Texting While Bicycling Laws

Posted on February 20, 2012 by IsolateCyclist

Text Message

 

The dangers of texting while driving are well known. Any distraction from the road can cause an increase in accidents. And, unlike other forms of distracted driving, texting is a deliberate act. The driver chooses to communicate via text with someone who is not in the car. Not only does the act of entering words to send to a recipient take one’s eyes off of the road, but the fact that a conversation is going on with someone outside of the present situation takes the driver’s mind off of driving.

Many cities and towns have considered laws outlawing texting while driving. And, most people are in favor of these laws. For everyone’s safety, it seems best to have drivers in control of their cars at all times.

A less well-known problem regarding texting is that of texting while bicycling. When told about this problem, people who don’t ride bicycles will point to examples of reckless riding. They will cite cases where cyclists ride on the sidewalk or run through red lights. And, they will see texting while cycling as just another example of reckless, irresponsible behavior on the part of cyclists.

Cyclists, on the other hand, may see the issue differently. Texting while cycling creates a number of problems unique to cycling. When a cyclist is distracted, his or her safety is compromised in many ways.

By not paying attention, the cyclist could hit a pothole or other road debris. Or, he could ride into the path of an opening car door. In both cases, a crash is highly likely and the risk of injury is greater than that of a texting driver.

Given the high risk of self-injury and possible death, one would think that cyclists would refrain from texting while riding. Unfortunately, the problem is more widespread than one would think.

To reduce the risks associated with texting while cycling, states like Illinois have proposed passing laws to include bicycles among the vehicles whose operators are prohibited from texting while operating their vehicles. The proposed law followed an ordinance passed by the Chicago City Council which banned texting while bicycling in October 2011.

The ordinance prohibits bicyclists from texting while moving. They also can’t make cell phone calls unless using a hands-free device. Fines are $20 for a first offense and go up to $100 for a third or subsequent violation. If an accident is involved, the fine could go as high as $500.

Supposedly, this ordinance was passed for fairness, as well as safety, since drivers had already been banned from texting while driving. Unfortunately, enforcement of the ban on texting while driving is not well enforced anywhere in the U.S. The ban is even less likely to be enforced against cyclists than drivers. However, some cities are determined to combat the problems caused by texting.

In Philadelphia, not only did they crack down on cyclists for running red lights and riding on the sidewalk, but they decided to crack down on pedestrians for texting while walking without looking where they were going.

Before we all start envisioning the Philadelphia police running after texting pedestrians to give them citations, we should make a note of the city’s clarification:

“Pedestrians who text while they walk without looking ahead will also be targeted, but for warnings only… ‘If a Philadelphia police officer observes a driver, cyclist or pedestrian participating in any kind of potentially dangerous behavior, the officer will remind them to be careful,’ the city said in a statement.”

Texting while engaging in other activities can potentially cause injury to others. It should be discouraged to the greatest degree possible. Yet, it’s necessary to question whether specific laws targeting bicycles should be enacted to achieve this end.

How to address this problem is a complex issue. Texting is an integral part of the lives of younger people. It is a way to be in constant contact with others throughout the day. Such a habit is difficult to break.

Rather than passing laws threatening to fine people for behavior which borders on addiction, maybe we should look at this problem from a cultural standpoint. Although we have all become accustomed to being connected 24/7, given the amount of harm the distraction of being in two places at once can cause, it might be best to rethink the necessity of being available at all times.

Perhaps other methods of dealing with this issue, such as agreeing to make ourselves unavailable during certain times, would make our lives safer. Emergency communications could be made via means other than texting — such as phone calls — and text replies could be made by either pulling to the side of the road, or waiting until a trip by car or bicycle has ended.

In short, texting is a cultural phenomenon. And, it’s solution should be a cultural shift in thinking, not more laws designed to govern every waking second of a citizen’s life.

Posted in Cycling | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Using Medical Journals to Lend Credibility to Anti-Helmet Use Arguments

Posted on February 16, 2012 by IsolateCyclist

Bicycle Helmet

In countries with mandatory helmet laws, people opposed to helmet use regulation often go to great lengths to overturn the law. In New Zealand, for instance, a controversial report was recently published in the New Zealand Medical Journal claiming that forcing cyclists to wear helmets has resulted in 53 premature deaths per year and has halved the number of cyclists on the roads. The author, a UK cycle coach, utilized various cycling statistics sources to challenge the idea that the mandatory helmet law was the “best approach to promoting health and safety.”

As is usual in such cases, the report cited statistics about bicycle use and injury rates without considering other factors, besides helmets, that could be responsible for these numbers. For example, to support the claim of bicycle use having fallen 51 percent since the helmet law was passed, the report stated that from 1989 to 1990, before the law was implemented, the average New Zealander spent 11.4 hours per million cycling. 10 years later, New Zealanders spent only 5.6 hours per million on a bicycle.

Experts, who have been critical of the report, have pointed to other factors which may have contributed to this decline. Among them was the increased availability of cheap secondhand cars.

The report also blamed mandatory helmet use for causing 20 more cyclists to be injured per hour. These injures were supposedly a direct result of helmet use. This conclusion was drawn without looking at anything in the cycling environment beyond the increased use of helmets during that time.

Again, experts questioned this conclusion because other possible causes had not been investigated. One expert pointed to the increase in cars on the road since the law’s inception as another explanation for the increase in cyclist injuries.

The main argument upon which this entire report was founded was that mandatory helmet use was a detriment to public health. As we often see in positions held by those who don’t want the government to force people into what it sees as healthy or safety oriented behavior, the helmet requirement is cited as the main cause for a decrease in cycling. And, this decrease allegedly results in less healthy citizens.

It’s ironic to see people who purport to be concerned with health claiming that exposing one’s head to a higher risk of injury is the only way to promote a healthy lifestyle. This is disingenuous at best. Perhaps they should just be honest and say that many people don’t want to wear helmets, regardless of the risks involved.

Society is not “promoting healthy lifestyles” by encouraging risk taking behavior. However, forcing people to comply with safety requirements for what is often a recreational activity may, in fact, discourage the activity. This is particularly true for poorer cyclists who may not be able to afford to buy a helmet or to pay a fine if caught without a helmet. For such cyclists, the cost of the helmet law goes beyond inconvenience. It is a question of economics and may make bicycle use a bad choice for them.

What’s most troubling about the arguments claiming that helmets increase injuries or reduce public health is that the proponents of such views resort to publishing their “theories” in medical journals to give them credibility. If the same report was published in a bicycling magazine, no one would pay any attention to it. But, publishing it in a peer reviewed medical journal gives the appearance of having fulfilled rigorous research requirements prior to publication.

Allowing such reports into medical journals, without proper analysis of the report’s research methods, calls into question the quality of the other research published in these journals. One must ask oneself if the journals are as lax about research standards with respect to the medical papers which appear within their pages.

Most medical professionals see helmets as the best way to avoid head injuries and perceive them as saving lives. Perhaps the medical journals who publish controversial reports refuting these views are only giving equal time to the opposition. If so, they should make it clear that the opinions expressed in such reports are solely those of the author and have not been reviewed for accuracy by anyone qualified to make such determinations. Otherwise, they are lending credence to “research” which may or may not be valid, but which can easily be challenged by the use of statistical analysis and common sense.

Posted in Cycling | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Could Anti-Bicycle Lane Sentiment Bring Peace to the Middle East?

Posted on February 9, 2012 by IsolateCyclist

For as long as I can remember, there has been conflict in the Middle East. In particular, I recall hearing about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, an ongoing struggle between Israelis and Palestinians that began in the early 20th century. Among the issues of contention are: mutual recognition, borders, security, water rights, control of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, Palestinian freedom of movement and legalities concerning refugees.

“Many attempts have been made to broker a two-state solution, involving the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside an independent Jewish state or next to the State of Israel (after Israel’s establishment in 1948). As recently as 2007, a majority of both Israelis and Palestinians, according to a number of polls, prefer the two-state solution over any other solution as a means of resolving the conflict. Moreover, a considerable majority of the Jewish public sees the Palestinians’ demand for an independent state as just, and thinks Israel can agree to the establishment of such a state. A majority of Palestinians and Israelis view the West Bank and Gaza Strip as an acceptable location of the hypothetical Palestinian state in a two-state solution. However, there are significant areas of disagreement over the shape of any final agreement and also regarding the level of credibility each side sees in the other in upholding basic commitments.

Within Israeli and Palestinian society, the conflict generates a wide variety of views and opinions. This highlights the deep divisions which exist not only between Israelis and Palestinians, but also within each society.”

Despite years of talks, no resolution to this conflict has been found. However, there seem to be certain areas where the Israelis and Palestinians agree. One of those areas of agreement is the design and placement of bike lanes.

This became apparent in early 2011 when a company called Moriah began paving bike lanes in the French Hill and Ramat Eshkol neighborhoods of Jerusalem, on behalf of the Jerusalem municipality. The intent of the project was to create an alternative transportation lane from the metro station, planned to open in North Jerusalem, to the Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus.

“The city ignored Transportation Ministry directives, however, and created a narrow strip for cyclists between the sidewalk and the street. The result is a path littered with obstacles, including trash bins, protruding car doors and parked cars. As a result, cyclists are still riding in the street, claiming that the bicycle path is too dangerous.”

In the Spring of 2011, a meeting took place between representatives of the municipality and residents of the area. At the meeting the French Hill and Ramat Eshkol communities spoke out against the project. Virtually no one supported it.

The reasons for the opposition were numerous:

1. Safety. The bike lanes weave in and out of streets and sidewalks in a confusing and dangerous manner, narrowing roads and endangering cyclists and pedestrians.

2. Undemocratic process. The entire planning and implementation of the project was done without any census among the residents.

3. Faulty reasoning at the basis of the project. There is a low probability that the plan will achieve its goal. “People bicycling back and forth to the University and metro will either need to fill the train’s cars with their bikes or leave them at the station. The latter option means that they are expected to buy a bicycle, a very expensive item in this country, exclusively for riding back and forth between the station and the University. At the same time, it is very naïve to think that the residence of the neighborhoods will suddenly decide to rush out and buy bicycles simply to make use of the new paths that until now have received a very bad reputation within the community.”

In March, the residents of a neighborhood called “Small City” wrote a letter of complaint about the project. Their list of complaints about this project was extensive. Among them was:

  • Very few individuals ride bikes in this neighborhood, whereas most families own at least 1 car.
  • The bike lane reduces available parking which is a serious need for a university neighborhood.
  • The reduction in available parking to a point where there is inadequate parking will lessen the property value of the homes in the neighborhood.
  • The bike lane will subsume both parking spaces and the bus stop inlets.
  • The Small City neighborhood—a neighborhood of professionals with usually more than 1 car per family—was built with less than 1 parking space per unit. Already residents of the neighborhood struggle to find adequate parking. With the reduction of parking on Lehi Street, the situation will be intolerable, especially when having to compete with hotel and university visitors for parking spaces.
  • The sidewalks in this area are already quite broad. Why not narrow the sidewalks and create a bike lane there, if a bike lane is even necessary at all.

These complaints against the bike lanes sound very much like what we hear in cities and towns across the U.S. What’s different about the complaints in Jerusalem is that they generated protests among a majority of residents.

The protests were not limited to one group of residents, but appeared to be an area of agreement among all residents, regardless of ethnic background or political persuasion.

There were Israeli cyclists protesting the bike lanes.

Jerusalem Bike Lane Protest

And, there were Palestinian residents protesting the bike lanes.

Overall, residents thought that bike lanes were a good idea. And, they were in favor of encouraging more bicycle use. What they objected to was how the bike lane planning was done, and the resulting project, which was filled with problems.

Regardless of how we feel about the anti-bicycle backlash, and the fighting against bike lanes, we have to admit that every cloud has a silver lining. Strong sentiment to keep roads for cars, combined with minute examination of bike lane projects which prioritize driver convenience, could serve the greater good. Perhaps it could unite the Israelis and Palestinians by showing them what they share in common and how they can work together to achieve a common goal.

Whether small steps such as bike lane protests will have any long term effect in the Middle East remains to be seen, but we can always hope.

Posted in Cycling | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Tailgating Bicycles

Posted on February 6, 2012 by IsolateCyclist

Man And Boy Riding Bikes

 

Cyclists talk a lot about aggressive drivers. They talk about getting cut off when cars turn right directly in their path. And they talk about drivers buzzing them and nearly making them crash, but they rarely talk about tailgating.

Of course, every cyclist has had the experience of having a car ride up their back. This is most disconcerting when arriving at a traffic light where stopping could mean having the car slam into the bike’s rear wheel. At such times, it’s difficult to know whether to stop or to blow through the light to avoid getting hit from the rear.

Still, we never talk about this as tailgating in the same way as we refer to it with cars. With respect to bicycles, tailgating is considered to be aggressive driving or intimidation.

To address this problem, and make it a traffic violation, Del. Alfonso Lopez, D-Arlington County, VA, submitted a measure, HB785, that would outlaw following bicycles, mopeds and electric personal assistive mobility devices too closely.

“Current state law forbids motorists from following another motor vehicle ‘more closely than is reasonable and prudent.’…

‘Bicycles are becoming more common on Virginia streets and roads,’ Lopez said, ‘and broadening the tailgating law to cover them would provide riders an extra margin of safety.’

But the subcommittee rejected the bill, 4-2, with minimal discussion. Del. Scott Garrett, R-Lynchburg, expressed concern that it might impede traffic flow.

The panel will have one more opportunity to address the issue. An identical bill, SB264, from Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, has passed the Senate and is on its way to the House.”

The first thing that catches one’s eye is the explanation by Del. Scott Garret, whereby he claims that making tailgating of bicycles illegal would “impede traffic flow.” Are we to take this to mean that traffic flows better when a car is allowed to risk crashing into the rear of a bicycle? Such an assertion is preposterous. A car would not move any more freely or quickly if it followed a bicycle at a close distance versus a farther distance.

What makes the law’s defeat even more amazing is that the law included protections for electric personal assistive mobility devices — in other words, wheelchairs. If we agree that allowing a car to follow a bicycle very closely should be permitted in the name of traffic flow, then we would have to say the same about electric wheelchairs. Apparently, elected officials like Del. Scott Garrett took this stance.

In many areas, disabled people travel around town by wheelchair. They cross the streets and, at times, ride in the street in order to reach an area where a curb cut will allow them to return to the sidewalk. Any civilized person would think that the above measure should pass for the safety of wheelchair users alone. However, once bicycles were added to the mix, there was resistance to providing protection for road users other than motor vehicles. And this resistance came at the expense of the disabled.

Laws prohibiting the tailgating of bicycles have come about in response to situations where drivers were deliberately tailgating bicycles because they thought the bicycles were in the way. One such case occurred in Portland, OR.

“A man who lives on a narrow rural road in the foothills leading up to Skyline Blvd just north of the Helvetia area has become a lightning rod for community activism. People accuse him of repeated aggressive behaviors while driving his pickup near people riding bicycles, and some are concerned that it’s only a matter of time before his alleged verbal aggression and menacing actions lead to someone getting hurt…

The person accused of the aggressive (and illegal) behavior has been publicly identified as Scott Wheeler, a man who has written letters to his neighborhood newsletter about his interpretation of Oregon traffic law (he maintains that bicycles must pull off the road when a motor vehicle is trying to pass), and he has even filed a complaint with the Oregon State Bar against noted bike lawyer Ray Thomas for allegedly “circulating misleading legal information to the public.”

Aside from aggressive behavior towards bicycles in the area, this driver has gotten into the habit of tailgating the bicycles because he believes that they should pull over to let drivers pass. One cyclist wrote an account of this behavior.

“I pulled to the far edge (borderline gravel) and signaled to pass (no on-coming traffic and at this point we were on a flat). He would not pass so I kept riding a SLOW pace (5 mph) until he felt comfortable to pass. He continued to honk and started creeping up on my back wheel. At this point, I do not know what he wants and I’m freaking out.

So I pull over into ditch/gravel and expected him to stop and explain what’s going on. He revs up and blasts past me w/in inches of my face. That freaked me out.”

While this driver’s actions go beyond simple tailgating, not including bicycles in the laws which protect vehicles from being followed too closely, escalates the danger such cyclists face when confronted by an irate driver.

Oregon has a slow moving vehicle law. It requires slow moving vehicles to pull over to allow faster moving vehicles to pass. However, according to Ray Thomas, an expert on bike law, this doesn’t apply to bicycles since the law refers to vehicle “drivers,” not “riders.”

To further his anti-bicycle campaign, Wheeler (the aggressive driver) filed a complaint against Thomas with the State Bar, asking them to “censure Thomas for ‘circulating misinformation’ to the public. Wheeler requested that the OSB shut down Thomas’ website, remove two articles, and that Thomas’ firm pay for a $3 million educational campaign to ‘counteract the effects of a decade of misinformation on their website.’” Fortunately, Wheeler’s complaint was dismissed by the OSB who found no professional misconduct.

The refusal of drivers and elected officials to provide cyclists with the same protections afforded to drivers is just one more example of an entitlement mentality. By denying cyclists the right to be free from cars bearing down on their rear wheels, endangering their lives, the drivers are in effect saying that if you want to ride a bicycle on “our road,” you will have to endure our self-proclaimed right to strike you from behind, throwing you over the bike’s handlebars, and accept our attempts to force you off of the road, into a ditch.

This fight over tailgating, and whether one has a right to drive at a speed appropriate to their vehicle, on a shared road, is just one more attempt to assign ownership of the road exclusively to motor vehicles. What it boils down to is that some drivers don’t want bicycles on the road. And they will fight tooth and nail to keep cyclists from asserting their rights, and from attaining equal rights with drivers.

For this reason, cyclists must stay abreast of the laws designed to enhance their rights and safety on the roads. And when such laws fail to pass, cyclists must contact their elected officials to protest the diminution of their rights. Otherwise, aggressive driving will continue, unchecked, and more cyclists will lose life and limb when riding on “shared” roads.

Posted in Cycling | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Sharrows: Confusion and Compromise

Posted on February 2, 2012 by IsolateCyclist

Sharrow

 

On my post about bike lanes, a reader left a comment asking what I thought about sharrows. So, I gave it some thought. Looking back, I remember seeing sharrows springing up in my area a few years ago. Prior to that time, there were no sharrows, no bike lanes and no signs warning drivers to share the road.

It’s difficult to determine what started a move in the direction of marking roads with symbols depicting the presence of bicycles. The increase in bicycle use, and a strong push for bicycling infrastructure, may have been the impetus for the inclusion of bicycles on American roads.

Cities and towns across America wanted to look as if they were responding to the demand for safer conditions for cyclists. By law, cyclists were entitled to use the roads, but in practice, many roads were too difficult or dangerous to ride on.

To add to the problem, drivers were reluctant to give up an inch of the road to cyclists, who they often saw as impediments to their progress. The result was increased demand from one group and increased resistance from another. This left officials in a quandary. They were obligated to make the roads safe and accessible to cyclists, but they didn’t want to offend drivers by investing in infrastructure which would decrease automotive dominance on the roads.

Their solution was to resort to stamping bicycle tattoos on the surface of the roads. For a relatively low cost, this method made roads appear to be welcoming to cyclists while taking nothing away from drivers. And from a superficial standpoint, it seemed to be a perfect resolution.

Once the bicycle with arrows stamps were plastered along a road, the difficulties began: most drivers, and many cyclists, didn’t know what the symbols meant. Still, one thing was infinitely clear — the symbols created a lot of confusion. Drivers thought that cyclists were required to ride along the path of the sharrows and could not move left into the travel lane. Some of them were livid when bicycles didn’t stay on the marked portion of the road.

Some cyclists weren’t certain whether the sharrows were some sort of bike lane, albeit without the lines. They expected cars to stay away from the sharrows and became angry and discontent when cars drove right over them. Both drivers and cyclists saw the symbols as placing restrictions on where cars and bicycles could drive or ride, even though the opposite was true: sharrows were intended to signify shared lanes.

Another problem with sharrows is their lack of continuity, both in terms of providing interconnected travel for cyclists and visibility. Unlike bike lanes, with their continuous lines, sharrows are painted intermittently. Consequently, shortly after their installation, they get worn away by the flow of traffic, and fade into distant memory as the road returns to its previous state.

As much as politicians and bicycle advocates may want to promote the use of sharrows to encourage sharing the road, they are no replacement for bike lanes, particularly the type that are separated from cars. More than anything else, sharrows are a temporary reminder to share the road. How to accomplish this objective is left up to road users, most of whom have no idea how bicycles and cars are supposed to interact.

Just painting a symbol on the road will not teach drivers to leave three feet of space when passing a bike. It will also not make clear the idea of taking the lane, whereby a cyclist moves into the center of the lane for safety or to make a left-hand turn. And, it will also not make clear who has the right to ride over the sharrow and when. In other words, sharrows leave a lot unclear but express very little clearly.

For now, sharrows will be little more than a symbol of a society’s willingness to appease people at the expense of practicality and a long-term solution. Sharrows are better than nothing. They are a reminder of a bicycle’s place on the road  —  a placeholder, if you will.

With any luck, this placeholder will eventually be replaced by permanent infrastructure in the form of reserving areas of the road for bicycles. For the time being, cyclists will have to be satisfied with this makeshift accommodation, which does little more for them than assert their rights.

Symbols should never replace specificity. And without clear, universal meaning, there will always be a difference between intent and interpretation.

Posted in Cycling | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Motorists Just Don’t Get It

Posted on January 30, 2012 by IsolateCyclist

Old Commuter Bicycle

 

Cycling, in my view, is not just a hobby, a fad, or a form of recreation; it is an inherent trait of dedicated cyclists. In my own case, with the exception of my infancy, I’ve ridden a bicycle for one reason or another, throughout my life.

Sometimes, my bike served as my sole form of transportation. Other times, I chose to ride it because it was faster, more convenient, better for the environment and more fun. A bicycle has always been an integral part of my life, not an afterthought or something tangential.

Many people use and see bicycles differently. They buy a bike for fitness or to take on a bicycling tour for vacation or to participate in triathlons. For those people, a bicycle is just something to use on occasion, for a particular purpose.

Besides the single purpose cyclists, there are the non-cyclists. They are opposed to riding a bike for a variety of reasons including fear of injury, fear of ridicule or fear of nonconformity. These are the people who see cycling as childish, and who shun it out of a desire to be associated with more sophisticated activities — at least in their own minds.

Such individuals are often swayed by fads and advertising. They are content to let others tell them who to be and how to live. Independent thinking is antithetical to their very being because they long to be part of the majority.

These group thinkers, I believe, will never understand why anyone would choose to engage in an activity which is not regarded as chic, and which requires physical effort. Our modern world is based on the premise that convenience is paramount, in order to live the good life. To that end, we have cars, air conditioning, Internet access, cell phones, televisions, GPS’s, washers and dryers, dishwashers, microwaves, snow blowers, lawn mowers  —  and the list goes on and on. Why, then, the non-cyclists think, would anyone choose to do something as exhausting as riding a bicycle? It is counter to our culture.

I wasn’t exactly thinking along those lines when something strange happened to me recently. I was riding my bike, minding my own business — out of necessity because I was riding on a deserted road  — when an SUV pulled up alongside me. I couldn’t imagine why, when there were no cars on the road, this vehicle slowed down beside me.

At first, I thought that the driver was lost and wanted directions. Since it was nighttime, and I don’t care to engage strangers in conversation after dark, I ignored the vehicle and just kept riding. For several minutes, the SUV drove alongside me, with the driver saying nothing.

I began to worry when the SUV didn’t pass me, as I’d expected it to. The idea of turning into a side street occurred to me as I sensed trouble in my immediate future. Nonetheless, I hated to be diverted from my destination by bullying, so I held my course, ready to turn off of the road at a moment’s notice, should the situation turn ugly.

Out of the blue, a man’s voice called out the window “Can I ask you something?” Of course not, I thought, and didn’t look towards him, hoping that ignoring him would cause him to go away. No such luck. He continued his slow pace alongside me, pulling closer to where I rode, a few feet to the left of the curb.

A long glance down the road showed no cars parked in my path, so there was no need to worry about getting doored or having to swerve from my course. The SUV was too close for comfort, but I held my ground.

“Why are you riding a bicycle past midnight?” the driver asked. “I’m just curious.”

“Why not?” I replied.

“Where are you going?” he continued, refusing to mind his own business, despite my curt reply.

“Just up the road,” I said, while looking straight ahead. Making eye contact with such people just encourages them.

“Where, if I might ask?” he persisted. No, you can’t ask, I mumbled under my breath.

“I’m almost there.”

“Do you need a ride?”

“No, I’m fine, thanks.”

“I can give you a ride, if you need to go somewhere.”

“No, I’m not going very far, that’s why I took my bike,” I continued, trying to discourage him from this line of questioning. Actually, I was going pretty far, but I didn’t see any reason not to use my bike to get there.

“Are you sure you’re OK?” He wouldn’t give up.

“It’s OK, really,” I assured him. “I’m just headed up the road.”

“Where?” the voice almost pleaded. I didn’t answer.

Muffled voices came from the back seat. The driver and his passengers were discussing my nocturnal bicycle riding, as if it was their concern. None of them could grasp the concept of using a bicycle to go somewhere late at night.

Finally, he replied with a firm “OK,” signifying his satisfaction with the conclusion of our conversation. He turned left onto a side street and pulled into a driveway. This surprised me as I was riding through an affluent neighborhood, and due to his behavior, I had taken him for a thug.

Good riddance, I thought, as I rode off into the night. He had broken the meditative silence which I have always associated with riding late at night into the early morning hours.

What’s wrong with riding a bicycle twenty-four hours a day? Nothing, as far as I can see. But, for non-cyclists, bicycling is an activity filled with restrictions — restrictions forcing cyclists onto bike paths, restrictions keeping cyclists off of certain roads, and restrictions on what time of day cyclists can ride. The non-cyclists see bicycle use as circumscribed by the majority’s view of a proper life.

Until the seekers of the easy life are willing to acknowledge other ways of doing things, cyclists will always find themselves outside the mainstream, and will sometimes be questioned, by total strangers, just for doing what they love best — riding a bicycle.

Posted in Cycling, Rides | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Illusions Created By Cyclists

Posted on January 26, 2012 by IsolateCyclist

Bicycle Trick Riding

 

In a subjective world, perceptions are everything. How people see things is as important as what those things are in and for themselves because it’s human nature to interpret the world around us in the context of our own biases.

With that it mind, we can look at cycling, not for what it is, but for how it appears. Appearances are determined by norms, by what people expect and what they have grown accustomed to.

Take for instance the commonly held view of cycling as a dangerous activity. The activity itself isn’t particularly dangerous, when done in isolation. Few people imagine cyclists riding down a suburban bike path as being in imminent danger. The same holds true for cyclists riding in any controlled setting.

Danger enters the picture when bicycles are viewed in the context of traffic. By associating the consequences of mishandling a several ton motorized box of metal with the frailty of the human body, we arrive at the perception of traffic as dangerous. For this reason, when cyclists ride in traffic, the activity of cycling is suddenly perceived as dangerous.

The view of cycling as dangerous has real implications for cyclists beyond the obvious ones related to safety. These implications come about due to the human tendency to make value judgments. It’s not enough for the average person to regard cycling in traffic as dangerous, they feel compelled to extend that belief to who they think a particular cyclist is.

Most people observing a cyclist riding in traffic begin by asking themselves what kind of person would do such a foolhardy thing? Viewing the behavior as foolhardy actually tells us more about the observer than the cyclist. The observer, in accordance with his or her perceptions of the activity as dangerous, has determined that only a fool would take such risks — risks the observer wouldn’t take himself.

The fact that observers are projecting their own views on strangers never enters their mind since most people imagine everyone else just as they imagine themselves. In other words, they draw upon their own experiences, and personal choices, to judge others.

For cyclists, this is a double-edged sword. Not only do others judge them in light of their own beliefs, but they assign blame for things beyond a cyclist’s control. If a driver can’t see a cyclist at night, the driver’s first thought is that the cyclist is irresponsible. In reality, the cyclist may not own the gear necessary to enhance visibility. This could be due to low usage of the bicycle or financial hardship.

Of course, one would hope that cyclists would purchase and use front and rear lights, reflectors and high visibility clothing for riding in traffic, out of self-preservation. In contradiction to the prevailing view, a cyclist may ride a bike without making himself seen, counting instead on the illumination from headlights and street lights to keep him safe.

While this might work some of the time, when it fails, and the cyclist runs into a problem, blame will be attributed to the cyclist’s behavior. Most observers would conclude that a responsible cyclist should take steps to make himself visible, rather than depending on the actions and reactions of others. This, of course, works against a cyclist.

Take, for instance, what happens when a cyclist is involved in an accident with a car. The first thing people ask is “was the cyclist wearing a helmet.” In part, this reaction is provoked by the generally held belief in helmets as protective devices. As a result of valuing human life, most people would associate protective devices as evidence of responsible behavior; any responsible person would take steps to avoid injury, particularly to something as vital to survival as the brain.

Whether helmets protect the brain in crashes is debated among cyclists — although, interestingly, less so among non-cyclists. Individual cyclists can hold views on either side of the argument, and can govern their own behavior accordingly. But, what they can’t control is perceptions about who they are, based on their decision.

In a world immersed in perceptions, what’s important is not whether helmets save lives, but whether helmets save cyclists.

Helmets save cyclists in a variety of ways, the most important of which lies in the realm of illusions. Helmets create an illusion which translates into a protective shield against culpability. In other words, whether or not it protects one part of the body, namely the head, it protects the cyclist’s entire being by casting him as a person worthy of respect. This, like all perceptions is a value judgment, but one which calls for further analysis of a situation involving conflict.

The analysis, which is a search for truth, removes the cyclist’s personality from the equation. The cyclist now comes across as a responsible individual who would never take unnecessary risks which would result in self-harm.

Naturally, this is nothing more than an illusion. Neither a helmet nor a light can tell us who a cyclist is. But, they can tell us what a cyclist is not; she is not a fool.

Intelligent cyclists create illusions of responsibility to protect themselves from liability and to give them stronger standing when injured by a driver’s negligence. Well orchestrated illusions focus attention elsewhere and give a cyclist a fighting chance to hold an offending party accountable for causing injury or death.

Next time a cyclist sets forth the argument that helmets are useless and should not be worn, remember that this theory is based on beliefs, an interpretation of data, and views about the consequences of harm to the head. Still, no matter how vehemently they argue, few people will be persuaded because one illusion is worth a thousand words.

Posted in Cycling | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Sending Unified Messages to Cyclists

Posted on January 23, 2012 by IsolateCyclist

Ice Covered Bicycle

 

There are two basic schools of thought among cyclists. One school of thought sees cycling as something that’s done for health, economic savings and preservation of the environment. The other school of thought sees cycling as nothing more than a part of everyday life.

Under most circumstances, these groups can peacefully coexist because their views are not mutually exclusive. In each school of thought, there is a degree of overlap with the other. At times, problems arise from one group’s insistence that their way of seeing things, and doing things, is the one true way. From such a position comes antagonism, condescension and, occasionally, harm to cyclists who are influenced by the offending group.

One such case has come to light recently in the cycling blogosphere. Several blogs fell into discussion about whether cyclists should dress in cycling attire for riding during the winter. This, of course, was aimed at cyclists who live in colder climates where it’s necessary to protect one’s body from the cold and snow.

Most commercial and professionally oriented bicycling websites advise people to dress in layers for winter cycling, in addition to wearing a hat, gloves, and foot protection — either extra socks or winter cycling booties. Such advice has been followed, for years, by novices and expert cyclists alike.

Recently, the school of thought which advocates for cycling as being nothing more than a part of everyday life, has taken the stance that no special clothing or precautions should be taken in the winter because they’re unnecessary. According to them, cyclists should just wear whatever they would normally wear for the day.

Sometimes, this would be acceptable. When riding short distances, at low speeds, a cyclist is unlikely to become significantly colder than when walking outdoors. And, in heavy populated areas, the risk of getting stranded away from help is virtually non-existent.

However, when riding longer distances at higher speeds, in more rural areas, the degree to which the cold will affect a cyclist changes, and the need to stay warm when off of the bike for prolonged periods of time due to a flat tire, a mechanical failure, or an accident, changes the scenario.

According to experts, when a cyclist is riding faster than 15 MPH, the wind chill created by the movement of the bike is 10 to 15 degrees. So, if the air temperature is 20° F and the cyclist is traveling over 15 MPH, the wind chill factor will make the temperature feel between 10° and 15° F. Most people find it difficult to stay warm when temperatures drop below 20° F.

Since wind chill is caused by the movement of a bicycle, it must be considered when preparing to ride in the cold. Cyclists cannot pretend that riding is exactly the same as going about their normal business in cold weather. According to medical experts:

“Wind removes body heat by carrying away the thin layer of warm air at the surface of your skin. A wind chill factor is important in causing heat loss.”

Further, if a cyclist gets overheated from exertion, and is then forced to stop riding, to address a problem, it’s possible to become very chilled and even suffer from hypothermia  —  a medical emergency that occurs when your body loses heat faster than it can produce heat, causing a dangerously low body temperature.

If the hands, face, and feet aren’t adequately protected, it’s also possible to develop frostbite, a condition which can cause damage to tissues, or chilblains which can damage nerves and small blood vessels, usually in the hands or feet, after prolonged exposure to above-freezing, cold temperatures. So, while there’s nothing wrong with telling cyclists that there’s no need to purchase winter clothing specifically designed for cycling, it’s irresponsible to tell them to just wear everyday clothes, as if there were no difference between the effect that riding a bicycle has on the body, in comparison to walking.

In fact, telling cyclists such things is not only misleading, but it could lead to injury   —  or in extreme cases  —  death. No matter how passionately cyclists feel about their own vision of cycling, it’s unfair to mislead cyclists into taking potentially dangerous risks.

Compromises are possible. Buying clothing specifically designed for cycling is unnecessary. Cyclists should wear whatever will keep them warm enough to prevent discomfort or injury. Making cyclists feel that they’re doing something wrong by not wearing street clothes for winter riding (as some cycling factions do) is unacceptable.

Many clothes are designed for winter activities. They are windproof, well insulated and breathable. Some models are even waterproof.  All of these traits are desirable for bitter cold winter cycling. For cyclists who plan to ride long distances at higher speeds, investing in such clothes is practical and beneficial.

A good winter jacket designed for physical activity can be used for sports, such as skiing, for general outdoor use, and for cycling. Well insulated gloves or mittens can also be used for more than one purpose, as can high tech base layers which provide insulation while wicking away sweat. Hats designed to be worn under a helmet are also more practical than bulkier everyday hats.

Clothing implementing newer technologies will make a cyclist more comfortable and will provide better protection from the elements. So, telling cyclists to forgo these products in favor of street clothes is doing them a disservice.

Of course, for urban riding over short distances, any winter clothes will do. An experienced cyclist may be able to get away with wearing regular clothes, assuming this is done from first-hand knowledge of how their body reacts to the cold when wearing these clothes.

Comprehending the risks of cold weather riding is imperative. With a good understanding of how to layer clothing for maximum warmth, a little bit of forethought, and some trial and error, cyclists should have no trouble riding through the winter months.

But, let’s stop making cyclists feel guilty for preferring to wear sports clothing, or even cycling specific clothing, to address their own personal winter cycling needs.

Cyclists of different persuasions can, and should, learn to respect their differences in style and viewpoint. They’re all cyclists, by virtue of their use of a bicycle, and as such, should focus more on what they have in common than in how they differ. And, most importantly, they should stop arguing over whose way is right and whose way is wrong.

Posted in Cycling | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Defying Beliefs About Cyclists

Posted on January 19, 2012 by IsolateCyclist

Brown Bicycle

 

When it comes to minority groups, the majority group always develops preconceived notions about who they are. Such ideas are based on observation, partial knowledge, emotion and imagination. Cyclists, as a minority group, have been, and continue to be, subjected to this treatment. Examples of this are prevalent

A few days ago, Gene Hackman, an 81-year-old celebrity, was struck by a car while riding his bicycle. Hackman is famous for being an actor, so most people didn’t know he was a cyclist. The same can be said about most cyclists who don’t ride a bicycle for a living. People don’t regard anyone they know in some other capacity, as a cyclist.

After Hackman’s accident was reported by the media, the inevitable discussion of the incident began in the blogsphere. Fans of the actor were relieved to learn that his injuries were minor, and the general public regarded the incident as celebrity news.

As one would expect, cycling blogs mentioned the incident, not because of the cyclist’s celebrity status, but because he was a cyclist. And, as cyclists are wont to do, the discussion centered around the particulars of the accident — he was struck from behind by a pickup truck — and the media’s coverage of the accident.

To no one’s surprise, when the story was reported, there were no plans to charge the driver for hitting and injuring a cyclist. Not even Hackman’s two Academy Awards, and three additional nominations, could persuade the authorities to penalize a driver for causing this accident. And, as usual, only sketchy details about how the accident occurred were reported.

“Hackman was riding without a helmet on an Islamorada street around 3 p.m. when the pickup hit him, throwing him onto the grassy shoulder, according to a Florida Highway Patrol report. No charges were immediately reported.”

For the most part, the cycling portion of the blogosphere focused on the numerous articles and news stories which stated that Hackman was riding without a helmet. Initially, there were reports of serious head injuries from the accident, but they were later retracted because his publicist corrected the record by describing his injuries as minor, mostly bumps and bruises.

The usual helmet debate commenced, since this is a hot-button issue for both cyclists and the public. People who claimed to be scientists and medical professionals came forward and declared that there is a complete and utter lack of credible scientific evidence to support the idea of a helmet protecting a cyclist’s head. Then the helmet devotees, many of whom swear that a helmet “saved their lives,” chimed in with dire warnings about the future awaiting all who forgo the ritual of helmet use.

Speaking as one who has been an athlete for many years, I don’t need scientific studies to tell me whether placing a shock-absorbing material between my head and a slab of concrete will lessen the blow to my skull. Common sense tells me it will. But, this shouldn’t determine the amount of risk I’m willing to take when riding my bike. All safety options should be weighed, and in the end, the use of a helmet should be a personal choice. Yet, this is rarely the outcome of helmet debates. One side clings to the “there’s no proof it protects anyone’s head, so no one should bother with a helmet” argument, and the other side remains attached to the “helmets save lives” argument.

Virtually all accidents involving the lack of helmet use revolve around that particular choice. Viewing an accident this way promotes the idea that when cyclists are struck by cars, the key issue is whether the cyclist falls into the category of a “safety conscious cyclist” or a “reckless cyclist,” as if these were the only possible choices for defining a cyclist.

Not only is this view polarizing, but it perpetuates common stereotypes and misconceptions about who cyclists really are. What struck me most about the discussions surrounding Hackman’s accident was the silence about the ways in which he defied the stereotypes eternalized by the media.

Cyclists are usually characterized as entitlement-minded, brazen, reckless,  young male scofflaws. Hackman was none of these things. To knowledgeable cyclists, this isn’t  surprising. But, what is surprising is how so many cyclists overlooked the fact that an 81-year-old man was riding a bicycle in traffic.

Am I the only one who noticed that Hackman was a senior citizen?

People half his age are afraid to ride in traffic because they perceive it as something only done by fearless youngsters. I wish I had a dime for every time I’ve heard a middle-aged person call cyclists “crazy” for riding in traffic. And, here we have Hackman, an 81-year-old celebrity, who can afford to have a chauffeur drive him to any destination, riding his bike instead. He chooses to ride. He did not let age stand in his way. He did not let fear stand in his way. He got onto his bike and rode it in the street. And what’s even more amazing: he was struck by a car and walked away with only minor injuries.

Hackman is living proof that people of any age can ride a bike, and can crash a bike after being struck by a car, without getting seriously injured or killed  —  even without a helmet. Cycling, it seems, may not be as dangerous as many people make it out to be. And, in any case, it’s certainly not an activity reserved for the young.

It would be nice if cyclists diverted some of their energy away from arguing over helmets, a subject on which there will never be agreement, to acknowledgment and celebration of other choices cyclists make, such as riding in traffic when they’re in their 80’s.

Hackman, and other courageous seniors, who are willing to defy stereotypes, should be an inspiration to us all. Cyclists should never plan to stop riding due to age alone. No one’s personal choices should ever be corralled by the beliefs, preconceived notions, or prejudices of others.

Posted in Cycling | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Cyclist Safety Isn’t Just About Riding

Posted on January 16, 2012 by IsolateCyclist

Hijacking Hot Spot Sign

 

Every activity brings with it a degree of risk. Some risks are within the control of the participant, including perceived risks whereby the participant anticipates events which may or may not happen, and actual risks which can be mitigated by actions designed to avoid them. An example of the latter would be an equipment safety check. This type of risk reduction is easier to implement because there is no psychological component.

Perceived risks, like the probability of being struck by a car while riding, are harder to avoid because they involve fear of the inevitable. Although the risk of getting hit by a car — or having any dangerous encounter with a car  —  can be greatly reduced through specific practices, fear of lack of control often wins out. Fortunately, this apprehension is often replaced with a sense of greater control over one’s fate after gaining experience riding in traffic.

Certain risks are never considered by the majority of cyclists, probably because the media does such a poor job of reporting on them. An example would be the risk of assault by someone who is neither a driver nor a pedestrian.

If road cyclists were asked who they think is most likely to assault them when they are riding their bikes, the answer would probably be drivers. Cyclists, in great numbers, have had altercations with irate drivers who have exited their vehicles, often in the middle of a busy road, for the sole purpose of fighting with a cyclist.

Such assaults are often the result of driving situations where drivers believe that a cyclist has done something wrong, like cutting them off or banging on their car to avoid getting hit. Drivers don’t understand why cyclists would bang on their cars because they don’t realize how easily they could have knocked the cyclist off of his or her bike.

Road rage is also a common cause of aggression towards cyclists, as is the occasional tiff between a cyclist and a pedestrian. But, there is another case which we rarely hear about, namely, random strangers attacking cyclists.

How often this happens is difficult to know. No agency tracks this type of incident. If the assault is reported to the police, it’s listed under the general category of assaults for that city or town, and not differentiated as assaults on cyclists.

By following U.S. cycling news, one becomes aware of a disturbing number of assaults on cyclists. Without data on such attacks, it’s difficult to establish a pattern of behavior or to educate cyclists about specific risks. Blind assumptions, based on general knowledge, may not hold true.

When dealing with little data, the unexpected often happens. For example, contrary to popular beliefs, males seem to get attacked as often as females (or at least frequently enough to consider the event something other than an anomaly). Accounts of these attacks make a few things clear: these crimes are often perpetrated by several males who ambush a cyclist. In some cases, the males are quite young, sometimes even preteen. And they rely on opportunity to choose their victim.

The perpetrators usually don’t know the victim. They select a target at random. In some cases, these attacks occurred on bike paths where the perpetrators expected to see cyclists, and may have been waiting for someone to come along.

Their goal is to rob the cyclist of money, possessions, and often their bike, as well. Given the gender of the perpetrators, it’s not difficult to imagine a preference for men’s bikes over women’s bikes, even though female riders would make easier targets. This could account for the surprisingly high number of male victims.

In some of these assaults, the cyclist was badly injured. Injuries can occur from falling when being knocked off of the bike or from being beaten by the perpetrators. The details of the incident reports are so sketchy that, in many cases, it’s difficult to determine how risky the area was and why the victim was chosen.

A bad neighborhood has a high probability of being a dangerous place to ride. In a high crime area, riding a bike would be no different than walking down the street. Common sense dictates that cyclists should steer clear of bad neighborhoods, especially when riding alone.

Expensive bicycles can also attract would-be thieves. Certainly, cyclists on expensive bikes should be aware of how others see them. Dressing nicely, such as in business attire, is probably nothing to worry about. But, wearing expensive sport or dress clothing can make a thief think a cyclist is carrying a lot of money or valuables. And, it’s certainly easier to knock someone over and take their bike than it is to break into a car to rob someone.

Even something as seemingly innocuous as a smartphone can attract the wrong sort of attention. Today, so many cyclists use smartphones, either for navigation or entertainment while riding, that it’s unrealistic to advise them not to use these devices on a bike. Still, it might be wise to take a few precautions.

Cyclists should be cognizant of the fact that they are more vulnerable than road users who are protected in the confines of their cars. Being out in the open makes it is easier for anyone to harm them, not just cars.

Street smarts should prevail. Cyclists should avoid low traffic areas whenever possible. They should not go out on their bikes, alone, looking as if they are worth a million dollars. Smartphones, and other consumer electronics, should be carried and used in the most discreet manner possible.

And, cyclists should always be alert to their surroundings. If a gang of youths is standing at an intersection, or near the side of the road, a savvy cyclist should move to the center of the lane, as far away from the group as possible. It’s not necessary to become paranoid; multiple youths might be nothing more than a group of friends, but it’s not worth taking any chances.

When riding at night, having good lights on a bike prevents a cyclist from becoming a target. Criminals prefer not to be identified, so a well lit bicycle will act as a deterrent.

Other things cyclists can do are to ride in pairs when going anywhere where the risk of assault might be higher than normal, and to keep an eye on fellow cyclists. If a cyclist appears to be in trouble, it’s best to either ask them if they’re all right, or to call the police if they’re actively involved in an altercation.

Cyclists can make a world of difference in cycling safety by looking out for one another. While assault can’t be accurately measured, or entirely prevented, for most cyclists riding in average towns, the risk is probably very low. It’s just one more thing to be aware of, and to prepare for both mentally and in practical terms, to make cycling as enjoyable and safe as possible.

Posted in Cycling | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment