Speed kills?

A couple of weeks ago, the Washington Post and several other, normally reputable, news agencies completely failed their basic journalistic responsibility and reported that head injuries are up in cities with bike share programs. The point of all of this, of course, is that bike share users should be required to wear helmets, or as I prefer to call them, the foam hat of invincibility and reliever of motorist accountability. Even a cursory review of the data cited by the study in question showed that quite the opposite was true: all injuries, including head injuries, are sharply down in cities with bike share. The injury declines are so drastic (an average of 28%) that inquiring minds are trying to figure out exactly how this could be possible when we all know that riding a bike without a helmet is tantamount to playing Russian roulette with an irritated chimp.

The mythical force of the “safety in numbers” effect is being touted as the primary cause of the decline in injury rates. An increase in cyclists results in an inordinate increase in safety for everybody as drivers become used to cyclists on the roads, or so the theory goes. While safety in numbers is certainly a real phenomenon, it seems unlikely that the modest increase in cyclists due to bike share programs was the tipping point for safety in numbers.

Another explanation is that cities that have invested in bike share have also been investing in improved bicycle infrastructure, often during the same time frame, and hence the improvements in injury rates. This seems like a reasonable explanation on paper, but the infrastructure improvements being made in North American cities are still largely paint based. Little has been done to build real segregated infrastructure and it seems unlikely that sharrows on still-car congested roads can claim the glory of such a large reduction in injury rates.

I propose another theory, one that will surely be as popular with American cyclist “culture” as a bare-headed baby in a Bakfiets, but what the hell, let’s go for it. What if the large decline in injuries is the result of the bike share bikes themselves? Bike share bikes are slow, lumbering and upright, taking their design aesthetic and cycling Zen from the likes of Amsterdam and Copenhagen, not the “cat 6” culture of London or New York. The predominant bicycle in North America is a fast, finicky, forward pitched, and performance-oriented road bike. Is it possible that the injury decline in bike share cities is so great because slower, upright bikes are just that much safer?

The theory seems instinctively correct. When riding on one of my Dutch bikes, I feel absolutely no need to wear a helmet as my visibility is great and my speeds are quite low. The big tires and upright geometry provide great control and I’ve never had a crash. However, even this helmet skeptic puts on a brain dome when I do take to the streets on my single speed road bike (to protect me from my own ineptitude should I crash – not for protection from 1.5+ tons of steel). To add weight to this argument, one would also think that bike share riders, who probably ride less frequently than their bike owning counterparts and are less familiar with the city they are riding in (many are tourists), might be more prone to crashing and injuries. Yet, this isn’t happening. Is the less skilled, 10 mph, bike share rider inherently safer than the 20 mph, helmet clad road warrior?

The relationship between speed and the lethality of car collisions is well understood and it seems reasonable to assume that this same law is true for bicyclists. The faster you go the less time you have to react, and the greater the damage will be in the event of a collision. Yet nobody ever talks about the ramifications of speed in cycling safety. As helmets have historically been the primary thrust of safety efforts, with infrastructure only recently being taken seriously in North America, few have questioned the American’s choice of bicycle as being part of the safety conversation. This new data should provoke us to spend more time analyzing the effects of bicycle geometry and speed on injury rates. Perhaps the Dutch aren’t safe purely because of their stellar infrastructure. Their choice of slow, upright bikes may also play a role in safety outcomes. It’s time to question the sanity and safety of the road bike as the primary choice for American cyclists.

Bicycle de-evolution

It’s been a while and you might be wondering if I traded in my bike for a Hummer and opted for employment in the fracking industry. Not so, my friends! I ride daily and remain as disillusioned as ever about the world’s obsession with motor vehicles and the awful state of biking in the USA. If anything I’ve reached a state of Zen-like depression and acceptance. However, with the turning of Spring I’ve found a new wellspring of energy to poop on America’s “bike culture.”

Opposable thumbs and abnormally large ape brains have been a massive bonus for humankind. With these inherent advantages we’ve been able to develop written and verbal language, religion, science, agriculture, and the PS4. One of our earlier and most practical innovations was domesticating “beasts of burden.” Why haul all of that firewood, dirt, or wheat on your back when you can use a horse, ox, or Carthaginian?

Unfortunately this basic technological advancement has been completely lost on most American “commuter” cyclists. Instead of using their bike to carry gear, these dolts use a fucking backpack, or even worse, a “messenger bag” which is a backpack that doesn’t stay on your back very well. This is the equivalent of a horse-mounted cowboy who chooses to wear his camping gear in a backpack while he manages his heard. I “photo shopped” an example of what this might look like for illustrative purposes because no such picture actually exists in the real world. Cowboys were apparently smarter than cyclists because they put their camping gear on the horse.

“If only I could get this pack in carbon fiber I’d really improve my mule whacking times.”

Since you are reading this blog you already know that real commuters have big racks…to carry their bags on (get your mind out of the gutter). Your bike is a beast of burden…it carries your fat ass around so why not let it carry your PBR and Vagisil too? When asking the pro-backpack lobby why they are so averse to racks and baskets, there are only two answers. The first is that they have too many bikes and don’t want to fit racks on all of them because they ride different bikes at different times. The other reason is that “backpacks” look “cool” and racks and baskets look “lame.”

Be the horse, people. Be the horse.

Car violence

Every American boy's dream

I’m not a huge fan of euphemisms as they are generally employed to shift blame, deny responsibility, or mask all out lies. The phrase “gun violence,” which has been used in the media for many years, disturbs me greatly. This particular euphemism shifts the blame of taking a human life away from the perpetrator of the crime to the method or tool used to commit it. Such a deceptive use of language keeps us focused on the manner in which people are being killed as opposed to analyzing the root causes of why one might commit murder (drug policy, poverty, mental health services, ignorance, etc).

Far more people die every year in the United States in auto accidents than due to “gun violence.” I was not able to find statistics for the same period in my quick Google search, but here’s a sampling of data to back up my point (the annual death toll from cars and guns does not vary greatly from year-to-year, so please accept my laziness for the sake of argument):

2005 Auto Deaths – 42,636

2006 Firearm Deaths (including suicide which accounts for about 30% of gun deaths) – 29,569

2005 Auto Injuries – 2.9 million

2006 Gun Injuries – 64,389

With this particular sample of data there were almost 30% more automobile-related deaths than gun related deaths. The comparative injury statistics are not even in the same universe. Yes, you read that right, there were 2.9 MILLION auto injuries compared to 64,389 firearm injuries for a similar period. When somebody is shot in America the gun gets the blame and editorials about the epidemic of “gun violence” flood the newspapers. When somebody dies in a car it’s simply labeled an “accident.” There’s no moral outrage of any kind.

If we’re going to euphemize away the reality of tough situations, we should at least apply the rules evenly. From now on I will not refer to motor-related deaths and injuries as “accidents” and will instead refer to them simply as “car violence.” Cars certainly deserve the title if the much maligned firearm does.

Our absolute blindness to the sheer carnage caused by motordom is demonstrated in our language. We demonize and euphemize things that we hate. If any single product was injuring millions and killing thousands of people per year it would likely be banned (perhaps with the exceptions of alcohol and tobacco) . Not so for the lovely and innocent car. Our love affair with passenger vehicles has made us blind to the death and suffering that they enable. Much like “gun violence” perhaps we should be talking about “car violence” and “car control.” The numbers don’t lie.

Banning kids on bikes

Portlanders are raging against a new piece of proposed Oregon legislation that would ban the transportation of children younger than six on bikes or in bicycle trailers.  Engaging this kind of prot0-fascist Nanny State thinking with reason  is a waste of time, so I won’t bother doing so.  Instead I ask the question, haven’t we brought this on ourselves?

"Ready for a safe relaxing ride in the Bakfiets, kids? Oh, Kevin, did you forget your flack vest in the house again?"

Anglo cyclists opened the door to the all out banning of kids on bikes on the day they bought into the culture of fear and bike helmets. One of the most innocent and healthy activities ever devised, cycling, has been made dangerous and fringe in the eyes of the public. Why? Because cycling advocates in the USA and Britain push helmets harder than anybody. The very standard bearers and champions of cycling have encased the heads of their families in foam. The precedent is set. Cycling is very dangerous. ‘You only get one brain” and other pithy simplifications spew forth from the lips of the “friends of cycling.”

It’s not hard to understand how a misguided legislator who is unfamiliar with cycling, one who is “for the children,” could reach the conclusion that young kids might as well just be banned from bikes and trailers, when virtually all cyclists wear the mark of an extreme risk taker: a cycling helmet. Look at the picture above from Oregon Live and ask yourself if this looks like a family out for a leisurely ride, or a family that is about to take part in some bizarre new sport called bike-chariot roller derby?

Also cited in the Oregon Live article is a spokesperson for Burley Design who, while obviously opposed to the legislation, sees it as an opportunity to strengthen the company’s market share by, instead of baning kids on bikes, mandating a regulatory safety standard for trailers that you can bet Burley’s products measure up to.  Similar to Bell’s support of mandatory helmet legislation in Australia, this proves that every unneeded regulation from the public sector will attract whorish bedfellows from the private sector in pursuit of profit.

I was warming to the idea of helmets as a choice and lowering my guard on the issue.  Now it appears that those of us who have not bought into the culture of fear must wake up.  Pandora’s box has been opened.  Cycling advocates that use fear and emotion to push a dangerous picture of cycling must be talked into a different tactic.  The future of a car free lifestyle for families with kids depends on it.

The empathy factor

One frequently hears about the “safety in numbers” effect as it relates to cycling.  An increase in cyclists results in greater bicycle exposure to motorists and thereby improves driving behavior.  This is simple and rational enough. Most people are inherently good and have no desire to harm an innocent, but how do we reach the hardcore bike haters…those rare individuals who are hell bent on running cyclists off the road?

During the Nuremberg trials Captain G.M.Glibert, an Army psychologist, made the following observation:

“In my work with the defendants, I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men.”

We have all experienced the dehumanizing effects of being shut up in a car while stuck in terrible traffic.  The metal and glass barriers give us the illusion of safety and complete control; the car is our sanctuary.  We rage against our fellow humans in ways that would be unthinkable in virtually any other setting.  To put it simply, the car sucks the empathy right out of us and makes us dictatorial rulers of the road.

“Fuck that guy.  I’m running late and need to get to work.  I’m only running the red light a little bit.”

To what degree does empathy towards our fellow humans drive the “safety in numbers effect?”  Are drivers in Bremen, Amsterdam, and Copenhagen safer drivers simply because of the sheer volume of cyclists they encounter, or is it because their friends and families are also cyclists?  I suspect that it’s the emotional entanglement, the ability to empathize with cyclists, that really drives the safety in numbers effect.  If empathy is the key to driving a permanent change in driver habits, perhaps cycling advocates need to keep this in mind. What is the predominant stereotype of “the cyclist” and is this person somebody that John Q Public can empathize with?

If I were to interview car commuters from the suburbs, people with no attachment to cycling at all, my bet is that the typical stereotype of American cyclists would include some or all of the following:

• Arrogant
• Law breaking
• “Granola”/hippie
• Insufferable hipster
• Holier than thou
• Freakishly dressed
• Young
• Smug
• Car hating
• Green
• Helmet/safety zealot
• Dreamers
• Liberal

Is this the type of person that’s easy for the suburban car commuter to empathize with?  Probably not.  Of course, this is just a stereotype but unfortunately our perception often becomes reality.

The Latter Day Saints recently launched a brilliant campaign designed to challenge the stereotype of Mormons being a mostly white, affluent, and Utah-based religion (all in the hopes of driving converts no doubt – just like cycling advocates).  A sexy surfer from Hawaii or a scruffy Harley rider from middle America is introduced to the viewer culminating with the tagline “I’m a Mormon.”  Perhaps cyclists could learn from this approach to challenge its predominant stereotype.  What would the “I’m a Cyclist” campaign look like?

Ozzie Guillen brings a portable bike with him and rides to away games. How cool is that?

Of one thing I am certain.  Cycling will never become a popular or accepted form of transportation in America as long as the “fringe cyclist” stereotype persists.  “Evil” road raging maniacs will never adapt their behavior until the current mold is broken.  The Germanic model of cycling (normal bikes, normal people, normal risk assessment) as transportation is so much closer to “the average Joe” and easier to empathize with than the Anglo model (sporty bikes, political people, broken risk assessment).  Is it possible that our cycling culture is in itself limiting its popularity?  Building empathy amongst the “cagers” is key to changing the game.  Cycling advocates should be looking long and hard in the mirror and asking themselves what exactly it is that they’re pushing.

Eating bike share crow

My coworker, Dan, pays for a Nice Ride bike over the lunch hour.

Some months ago I predicted that the Minneapolis bike share program, Nice Ride, would be an abject failure and waste of tax payer funds.  It turns out that I was completely wrong.  Nice Ride has been an outstanding success during its first year.

What did I get wrong?  It turns out that the bike share program is most useful for a few types of users that I hadn’t accounted for:

• People who live in downtown Minneapolis – many live in town houses or apartments and getting a bicycle in and out of their living space is a pain in the ass.  Many are using Nice Ride bikes to speed up their commute to work or to run errands within the downtown metro.
• Visitors and tourists – while we’ve personally not used Nice Ride bikes for visitors (yet), it’s nice to know that the option exists.  Friends visiting can now easily rent a couple of bikes and see the city on two wheels without their hosts having to possess a large cache of bicycles.
• Lunch time strollers – on many occasions I’ve heard of coworkers checking out a bike over their lunch hour to broaden their range of culinary options.   Many of these people commute in by bus and a bike simply widens their range.

Another intangible benefit of the Nice Ride program is that it has put more practical bikes on the roads.  The “typical” bicycle on Minneapolis streets is a single speed road bike, usually adorned with a skinny jean-wearing hipster.  Nice Ride bikes feature a chain guard, fenders, internal hub, and dynamo-powered lights, making them some of the most accessible bikes on the streets.  Most riders seem to forgo a helmet, though I have seen some bring their own.

The program has been so successful in its inaugural year that the city is already talking about expanding it, particularly in low income areas that were bypassed during the first wave.  Not bad at all, Minneapolis.

Mmmmmmm.  Crow tastes awfully good when it’s in the best interest of advancing cycling as a viable transport option!

Away but still biking strong

It’s been a tragically long time since I’ve posted on MplsRad. Curiously enough, these last few months of silence have witnessed some highly noteworthy bike-related events.  Not being completely sure what to write about next has thrown this blog into an identity crisis.

Here’s a sample of the available topics.

On the bike front, we recently added a Bakfiets to the fleet which has revolutionized our child and grocery hauling capabilities. I urge anybody who’s been holding back because of the hefty price tag to just do it.

Minneapolis was recently given the title #1 Bike Friendly City by Bicycle Magazine, displacing Portland who held the distinction previously.   This is encouraging and somewhat bittersweet for somebody who holds up cities in Europe as the model for doing bike infrastructure well. There’s still so much work to do.

We recently returned from a trip to Holland and Germany, where we visited several cities known for having very strong bike cultures (Amsterdam, Oldenburg, and Bremen).  Meet-ups included a chat with Workcycles Henry Cutler and a wonderful day with Beatrix Wupperman and Richard Grassick, the creators of Beauty and the Bike.  It was also good to visit two cities, Hamburg and Berlin, both of which are attempting to build new bike cultures.  I returned from this trip much invigorated as to just how achievable building new “world-class” bicycle-friendly cities might be.

There’s so much great stuff to write about: new friends, new bikes, and fresh thoughts on infrastructure. That’s where my blog’s identity crisis comes into play. I’ve always vacillated between trying to keep things light and going completely off the deep end in raging-bike activist fashion. What types of topics do you enjoy reading about and where should we go next?

Talk to you very soon.

What’s your cycling brand?

In a country where biking as a means of transportation is so rare, everybody who saddles up is an involuntary bicycle advocate.  The bike you ride, the clothes you wear, and your riding behavior all create a positive or negative impression on the public’s view of cyclists.  Take this (highly unscientific yet fun) survey to find out how your biking preferences help or hinder the propagation of “every day” cycling: 

Which best describes the kind of bike do you ride?

1. Old (perhaps rusty) Schwinn, beach cruiser, or other cheap bike with a basket, fenders, and chain guard
2. Imported European-city bike, tricycle or transport bike
3. Mountain bike or road bike
4. Fixie
5. Art bike

Which best describes your normal biking attire?

1. Professional or casual “every day” clothes (dresses and suits preferred)
2. Regular clothes with a rolled up pant leg, maybe some biking shoes
3. Windbreaker, Gortex pants, and other “non-skin tight” recreational wear
4. Hipster attire – skinny jeans, thick-rimmed glasses and a wool-knit cap
5. Lycra, spandex, race helmet, and lots of non-paying “corporate sponsorships”

What kind of helmet do you wear?

1. I don’t wear a helmet
2. Fancy helmet designed to look like a hat or something with flowers on it
3. Just your average bike helmet
4. Motorcycle helmet or bike helmet with blinking lights, camera, and rear view mirror
5. Nazi helmet

What do you carry on your bike?

1. One or more children and/or groceries
2. Groceries and/or beer in a milk crate or basket
3. Groceries and/or beer in a pannier or backpack
4. Not much in my messenger bag
5. I don’t carry anything, it adds weight and affects my “performance” and/or desire for “simplicity”

Which best describes your normal riding behavior?

1. I religiously follow all traffic laws and sleep with a copy of John Forrester’s “Effective Cycling” under my pillow
2. I’ve been known to take the occasional liberty with traffic laws, but never at the expense or safety of others
3. I routinely disregard most traffic laws but try to remain safe in the process
4. Traffic laws are for cars not bikes – I won’t hurt anybody but myself
5. My bike doesn’t even have brakes and I hate cagers

Add up your scores and refer to your “cycling brand” below:

5 to 9 points: The Prophet

You attract a lot of positive attention from cyclists and non-cyclists alike with your easy going demeanor and no-frills approach to biking.  Drivers appreciate your desire to play by the rules.  Even morbidly obese people driving Escalades and Audis consider pulling their old bike out of the garage for a spin around the cul-de-sac after seeing you.  Your positive presence inspires real change in behavior.

10-16 points:  The Pragmatist

You’re a practical centrist from an American vantage point.  You don’t look like a freak, geek, or Marxist.  Drivers won’t be considering a change in their behavior due to your presence, but they likely aren’t cursing at you or trying to run you down.  Your effect on cycling is positive from the perspective of other cyclists and neutral from the perspective of drivers.

17-20 points: The Hardcore

You exhibit many of the stereotypes associated with American cyclists.  Your relationship with drivers and other cyclists is often confrontational.  Road rage and anger has been directed at you on many occasions.  Ultimately you are a negative influence on the state of cycling and relations with other modes of transport.  Lighten up a little bit. 

 21-25 points: The Radical

You thrive on the negative energy directed at you by cyclists and drivers alike.  You are not only reckless, selfish and conceited, but see your membership in the radical “elite” as being central to your identity.  Segregated cycle infrastructure is your worst nightmare because more people would cycle, thereby stripping you of your fragile identity.  You live to do battle with cars and everyone else who doesn’t subscribe to your particular fringe persuasion.  

What’s your cycling brand?  Comments welcome!

In helmet we trust

Red, white, blue and a lack of logic

My ire for bike helmets is well known, but only after being sent a fascinating article questioning the efficacy of helmet use in the NFL (American football for our foreign readers), have I realized that we have a broader  reverence towards encasing our heads in foam and plastic.  Rather than focusing on changing behavior and avoiding unsafe situations, we focus on mitigating the effects of an accident.

I’m inherently distrustful of the statistics provided by both pro and anti-helmet advocates, but there are some parallels that can be drawn between football and cycling.  Some studies have claimed that head injuries have actually increased as helmet use has gained popularity with cyclists.  Similarly, Australian football, which is hardly a girly man’s sport, has far lower incidents of brain damage than American football, even though the Yanks are decked out in protective gear head-to-toe.  Why?  The false perception of safety caused by wearing a football helmet has driven riskier behavior. Use of  the football helmet in the 1940s changed the sport so radically that the bulk of “hits” are now led with the head.  The argument for getting rid of helmets in the NFL is simple.  If the players didn’t have all of that “safety equipment” they wouldn’t be tackling players with their faces.  It also turns out that football helmets themselves are having no effect in curbing the number of players suffering from long term brain damage.

Likewise some feel that the pervasive use of bike helmets is driving riskier behavior with both cyclists and automobile drivers.  Even though bike helmets are not designed to help a cyclist in a direct vehicular collision, many cyclists are wearing helmets to guard against that very scenario.  The biker feels safer amongst the cars, and the automobile driver feels more comfortable passing a helmeted cyclist; everybody is delusional and clinging to emotional logic.

Of course, the NFL, just like hardcore-helmet zealots, have their proverbial heads in the dirt (or helmets I should say).  Instead of changing the sport of football and getting rid of the helmets, they want to design a better helmet or start throwing more flags when players tackle head first (as if the sport doesn’t have enough penalties already). Einstein said that, “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  Don’t expect the NFL or American cyclists to ditch the helmet any time soon.  It’s far easier to put our faith in a helmet than to tackle the complexities of proper infrastructure and accountability for reckless-human behavior.  By that measure, we’re quite insane.  In helmet we trust.

A slow bike convert

A kinder ride

Several  weeks ago (before the family was struck down with H1N1) I was pleasantly surprised during my commute into work.  Merging ahead of me was a bicycle with a decidedly “up right” riding style and full fenders.  I put on the “gas” to catch up and get a closer look.  As I neared the rider I was able to identify his bike as a Workcycle Bakfiet.  I also recognized the man in the saddle!  Roughly one year ago, the same rider, Paul, caught up to me and quized me about my own ride.    At that time Paul was riding a road bike, was wearing a helmet and reflective vest, and had an odd car battery contraption powering massive headlights and a powerful horn.  He was quite the site and not at all tuned into my own particular biking zen.  Still, we chatted several times when our paths crossed on our way into downtown Minneapolis.   After all, all bikers are brothers and sisters.

Now here he was again, riding a Bakfiet, without a helmet and with a big smile on his face.  He recognized me and proudly proclaimed “I just can’t put this bike down.  I’ve lost 7 pounds since I started riding it!  You inspired me to get a Dutch bike.”  We rode side-by-side for several blocks, chatting about the virtues of practical bikes.

Not only was I glad to have sent some business Stephan’s way at Dutch Bike Chicago, but I also feel proud to have “converted” a biker into a better cycling advocate.  I’ve always maintained that neon-orange clad combat bikers are awful advertising for everyday biking.  Paul’s new approach will hopefully breed more casual and relaxed bikers.  Welcome to the fold, Paul!