A short update

I haven't been riding at all this week, which has led to not posting. For those who don't know, my day job is emergency preparedness and previously pandemic planning. That being the case you might understand why I've been a bit busy. That has led to long (10-12 hour) days in the office and me being whooped by the time I get home. On top of that, the local weather took a turn for the unpleasant (mid-50s with strong winds) making bike commuting less appealing. Hopefully things will smooth out by the weekend and I'll get a couple of days it. I'm really at the "Rides you need" point, as discussed here.

Unintentional hiatus

Between back-to-back weeks of travel for work and spending the last few weekends trying to reclaim my yard from overgrowth and help out my recuperating mom I just haven't had time to write. Hopefully things will slow down soon and I'll be back at it.

Bike registration revisited

A few weeks back I did a little ranting about bike and cyclist registration. Short version - I'm not a huge fan of either tagging bikes or requiring cyclist licensing, but can see some justification for both. After that post went up I had a short email exchange with a commenter, Bunny, on the value of putting police-readable identification on bikes and I have to admit that I had ignored a specific segment of the community.

Bunny's initial comment:

If you were in NYC and had heart stopping experiences with bikers going through red lights, against traffic and on the sidewalk you might think differently. They should have a license so they can be identified and fined for not following the rules of the road.

My response was a little too flip, basically a rehash of some of my earlier arguments which boil down to the idea that most of those cyclists wouldn't bother to register/tag their bikes. My dislike for licensing and registration schemes of most types stems from my dislike of governmental intrusion into my life, and in this case I looked at the issue only from my perspective. I am a vehicular cyclist and I follow the rules of the road. Because I follow existing rules I don't see why I should have to put up with additional restrictions/regulations. Thinking about it after reading Bunny's comments and emails brought something else to mind:

Cars have to have plates on them, so requiring the same from cyclists isn't adding restrictions, it's bringing cyclists into greater parity with motor vehicles.

This is something I need to think about a little more, but at the minimum I am willing to recognize that I was wrong about bike licensing, and in some jurisdictions (those with large populations of scofflaw cyclists) putting plates on bikes might be a legitimate way to discourage inappropriate behavior.

Training - a request

I haven't been updating my training lately because I haven't done any. I've been on the road for work and that's going to keep going for the next few months. That brings me to my request. 

Anyone who has followed this thing since I started should know that my primary ride, my Long Haul Trucker, has S and S couplers installed on it. In theory, they should allow me to pack the Trucker up and take it on the road with me. Since I've been and will be traveling to places like Nevada, Arizona, and Hawaii I'd really like to have my bike with me. Unfortunately, things haven't worked out as well in practice as in theory.

I have tried exactly once to pack my bike into a case. It was a soft-side, rented from Mt. Airy. Problem was, I couldn't get the bike into the case. There are all sorts of guides on how to do it, but it seemed like the Trucker was just too long to fit. What I'm hoping for is that someone who reads this is familiar with S and S couplers and has packed a bike with them. Or, maybe that someone in the Bay Area can recommend a good shop that works with tourers primarily that might be able to help me out.

I'd really like to be able to use the Trucker as I intended, which means being able to pack it up. Any ideas?

Integrating bikes into American transport

The last few Friday's I've discussed some political/activist subjects, specifically licensing and helmet use. I'm going to keep that trend going with a couple of related bits on integrating bikes into the transport system in America.

First, is this bit from BRAIN from a few weeks back:

NEW YORK, NY (BRAIN)—It seems that New York City may only be bike friendly to a point.
 On his weekly radio program on Friday morning, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said he opposed allowing commuters to bring bicycles onto subway cars, even if the Metropolitan Transportation Authority permits it.
 “I know bicyclists will now ring the phones off the hook, but they are just too big, particularly at rush hour,” he said of the bikes. “I just don’t think they should allow it,” he added.

The full story is from the NYT, available here. Reading the full article, it turns out that the mayor was responding to a caller's question so to some extent he was extemporizing, but the result is the same as if it were a prepared statement. 

These feelings aren't restricted to either Mayor Bloomberg (a staunch advocate of mass transit) or New York. Most places where you find light rail or subways and cyclists you find conflict. Yes, bikes are large and take up space, but does that really mean they should be blocked from use? I'm a regular BART rider, with and without my bike (a largish Surly Long Haul Trucker). BART has specific times, peak commute, where bikes aren't supposed to be on cars and they ask cyclists to use judgement before boarding. I would really like to see BART take a more cycling-friendly stance and provide more space specifically for bikes, but for now the benign indifference is alright. As long as our work/live situation remains the way it is (live in suburbs, work in cities) many people will need to travel farther than is easy by bike, and that mean multi-mode. As long as people are traveling multi-mode, they need to be able to bring their bikes with them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other piece I saw was on the East Bay Bike Coalition blog a couple of weeks back. This one was discussing Federal "complete streets" legislation. Specifically:

H.R. 1443: Complete Streets Act of 2009 Introduced Mar 11, 2009
S. 584: A bill to ensure that all users of the transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, children, older individuals, and individuals with disabilities, are able to travel safely and conveniently on and across federally funded streets and highways. Introduced Mar 12, 2009.

Much like the Routine Accommodation policy adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in 2006, and the Complete Streets bill signed into California State Law in 2008, the national version will work to make certain that federal transportation dollars are not spent to build new barriers or daunting hazards for bicyclists.

This is one of those issues where I like the idea but not necessarily the execution. Transportation spending is a state issue, and this kind of action by the Federal government is referred to as "power of the purse" - using Federal funding to force the states to do something (aka "Do it my way or watch your butt.") As a small government person, this sort of side-stepping around separation of powers bothers me. On the other hand, there are likely some states that won't do the right thing by cyclists and other non-vehicular traffic without the Federal carrot/stick. 

So what is the right answer? I can't say. I for one won't be involved in pushing the issue forward, but unlike the other political issues I've talked about recently I'm not entirely opposed.

Helmets

Over the last few weeks I've seen a few different pieces on bike helmets in the blogs and newsfeeds I follow. Some, like this picture/post from Fritz are on the more humourous side:

and some, like pieces related to the accident, head injury, and unfortunate death of Natasha Richardson (there has been some discussion that the injury could have been lessened or prevented if she'd been wearing a helmet) are more serious. A third, also UK related, is from a recent High Court case:

Many cyclists were seriously concerned when a High Court Judge recently remarked that cyclists who suffer head injuries when not wearing a helmet may not be entitled to full compensation if it can be shown that a helmet would have reduced or prevented their injuries. After all, it is not compulsory to wear a helmet whilst cycling and there is no clear or conclusive evidence to support the view that compulsory wearing would either advance the cause of cycling, or necessarily improve cyclists’ safety on the road.

As I said, all of this got me thinking. Granted, helmets are one of the taboos of cycling blogs, and discussing their use is enough to start flame wars on even the most well-moderated forums, but I'm going to wade into those waters anyway. As in last week's post on licensing, I'll discuss the reasons I see for government action on helmets, and then give my opinions on each.

There are two major arguments that are used to justify helmet laws, whether for bicycles or motorcycles: protecting the riders and protecting the system. (In this case I am using "system" to cover everything and everyone involved in providing medical care to an injured rider who is uninsured and otherwise unable to pay for their own medical care.) Both of these are the same reasoning that led to mandatory seat belt use laws. The first derives from the belief that the government has a role in protecting us from our selves, and the second derives from the fact that there are more than a few people in the US who are unable to pay for their own medical care, meaning that it falls to uninvolved people (the taxpayers) to pick up the tab.

The first argument is one I have issues with. I don't believe that the government has a role in protecting me from my own choices. If I want to ride without a helmet it's on me. In fact, I agree with the High Court case mentioned above, and I've felt that was the better approach for a long time. Don't want to wear a helmet or seat belt? Fine, your insurance can then pay out less if your injuries are aggravated by your actions. It's the same thing that happens with drivers' insurance - you drive like a twit (as in, you get pulled over a lot, demonstrated poor behavior) your rates go up. That's called negative reinforcement and it's a great way to teach people not to do dumb things.

The other argument is a tougher one. I'm a taxpayer and that means that I'm partially liable (a wee tiny bit) when uninsured people are injured. To minimize that liability, I like the idea of requiring people to be safe. The question is - how far do you take it? Helmets on bikes make you safer than not, but then what about helmets in cars? or helmets for skiers? It rapidly becomes a slippery-slope argument, which makes me uncomfortable.

All in all, I agree with encouraging helmet use but not mandating it. Unlike a lot of cyclists, this extends to children. Parents should (and I would if I had kids) require their kids to use helmets, but I disagree with the government stepping in to force the issue.

A great way to look at it comes from the WashCycle, a blog covering cycling issues in Washington DC:

Wearing a helmet is like wearing sun screen. It protects you and only you from something harmful. Except unlike helmets, the efficacy of sun screen is not in question. And it helps you without some bizarre occurrence. The financial benefits of everyone wearing sun screen is probably higher than for wearing helmets. The same could be said of condoms. But, I don't hear anyone talking of mandating the wearing of either the way this article seems to encourage mandating helmet use.

I want this

When I bike commute these days it's one way, BART in the morning and biking in the afternoon. One problem with BART is that there aren't many bike spaces on the trains. What has been done for cyclists is that a few of the spaces for wheelchairs have also been tagged for bikes. Some mornings there are a few bikes in each car, more than enough to make it worth having some kind of reserved space. Maybe even something like this.

Sure, that type of rack works best if there isn't much rain, but at least from May through October the Bay Area is pretty dry. The picture links through to the CommuterPageBlog which is where I saw the picture. Follow the links there to get back to the original.