Reconsidering Electric Bikes

Over time, I’ve been somewhat ambivalent about electric bikes. Doing a search, I noted them here and here. While I’ve never gotten enthusiastic about buying one, neither have I condemned them as a new form of “Spawn of Satan.” Lately, however, my opinion has been getting more strongly formed. Now, I’m strongly in favor of electric bikes, unless I’m against them. Either way, I’m less neutral. You see, this summer, a company started renting electric bikes in Ocean Shores, Washington.

On busy weekends, these guys might have a dozen or so electric bikes rented out at one time. The bikes “look like beach cruiser” bikes. However, they go LOTS faster. What makes me less ambivalent is that I notice the tourists that rent these things seem FAR MORE likely to act like they are operating a vehicle than the tourists that rent human-only-powered bikes. Commonly, the electric bike tourists control their lane rather than hugging the RH extreme of the roadway. Yup, they seem to pretty much ride in a manner that approximates "the line of sweetness." It makes me wonder since these people have not been through any sort of bike ed classes. They just feel comfortable using their legal rights to a “narrow” lane instead of hugging the road edge. I also have not seem them riding (illegally) the city sidewalks, also like a lot of the human-powered bikes. All of this SHOULD be goodness for those of us (well, at least ONE of us) here in Ocean Shores that operate using sound traffic principles. If that proves to be the case, there’s an upside to electric bikes that might help all other cyclists, and particularly be helpful in conditioning motorists to expect safe bike operation. Hurrah for electric bikes!!!!!

OTOH, like a lot of other small towns, one should remember that the government people of Ocean Shores expect bikes to operate at the EXTREME RIGHT of any road, as documented here. It’s the typical “from behind a windshield” bias against non-motorized road users, codified in a "for now" fuzzy manner. Should they decide to make new draconian ordinances, that might hurt cyclists that prefer to ride in accord with generally accepted “best practices.”

What will transpire? That determines whether I’m STRONGLY in favor of, or opposed to, electric bikes. I suspect that any stupid laws that the city might consider will, as their current cycling laws are, be almost universally ignored, in which case, I repeat “Hurrah for electric bikes!!!” Who’d have thought electric bikes might be a force for equitable treatment of all cyclists?

Vehicle or Not

According to Wikipedia, the Bicycle Pedal Boat is a Vehicle

There’s a bit of confusion about vehicles and vehicular operation around the internet. I suspect some of the confusion results from a fondness for bicycle-specific facilities that reduce the stress level of people on bikes. The confusion is made worse by our legal system. In most states, bicycles are considered as vehicles, though in some, they are called “devices” that are supposed to operate as IF they were vehicles. Why do I bring this up now, my loyal reader might wonder? Well, it is because I saw the bicycle pedal boat at the top of this post. That CERTAINLY wouldn't qualify as a vehicle, would it?

Vehicular Operation of a Motorcycle - Darn Good Bike Handling Skills, Too!

So I went to one of my favorite sources. I was surprised to find that my own thoughts that a vehicle is a wheeled conveyance are WRONG! According to Wikipedia, a vehicle is any “mobile machine that transports passengers or cargo. Most often, vehicles are manufactured, such as bicycles, cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, trains, ships, boats and aircraft.”

Yet Another Vehicle - Lockheed P-80 at Western Museum of Flight in Torrance, California

Hmm, so that means that the only way you can AVOID vehicular operation of a bike is to walk it. It also means that a horse isn’t a vehicle, though the rider is supposed to follow vehicular rules. And that, really is what things are about. Our road system works, more or less, because people follow rules. It’s why we “stay right” (in the USA) and why people aren’t supposed to crash into those in front of them. Still, I never really thought of a bicycle pedal boat as a vehicle before.


No Vehicles in this Photo, Though Dorothy is Teaching these Children About Operating Them

Vehicle Surrounded by "Non Vehicles"

No Vehicles in This Shot from Keller, Texas, Though They're Following the Rules of the Road

 

It Coulda Been Me

As a prelude to a future "myth" series post, take a look at the video. The cyclist was doing, IMO, EVERYTHING RIGHT. In other words, "it coulda been me." What's more, it was flagged on the "LCI List" ONLY a day ago. This one hits closer to home than most because there's a video and it really COULD have been me. I thank God the LCI is OK.

Thanks to Cyclelicious for noting this video.

IMO, it says you could do everything right and still get smacked. OTOH, it ALSO shows how YOUR motorists might well stick up for you. My own takeaway is that if you observe the Golden Rule, you might get lucky when another does not. Still, my own rule,remains "trust, but verify," when possible.

In other words, it's a mixed message - a cyclist operating safely and predictably gets smacked all the same, but motorists recognize the injustice and help him out. THIS is a message to the DOOMSAYERS from EITHER END of the spectrum. People are mostly good. As I'm fond of saying: "Cycling is fun and safe," though the cyclist in the video found it more "interesting."

Today, for the first time, I sign off as "Steve A, LCI #3054."

And I would LOVE to hear from extremists of Either Stripe. I thought not...

It Depends

Some of us have been blessed with a surplus of education in our lives. MOST of us that are so blessed, have learned the principle that True/False questions that include "Always" or "Never" are USUALLY "False."

And so it is with cycling. Many are fond of  quoting John Forester as saying "cyclists fare best when they..." and endorse the principle of "always VC." Others take the opposite track and whine for ever more elaborate facilities. Well, as with a lot of things, either can be true sometimes, but not always. Forester, for example, notes that cyclists are welcome to cycle through parks whilst even militant motorists would not endorse the destruction that motoring through same would entail. In his book, he recalls situations in which cyclists are at a distinct disadvantage relative to motorists. In short, the man says, "it depends."

Actually, it depends on ACE. And ACE will be a future post. ACE stands for "Ability, Conditions, Equipment." Strangely, I was never taught about ACE in bicycle school or even in bicycle instructor training.

I've had an occasional correspondence with someone that has formed the impression of "VC GOOD," "Non VC Not so Good." THIS post's purpose is to dispell that notion. Because, regardless of what we might wish, the real answer is "It Depends." While I did not set out to do so, on my ride home from work today, I operated mostly in a totally vehicular fashion, according to vehicular rules. However, I also operated according to pedestrian rules, and even when operating to vehicular rules, I did so differently in different situations.

You might wonder why. Well, it's pretty simple. Circumstances vary. Those of you that also motor understand this very well. Put simply, when driving a Toyota Prius, you don't drive the same way on a quiet street as you do when merging onto a freeway filled with 18 wheelers. And you don't merge the same way onto a freeway filled with Alfa Romeo or Jaguar race cars. I operated to pedestrian rules today simply because it allowed me to get where I wanted to go quicker than waiting in with a bunch of motorists and it didn't cause conflicts to do so. Sometimes that happens. Get over it if you want to be militant - or I'll post a series of photos that'll cause you to say, "well duh!" Heck, I've even been known to ride on sidewalks myself - like that time my chain broke and I had four miles to get home. Sidewalks and "scooters" go together sometimes.

Various circumstances follow - all are from past posts on this blog:

I'll Look at the Detectors and Ride Where I Think is Best
It Depends!

Long Sight Lines and Fast Speeds - I Ride to Be Best Seen
I Don't Ride Here in the Fog - Because It Depends on Me AND My Motorists

Sometimes It Depends on Things Getting Complicated

Sometimes We Get the Luxury of a Boulevard. It All Depends

Sometimes We Have to Make Maneuvers our Motoring Partners Won't Understand

Sometimes, Riding Shoulders is Simply RIGHT - No Conflicts Here
Forester's Book Shows Photos of Cyclists on Shoulders. In Texas, I Routinely See Pickup Trucks on Shoulders

Sometimes, Unlike our Motoring Relatives, We Simply GET OFF THE ROAD!

So, What's the Cycling Rule Here?

As In a Lot of Things, It Depends!

Why Steve Doesn't Do Many Videos

Inspired by various and sundry videos, I decided to make yet one more. I did a simple right turn onto a seven lane arterial and then through an intersection. It reminded me that I really need to get some improved software and a proper way to mount the camera. Still, despite the apparent swerves (I held the camera in my right hand so I appear to swerve right whenever I signal a rightward movement), it shows that intersections are not really a big deal. The intersection in question, however, gets much more plugged up on weekday afternoons. That makes it no more difficult to get through the intersection, but the initial turn on to Central can take a while to allow for a gap in traffic

License Cyclists?

Lately, dimbulb legislators in New York and elsewhere have fallen over themselves to see whether Republicans or Democrats can be most clueless about cyclists and cycling. Both parties have proposed cycling license schemes in ways that have repeatedly failed in the past. Neither seems to have hit on a simple and obvious solution. In reality, licensing cyclists might well be a GOOD IDEA and it could even be done without the classical failing of government programs that fail to recognize you regulate and tax behaviors you want less of. The real question is how do you both encourage cycling AND license cyclists? It's easy to see how you can use regulation to discourage cycling, which is exactly why you see so many commenters on news articles advocating doing exactly that TO cyclists. Their agenda is simply to get RID of as many cyclists as they can. Golly, no big secret there. My own licensing scheme has, as you might guess, a little different motivation.

Anyway, I applied small government principles to the problem of licensing cyclists while making such a program something more than an excuse to torture anyone wanting to ride a bike to the grocery store. First off, it seemed clear to me that adding a brand new licensing program would generate a whole new expensive bureaucratic program with no real prospects of success. No good. Government already costs too much. THEN, it hit me that almost everyone, from time to time, operates a bicycle at least in their neighborhood, or supervises children that do so. What's more, riding a bicycle is the most elemental vehicle operation. How is it that we allow people to get an operator license for a high-powered motor vehicle without having to show competence with a simpler KIND of vehicle?

I pondered all this and then it occurred to me. In order to obtain or renew a driver/vehicle operating license, one should be required to show and demonstrate basic familiarity with bicycle operating principles on public roads. No new government program needed at all! People unable to ride a conventional bicycle can demonstrate competence via any of the various "special" bikes available. Since almost all people ride bikes on at least rare occasions, or supervise child riders, all people with a driver's license would now have at least some bike competence. Turned around, one might marvel at how we imagine someone unable to operate a bicycle safely is capable of operating a high-powered, 4000lb motor vehicle safely while chatting on a cell phone. In reality, riding a bike could be the basic driving license, with people allowed to add endorsements for increasingly complex vehicles such as cars and ranging up to commercial vehicles. The basic framework already exists in every state in the US and every province in Canada. Actually experiencing safe bike riding might also help reduce the irrational fears that many people have about bikes.

What about kids, you might ask? Well, that is admittedly tougher, though most schools do have school ID nowadays and understanding of principles could be tested as part of the school standardized testing. We'd not want to see any child left behind! Golly, that phrase could acquire a whole new meaning. Added cycling in school could even represent a shortcut to later demonstration of motor vehicle proficiency, somewhat as driver's ed does now. There is really no reason why demonstration of competency on a bike on the road requires being sixteen. That might make sense for adding a "motor vehicle operator" endorsement to the basic license. I don't know, but I imagine my clever readers could come up with sensible approaches.

Learn to Operate These Safely to Obtain a Basic License

Certainly, there'd be a myriad of details to work out, such as what do you do with unrepentant scofflaws, but we have that problem with people driving motor vehicles without a license today anyway. Besides, as Ellis County has demonstrated, it is entirely practical for a local jurisdiction to throw a cyclist in jail if they believe he/she is misbehaving. A six month suspension of the motoring endorsement would also certainly reduce the number of people that insist on riding against traffic.

It might be interesting to hear the comments of the "license cyclists" crowd about this proposal, which might be the first practical means ever proposed to license cyclists. "Well, I didn't mean THAT!!!! I just wanted to punish those Lance wannabes."

Am I serious? Well, it really makes at least as much sense, and maybe more, as some of the schemes I've seen, but I also think most politicians have a stronger instinct for survival. However, as a cyclist, wouldn't it make you feel a little more confident if you knew every single person driving a car had proven they could ride a bike safely?


Later, Add an Endorsement to Your License in Order to Operate Something More Dangerous

Bicycle Bailout

Left Turn from Anita on to FM 1709 Keller Parkway

One thing I hate; riding my bike to work, is a “wave” or “pack” of accelerating motorists overtaking me, all at the same time, on a multilane road. I doubly hate it in the morning darkness. The thought of someone behind me attempting to change lanes while the next lane over is occupied with another motorist is unsettling to me. Similarly, the notion of what might happen when the full acceleration of the motorst behind me suddenly becomes a full brake while the next motorist back is still accelerating also seems potentially unpleasant. While I would not be involved in the initial collision, both involved motorists might do all sorts of dramatic maneuvers immediately afterwards. Exacerbating the situation, when the camera-controlled traffic changes very quickly; overtaking motorists do not have a lot of time to consider any cyclist ahead that now suddenly occupies “their” road. This differs from the typical overtaking situation where a motorist may have a minute or two to consider how to pass me before actually having to do it. I LIKE my motorists to have a while to consider things before they have to DO something.

Fortunately, such situations are rare. My 20-mile commute route contains only one such, and even that only applies occasionally, and only in the morning. It is the intersection of Anita and FM1709, where I turn left onto westbound FM1709 (Keller Parkway). I wrote about it in my post “Don’t Look Back.” It also happens to be the location where I fell into the trench they dug for a new median and wound up in the hospital.

Well, as it turns out, there is an extremely simple solution I adopted yeseterday for the first time. Depending on one’s viewpoint, it is either a vehicular, or a non-vehicular cycling solution. Simply put, when I see a pack of cars on westbound FM1709 (the FM 1709 GP Starting Grid) waiting at Anita at the time I get my green light, I make my left turn, ride a few buildings down and signal a right turn into a conveniently located (and empty) driveway loop. The wave of motorists sweep by moments later, allowing me to return to the main arterial and proceed apace without any accompanying traffic at all. In truth, in exchange for not worrying about some motorist doing something stupid and dangerous, I experience about a 1 second delay, and retain control of the traffic situation. This morning, my light actually turned yellow before I cleared the intersection and there were a lot of motorists sitting there and revving their engines (well, at least in my active imagination – in reality, most of them were probably only half awake).

It is an extremely vehicular approach in that it is exactly what I might do if I were acceleration and speed limited in a motor vehicle, such as if towing another vehicle. It is also consistent with the spirit of pulling over in a motor home when in a situation in which a large crowd of following vehicles has been encountered. It accomplishes exactly what proceeding straight through the intersection and then making a U turn and a right would accomplish. This is not a practical maneuver at this intersection because Anita becomes a median divided road north of the intersection.

It is unvehicular in that I am, to put it bluntly, pulling off a road on which I have the right of way, simply because it reduces traffic conflict.

As in many other cases, I fall back on the realization that many of the overtaking motorists have never before seen a cyclist controlling a lane on that road, they may not realize it is perfectly legal, and they’re distracted by the “must go” feeling when their light turns green.

Am I wrong to perform a maneuver that suggests that I don’t have confidence in my motorists to be able to consistently and safely pass me when they’re in a pack and have their pedals to the metal? I don’t know. Maybe so. Still, commuting isn’t a civil rights activity, and defensive driving sometimes involves backing off on strict rules of the road to account for stupid actions the other guy might be making. It is the flip side of the driver that doesn’t stop at a stop sign because he/she KNOWS there won’t be anyone coming. In this case, I take an action that avoids a conflict I KNOW exists because of poor intersection and signal light timing. If I err, I err on the side of caution.

Bailout Driveway Loop on FM 1709

Loneliness of the Long Distance Yeti

Yeti Come in Various Forms. This One Doesn't Look Like a Cyclaris Vehicularis

I’m not a vehicular cyclist. I’ve said it before on this blog, though perhaps never quite so bluntly. I've also talked about various aspects of vehicular cycling (VC). Other than occasional recreational forays, I ride to get places – mainly commuting. When I ride on roads, I operate under the rules of the road that apply to people operating on the road. I ride consistently, assertively, and in a way that makes it as easy as possible for my motorists to understand and know what and where I am going to go next. That gives them the information essential for them to be able to safely and efficiently go where THEY want to go next. I do not violate the principles taught in Bike League cycling classes, in Effective Cycling, or Franklin’s book (well, except those Limey types ride on the wrong side of the road). It’s not hard. It took me a day or so to implement the fundamentals, though I continue to learn useful bits, just as I do when I drive the Land Rover. I’m not a vehicular motorist, either. I just use a vehicular approach when I drive the Land Rover on or around a road.

I have been watching carefully during my commute to Alliance Airport for well over a year to see others riding this way. I’m sorry to say I have never seen a single one in thousands of miles of my commute. I’ve seen people riding on sidewalks and shooting across intersections. I’ve seen people riding the wrong way on busy roads. I’ve seen people riding in the dark without lights. I’ve seen people make left turns from the far right edge of the road without looking first. I’ve seen people hugging the fog line or curb in lanes too narrow to share with any four-wheeled motor vehicle; sometimes while riding very quickly. I’ve even seen them hug the curb on a busy road while riding with no hands on the handlebars. And that’s not even counting the signal/sign violations that motorists complain about in newspaper comments. The more I see, the more I marvel that few people on bikes suffer painful and bloody deaths. It seems we underestimate the competence of motorists, or overestimate how aggressive motorists are towards cyclists. Perhaps we do both.

Cyclaris Vehicularis. Not in a Texas Summer

In fairness, I HAVE seen people ride the same way as I do. I’ve seen safe riding in bike school. I’ve ridden WITH a few Yeti (cyclaris vehicularis), and once, on a weekend, I saw someone assertively operating by vehicular rules. My daughters have seen people riding this way on three other occasions when I was not present. Rantwick managed to make a somewhat ambivalent video he claimed was a Yeti. Still, even if we accept these sightings as factual, they are few and the scofflaws are many.

IMO, the scofflaw majority seems to be a major factor why many motorists are skittish around cyclists. Mostly, motorists see people on bikes doing clueless, unpredictable, and dangerous actions. If I never see any operating according to best practices – and I’ve been looking, why would a motorist expect different? If you have never seen a cyclist stop for a stop sign or control a lane, it can be momentarily confusing as to what to do when one DOES. I consider it fortunate that the motoring majority “get it” and instinctively understand the “behave as a vehicle and be treated as a vehicle” principle. They just never see it. If they DO see it, it occasionally scares them.

Bike Education has a very long and steep hill to climb. If I criticize the Bike League education program, it is not for the content of the education, or the enthusiasm and ability of its instructors, but rather its failure to solve the problem of how to reach the masses of cyclists who could be helped.

Never Take the Lane

I hear the phrase "take the lane" often. I only hear that phrase in conjunction with cyclists. I DON'T ever "take the lane." Taking the lane, to me, sounds like petty theft. I ride where I ride, and the principle of "first come first served" is observed by myself, and the other users of the road. The lane I'm in is mine while I'm there. I don't need to "take" it. Yes, sometimes I allow motorists to "Lane Split" a lane I'm in if it's a wide lane or boulevard. That's my choice, and is made in accordance with the law, the rules of the road, and what is safe for myself and the motorists in the vicinity.

Really, it's pretty simple. Traffic is not a war. Traffic is a dance (good link, though I HATE the picture, with its sloppy signal). It's a cooperative endeavor. I DO take the lead, because I have a lot more experience dealing with motorists than motorists have dealing with cyclists. That's probably going to remain the case for many years to come.

Below is the preferred vehicle if traffic were otherwise. I don't think many motorists are truly ready for "might makes right."

My Vehicle of Choice if Traffic is War Instead of Cooperation. Just Pass the Ammo...

Rantwick and the “Line of Sweetness”

Rantwick made a very interesting post, here, complete with his best-ever graphic, in which he included a video of a close pass. My own comment supported Rantwick's observation that slipping left in a lane is best done slowly, so as to not surprise any following motorists. In comments, Skyers suggested that the “Line of Sourness” may have been what kept a close pass from becoming something worse. Skyers’s analysis contains an undeniable element of truth, but after careful consideration, I think it misses at a critical element. Here’s why.


IMPORTANT ELEMENTS OF THE INCIDENT
The video contains two important elements. First, Rantwick executes a left turn, then, about seven seconds later, he gets passed very closely by a car that is going quite fast. We’ll call the driver “Speedy.” The Line of Sweetness (EXCELLENT GRAPHIC HERE) is certainly one principle involved, but it is complicated by a left turn in front of oncoming traffic, bringing “the Land Rover Rule” into play. In this case, “the Land Rover Rule” says you do not turn into the immediate path of onrushing traffic regardless of whether you are going to ride the line of sweetness, sourness, or even if your intent is to jump the curb and onto the sidewalk. You wouldn’t do it if you were driving the Land Rover, you don’t do it on the bike. If I were an official type like Mighk, I’d call it the “first come, first served” principle (see, I DO know some of the official names of this stuff for when I have to take tests).

WAS THE TURN DANGEROUS?
Did Rantwick turn too close in front of the speed demon? Well, Rantwick certainly didn’t think so, and, while it is very easy to misjudge such things if one of the cars is going really fast (also true if you are driving), the video shows Rantwick went seven full seconds before Speedy passed him while passing through an intersection. If Speedy was going twice his speed, he may have been two full blocks back when Rantwick finished his turn. This is clearly not a case of Rantwick lunging in front of a responsible driver who has to desperately swerve to avoid killing him. I’m not surprised Rantwick doesn’t recall the car too clearly prior to the turn.

THE LINE AFTER THE TURN - LIKELY SCENARIO
I try to always let my motorists have lots of time to figure out and execute the proper maneuver without requiring thought on their part. In this case, Speedy SHOULD simply move into the left lane a block or two back. It’s what any rational motorist does, regardless of anywhere in the lane Rantwick might happen to be, because motorists all KNOW that cyclists are incorrigible reprobates, prone to doing crazy things without notice. If you think I exaggerate, read the comments section of almost any newspaper when a cycling article appears. Cautious motorists move over TWO lanes if it’s an option and traffic is light. While it is certainly possible that Speedy might have come on and squished a “Line of Sweetness” Rantwick, I’ll guess he saw Rantwick off to the right, saw the SUV to his left, and decided he could split the difference between them and wind up ahead of everyone. The temporary license plate suggests he was probably not driving his own daily car. The true danger of the Line of Sourness is that Speedy might have misjudged the space by ten or twenty centimeters. We read of such incidents daily in the news. Personally, I like reading Monday Rantwick posts and would not want to read of some “terrible accident,” unless the “terrible accident” involves some sort of giant fracas associated with his music career. In such an event, I eagerly look forward to Rantwick's spin on things. Perhaps it might even be as lively as the Rawhide scene in The Blues Brothers.

THE LINE AFTER THE TURN – ANGRY BOY RACER SCENARIO
On the other hand, let’s assume Speedy was just discharged from his anger management class, and decided he was not about to tap on the brakes for some dorky spandex mafioso by ducking behind the van, and then speeding back up after passing Rantwick, and he decided instead to do a drag race with the SUV, followed by a quick left lane change at the last second. In such a scenario, Rantwick may indeed have a better chance of survival in the Line of Sourness, but his chances would be better yet over on the sidewalk. In reality, even angry Speedy will attempt to slow down if it is clear he won’t win the drag race and it will become clear to him earlier the further left Rantwick is riding, because the risk/reward picture will appear bleaker to him. In the worst case, Speedy has to hit the brakes 3.5 Escalade lengths back of Rantwick’s rear wheel if he is going 75kph and Rantwick is going 15kph. I have practiced panic slowing for imaginary cyclists in our Land Rover, and I was surprised at how close I could come behind the imaginary cyclist without experiencing impact. DO NOT try this if there is a car close behind you! DO NOT try this using real cyclists. A convenient following distance table may be found here.

SWERVE RIGHT YOUNG MAN!
In case there is any doubt, I do NOT advocate EVER swerving to the left, unless you KNOW there is nothing anywhere behind that can be affected at all. If you have to swerve, swerve RIGHT! Unless, of course, you live somewhere that everyone drives on the left, in which case you've already transposed everything

CLOSING THE GAP
In my bottom line opinion, I’m with Rantwick. Two blocks/several seconds is long enough for even an impaired driver to execute a full lane change – IF he decides that is what he/she needs to do instead of shooting for a marginal gap. THAT is the true beauty of the Line of Sweetness. Just don’t apply it in isolation. You want lots of space behind you in the RH lane you’re turning into so any overtaking motorists in it get bored looking at you before they make their leisurely lane change. The traffic rules are a body and you want them all. In this case, I might have waited for a bigger traffic gap before I made my left turn, but maybe not. I wasn’t there. This is not a matter of a cyclist exercising rights, or of brazenness. It is rather a defensive matter of not unintentionally enticing a motorist into a dangerous maneuver by creating the impression of space where not enough exists. THAT is the critical element that I think Skyers is missing. When you ride on the street, every action and your very placement on the road communicates things to the motorists around you. On the other hand, had Rantwick been riding in the Line of Sweetness, the world would now be missing a GREAT GRAPHIC and we’d have to wait five days until his next post.

MAKE MIGHK MAD TOO!
Mighk, as a newly minted T101 graduate, I disagree with the notion that T101 has led me towards the Line of Sourness, even if the notion comes from one rarely given to hyperbole. I didn’t notice Chandra showing sudden enthusiasm for it either. I do not recall being encouraged to ride in the right track, though the brochure art was inferior to what Forester included in his book. Without follow-up rides with experienced traffic riders, I suspect it is relatively ineffective at affecting traffic behavior either way. This could easily be a whole ‘nother post on its own, and I’d like to see Mighk’s analysis, and what I think FBA has up their collective sleeves. Hint Hint!

WHILE I’M IRRITATING EVERYONE
Aptertome, the Line of Sweetness is not so cut and dried as I make it sound. It is not something that experience alone leads you to. Initially, I think it requires an act of faith to violate everything you’ve ever been told about how to operate your bike on the road without getting killed, even though the principles are very logical and simple. It may SEEM like brazenness, but in reality, you are helping guide your own motorists to making safe choices without conflict. Think of it another way. On my current commute, I encounter well in excess of 10000 motorist passes a year. And those are just the ones I become aware of. How much experience do you think each of those motorists have passing cyclists? In the final analysis, you are not being daring, you are stepping up to the mark of guiding your flock of motorists via yet one more way of communicating with them. While cyclists may seem to be vulnerable, in reality, they are the experts in the daily interchange between motorist and cyclist. Seems a little less brazen, to my mind at least.

BE VISIBLE
BE WHERE OTHER TRAFFIC EXPECTS TO SEE THINGS
BE PREDICTABLE
BE A FRIENDLY BIKE DRIVER

Yeti Are Like Chupacabras

The problem with Yeti is that they usually turn out similar to Chupacabra sightings. Chupacabras are another semi-mythical creature that are often sighted in Texas. Invariably, such sightings and occasional carcasses turn out to be mangy coyotes or hairless raccoons.

Just moments ago, I thought we might have seen a Yeti. Here's the exchange:

• Daughter Erin at 5:38PM (only 10 minutes ago): Just saw a yeti
• Me: Get video or pictures!
• Me: We need proof.
• Daughter Erin: Well unfortunately he was on the sidewalk
• Me: Yeti don't do sidewalks
• Daughter Erin: Well ones on foot do
• Me: Stop and get evidence. We'll be famous!
• Daughter Erin: I need one of those cop video cameras mounted on my dash.

POSTSCRIPT: Daughter Erin just came in. It's 5:55PM. She told me it was a REAL Yeti, as in the furry kind. It was on Cheek Sparger Road, a road I ride every day on my bike commute. No bike was involved. She elaborated, noting he (we can't be sure of the gender) had tennis shoes on, was waving at cars as they drove by, and was headed in the general direction of Wal Mart. In common with other Yeti, some cars were honking as they went by. This sighting has some real credibility, though this Yeti, as in other cases, vanished before the camera could be brought into play. After all, Yeti are seen MUCH more often than true cyclaris vehicularis most places.

MORE POSTSCRIPT: Daughter Erin DID get a photo, but because it was poor, she DELETED IT!!!!!!!! Photoshop can do wonders to bring these things back. Crimeny, we had evidence that got deleted. Oh well, it wasn't the kind of Yeti we're really looking for on this blog anyway...

Common Thread

Since New Year's, my commute has been uneventful. An uneventful, albeit long, commute gives me lots of time to think of different things to post about. Today, I pondered posting about how I fixed a wiggly Cateye headlight, or how it takes longer to get ready to ride on cold mornings, or posting about the motorist who last week passed very slowly, but otherwise safely (though illegally across a double yellow line), with his wife rolling down the window in freezing weather and pointing off to the right, saying something unintelligible; no doubt warning me against moving over too far towards the "Cyclist Pit of Doom" if I unaccountably abandoned the "line of sweetness." I also considered posting about some positive reinforcement I got this morning, or about how a comment by "cycler" almost tore my heart out. But it all came together in common threads.

First off, CommuteOrlando has an active discussion, here,  about "Roadway Terrorists." Next, I talked with a motorist who passed me this morning on the way to work. He joked about how I was hard to miss. I inquired if, seriously, there was something about my riding that made it difficult for him to decide how to proceed or if my riding made it harder for him to get where he was going. After consideration, he answered that, no, my intentions were crystal clear to him, he understood my signals, and knew exactly what I planned to do and how to drive to avoid any conflict or delay whatsoever. I quipped that if I understood him, the only way I was hard to miss, then, was if he was actually TRYING for an impact. He agreed that was the case. It was a morale boost that says I'm riding well when non cyclists don't have to ponder what I'm up to. Finally, came the item that made it all come together. In it, "cycler" commented:

"I got followed in a threatening way for about 6 blocks today by a dump truck pulling a trailer who was p-o'd that I was taking the lane because we were going down a smallish residential street with parking on both sides and an icy shoulder. He kept gunning his engine. I didn't have to look back- I could hear him, and it was very stressful for me. It didn't matter to him that I was going traffic speed- he wanted me out of his way, and as soon as I got into the bike lane further down the street, he passed me relatively closely and at a speed inappropriate to the size of the street.

"I basically agree with you I think about vehicular cycling being the best way, but I've gotta say it takes a lot of experience and a certain mental toughness to do it. I doubt we're ever going to get serious growth in bicycling if we can't provide some kind of infrastructure that doesn't require people to brave that kind of situation regularly, especially when they're getting started."

I first read the comment when I stopped at a store of "a major coffee chain based in Seattle" on the way home. It disturbed me, and I thought about it the rest of the way home. I considered that "cycler" did the right thing in not trying to move right - the trailer could have easily dragged her under its wheels, and the driver would not have appreciated the attempt at courtesy in any event. I also considered that the statement about experience is NOT correct - I made the final switch to riding vehicularly  in a single day. What it takes is an epiphany, which can occur with no experience or maybe never. Certainly experience can prepare one for vehicular cycling, but it does not lead to it. I know fairly new cyclists that ride vehicularly, and I know others that have ridden for a half century that do not. Those that have not experienced the epiphany are certain to be skeptical. I certainly was - until April 10, 2009.

Anyway, here's the common thread - jerks on the road get a lot of attention from cyclists, and, more seriously, psycho motorists are a weakness of vehicular cycling - being predictable is not a good thing when a motorist is determined to kill the cyclist - the predictable cyclist is easier to hit. BUT, the overwhelming majority of motorists are good people, that just want to go along, and get along, as is the case with cyclists. THAT is a common thread that unites road users of disparate types, and is a big factor in what some might consider "mental toughness" in me. If the crazies were anything more than a newsworthy but extremely rare fringe element, John Forester would not be alive today. This is really something to remember if an occasional jerk decides to try to push you around. If the jerk's a bully, he/she will back off if you avoid escalating the situation - which is something "cycler" avoided as much as she could - a "Keri Wave" might have helped or it might have made things worse. If the jerk's a serious criminal, the cyclist is in real trouble, since the jerk has abandoned all the rules of the road and of human decency. It might be small comfort, but a criminal might just as likely go after the cyclist on a sidewalk - or even out in an empty field.

Different people feel differently about various infrastructure for cyclists to use, and revised laws that may or may not help cyclists. It behooves us to remember that bad infrastructure and bad laws can always be removed later. What we all have in common is we want to get from point to point, and the public roads are what they are. Some motorists are ignorant, but almost all are well intentioned. As a cyclist, my suggestion is never to forget that your best defense when riding is to always ride the best you know how, wherever you happen to be riding. Make it easy for your motoring friends, and remember that the jerks are notable because they both rare and stressful. Thanks, "cycler."

BTW, your blog is pretty cool!

Motorist Lane Splitting

Motorcyclists Sharing a Lane with Motorists,
Commonly Called "Lane Splitting."

From Wikipedia

I can't say I'm a fan of the term "lane sharing" or "shareable lane" when it comes to cycling. It's applied almost universally, but, in reality, we're talking about a two abreast situation with one of the vehicles being a car and the other being a bicycle. Since, in most cases, this results in the passing automobile creeping at least onto the lane dividing line(s) to the motorist's left, this situation is precisely the reverse of the situation when a motorcycle passes a car without making a full lane change. THIS is commonly called "Lane Splitting." Yes, I've been diligently studying my "Proficient Motorcycling: The Ultimate Guide to Riding Well." According to wikipedia, which is where the photo came from, Lane Splitting is also called Lane Sharing. Hmm.

Words may not matter, but motorist lane splitting sounds a lot less friendly and safe than sharing. It also reflects the reality that splitting or changing lanes is the decision of the motorist unless the cyclist rides so that being split is not an option (as in the "Line of Sweetness"). Maybe it's because I grew up before Sesame Street. Anyway, going a bit further, all those "Share the Road" signs ought to be "Split with Caution."

I imagine other terms might be both accurate and descriptive, but "Lane Splitting" has the benefit of already being a commonly applied term. In the photo, if it were the motorist passing a bicyclist, indeed people would refer to it AS lane sharing.

BTW, people on bikes frequently lane split as well. Typically, it involves riding up along the right side of stopped traffic (with or without a bike lane), hoping nobody is going to turn right at the intersection or into a driveway. I know of nobody that thinks this is perfectly fine, unless there IS a bike lane. Somehow, that makes it all OK.

The multimillion dollar question is: Why is it illegal (except in California) for a motorcyclist to share a lane with a motorist but bicyclists are cited for not encouraging motorists to lane split?

Stepping back down off my soapbox...

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?

Where I Ride and Why

A long time ago, in a blog far away, in a post about riding in a Texas traffic lane less than 14 feet wide, I noted that as long as I rode AT LEAST as far left as the right-hand tire track, motorists ALWAYS altered course and gave me good clearance. ChipSeal, in his blog, suggests the superior place to ride is in the LEFT tire track, though he never actually addresses my own favored lane position. He noted it was a bit rougher in many places in the exact center of the lane.

Absent particular situations such as Boulevards, covered here, I rarely ride in the above lane positions. Instead, I ride in "the line of sweetness." In the "honk project," I refer to it as the "LC" position. Specifically, it's at the far right side of the Left-hand tire track. More or less. This is not rocket science.

Why do I prefer riding LC? Besides smooth pavement, it's very simple. It derives from "The Land Rover Rule." When I drive the Land Rover, my eyes align directly with the LC position. Seeing and reacting to a cyclist IN that position requires me to have no peripheral vision whatsoever. Should I (IN the Land Rover, of course), be texting, or putting on makeup, or simply daydreaming, LC is the position I am MOST likely to notice. At night, I'd see the annoying cyclist a full mile back. By the time I'm a half mile back, there will be no doubt I need to make a full lane change to pass the guy. UNLIKE the full left tire track, there will be no temptation to pass on the right, and it'll be easy to give him lots of clearance without running off the road on the LH side. I don't know about YOU, but I see a LOT of motorists chatting on their cell phones. I don't know about YOU, but I think the safe place to ride is where such people are likely to see and react to me early, not where the guy in the video below rides. It calls into question my previous assertion about the safety of that RH tire track. While all motorists may alter course, some alter course less that they should.

540hvs from Bikesafer on Vimeo.

LC also accrues benefits when it comes to the more serious hazard of crossing traffic. In a more visibile position, a motorist crossing my path is much more likely to notice me when I'm where I'd be if I were driving the Land Rover. This pays dividends repeatedly, most recently on one of my last commutes of 2009, when a motorist, ahead and to my right, began to pull from a side street to make a left turn. Had I been further right, it could have turned into a close call - or worse. As it was, a simple yell from me alerted the motorist and, with extra space and time, we all avoided any unpleasantness or need for evasive maneuvers. I don't want close calls on my bike. Not ever. An occasional fall due to loss of traction might be tolerable, but nothing more serious than that.

There is also advantage with oncoming traffic. When I ride down the narrow two-lane roads around here, I occasionally encounter spandex mafia types riding the other way down the fog line. Often, they're trailed by a line of cars. I find these encounters stressful. The first thing in my mind is that if a motorist decides to pass that spandex guy, I'm at risk of death via a head-on because of the durn gutter bunny. In this situation, the advantage of LC is subtle, but very real. If I were riding at the right fog line, or even in the RH tire track, the oncoming motorists are MUCH more likely to pass, despite my oncoming presence. If I ride FURTHER LEFT, the motorists would not see me as easily as in the LC position, and I'd still be in trouble if they tried a straddle pass around the gutter bunny. Uncertainty is not something you should inflict upon the motorists YOU share the road with.

Anyway, that's where I ride, and why. So there. It seems to work, so I wonder why I have never seen anyone else (as in NEVER) along my commute route riding the same way. Mostly, I see people riding in the "cyclist pit of doom" position. My kids, here, claim I'm not completely alone, but there are a lot of people that believe in the Yeti. Few have seen one. Really, however, mostly this is a finer point (it really ISN'T rocket science!), because, unless you fall into the "Cyclist Pit of Doom," cycling really IS pretty fun and safe, despite what some might try to make us believe.

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.

Story of a Dallas Loss

Dallas City Flag at Dallas City Hall

In the Dallas Observer, there's a story about lost cycling opportunity. It's linked here. If you either like or dislike the  Cycle*Dallas blog, you MUST read it. I don't agree with the subject of the article in all respects, but I'm glad I was privileged to meet him and get a chance to talk. It was a triple treat since Keri and Lisa B (both of CommuteOrlando fame) were also present for most of the discussion. It was even worth driving into downtown Dallas at rush hour (though I would not want to do THAT very often!). The article relates a local cycling history that directly ties into what is reviewed here (I'm not quite done with the book yet). It's a history that's still evolving.

Dallas City Fathers and Mothers may never realize it, but Dallas has lost great cycling opportunity, through a failure to heed good advice and encourage its expansion. Its loss will affect all cyclists around DFW.

Quoting one who has exerted more influence on my cycling and attitude towards traffic than he can know: "simul justus et peccator." His sins have never been those of pushing meaningless or dangerous fluff at the cost of fundamentals.

Y'all have a Happy Thanksgiving. Don't burn the house down with the ol' turkey fryer!

John Forester Talks Bike Infrastructure

Among other topics, he goes into the background of bike lanes, why Amsterdam and similar cities work for bikes, cycling on Seattle's Burke Gilman Trail, and other topics in a one hour talk at Google, with lots of Q&A. He's easier to listen to (talking mostly to an audience not previously exposed to vehicular cycling) than to read.

PS: Internet seems to be coming back - sorta anyway...

Dark Faith

Lately, the darkness on the ride to work has been getting to me. It's sapped my riding faith. We're not quite done with DST, so it's dark nearly the whole 20 miles in. Near record October rainfall hasn't helped. This morning, I made a right turn to NB Davis Rd (a 7 lane road) in NRH, not far in front of a small traffic "wave."

I made my left turn signal to change lanes; expecting everyone to sweep by. You see, my long-sleeve shirt was a Navy color, and my shorts were dark as well. My full finger gloves weren't bright or reflective. Ditto for the helmet. Yes, I had two rear lights and my "be seen" headlight on, but none of those alert a motorist to upcoming maneuvers - and it was dark. Almost to my surprise, considering my somewhat glum frame of mind, not one, but TWO motorists (one behind in my lane and the other in the next lane to my left) slowed down and made it clear they were waiting and expecting me to make my lane change. Somehow, seeing those two drivers clearly adjust their intended actions to reflect the sight of a signaling cyclist, in dark clothing, in the dark, brought back my faith in traffic operating as a solid cooperative principle. They didn't have to do it. If they thought about it, they'd realize I had more lane changes to make before I could make my left turn and that might slow them down further as I worked my way over. They were being cooperative and nice, without being patronizing. I wish I could have done more than just a wave of thanks.

Sometimes, bike blogs harp on motorist incompetence or incivility. Mostly, though, when motorists understand what the cyclist in traffic wants to do, they'll almost always go out of their way to cooperate. Sometimes they forget that other traffic is expecting them to operate in a particular way and their consideration becomes misplaced (cyclists complain about that, too), but mostly it makes operating nicer. Drive friendly!

PS: Internet still broken...

Change I Believe In

The second test ride changed everything. Before the test rides, I rode more assertively than a lot of experienced cyclists (such as the one here) ride. Overall, I was safer than most – I routinely controlled lanes at intersections, I didn’t ride straight from RT lanes, I didn’t hug the gutter pan, and I was not a fan of sidewalks. Unlike many, I was familiar with vehicular cycling principles, I practiced them more than not, and I’d read Forester extensively (yes, I agree he can be a PIA). In addition, I’d been influenced by Cycle*Dallas and CommuteOrlando, and I had over a year of DFW cycle commuting experience under my belt. Heck, I'd tried (unsuccessfully) to take a Traffic 101 course. It wasn't enough.

The second test ride convinced me that I could not make the new commute in safety without a substantially more assertive vehicular riding approach, all the time. There was no incident; it was just the totality of the roads and traffic involved. Westport Parkway was certainly a factor.  I made the change, starting on Good Friday. I’ve not regretted it. Sometimes I’m amazed at the difference when I now ride streets I haven’t ridden since that day. I don't refer to myself as a “vehicular cyclist.” I don’t think I ever will. It’s how I ride, not who I am.

Vehicular Cycling may never increase the number of people on bikes, but, at some point, just as in the case of a serious drinking problem, things get serious enough for someone with a serious cycling problem to reach the point of "I better do something."

April 10, 2009 was the day. Good Friday. I don't recall the exact time, but it was morning. It was not a gradual, experience-related change. It was more like a flipped light switch. It also marked a beginning of an ongoing commitment to simply ride better, every day, to continually improve my abilities. This blog helps by examining cycling critically, and by seeing the valuable thoughts commenters offer. Sure, this is fun, but fun can be serious at the same time. Thanks to you all.

Next, Cycling's Dangerous
Previous, Yes, I Can!
Index, Deadly Serious Bike Commute