Stop handing them the stick

It is now common for newspapers and TV news channels to have websites.

News stories and articles are published, and like blogs most allow comments from readers.

I find it disturbing whenever a cycling related story is posted, it is inevitably followed by a stream of anti-cycling rhetoric.

This usually draws counter comments from cyclists, often equally as venomous.

Still more anti-cycling bullshit follows, and so it goes on and on. Nothing good is achieved; if anything the two sides are driven further apart rather than seeing the other’s point of view.

Recently I read this post from a TV news station in New Haven, Connecticut. Strictly speaking this was not a cycling story, but a business story about a business that happened to be a retail bike store.

I was dismayed when it drew the same anti-cycling comments from the general public. One responding to the report that the bike store had been broken into, stated, “I'm glad those liberal enablers got burglarized.”

In this persons eyes not only should people not be allowed to ride bikes on the road but bike store owners are fair game for abuse, because they encourage and enable cycling.

To the credit of the website’s administrators, at least one of the more hateful comments was removed. I read it earlier and it advocated running cyclists down in order to, quote, “Take back our roads.”

Although every cyclist sees this type of comment coming from a viewpoint of ignorance and extreme prejudice, we have to realize our counter responces are probably viewed in exactly the same way.

One also has to realize the person you respond to will never see your point of view, but a carefully worded, intelligent response will win over more moderate readers. It might be better to make a general statement rather than a response counter attacking an individual.

Cyclists are a minority group and as such will be judged by the worst behavior in our group. I can practically guarantee whenever a cycling related article appears, there will be at least one comment from someone that goes something like this:

“Cyclists seem to think they own the damn road, they never obey stop signs and lights.”

To be fair, people do not make this kind of stuff up. People say things like this, and others will readily agree with them, because they have witnessed exactly this behavior from cyclists on many occasions.

I witnessed it myself just a few weeks ago. I was sitting at a light in my car at the end of a long line of vehicles.

A cyclist on a road bike, rode calmly up the outside of the row of cars, and with a cursory glance to the left and right, without slowing, rode across the busy six lane highway against the red light.

With assorted vehicles passing through at about 60mph (Speed limit is 55.) ranging from cars, SUVs, commercial trucks, and eighteen wheelers.

I'm sure like me, these drivers experienced a serious WTF moment as we watched this idiot on a bicycle, weave his way through traffic dodging between gaps in the flow. I wondered his reasoning, a death wish, or outright defiance simply because he could.

I might have chased him down to ask him, but he went straight, and I was in the left turn lane. Would it have inconvenienced this cyclist to wait in line for the green light like everyone else was obliged to do?

Sadly there were at least another twenty or more people waiting at the four corners of this busy intersection, also witnessing this brazen defiance of the law.

In an instant, one cyclist gave forty or more people a reason to hate cyclists.

I question whether we will see an end to this verbal and online beating up of cyclists, when there are those among us who keep handing our critics the stick to do it with.

Consumer protection gone crazy

A strange state of affairs has arisen because of the passing of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. (CPSIA) The act limits the amount of lead content in products intended for use by children under 12 years old.

This act has now left manufacturers of children’s bicycles facing a huge problem, because certain parts of kids bicycles do not comply with the less than 300 parts lead per million that the new law requires.

Where is the lead content in a bicycle you may ask? It had me puzzled. It is in the brass used in the tire’s Schrader valve. Apparently the new regulations will also limit the industry's use of recycled steel and aluminum; both of which may or may not at some time or other be contaminated with lead.

The Bicycle Product Suppliers Association(BPSA) an organization that looks after the interests of bicycle manufacturers, applied for exemption from this requirement with the Consumer Product Safety Council. (CPSA) The CPSA is responsible for enforcing this legislation.

Exemption was denied, but a temporary two year stay on enforcement was granted, to give the bicycle industry time to find an answer to this problem. Not a real problem, just one of bureaucratic making. The reasons given for denial by the CPSC was, and I quote:

We are compelled to deny the petition because the language of the statute does not give us the flexibility to do otherwise, even though our staff does not believe that lead exposure from using bicycles and related products presents a risk that they would recommend the Commission regulate.

The risk assessment methods traditionally used by the Commission in evaluating exposure to lead are no longer available to us under the CPSIA.

The BPSA was able to put forward scientific proof that a child riding a bicycle would be exposed to less lead than drinking regular tap water, or eating certain perfectly legal candy. No matter, the law it appears is inflexible, and it with take another Act of Congress to reverse it.

Also emphasized by the BPSA, that bike resellers such as Thrift Stores can’t comply with the new law because all used bikes have brass components. Dream Bikes, a Trek-sponsored nonprofit in Madison, faces the same problem.

It takes bikes away from the least privileged, and complicates the situation where a child outgrows a bike and the bike is sold or donated.

In the mean time the Bicycle Product Suppliers Association is facing extreme financial hardship. They have already spent their entire yearly budget of $100,000 in legal fees fighting not only this, but the ongoing New Jersey Quick Release ban.

Another prime example of our government in trying to protect us from ourselves, and in doing so creating more problems than they solve. And those of us from previous generations are left to wonder how we even made it thus far without all this protection

More reading on the subject in The Bicycle Retailer and Industry News. Also in these articles Overlawyered, and Bikes and Kids

San Francisco Police Bicycle Training Video

If there are any doubts as to cyclist's rights and where they should ride on the road, at least in San Francisco, watch this video. It was produced to train police officers to understand cyclist's rights.

[Via SFbikelaw.org]

3 Feet of Space: It’s not much to ask

More and more states are bringing in a 3 Foot Passing Law as part of a safety package for cyclist. If common sense prevailed, or there was just plain old respect for the safety of another road user, such laws would be unnecessary.

It should be pretty obvious that you don’t buzz by a cyclist at a high rate of speed, missing him by inches, however, in the absence of common sense laws have to be enacted.

Whenever a state proposes a 3 foot passing law, inevitably the naysayers ask, “How can you enforce such a law?” Short of every cyclist having a 3 foot measuring stick attached to the back of the saddle, with a flag and preferably a sharp spike attached, it can’t be enforced to the letter.

In spite of this, legislation such as a 3 foot law is a good idea, because if someone passes a cyclist and the vehicle’s rear view mirror slaps the bike rider on the back of his head, then obviously that driver did not give the cyclist 3 foot of space. Incidents like this do happen, much too often.

If a law is in place, it is my opinion that most people will at least attempt to comply. Where there is a speed limit, most will drive no more than 5 or 10 mph over, the speed limit stops the majority from driving at 30 mph over. Notice I said the majority, there are always exceptions.

Speed limit laws act as a guide line; this is the speed you are supposed to drive. So too is the 3 foot passing law a guide line, it makes people aware that when you see a cyclist up ahead you are going to have to make an attempt to go around him, not hold your current line and just skim by.

Roads that have lanes of 15 feet or wider are often more dangerous for a cyclist than narrower lanes. The reason, speeds are higher, and a car passing a cyclist will not deviate from the line he is taking straight down the middle of the lane. In his view the lane is wide and the cyclist has plenty of room.

A problem arises when there is another vehicle following close behind. (Tailgating.) This driver does not see the cyclist because the car ahead is obstructing his view. If this driver is one of those who hug the right hand edge of the road, he doesn’t see the cyclist until he runs into him.

A 3 foot passing law encourages the first driver make a conscious effort to move to the left; thus alerting the driver behind that there is something ahead in the lane.

Also by moving over there is a chance the driver behind can now see the cyclist.

In some parts of the US they are enacting laws to give a cyclist “Half the lane,” this I feel is a sensible approach, possibly even better than the 3 foot idea. It is easier for a passing motorist to estimate half a lane, and it automatically allows for varying road widths.

Where these laws are implemented, drivers need to be educated and told that it is okay to cross the double yellow to pass a cyclist if it is safe. (As the car shown in the top picture is doing)

A cyclist is about seven feet in length, taking three or four feet in width and traveling at as relatively low speed. It is not like overtaking an eighteen wheeler semi. Incidentally, I can practically guarantee someone overtaking a semi truck, will give at least three feet in passing.

I would also like to see the old “Share the Road” signs replaced with something simple, and similar to the one shown above, left. A sign that says “Give a cyclist 3 feet,” makes a “Share the Road” sign obsolete. It says, we are here, we’re entitled, just give us a little room

Mixed Signals

More and more states are passing new laws to protect cyclists. In most cases part of the package gives the cyclist the option of signaling a right turn with either their left or right arm. I have not heard any protest from cyclists over this until now.

On a Portland, Oregon blog named Two Five Fix, was this quote:

Please stop pressing the issue to pass the right-hand right-turn turn signal! There are three standardized hand signals that have been in place for years. By changing the rules for cyclist, you are saying "we get special treatment" and causing more us-them mentality. Motorists can't signal a right hand turn with their right hand so why should cyclists? Maybe we can start using blue lights on the back of our bikes too?

When I came to the United States thirty years ago, I accepted the rules, laws and customs of this country. I would ride my bike on the opposite side of the road, I would even refer to “chips” as French Fries and eat them with ketchup instead of vinegar, but I would be damned if I would signal a right turn with my left arm.

It seemed ludicrous to me to signal my intention to turn right by pointing my left forearm towards the sky.

The driver of a motor vehicle can only signal with one arm, and for those who drive on the right it is the left arm.

But people on bicycles, or for that matter motorcycles, mopeds, or scooters have their whole body exposed and both arms can be clearly seen.

So when I arrived on these shores in 1979, I continued to do as I had done all my life, and signaled a right turn with my right arm. To do any different may have been the law, but to me went against all common sense and logic.

I am not 100% sure, but I believe in almost every country in the world, cyclists and motorcyclists use their left arm to signal left, and their right to signal right; America is the exception.

Even to this day I am still caught offgaurd driving behind a motorcyclist on the freeway, when he raises his left left arm with clenched fist, like some militant biker power salute, then suddenly swerves right into the next lane. I am left to wonder, doesn't pointing in the direction you intend to go register in the human brain a split second faster.

Anyway, I have for the last thirty years; riding my bike on the roads of these United States always signaled a right turn with my right arm, pointing to the right. I may have been breaking the law, but there has never been any confusion as to the direction I intended to go.

However, it became a rebellion that no one noticed or even cared about; I was never locked up, or threatened with deportation. In thirty years no one has ever question why I chose to signal that way; not law enforcement, motorist, or cyclist.

The writer of the above comment is concerned that motorists will see different hand signals for cyclists as “special treatment.” It is my opinion that the motoring public could care less about hand signals. When do you last see a motor vehicle driver give one? Heck, many are too lazy to lift one finger to operate the mechanical turn signals.

I believe hand signals for motorists are obsolete. The average American motorist steers with his left hand, if he suddenly had to signal with it, he would be totally flummoxed. The right hand holds the cell phone, the coffee cup, or is used to communicate displeasure with other road users.

Be grateful that many states are giving cyclists the option to signal either way, with the left or right arm. Those used to indicating a right turn with their left arm their entire life, can continue to do so and do not have to learn a new procedure. And foreign nonconformists like me finally become law abiding citizens.