How to Talk to a Non-Cycling Liberal About Bicycling

Cycling itself is neither liberal nor conservative, and experienced cyclists find they mostly agree on how stuff works on and around bikes, and what to do in various traffic situations. However, non-cycling liberals seem to love to talk about bicycling, even though they (by definition) don’t actually ride bikes themselves.

However, as a matter of fact, cycling is a favored non-cycling liberal theme. Presumably, cycling will save the planet from global climate change. Most non-cycling liberals, however, are conflicted about cycling. Their ignorance leads them to get wrapped up in “us versus them” class warfare, espousing amusing views on transportation cycling, and indulging their overpowering urges towards more government control; the old notion of "better too much than too little." As a result, caution is in order so that you can talk to liberals (or non-liberals) about bicycling truthfully, without appearing on their “fascist enemies of the state” list. This caution should apply to you as a cyclist, whether you are liberal OR conservative.

 LIBERAL CYCLING CONFLICT
The fundamental difficulty non-cycling liberals have about bicycling is that while it is the mode of transportation that needs government intervention less than any other (besides walking), it also conflicts with the principle that government is a solution rather than merely a parasitic problem. As a result of the conflict, they fail to realize their well-intentioned efforts usually fail, while some of their crazy schemes go beyond failure and discourage cycling, or even maim and kill cyclists. One should be very careful about pointing this out, even to liberal cycling advocates (who are rarely ignorant of the problems). Instead, you can take advantage of this conflict to meaningfully communicate with non-cycling liberals about cycling without selling out. Just don’t get the notion that any of them will ever purchase carbon offsets from you when you ride your bike to work. I know this from first-hand experience. Non of my non-cycling liberal coworkers wanted to purchase carbon offsets from me, even to the extent that they all go to park one spot closer to the entry door since I didn't use up a parking spot and I arrived at work earlier than they did - resulting in less co-worker CO2 exhalation walking in from the car.

FEAR AND LOATHING
Liberals start out with a victim mentality. Rather than establishing facts, non-cycling liberals presume that cyclists are helpless to operate their bikes without special protection and intervention, and evil motorists (undoubtedly, fat cat bankers and the rich) are actually trying to kill cyclists. They forget our transportation system is dependent on trucks for delivery of goods (including goods for cyclists), and that private motor vehicles provide incomparable point-to-point transportation for moderate (between ten and two hundred miles) distances. Its why liberals like to drive their hybrid cars around, even while bemoaning the traffic. The cyclist as victim mentality leads them to meddle. Because few liberals really ride bikes themselves, they make things worse, arguing for things like door zone bike lanes, side paths that are crisscrossed by driveways, forgetting to get bike racks installed at destinations, and creating routes that randomly start and stop rather than integrating into any conceivably useful transportation element. Liberal politicians have it easier, since they simply pander to their constituents and bring the pork home. The liberal pols aren’t trying to actually HURT cyclists; they just mostly don’t know any better. The only politicians I have seen that looked comfortable on a bike on the road were Ron Paul (R), Betsy Price (R) and Wendy Davis (D). I'll note that Beto O'Rourke gets a pass here, as the only politician I know who had a parent killed while riding a bike, so he ought to know.

Liberal politicians compound things by making laws for cyclists to follow “for their protection.” Helmet laws, safe passing laws, and even mandatory side path laws (like Oregon) are all liberal artifacts that neglect a fundamental principle: “If you want to discourage an activity, regulate it more and claim it’s dangerous.” That summarizes the liberal approach to cycling. I'm not sure that's better than the "let's regulate people more" faction of the GOP that want to simply ban things they don't like, but it winds up having a similar effect of reducing cycling.

COMMON GROUND
Since you won’t get far by talking to non-cycling liberals about meat and potato things like educating cyclists or enforcing valid traffic laws, how DO you influence non-cycling liberals towards a more realistic view? LOOK FOR THE COMMON GROUND. While you won’t reform a non-cycling lefty by this tactic alone, you can plant some solid principles into their blathering nonsense about saving the planet with bikes.  The five principles below will get your pinko friends nodding in agreement, and maybe some will rub off on them. Small government cycling principles that even liberals can accept include:

• Worse than Benign Neglect – As a cyclist, you will no doubt know of many situations where government intervention has actively made things worse for cyclists. I am sad to report that even redneck poseurs have used the power of the state to make things worse for cyclists, but liberals are notorious for compounding rule upon rule until the poor cyclists have nothing left to do but throw their hands up. Helmet laws are one such example. I wore a helmet on my commute. If I lived in Seattle, I could not legally ride my bike without a helmet, though I could still ride as long as I wore a broken helmet backwards and unstrapped. Whether helmets are a good idea or not is not the issue here, but whether the case is clear and compelling enough (more important than things like health benefits of cycling to cite just one example) to use the power of the nanny state to mandate people wear one. If more ammo is needed, mention to your non-cycling liberal friend that helmet laws are mostly used by police to further stick it to people of color who happen to be riding a bike. If you really want to confuse things, suggest googling "Seattle Bike Helmet Law." This last item really merits another, futher post. Another example where liberal rules are worse than benign neglect are the periodic cases where you’ll get a liberal principal that bans bikes from his/her school “for the safety of the children.” When you cite these examples, MOST liberals will be nodding in agreement with you. If you need to, you can even cite cases of redneck crazies that want to use government to make cyclists stick to the sidewalk or simply restrict the right access to common public ways that has existed throughout the life of our republic. Such troglodytes are an embarrassment to the whole principle of a small, constitutional government. But that is yet another post entirely. Such scum should simply move somewhere like Russia, where they’ll be happy with authoritarian government.
• Spending on Needed Connections – Another area where you can get your non-cycling liberal friends nodding in agreement is pointing out simple and cheap bicycle and pedestrian connections that make it easier for people to get from place to place without motors. When we were growing up, good walk/bike connections were called “shortcuts.” Due to many years of misguided zoning laws and development that valued the appearance of pastoral purity more than the reality, there are now many places where it is difficult to get around OTHER than by car. While some bike projects are expensive (natural liberal darlings), these are vastly outnumbered by cases where a simple expedient of a bit of critical thought and consideration can improve life for us all. I’m sure you can come up with examples of your own. If you feel REAL DARING, you might mention, in passing, that hundreds of these connectivity improvements can be made for the price of a second-rate recreational multi-use path, or even a door zone bike lane. Shortcuts put real TEETH into the “one mile solution.” One thing you DON’T want to mention – putting AMTRAK out of its misery could fund all the quality bike projects (long and short ones alike) we might imagine and move many more people, while still saving money. Suggesting it’s time for AMTRAK to go will get you shunned - and not just by our current President. Unlike bikes, passenger rail has become entirely a creature of big government. It's sad because I really like trains, and they can make a great complement for a bike commute.
• Government Dictated Car Parking– A side effect of many years of liberal land use development rules and restrictions is the institutionalization of grossly inefficient land use (ironic, considering cities also invariably want higher density). Cities require lots of parking spaces nowadays, and only recently have these wise governmental bodies begun to consider bicycles. When your friend drives you to the mall in his/her Prius, you will have no trouble pointing out how simply and unobtrusively merchants COULD have accommodated bicycles instead of designing to discourage same to comply with government edicts. Your friend might not ever ride a bike, but will nod knowingly, and might begin to see parking in a less ignorant fashion from behind the windshield (trust me, even liberals don’t drive Yugos any more). In reality, bike parking is less a matter of government intervention than teaching people to see what is already available and how it can enhance their customer base. If you give businesses equal credit for bike spaces as for car spaces, you’ll see a lot more bike spaces.
• Discriminatory Laws and Police Teaching – Liberals will generally be receptive to the observation that there are many laws that actively discriminate against cyclists. I could do a whole post series on a small sampling of such. What’s more, while I hate to say it, most liberals will also be receptive to the concept that police are out to get cyclists. In reality, police (and even prosecutors) rarely actively persecute cyclists. Instead, bicycles are a minor element of law enforcement duties, most police drive lots of miles in cars, and cyclists are viewed as adults playing with toys; collectively, this leads to a general ignorance of bicycling law and safe cycling practice. NONE of the officers that testified against Reed Bates had any dedicated bicycle law training and none of them knew the principles of how to safely operate a bicycle in traffic.  You’ll get your liberal friend agreeing with you based on his/her prejudice against law enforcement, but you will not have to fudge the truth to obtain the agreement.
• Smart Cyclists SHOUT OUT – Most liberals will either give you a blank look or recoil in horror at the notion that cyclists should learn to operate bikes safely and within the law (the EDUCATION principle espoused by the Bike League). It simply won’t register that this might be more important than simply adding another door-zone bike lane. Liberals will, however, happily agree that cycling education should be more readily available to people, and that the government is not doing its part in this regard. It is simple truth that schools don’t teach kids safe cycling as a part of PE classes. What’s more, most any liberal will agree that educated cyclists will advocate better. The only thing you’ll need to be very careful of in this regard is in avoiding any suggestion that cyclists are generally anything other than innocent victims, that maybe many people on bikes need the education even more than the average motorist, or that butts on bikes might not be the best idea if those NEW butts are completely clueless. Most of all, you should avoid mentioning that smarter cyclists are much pickier about getting ONLY infrastructure that doesn’t put them in added danger. THAT, my friend, would be good for ALL cyclists.

IN CONCLUSION
It isn’t really hard to talk to a non-cycling liberal about bicycling. Most liberals tend to think of bicycling as a liberal activity, so that’ll work to your advantage, as long as you don’t try to claim cycling isn’t dangerous, or that you can go places even if nobody painted special segregated facilities on the road (sometimes it’s actually easier without that paint).

Bicycle Connections

Google Maps Satellite View of Where Patrick Francis O'Rourke was Killed on his Bicycle in 2001

As my loyal reader knows, Beto O'Rourke ("e" as in prounounced in the word "President," not "e"as pronounced in the Canadian word "eh') is from Texas and has announced a run for President. This post, however, is not about Beto. This post is about Beto's dad. 

Most people do not know that Beto's father, Patrick Francis O'Rourke, was an avid cyclist - AND a politician. Pat sent a "payment due" bill to Ronald Reagan's US Government in 1986 for reimbursement to El Paso, and was Jesse Jackson's 1988 Texas Campaign Chair. In his day, in his mostly Latino area, Pat was known as the "Tip O'Neill" of El Paso politics. Like our current President (and Ronald Reagan before him), Pat was a lifelong Democrat that became a Republican - in Pat's case, finding what he considered a better way occurred sometime before 1992. But I digress.

In 2000, Pat O'Rourke made a cross-country trip on his recumbent bicycle from Oregon to New York. Pat blogged about it on the Stanton Street Blog,  which Amy O'Rourke, (Beto's wife) sold in 2017. I was unable to find Pat's original bike posts, and a search on it for "bicycle" revealed nothing. Perhaps my loyal reader can find something. I will update this post if I make a later discovery. My loyal reader might also contact Stanton Street to see if they want to 'fess up and repost.

Unfortunately, Pat's cross-country bike trip is not the end of the story. After Pat got back to El Paso, he continued to ride until one day in early July 2001. On that day; a day like many others, Patrick Francis O'Rourke was riding his bicycle near Artcraft Road and Westside Drive. The intersection is about a block from the New Mexico border on the western outskirts of El Paso. Somewhere nearby, Pat was struck from behind by a motorist and killed. I don't know the crash details (newspapers called it an "accident" - some misnomers just continue on and on), and I will update this post if I find more details later.

The crash in which Pat O'Rourke was killed illustrates something that is not well understood within the cycling advocacy community, but SHOULD be. In my blog, I constantly issue the refrain that "the danger is from ahead" and my refrain is true - in urban areas that have intersections, driveways and other hazards, and even more so in these places when the cyclist is controlling his or her lane in accordance with good practice. However, My refrain is NOT nearly so true on high-speed rural roads, such as that where Pat O'Rourke was killed. Statistically, "from behind" collisions are rare, but they have a very high fatality rate because of the sheer energy with which the cyclist is impacted when hit by a heavy, high speed motor vehicle, or even a protrusion from a motor vehicle such as a side mirror.

Hit-from-behind collisions are more common than in the past because more cyclists take long, country rides - they don't like urban traffic. Shoulder riding on a highway reduces the likelihood of a collision because it can be avoided by the simple expedient of the motorist staying within his or her traffic lane, but all the reflective material on the back of police cars and fire trucks, and all the mirrors cyclists and motorists swear by, do not obviate the fact that any highway shoulder is a dangerous place, even if one arrived there in a heavy motor vehicle. Lots of cycling advocates and traffic engineers have  gotten enamored with the notion of "protected" cycling lanes to reduce "hit from behind" fatalities, but cones, lane dots, rumble strips, any of their variants, or low curbs won't protect a cyclist on a rural highway that is in the wrong spot at the wrong time. Protecting non motorized road users on high speed country roads is something that we, as a society, have not really even BEGUN to come to grips with. Even John Forester relates fearful journeys he made on such roads when traffic got heavy.

Beto doesn't speak about his father much in public, though his father was also a politician. Beto shares the middle name of "Francis" with his father, grandfather, and great grandfather, and his childhood nickname avoided confusion within the family. After Beto's rebellious youth, in which he acted more like George W Bush than any other recent President, he came back home to El Paso and delivered the eulogy at Pat's funeral. Two links to stories involving Pat may be found here and here. Patrick's grave memorial including his obituary may be found here.

From now on, when I hear people try to denigrate Beto by calling him "Robert" or even more, by calling him "Francis," I will inwardly smile at how they are ignorantly honoring his immigrant family, or his cyclist father. From a Facebook image at left, taken from one of the links above, you can see Pat and Beto.

Patrick O'Rourke's life is memorialized here. At that site, you can also trace his ancestry back at least into Ireland. Cycling may be fun and safe - but we should remember that there are unexpected occasions when it is NOT. Be especially careful on high-speed, narrow, country roads where at least SOME motorists do not expect a cyclist or anything else to "suddenly" appear in front of them...

Losing Another Opportunity in Texas

From time to time, I make a post lamenting how our fellow people needlessly miss opportunities to make communities easier and safer for people not in cars to get around. For example, here, I showed how a brain-damaged developer in Keller put up a fence that prevented kids in the development from walking to a school (in the same development) a couple of hundred feet away and how the locals cut a hole in the school fence to allow kids to walk. A couple of years later, here, I showed how our local city spent a lot of money on a road "improvement" that turned a local street into something hostile to safely and legally operating cyclists, not to mention driveways that cut across the remaining sidwalks. In that post, one thing I noted was the "Cute Path to Nowhere." That path runs in my own development, but it doesn't go anywhere. It simply turns around.

Things seem to be getting closer to home. Right next to my development, someone got approval to put in a "gated" community. Gated communities are an excuse, IMO, to avoid integrating with the local community. People buy there to feel "safer." Well, maybe, or maybe it simply satisfies the urge to "be better." Few gated communities help anybody but themselves. The "Strong Towns" blog has noted this repeatedly. ONE example is noted here.

In this case, I fear the opportunity to connect with a newly building shopping center via foot or bike will soon be lost. The "Cute Path to Nowhere" may become the "Cute Path to Nowhere That COULD have Served All of Us." I brought this up at our HOA meeting a while back, but I didn't sense any urgency on the topic from our HOA board. They seemed more concerned that someone would use this "back route" to enter our HOA neighborhood rather than the far simpler access via city streets. Whatever...

In the top photo, you can see the end of the "Cute Path to Nowhere" at location 1. The photo below is take from location 1 towards the disappearing forest that's getting taken by the gated community.

Photo looking from Location 1 Towards the Disappearing Forest

Locations 2, 3, and 4 show views where the forest has been chopped down, as seen just beyond the end of the "Cute Path to Nowhere"

Photo 2, Showing the End of the New Cul de Sac. Oddly, There's no Fence Here

Photo 3, Looking Northeast Where a Pedestrian Bridge Would be WONDERFUL, but There Won't be One.
Colleyville Parks Said "No"

Photo 4 - Looking East Along the New Subdivision "Back Wall" and the Start of the Fence

Finally, Photos 5 through 7 show just how easy it would to add a crushed gravel path to connect to a MUP (Photo 8) the city REQUIRED the developer to put in.

Photo 5. Looking East Along the New Subdivision Fence

Photo 6. Interestingly, the City Required no Erosion Control.
Note how the Developer Protected the Side Toward the "Back Wall"
While doing Nothing on the other Side of the Stream.
I Suspect Someone Will Regret that Choice

Photo 7. The Eastern End of the "Back Wall" Looking Toward Heritage Avenue

Photo 8 - Looking North Along the MUP that the "Path to Nowhere" Fails to Connect.
New Shopping Mall is Ahead and to the Right. A Short Walk.

Bird's Eye View of the Disappearing Forest

For reference, a "bird's eye view" of the area from Google Maps is shown above.

Mixed Message?

Or "Scare Them into Riding Their Bike!"

Sometimes, I wonder what people that like riding their bikes are thinking. Witness a headline I saw today; above. Associating maiming with bicycle commuting seems like a poor sales tactic to me. I'm sure all my readers have seen many similar headlines posted by people that think they are advocating for cycling.

I prefer the message that I've often cited here: "Cycling is Fun and Safe!" What's more, it's even safer if you are not riding like a clueless person. I guess motoring is pretty much the same way, We should keep in mind that 600 or 700 people get killed each year on bikes. Mostly they were doing something pretty dumb when it happened (wrong way, crossing intersections without looking and many more bad practices), even if the motorist finally got blamed. That compares to 30000 motorists that get killed each year in/on motor vehicles. I guess most of them were also doing something pretty dumb when it happened, so perhaps there IS balance in the Universe.

Beyond Advocacy

I've often said on this blog that I am "NOT AN ADVOCATE." That's because many, if not most, advocates strike me as people with their hands held out for money that may or may not make things any better at all for cyclists. LAB is merely one of many in this regard.

Still, there are lots of things that each or any of us can do to make things better for cyclists in big or small ways. Good words about new bike racks is one thing I noted here. The bike racks in question were not optimal, but they WORK and are a lot better than anything any of their competitors provide. Similarly, not too long ago I got told that McDonalds did not allow cyclists to go through their drive-through line. The first time I went through, I had no problems. The second time, I was told I could NOT be served "for your safety". BS - if it is dangerous to have a drive through, the business in question should not have one. I have not noticed stories about carnage in McDonalds drive through lines, though I HAVE seen stories about SUVs driving up on sidewalks. In the receipt I got (after going inside), I took the opportunity to indicate that I did not appreciate them groundlessly shutting out cyclists. I got a personal phone call from the franchise owner and, probably because I requested one, a follow-up email.

In many cycling forums, you hear a lot of "advocates" whining that McDonalds is opposed to cyclists. I have NEVER seen any of these whiners get an "official" response. You can see what I got below. IMO, this is beyond advocacy, and it didn't cost the taxpayer a single penny.

Respectfully Meaningless

Sharrow on NE 75th Street in Seattle - one of the TOP Cycling Cities in the Entire USA!
I Watched - Every Person on a Bike I saw Rode About Where the Back Wheel Ends.
As "Linda A" Said - "Nobody Cares Where the Arrows Point"

This is a topic where I fear to tread. However, the "Institute for Sharrow Research" can remain silent no more. You see, sharrows are one of the subjects on which bicycle advocates MOST love to argue with each other. Which makes it dangerous for me to tread, for fear of being accused of ridiculing same. And hence the title of this post. I really DO mean that first word. I really like the post that Waco made over on Biking in Dallas - one of the best I've seen on that topic. He didn't get all officious on us. As Dragnet once said - "Just the facts, ma'am."

The problem with sharrows is that they're put in place to enable bicycle planners to claim they're connecting bike routes and making stuff better for commuters. Legally, they mean absolutely - NOTHING. Well, another problem with sharrows is that bicycle ADVOCATES seem to LOVE to argue about how far out the sharrow should be painted. Is this one far enough? Well, "AASHTO says" and so on. Perhaps that is the use for sharrows - it keeps ADVOCATES from further belaboring us with stuff that helps nobody.

Personally, I  find sharrows amusing. They come a close second to the "Share the Lane versus BMUFL" debate for useless futility. In either case, regardless of what the advocates decide when they argue with each other, most people on bikes ride close enough to the curb to scare such as me.

For myself, I'd like to see police simply understand the law as its already written - including the exceptions to the discriminatory "Far to the Right" (FTR) language. That'd be a MAJOR advance. So far, I have seen no evidence that the Bedford Police operate otherwise and I salute them. YOU GUYS ROCK! I hope that continues, because Texas law supports my right to ignore sharrows, "share the lane," OR "BMUFL" nonsense. My motorists ignore all that stuff too, so we're in solidarity - well except for a few rare idiots who most readers of this blog have encountered - or at least their cousins in spirit.

Bike Month Wrapup

Bike to Work Shot

I had fun this bike month. Like most any other month of commuting by bike. However, I did,set a minor milestone that advocates might point out as a measure of how bike month is working for all of us.

Checking my log records, I noticed that I commuted more times this May than ever before. I rode to work 22 times in May, eclipsing the previous high of 21 times in May 2011. Bike commuting is UP! By my calculation, that'd be nearly a 5% increase year-over-year.

Of course, last year, May 1 was on a Sunday, and I try to avoid riding to work on weekends whenever possible. As I've noted in the past, figures don't lie, but liars DO figure.

Hope y'all had a good bike month yourselves!

This Photo is IRRELEVANT TO THIS POST - Well, Other Than It's Been a Long Time Since Buffalo Appeared in this Blog...

Twenty to One and "The Lost Post"

Posts on other blogs can cause us to reconsider things. Andy Cline, at Carbon Trace, made a post about clueless cycling behavior. It wasn’t the post so much as the combination of the post and observations that cyclists disobey traffic controls even when they know better, that caused me to ponder. You see, elements of this appeared in comments guessing content of what became “the Lost Post.” I found the comments amusing at the time, but they tie to what JRA called “Total Cycling Support.” Even the “twenty to one” in the “Lost Post” gives clues.

There is truth to newspaper comments claiming that “roads are for cars.” If you doubt it, drop me an email and I'll do a "Gruesome Threats" post. But I'd rather not. People on bikes FEEL it and it bothers them. They FEEL it even if they don’t get honked at, or harassed by a motorist police officer while operating safely and legally. The roads really ARE optimized to accommodate a uniquely dangerous major use – four-wheeled motor vehicle operation. Because these motorists mostly kill and delay each other, and have lots of votes, other users are rarely considered seriously, and are almost never considered as part of “real traffic.” In effect, others are marginalized by design. The “Lost Post” showed that to be true – even though it EXCLUDED any safety elements whatsoever. People on bikes or walking are at a disadvantage. If you doubt it, go push just about any crosswalk signal button. While you wait, wonder why the signal is at the corner instead of midblock. Now imagine that motorists are making free right turns, and there are mud puddles, and it’s windy. Feeling vaguely disadvantaged, many bike riders and pedestrians try to compensate in some way. It isn’t just motorists that don’t want to wait. I’m sure you can think of many examples. If not, speak up and I'll do a "blood and gore" due to people trying to live around cars post. But I'd rather not.

I have a major advantage over most cyclists when it comes to legally avoiding delay due to motor-centric roads. I KNOW how to trigger all the traffic signals along my commute route. I KNOW where to turn to avoid most of the stop signs (especially those at the BOTTOM of hills) that exist only to stop motoring excesses. I KNOW how to safely interact with motor traffic. And I get delayed twenty to one. Think what a person without that knowledge does – so they don’t get delayed even more. Good road design balances the needs and, indeed, the DELAY that various types of users experience. Good road design is rare in the US today. “Shared Space” is considered radical. While the current state of “Complete Streets” might be poor, it is an attempt to restore balance. We need to do better.

I don’t suggest that people should start ignoring traffic signals, shooting through crosswalks without looking, riding the wrong way, or all the other idiotic things people on bikes do (I am NOT a victim!), but I do suggest good road design should take the characteristics of various road users into account and balance things better. It isn’t entirely “bad” or “ignorant” people that are the problem. Motorized traffic IS different than non-motorized traffic and there is no excuse to let the designers hide behind a “same rules” mantra. Twenty to one says non-motorized users are being treated worse.

So, I recovered “The Lost Post” and repeat it below. Consider it in the context of whether horrid behavior of many pedestrians and bike riders might be worsened by a road AND educational system that marginalizes them. Sometimes, looked at a second time, data suggests a different story than we intended. Twenty to one was pretty simple to discover in my case, but in many cases, things are far worse than twenty to one – and the total time gets bigger the further you go.
-----------------------------------------------------

"The Lost Post" March 2012

I apologize to my loyal reader, who wondered what I might be getting at when I posed the question:
"Has anyone out there really added up the time cost of stopping at a stop sign compared to nonchalantly riding through same?"

Perhaps noting that I had an ulterior motive got comments off on the wrong track. Perhaps I have been too strident in the past. For, you see, sometimes a question is EXACTLY what it seems. You see, this post is not hypothetical, as Pondero couched his theory. Then he and others talked about momentum lost and rhythm. Khal even touched on a hot button of mine when he used that "w" word. Well, all that goes into the hopper for a future post, but today, simply, this post is about who gets delayed - cyclists by motorists or motorists by cyclists.
What? You might ask, motorists are forever complaining about cyclists holding them up. Well, let's examine the facts.
FACT 1: Today, as usual, I didn't see any other cyclists or people on bikes on my commute. That means that any motorist that might have been delayed was only delayed by me. That keeps the motorist delay math simple. In total, we're talking about a second or less. If you live somewhere else - like Boston or Portland or Seattle, let's be generous and multiply the motorist delay by a factor of ten and count it as ten seconds.  (MAY update - COUNTING MOTORISTS waiting at stop signs for me, you might add as much as four seconds to my previous estimate - still a lot less than I bumped things up to. Ten seconds still seems safe.)
FACT 2: In saner moments, even most of the "more militant than average" motorists will concede that motorists are really more likely to get held up by other motorists than even the most offensive spandex mafioso. This is particularly true if you ask the motorist right after he/she comes off a freeway after a two HOUR stoppage.
CYCLISTS DELAYED
In reality, besides the question I asked, cyclists are delayed (even if they do NOT obey all traffic directions) by many motor-centric road features. I do not pretend to come up with a complete list here, but all of the following apply to the commutes or other cycling of a LOT of cyclists and all are caused by motoring:

Short and efficient routes where cycling is banned (freeways and other roads) or effectively banned because of heavy and fast traffic. Many of these roads are paid for with my property taxes and not any sort of user fee.

Stop signs and stop lights that are only needed to keep motorists from crashing into each other or into innocent bystanders, or, increasingly, in a mostly futile attempt to keep speeds down. While compliance by cyclists might be better, the delay is still real.

Alternate routes taken by cyclists in order to avoid harassment or otherwise lower their stress levels. Paths are a common refuge, despite being somewhat riskier for falls than even MEAN streets.Regardless, these longer routes represent delay due to motoring.

Seriously, Little Ol' Me Delays ALL These Guys or Do THEY and Their Infrastructure Delay Me?

COUNTING MY DELAY DUE TO MOTORING
This morning, I tried my best to note all these delays. Now, keep in mind that after I bump up the delay I create by cloning myself, it totals ten seconds. First, my quickest route would have used the 121 Airport Freeway for a mile. Between the construction to widen it and the lurid news stories about pedestrians run over by multiple motorists (some being on-duty police in high vis vests), I took a delay of about 30 seconds necessary due to the motorists. Next, I encountered ten stop signs along my route. In reality, NONE of them would have been there except to keep motorist animal urges under control. Counting five seconds of delay at each would put me behind by 50 seconds more. That puts me up to 80 seconds. Third, I made a few route detours that further lower stress. The extra 0.2 miles adds an extra 60 seconds since I average about a mile every five minutes (what can I say, I'm no spring chicken any more). Now we are at 140 seconds. Stop signs are a big time waster. I hit four of the eight stop lights red along my route. I confess I didn't time them all, but the ones I did time led me to conclude a 20 second delay at each red was about right for a total of 80 seconds more. However, in fairness, if there were no motorists, I'd probably want stop signs so we have to subtract 20 seconds off - and add 20 seconds on for the green lights; leaving us at 80 seconds for a total delay of 220 seconds in order to keep my motorists safe. Hmm, I didn't mention it, but I also had another 20 seconds of direct delay since the motorists are slow off the line at left turn signals when in a line.

BOTTOM LINE

I think it goes back to Pondero's note in a previous post - there are a lot of motorists and so that makes a lot of comments about road hog cyclists. Votes do count. The majority do, however, forget that much of what is put on those roads delays other users who would not need those devices at all if motor vehicles were not so dangerous. Four of those ten stop signs I encountered were before the first traffic light and two were within a block of my house.

I don't begrudge all these delays that exist simply so motorists can "rule the roads;" it is part of the cooperative network that forms our road system. HOWEVER, the next time I hear some whiny, er, "perturbed" motorist complain about BIKES holding him/her up, I'll think back on this post, and smile mysteriously about a "delay ratio"over over 20 to 1 AFTER I bump up the "1."

ORIGINAL COMMENTS ON "THE LOST POST"

cafiend said... I used to ride a route three miles longer, over a much higher summit, to avoid the highway on my ride home from work. The extra miles took longer than the same distance on terrain and pavement comparable to the highway. It was wonderfully peaceful but got me home too late for domestic harmony.
My two routes out of town even on the direct route are a big detour out a side road to avoid a section known for impatient motorists or a scoot out the rail trail with all its shortcomings, to reach the highway outside of town. All these delays have more to do with avoiding motorist friction than with a strong desire for more mileage or a particular enjoyment of the path.
On the UF campus in the mid 1970s, cars were forbidden. Masses of cyclists filled the streets between classes. Everyone just flowed. The only time I had a problem was when I created it by being a speedy jerk.

March 19, 2012 8:54 PM RANTWICK said... Great perspective. I think your plan to smile mysteriously rather than go on a rant along these lines is also a wise choice.

March 20, 2012 10:02 AM Steve A said... If traffic was war instead of cooperation, the vehicle of choice would be the one I posted about at: (photo of tank along my commute route omitted)

TCS ATP and More

John Romeo recently made a post about what he called "Total Cycling Support" versus "As Traffic Permits." IMO, it was a thought-provoking and important post. Go read it if you haven't already. Clearly, based on THIS post, it provoked some thought at this locale. After consideration, I'll toss out the notion that, in reality, it isn't really one versus another. For TCS, simply look here. We might debate the relative importance of various elements under various circumstances. But I think we really pretty much agree. JRA noted the Netherlands as an example. I think the Dutch would mostly agree with the LAB link. Indeed, I just saw an interesting post about the role of education in Dutch cycling, here. TCS consists of many elements.

As for ATP, my own position was, perhaps, cited here or here. However, when you are out on your bike, on a road that you might prefer not to be on, what ARE you going to do? On such a day, the "IF" choice may be irrelevant as you look at that busy highway you HAVE to cross in order to get home. It matters little whether you prefer something else. Starkly, you either ride as safely and well as you can, or you find some way to slink home. Perhaps, if you are not unusually determined, you never ride again and, instead, commiserate with your fellow motorists about how dangerous things are. Yeah, I wouldn't mind if things were better for cyclists. But they're not. At least not today. Not in the good ol' USA. While I think cycling is fun and safe, I also don't think my knowledge is likely to become anything more than a "fringe" opinion. Certainly not in the near future.

And THAT is the fundamental difference between our blogs. JRA, in his blog, makes excursions into the world that never was and says; "why not." I, in my blog, more often stick to the world that is, and ask; "how." IMO, we need both. Perhaps the "how is less inspired than the exposition of how things SHOULD be and MIGHT become. Perhaps the focus on "how" is the curse of the engineer. On the other hand, where would the crew of Apollo 13 be without the engineers who solved the problem of surviving an explosion in deep space?

In the world, we need both dreams AND pragmatism.

For the first, I'll refer you to a speech, made on my birthday, by John Kennedy at Rice University. He epitomized the dream. Without the dream, we would never have made the attempt.

John Kennedy Expresses a Dream

For the second, I'll refer you to a desperate attempt to save the lives of men sent to the moon in fulfillment of that dream. Without that engineering, those brave men would have died.

Engineers Brought the Astronauts Back from the Brink of Death

In reality, the human race needs both elements. TCS is a vision of what we might wish and work for. ATP gives us a way to get back home - today. The choice, in my opinion, is not whether to favor one or the other. The choice is to use the other while achieving the dream.

Transportation Bill

Cornyn's Means to Add Thoughts...

Earlier, I sent the following to Texas Senator John Cornyn:

Apparently at the instigation of the National Parks Service, the Senate version of the Transportation Bill includes a mandatory sidepath provision for bicyclists. There is a similar provision in the House version. That is, if there is a paved bicycle path anywhere near a road, bicyclists are prohibited from using the road. What is worse, the provision doesn’t even say that the path has to be usable, or serve the same destinations, and regardless of any tangible safety issues. I call this the “you can’t get there from here” law.

Mandatory sidepath laws presently are on the books in only 7 states. Texas is not one of the 7.

More important, this represents yet another Federal overreach into our personal liberties, in this case the right to travel, without any provision for individual circumstances, provision for hearings or appeal, or even a pretense of respect for the laws of states in which the regulation would be imposed. In short, it sets bad precedent and is bad law that extends the Federal grasp just a little further - with no real justification.

A Federal mandatory sidepath law would be a step backward - beyond that of any state in the Union - and an offense to the long-held liberty of free movement. I ask you to consider standing on the principle that added Federal rules should be avoided absent clearly compelling circumstances which nobody has really asserted here. Even in a transportation bill. Texas may be affected less than states with larger Federal holdings, but we are all affected by a Federal assault on the rights of any citizen.

For any that follow such things, a heritage from John Allen is clear, but my tone is entirely different. I hope that Cornyn is more like Magnuson than "Scoop" Jackson. "Scoop" was more popular with his constituents than "Maggie," but my own experience showed "Maggie" to be the one I'd rather support - even after 40 years. I honor his memory. For those that do not know either, Magnuson and Jackson were both Democrat Senators from the State of Washington in the 70's and 80's. At one point, Jackson ran for President.

Holding My Breath

In "Gone With the Wind," a climax was the turning point of the Civil War; the Battle of Gettysburg. In it, many of Scarlett's childhood friends were killed in Cobb's Legion.

“Crowds formed at the depot, hoping for news from incoming trains, at the telegraph office, in front of the harried headquarters, before the locked doors of the newspapers…They all waited to hear the news that death had come to their homes. They expected death. They did not expect defeat.”

And, so, in the cycling world it is once again. A great event is in the early stages of unfolding. Links are here and here.

Let us pray it is not a defeat. I'd really LIKE to see another cyclist riding safely and legally on my way to work someday. Just one. I hope that isn't too ambitious.

Torn Between Two Lovers

Buddy, a Couple of Years Back....

Buddy's undergoing surgery. After more than 8000 miles, combined with a ten speed rear gear set, that bike's got issues. Per the call yesterday: "YOU NEED TO CHANGE THE CHAIN EVERY THOUSAND MILES!" Well, I've changed it once, about 4 thousand miles ago. So fix whatever is worn!

Anyway, after 8000 miles, I guess I'm not surprised I need more than simply a new chain. This is going to cost some coin. My estimate - a Jaguar unit or so.

In the meantime, I'm riding my wife's bike. It is a bike with uncounted mileage. When I asked her when that bottom bracket was last rebuilt, the response was "you need to rebuild that?" That bike, while more than 40 years old, still keeps on running. So, what is YOUR definition of a "beater bike?"

40 Years and Counting. Pay NO ATTENTION to that thing that LOOKS Like a Kickstand!

Get Mad

Right now, I'm a little upset. Khalil at Los Alamos bikes has made a good summary post as to what is being foisted upon cyclists with, so far, apparently bipartisan support.

Better yet, go sign here.

Pay attention. Paths are one thing. Blatant discriminatory prohibitions without even any real pretense of safety or latitude for varying situations are another.

At least LAB has started to speak up. However many of the groups that make their money off of cycling infrastructure still do no more than complain they aren't getting their fair shar of yours and my money with not a peep about this provision. I suggest telling THESE groups you do not want them to be accessories to a crime in progress. Other actions? I don't know, I have to think this over. In the meantime, I'm signer 1704.

I may not agree with LAB on everything, but they spoke up early this time. I, for one, intend to watch and see who else joins in and who remains silent. I bike, and I DO vote, and I pay attention to what those that claim a mantle of advocacy do. At least I eschew that label myself.

FULL DISCLOSURE
I am a member of LAB, and am recognized by that group as LCI 3054. I do not now, nor have I ever, belonged to any other cycling or cycling advocacy organization, unless you count informal Internet groups. No statement above should be construed as representing anything other than my personal and private opinion.

Into the Breach AGAIN With Bike School

My First Bike Ed Course That Actually Happened. Richard and Dorothy, In Front of the Ginger House

My loyal reader may have noticed that I advocate that a cyclist wishing to ride from "Point to Point" should educate him or herself about the safest way to do so. Regardless of whether one is a fan of particular cycling facilities,or an opponent of same, it only makes sense to know how best to traverse the territory you have to cross. Or so I would suggest. My loyal reader may also have observed that I slip handy little snippets about how to ride safely in various situations and how to deal with the problems that cyclists face. Finally, I DO believe that bike school has things to offer pretty much any cyclist, regardless of age or experience, in the search for being able to confidently ride just a smidge safer than before, watching what other experienced cyclists suggest, I've made posts about bike school I've attended in the past, specifically here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I probably missed a few links, but you also probably get the general trend: it's about 5% of my posts. As I stated, a significant part of the reason was outlined here. Quite simply, the Bike League was, and remains, the only national organization that takes bike education seriously. THAT should not be lightly discarded.

Even Before My First Bike Ed Link, I Tried to Take a Course. The Instructor Didn't Show.
Thank GOD for Forester's Book. It Saved Me.

Changing of the Wind
However, just as our near-record breaking Texas summer has yielded, at least for the moment, to a wind shift, bike education in the US is undergoing change. The long-time Bike League education director, Preston Tyree, has elected to take advantage of a well-deserved retirement while he's still fit enough to enjoy it. The new director, Alissa Simcox, has good education credentials, but we have yet to see how she will perform as the new Education Director. Gail Spann, the League Director with Education as part and parcel of her charter,  remains a constant throughout this. Personally, I think Gail's got good mojo, but there's a lot in front of us. What's more, Gail is a Texan and that counts for something.. But there may be another choice arising, and quite simply, I want to see what it really offers beyond "another choice." You see, next weekend, there will be a Cycling Savvy course offered in the DFW Metroplex, and I will be there. I think Chandra will be there as well. At least one of the teachers, called "CSIs," is Waco Moore. Waco took his Bike League LCI Seminar with Chandra and myself, so at one level this will be a reunion of sorts. What's more, Waco is only one of two in my LCI Seminar to become a "CSI." I've seen Waco ride and he's solid. He also sat beside PM Summer and myself at the Reckless Driving trial of Chipseal just about a year ago. On the other hand, this is a course offered under the umbrella of the Florida Bicycle Association. In Texas? In the words of Keri Caffrey; "WTF?"

Which Witch?

If There is to be a War, Let it Begin Here

So, why am I taking YET ANOTHER Bike Ed course? It costs $75 and the links above suggest this might simply be more "good money after bad." Assuming I like things, I'll have to dump even more money to become a "CSI." This is entirely on top of what it cost to become a League Cycling Instructor. Well, put simply, I'm curious, and I'm fortunate enough that the bucks are not an overwhelming consideration. The Cycling Savvy course pitches itself as an "all new" approach to cycling education. It uses the same riding principles I follow on a daily basis and, admittedly, uses the same operation principles as in Traffic 101 of the Bike League, but it strips away the "fluff" and the "hot button terms" in favor of focusing on behavior-changing instruction. For example, it eliminates the mechanical repair aspects of Traffic 101, noting that these can be easily obtained from LBS courses. It also eliminates the "test" that is part of Traffic 101, noting this offers no value to the student (duh!). As a result, there is more time to focus on "how to ride confidently and safely." Quite frankly, I can't argue with the premise of focusing on what the students really NEED and can't get elsewhere.. A course, modified and reduced from what John Forester originally came up with, might well be an improvement. After all, it's been over 30 years since Effective Cycling.

But, there is also a darker side. Or a brighter side. I'm not really sure which it is. Certainly there is change afoot. You see, Cycling Savvy is also a course that might offer "another choice." While the course was created by Bike League LCIs, and some of the instructors REMAIN LCIs, there is a definite "anti-Bike League" element to the whole thing. Both of the principals have publicly withdrawn from the Bike League. Others that support or publicize the course have either withdrawn from the Bike League or align themselves with "dissidents." Go to "LABreform" for details. I found it peculiar that Preston asked me if I was a member of LABreform; an odd question for a new LAB member. Some of the remaining members were those that tried to run for LAB directorships, but were rebuffed. Myself, I've heard their stories, but the Bike League has never indicated why it acted the way it did.

Preston Tyree: Recently Retired Bike League Education Director

Principles
Still, as Preston was clear to tell us in our LCI course last January, the principles of operating a bicycle safely in traffic are what fundamentally matter. He told us that the League insurance would cover courses such as Cycling Savvy, since they do not conflict with safe operation principles. Two of my fellow LCI seminar students are now CSIs. Stay tuned, and I would appreciate advice about what I ought to keep my eyes open to see.





Past Comparisons Back in the day, the UK Jaguar Club split into two factions. The first was the old-line "Jaguar Driver's Club." The second was the "Jaguar Enthusiast Club." I'm not sure the Jaguar owners are really better off than if they'd have found a way to work together. Jaguar Cars supports both, since both support Jaguar. OTOH, I imagine Jaguar would prefer a simpler situation. In the USA, a decade later,  the JCNA managed to avoid a split, precipitated by conflict over directors that were not elected. My take? We're better united than divided. OTOH, we in the US have spit asunder on principles before. What way for cycling? We shall see. If y'all are so inclined, let me know what I should keep my eyes open for. Let Chandra do the same. Personally, I pray that cycling people will find a way to come together. If not, I pray that God will grant me, and others,  the wisdom to choose wisely.

One of My Cycling Shirts - FROM FLORIDA. Robert (of Carbon Trace)Would be PROUD!

I Pray Cyclists Will Avoid Division the Way That UK Jaguar Owners Have Seen

Stay Tuned for Further Developments:
Steve A,
LCI # 3054

What a Difference a Word Makes

I have admired the British cycling organizations for quite some time. Much more than their US counterpart, they seem to have focused on cyclist rights and safety without some of the lefty "PC" stuff and without the irritating road instructiin approach adopted by their US counterparts. The contrast between "Cyclecraft" and "Effective Cycling" is difficult to miss. Personally, I believe honey catches more flies than vinegar.

Regardless, I was shocked today to read in a BBC headline that British cyclists needed to become more "aggressive." The link is here. It was made worse when I found the statement in a quote from the Welsh cycling president. Pit Bull dogs have an aggressive reputation. Cyclists that flip motorists off while running a red light are aggressive. Hitler was aggressive. Cyclists that cut close to little old lady pedestrians are aggressive. Some cancers are aggressive.

Had the chosen word been "assertive," I'd have been nodding and saying to myself that maybe there ARE some sensible cycling advocates left in the world. I'd even have let pass his comment about cyclists needing to ride "in the middle of the road" rather than "in the middle of their lane."

As it was, he leveled the field with some of his US counterparts and that is not a good thing. One good item: they interviewed a motoring association and they fully agreed that cyclists would be better off not to ride timidly. Making me proud, they even used the word "ASSERTIVE" instead of creating an image of a criminal cycling underground. Now those are MY motorists!

Throwing Up Will Have to Wait

Rantwick's comment has gotten me thinking. My dear reader who's has followed my blog for a while knows that me thinking while riding a bike is always dangerous. For example, I quickly realized that quick stops and head checks can both reduce the mess. But, something unusual happened on my commute home tonight. I rode in a door zone. And I'd do it again. However, you can probably count on me sneaking a little Bike Ed into the piece.

Cycle Credit Where Due

While I often blather on about the virtues of knowing HOW to ride one's bike safely in traffic, it is not often that I've had a lot of things to say about the League of American Bicyclists, except in connection with its Bike Ed efforts. These often seem out of place with the public face of the organization. As bike advocacy groups go, the Bike League is really no worse than most, though its fascination with lefty politics, sometimes at the expense of real cycling progress, leaves me a bit cold. But that's more than enough politics for one post.

To be fair, credit should be given when it is due. This week, I got an email from the Bike League which talked about a new partnership with the Auto Club, which stated, in part:
"Smart cyclists deserve smart motorists, and AAA is helping the League educate cyclists and motorists on sharing the road. "We have a shared responsibility to share the road - and the reality is that most cyclists are also motorists at some point," said Andy Clarke, League president. "Education--on both sides--is key for all road users, of all ages," said AAA's Traffic Safety Specialist Rhonda Markos. The campaign will highlight the League's Rules of the Road, which are also now on SharetheRoad.AAA.com."

While the two sites have different content, I was impressed with the overall quality of the cycling information on the AAA site. This was no doubt at least partly influenced by the bike league. Kudos!

Particularly noteworthy was this statement on the AAA site: "When a road is too narrow for cars and bikes to ride safely side by side, bicycles should take the travel lane, which means riding in or near the center of the lane."

Pretty simple statement, and if cyclists would simply DO that, there'd be a lot less close calls!

I don't agree with all the cycling things on the AAA site, but it is pretty good. Both AAA and the Bike League deserve a big "well said."

Blogger Has a Spam Filter

I never knew that Blogger has a spam filter. Wordsmith has one that aggressively filters out the most innocuous comments. Today, I discovered that Blogger's filter intercepted a very appropriate comment. It is contained within this post.

In response to my November 30th post about High Gas Prices - Better as a Barista, in which I claim that if one doesn't like cycling, it is far more attractive simply to take on extra, Moopheus commented on December 1st, and the Blogger Spam Filter snagged it:

That's the correct theoretical argument, though as practical matter for most people, life doesn't really work that way. Are you salaried or paid hourly? If you decided to work that extra hour of the day instead of riding, would you get paid for it? For a lot of people, the answer is no, at least not directly. They may have no control over their hours, and may only get comp time for overtime. If that. Picking up that one extra hour of work per day is a nontrivial exercise for most. Workers who do get paid hourly and have variable hours (like tradesmen) are probably already working, or trying to work, as many paid hours as they can. For instance, I could get myself some extra freelance work, but each hour of paid work requires some nonpaid effort to get it. (Also, my own commute is short, in a dense area--meaning it takes no longer to ride than to drive).

This is not to say that your argument is completely invalid--it is surely true for some--just to point out that arguments from economic theory usually gloss over the complexities of actual life.


To which, I would have noted:

Well, since there is actually a Starbucks AND a Walmart directly on the way home from work, it'd be a matter of getting a second job (avoiding added travel mileage and time) which is certainly a practical option. However, since I enjoy riding my bike, I'd rather just ride to work than spend time working to ride it less. Bicycle commuting reduces my time cost of riding my bike. Which really says that the complexities of actual life lead people to all sorts of different choices. So Moopheus and I more or less agree. Of course, Moopheus didn't comment on my later post in which I examined the cost of a short commute such as he/she makes. THAT would also be an interesting comment to read.

In closing, can anyone suggest WHY ON EARTH would Blogger consider such a thoughtful comment as spam? I guess it's just one of those mysteries of life. Now I guess I need to look occasionally to see if Blogger thinks it has caught some scofflaw.