Mikael Colville’s talk in the video is introduced by a video clip of a rather sorry infrastructure situation, with a crowd of bicyclists slowly making their way forward, cramped in a narrow passage to the right of an opaque barrier, while a line of cars turning right must yield to the cyclists after turning past the barrier. To me, this choice of a clip conveys the message “look, we are morally superior, motorist, we’re going to make it hard for you: you have to yield to us.” It doesn’t say anything about making bicycling more convenient, or anything but a nuisance to people who might think of switching from motoring. Or that whoever chose this location had any other sense about infrastructure — certainly none about sight line hazards.
And the music — the Rolling Stones’ Sympathy for the Devil! Now there’s an odd choice!
Similarly, at the end, there is an overhead drone shot of a bridge which has recently been restriped from four to two lanes of motor traffic, to add street level bike lanes next to already existing bikeways behind curbs. The implication is that bicyclists are winning by taking space away from motorists, and that space is to struggle over, not to share. In this case, on a bridge, I’d agree that bike lanes are suitable, but are four needed? What happens where they turn off at the end of the bridge while motor vehicles can go straight? We don’t see. Who knows?
The talk is all about marketing. The core of his message is that guilt-tripping people about environmentalism doesn’t work, and we mus use marketing to make bicycling look attractive. Two products which Colville discusses for purposes of comparison, sewing machines and vacuum cleaners, are both highly useful labor-saving devices which quickly became popular for that reason, but he doesn’t mention that. He does praise improvements which made them more compact and useful in the home, but mostly, he praises the decorations on sewing machines which made them more attractive to homemakers.
My mother owned a Singer treadle sewing machine, and indeed it was a beautiful product — to some degree because of the flower decals but also because of its elegant product design, with a table to hold supplies and attachments, and into which the machine could be folded down to make the table useful when the machine wasn’t in use. Treadle power was perfect for the pre-electrical era, and the wheel on the right end of the machine could start, slow or stop it with precision. Not to speak of my mother’s machine’s being several decades old and still working perfectly.
My mother also owned a 1950-ish Kenmore (Sears brand, made by Electrolux) vacuum cleaner, and it was an esthetic horror, shaped like an airplae fuselage, painted dull gray and very loud. She made much more use of the vacuum cleaner than of the sewing machine.
Colville says that we must market bicycling like these products. He deprecates “the 1%” of people who will wear fancy cycling clothing, guilt by association with political class struggle and also a reference to the categorization which Roger Geller made up, pulling the numbers out of his head, only to be followed up by a home-town study which found that his numbers were exactly right (surprise!).
Colville says that people are conservative and don’t want to stand out. But, tattoos peek out from under his plain white T shirt.
I don’t think that bicycling can be sold by marketing alone. It must be practical and useful like a sewing machine or vacuum cleaner, or people won’t use it for daily transportation, though some people like to show off with Spandex and carbon fiber bikes; others wear street clothes and ride beater bikes. Some do both. Should we even care, as instructors? We make bicycling more practical for any cyclists by helping them to do it well — and offering informed opinions on what works, or not, in bicycle planning and infrastructure.
My reaction is: none are so blind as those who will not see — or perhaps, cannot, in this case, Harris, in allowing herself to be represented in this way. She is standing next to an apparently abandoned bicycle in a bike rack — the rear wheel is obviously bent. In the background, in the street, two cyclists are riding through slush and snow in a bike lane, though the adjacent travel lane is completely empty. The photo appeared with an article in a physics journal (peer review, anyone?) describing the study as a “landmark study”. Another review of the study describing how its methodology failed is here.
We had a duck boat run into a motor scooter from behind on Saturday, May 7, 2016 in Boston, killing one of the riders. It isn’t clear from the news story why this happened, though I expect that the poor forward visibility from the duck boat was a factor. Did the motor scooter operator pull ahead of the duck boat, riding and stopping in its large blind spots? Or did the duck boat operator run into the back of the motor scooter in spite of its being in hiss field of view? As usual with crashes involving two-wheelers — bicycle, motor scooters, motorcycles — and despite there having been many eyewitnesses, the Boston Globe offers no information as to the cause of the crash. Investigation is underway, although if it proceeds as with recent bicycle crashes, detailed results may not be made available for a long time, if at all.
For one thing, the duck boats are surplus from the Second World War. Though they served gallantly in that war, they are over 70 years old now: mechanical failures are not out of the question. The duck boats’ design as amphibious vehicles placed the driver high above the road over a high hood, with poor visibility to the front — a problem which has led to fatalities of pedestrians in crosswalks with large trucks. The duck boats do not have a front bumper, but instead, have a hull which can push unfortunate pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles underneath. These vehicles probably would not be legal, except that they are antiques.
Another issue with the Boston crash may be of education. Did the motor scooter driver not understand the peril of riding in blindspots of large vehicles? Boston is relentlessly installing bicycle facilities which direct bicyclists to ride into blindspots. It does not appear that the collision involved any such installation, but motor scooter operators are permitted under the law to use them, and their existence, along with a lack of instruction as to their perils, contributes to hazardous behavior elsewhere as well.
Garmin is a high-end manufacturer of GPS devices for bicycles and motor vehicles.
Garmin has posted an ad for a cycling “radar” (probably actually LEDdar using pulsed infrared light), which warns cyclists of overtaking traffic. There are some serious problems with the product concept and with the ad, so once you’ve viewed the ad, please read on.
The $200 Garmin device, an accessory for a bicycle GPS unit which costs several hundreds of dollars, informs the cyclist that a vehicle is about to overtake. But in order to decide what to do about that, the cyclist needs to know how much clearance the vehicle will give. The Garmin device doesn’t provide that information.
The stilted British voice in the ad conveys an air of authority, I suppose, but how is the cyclist in the ad not going to HEAR the huge truck approaching from behind? Unless the cyclist is listening to something at top volume on headphones — but I didn’t see any. The cyclist never once is shown looking back, and he isn’t using a mirror, and so what is the device supposed to let him know that he wouldn’t know anyway? Granted, the device could give a warning of a quiet car.
The “cyclist’s eye view” clip in the video shows his response to the warning: pulling over to the right edge of the roadway, so far that grass would be brushing his right foot and he risks a fall on the cracked pavement — which could turn a brush-by into a fatal.
Imagine what a nuisance this device would be when being passed by strings of vehicles. It would give a continuous warning, which would provide no useful information. One more good reason to use my $15 rear-view mirror to check on overtaking traffic, and use my cell phone for GPS (no extra cost) and forget Garmin!
The ad repeats the figure from a League of American Bicyclist survey of fatal bicycle crashes, that 40% are in overtaking crashes. That widely publicized number has several problems though:
First of all, there are more problems with the numbers. My friend Patricia Kovacs comments:
LAB’s Every Bicyclist Counts study found 40% of bike fatalities were hit from behind. I’ve been studying crash data in Ohio and in 2015, 30% of bike fatalities were hit from behind. But not all hit from behind are the motorist’s fault. In Ohio, 15 out of 24 fatal bike crashes were the fault of the cyclist, 6 were the fault of the motorist and 3 were no error, according to the police officers’ reports. What were the circumstances for the cyclists at fault? Improper crossing, not visible, failure to yield, lying or illegally in roadway. Most of these circumstances can be mitigated with education. I do worry about drunk and distracted drivers though, which is why I use a mirror.
The LAB study is biased in covering only fatal collisions, which are rare. Just as an example, in the over 100 million miles of travel in the 50-year history of the bicycle club to which I belong, approximately 1000 lifetimes of riding for an avid cyclist, there have been only two fatalities to club members. One was a rear-ender and the other was a head-on collision with an out-of-control vehicle that crossed to the wrong side of the road. Non-fatal crashes are hundreds of times as common and result in far more loss of years of useful life. 3/4 of serious bicycle crashes don’t involve a motor vehicle at all.
The League puts forward the 40% figure to promote its support for barrier-separated bikeways in urban areas, but fatal overtaking crashes occur mostly on rural roads. Most urban fatalities result from crossing and turning movements.
Half-truths have been used repeatedly to sell cycling infrastructure (as with the League’s study) but Garmin’s is the most sophisticated use of half-truths I’ve seen so far to sell a cycling product, while also being seriously ill-informed.
I don’t ride fast so I can participate safely in traffic.
I participate in traffic so I can safely ride fast enough for my needs.
If I were to ride in the gutter, on the bike path, in the door zone, on sidewalks and cycle tracks, etc. I could reduce my risk (probably to an acceptable level) by traveling slowly – at near-pedestrian speeds. That slower speed would give me more time to react to the hazards present in those environments.
But I use my bike for purposeful travel. I don’t have time in my day to travel as far as I need to go, if I were constrained to moving only at near-pedestrian speeds. In order to get where I’m going in a practical amount of time, I need to be able to ride at the speeds I’m capable of sustaining on a bicycle. And I need to do it more safely than if I were in the gutter or on a bike path or in the door zone – I need the safety and convenience of the travel lane. That speed is what the travel lane is designed to accommodate, and that’s what the ordinary traffic laws are designed to enable.
If my choice of travel by bicycle is restricted to hazardous areas like gutters and bike paths and cycle tracks, I’ll choose another way to travel – something motorized so I don’t suffer those restrictions.
The panel at the right is from a poster called The Commuter Toolkit put out by International Sustainable Solutions for an organization called the International Sustainability Institute. You may view it full size by clicking it or view the full poster. This poster shows a scene in downtown, Seattle, Washington, USA and the poster bears the names of various sponsors in the Seattle area.
The comparisons of space used by different travel modes in the poster are misleading. They show the space which people occupy standing still in posed photos, not the space which each mode of transportation actually uses. Cars would not be spaced so closely if in motion, and they also take space to park. Nor would buses be spaced so closely, and they also use bus stops and bus garages. The bicyclists are standing over their bicycles, not riding, etc. Neither does the poster address the throughput and travel times for the different modes or the suitability of different modes for different trips of different distances. I addressed an earlier example of a similar poster on this blog but there’s a twist to this particular version: the bicyclists are shown riding down the middle of Second Avenue in Seattle, but look over to the right side of the picture: that’s a bike lane — also with cars in it in the car picture. Similarly for the bus-only lane at the left side of the photos. No train runs on this street!
The bike lane was more recently replaced by a two-way separated bikeway, into which speed humps are being installed because the bikeway cannot safely support normal downhill bicycle travel speeds on this sloping street, though that’s another story.
Here’s a video showing a bicycle ride on a constant mile-long upslope, at speeds of 10 to 12 miles per hour (16 to 20 km/h), on a suburban 4-lane speedway with narrow lanes and no shoulders, the most challenging street in the community where I live. Motor taffic was very light, and auite fast. Points made:
Lane control is not about riding fast: it is about controlling one’s space.
Lane control is necessary so motorists will overtake at a safe lateral distance on a street with a narrow right-hand lane.
By requiring motorists to make full lane change, lane control lets a cyclist with a rear-view mirror confirm well in advance that motorists will overtake with a safe lateral distance.
With the light traffic on a multi-lane street, a slow bicyclist does not cause any significant delay to motorists.
Most motorists are cooperative.
A few motorists are abusive — even though they can easily overtake in the next lane — but they too overtake safely.
Bicycle historian Bruce Epperson has written a paper examining trends in transportation funding in the USA from the 1960s to the present. It makes interesting reading. With his permission, I have made the paper available in PDF format on this Web site:
The camera angle in the posed photo is chosen very carefully to create a specular reflection off the wet pavement. That makes the projected bicycle image look much brighter in this night photo. It will be totally invisible in daylight. Cost is 125 British pounds, that’s about $187 in US dollars and there are lights with similar performance (other than the laser feature) for $70. See http://www.sheldonbrown.com/LED-headlights.html
The idea of the light also appears to be to warn motorists who might make hook turns. There is a better way to avoid hook turns: don’t overtake on the curb side of a motor vehicle. And in any case, the bicycle image which the laser casts on the street, if visible at all, isn’t far enough ahead of the bicyclist to be in the field of view of many drivers in time to avoid turning — particularly not the drivers of long vehicles which are involved in the largest number of hook-turn fatal collisions.