Monday Musings

The 98th Tour de France is under way; that is well over a 100 years this event has been run because the only thing that stopped it was two World Wars.

Cindy Boren writing in the Washington Post seems to think there will be a void in this year’s event caused by the absence of Lance Armstrong.

That is hilarious. The Tour de France is a true international race, and one of the biggest sporting events in the world; larger than any one single rider, even one who has won the event a record seven times.

This is the problem with many American sports writers and pundits, they think if it isn’t an American sport, or there isn’t an American winning the event it isn’t worth considering.

The National Championships of some American sports are called “World” Series or “World” Championships. It is like saying we will call it a World Championship, but we will not invite other nations 'cos it's our ball, and our game, and they wouldn't win anyway.

Strangely Cindy Boren ignores the fact that there are other Americans riding in this year’s TDF, and two of them Chris Horner and Levi Leipheimer (Above.) have the potential to do quite well.

But of course Cindy Boren like most Americans only knows of one cyclist... Lance Armstrong

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The next time you hear that tired old argument that cyclists should be licensed and bicycles should be taxed; ask this: Who will issue these licenses and collect these taxes?

The answer will probably be the DMV. That is the Department of Motor Vehicles; with the emphasis on “Motor.” However, a bicycle doesn’t have a motor. End of argument.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The State of Tennessee is among the latest to bring in a 3 foot passing law for motor vehicles passing cyclists.

They have also gone one step further and brought in a “Due care” law.

This means a driver won’t be able to hit a cyclist or pedestrian and go, “Whoops, sorry I didn’t see them.” Penalties if someone dies include a $500 fine, just under a year in jail, and driver’s license suspended for a year.

Many will say this does not go far enough for the loss a human life, but it is a good start; more than some other states are doing.

One commenter on my last post suggested the “3 foot passing sign” should be added to the “Share the road” signs; I think that is an excellent idea, actually I think it should replace the Share the road sign.

“Share the road” is so wimpy, it is like asking “Pretty please, let me ride my bicycle on your road.” I notice too that the 3 ft. passing signs also say “Please,” in most cases..... Why? I agree it is nice to be polite, but we don’t have “Please” on speed limit signs.

If something is a law it is not an option. The words "Share" and "Please" imply that one can say "No." Drop the “Please,” and the sign will say “Cyclists have a right to be here, give them at least three feet when you pass because it is a law.”

                        

Pro Cycling and Helmets

With the tragic death of Belgian professional cyclist Wouter Weylandt (Left.) in this year’s Giro d’Italia.

Then just last week Columbian rider Juan Maurcio Soler was left with serious head injuries after a crash in the Tour of Switzerland.

I am wondering just how much protection does a cycling helmet really give?

The helmet rule for professional cyclists was brought by the UCI in 2003 following the death of Andrei Kivlev during the Paris-Nice race.

Since then deaths of professional cyclists while racing have doubled, so where is the protection that helmets are supposed to give a rider?

According to these figures, in the decade that was the 1950s, 8 pro riders were killed while racing. In the ten years that followed, the 1960s, 4 lost their lives; another 4 during the 1970s, and 5 in the 1980s. 3 died in pro races in the 1990s.

However, in the first decade of the New Millennium, the 2000s, 10 professional cyclists died during completion. Two have died already in this decade when we are only half way through the second year. What happened? Helmets were made mandatory in 2003 to protect riders.

Two of the riders, Brett Malin (2003) and Bob Breedlove (2005) died while riding in the Race Across America (RAAM) and were struck by motor vehicles, not by a fall usually associated with racing. But eliminating these two from the list still leaves 8, double the number that died each decade in the preceding 40 years.  

I never really considered Professional Cycle Racing to be a particularly dangerous sport, but close to one death a year is not acceptable. Isn’t it about time the UCI and the professional cyclists themselves started to look into the effectiveness of helmets?

The UCI is quick to enact regulation for every other aspect of the sport, why not do something really useful and set some safety standards for bicycle helmets that would benefit us all.

It seems to me that there is too much emphasis on the part of manufacturers in designing something that looks cool rather than do what it is supposed to do, and that is protect a rider in the event he or she should hit their head.

I see two main problems; the outer shell is weak so it splits open on impact, and the polystyrene foam is too dense, it doesn’t absorb the impact. After all it is the helmet that is supposed to get crushed in a crash, not the rider’s skull.

Maybe this is part way to finding the answer.  

                         

Freedom

The New York Times reports this morning that the FBI is has been given wider powers to spy on people in the fight against terrorism.

A little more freedom is sacrificed in the cause of everyone’s safety.

As terrible as 9/11 was when 3,000 people lost their lives, over ten times that number die on our roads in traffic accidents every year.

This means well over 300,000 people have lost their lives on US highways in the 10 years following 9/11. Where is the outrage? If these numbers were war casualties, members of our armed services there would be outrage.

Actually road deaths went down in 2010 to 32,788, the lowest figures since 1949, and while this can be viewed as good news, it still translates close to 90 people will die today, another 90 tomorrow, 630 per week, and so on. Again where is the outrage?

Cars are being made ever safer for the people inside that vehicle, but not for others who get hit by one; especially if that person is on foot or on a bicycle. Even in my little compact car if I am T-boned by an SUV my chances of survival are slim.

On the subject of losing a little of our freedom in the name of safety, how about losing the freedom to drive like an idiot.

I think I can safely say that most fatal road deaths are caused by driver error, not the machine itself or the road it is on. Impatience, speed, aggressive driving, and distracted driving are the primary cause of most car crashes.

In the UK, where people have a lot less freedom than in the US, new road safety laws are in force, where the police can levy on-the-spot fines for aggressive driving, tailgating, etc. What a great deterrent; a police officer stops you, asks for your credit or debit card, and charges you between $130 and $160 on the spot.

How about a more comprehensive driving test to start with, followed by the worst traffic offenders losing the privilege to drive. If someone dies as a result of someone else’s poor driving, there should be some serious consequences; all too often it is seen simply as an accident.

It really is an outrage that a minority are allowed the freedom to drive in a careless and dangerous manner, when the result is someone else losing their ultimate freedom, their life.

                       

The Annoyance Factor

Above is an interesting video showing a birds-eye-view of a New York City intersection. It shows the interaction between cars, bicycles and pedestrians.

Right off the bat you will see a cyclist make a left turn from the extreme right side of the road into a one-way street going the wrong way. Count the number of cyclists riding through red lights and riding against the flow of traffic.

I have watched this video several times and I notice that cars for the most part, stop for red lights; some stop for pedestrians, some are forced to brake for cyclists. Pedestrians for the most part stay in the cross-walk; they also stop for cars and bicycles.

Cyclists, on the other hand, ride anywhere and everywhere and do not stop for any reason. Not for red lights, for cars or pedestrians; rather they keep moving and maneuver their way around any obstruction.

They go where ever that path takes them; if it leads contra the traffic flow, so be it. There is one exception; a cyclist who actually is riding in a proper manner has to stop when he is cut off by a car that is entering a parking space. In the midst of all this chaos a semi does an illegal U-turn.

I often get a lot of flack when I criticize cyclists, and the argument always put forward is that cyclists rarely kill or seriously injure anyone. This is true, the video ends with the statement that four people are killed or seriously injured in New York City every day.

I think I can safely say that cyclists are only responsible for a tiny percentage of those deaths and serious injuries. They are more likely to be victims of those accidents. However, this is not the issue:

"What about the Annoyance Factor. You can’t excuse bad behavior simply because statistically it is not all that dangerous." 

The complaints I hear from New York motorists and pedestrians are justified if this video is anything to go by. At a guess, cyclists are probably less than 10% of the people in this clip, but they are causing 90% of the chaos.

I am sure there are just as many cyclists riding in a proper manner in New York, and they were for the most part edited out of this video.

In fact take the scofflaw cyclists out of this video and it would be pretty boring. Which highlights the problem, no one notices cyclists riding in a proper manner, they just see the annoying ones.

Footnote: You can also view this on Vimeo, and I recommend you view it in full screen mode. Start the video, then click on the four arrows (Bottom right, next to the word "vimeo.") Press your escape key (Esc.) on your keyboard to exit full screen.

                        

Building Bridges

I just read a story this morning about a new Interstate 90 Bridge being built in Minnesota. Cycling and pedestrian groups are pressing for the new bridge to include a bike/pedestrian path.

"The Minnesota Department of Transportation says a bike or pedestrian lane on an Interstate bridge won’t work for a variety of reasons, among them cost, environmental impacts, aesthetics and safety concerns."

The Minnesota DOT is blowing smoke. Yes it will cost a little more, but nowhere near as much as a few years down the road when people start wishing they had such a bike/foot path and they think about retro-fitting one.

Here in Charleston, South Carolina, they built a beautiful new bridge over the Cooper River that opened in 2005. (Pictured above.) Initially it too had no planned provision for cyclists or pedestrians, but the local people got organized, signed petitions, and got the planners and people in charge to change their minds.

The bridge was built with a separate path about 12 feet wide on one side of the bridge only. It really is not that difficult, all bridges have steel beams that go cross-wise to support the roadway, it is just a matter of extending those beams on one side to support the bike path. They do not have to redesign the whole bridge.

Here in Charleston there is a wonderful organization called “Charleston Moves.” It is a coalition of cyclists, pedestrians and people pushing for public transport. I would urge the people who live in the area of this proposed bridge to combine their effort; there is strength in numbers.

Don’t let the nay sayers tell you it can’t be done, and even though work is due to start next year; it was quite late in the planning stages when the bike path was added to our bridge.

Everyone who lives in Charleston is very proud of their new bridge; it is a structure of immense beauty. However, without the bike/pedestrian path it would be just another freeway bridge.

Walking the bridge has now become one of the “Must Do” things for tourists visiting our city. The views from the bridge are breathtaking, and you don’t even see these vistas driving over on the freeway. They had the good sense to put the path on the side with the best views of the harbor and downtown Charleston.

Many people work in Down Town Charleston, but live in Mount Pleasant on the other side of the river. Parking is a nightmare in historic Old Town Charleston with its narrow streets. The new bridge is just 2 ½ miles across, easy enough to bike or even walk across to work; many do just that.

Prior to this new bridge being built the river crossing was via two old steel bridges. There was no bike/pedestrian access, and no way to get over the Cooper River other than by car. The new bridge with its bike path means that whole new areas for local cyclists to ride were opened up for people living on either side.

You can cross over the Cooper River Bridge quite late into any evening and you will see people walking, running or cycling on the path. It is much more than a means to drive from one side to the other; it is a facility enjoyed by thousands during the course of a year.

If left to the planners it never would have happed; it came about because of local people getting together and making it happen.