Bike to work, lose weight

Here is an inspirational story about Englishman Gary Brennan, who at the beginning of 2008 weighed 546 lbs.

He started riding a bike 7 miles each way to work, five days a week and in less that a year lost 224 lbs.

The top picture shows Gary as he was, and the picture on the left is as he is now.

Doctors had previously told him the only way he could lose the weight was to have gastric bipass surgury.

When he started riding to work the seven mile ride took him two hours. I cannot imagine the effort it must have taken to haul over 500 lbs on a bike, up even the slightest incline. Today the daily commute takes Gary about twenty minutes each way.

Read more about Gary Brennan here, and he also has a great cycling promo video here.

Cycling is a great way to burn calories. It can be as gentle or intense as you wish to make it. I can imagine when Gary started out just the amount of weight he had to propel forward burned a lot of calories even at a slow speed.

The great thing about cycling is, the faster you ride the more calories you burn per mile traveled because of the increase in wind resistance.  As Gary lost weight and gained fitness, he rode faster and burned more calories.

Like all exercise, it is a chore at first, but when you reach a certain fitness level cycling becomes a joy and a pleasure.

Regular readers already know the health benefits of cycling, but here is dramatic proof of what can be achieved in extreme circumstances.

Share it with someone you know who could benifit from an inspirational story like this one

Footnote: For US readers, Gary talks about weighing 39 stone. A Stone = 14 lbs. (39 x 14 = 546 lbs.)

Just as long as it doesn't have pedals

The late and great George Carlin said:

"If I am driving at a given speed, anyone who passes me is a Maniac, and anyone driving slower than me is a Moron."

The only reason this is funny is because it is the truth; a trait in human nature that we can all relate.

The other day I observed a guy on an old beat up moped. The engine was screaming, smoke billowed from the exhaust, and he was driving at about 20 mph in the center of the lane on a busy main street.

There was no doubt from the sound of the engine, that this was the top speed this two wheeled clunker was capable of.

Cars were just following along behind him in a slow procession; no one was honking at him. Traffic was backed up at least a mile, and drivers that were at least six cars back were oblivious to the cause of the hold up anyway.

They were all just calmly following this guy on a moped, and I wondered, what if that were a cyclist riding down the center of the lane at 20 mph?

There would be a medley of car horns blowing, people would be screaming abuse from their open car windows.

Human nature would kick in, a cyclist is someone who must be passed. It doesn't matter if the cyclist is doing close to 25 mph in a 25 mph speed zone.

It doesn't matter if the cyclist is doing 50 mph, plus, down a winding mountain pass. Where it is not safe for a car to travel at above fifty, the cyclist must be passed.

On the other hand, put a motor on the bicycle, electric or gasoline, just as long as the pedals are not going round, and it has some magic calming effect on following drivers.

The actual speed at which the moped or scooter is traveling has no bearing on the situation. Human nature and human behavior is indeed strange.

I am having computer problems

Over a week ago my hard drive failed on my PC and I have been trying since to restore my files that were backed up on online.

The restore kept failing, or so I thought. My latest attempt started last Friday afternoon and the restore process ran for over 48 hours until Sunday evening when I decided it was not working again and I canceled the restore.

This was stupid, stupid, stupid, on my part because it apears the "Cancelation" process may take another 48 hours, proving that it was working, but that it is an extremely long process.

But no one told me that because the tech guys are all "Off Shore" and they don't communicate too well, so I am having to learn myself, the hard way.

When the "Cancelation" process is done, (There is not way I can reverse it, aparrently.) I will then be at the point I started. All very frustraiting.

The posts I made last week, I did on my old computer, but as I only have one Internet connection, I can only run one at a time. I am posting this on a friend's PC, and setting it to auto-post Monday morning, as I know people will be expecting to hear from me..

Anyway, this too will pass, eventually, and I can get back to my normal bi-weekly posts, so just bear with me and check back later.

In the mean time I just need to let the restore process run its course, and I'll probably go ride my bike while it is doing its thing.

The difference between rights and privileges

In a recent article I wrote about the Miami Critical Mass event I stated that the people taking part were abusing the "privilege" of riding a bicycle on the road.

A couple of people called me on this, stating that cycling is a right not a privilege. The argument being that a right cannot be taken away, whereas a privilege can.

My choice of words however, did not change the meaning of what I said, and the word "right" actually strengthened my argument.

If it is a right for us to ride our bikes on the road, all the more reason not to abuse that right by assembling in large numbers and blocking city streets to other road users.

It did however get me asking myself, what is a right? There are so called God given rights, but as people have the right to choose whether they believe in God or not, how does that work?

If you don't believe in God, do you have any God given rights? Are you obliged to respect other people's God given rights? As it is, the only one I can think of is our right to live.

Even that doesn’t count for much as laid out in my last piece, where a young couple riding a tandem bicycle had their lives taken by a person in a Ford truck, who was on the road driving as a privilege.

If you look at The Bill of Rights there are very few actual rights. The right to bear arms, the right to practice a religion of your choice, etc.

After that it appears the function of government (In theory anyway.) is to leave us alone, and we are free to do as we please as long as it doesn't include criminal activities. A problem arises when the rights of one group impede the rights of others. 

For example when automobiles first appeared there were no laws or regulations, you could simply buy a car, jump in and drive it. Pretty much in the same way as we can buy a bicycle today and ride it anywhere.

Later because of wholesale carnage on the roads, laws were passed and licenses issued to drivers. Driving became a privilege that could be taken away. Today it seems, this is a privilege that people are rarely deprived of, at least in the US.

It appears to me that rights are rarely granted, they are simply taken for granted. Is riding a bicycle on the highway is a prime example this?

I know to even suggest such a thing will cause outrage among a great many cyclists, but before we all get our anti-bacterial padded shorts in a twist, let’s think about this.

In recent years cell phones have become available and some assume it is their right to own one and talk and send text messages whenever they please, including while driving.

It turns out this is not a good idea so in some places this practice is being outlawed. Have people lost a right, or was it just an assumed right in the first place? 

A few years ago, people had the right to smoke just about anywhere they pleased. However, that right infringed on everyone else’s right not to breathe secondhand smoke. So, now that right has gradually been taken away, and smokers are now privileged to smoke in fewer and fewer places.

Because riding a bicycle on public roads is for the most part not a danger to other road users, it is doubtful than anyone will stop us doing it.

Cycling is a good idea. It cuts down on congestion in our cities, it is better for the environment, and it should be encouraged because it is good for the physical and mental well being of the participant.

My point is, are there any true rights or privileges, or just an ongoing daily debate among millions of people, on the streets, on the talk shows and in the courtrooms?

We all have certain rights, and we get to keep them as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. If they do we may lose those rights, it is happening all the time.

In which case there is little difference between rights and privileges; either can be taken away.

What do you call it, accident or negligence?

Gregory and Alexandra Bruehler (Left.) were both killed on October 1st when their tandem was stuck by an F150 Pick-up Truck on Texas Route 16, North of Helotes.

The driver of the truck, Gilbert John Sullaway Jr., is alleged to have veered off the road, and over corrected before striking the couple.

No traffic citations or criminal charges have been filed against Sullaway. The reason, police say it was an accident; he was driving at about 70 mph in the 65-mph zone and there was no evidence of intoxication.

Bull Crap! In my view, an accident is when a tire blows out or if there is some other mechanical failure, or there is a road hazard that causes a person to run into another.

If a driver is alert and he sees a cyclist ahead, common sense and decency says he should slow down to less that 70 mph. He should pass the cyclist giving at least 3 feet of space, more if he is traveling above 50mph.

If he hits the cyclist, it is negligence, pure and simple. The fact that he hits the cyclist is proof enough, no need for independent witnesses.

Some may put forward the defence that the cyclist swerved in front of them. That is the reason for not passing any less than 3 feet, to allow for such possibilities.

In this case, the tandem was dragged 200 yards under the vehicle; this was no glancing blow it was obviously a direct hit.

The couple left behind a 7 year old daughter. The dead couple's parents have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the driver; their only recourse obviously.

If police would start charging these reckless and dangerous drivers with Negligent Homicide, although it would not help the victims, it would eventually make some people, wake up, and take responsibility for their sloppy driving habits.

Above: Hundreds of cyclists from the San Antonio, TX area, attend a memorial for Gregory and Alexandra Bruehler

Police officers who work on homicides usually state that they do it to bring closure to the families left behind. Although these are not deliberate killings, they are caused by extreme negligence, and the grieving families also need some sense of justice.

What closure is there for a family when the person responsible walks away scott free as in this case.

I sometimes feel I am wasting my time writing about stuff like this; after all, I am preaching to the choir.

On the other hand I always feel there is a possibility that if enough cyclists like me who happen to write, draw attention to this problem, it may just filter down into the mainstream media.

Eventually our voice will be heard, and something will be done. It would be nice if I could live to see it

Read a full account here and here