Lessons From the Sky

I have probably written about this, but when I ride my bicycle, I like meditate sometimes. Usually when I am on the high speed roads, I can not meditate.

But once I get into some nice, juicy, infrastructure, I can finally relax and allow myself to truly feel my body. These are the moments that I ride for.

When I can not meditate, when my mind is spinning far too much from the pollution, noise, and the hassle of being the eyes and ears of not only myself but of everyone who is lucky enough to be born in the this tiny slice of time, the Oil Slice, where motoring is cheap and easy.

One of these times, I accidentally looked up to the sky and saw that it was far more vast than the pettiness that I was suffering beneath it.

This corresponded to one of my chants:

“Look in all directions.
Watch all space.
All space.”

And I resolved to look at the sky as much as I could (when at stop lights and so on). This practice has made me happier.

Looking at the sky reminds me of the other Buddhist saying, “We are all dying fish in a drying pond, fighting for the last bubbles of air.”

I try to realize that the fight for space on roads where we are hopelessly out gunned–don’t bring a carrot to a nuke fight–is pointless.

I have always hated the phrase “right to the roads” because I think that by its very nature is inflammatory and those who “fight” are the kind who will fight no matter what.

“The universe is limitless.

There are countless galaxies.
There are countless worlds.
There are countless sentient beings.”

This makes me think of all the other planets–heck all the other countries and how different things are here.

When we saw the Danes, it was like a superior intelligence coming to see us from another place and time.

If we are only 1% different genetically from apes, these Danes are at least another 1% more superior to us.

Read anything from Denmark or the Netherlands on cycling and it’s like a breath of fresh air blowing in from the North. It clears my mind and makes me realize that everything in my wildest dreams about cycling is everyday for them.

I think about this, and the advice that princess has given me.

We must shut the door on the past and forget all we know.

“There are countless sentient beings.”

And there are countless cities where people actually do get it. Where they realize it’s not about “rights” or “lateral movements” but about people relating to the space around them.

The universe is much, much bigger than we ever imagined and we are blessed to have an intelligence, a very human intelligence who wants to help us.

If only we are intelligent enough to let them.

Inside Out

My new obsession is the notion of coherence. That is, I’d like my actions and my stated goals to work together.

The analogy was how white light scatters quickly while a laser of the same power can be seen much further away due to the fact that the light is coherent.

Overall, since I’m super lazy and unambitious, the idea isn’t really to accomplish a great deal, but rather just to get out of my own way.

One of the problems I have had with coherence for years is the problem of my meditation practice.

One of my biggest goals is to give things up, to do with less, and to be happy wherever I am and however I feel.

On the other hand, I do have the hope to try to make my world a better place.

This seemed to be a conflict because why would I need to make the world a better place if I were happy all ready.

Conversely, if the world were perfect, I’d have less incentive to meditate and to give things up because everything would be so lovely.

This morning, I resolved the dilemma as I realized that it is a false dilemma.

My error was creating a duality between my inside and my outside. I realized that I could work to make _both_ inside and outside better.

There’s no point in worrying about things being too perfect. The whole idea is to incrementally make things better forever.

If I do reach a stopping point, the Earth will be a Paradise, and I will be enlightened.

Not a scary outcome at all.

Otherwise, I will have a continual supply of things to do.

Last weekend, I worked out a similar conflict regarding Right Speech.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/index.html

I realized that the reason I didn’t want to practice Right Speech was due to laziness and to greed.

Laziness meant that instead of saying things nicely, I’d just quickly dismiss them as stupid. While this did save me a lot of time and grief, perhaps I should work harder to be nicer even to people who are total idiots.

Secondly, perhaps I should try less hard to get attention which is another reason I say mean and otherwise unskillful things.

I’m not making any short term promises, but I have a commitment to becoming a better person both inside and out. This includes a better built environment which takes into account needs of cyclists and pedestrians.

Net Global Happiness

In many ways, I cycle merely from the force of habit. If I were actually from San Diego, and my parents bought me a car, I would certainly drive.

Now that the bloom is off the rose, and I see pollution and the violence of hundreds of motors passing me very closely rather than palm trees, I have thought about motoring to work. The more I learn about how our government operates, the more I see the ownership and daily operation of a motor vehicle being a prerequisite to being a full US citizen.

However, I still don’t want to drive.

One of the reasons is pride. I never realized that until recently.

The other reason is pride in my body. I get stronger EVERYDAY OF THE WEEK. While others are getting more and more flaccid by the minute, my body is getting harder and more sexy. I would hate to give this up, and I think I’d rather die than give up cycling.

This is a great feeling being able to say you are willing to give up your life for you mode of transportation.

Another reason is happiness, however.

Recently on Biking in LA there was an article on a cyclist getting assaulted.

This reminded me of a recent study which showed that if you are holding a gun, you are more likely to think others are holding a gun instead of a banana or a wallet.

I wonder if a similar study won’t connect road rage to the way that motoring is set up. If so, is it practical and human to put us in a system where we are forced to have our nervous systems primed for violence. Sounds like a cruel experiment created by a team of sociopathic scientists.

I do agree with Ted about letting things go in most cases. However, I wonder a few things. First of all, what does this mean for the next generation? Is this not the broken window theory in reverse?

“As a number of comments in the long, long thread made clear, stopping to confront an angry driver is never a good idea.”

Yes, Ted, I agree for so many reasons.

On the other hand, I wonder how things got so fucked up in our world. In almost any other case, I COULD confront someone and have a civil discussion, patch things up, and move along my way.

I feel that the reason that many people act so badly in cars is because it’s too easy. They are too detached from society in their car and they feel safe. This is similar to how cyber-bullies operate.

I had a friend who constantly trolled me on the internet but acted like a friend in real life. I finally emailed him to not email me again, and he was shocked and hurt. He was just having fun.

Fun for him, pain for me.

The funny thing is that motoring was supposed to make us happier, but it makes us sadder.

Many people report that the worst part of their day is the commute. On a bicycle, it’s easily one of my best parts of the day despite the fact that so many assholes want it to suck. It’s still fun, bitches!

Thus, since I am happier and not contributing to the general anger and sadness that comes with motoring, I’m contributing to global net happiness, and that makes me smile.

The tiny country of Bhutan wanted to measure net happiness rather than GNP or GDP. More happiness each year meant success.

I feel the same.

So no matter what bullshit people tell you, you _are_ doing a good thing by cycling. The haters of the world were shitty people before you took the lane, made them pass, delayed them two seconds, or made them feel bad about their lack of exercise or environmental concern.

So smile and enjoy your ride fellow cyclists or as a British friend dubbed you “Little Christs of the Road.”

You can kill us, but we die with a smile, bitches. Suck on that!

Safety Bullies

One argument that comes up over and over again in the cycling world is safety.

I have posted various posts where I alternately mock or condemn safety or where I propose some real solutions which will increase safety.

Like the TSA, there are a couple of plans for safety which have never been shown, in the real world, to increase safety. Like the TSA both of these are “safety theater” giving some people the feeling of safety but not actually making them safe.

We get ad nauseum how riding vehicularly and wearing a helmet are safer.

What we do NOT get are controlled experiments showing how, in the real world, these policies actually make us safer.

In fact, common sense tells me that both of these are stupid. I will change my mind when I get some data.

And NO, I do NOT have to prove that a helmet is UNSAFE. I can tell you that putting a plastic bag over your eyes and mouth make you safer. You won’t do it without proof. Likewise, I need proof before I wear something as silly a flimsy bicycle helmet. In fact, I still won’t, I will choose to be slightly less safe.

Through the years, rode my bicycle with no helmet and NON-Vehicularly (sic) and I have been almost 100% safe. We can only judge things on how they were and they were fine. Thus, there’s no point for me to change.

Yet, there are those out there who insist on wearing a helmet.

Let’s get this clear for the dense:

I DON’T GIVE A FUCK IF YOU WEAR A STUPID HELMET. I AM NOT TELLING YOU HOW TO LIVE YOUR LIFE, DON’T TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MINE.

Yes, I am against helmet wearing for commuters. I am FOR wearing helmets for racers, mountain bikers, and other cycling risk takers.

Even though I am opposed to helmets, I do NOT bully others to follow my way. I NEVER tell people to not wear helmets on the street.

However, the facts on helmets are in. Helmets have not been shown to reduce injuries.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html

Helmets DO hurt the popularity of cycling badly. See the Australian study.

End of story.

HELMETS ARE USELESS FOR SAFETY, BUT THEY HURT CYCLING.

THOSE WHO PUSH FOR MANDATORY HELMET USE ARE HURTING CYCLING POPULARITY.

What I really hoped to talk about today was bullying, a theme I see come up over and over.

Asking someone, one time, to wear a helmet is not bullying.

Pestering someone over and over again to wear a helmet does not make one a full scale bully, but it is using bullying style tactics to achieve a pointless aim. This is a gray area, and I am mainly talking about how I (and others who choose to cycle without helmets) feel.

“According to Pamela Lutgin-Sandvik,[5] the lack of unifying language to name the phenomenon of workplace bullying is a problem because without a unifying term or phrase, individuals have difficulty naming their experiences of abuse, and therefore have trouble pursuing justice against the bully.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_bullying

I DO REALIZE THAT SOME ASSHOLE IS GOING TO CHERRY PICK SENTENCES HERE TO PROVE THAT I AM A BULLY. IF YOU FEEL THAT WAY THEN STOP READING RIGHT NOW. DO NOT COMMENT. PROBLEM SOLVED.

Discounted the person’s thoughts or feelings (“oh, that’s silly”) in meetings (64 percent).

“People who don’t wear helmets are stupid.”

“Harshly and constantly criticized having a different standard for the target (57 percent).”

For example, we have to wear helmets because they are slightly safe for minor falls, but we do NOT have to wear wrist guards which are much more effective for an injury which is more likely. Nor are we urged to wear flack jackets despite the fact that shootings are more common and harmful than minor head injuries that helmets protect us from.

“Overevaluation and manipulating information (for example concentration on negative characteristics and failures, setting up subordinate for failure).”

See the misquoted, flawed, and much abused study on helmets: “Helmets prevent 85% of deaths from head injury for cycling accidents.”

“Preventing access to opportunities”

You must wear a helmet or you can’t get credit for randoneering nor ride Bike the Bay.

“Having your opinions and views ignored”

Despite the fact that there are many reasons to NOT wear a helmet including a study which showed that one is less likely to be hit by a car from behind while NOT wearing a helmet, these are ignored and we are subjected to the continual verbal vomit about how one fell one time and their helmet broke and now they are really safe now.

“Being humiliated or ridiculed in connection with your work”

If you don’t wear a helmet for long enough you’ll see what I mean.

Overall, the problem is that of the helmet advocates being extremely ignorant of the big picture. They go around bothering those of us who have read all the studies and positions for helmets. We have gone over the history of cycling and the why’s and how’s of helmets. After all this, we have come up with an informed decision to NOT wear a helmet which should be a personal decision like how often to floss.

Instead we are harassed by cyclists who fear that we will “look bad” without a helmet.

I am bald, but if I had some nice long hair like most women, I would NEVER wish to bunch up my glory in a sweaty helmet.

And there are still men out there who wonder why their lovely wives do NOT want anything to do with cycling. We look around and wonder where all the female cyclists are.

Stop being a know it all. Stop bothering and harassing us for our personal decisions.

Oh, I don’t have time for this, but often wearing a helmet is a form of domination (as well as bullying). It trades a phony feeling of safety so that motorists feel better about themselves: “He wasn’t wearing a helmet [so he deserved to die].”

Thankfully, for some reason the San Diego media is wising up that obsessing over helmets after someone dies is unnecessary and disgraceful.

Tea Baggin’ Cycling

In the light of recent events, I am still mourning, upset, etc.

But let’s not let our emotions get in the way of the facts.

We are going to hear a ton of misinformation about cycling: blame bicyclist first, self-justification, empathy for the one most like us, etc.

Over and over, again, I hear the whining, selfish pleas of tea baggers who don’t want a dime of their gas money to go to cycling.

Guess what, it doesn’t and it won’t, but it should.

Item two, cyclist who own cars pay into the general fund. Where’s my transportation money?

So if anyone mentions gas money, let them know that gas money on pays for parts of roads, road costs are going up, gas money is going down. The difference is made up by taxing non-motorists and building roads that are very dangerous.

So one proposal I have is that if you think that it’s too expensive to pay for cycling infrastructure, stop maintaining roads all together. The easiest ways to get around San Diego have the cheapest roads. Conversely, the most expensive roads suck the most for cycling.

When thing break down, a little, cycling gets way better. So the issue isn’t that we want to take your gas money for our sissie bikes, but that we are being taxed, and having our money used against us.

Most of us are too polite to mention that, but I’m the impolite one who says what everyone else is afraid to say.

Let’s just stop building and maintaining all roads starting now. Shut down the street lights and lay off the traffic cops. Things will get worse before they get better, but ultimately, we will be riding on mountain bikes on trails that are hacked out by private volunteeers.

Another point is that cycling infrastructure always has to be decided by the “community”. Each tiny little strip of paint must be fought over with the dumbest, loudest, and most selfish community members.

At the same time, the freeways were built by fiat. If we had to argue over every single inch of freeway space (people lived and worked along most of what is now smelly, noisy, and economically bankrupt land), freeways would never be built. Or they would go at 60 MPH for a few blocks then suddenly disappear into a brick wall just like bikeways which dump you into the middle of an ocean of cars.

And if this doesn’t convince you note, that the founding fathers did not ride SUVs.

Even if they did, would their first priority be to steal (tax) money from those who did not have cars to give it, as an entitlement, to those who did?

Land Transport Safety

I really didn’t wish to go to “Woe are we” types of posts on cycling as this is supposed to be the unicorns (the person not the strange horse) and smurfing cycling blog.

However, in the wake of the recent accidents and the lame ass response that the police had which shows that they will not stop until they exonerate the criminals who run down cyclists something that was supposed to be done by private lawyers.

They are continuing to pretend that the “law ties their hands.”

I think that they enjoy being cuffed.

Basically, after 9/11 police powers have been vastly expanded to protect us. Overall, I think that this is great! More power to stop the bad guys. This seems to have been working, too. Unlike the last president, under Obama, there’s been not one domestic terrorist attack on American soil that killed anyone.

So far so good.

But what is terrorism and why is it so special?

I don’t know. I hate stupid arguments about vocabulary.

But we can all agree one thing that terrorist try to do is kill Americans. In response, we have spent a lot of money to stop this. I say good. But there’s a huge blind spot.

Why are we not targeting motorists?

Because they don’t drive cars, silly, you say.

Really? I retort. Did you know that the FIRST 9/11 bomb was via a truck? If they had been checking trucks in 1993, they could have saved some lives.

But we can’t target transportation for terrorism. To equate transportation with terrorism is silly.

They what’s the TSA all about?

Also, check this out:

http://transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov/security/Newsletters/html/Vol19/default_m.htm

“Land Transportation Antiterrorism Training Program. The Land Transportation Antiterrorism Training Program (LTATP) was developed by the U. S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). LTATP is unique in its design, recognizing that security at most land transportation systems is accomplished by a cooperative effort of Federal, State, local, and contract personnel. This program was designed to protect the land transportation infrastructure, which includes rail, mass transit, and bus operations. “

So we are targeting EVERYTHING except for the thing that kills the most people. Sounds like a GREAT use of money.

But the _potential_ for harm is greater with other forms of transportation.

I really doubt it. And I doubt that this is going to reach its potential any time soon.

Fact is that we are INUNDATED WITH MONEY TO STOP MOTORISTS FROM TERRORIZING CYCLISTS. We have the money, we have just decided to conveniently exclude motoring from the list.

If you think I’m cherry picking, you can go on and google for this. Only motoring is excluded from anti-terrorist spending.

But there’s more:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=20&ved=0CHsQFjAJOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fops.fhwa.dot.gov%2Fpublications%2Fetopr%2Fbest_practices%2Fetopr_best_practices.pdf&ei=vmaMT_36EKSdiALR-6jtCw&usg=AFQjCNFU80DeYnzkLa0jy2KAadVsh7U6tw&sig2=q5_E91xLEXZccYouXCJKsw

Notice what they do:

“Use of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) to
Monitor Freight Rail Movement—One region’s
TMC can monitor freight rail movements on one
rail corridor to see direction of travel, length of
train, etc. The major city in the region also has
cameras on railroad tracks throughout the city so
they can see when a train is blocking a street.”

Makes sense. If someone gets run over by a car and dies, it’s not terrorism. But if a train blocks traffic and nobody dies? That’s what we are looking to remedy with our government dollars.

So we totally ignore motorists?

Nope. We help them:

“Motorist Assistance Patrol (MAP)—Several
regions have established motorist assistance
patrols on their highway systems, to assist
motorists with vehicle troubles.”

Note who they do not help? Those who are too poor to have a car at all. If you don’t have a car, they are not there for you.

Furthermore, if you have a car bomb, they won’t know because they are not checking.

But if you WALK, you are really a threat:

http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/antiterrorism_chill.html

Dissent, Public Safety Core of Debate
Ed Whitfield and his followers just wanted to hold a peaceful demonstration during President Bush’s recent visit to the Triad, making it clear that not all Americans are gung-ho for the war on terrorism. Police, sheriff’s deputies and the U.S. Secret Service simply wanted to protect the nation’s chief executive in a time of great national tension. The two goals met head-on during Bush’s July 25 visit, when the protesters were stopped as they walked along a public road on which motorists traveled freely. They had to discard their protest signs before being allowed to proceed along Grandover Parkway in southwest Greensboro, News & Record, August 04, 2002

Great, but our “civil liberties” protect us from rounding up and detaining anyone who drives a white Lexus, right?

The U.S. Justice Department must release in 15 days all the names of those it has arrested and detained in its investigation of the Sept. 11 hijacked plane attacks. “The federal government’s power to arrest and hold individuals is an extraordinary one. Here, the government has used its arrest power to detain individuals as part of an investigation that is widespread in its scope and secrecy,” U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler said in the 45-page ruling, Reuters, August 2, 2002

Nope, they can. They just choose not to.

The point is that the government has unlimited powers to protect the 700 cyclists and 33,000 motorists who die each year, but they choose not to.

Most killer motorists have a record of bad behavior. They often brag about how they are going to kill people before they do it.

Seldom do you see someone snap.

After a motorist attack, it’s very possible to round up all the suspects and check them out, but instead authorities are there, in lock step to protect the criminals.

My suggestion is to pressure your public officials to use the powers that they have been granted to start targeting the real threats and stop lying for and otherwise shielding those who choose to kill their fellow Americans.

They have the power, but they choose not to use it.

We All Mourn

Recently, there were two San Diegan cyclists who were killed.

These recent events got me feeling sad, and they got me thinking.

All cyclists are like sisters and brothers to me and each of their deaths is a tragedy.

I believe that most cyclists agree with me.

Today, I am going to set aside the usual brilliant humor and cutting insight to allow for silence so that we can mourn.

Cycling Humor: New York (and California) State Traffic Enforcement Exam

In the light of cycling humor, I came up with some of my own. It’s better and more original than the motorist’s One Joke.

1. Recently, a motorist hit a cyclist. The motorist said that the glare blinded her.

The State of New York usually gives blind motorists:

A. Driver’s license
B. Acquittal from killing someone due to disability
C. Commendation for killing the “enemy” in the war against motorists
D. All of the above

2. In what cases are cyclists solely at fault for their deaths while the motorist in the vehicle is totally innocent:

A. Rode bicycle on the sidewalk
B. Rode bicycle on the street
C. Rode bicycle on the bike path
D. Rode bicycle on the bike lane
E. No lights
F. No helmet
G. No bell
H. Driver had a bad day and hit the cyclist on purpose
I. Cyclist was smug and self-righteous
J. Cyclist had children on the bicycle
K. All of the above

3. In #2, if we fail to find criteria to exonerate the motorist, who is blamed for the accident?
A. Motorist
B. Bad road design
C. Fate
D. Cyclist’s mother for giving birth to her.

4. If an officer hits a cyclist, will he be punished?
A. Always
B. Never
C. Only if they scratch the paint on police car

5. The New York State House debated a bill to make it open season on cyclists. The bill:
A. Failed to pass due to humanitarian reasons
B. Failed to pass because cyclists are too tough of a target for guns, hitting with a car is more convenient
C. Passed
D. Failed to pass because it’s more fun to and satisfying to hear the crunch of the cyclist beneath a truck

6. A motorist confesses to killing a cyclist. You:
A. Toss out confession
B. Lie to media, blaming cyclist anyway
C. Visit cyclist, against her wishes, in the hospital and try to coerce her into claiming that she “fell off her bicycle”
D. Cook up a story about anonymous officers who were there to see her fall of her bike, but somehow were not there afterwards to help her
E. All the above

7. Based on the two prosecutions out of the twenty eight cyclists deaths in New York last year, one motorist equals how many cyclists
A. One. We are all US citizens who deserve equal protection under the law
B. Less than one tenth. (Do the math).
C. Zero. (Unless the motorist is poor AND the cyclist is rich, famous, or a judge. In this case, do more for a cyclist than you’d do for ten motorists.)

Cycling Humor 101

I know that there are a great many people out there who have no sense of humor so if you are part of this group, you can stop reading now.

The whole point of this is to amuse and to inform.

After all, the worst thing that a motorist can do is to suggest that I, as a cyclist, have no sense of humor.

Just because I don’t laugh at the motorist’s One Joke does not mean that I have no sense of humor.

You know the joke, “I’ll try not to hit you. Just kidding. Haha.”

The reason we don’t laugh at the joke is not because we are thin skinned, humorless weenies. If we were like this, we wouldn’t ride because you need a thick skin and a sense of humor just to stay sane. And if I’m not sane, why are you joking around with a crazy person? Try clowning around with the mentally unstable and see what happens. Haha.

The real reason that we don’t laugh at the motorist’s One Joke is because it’s over used. If you want to clown around with a cyclist do a few things first: ride a bicycle so you actually have some perspective, learn how to tell a joke, and most importantly of all, TELL AN ORIGINAL JOKE. IF YOUR BIKE JOKE IS NOT ORIGINAL, DON’T TELL IT.

If your joke is funny, I’ll laugh. If I don’t laugh, stop the wise act. You can’t fake funny.

I don’t care if you want to round up all the cyclists in the county and shoot them in the face. If that’s part of your joke, and you can make it funny, I’ll laugh. So it’s not “sensitivity” or any of that PC nonsense. I like offense humor. I like insult humor. I love being teased. Just get some new shit instead of recycling other people’s trash.

The other reason that I don’t laugh at the One Joke is because it’s not a joke. A “joke” isn’t a way of cowardly stepping away from your position. If you want to run me over, do it. Don’t say something offensive then say “just kidding”. A joke has to start out as a joke. Plus, “I’ll kill you” is something that a terrorist says, not a comedian.

So by all means, tell some jokes. God knows we need more laughing in this cruel world. But make it good or don’t make it all.

New Rules For Advocacy: Newbie Edition

When talking to a Newbie, Do:

1. Tell her what kind of bicycle to get. If she’s really unsure, LISTEN to her needs and TELL her what bike to get. Don’t say, “I can’t really say.” If you read this site, you are smart enough to help. Go with her to the bike shop if you have to.

2. Go on rides with her, if she wants you to.

3. Say hello to every cyclist that says hi to you. Stop to help everyone if they need it.

4. Let the slower cyclist lead unless you are leading someone into unfamiliar territory. Otherwise, you’ll constantly leave her in the dust, get frustrated, and so on. She knows when you are frustrated even if you are trying to cover it up. If you can’t stand to watch her go slow and make mistakes while you shut up, don’t ride with her anymore, it’s not worth the aggravation. And keep your eye on the road not my ass.

When talking to a Newbie, Do Not:

1. Pressure them to ride a bicycle. Pressure them to buy a bicycle. #1 above assumes the person wants to ride on their own. If they are your spouse, STFU about cycling and find out what he wants to do instead and do that with him. If he loves you, he’ll ask to go ride with you. If he doesn’t get it, dump him.

2. Don’t complain about motorists or safety. Don’t talk about how much cars pollute. Don’t complain about being treated unsafe or having inadequate facilities.

3. Suggest that the person needs to take a class to ride a bike. A bicycle is really simple and a child can do it. It’s an insult to imply that a cyclist is dumber than a child which is what you are doing here.

4. Criticize her bicycle. No matter how stupid you think it is, she loves it. It’s part of her now and if you mock her bike you mock her. Do NOT give her suggestions on traveling lighter or any other kinds of advice at all. Unless she asks. Then answer her question, only with a sound bite. Don’t go on and on about it.

5. Offer to help someone if the problem is beyond your skill level. Many women can change patches better than any dude. This is a fact. So don’t think that just because you have nuts you can fix a flat.

6. Tell the cyclist to ride on the street when they want to ride on the sidewalk. Warn them about the door zone. Don’t lecture any cyclist on safety at all. Don’t talk about helmets. If you think any of these things are important you probably don’t know what you are talking about anyway. An LCI is not a degree in public safety.