Cycling in the US Is Incredibly Successful and Popular

I know that with a pitiful mode share this sounds absurd, but cycling, is actually pretty successful all things considered.

Take for example, how much money is spent on motoring. I don’t feel like going to google.com this morning, but it’s a lot. In fact, it’s pretty much all our money.

And the vast majority of people motor. Wow, isn’t that a shocker? The government spends a lot of money on something and business bend over backwards to make something easy and convenient and people do it.

Plus, there are so, so many car commercials. Watch TV for an hour, on any station and count them. Then look at the number of pro-walking, transit, or cycling commercials.

So the whole idea of “we can’t build for cycling because nobody does it” goes out the window, doesn’t it. The proper way to say it is, despite the complete neglect of public money and in advertising, we still have around 1% mode share in US cities. For a country of 300 million, 1% is a great deal, indeed.

Let’s add to that the number of movies that ridicule cycling. How many are these? Think of any movie that has cycling in it. In fact, there are so many movies that mock cyclists that to make a character look lame, goofy, and unsexy all you need to do is to show him riding a bicycle.

And women never ride bicycles except to make them look weak and vulnerable.

There are exceptions, of course, but they are rare. In many movies, motoring is seen as a short hand for a success. In many movies, the previous bicycling or public transit rider is seen driving off into the sun set in a nice fancy motor car.

And after all this abuse, and lack of funding, we STILL, STILL have 1%. I wonder how many people would drive cars if they had to pay all the costs and risk being mocked? Few could actually afford it. And very few wish to risk being a social pariah.

But there’s more. Let’s add the death penalty for it! True that cycling, while more dangerous than motoring, is not nearly as deadly as the public thinks.

But thoughts are powerful.

Thus, there’s the association between cycling and risk taking, death. How many times have you had a nice bicycle ride, and you were buttonholed and forced to listen to a story about someone like you who was killed for riding a bicycle.

Oh, we don’t call it murder when someone is too neglectful to look out of their shiny windshield, we call it an oopsie. An accident. Someone’s life is just a blip on our radar.

And we STILL have 1%.

Despite being not funded at all, ridiculed, and even made to feel like it’s OK to kill us, as a joke, hee-hee, or because we “deserve” it, we STILL have 1%.

Why is that?

Mainly because cycling is awesome.

There’s no other possible explanation. Cycling is really, really fun. It’s really compelling.

Not even the fear of death nor a bankrupt funding system nor all the movies in Hollywood and their billion dollar spin machine can keep us off our spin machines.

I love cycling, and I am very proud to be part of the 1%.

When I ride a bicycle, I feel very sexy, and I’m very popular. I have a real job that’s successful.

I see no need to “upgrade” to a motorcycle, or anything else except, perhaps a wheelchair when I get too old.

I am very happy to cycle, and I feel like I am a normal person.

Why can’t other people see this?

Product Placement: Das Pitlock for Wheel Protection

This is a response to all the problems with bicycle theft.

One of the most confounding things about bicycle theft is that while we can easily lock up our frames using a U-lock, but we can still get many of our components stolen.

One of the most common things to lose is a wheel.

When I lived in Philly, I actually carried around two U-locks so that I could lock the frame and front wheel to a post and the backwheel to the bicycle.

One of the best things about this is the peace of mind that such a simple practice gave me.

Still, however, I had trouble when my princess would ride with me. We’d try to figure out all sorts of ways to make three U-locks work. This was a huge hassle. Plus carrying two U-locks is even more of a pain in the ass than carrying one.

One easy hack to make the problem less likely is to get rid of the crazy quick release levers. I rarely failed to have the tool to take my wheel off anyway so I never saw any convenience from this. Also, this was pretty stressful as I feared getting my wheels stolen. Thus, a normal bolt is a bit better, but not great. A non-standard bolt such as a hex or even more exotic is probably all you need except for the most effective thieves.

However, finding such bolts and tools was more trouble than I expected.

Enter PitlockTM.

They make bolts and skewers especially for different makes of wheels. Thus, you can be sure that you get the proper size for your bicycle rather than having a nasty hack on your hands.

The way that it works is that there are over 200 machine made nuts which are then matched with a custom nut. You get two nuts per pack. Even better, you can order the same nuts for yourself and loved ones so that you don’t need to keep duplicate tools all over the place.

The custom nut is protected by a stainless steel sheath. This has to be seen to be believed.

I have had many people tell me that this is not as effective as I thought, but I don’t buy it.

One guy told me that a pipe wrench would get the nut off. False because the outer sheath does not turn at all.

Another advantage is that I can just lock up my wheel to a post if I have to.

Pitlock costs over a hundred dollars, but I think that it’s worth it. The high price discourages thieves from buying all the nuts and using them.

I am not even afraid of Pitlock becoming popular. I think that if it does, bicycle thieves would move on to something easier to steal–and more lucrative.

I am not on Pitlock’s payroll, but I wish I were because I love their product so much.

I can picture the commercial now. A thief tries all kinds of tools to take off a wheel and fails each time. In the end, he takes off his black, mugger’s cap and stomps on it. A German voice over says “Das Pitlock” really fast while the logo splashes on the bottom of the screen.

Oh, Pitlock, I love thee!

Don’t Lock Up the Children

I saw this post about a girl who got hit by a car, and many of the comments were directed at the girl’s parents.

What morons! The blaming bicyclists (and their parents) first (BBF) angers me so much.

I think that it’s totally realistic to have a world that is relatively safe for children.

I am getting really tired of the notion that to keep children safe, we must imprison them.

Childless by choice, I usually don’t think of children too much.

But since moving to the Heights, in San Diego, I noticed a LOT of children playing safely around my neighborhood, and it started me wondering where all the children are.

For example, in North Park, do you see children playing?

Finally, yesterday, I did. I rode right by it until princess pointed out that behind a giant fence, fit for a prison, children were playing.

Besides the anti-social practice of shutting down several streets in order to plonk a school there, I abhor the idea that our society is so terrible that we need to lock up our children.

I know the whole danger of sexual predators, blah, blah, blah, but I think that perhaps there’s a better way.

I think about in older and wiser societies where all the adults in the community keep their eyes on the local children so that nobody hurts them.

In the skating slab where I ride my bicycle through as a peaceful shortcut from cars, there are always adults watching from afar. This is good.

What’s not good is the idea that a child is only safe behind a fence. That they can’t be out of sight from their parent’s eyes for an instant.

I believe that children are far more intelligent than are given credit. I think that there is far less sexual predators than we are led to believe.

In fact, the biggest danger to children’s lives is car accidents. This is where the kids sit INSIDE the cars. Where’s the outrage for that? How come they NEVER play scary music and show automobiles? How come parents are encouraged to drive their children to school when the school bus is the safest way to get there?

This is because while fear is a useful emotion, it’s not always the best way to make decisions.

We can’t tell stories of a single child who got hurt while making decisions on how to make children the safest. We must look at ALL the children got hurt and HOW they got hurt.

If we are so crazy paranoid about hurting our kids, why don’t we ban ALL motoring now?

If I mentioned other activities that had a fraction of the danger, we’d ban them immediately such as cycling. We’d have police officers harassing parents who let their child cycle instead of making the route safe for them to cycle.

I’ll wrap up by saying that making our kids “safe” by locking them up is not free. It takes a HUGE toll. I was pretty messed up by my own parents by being denied the right to leave my lawn for years.

While the other children played outside and socialized, I was stuck inside studying. I cried a lot and I’m still sad about it.

I recall the one glorious summer, I stayed with my Aunt in Atlanta and she allowed my cousin and I to ride the metro to get to day camp. It was so liberating!

We can’t deny our children the right to cycle. There are many other things that are totally killing our kids like obesity and diabetes. Jail time is not the answer.

Let’s tear down the fences around the schools and build bridges with adults who care about the children’s REAL safety and not some bullshit, TSA-style facade where we continue to cart around over weight kids in big cars and then watch them die when the Escalade rolls over because mom was texting.

Cycling Smugness

This is an open letter to my new friend Brendan O’Neill.

Hello, Brendan, my new friend.

You do not know me yet, but you will. I have the confidence that I can make you like me. Perhaps I am right, or perhaps, I am just pompous.

“…truckers and the other big bruisers of road travel who are apparently careless and reckless and a threat to their surroundings.”

I would not say that all truckers are reckless, it would be foolish–wouldn’t you agree–to say that everyone is reckless when you have not met everyone. However, I would say that if you are on a bicycle, every truck feels like a threat.

Oh, and sorry that cycling does not pollute more. I don’t know why people talk about how cycling doesn’t pollute as if they are missing out on extra exhaust or something.

As for the “millions spent on cycling”, you did check the fact that cycling is underfunded, everywhere, didn’t you. Nothing in your article about that. Nor was there anything about the vast amount of money spent on cycling is for those who are too afraid too cycle because it’s bloody dangerous. The cyclists who cycle now would do so no matter what.

“Of course, if road safety can be improved to reduce the number of cycling deaths, then let’s do it (though anyone who thinks such tragedies can be wiped out entirely obviously doesn’t understand the indefeasible combination of risk and human error that will always lead to accidents).”

I liked this sentence at first, but then you made an error. You seem to think that traffic deaths are inevitable. That is totally wrong. Traffic–autos and roads–are the work of human hands. If people die, it’s because people were not careful. They literally chose speed and convenience over human life.

Sorry if that makes me pompous and smug, but I think it’s wrong to let people die because we are too lazy to ride a bicycle, too cheap to build decent roads, and too thick to know the difference.

Plus, as your research would indicate, if you did any, cycling pays for itself.

The whole thing about saints and sinners in your article is mighty entertaining, but it’s a bit confusing and silly, too. Lorry drivers ride bicycles. Cyclists drive trucks. So to defend cyclists is to defend lorry drivers, too. The world isn’t as black and white as you make it.

You will soon find this out, when you go on a ride with me!

Yes, I invite you to join me in my smugness on your morning commute in San Diego. It should be so easy for you to live such a pompous and smug lifestyle.

I will even lend you a bicycle! I am awaiting your response when you come to ride with me, and what a huge egos us cyclists have.a

Sincerely,

Fred

I Don’t Need No Edumacation

Actually, this is funny because I am actually working on getting certified as a cycling instructor.

I know that I have bashed education before, but there was a good reason for this.

I was never anti-education for cycling. I feel that learning more is almost always better.

However, I am against invoking education as a magic spell that makes our infrastructural neglect go away.

As I said before, I am against the idea that more education is the answer for many reasons.

Also, though I like the vague idea of education, I don’t think we have any good education programs now. I’d like to see something like what we have now, but I’m not sure that these current courses are the way to go.

Thus, one of the main motivations for my getting an education is to be part of the change that makes education better.

What are my problems with the current system?

Let me count the ways.

First of all, education, at this point, is really indoctrination to the VC lifestyle. This is one of the main reasons why VC people keep trying to “educate” activists.

I have noticed that “education” can even make people resistant to the facts. This is bad.

We need education which can help us to read and understand the facts of the road rather than invoking an mystical “rules of the road” or “normal traffic flow” which don’t exist.

The reality of the road can only be gained by doing studies.

Overall, studies show that the roads in the US are unsafe for bicycle travel.

Also, I feel that there’s a double standard when between infrastructure and classes.

For many people, infrastructure must be specifically allowed and mentioned by law or at least in legally approved design documents. In fact, I heard that the NACTO guide got dissed because it came from a “private company.”

But regarding classes, there is no such high standard of approval. There is no law making a cycling safety class legal nor is there any sort of legality to the “licensing” like there is for a driver’s license, for example.

But there’s more.

Let’s go back to our old friend, Mr. Cross.

1. In contrast to what many people say online regarding riding in a bike lane, here’s a Cross quote:

“Except for accidents that resulted from the motor vehicle being out of control, it seems reasonable to assume that most Class D accidents would not have occurred if an on-street bicycle lane had been present and the bicyclist had been riding in it.”

Also bike lanes prevent other types of accidents:

“It was stated earlier that on-street bicycle lanes may serve as a “buffer zone” that would serve to decrease the likelihood of some types of bicycle rideout accidents (Class A). It is also possible that the “buffer zone” provided by on-street bicycle lanes would reduce the inci­dence of accidents in which a bicyclist suddenly turns left into the path of an-overtaking motor vehicle (Problem Type 18). “

2. Another false lesson is that there are courses that can teach you to ride “anywhere’.

“With only a few exceptions, there is little that a bicyclist can be taught that would help him avoid Class D accidents once he has decided to ride where and when such accidents are most likely to occur.
“As a consequence, the primary objective of an education and training program for bicyclists should center on modifying the bicyclist’s choice of where and when he will ride.”

3. Here are some good tips about Class C or intersection style collisions:

“A safety-education program developed for bicyclists should teach them the typical search patterns of motorists in this type of traffic context, the limitations of the human visual system, and the types of accidents that occur because a motorist fails to observe a bicyclist that may be clearly visible. This information must be presented in a manner that will serve to modify bicyclists’ assumptions that they have been or will be detected by motorists who are preparing to enter an uncontrolled roadway from a driveway or from a controlled leg of an intersection.”

To me, this was totally hilarious. Basically, you are not going to be seen.

I’m not sure that teaching someone about the “human visual system” will help, though, but it is funny.

“Many bicycling experts advocate riding in the center of the traffic lane rather than along the right-hand edge of the roadway. They claim that riding in the center of the traffic lane increases the chances of
being observed by motorists who are preparing to enter the roadway from intersecting streets or driveways.

“Also, they argue that riding in the center of the lane provides a greater buffer zone between the bicycle’s path and the position at which motor vehicles stop before entering the roadway. Thus, riding in the center of the traffic lane provides addi­
tional time for the bicyclist to initiate evasive action once it becomes apparent that a motor vehicle is going to enter the roadway. The authors believe that the following important questions must be answered before it is possible to recommend that bicyclists be taught to ride in the center of the traffic lane.”

This is one of the biggest tenets of VCism. What does Mr. Cross say?

Here’s the big reveal:

“* Would riding in the center of the traffic lane increase the likelihood of detection by a margin that has practical significance?

* Would riding in the center of the traffic lane increase the bicyclist’s preview time by a margin that has practical significance?

* How would traffic efficiency be affected if riding in the center of the traffic lane became a common practice?

* Should riding in the center of the traffic lane be prohibited on some types of roadways and/or during certain time periods? If so, what types of roadways and what time periods?

* Should young bicyclists and/or slow-moving bicycles be permitted to ride in the center of the traffic lane? If not, what is the cutoff age/speed?”

These questions have NEVER been answered. In fact, VCists act as if these are NOT important considerations. Perhaps they are not, but remember, all education flows back to Mr. Cross and this landmark paper.

Yes, there are more modern theories and papers. These too show an infrastructure mostly approach.

But it’s wrong to say that people “didn’t know” about this stuff.

Read _Effective Cycling_ and _Cycle Craft_ and take a cycling safety course.

But, I urge you, if you are going to geek out on education so badly, so you can call yourself an expert, take the time to read Kenneth Cross’ complete study.

You will be amazed, informed, and amused.

Green and Black Tea Party

Everytime I think of something clever I find that it’s all ready been done.

Oh, well, here’s my version of a Green and Black Tea Party.

The green is in the environment. Right wing tea baggers are willing to cut government programs which help the environment. On the other hand, why not help the environment by cutting subsidies for corporations who hurt it?

It’s not that they can’t harm the environment any more, but they won’t get paid by Uncle Sam for the privilege.

Another way to go green tea is cut motor vehicle transportation funding. We could sell off all the freeways and thus “privatise” these things.

This can also help bring out the macho, do-it-yourselfers.

“Nobody every did anything for me in my life.”

OK, I’d like to see you hire out a cement mixer and lay the freeway from your house to your job. I have been wanting to build bikeways, by my own hand for years, but I WOULD NEVER DO THAT BECAUSE IT’S ILLEGAL. NOR WOULD I EVER RECOMMEND ANYONE DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL. EVER.

The black is anarchy. Which is what we had in the financial system, until it came time to collect, and at this time, we had the system working as usual to take people’s houses.

Why not just not do this anymore? We could decide that repossessing houses and also enforcement of copyright is a civil matter and stop putting scary FBI warnings on movies. Everyone laughs at those, and I think that we should take law enforcement seriously. The way to do this is act more seriously. Copying a movie for a friend might be a shitty thing to do for the income of a celebrity, but it’s hardly on par with defrauding people out of their houses by robo-signing. So why is one thing a federal offense and another totally unforced?

Let’s just stop enforcing business law all together.

Also, we can stop with the corporate protections. We can still have corporations and charters; we need those because they make good things.

But we should stop shielding the people who buy into them from being sued because it looks like people are doing this so they can get away with hurting people with no consequence. You buy a stock and the company gets sued, well, it’s your company.

This will promote personal responsibility, one of the mantras I love best from the tea bagger movement. Before you invest in a stock, you should check things out very carefully or your house is on the line to pay for the medical bills the next time they decide to cheap things out and to server over heated coffee.

There you have it, green and black tea in your mouth at the same time!

Initial Microscope

This is a continuation of my notion of the “microscope” which I talk about in earlier posts.

Turning Onto Ward Road

We begin our critique with this turn.

Note, that in the photo, I just made the turn and am looking back.

When I first made this turn, I would hug the curb. This is usually a safe choice, but here note how hard it is to see around the bend.

Thus, I would go into the middle of the first lane, one of the few places I would “control the lane”.

Though the speed limit is 30 MPH, the cars would go to 50 MPH and buzz me. Worse, there was a door zone coming up.

Ward Rd: 50 MPH with Door Zone

Worse, there were people who would walk across the street, blithely without looking. Worse, there’s a parking lot on the left side where people would drive out. They, too, could not see because of the parallel parking. Thus they, too, would accelerate to 50 MPH.

Thus, I can’t ride in the “bike lane” above because people who don’t want to pay for parking are storing their cars there. I can’t ride in the door zone because people are constantly opening their doors on this stretch. Most cars ride in the right lane of the road and hug the gutter until the last second when they see the parked cars. At this point, they drive three feet or more away from the cars to allow fellow motorists to open their doors safely.

What’s a poor cyclist to do?

I actually take the LEFT lane. When traffic comes behind me, I ride really close to the middle yellow line which allows cars nearly FOUR lanes; I am so generous.

OK, let’s continue our little journey. Not that this street is roughly 600 feet or so:

Ward Road Overview

Note how shitty the road looks? This amazes me because I recently read about the Brasilia effect which means that a city could look good from an aerial photo but suck at the street level. This road sucks at every level of resolution beneath my microscope.

Here we are just before my next turn:

Right Before Rancho Mission Road

Note the problems?

The line of sight is limited. Note how cars disappear off the face of the earth as they go up the hill. These cars reappear in a few seconds and they seem to come out of nowhere. Since the area is noisy due to the nearby I-8 freeway, it’s not always easy to hear for car coming. Thus, there’s almost no time at all to react to cars which seem to materialize close by.

Also notice that since this is an intersection there is a lot of turning, passing, and crossing movements. Also, note that pedestrians routinely walk in front of someone without looking at all.

The funny thing is that these are the _same_ comments we hear about why cycle tracks suck. Guess what? That problem is everywhere, only way more sucky on the VC roads.

Extremely Dangerous Cross Ward

Here pedestrians and cyclists have to cross a four lane highway with no traffic lights and no stop sign. Note that this road is to code, and I have never heard a bicycle advocate complain of a liability issue.

The turn onto Rancho Mission Road

Again, we should note the extremely bad visibility caused in part by the bus stop, but also by the hilly landscape.

Here we have people who are coming out from Rancho Mission Road and turning onto Ward Road in both directions, people on Ward Road who want to turn onto Rancho Mission Road who are coming in two directions, and people on Ward Road who want to go straight on what they believe is a small highway.

Let’s stop here and recap the “conflict points”:

1. Car doors from parallel parked cars.

2. Motorists who just parked who are mindlessly walking across the 4 lane, 50 MPH street.

3. Motorists who see a 30 MPH street with some street activity but who choose to go 50 MPH because the road looks like a small highway.

4. Cyclists who have no where to go.

5. Motorists who are turning, quickly onto a blind turn.

6. Motorists who are coming out of a parking area with low visibility due to parallel parking. These motorists are encouraged to speed to stop from being hit.

I am NOT qualified in any way to give advice on making this road better. But here are my uninformed opinions:

1. Take out a lane and turn it into a two way cycle track on both sides.

2. Remove all parallel parking because it reduces visibility and encourages jay walking which is very dangerous.

3. Lower speed limit from 30 MPH to 20 MPH.

4. Move bus stop to the same side of the street as the trolley and closer to the trolley stop. This eliminates the need for transit users to jay walk and it allows them to make easier connections to and from the trolley.

5. Improve visibility for the parking lot intersection especially as it goes over the sidewalk. Perhaps we should paint the sidewalk area where cars drive on it, red to alert pedestrians to the danger of crossing movements of cars traffic. I don’t know how to do this, but overall, I think that motorists should be forbidden from the sidewalk altogether.

6. Change the divider line from double yellow to dotted white. Even though that it’s only a single lane, people are still going want  to pass. We should force motorists into the oncoming lane to do this. This will calm traffic as motorists won’t be encouraged to change lanes without paying attention. The risk of oncoming traffic will cause motorists to be more vigilant.

7. At the intersection of Ward and Rancho Mission Road, add a signal which changes by a timer. This will discourage motorists racing to “catch a light” which will make them safer. Also pedestrians and cyclists won’t have to press a button, position their bicycle in a magical place for an indeterminate time, or some other humiliating incantation to actually be allowed the awesome privilege of crossing a street.

8. The street should be flattened to reduce sight distance, but also to make it more walkable for the elderly and to make cycling more convenient.

9. Because it empties into a cul-de-sac, Rancho Mission Road only serves two legitimate purposes: access to Qualcomm Stadium and access to the nearby housing project. Thus, unless there is a game, the road should be closed to non-residents since there is no purpose for non-residents to be on this road. Most motorists who find themselves on this road become frustrated by the cul-de-sac. Merely discouraging people from going down this road will save lots of people’s resources. It’s like finding free time and petrol beneath the cushions in the house of traffic planning.

Not only will this be safer, but this design will save tax dollars in the long run as there will be half as much road to repair. With less cars on the road, it will be damaged less often as well.

Finally, with less traffic the people who live nearby as well as 24 Fitness enthusiasts will walk and run on this road more often. The poor car commuters and parallel parkers will gnash their teeth for a short time. Then they will find other places to get to the dentists to fix their teeth. Ultimately, you might find them taking the trolley to the area just to enjoy the peace and quiet.

Soul Killer

I had a funny experience today.

As I stated earlier, I love, love, love riding in a car because I do it so seldom that it is still an experience of unparalleled luxury. I so love not having to think a single thought of my own safety nor to be on edge at all times in order to get from point A to point B. I just sit in a coach.

That being said, I think that there’s something about driving that kills the human soul.

I know this sounds new agey and insane, but this is how I think sometimes.

If you disagree, do this experiment. Stand in the middle of a fast paced road. A good spot is the turning lane in between two double lines. As stated earlier double lines, drawn in paint on the road, create a magical barrier which can not be crossed. You just can’t drive through a force field.

While there, try to make eye contact with everyone. You might find that people drive really close to you. If you look deep into their eyes, there will be nothing inside. There’s only a dead sort anger like the light from a dying star. It’s bright enough to burn you, but you can see that the passion is gone, and the flame is going out.

Anyway, that’s what I see.

These people are parents, and children, and workers, and many people love them. They love many people. They are probably enroute to volunteer in a children’s hospital. But behind the wheel they are empty machines, hell bent on moving their pieces of metal as fast as they possibly can and not stopping unless they really, really have to.

Putting the Streets Beneath a Microscope

Before, I get started, I do believe that I had been referred to as an anti-VC “extremist”. This made me so happy. Never before had I been declared so sane!

OK, more extremism coming up!

One of the biggest flaws in the VC movement is it’s notion that we need to surpress cycling infrastructure because it will suck.

I was thinking of cycling in Copenhage, and the infrastructure there wasn’t so great either. Also, a great speaker said that he toured the Netherlands, and that it too had infrstructure that had flaws. He went on to say that the standards for cycling infrastructure were better in the US than over there.

Despite this, places with more infrastructure makes things safer and cycling more popular. Thus, the VC movement confuses flawed infrastructure with dangerous riding.

This is a common problem in the sciences.

From the article: “This assumption — that understanding a system’s constituent parts means we also understand the causes within the system — is not limited to the pharmaceutical industry or even to biology. It defines modern science. In general, we believe that the so-called problem of causation can be cured by more information. Scientists refer to this process as reductionism. By breaking down a process, we can see how everything fits together; the complex mystery is distilled into a list of ingredients.”

Here the idea is that if we can make impressive looking diagrams with lots of “conflict points”, we can decide how safe a street is. This doesn’t hold up.

In fact, if you look at national crash data broken down by states, in the US, the older states tend to be safer for cycling and pedestrians. Thus, coorelation (new infrastructure) doesn’t equal causation (of more safety). In fact, the inverse is true.

I had a similar experience the day that the power went off. Motorists were trapped for hours, apprently, as there was no power for traffic lights. On the other hand, for me, the commute was super-duper easy. One of the most comfortable commutes ever in San Diego. Thus, I realized that the whole system was actively–though unwittingly–working against me. The more energy put into the so-called “modern” transportation system, the shittier things are for cyclists.

And people say that cyclists are equal if the government does nothing to help us.

Anyway, I didn’t get to the point of this article which is in depth analysis, VC style, of a street where I look for conflict points and more.

Stay tuned. I’ll get to this another day.

Please, Please Stop Saying This

I’ll write more on this later; this is a rant, but it’s probably the most important thing I’ll ever say on this blog.

Long time readers all ready know that I hate the whole notion of
Vehicular Cycling, CABO, and more.

I have many, many allies in this. Pretty much 100% of motorists and the vast majority of cyclists all agree that infrastructure is necessary to make cycling a serious transportation means.

However, we run into problems when our allies unwitting undermine us.

How is that?

Now, if you read old posts, you’ll see that I, too, am guilty of this mistake, but it stops here.

Please, never say, again things like:

1. “Forester had good ideas for his time.”

No, he didn’t. He misread a study and created a program which used fear, uncertainty, and doubt to hold cycling back.

None of these things were ever good ideas.

2. “I ride VC.”

I don’t know how people ride, but I suspect that people who have not had a cycling safety course do not ride VC. Riding in traffic is NOT riding VC. Riding in a safe way from experience is NOT VC.

VC is the notion that you are driving a car when you really are riding a bike.

This is delusional.

3. “VC is a safe way for me to ride in current conditions.”

Long time readers know that this statement is broken in many ways. First of all, what is “safe”? If “safe” means teaching people to fight, politically, what has saved lives in other places, then yes, VC is “safe”.

Read the stats and weep. The door zone is not as dangerous as they say. Bright colors and flashy lights don’t protect you. The sidewalk isn’t the death trap it’s made to be.

I can go on, but the point is that instead of these phrases, we need to start saying some things that are more useful.

1. VC is a terrible idea, even in the 70′s. It’s a dangerous way to ride, and the classes that encourage this style give people a false sense of security by having them deny their normal instincts and emotions.

2. A bike safety course will NEVER make one as safe as proper infrastructure. We actually would like to see better statistics on current practices to learn how to ride safely.

3. Nobody rides VC. Nobody. Outside of some staged movies, the vast majority of cyclists learns from trial and error which is good as it’s our genetic heritage. Things suck now because cyclists can’t have harmless collisions (error) because the roads are inherently dangerous. Thus, riding (trials) are decreased, and this actually discourage the education of the public.

True education occurs on the roads, alone, at night without lights (necessarily) in all forms of weather.

When people first start riding they learn that the streets are louder, scarier, and filled with anonymous and hostile machines which could kill them at the slightest mistake.

Is this the lesson we want our children to learn? Is this the world we want to leave them?

Look around, and you’ll see very few cyclists riding alone in the middle of a high speed lane up a hill around a bend. They won’t last long there.

4. No infrastructure, no rights. Just as allowing modern motor cars to drive up and down the natural sides of a mesas is empty as a right because it’s impossible, it’s equally impossible to claim that cyclists have equal rights now.

Until the paths for cyclists are the same or shorter than for cars, until the grade we have to climb is the same or shorter than for cars, until the death rate for cyclists is equal to or less than for cars, until the amount of money spent by the government is equal to or more than for cars, we aren’t equal.

Right now, a bicycle is as free as a typewriter in Soviet Russia. Sure you can type anything you want, but if you do, you may die for that right.

I can’t wait to read what you write while obsessing over the Gulag.