Babies on Bike Ban

The State of Oregon has a new bill on the books,sponsored by State House Representative Mitch Greenlick.

The bill if passes it will make it illegal to carry children under six years old in a seat attached to a bicycle, or in a trailer towed behind a bicycle, under the penalty of a $90 fine.

Greenlick justifies the bill by stating “If just one child’s life is saved by this bill it will be worthwhile.”

I am left to wonder, where is the evidence to back up this idea the large numbers of toddlers are being killed or injured while being transported by bicycle.

There is evidence to show that the biggest cause of infant death is due to car crashes, is there a proposed bill to make it illegal for babies to ride in cars? The second biggest cause of death is drowning, so let’s ban swimming pools from households with young children.

This is just another example of a politician who probably doesn’t ride a bike, catering to a car-centic society by selling the idea that riding a bicycle on the public roads is inherently dangerous.

I’ll tell you what is dangerous, the precedent this bill sets if it passes in Oregon.

There are families out there who have only one car, or no car. How is a mother supposed to transport her children if no car is available?

The mother pictured above could be quite simply escorting her son to school and naturally has to take the baby along.

The trio is highly visible and there is no reason why they should be in any danger except for this strange notion we have that people be allowed to drive cars without paying attention to other road users. 

I see mothers with a child in tow on my local bike path, some have to ride city streets to get to the path; the mothers are getting exercise and I’m sure the kids love it too. It would be a damn shame if this was outlawed.

The chart above is from The Center for Disease Control’s 2007 statistics on causes of death to children under six years old.

More on this on Tree Hugger and on Bike Portland.org

                         

Creating Havoc

It seems to me there is a basic human instinct to create, and by creating we affect the lives of others.

Every act we do in our everyday lives, even down to a simple thought, affects someone somewhere; there is a ripple of cause and effect that can travel to the ends of the Earth and back again.

It seems that children and young adults often do not know how to create in a positive way, so they do so in a negative way. For example there is a local paved bike trail I regularly ride on, and there is a constant issue of broken glass on the path.

I think I can safely assume that the perpetrators are children or teens. If someone accidentally drops and breaks a glass bottle, they would kick the pieces off to the side of the trail. But not so in this case; the glass is ground into small pieces then spread over a wide area.

The act of smashing a glass bottle is creative, albeit negative creativity. The person responsible has created small pieces of broken glass on the trail, knowing that it will puncture the tire of some unfortunate passing cyclist. 

They will not even be present to witness the possible flat tire, but the thought that this may be the outcome has satisfied the basic instinct to create something; even if all they have created is havoc.

The tragic events in Tucson, Arizona this week follow this same simple pattern.

This one senseless act has affected the lives of millions. It has certainly affected the lives of the loved ones of those killed and wounded.

It has affected everyone who lives in Tucson, and possibly the whole state of Arizona. Tucson like Oklahoma City from now on will be remembered for this one heinous crime.  It has affected all of us living in the USA.

The perpetrator has now assured his place in history, which I’m sure, was his intention. There will be no remorse, but instead a warped sense of satisfaction that it was he who affected the lives of millions. 

It requires very little effort at all to obtain notoriety for a negative act; it is relatively easy. Whereas, to do the same in a positive way often takes a lifetime of hard work and dedication. 

What possible good can come out of this? It should be used as an opportunity to teach children and young adults not to give in to these primal instincts to create havoc. Causing pain and suffering to others by acts of vandalism and other crimes.

Negative creativity comes easy and it may satisfy the basic instinct, but with a little more thought and effort these youngsters can engage in acts of kindness that are far more satisfying and rewarding in the long run 
 

                          

Sponsors or Groupies?

The Wall Street Journal in an article just published makes a big issue of the fact that wealthy backers who financed Lance Armstrong’s seven Tour de France wins, failed to make money.

Financial backers of any sport are usually nothing more than wealthy groupies of that particular sport; there is nothing wrong with that.

These are usually smart businessmen who did not make their money by acting irrationally or by making stupid decisions.

They have a passion for a sport, be it cycling, sailing, auto racing, whatever. If they put money into their choice of sport, it is by way of a membership to an exclusive club, where they get to rub shoulders with the heroes of that sport.

How can anyone possibly make money from sponsoring a cycling team, unless it is a company producing and selling a product, or a service? The only benefit from sponsorship is the brand recognition that it may bring if your team is successful.

If you have no product or service to sell, it is impossible make money. Initially this group of wealthy backers had no product or service. After the team was established they were able to talk the US Postal Service into coming on board.

I could never understand the logic behind the US Postal Services involvement. Had it been UPS or FedEx I could have seen that, but the Postal Service? Whether Lance Armstrong wins or loses, has no bearing on whether or not, I mail someone a letter. And if I mail a letter, who else will I use but the Postal Service?

Now the fact that the US Postal Service was a sponsor has come back to bite the whole team and everyone involved with it.

Why? Because the US Postal Service is Uncle Sam, and you don’t fuck with Uncle Sam.

Had the sponsors been UPS or FedEx for example, I doubt there would be a Federal Investigation going on right now into allegations of doping. Unlike baseball, these alleged offences took place on foreign soil. Does the US have jurisdiction?

The people who put money into “Tailwind Sports,” the original backer of Lance Armstrong’s team, are probably wishing they were never involved.

They try to distance themselves by saying, “We are also a victim, we lost money too;” when I’m sure they knew going in they could never make a profit. As for the Wall Street Journal they just keep rehashing this old story over and over; it fills space, and sells papers.

I for one will not speculate on the outcome, I will just wait and see. Feel free to weigh in with your take on this whole mess

                          

Bikes and parked cars don’t mix

A plan to add bike lanes to streets in San Diego has been shot down by city planners. The reason, the move would mean a loss of 137 parking spaces, and of course this is seen as a detriment to local businesses.

It is an old, old story that is played out in cities all over the US and I am sure, in many other countries too. To ignore the problem is short sighted, because every bicycle on the street means one less car, less congestion and one more parking space available.

I agree that parked cars and bicycle lanes don’t mix, like some in San Francisco, shown in the above picture. This is a death trap, a car door carelessly opened in front of a cyclist, knocks the unfortunate bike rider right under the wheels of a passing vehicle. It happens all the time.

The picture is from an article on the SF.StreetsBlog, where the writer points out that with a bike lane positioned this way, a cyclist has the choice of riding in this lane at the risk of getting doored, or ride out in the main traffic lane and incur some serious road rage, because nothing pisses off a motorist more than seeing a cyclist in “His” lane, when there is a bike lane right next to it.

Even if there is enough room for a four foot door zone between the parked cars and the bike lane, there is still a danger from cars entering or exiting parking spaces. If you place the parked cars next to the motor traffic lane and put the bike lane on the inside next to the side walk, this does not eliminate the danger of car passengers opening doors as cyclists pass. And an even bigger danger presents itself at every intersection as cyclists immerge blindly from behind a row of parked cars.

A sensible solution in this case would be a shared lane (Sharrow.) next to the parked cars. In the above picture I see at least four, maybe five lanes of traffic going in one direction. Would it be a huge inconvenience if one of those lanes were shared with cyclists? If a motorist doesn’t want to share, all he has to do is move over to one of the other lanes.

Bike lanes are a good idea on roads leading into a city center, where automobile speeds are high, and there are no parked cars.

But once you get into a business district where there are parked cars, speed limits need to be lowered and enforced, and cyclists’ sharing the lane is, in my opinion, safer.

In San Diego, city planners speak of adding traffic calming devices instead of bike lane; why not shared lanes.

Encourage more people to ride bikes; add a number of bike riders to the mix with the appropriate signage so it is clear to everyone that cyclists are supposed to be there.

Seasoned cyclists are often quick to point out that they are entitled to share any lane. That may be true, but entitlement doesn’t help much if the person you are sharing with is ignorant of that fact.  It doesn’t hurt to have a few road markings and signs to remind the uneducated.

Education is key, make people realize that every person riding a bike to work is one less car on the road. This means less congestion; everyone can drive slower, and still get where they are going on time. That is a benefit to all road users, not just bike riders.

                          

Driver in fatal crash sues victim's parents

This morning I read this Associated Press article and had what I refer to as a serious WTF moment.

14 year old Matthew Kenney (Left.) was killed on his bicycle when he was struck by David Weaving who was recklessly overtaking another car at 83 mph in a 45 mph zone.

Weaving who has five previous drunk driving convictions is serving 10 years for manslaughter in this case.

Mathew’s parents are suing Weaving for $15,000; a paltry sum, but I imagine it is probably the limit of insurance cover that this driver had.

Now Weaving is counter suing the parents for $15,000 for negligence for allowing their son to ride a bicycle without a helmet. Although this  is a frivolous lawsuit filed from Weaving’s prison cell at no cost to him, and will probably go nowhere, it is designed to cause further pain and suffering to the parents.

Also it delays the Kenney’s case and causes further legal expense on their part; it is designed to try to make them give up and drop the case.

The helmet issue is also preposterous in this case; stuck by a car doing 83 mph, a layer of foam polyurethane on the victim’s head offers little or no protection. In this case the wearing of a helmet probably would have had no bearing on the tragic outcome.

In writing this I am hoping that someone with more legal knowledge than I have, can give some helpful advice to the Kenney family