the same thing). While local law enforcement officials and newspapers like to trumpet how many arrests they make, or summonses they give, for such violations, offenders too often get off with light penalties or, if they lose their licenses after repeat offenses, get back their driving privileges in relatively short order.

Whiting, for his part, makes points that make a lot of sense. One of them is that rules requiring motorists to maintain a certain distance won't, by themselves, make cyclists or motorists safer.  Only, as he points out,  more courteous behavior between cyclists and, as Sellin maintains, enforcement of rules against impaired and distracted driving, will make a three-, four- or x number-feet rule meaningful.

Drones And Crits Don't Mix

When riding in the city, a cyclist has to be aware of--in addition to motor vehicles and their drivers--pedestrians.  All it takes is one darting across the street at mid-block, or someone ambling through an intersection while looking at an iPhone screen, to send a cyclist tumbling to the pavement.  

In fact, I have incurred two falls--one on Broadway in SoHo, the other in Coney Island--caused by pedestrians who barrelled across a street without looking in the direction of the approaching traffic (which included me).  In the SoHo incident, said pedestrian--who was shopping with a friend--at least stopped and apologized. In the other mishap, the boy who plowed into me--who appeared to be about 14 or 15 years old--simply kept on going.  

I wasn't hurt in either incident, but things could have been worse.  Even scarier, though, were two instances in which I didn't actually crash, but could easily have taken a hit and a tumble.  Both happened when I was riding down mountains and an animal crossed my path:  a deer in Pennsylvania; an Alpine Ibex just after I crossed the border from France into Switzerland.  

During my brief career as an amateur racer, I went down once and had a near-miss.  Both were the result of other riders who jackknifed in front of me.  In the crash, I wrecked an expensive front wheel but, fortunately, not the bike--or me.  In the near-miss, another rider incurred similar damage when he and a couple of other riders hit the pavement a bit further back in the pack from where I'd been riding.

Now it seems there's a new hazard that can take a racer out of the game, or leave a rider with  road rash or worse:



It almost sounds like one of those excuses I'd hear from a student who didn't show up for class the day a term paper was due.  (That's happening to me this week!)  "I got hit by a drone".  At least, that's now more plausible than "My drone ate it!"

Seriously, though:  We have to watch for low-flying or falling drones.  Imagine if one caused a pileup in, say, the Tour, Giro or Vuelta!

How To Corrupt The Young: Let Their Teachers Ride Bikes To School

According to today's Google Doodle (Can you beat it as a source?), today is Teachers' Day.

As it happens, I teach in a college.  So, people often conflate me with teachers, especially when they complain about the inadequate skills and manners of young people today.   And they assume that I am on the same schedule as their local schools, or ask me questions about tests, programs and other things of which I am completely unfamilar.

 I am not ashamed to be associated with pedagogues in high schools, middle schools and elementary schools, and I feel the best of them are criminally underpaid.  Also, I feel they are unfairly blamed for much of what is "wrong" with "society".  There are bad ones, to be sure.  But the majority I've known are smart, hardworking people who are doing the best they can with limited resources, clueless or hostile administrators, mandates that have nothing to do with educating young people and with students who, perhaps, didn't get enough food, sleep or good parenting.

How educators influence young people can be debated, but their influence cannot be denied.  Thus, school boards have codes of conduct or behavior for their teachers.  Of course, what is considered "proper" or "moral" has changed over the past century.

For example, during the first Bike Boom of the 1890s. some feared that the sight of women on bicycles would corrupt young people.  There are folks (men, mainly) who still believe such things:  one of my colleagues, who hails from Ethiopia, has never ridden a bicycle because girls and females were kept away from them.  The reason, she said, is that the sight of a woman pumping her legs is seen as "provocative."

But, back in 1895, people didn't have to come from conservative religious societies in order to harbor such notions.  Although most of Long Island was still rural, it was hardly comparable to, say, Saudi Arabia.  Even so, in June of that year, the Long Island School Board issued a stern directive to its female teachers:  Stop Riding Bicycles.  As Board member William Sutter explained to the New York Sun:

   We as the trustees are responsible to the public for the conduct of the schools [and] the morals of the pupils.  I consider that for our boys and girls to see their women teachers ride up to the school door every day and dismount from a bicycle is conducive to the creation of immoral thoughts."

Hmm...Some of my students have seen me ride to school.  I wonder what "immoral thoughts" are fermenting in their heads.  Maybe I'm corrupting young people in ways I never realized!

France Wins--Or, At Least, Survives

La France Survit!  La France Survit!

That's more or less what my French friends and I have been exclaiming to each other.  Yes, France survives!  Emanuel Macron won the presidential election over Donald Trump-in-a-dress-who-speaks-French.

It's really appropriate that his victory came the day before V-E (Victory In Europe) Day.  More than one commentator has said that Macron's ascent is not just a victory for France, but for all of Europe.

I am inclined to agree, though I admit I'm far from being an expert on such things.  I am just happy that enough people didn't fall for the nonsense about making their country "great" again or "bringing back" jobs that were lost to automation rather than outsourcing.

For now, I am willing to take victory wherever I can find it--and celebrate.  Vincenzo Nibali has the right idea:

Yes, You Should Wear A Helmet. Really!

As you probably know (at least, if you read this blog), I wear a helmet when I ride.  Well, most of the time:  Once in a great while, I forget my helmet when I leave my apartment. And, I'll admit, while riding in Paris, Montreal and Prague, the denizens of those fair cities got to see the full, blazing glory of my hair in the wind when I pedaled up and down their boulevards and alleys.  For that matter, I let the sun and wind play with my mane while riding during visits with my parents in Florida.

So, although I encourage people to wear helmets, I don't excoriate people for not wearing them.  If nothing else, I try not to be a hypocrite!

Also, I think about all of the years I rode without a helmet. During my childhood, bike helmets were unheard-of.  When I first became a dedicated cyclist, as a teenager, the only helmets were those "leather hairnets" you sometimes see in old photos.  I figured they would be about as useful in accidents as nail clippers are for cutting diamonds.    

Yes, I survived, bareheaded, through all of those years and all of those miles.  So did lots of other people.  That is the argument some still make against helmet wearing.  Another is that helmets "can't protect you against everything".  To anyone who says that, I say, "You've got a point."  To which Groucho Marx might add, "You should put a hat over it."  Or a helmet?

Anyway, helmets certainly offer protection.  To wit: