Shit Cyclists Say

If you haven’t already seen this it is pretty funny. The one that cracked me up was “Is one of my legs longer than the other?”

As a framebuilder I used to get that all the time. There was not much I could do; it is not possible to build a frame that is longer on one side.

My usual thought was, just cope with it like you do when you walk, maybe ride with a limp.

                        

Diet

 

America leads the world. That statement is not always true, but many trends that start in the US often spread to other countries. I remember growing up in England years ago; I noticed I could always tell an American by his appearance.

Not just his clothes, but men were usually just bigger; taller, broader shoulders and fuller in the face. In the more than 30 years that I have lived in the US I have seen big and tall go to obese, to morbid obese. This trend is now steadily spreading all over the world.

America’s addiction to food, and more especially junk food; is sold to a naïve public because there are large profits to be made with junk food. Relatively cheap to produce, flavor can be chemically engineered in a way that it tastes so good it becomes addictive. (Try opening a bag of potato chips, and eating just one.)

The tobacco industry at one time was on to a great business model; manufacture and sell something highly addictive that is constantly consumed. It was a good business model until people were made aware that tobacco products were killing people.

The junk food manufacturers today are following the exact same business model as the tobacco companies did, and it is killing people. Selling people food that in most cases they don’t need, but are addicted to it. Sodas, salty or sugary snacks.

Hand in hand with the obesity epidemic is America’s love affair with the automobile. Combine a love of junk food with the love of the automobile (Lack of exercise.) and a person is on an express lane to an early grave.

Part of the love of the automobile is the culture of speed; this is a lie being sold to the public by the world’s auto manufacturers.

Look at any car ad on TV and what do you see? The obligatory slow motion shot of a car sliding sideways in a controlled skid, smoke or dust billowing from its tires; or cars driving at break neck speed on deserted streets and highways.

This is not reality; on today’s congested roadways, not only is it impractical, it is downright dangerous. Speed kills; there is less time to react if a driver or someone else makes a mistake.

Stopping distances are greater, and the impact of a crash is more intense and therefore deadly.

Statistics show that a pedestrian hit a 40mph has an 85% chance of dying; that means only a 15% chance of survival. At 30mph the pedestrian hit has a 45% chance of dying; and a pedestrian hit at 20mph has only a 5% chance of dying, in other words 95% of the time the pedestrian will survive.

Plus at 20mph a driver has more chance of stopping, and the pedestrian more chance of jumping out of the way. Isn’t this a strong argument for restricting speed to 20mph in city centers where there are large numbers of pedestrians and bicycles?

It is interesting that as people get bigger, so too do their cars.

In the last decade the average SUV has grown 10 inches longer, 4 inches wider and as a result have packed on another 474 lbs.

Even compact sedans are 2 inches wider, 2 inches longer and weigh 374 lbs. more.

Because of the increased weight the car is given a larger more powerful engine because a drop in performance would not satisfy the consumer’s addiction to speed. (Which is an idea the car manufacturer sold them in the first place.)

This also means these vehicles take up more space on the road, and if you are unfortunate enough to get hit by one of these behemoths, your chance of survival is greatly reduced. Even if you are hit while driving a smaller car.

Just as the tobacco companies in the 1940s and 1950s said, “Smoke these cigarettes, it will make you look cool;” the auto companies today say, “Drive this car, it will go fast and make you look cool.” What they don't say is, like tobacco it will kill you along with other people.

So what is the answer; how can we reverse this trend? We can’t just suddenly take away people’s object of addiction; try to do that and people go crazy, they resist.

If a person is morbidly obese they can now have an operation whereby their stomach is made smaller thus restricting the amount of food the person can shove in it. This is an effective way to lose weight when a person cannot restrict their food intake by simple self control.

Roads too can be put on a diet. The conventional wisdom for many years has been to deal with traffic congestion by making roads wider. This is akin to dealing with obesity by buying a larger pair of pants, and a longer belt.

Wide, multi-lane roads just encourage speed, making it more dangerous for pedestrians to cross and of course for cyclists too.

Especially if the cyclist has to cross multiple lanes to make a left turn, while dealing with cars driving at a greater speed.

These multi-lane highways usually lead into large cities; at some point the road has to narrow and as a result traffic slows or stops completely and the multi-lane highway becomes a large capacity parking lot.

If you pour water from a pitcher into an empty wine bottle, there is only one way to do it; very slowly. Traffic flowing into a city is no different; if you reduce the number of lanes the traffic flows slower; often the overall time of a person’s trip in not increased.

It is a steadier, slower drive, rather than a dangerous high speed race along a multi-lane highway, only to sit with your engine idling in a traffic jam at the end of it.

Multi-lane highways give a false sense of carrying more traffic but actually they don’t. Because of the higher speed, greater distance is needed between each car. The next time you are on such a road, look across at the opposite side and notice how much space is actually taken up by cars. You will notice as much as four or five times the space between each car.

With less lanes and the traffic flowing at a slower speed, cars can safely travel closer together, maximizing the use of space. By putting roads on a diet, space gained can be given over to separating cars, bikes, and pedestrians. Making it safer for people to walk and ride bicycles, encourages more to do just that.  

More people walking and riding bikes cuts down congestion making those multi-lane highways unnecessary. It cuts down on obesity and leads to people making healthier choices; weaning them off the junk food. Maybe if people get smaller, their cars may also get smaller, less powerful, and less deadly to operate.  

Diets save lives; whether they are food diets or road diets. The good news is that city planners and traffic engineers all over the US are embracing the idea of putting roads on a diet. Even our capitol city, and who would have thought that a few years ago?  

                        

Warne’s World

You may, or may not, have read this past week about the big brouhaha going on in the Land Down Under.

Former Australian international cricket star Shane Warne (Right.) got into an altercation with a cyclist, while driving his Mercedes.

The type of thing that happens every day in different places all over the world.

The big difference is that when a sports super star starts spouting distaste and even hatred towards cyclists in general, newspapers and other media run with the story. People take sides, and no useful outcome is achieved; just a bad taste left on both sides of the fence.

Like all stories there are two sides. Warne claimed the cyclist abused him verbally and thumped on the hood of his car with his fist. Of course in such cases, the more expensive the car, and the more important the driver, the greater the insult.

Later an unidentified cyclist came forward to tell a different story; he said the driver deliberately ran into him and his bike ended up jammed under the Mercedes.

When the cyclist managed to get his bike free, the rear wheel was pulled over, and his chain was tangled; he had to move to the sidewalk to fix the problem. An independent witness came forward to corroborate the cyclist’s story.

Shane Warne called for the registration of all bicycles; along with the mandatory displaying of a number plate. This is the usual knee-jerk reaction when such incidents occur; his thinking was had the cyclist displayed a number plate he could be held accountable.

Accountable for what? Rudeness, bad manners. A cyclist thumping the hood or roof of a car is the equivalent of a motorist laying on the horn to express his displeasure. It will get your attention and it will get your point across.

Not that I am advocating that cyclists should thump on cars with their fist; not a wise thing to do. A wise man would not antagonize another who was already pointing a gun at him. To thump a man’s beloved car, could be viewed as a personal attack, and the car could quickly become a deadly weapon.

This whole incident is a storm in the proverbial tea-cup. Had this been Average Joe in his car getting into it with Joe-Smo on his bike, would it have made the newspapers? Of course not.  

Similarly, if I drove my car at 15 to 20 mph in front of Shane Warne, I may have made him angry, but not angry enough to run in the back of me. Not angry enough to burn up the Twittersphere, or to get the media even mildly interested.

My point is; when are people in automobiles going to realize that more and more people are going to be riding bicycles? It is likely to increase, not decrease. You can fight against it, or you can get used to the idea and accept it.

Count the times during your drive to work that you have to wait behind a car making a left turn. (A right turn for Shane Warne in Australia.)

We don’t fume or fuss; we don’t lay on the horn. We simply sit there and wait as long as it takes for a break in opposing traffic; the car can then make his turn and we can proceed. It is just part of the experience of driving in traffic.

Then a short distance up the road the same driver has to slow because there is a cyclist ahead and it is not safe to pass. There is no point in becoming angry, it is just part of today’s driving experience; get used to it.

And what good can cyclists learn from this? Don’t escalate the road rage; even if you didn’t start it. No good can come of it; at best you are perpetuating the stereotype of the asshole cyclist; at worst you could get yourself killed or seriously injured.

Get everything in perspective; you encounter hundreds of drivers during an average ride. Only a tiny minority will deliberately be aggressive towards you. They want to push your buttons, and get some reaction out of you; deny them that perverted pleasure by ignoring them. Ride it off instead.

You have already shown good taste in a highly civilized form of transport; a bicycle. You have the balls to ride in with the automobile traffic when many simply admit they are afraid to do so. Don’t stoop to the level of asshole drivers; even famous asshole drivers like Shane Warne.

                        

Should this frame be repainted or left original?

A Fuso frame with the original paint in nice condition just sold on eBay. The new owner has emailed me asking me about replacement decals as he is thinking of having the frame repainted.

My advice would be to build this frame into a bike as is, and ride it. From the pictures on eBay the paint appears to be in good condition; it has a few minor paint chips which is to be expected for a frame built in 1986.

The new owner can ride this bike knowing that if he put another chip in the paint it would be no big deal. Many of us know the feeling of owning a brand new car. We park it in the far corner of the supermarket parking lot, away from all other cars.

Eventually the inevitable happens and some careless idiot puts a little ding in the paint.

We feel annoyed, but at the same time relief that we no longer have to be so paranoid about protecting the car’s perfect finish, because it is no longer perfect.

The new owner paid $400 for this frame; a fair price. If he decides to keep it as is for now, he will now get many years riding out of this bike.

If he eventually sells it again, he will at least get his $400 back and most likely make a profit, at least enough to cover the interest on his $400 investment.

If he decides down the road to repaint the frame, a professional paint job would probably set him back anywhere from $500 to $1,000. Would he now get $1,000 to $1,500 if he sold the frame? It would be less likely than if he sold it “As is,” and got his $400 back.

Even if someone picked up a completely trashed frame for $100 or so, and repainted it, the money you have invested has not really increased the overall value over and above what you have put into it.

Apart from the economics of re-painting, another thing to consider is this. There will be no more Fuso frames built; or any of the other frames I built. There are plenty right now to meet the demand of people who would like to own one.

The number available will not increase, in fact it will decrease as frames are neglected and rust out, are damaged in an accident, or more often than not, just get lost because people don’t know what they have, and throw them in the dumpster.

Those that remain will still be around long after I am gone. I hope during my lifetime, people will keep riding them. It is what they were built for.

Most vintage bikes being ridden today are from the 1980s. This is an important era; it marked the end of the hand-crafted bicycle frame.

Somehow I can’t see today’s carbon fiber creations being collected in large quantities in the future.

Bikes built before the 1970s, with a few exceptions, are not being ridden on a regular basis.

They end up in museums and in the hands of serious collectors. Like this typical collection of racing bikes dating from the late 1800s to the 1980s.

You will find in such collections, frames are all with original paint.

There are two ways of looking at ownership of a classic bike, or any other antique for that matter.

1. You paid for it with your hard earned cash and you are free to do with it as you wish.
2. You are a caretaker of this item, preserving it for future generations. The money you paid for it entitles you to enjoy it while you have it, maybe make money on your original investment. However, at some point you pass it on for someone else to enjoy.

At the moment 1980s classic steel bikes and frames are plentiful; some more plentiful than the Fuso, some less. The ride is comparable, some argue better than a modern bike. So your riding enjoyment costs less, and as I have mentioned, comes with the possibility of a return on your investment.

If a frame is completely trashed, but never-the-less rare, it may be worth restoring; otherwise, keep it, ride it, and look out for another in better condition. Because of the economy it is a buyers market at this time. 

Don’t get me wrong, it doesn't matter either way to me. If someone is spending cash to restore one of my frames; that is pride of ownership, and makes me feel nothing but good. Incidentally, I have just started producing replacement decals for all models of frame I built.

However, my advice would be, don’t repaint unless the original paint is completely trashed; the reason is, down the road collectors will want bikes with original paint. Every frame repainted means one less with original paint, making those with original paint even more valuable.

This is a topic that brings forth many opinions; the above is mine, I would be interested to hear yours

                        

One step forward, one step back

 

The old city of Charleston, South Carolina is built on a peninsula with the Cooper River to the north east, joining the Ashley River to the south west.

One of the ways in and out of the city, over the Ashley River is to use Savannah Highway 17. (Picture above.) The road splits and twin bridges carry the traffic; one bridge has four lanes going into the city, the other bridge has three lanes out.

There is no shoulder or bike lane and riding in the traffic lane a cyclist is squeezed up against a 9 inch high curb of a sidewalk that is barely 24 inches wide. (See picture left.)

I would not recommend riding the sidewalk either; it is not much wider than your handlebars and is not for the timid. One false move would send you off the edge of the 9 inch curb and tumbling in front of speeding cars.

To make matters worse the center section on both bridges is a draw bridge to let boats pass under. This center section is made of steel grating that is treacherous for skinny tired road bikes, especially when wet. Some commuters choose to dismount and walk their bike across. (Below.)

Last month the South Carolina Department of Transport (SCDOT.) agreed that the City of Charleston could designate one of the four inbound lanes as a separate two way bike and pedestrian lane.

The lane is to be protected from automobile traffic by a cement barrier; also special on/off ramps for cyclists and pedestrians will need to be constructed.

This was welcome news for people who commute in and out of the city by bike, and the recreational cyclists who cross the Ashley River to reach some of the area’s best riding on James and Johns Island. However, the City has yet to find the money to carry out this project; it will be two years or more before we actually see this happen.

The only other way in and out of Charleston over the Ashley River is to use the James Island Connector Road. (Below.) Not ideal for cyclists I would agree, as it is designed with freeway style on/off ramps. But it does have an eight foot wide shoulder, and is a far safer route than taking Hwy. 17 as I have just described.

So imagine the dismay and disappointment for local cyclists and advocacy groups when the SCDOT told the city last week that it was illegal for cyclists to use the James Island Connector. In fact they are saying that it has been illegal since the road was built but the law has never been enforced.

This is the road where Mitchell Hollon, a much loved local anesthesiologist and cyclist, was killed last summer when he was struck by an AT&T utility van whose driver had wandered onto the shoulder. One can’t help but wonder if Mitchell’s death has prompted this cycling ban, although Charleston’s Mayor Riley says it is not the reason.

It is the old “Blame the Victim” scenario. A cyclist doing absolutely nothing wrong, is killed and instead of taking steps to make things safer for cyclists they think it solves the problem if they ban them altogether.

Why not extend this "Blame the victim" approach to other areas? There are also the occasional muggings and murders of people walking the streets of downtown Charleston at night.

Why doesn’t Mayor Riley take the same approach and stop this criminal activity by banning tourists and enforcing a late night curfew downtown. Let's cut down on attacks on females by banning them from jogging trails. (I am being facetious of course.)

I am not a legal expert and I would welcome input from those who are; but I question the legality of this ban. It has been my understanding the only roads barred to cyclists are freeways. The James Island Connector is not a freeway, although it will be eventually when it is extended to join up with the I-526.

There is no reason why in the interim cyclists can’t be allowed to continue use of the JI Connector road at least until the Hwy. 17 bridge improvements have been made.  If that is not possible, how about some“Sharrows” and signs saying cyclists may take the whole lane on the Savannah Highway bridge.

Maybe a 30mph speed limit on the bridge; of course the local motoring public would be up in arms against this, but really is there any point in rushing the half mile over the bridge to wait at a traffic light on either side.

Footnote: 1/11/12

Charleston is fortunate in that it has a local newspaper, the Post & Courier, that is pro cycling; all too rare in the US. Here is an updated article on the Ashley River bike crossing issue.

Update: 1/24/12

The ban is official, signs are posted on JI Connector.