Author Archives: jsallen

Anne Harris revealed

Anne Harris, author of the BICE study

Anne Harris, author of the BICE study

Here’s a photo of Anne Harris, lead author of the BICE study whose conclusions Paul Schimek has demolished.

A reader has asked how the PowerPoint presentation with speaker notes may be viewed. They’re in the linked document — you just have to download it and have the necessary software. One of my comments on this post gives details.

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.

Duck Boat crashes

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.

Another duck boat crash occurred in Seattle, 5 killed, 62 injured — but that one was due to failure of an axle, which sent the duck boat into the side of a bus in an oncoming lane of traffic.

What is to be learned from these crashes?

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.

In the context of all these issues, my misgivings about the Vision Zero campaign described in the Boston Globe on April 17 need no further mention.

Rear-view radar reviewed

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.

The Slow Ride, redux

Bob Sutterfield writes:

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.

Misleading poster redux

seattle poster

Seattle poster

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.

The location, in case anyone wants to take a closer look.

Lane Control on Lexington Street

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.
  • American traffic law supports lane control.

Lane Control on Lexington Street from John Allen on Vimeo.

Bruce Epperson’s observations on transportation funding

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:

http://john-s-allen.com/pdfs/epperson-funding.pdf

Wow, it’s a laser!

A post on the Grind online news site heralds the Blaze, a  laser bicycle light gimmick — not the first to be reviewed on this blog The Blaze hits the market with some rather clever — and deceptive — advertising including the photo below.

The Blaze shown to best advantage

The Blaze shown to best advantage

 

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.

Helmet disparagement and ethics

To quote the late, great Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman, “Never treat anyone in the public sphere like an idiot. If you treat him like an idiot, he will act like an idiot.”

There is an issue with the difficulty of providing helmets when bicycles are rented from unstaffed kiosks. Bike-“sharing” (actually rental) has unleashed this problem, in the interest of increasing bicycle mode share, and has been accompanied by a flurry of pronouncements disparaging not only mandatory helmet laws, but also helmet use.

Purportedly, according to several reports which have appeared in the media, wearing a helmet actually decreases safety. The quintessential article appeared in the New York Times. You see, it works like this: helmets make bicycling appear hazardous. If we don’t convey that impression, more people will ride bicycles, and then there will be a safety in numbers effect, so, what, me worry, all will get better.

In my opinion, bicyclists’ helmet use deserves to be a matter of personal choice rather than law. That is, I would like to rely on individuals’ own intelligence and judgment, and on helmet promotion, rather than to treat people as idiots, on the one hand disparaging helmet use in the interest of some Greater Good which is supposed to accrue to society at large, or on the other, passing a law which is supposed to force helmet use, but goes unenforced nd raises an issue of presumption of negligence as in, “the driver ran a stop sign, but you weren’t wearing a helmet, and so you were breaking the law and can’t collect on the driver’s insurance.”

I personally have had 3 serious impacts between a helmet and pavement the past 37 years since I started wearing one. One incident was initiated by a drunk driver. One was a collision with a tree branch hanging over the curb and which got caught in my front wheel, downhill at about 17 mph; the third, an encounter with an pothole at 8 mph. Note that two of the three were single-bike crashes. No bicycle-facilities nirvana is going to prevent these. Actually, crowded conditions on separate bicycle facilities make bike-bike and single-bike crashes more likely.

Am I to believe that the health benefits of cycling would be far greater than the injuries I would have suffered if not wearing the helmet, or for that matter, whether I would still be cycling, or in full possession of my faculties, or even alive?

I’m not alone in having such stories, or in saying that I wouldn’t ride if I couldn’t wear a helmet; helmet use became almost universal in recreational bicycle clubs within a few years after effective helmets became available in the mid-1970s, and bicycle clubs thrived. Helmets cut both ways, both encouraging and discouraging bicycling. Debris, potholes, riding in close quarters with other bicyclists of widely varying skill, all lead to crashes, and I challenge anyone here to explain how increasing the number of bicyclists or building separate facilities improves that situation except perhaps if the facilities become so crowded that bicyclists are reduced nearly to walking speed.

My choice to wear a helmet has nothing to do with the Greater Good, one way or the other. I’ve made my choice and it has worked very well for me.

Helmet disparagement is, to put it simply, deception. By way of comparison, recruits into the military are not deceived about the risk they assume, but they may take it on for patriotic and/or career reasons (or back in my day, be drafted). Special benefits, compensation and medical care if injured are part of the deal. Byut bicycling isn’t the military. I ride on my own initiative, for transportation and recreation.

User agreements for bike share customers (typically, several screens long on the rental kiosk, but where the agreement can be signed without reading it) relieve the renter of responsibility. I’d suggest that one way to promote helmet use would be to offer insurance if the customer wears a helmet. This, unlike a mandatory helmet law, would be a positive incentive.

M. Kary on the epidemiological approach to traffic-safety research

M. Kary has released the manuscript of his paper on the unsuitability of the epidemiological approach in studying traffic safety.

Unsuitability of the Epidemiological Approach to Bicycle Transportation Injuries and Traffic Engineering Problems
Author: M Kary
Injury Prevention 2015;21:73-76, Published Online First 14 August 2014

First paragraph of the abstract:

Bicyclists and transportation professionals would do better to decline advice drawn from characteristically epidemiological studies. The faults of epidemiology are both accidental (unpreparedness for the task) and essential (unsuitability of the methods). Characteristically epidemiological methods are known to be error-prone, and when applied to bicycle transportation suffer from diversion bias, inappropriately broad-brush categorisations, a focus on undifferentiated risk rather than on danger, a bias towards unsafe behaviour, and an overly narrow perspective. To the extent that there is a role for characteristically epidemiological methods, it should be the same as anywhere
else: as a preliminary or adjunct to the scientific method, for which there is no
substitute.

You may read the entire manuscript here:

Kary2014UnsuitabilityOfEpid.pdf