Ski Diversion

I do a lot of bicycle posts on this blog. If you'll read the particulars, however, snow skiing is one of the passions. Snowboarding too, but that is a later affliction. Someday, God willing, I'll learn to tele and maybe even flatlander skiing.

My all-time ski favorite is maybe not who you'd expect. It's not Jean Claude Killy as my wife's favorite is. BTW, my wife skiied down through the trees at Yodelin. It's not Spider Sabich or Tommy Moe. It's not one of the Mahre brothers.

My all time fave is Picabo. She was one of the instructors in a ski video when I was first starting to learn. Maybe I'm like one of those ducklings that imprints on the first experience. Picabo, and Mike McKinnon.

Mike is doubly important to me. Not only was he my first ski instructor. He was also my first snowboard instructor, purely by coincidence, though I like that coincidence. I think I progressed a lot quicker on the snowboard instruction. When I took skiing, I think the instructors had a pool about whether I'd ever show up for the second week. Most of them lost. The myth connection? There is no truth to the rumor that Picabo became a nurse who later was banned from the ICU/CCU unit because she answered the phone, saying, "Picabo, ICU!" Unfortunately, we're headed into summer. No endless winter this year...

Myth 7 - Infrastructure Helps

One More Attempt to Build Infrastructure to Make Things "Perfect"
More BILLIONS Down a Drain...

For a change of pace, this myth moment is prompted by a pervasive motoring and traffic engineering myth; namely that we need to build more freeways and roads for the cars and that doing so will somehow help traffic.

Well, if that were really the case, carmageddon in Los Angeles would really have happened. In truth, quite sensibly, people decide where to live and how to get to work and how to shop based on the total traffic picture. Add freeway lanes and they get full. Stop the building madness and people make different choices. Actually, they tend to walk and ride bikes more. I know of no evidence that anyone suffers as a result. Instead, we have the unintended results of big government subsidies of one group - in this case, motorists.

The Bike League sends out a lot of stuff wanting more spending on bike infrastructure. Have they considered that part of the answer is to stop trying to spend our way to a perfect automotive heaven on earth? Might cyclists really be better off if we instead agitated against spending ever more of our property taxes on roads that make it harder to get around other than in a 6000 lb SUV rather than trying to suck off "our fair share" from the motoring majority?

Perhaps the paradigm needs to shift to one in which special justification is required in order to build more infrastructure for big, four-wheeled motor vehicles rather than infrastructure that will accommodate anybody. Just an observation from a cyclist inconvenienced by TWO simultaneous freeway widening projects that both were approved after the worldwide peak oil date. Someday, there will be more available space than cyclists could POSSIBLY use...

Earphones are Dangerous

Part 6 of a continuing "Myth" Series

Well, tomorrow I go to bike school - once again, for what seems like the millionth time. I hope that Ed W's theory that my head will explode is incorrect. However, many reading this blog will have a different theory about why my head exploded if it happens. You see, I wear earphones while cycling. Gail will be in the class, so if she reads this, she'll be flagged in advance if she wants to tell me how STUPID that is. Khal, on the other hand, might prefer to advise me how I'm now qualified for the "Darwin Award." The many ways that people play back this myth are too numerous to mention.

Still, it IS a myth. People continue to believe this, even though I've ridden nearly 10,000 miles, most of it with earphones on, over the last few years without any negative effects that could conceivably be attributed to the earphones. Well, except for the Fort Worth Policeman that falsely claimed that wearing earphones while riding in Fort Worth was illegal. I would consider THAT a negative effect. Well, and one other situation where a radio commentator so closely echoed what I constantly tell my children that I nearly rode right off an empty road. Still, those pale into insignificance against the myriad riding problems that I've encountered where hearing plays absolutely no conceivable role. Indeed, when commuting, where I invariably am riding without companions, I will typically ride with earphones  even when I'm not listening to the radio. You see, it isn't earphones that are dangerous at all, it is being distracted from the task at hand. That distraction can come from all sorts or aural sources. What's more, these extraneous external noises can be a much worse distraction than the morning traffic and weather reports. And that radio really doesn't drown out the meaningful traffic noise unless it is turned up entirely too loud anyway. Sunglasses, which I typically wear on the way home, act as a visual equivalent. They cut the glare down.

Don't take it from me, read THIS essay by John Allen about earphones and cycling. He's absolutely on the mark, or at least his observations track completely with my own experiences, so I'll not repeat them in this post. DO GO READ THIS, IF YOU THINK THAT EARPHONES ARE A SHORTCUT TO HELL. If you want to go further, read motorcycling literature on the subject. It is ubiquitous. Such equipment is legal in all 50 states as long as you can't hear any music or radio through either ear. You can buy such equipment commercially. Hmm, come to think of it, why does nobody claim that car radios are dangerous when we have ALL seen people unable to focus on the road as their favorite rapper song unfolds?

ON THE OTHER HAND, this afternoon, I got stopped at a stop sign behind a lady in a small red econobox that felt the stop sign was an appropriate place to apply her makeup. I simply watched and waited, not feeling it worth the trouble of removing my earphones and yelling at her to "get a move on." Eventually, she noticed there was a patient cyclist behind her, apparently observing her technique. And I'm sure you've all stopped next to a motorist busily texting away. Unfortunately the one in the photo below woke up and flashed me a smile before the camera focus set. Trust me, a moment before, the phone was down in his lap and his fingers were dancing. But his car was stopped. The biggest danger he presented is that the light might have turned green, leading HIM to get rear ended by the mob behind him. The cyclist in the left turn to his right would have not faced such a danger, merely having earphones with the news coming through them. You see, it really IS DISTRACTION that's the danger. And we all get distracted by different stuff. Operating on the road is best done with focus on the task. Sometimes that focus requires we NOT wear earphones. Sometimes that focus is better maintained WITH earphones.

Texting at a Stop Light - Should This REALLY Be Illegal? This Guy Put No One in Danger - Well, Other Than Himself

Full Disclosure: If you didn't read the John Allen essay, there IS one potential downside to earphones, even if you are not the least bit distracted by them. Namely, if you are involved in a crash while wearing them, and presuming you are completely blameless, if there is another party involved, their legal representation can be expected to claim YOU are negligent simply because you had earphones on and so the scofflaw ought to walk. Such is the way of the world. Deal with it.

Tomorrow: Cycling Savvy Classroom

Mythical "Teachable Moment"

Part 5 of a continuing "Myth" series

Cycling Instructors Discuss a REAL Teachable Moment, not the Mythical Kind

When I was learning about cycling instruction, Preston Tyree on the left often regaled us with what he euphemistically referred to as a "Teachable Moment." Most often, it referred to a situation in which one or more of us grasshoppers bungled things up in one way or another, at which time we were instructed on what we did right, and what we might have done to avoid intense self-embarrassment in future. It is a truly effective way to teach and to learn. This post, however, is about a situation cyclists often erroneously believe is also a teachable moment. The MYTHICAL TEACHABLE MOMENT.

A real teachable moment represents a momentary agreement between a person desiring to acquire wisdom and a person willing and able to offer it. For some reason, cyclists, whether they have been trained to teach cycling or not, often feel compelled to offer wisdom to motorists and others not liking the way they cycle, or not liking what the other road user is doing. Among bike league instructors and cycling advocates, for example, discussions occasionally ensue over what to tell an officer that objects to a cyclist who is riding safely and legally. Today, a situation was recounted to league instructors, of a person on a bike lecturing two cyclists about the dangers of riding two abreast while claiming to BE an instructor. These perpetuate the notion of the mythical teachable moment. Instructors wind up becoming a genteel version of the Critical Mass corker who gives any nearby motorist a one-fingered salute. I fall into the same trap when I occasionally forget myself and yell at a salmon "you're going the wrong way!" Heck, this isn't limited to cyclists - that Doctor in California almost killed two cyclists "Trying to teach them." All of these are almost certain to be failed attempts to teach, whether a serious attempt to teach is being made or not. Yup, mythical teachable moments.

You see, in all of these situations, a key element is missing, which keeps teaching from taking place, and which sometimes leads to major incidents. That key missing element is a person desiring to acquire wisdom. If you are ever pulled over by the police, do not attempt to educate the officer about the law. He didn't pull you over to be instructed. If a motorist cuts you off, don't try to yell or gesture other than a minimal amount to make yourself feel better and regain your composure. If you see someone riding on a sidewalk, don't cut them off and try to explain how dangerous it is to travel down a sidewalk far faster than walking speed and without the ability to sidestep. None of these people have the slightest interest in acquiring wisdom. ESPECIALLY NOT THE POLICEMAN who is in a situation where his life might be at risk from a crazy person (you, the cyclist).

Simply let the myth go. If you can't teach the offender, at least react in the manner that will minimize your post-event stress levels. You'll feel better for it. For a genuine teachable moment, you need at least an inkling that a student might be present. Just as iron pyrite might be better know as "fool's gold," roadside lectures to strangers might be know as "fool's teaching."

Motorist Ignorance Made Me Swerve

Andy, of Carbon Trace, took offense at an ignorant and unwarranted anti-cycling statement by a police officer in his blog post here. I certainly hope that the officer represents a minority view, though I've encountered similar attitudes, as reported here. That is not what today's post is about. You see, just Friday, riding on my way to work, I noticed the sign above. As I recall, I was feeling lazy and decided to go around the hill that's my usual route. No swerve yet.

After reading Andy's post, and the news article, in contrast to my usual practice, I had read the comments in the news article.

One comment that caught my eye stated:
"9:38 AM on June 13, 2011
It's difficult to have a lot of sympathy for the "rights" of bicyclists getting a literal free ride on roadways that are usually paid for with motor fuel taxes, licensing, and registration fees for motor vehicles."

Tonight, on the way home, I recalled Andy's post, and the sign. Hmm, SWERVE!!!!! DETOUR!!!!!!

I guess that ignorant commenter doesn't look at the roadwork signs, or maybe he/she doesn't know how to read - only mouth off. OR, maybe (if you are a conspiracy theorist) our government is lying to us about where they get the money to fix up the local streets that cyclists use and they don't really spend our sales and property taxes on local roads. However, if I believe the lies, one reason my property taxes are so durn high are all the overbuilt roads around these parts! Regardless, the memory of the comment - and the sign caused me to swerve from my usual going home route so I could take this picture. The next time someone tells you that cyclists don't pay for the roads, tell, them to simply read the source of the funding for almost any local street project in the US. Fuel taxes mainly pay for main highways and Freeways which are rarely used by cyclists. Besides, just as in the case of parks, libraries, and even the services of police who do not know the law, such are PUBLIC services. I don't feel I have more rights to the local streets than my motorists just because I pay more sales and property taxes than many of them. I DO share my road!

UPDATE
Via email from Cliff Cox; two sources that suggest that, at least in this case, it is motorist commenters (rather than government lies) that simply are clueless about how our roads are paid for and how major highways are largely funded by "user" taxes (neglecting stuff like stimulus spending and other infusions from general funds), while local roads are paid for disproportionally by funds entirely unrelated to road use.

here is a summary of how major state highways are funded in Texas
here is a summary of how various roads get paid for various places

Rule of thumb in the US - Big State and Federal Roads tend to get paid for by fuel and motoring taxes. Roads you'd bicycle commute on get paid by sales and property taxes, utility fees and such.

Myth 4 - Bike Helmets

There is an ongoing battle of mythology about helmets. One side is dominated by a “more safety is always better ethos” whereby people are castigated or even criminalized (in places like Dallas and Seattle) for not wearing helmets to ride their bikes, and a less well defined faction ridicules helmets as worse than worthless. Both extremes stoop to inaccurate and misleading claims. In the real world, helmets are unlikely to help a cyclist avoid injury in the event of a high-speed crash. I have seen no evidence to indicate that professional cyclists are injured or killed less now that helmets are universally worn than they were back in the day of hair nets. On the other hand, helmets ARE likely to help in the much more common event of a low speed impact. I wear a helmet when I ride to work. Occasionally I forget, but when I forget, I don’t make a special trip back to get it.




Contrary to Cycle Chic's Claims, Helmets for Motor Vehicles Have Been Available for Many Years. THIS ONE is Mine.

Helmet Deniers

Yup, I Wear Cycling Gloves Even More Than Helmets

In my life, riding my bicycle has led me to hospitals on two occasions. Both of those occasions occurred last year, documented here and here. In neither case did wearing a helmet help in any meaningful way. ON THE OTHER HAND, during the DFW ice and snow episode last February, I hit my helmet hard at least a half dozen times on one commute. In none of those episodes was I traveling above about 5mph at the time and, in at least a couple of them, I was attempting to stand back up after falling on my bike. Looking back, EVERY fall in which a helmet might play a role I’ve had - EVER - has been a low speed fall. In most of those falls, the helmet did not hit anything. Personally, I’d rather keep it that way, because the denigrators of helmets rightly point out that bicycle helmets are of limited benefit in a high speed crash. If you wish to crash at higher speed, you should select a SNELL certified motorcycle or automobile helmet, and get one with good facial protection. The naysayers conveniently fail to mention that low speed crashes are FAR more common than the high speed crashes the helmets were not designed to withstand. In context, helmets are useful, just as gloves are useful. I usually wear gloves too. Helmets are also helpful to pedestrians in slippery conditions, and I wore mine last February when walking on icy pavement, EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE SNICKERED AT ME. Less clear is the extent to which helmets might mitigate or exacerbate injuries in the event of a higher speed collision. IMO, not wearing a helmet because you are afraid that it may make things worse if you crash with a car is like not wearing a seatbelt in a car because you are afraid of burning up in a car wreck because you can’t get the seatbelt off. Helmets DO help in the common sorts of bike crashes. Those are the common sorts here in the US and in Europe. Of course, these common crashes are not the ones the “cycling is dangerous crowd” try to scare us about.



My Automotive Helmet Complies With the Jaguar Club's Requirement for a Snell 2000 Rating

Scared to Death

Mount Avila in Quebec Advocates Helmets

The scare merchants, on the other hand, cite old studies claiming 80%+ injury reductions (see mythical pro helmet references). In the case where I wound up in ICU, the hospital staff eventually, and incorrectly, concluded my injuries were due to no helmet (I DID have a helmet on; properly worn, and there’s still blood on the strap to prove it). Liberal city councils and Canadian Provinces have gone so far as to criminalize the simple act of riding a bicycle on public property without a helmet. The United States CPSC, in one attempt to extend regulation to other activities, looked at ski helmets and concluded that 11 lives a year could be saved by mandating ski helmets. Woopee Doo! No, I don’t wear a ski helmet, and turned down one recently in Montreal when I skied at Mount Avila. All of this has been done in the name of making us “safer.” IMO, if helmets were the wonder devices their proponents claim, nobody would have to distort the evidence to support those claims, and more research would be getting conducted on how to improve the effectiveness of helmets. Some of the research that HAS been done suggests that helmets fail to provide adequate facial protection and that the protection may not be well matched to real-world impact locations.



This Was the Extent of Helmet Damage When I Went into ICU for Two Days
It Was Another Low Speed Crash. IMO, the Helmet Damage Was Irrelevant to My Injuries
The Hospital Staff Concluded I Hadn't Been Wearing a Helmet - How Else to Explain Getting Hurt?

Local Rules
Unlike some other things the “culture of fear” attempts to scare us to DO (select neon clothing) or AVOID (wearing earphones), helmets have largely become institutionalized in North America. To participate in most bicycle rallies, or in Bike League education, a helmet is mandatory. No doubt, insurance considerations and potential liability in a litigious society play a role. Just as when I drive my Jaguar at a track (helmet and current tetanus shots required – and sometimes a roll bar as well), I either follow the rules or do something else. At my house, I do not attempt to force my kids to wear a helmet to ride a bike. I DO set an example that they are free to follow or not, or even to exceed. In truth, riding a bike is safer than most ways they can get healthy exercise. There’s another whole body of exaggeration when it comes to how safe riding a bicycle really is. But the danger or safety of cycling is another whole myth.

Wrap Up
Now, if this was a typical “helmet wars” post, comments would fall into one of two categories. The first would be along the lines of “you’re a fool if you don’t wear a helmet and I don’t want to pay to feed you through a straw,” or else they’d accuse me of child abuse for not forcing my kids to wear helmets in order to ride a bike. The second comment category would be along the lines of “helmets are worthless and discourage cycling.” I hope my dear reader can rise above such oversimplified nonsense.

I wear a helmet as a personal choice, based on my first-hand observations and as part of setting an example for others, along with the gloves. Since it IS my choice, it clearly doesn’t discourage me from cycling, and, on occasion, I DO ride without a helmet. Seriously, I can’t see how others, seeing me ride, would conclude that I consider riding my bike a dangerous pursuit requiring “nerves of steel,” regardless of the 2008 claims of BUYCYCLING Magazine. I oppose mandatory helmet laws, whether those apply to bicyclists, motorcyclists, skiers, or even snowboarders. I am less likely to ride in or through a jurisdiction with such laws, even though I’m wearing a helmet. Our big government has intruded on our liberties and restricted personal choices entirely more than is appropriate, on evidence that is all too often flimsy or even nonexistent.

Ham flagged an interesting recent video that mostly ridicules helmets. It makes many good points, but others get lost in the anti-helmet tirade. Particularly amusing is the notion that helmets for cars need to be developed. Apparently, the lecturer is not an auto racing fan. Tazio Nuvolari wore a helmet when he drove for Alfa Romeo back before WW II. The video is below. I think some will find it interesting regardless of whether or which helmet mythology they subscribe to.

References
Semi-Sensible
Well, you pick one. My own choice is the one from Bicycle Coffee Systems, though it edges perilously close to getting mythically pro-helmet, which becomes a problem when the author then opposes mandatory helmet legislation.

Mythically Anti-Helmet

One Might Wonder Whether THIS Video is Mythically Anti-Helmet or Merely an Overreaction to "The Culture of Fear"

The "Motoring Helmet" Nonsense Starts at About 8 Minutes. I Can Loan Him Mine

Mythically Pro-Helmet
CPSC Page
Another CPSC Page (a pattern develops of YOUR GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE AT WORK - and IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU SHOULDN'T COMPLAIN IF YOU VOTED FOR MORE GOV'T)

Myth 3 - BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME

Part 3 of a Continuing Series
"Little Things Mean a Lot"
I can't count the number of times I've heard "BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME." Like most slogans, this one is also demonstrably false. There are many places where virtually no cyclist-specific infrastructure at all exists, but cycling is robust and on the increase. On the other hand, this post could be entirely filled with examples of things intended for cyclists that go completely unused or are useful primarily to amuse us. "Where's Steve going with this one?" you might be asking yourself at this point.

Well, I'm not saying that cycling infrastructure can't add value for cyclists, nor that examples where infrastructure has helped mightily don't exist, but rather that it is simply that careful thought and consideration are more important to achieving more cycling than simply throwing money at cycling in massive projects that cost lots of money and generate big news stories, or drawing lines on maps to make nice connecting grids. In reality, to cyclists, "LITTLE THINGS MEAN A LOT." To illustrate the point, I will cite two "little" examples of how details ENCOURAGE people to ride their bikes. I will also cite two "little" examples where details send a less pleasant message. For anyone who does not think the principle also applies to bigger ticket items, I'll include a short sample list of big facility considerations.

My first example is from Saint Sauveur, Quebec. For reasons unknown, I stopped by a McDonalds last week for the first time in years. I think it was because I was certain I could handle the level of French necessary to get low carbohydrate food that I didn't just pick off a deli or grocery store shelf. It is not too hard to order a "McDouble sans ketchup." The sight in the photo below caught my eye. I had never seen such a thing at a McDonalds before except where some ordinance mandated it. While I am more sensitive to such things than most people, it sent a message: "cyclists are valued here" in a way that municipal bike lanes and "bike friendly" signs cannot. It told me that some businesses here had realized that attracting cyclists could improve their bottom line. While I didn't have a bike to ride, I went back there the next night. When people realize that cycling is getting thought about, they're going to ride more. It isn't simply the facility itself.


The Message This Quebec McDonald's Bike Rack Sent CANNOT be Purchased. With or Without Bike Lanes/Paths Nearby, it Says "Cyclists Valued Here"

I plan to write a letter to the McDonalds Corporation relating my impression and WHY I patronized that McDonalds a second time. In my letter, I will not mention that it is a lousy bike rack, poorly placed, nor that McDonalds food is not much better than simply going hungry. When businesses get enough such communications, they will begin to internalize and value cycling, and consider ways to market to cyclists. THAT will benefit them and cycling because more people will cycle. The facility building is the least of it. A nearby WalMart, is the case with many WalMarts, has a bike rack. Actually, it was a much better bike rack than the one at McDonalds. The WalMart bike rack had two feet of uncleared snow that had been thrown onto it during parking lot snow clearance. I don't plan to write a letter to compliment WalMart on putting a bike rack in. The dirty snow precluded warm fuzzy feelings from me about that WalMart.

My first BAD example is drawn from PaddyAnne's excellent blog, Pedal Talk. In it, here, she talks about a trip where she used two bike lanes to take a package on her bike to ship. My example is somewhat flawed because the lady in question is a more determined cyclist than many, but her photo, shamelessly stolen  and reproduced below (with a few Steve A additions), shows a different message sent to people considering cycling to the destination in question. It is not that the shippers were hostile to cycling. They simply didn't think about it or didn't think it was worthy of any attention, or didn't care. THAT sends a message to potential cyclists that they don't really count. I do not know if Paddy Anne has plans to write those responsible for THIS, but I'm a grumpy sort and not all of my letters tell owners they got my positive notice.

While Not an Obstacle to Cycling, THIS Facility Sends the Message: "We Don't Care and Can't Be Bothered"
Even a Sign Suggesting Cyclists Park Here Would Have Been MUCH Better

My second GOOD example is drawn from Hoquiam, Washington. At City Hall, the aggregate of the two signs in the photo below send a message that "we have thought about you and here's what you ought to do" to any cyclist coming to city hall. If I were considering riding my bike to do business at City Hall, I'd see that sign and know to go around back. If, on the other hand, they'd simply put the upper sign up, a lot of people might draw less encouraging conclusions. I do not know if they added the lower sign after receiving complaints from grumpy types or simply thought about things up front, but the current message is one I'd consider a positive one, despite the big "NO."

Note that the Inclusion of the Lower Sign Sends a Different Message Than if Only the Upper Sign Had Been Used

You Don't Even Need a Wrench to Steal a Bike Locked Here

Colleyville City, on the other hand, has sent a less attractive message to its cyclists. On the walls of its municipal complex, are posted signs saying "No Bicycles or Skateboards." What's more, within sight of these signs, there are "alleged" bike racks that are shown in the two photos below. They DO look "bikey" at first glance, but as noted in THIS POST, a simple action would result in the quick theft of any bike that used them. To me, the combination sends a message that "we're just going through the motions and can't be bothered to do what it really takes, even though it would not cost a single penny more." Ironically, there is a very good bike rack within steps of the library entrance. A sign change to "No bike riding or skateboarding here, bike rack to right" would have sent an entirely different message. I have never used these bikey racks and have never seen any other cyclist use them either. I lock my bike to something secure.

Sign on Colleyville City Hall. I Imagine No Guns are Allowed, Either. This Sign is About 30 Feet From the "Thief Friendly" Bike Rack

Taken individually, none of these examples make a strong statement, but cumulatively in a given area, they create an environment in which people feel increasingly comfortable riding their bikes - or not. In the US, unlike places like China, only a very small fraction of the population ride their bikes out of economic necessity.

When it comes to Multi-million dollar facilities, the principle is EXACTLY the same. A facility that is built simply because it follows some rail line that doesn't go anywhere cyclists WANT to go within a reasonable distance will not attract much use, NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT COST. A facility that continually exposes users to obvious hazards will not succeed, either, because word will get around. A facility that treats users like second-class citizens will find limited use. Yes, the notion of "build it..." is insufficient by itself to make them come. It takes an accumulation of positive messages to potential cyclists that say "cycling is something you WANT to do." Brains need to be engaged first, and THAT happens less often than you might imagine. IMO, keeping cyclists in mind all the time, and the little ways that "in mind" shows up goes further to explain the explosion of cycling in some places more than the paths and paint and the dollars dumped into concrete and asphalt. It really is the thought that counts. When you are thinking, the money that gets spent, whether it is a lot or a little, is spent far more productively.

Source HERE.  Can You REALLY Simply Build Bike Facilities and Expect People to Come? As With MOST THINGS, the Devil is in the Details
BTW, I LOVE the Cotton Belt Trail - It is Like a "Bike Drag Strip" Where an Encounter With a Ped or Cyclist is Rare
DISCLAIMER - I Have No Way to Judge the Accuracy of the Counts Above

Actually, the notion that little things mean a lot ought to be really good news for cyclists in an era when governments seem unable even to pay for basics like police, fire, and teachers, and when other governments are flirting with outright bankruptcy. It means much progress can be made anyway. Signs are cheap and businesses improving their sales actually increase government coffers.

Myths in Conflict – Bike Lanes

Part 2 of a Continuing Series

Designated Bike Lane on North Tarrant Parkway in North Richland Hills, Texas. This Bike Lane (a relabeled shoulder) is Now Gone.
In Texas, a Cyclist is REQUIRED to Use a Lane Such as this, and no Excuses About Those Tire Tracks as Evidence of "Auxiliary Passing"

Bike lanes are one of the most contentious subjects in cycling mythology. They seem to be on a par with helmets in the passion they arouse. Bike lanes are a collection of many conflicting myths, but the Safety in Numbers argument in the Minneapolis Star Tribune Story touches on the mythology of bike lanes. So here goes – at the risk of being tarred and feathered. At one end of the spectrum of this body of myth are those that believe that ANY bike lane is good for cyclists, and that bike lanes enable cyclists to ride places which they would be unable do without them. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard “I’d ride my bike to work but there are no bike lanes.” We’ve all read news stories about new bike lanes making it possible for cyclists to go places. I’ve actually seen bike lanes painted that run around residential cul de sacs in Florida. At the other end of the spectrum are those that believe bike lanes are evil. Ironically, at this end of the spectrum, cycling advocates and militant motorists take the same position (no bike lanes), but with entirely opposite motivations and expectations of the alternate results. FULL DISCLOSURE HERE.

The problem with this religious fervor is that it obscures the real situation. And the real situation is, shall we say, real situational. Bike lanes, even the best bike lanes in favorable circumstances, are not painted on streets for me. I will pick a safe line and travel it. On the other hand, if a bike lane is dangerous, I will ride outside it and accept a citation or motorist harassment if that is the price of not needlessly endangering my life. I'm now in a finacial and life situation where such things are a minor consideration. Bike lanes are often put on streets for reasons beyond purely cycling purposes. They are partly to illustrate a community’s commitment to a culture that values transportation as more than simply private motor vehicles. That is certainly part of the Livable Community emphasis in Oak Cliff. Bike lanes are regarded as an after-the fact way to support non-motorized living, and that is part of their popularity. While we might all prefer something better integrated into the community than bike lanes, adding long, safe, separated paths that actually go to useful destinations is usually problematic in an established urban area. What’s more, if the Minneapolis article is even remotely close to truth, reducing sidewalk riding by 87% is almost certain to result in less cycling accidents, EVEN IF the bike lane itself is not well designed and executed. Sidewalk cycling is one of the more dangerous things a person on a bike can do. What’s more, reducing BAD biking behavior even benefits me because it reduces the chance I’ll have to perform an emergency maneuver to avoid one of these wrong-way sidewalk riders. Despite a very low cycling share in Northeast Tarrant County, I get more violations of my right-of-way from people on bikes than from motorists.

The central myth here is not the particulars of bike lanes, nor of the myriad mistakes that designers of bike lanes make, but the notion that poorly designed ones are acceptable, or even that better ones are good enough. I’ll cite a current example. In Charleston, as this is written, a new bike lane has been installed along Chapel Street. It is a narrow bike lane that falls entirely within a door zone. That choice was made to give people taxpayer subsidized, private property storage (free on-street parking). Dave Moulton (yes, THAT Dave Moulton ) pointed out the danger in the facility. It is hard to believe a safer solution can’t be found than the one being implemented. And that is an important point. As in roads, there are few bike lanes that can’t be improved. And that might not be a single step improvement. Simply banning parking might well increase motorist speed, or create new intersection conflicts, which leads to other changes. Go Dave!

I hope we can all agree that peoples’ safety is a greater need than convenient, taxpayer-subsidized car storage, and that an improved bike lane is probably better than the initial one. The installation of a bike lane, ANY bike lane, should mark the start of a harder task; getting it made better. We should not forget that many of these facilities are not designed by people that ride bikes, that fewer yet are designed by people that understand the fundamentals of safe cycling, or who will actually be riding the routes, and that politicians occasionally need reminding of who they work for. Come to think of it, sometimes bike advocates need the same reminder. But THAT would be another myth entirely and y'all have already had your myth for tonight…

Done with SIN - Looking Forward to NEW Myths

Khal, at Los Alamos Bikes has posted a REALLY EXCELLENT expansion on the "Safety in Numbers" (my commenters catchingly called it SIN) discussion with some elements I really have never considered before - namely that MOTORCYCLES face some of the same problems with motorists looking out for them that cyclists face and that has GREAT relevance to the topic of SIN.

I did run more math numbers on what might happen to cyclists due to greatly enhanced motorist "looking out" in the case of those collisions in which "looking out" is likely to help. I was a bit conflicted about what to do with the 38% of collisions that involve alcohol - in my experience, drunks aren't the best at avoiding cyclists and having them be more watchful might actually make things worse. Regardless, once you rule out collisions where motorists watching won't make much difference, the SIN effect isn't reasonably explained by changes in motorist behavior. I'm not saying motorists DON'T watch more carefully, but I think Jacobsen's dismissal of the possibility of changes in CYCLIST behavior or the effects of facilities in even the short run, without any evidence, is inconsistent with the observed crash data as discussed HERE. Do your own calculations. It is also inconsistent with the claim in the Minneapolis news article touting reduced sidewalk riding. More cyclists means more peer pressure on cyclists to stop doing the really IDIOTIC maneuvers like riding the wrong way on sidewalks and blithely shooting across intersections while doing so.

In the meantime, go read Khal's good stuff. Much of it was new to me. Smeed's Law, eh?

BY THE WAY, in the original Myth, I did not claim there was nothing to SIN, merely that it couldn't be explained by changes in motorist behavior. Smeed's Law says there IS something to SIN, but it's a deeper, psychological effect.

If you wish to comment further on SIN, I suggest giving Khal a workout or else go to the original "Myth" post. One thing I found profoundly disturbing in one of the links in Khal's post - a quote; namely:

"We’ve looked at the various pieces of the motorcycle safety puzzle and found that they all—without exception—have failed to bring the death toll down but as more riders practice them the death and injury toll goes up."

The ramifications of that trend for cyclists are chilling, and certainly death rates have soared for adult cyclists in recent years even as they dropped for children. I certainly HOPE that quote is a myth...

Myths About "Safety in Numbers"

Safety in Numbers and the theory behind it is what kicked this series off. A week ago, the Minneapolis Star Tribune headline read: "As Bicycle Use Climbs, Rate of Crashes With Vehicles Falls." I've seen headlines like this often enough, but THE NEXT DAY, The New York Times claimed "Data Confirm What Cyclists Knew: San Francisco Streets Are Hazardous" where they state that cyclists are getting clipped at an ever-faster rate. Earlier, the Atlanta Journal Constitution bemoaned new cyclists filling the hospitals. Puzzled, I went to "The Atlantic" that claims cycling is increasing everywhere. As I researched even further, even the League of American Bicyclists was trumpeting the "Safety in Numbers" effect in its blog. The whole "safety in numbers" theory ties back to a paper written by Peter Jacobsen, which may be found here. While John Forester pointed out problems in the methods, and even I made a post on Cycle*Dallas to suggest people shouldn't get too enthusiastic about the whole notion, THIS POST is about the unexamined MYTH BEHIND THE MYTH ABOUT WHY "Safety in Numbers" might have validity.

You see, two paragraphs in the Minneapolis article stood out:

Why is this happening? Familiarity breeds safety, one city bike advocate believes. "People are so used to seeing bicyclists -- love them or hate -- and they don't want to hit them," said Shaun Murphy, coordinator of the city's nonmotorized transportation program. Murphy said the map of hot spots for bike-car accidents doesn't show major issues around the University of Minnesota because drivers there are so used to watching for bikes.

Do bike lanes help? Murphy also credits more bike lanes. Bike lanes can benefit pedestrians as well. When bike lanes were striped on Riverside Avenue, for example, the number of bikers riding on sidewalks dropped by 87 percent, said Hilary Reeves, a spokeswoman at Transit for Livable Communities, which manages a federal grant to promote biking and walking in the Twin Cities.

So, if I'm to believe the article (remember - most crashes are simple falls and don't involve motor vehicles at all), it turns out that if there are more bicyclists, motorists no longer want to run into them because they simply get used to seeing them. Think about THAT for a moment. Motorists don't actually actively try not to run into anything as they were all taught from the time they first entered driver's ed, but they suddenly get used to cyclists and no longer want to hit them. Kumbaya. Motorists don't hit a cyclist because that cyclists was riding against traffic in the dark with no lights or reflector; the motorist hit the cyclist because "they weren't used to watching for bikes." Forgive me if I'm a little dubious about this. All but a rare lunatic fringe of psycopaths recognize that hitting a cyclist is not a good thing and hitting one is likely to prompt awkward insurance questions if nothing else.

I suppose this popular theory about why there is safety in numbers is possible, but where I live, there really are NOT a lot of cyclists, but the motorists still avoid hitting any cyclist they see and recognize, whether or NOT they are USED to seeing them. THE NOTION THAT MOTORISTS NO LONGER HIT CYCLISTS SIMPLY DUE TO A CHANGE WITHIN EACH MOTORIST AS CYCLIST NUMBERS INCREASE IS THE REAL MYTH.

Let's assume that there IS validity to the safety in numbers theory and examine why added numbers might make things safer. The popular hypothesis is that motorists simply get better at not hitting cyclists somehow. HOWEVER, THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER REASONS THIS MIGHT BE SO. For example, embedded in the second paragraph is one reason - a drop of 87% in bikers riding on sidewalks would certainly reduce crash rates. As another alternate hypothesis, it seems LIKELY that traffic engineers consider design elements for cyclists MORE when there are more cyclists and that THIS might also explain a drop in crash rates. Certainly, traffic engineers are quick to take credit for their efforts when auto crash rates drop. I would put this as the "when cyclists are more numerous, traffic engineers stop putting them in extreme danger as often" theory. In truth, there is probably more evidence in support of this second theory than the one that motorists suddenly get mellow and attentive. Another theory is that more cyclists leads to more cyclists seeing cyclists riding sensibly and so they get better quicker simply by "monkey see monkey do." Even THIS theory seems more likely than the "kinder gentler motorist" one.

The problem is that we don't really KNOW very well what causes collision rates to drop. All we really know for sure is that riding safer is safer. The reason is that there is little recent research done involving cyclists that isn't fatally tainted with political agendas and a desire to substantiate predetermined results. While it is easy to blame or credit motorists for crash rate changes, it is MORE LIKELY that these changes are due to changes in the way that roads are designed, and the way that cyclists use those roads.

Oh, and that graph at the top of the page? The "accident rates" were generated by a random number generator in Excel. No cyclists were harmed in its production.

In the words of John Schubert, when he rightly took me to task on the subject:

"I ride where I’m seen. The human being driving the Hummer sees me, whether I’m alone or not, on Fifth Avenue or Podunk Street. He doesn’t want a collision, so he avoids the collision. What could be simpler?"

MONDAY UPDATE: WARNING - MATH AHEAD!
Well, I started crunching some numbers from the Jacobsen paper, but along the way I found some interesting anomalies that are slowing things down. First off, I think that even the most enthusiastic proponent of the "more watchful motorist" theory will concede that watchfulness is not all that's going on. For example, I found that according to the NHTSA, alcohol was involved in 38% of all car-bike cyclist fatalities in 2008 and I'm torn about how to remove clear cases where watchfulness is a non factor from the mix. What is more perplexing is that, according to the Jacobsen paper itself, sometimes it appears to get MORE dangerous for each cyclist when there are more cyclists out. In the UK, between 1984 and 1999, a doubling of cyclists would have resulted in nearly THREE TIMES as many cycling fatalities. I'll have to ponder that number a little. If we're to accept the "motorists are changing" theory, in the UK, it bodes poorly for cyclists if more ride. Regardless of anything else, I hope we can all agree that making it easier for motorists to notice us and what we are planning to do next is a sound policy. That is as true for a clueless motorist on a cell phone as for one that's almost paralyzed from fear he/she might hit a cyclist. While a motorist might well be looking for a cyclist darting off a sidewalk against traffic in the dark, any motorist being so watchful is going above and beyond the call of duty, and any cyclist that counts on such a response from a motorist is likely to fare poorly. Even in Holland.

Alienating the Last Loyal Reader

I subscribe to the theory that no subject should be exempt from examination and the resulting alienation of all who read. As a result, I intend to trod where others have gone before, but to hop between their footsteps and NOT step on the same cracks. Namely, I'm going to treat the subject of cycling myths in an occasional series. I'll be in renowned company, as Ken Kifer, Sheldon Brown, BikeRadar, Bicycling Life, CycleDog, and even the closest LBS to my house have ALL done stories on this subject.

Clearly these guys are all doing something wrong, because they either retain readers or sales. I also notice that many of them trod the same footsteps. As always, I intend to chart a different course. One major inspiration will be here, and in the myths that none of those OTHER guys above have really examined, or at least not the side of the myth that you'll read here. Well, at least as long as there's ONE reader...

As one last "tease," the very first in this upcoming series was prompted by two newspaper articles, one of which reveals some glaring fallacies in "the safety in numbers" theory, but also suggests (inadvertently), why there just might be some merit to the whole thing - in a manner nobody talks about.

This Chart is NOT What it Seems

Bobby Waits for the Yeti Now

Statue of Grefriars Bobby, Facing
George IV Bridge, Edinburgh, Scotland
Praktica Film Camera, May 1986

Once, in Edinburgh, Scotland, there was a little Skye Terrier that went by the name of "Bobby." For the TRUE story of Bobby, click here, here, and many other places, including at least two movies. This is the story of Bobby's statue after it was erected.

You see, Bobby, to all appearances a statue, was fond of watching Yeti (cyclaris vehicularis) cyclists ride by. He longed to be alive again and run after them, nipping at their heels and trying not to get caught in their spokes.

Over the years, he became devoted to the Yeti that passed by, guarding them against harm. It seemed much more sensible to watch over them, than to face towards Greyfriars Kirk, where the master of his true life predecessor was buried.

Alas, in his new role, the people of the city did not fully respect him. They turned off his fountain in 1957, and threw empty beer cans at him as may be seen in the photo. Still, he kept at it, protecting a passing Yeti seen in the photo (remember, traffic in Scotland drives on the wrong side of the road, perhaps explaining why Scottish Salmon are famous around the world, but that would be another story)

As the years passed, the city grew more respectful towards the Bobby statue, naming pubs after him and cleaning him up. They added plaques and the usual historical stuff. They also decided to make Edinburgh "Bicycle Friendly" by adding infrastructure such as bike lanes. Unfortunately, as sometimes happens, the infrastructure was decided on by people that didn't ride bikes, and that didn't know about the Warrington Cycle Campaign. In Britain, as in the US, the city fathers tried to keep cars from crashing into each other, which made things even worse for all but the motorists, and even made them more irritable. Nowadays, Bobby's road looks like the photo below. The Yeti have all left, but Bobby still loyally waits, hoping they'll return some day. Some say that when the Yeti return, Bobby will come to life. But of course that'd be bad for tourism, though it might make for a good reality show...

Click on picture for larger version from Google Street

PS: Yes, I THOUGHT of calling this post "Return of the Yeti." That title, however, seemed a little too much for even such as Rantwick, eh?

Yeti in Bedord?

Legendary "Cyclaris Vehicularis." More than just a tall tale?

Yeti - a legendary, perhaps mythical creature said to ride a bike on our streets, in our very own cities, in a vehicular manner. The "Cyclaris Vehicularis." Real, or imaginary? You be the judge.

Today, while coming back from Sanger, I got a text message from my oldest daughter, Erin (shown below as "E." I'll be "D.":

E: "We just saw a Yeti!'
D: "Silly Erin! So tell me!"
E: "Abbey saw him too. He was cycling under an overpass in the middle of the 12 ft wide bike lane ..."
D: "Did you get pictures or an interview?"
E: "No. He was too fast for use - all pictures would have been blurry."

Later, E indicated he was bundled up against the cold. That has a touch of realism. Real Yeti almost surely depend on more than just their natural insulation. Some say they're bundled up like Randy in "A Christmas Story."

Now, a couple of facts stand out. Unlike many Yeti sightings, this one actually had a corroborating witness. That means it rises above the usual "one of my friends told me one of their friends saw a Yeti."

ON THE OTHER HAND, there was nothing in the way of documentary evidence, instead resorting to the "blurry picture" dodge favored by conspiracy theorists and UFOlogists.

I suppose it's possible. I may be just one of those people that never see one, just as some people never see ghosts or chupacabras. They say he remained in sight for nearly a minute. No photos. We'll have to put this one into the "possible but not definite" category.

Past reference to Yeti on this blog is here and on occasion afterwards.

Simple Green Speaks Up

Simple Green has evaporated after nine days, leaving the foil with a green gel on it, but otherwise unaffected

In my previous post, I asked Simple Green what I needed to do to get Simple Green to actually EAT aluminum. They indicated that there was some etching with 5456 aluminum. I'm not familiar with that particular alloy, but in the Aerospace Industry, we commonly use other 5XXX alloys for aluminum honeycomb core. To summarize, I would NOT suggest soaking metal parts that have corrosion-susceptible alloys for weeks at a time in Simple Green. Use it, and then wipe/wash it away. It's what I do and I have NEVER had any problem with it. You are even LESS likely to have problems if the aluminum is painted, as on a frame. Anyway, here's the story FROM Simple Green - I sense some tenderness from them on this:

Steve A to Laura tonight:
Thank you. Your answer was very complete and helpful, and explains why I have never had any problems personally with your product, unlike with many others.

-Steve A

On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:08 PM, "Laura" wrote:

Dear Mr. Averill,

Thank you for contacting Simple Green and for your interest in Simple Green products.

Many years ago, Simple Green was submitted for Mil-Spec testing. One of the tests involved required soaking a bare piece of aluminum for 24 hours in a heated solution of 1:48 Simple Green to Water. Aluminum Alloy 5456 showed some etching and thus failed the test. Although there was no effect on some other Aluminum’s, our product was thus branded as an “aluminum eater”. I have attached a copy of this test for your records.

Simple Green will not “eat” Aluminum. It may, on certain alloys, cause indiscreet etching which may not be visible to the naked eye or at most be visible through slight discoloration.

Simple Green may present some risk if one chooses to completely immerse their Aluminum, of certain grade, in a solution for up to 24 hours. Applying and rinsing off within 5-15 minutes will not cause any sort of problems. If there is any cause for concern, you can switch to our Simple Green Pro HD solution, which has passed some Boeing and Pratt & Whitney specs allowing it to be a exterior surface wash, thus not causing any sort of problems for aluminum.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions about this or other Simple Green products or uses, please feel free to contact me directly. My contact information is provided below and my regular business hours are Mon thru Fri from 8 – 5 Pacific Standard Time.

Thank you again for your inquiry.

Sincerely,
Laura
Environmental & Regulatory Coordinator
Sunshine Makers, Inc. / Simple Green
---
My original query to Simple Green:
Your FAQ suggested that Simple Green might have problems with aluminum if not used according to instructions. About the same time, it was suggested to me that Simple Green would "eat" aluminum. As a result, being an engineer, I decided to do a test and left a piece of aluminum foil immersed in Simple Green to see what, if anything, would happen. Well over the course of the last two weeks, the Simple Green has evaporated and now is Simple Green gel. What do I have to do to get the Simple Green to eat the aluminum?

Personally I LOVE Simple Green, but I DO use it to clean a lot of aluminum parts and would like to better understand when it might present some risk. Clearly it isn't real agressive towards aluminum foil when undiluted and in a clean solution.
Name: Steve Averill


PS: There was also an attached pdf to the email that showed corrosion results, but for unknown reasons I can only see it on my iPhone and can't attach it to this post. For the 6XXX alloy tested (probably what bike frames are usually made of), there was no corrosion. Interestingly, though I did not ask, it appeared that Simple Green was more likely to corrode high strength steel than aluminum or other alloys, suggesting that it would NOT be a good idea to soak a bike chain in it for an extended period. I have never done this so cannot comment from first-hand experience. Apply and remove and you'll probably not have a problem with any metal. Also, while the email did not put the testing into context, it looks like it was done in conjunction with the US Navy in 1994 based on a handwritten note at the bottom of the pdf saying "from NAVSEA, 3/24/94."

FWIW, aluminum foil may be 11XX aluminum (almost pure aluminum with not much else), or 5052. 5052 was one of the alloys tested with Simple Green and experienced no corrosion. 5052 is also a common alloy for making honeycomb core. In addition to aluminum, it has a bit of magnesium and chromium in it.

Is the Simple Green question settled, Mythbusters?

Simple Green - Tired of Waiting - Let's See What Experts Say

I think we ought to see what Simple Green have to say for themselves. My foil seems unaffected. Eat aluminum - how do you make Simple Green do this? Snopes says nothing on the subject. Simple Green PROMISES a response within 72 hours.

I'll be interested to hear what they say. I use Simple Green often, because it gets stuff clean without damaging it. When doing the concours circuit, I discovered a lot of stuff that WOULD eat stuff, but never Simple Green. Castrol Cleaner, for example, I discovered would remove the paint from the underside of a greasy Jaguar bonnet. Good thing I had touchup paint. Easy Off also makes good paint remover and it WILL eat aluminum - and pretty quick.


Since the graphic at right is much larger than the solid info, I thought this was also a good opportunity for a few engineer jokes:

To the optimist, the glass is half full, to the pessimist, the glass is half empty.

To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
------------------------
Q: What is the difference between Mechanical Engineers and Civil Engineers?

A: Mechanical Engineers build weapons and Civil Engineers build targets.
------------------------
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Engineers believe that if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.

Cycling Mythbusters - Simple Green

Screen shot from Simple Green website about using SG on aluminum

ORIGINAL POST on Saturday, November 28

Velo, TX suggests in his comment of November 25th that Simple Green eats aluminum. He even included a link that showed some nasty looking aircraft parts, ostensibly due to the pernicious effects of Simple Green. Well, y'all ought to know better than to put such a dare in front of Steve after he's been recovering from the flu and watching an unhealthy number of "Mythbusters" episodes. I've been using Simple Green for many years to clean both aluminum and steel components with never any ill effects on the treated parts, so this "myth" seemed suspect. No Jaguar has never collapsed into a heap of rubble due to Simple Green as far as I know. Still, Velo spoke with the voice of one who's found something out the hard way, so I determined to test this myth. I got my hands on a pair of ancient and lousy wide-reach brake calipers that came off a Schwinn. Aluminum. But before I could sacrifice these brakes in the name of science, I decided to see what Simple Green said on the subject. THAT is the picture above. Basically, Simple Green do not recommend leaving aluminum to soak in a vat of Simple Green for weeks. I would also not do what the Chinook maintainers probably did - spray the stuff on and then not get it wiped off properly afterwards. I'm also going to go out on a limb and guess they didn't use the Simple Green that conformed to Boeing Specification D6-17487P. I've never done that - not until now. Spray on and wipe off has always been the modus operandi, as with other cleaners. One would do well to remember this is a water-based product. Would you leave your chain to soak in a bucket of water for a couple of weeks? And no, I don't buy my Simple Green to the Boeing Specification. I'm not in the "money is no object" class yet, though I notice that the SG Marketing people would probably love the added profit margin.

While I was reading what Simple Green had to say, my oldest daughter came to the rescue of the brakes, so our initial test will involve ALUMINUM FOIL, immersed in Simple Green (undiluted). The test vat is below. No explosions - so far. Immersion at 4PM, CST. If this turns ugly, please don't dwell on the fact that you probably used something similar to this foil when cooking your turkey yesterday. You can take comfort in remembering that you didn't spray the bird with Simple Green before cooking. If this doesn't work in a reasonable time, we may ramp things up. Based on what I read, I would NOT suggest mixing Simple Green with sulphuric acid. Interestingly, Simple Green do not recommend mixing SG with bleach or ammonia simply because those things reduce its ability to clean. No explosions. A search in their FAQs for "danger" yields nothing.

Simple Green - How long will it take to eat this piece of aluminum foil?

Updated at 4:15 - I snuck out to the garage. So far, it looks just like the picture, except the garage is starting to smell like Simple Green. Perhaps this experiment will have to move out to the driveway if my wife wants to know what that SMELL out in the garage is from. LOVE the smell of Simple Green in the afternoon! Thank goodness I had the presence of mind not to keep the concoction in the kitchen or I might be out in the driveway...

Updated at 1PM Sunday - The Simple Green smell in the garage has leveled out, thank goodness. No visible change in the foil so I tried poking it a bit. BORING! I thought about spitting in the solution, but that seemed rude. Where do you get C-4 around North Texas and where are the approved locales for detonating it?

Updated at 8PM Monday - Still the same. The Simple Green seemed a little chillier when I dipped my finger in it, but otherwise nothing...

Updated at 8PM Saturday, December 5th - COOL, most of the Simple Green has gone away. The aluminum foil seems unaffected, it's just sorta sticky and got green film on it. Some say that when I saw this, I said "Aw shucks! This here dang experiment ain't doin' nothin'. I'm done with it now, I reckon!" I'm stomping off to bed. We'll see if THAT has an effect. If not, I'm going to squirt some water back into the container and maybe stir in a little dirt.

Greed Can Make You Stupid

Click on images for larger version if you want to read the details

Money for Bike Commuting Four months after I started my new commute to FW Alliance Airport in April, I got the email above. It caught my attention because it announced a “Commuter Challenge” based on tryparkingit.com, which happens to be the site I use to log my commute.

I read the flyer, partly reproduced below, and saw there was CASH INVOLVED! I’m willing to be bribed for bike rides already logged. Call me weak – I went down the proverbial garden path with no prompting. A review confirmed I’m rolling up twice as many miles in 2009 as I recorded in 2008. I could see myself claiming to my wife that Buddy was getting amortized quicker than planned, opening up the way to guilt-free bike stuff purchases. My chances seemed strong, since we were well into the competition, My confidence was increased knowing that tryparkingit severely limits retroactive mileage logging; ensuring no carpetbagger could sneak in at the last minute.

Waiting for the Envelope I patiently waited for the invitation to the Awards Ceremony. I updated my profile. I thought about endorsement contracts and book deals. I scoped out eggbeater pedals. When the announcement came out about the Awards Luncheon, I bumped up the “proactive factor.” This prompted the email thread below:

Snookered and Snippy This is how it works? A steenkin' committee of suits evaluating nominations from people that probably wouldn't know a bike from roller skates? How the heck is someone on a bike supposed to compete with someone running 10 people in a vanpool up from Waco, much less a telecommuter? Why didn’t you just SAY “bogus?” And so I found out how Commuter Cyclist awards get made. Perhaps, in return, I helped the clean air folks make a little forward progress. I hope so.

Three Observations
• Awards aren’t always as they appear, especially when one's greed causes 1+1 to equal $250
• Try to be civil, even when in a snit. It's not really worth it to do otherwise
• My correspondent was polite, and note how quickly my emails were returned. Kudos!

What IS a “Best Bike Commuter?” Personally, I don’t think mileage should be the only criteria for such an award. I tip my hat to anyone riding every day, in all weather; lugging in clothes and equipment. I tip my hat to anyone that gets a major bike commuter effort going. CommuteOrlando comes to mind. Someone finally got bike racks put on DART buses. I’m sure each reader can think of other examples. Honestly, looking round the back of area restaurants, I’m not sure "Best Bike Commuter" makes more sense than “Best SUV Commuter.”

Still, those eggbeater pedals WOULD have been nice for cyclocross season. Sigh...