Not entirely true. In Poznań there are some bike lanes too. However, they are mostly in less significant, low-traffic streets.
One thing that would be a good idea is the bike lane in the one-way street of Krakowska allowing cyclists to ride both ways. The stupid thing about it is, that cyclists riding in both ways are meant to use the same, slightly wider than average lane.
Try telling that to the average cyclist I see each and every morning.
I’d advise foreigners to always assume that bike-paths have traffic in both directions despite signs telling you otherwise …
In france since 2007 we have this in many cities: cyclists are allowed to ride both ways in some one way streets. there is an added sign right under the one way street sign. this is meant slow cars as well as make it easier for cyclists (no detour needed). This is now in place in quite a number of large cities (not sure about the 3 larger paris lyon marseilles). and in french towns the streets are really narrow with car parked on both sides so this requires an effort both from the driver and the rider to allow safety. official statistic is that there has been no reported accident caused by this change in traffic law.
They only work if they’re well planned out and placed on roads where cyclists aren’t going to be crushed by traffic that is too close to the end of the road. In Ottawa, bike lanes are very poorly placed. They often end for no reason, forcing anyone in that lane to suddenly have to merge with heavy, fast moving traffic.
In oklahoma city there is next to no respect for cyclists, but in one part of central okc there is an arts district and a university where it is common to see a cyclist riding to work or class or the coffee shop. I don’t get to ride in that area very often but when I do I always pass at least one sharrow and it is just nice to know that people know cyclists are around in that area.
just like road signs…after a month or so no one notices them anymore. I don’t, but I don’t need sharrows to know. Tansportation boys here in Columbus were all proud, none of it does a damn bit of good without outreach and education.
Joe is absolutely correct: based on my UK experience. Indeed it leads to the abuse from motorists of “Get in the cycle lane/cycle path/cycle facility and get off my ****ing road!”
oh yehuda…your heart is in the right place, but from what many fine folks on these comments have said, your logic may not be. i wish he would just rest and be happy that he’s not burned to a crispy crisp AND that he got sidewalk jerkface. but if he were to just relax, then there would be no adventures to draw, i suppose. *sigh* such is life.
(ps this is not to say that i dont love this strip Rick, because i do i do!)
Joe’s comment about Yehuda’s cap reflects my disappointment. Following the advertisement on this page, I ordered a Walz wool earflap cap for the winter. This is my 3rd cycling cap and so far the most expensive and least useful one on the bike. As i can’t properly see from the brim, it makes cycling not too safe and/or gives me a neck ache.
I have an Octopus Cap made of repurposed wool fabric and sweater knit for ear flaps. very nice. I found that if I wear it backwards (brim to back) it fits under my helmet and i can still see my rearview mirror. but in these cold temps lately the balaclava is a better choice anyway.
I have one of those too and I can second the low brim. If I wear it on my road bike I cannot see, however, it works great on my old Raleigh Sports 3-speed. I wish they would add a line with a shorter brim as I do like my 3 panel Walz cap.
I have drop bars, so the low brim is a real problem. I started using it off the bike (hiking, PT commuting), but the brim still somehow bothers me.
The other thing is that even the ear flap cap is starting to be cold around +2 / 0 Celsius. In 10C I have to wear a balaclava anyway, but I wouldn’t mind having a nice cap with a brim that covers my ears for the less rough winter days. And somehow, the balaclava is too much for me in the mildly freezing range.
I’m not sure if that video presents any pros, and man on the street “this makes riding more dangerous” always irk me (at least present your opinion as an opinion and not as fact, man on the street). I does bring up an interesting point, that one of the guys interviewed touched on: cycle tracks for rider who are accustomed to vehicular cycling takes some adjustment and getting used to. When you vehicular cycle you’re pretty much obligated to minimize the speed divergence between yourself and the motorists, which requires the rider to ride as fast as humanly possible. Riding in a cycle track is totally different. Since there is no obligation to go as fast as humanly possible to avoid obstructing traffic, it becomes the responsibility of the cyclist to adjust his or her own speed to that which is safest, which is typically between 10 and 12 mph. If you’re going under 12 mph you can stop and avoid collision with just about anything. To the rider who is accustomed to ALWAYS going 16+ mph, there is going to be some adjustment, because you cannot go 16 mph safely in an urban cycle track; or at least that’s my opinion.
I dispute that you’re “pretty much obligated to … ride as fast as humanly possible” when you ride vehicularly. I ride vehicularly, and I ride at a comfortable rate for me. Since I’ve been doing it for 8 years now, I’m in shape and no doubt I ride a bit faster than most beginners, but I don’t push myself. I admit I would be hard pressed to go less than 10 (except uphill or with a strong headwind), just from impatience myself. But I’ve ridden vehicularly, occupying a lane on a multi-lane road, at 12 MPH (intentionally, looking at my speedometer), and not experienced any more problems than from doing the same at 15 or20.
I agree you can’t safely go 16+ on a cycle track. That’s why I don’t want to use them. But putting one there increases the social pressure on me to use it, and sometimes legal pressure as well. So now I’m inconvenienced because my trip time is increased now that I am forced to be less efficient. Or, if I use the travel lane, sometimes that inconveniences the motorists, by making me more likely to have to control the travel lane because it is now too narrow to share. I’m not sure you can really have your cake and eat it too, in terms of letting cyclists choose to use a cycle track or use the road, at least in terms of public opinion.
For me that’s a small price to pay to make room on the street for cyclists that may be elementary school students, senior citizens or anyone else not in athletic adult condition. Having to slow down for cycle tracks used to irk me too, but I learned to stop worrying and love the bike lanes. I’m no longer riding like I’m training for a triathlon or something, but I’m getting good exercise and getting around just fine, even if it takes me 5 or 6 minutes longer to go 7 miles.
JohnB is correct: Vehicular cycling isn’t about keeping up; it’s about losing one’s timidity and using one’s right to travel on the public streets and roads safely. My AARP membership expired about seven years ago, and it’s been a lot longer than that since there’s been any hope of my keeping up with the rest of the traffic. For Ohioans, see ORC 4511.25: we are not required to compromise our safety in order to make it easier for the operators of other vehicles to overtake us.
My guess is that most of the motorists who wind up behind me wouldn’t be able to tell whether I’m going 8, 18, or 28 mph. What registers in their minds is, it’s slower than they want to go. So, if I’m signalling by my lane position that they’re not invited to try to pass me within the lane, they slow down and wait until it’s safe to change lanes to pass. About 1-2% honk or yell something stupid and boring, as they pass. (That percentage goes up a lot when there are bike ghettos I’m not using.)
Yes, well. You’re hard pressed to go less than 10 MPH. I think the comment holds true for cyclists hard pressed to go as fast as 10 MPH. They’re out there.
My fixed gear is geared at around 65 inches, so do the math. And on a street posted 25 mph it don’t make a crap if I’m going 10, 15 or 20 mph; the cars will be doing about 40.
As to “legal pressure” to use the cycle track, if it goes where I’m going I might think about it. If it doesn’t, I’ll ride in the street and take my lane as God intended. They can take their horns and shove ‘em.
Interesting clip about NY and 1st Ave bike lanes. In Melbourne, Australia, a number of roads have recently acquired bus lanes but the signs designating them as such have got an extra label saying “Bicycles Permitted”. Kinda nice because that means that a bike has somewhere to go out of the main motor traffic flow, it’s a big fat lane, nobody’s going to park in a bus lane ’cause bus lanes are “real” lanes and nobody’s going to put a car parking lane alongside the bus lane trapping all the buses in their lane in the event of a problem. I haven’t actually ridden many of them sharing with the buses but on other rides I’ve generally found the bus drivers to be understanding and, if they’re not stopping too often or for too long, it’s easy enough just to wait behind at the bus stop and avoid the constant game of leapfrog.
The only problem is that bus lanes have, well, buses. Around here the impression I get is that bus drivers expect everyone in their way to get out of it so they can keep up with their schedules, and they don’t seem to appreciate that they’re driving buses and not compact cars. I’ve had more close encounters with city buses than any other kind of vehicle.
I find that on urban gridded streets bicyclists and buses go just about identical speeds. There’s a huge difference between dealing with bus drivers that have no respect for you and one drives as though he or she understands that they’re going the same general speed as a cyclist. I’ve dealt with both, and my city has Bike/Bus lanes. I know what you’re talking about – there’s nothing worse than the bus driver that blasts their horn at you like you’re in their way, cuts around and buzzes you only to have to stop and block your path 10 yards up ahead – dumbasses. I think it’s really a matter of better driver training. It’s also helpful to have a public transportation authority that is responsive to complaints about their drivers and the way they interact with cyclists, and our bus system manager has been asking for input from the cycling community, which is a positive.
I have watched some of David Hembrow’s videos and the ‘bus drivers expect everyone in their way to get out of it’ is rare as the Mango seems to be passing THEM most often!
There are days when even my slow speed is enough to pass the bus when it has too many passengers – ride at rush-hour and cyclists are usually fastest thng around in built-up areas. (Coventry, UK)
-8 degrees with #$%@!! snow as I get on my bicycle to go to work this morning. Long range weather forecast is that we’ll be in the deep freeze until spring. Another @*&$%!!! white Christmas. Sometimes I just want to move to California.
Kevin, In California you’d fit right in. Of course you might complain about earthquakes, mudslides, wildfires, riots, crime, heat, drought, mountain lions, rattlesnakes, poison oak, sharks, smog, unafordable housing, … yeah it’s paradise. Start packing right away.
Yes, after too many days of &*^%$!!! 15 degrees, “only” -8 does seem balmy. Last winter was great. Record low snowfall and a couple of nice thaws in the middle.
Waitaminnit, Kevvie- -8 as in them phoney-baloney Canuckistani degrees? That’s around twenty on a real thermonenometer, ain’t it? That was about the reading yesterday. I rode. I just wore work clothes, a sweater and a heavy jacket. I didn’t suffer. Maybe take the motor off your “bike”, because like they say at work when someone’s pussing out about the cold, “There’s heat in the tools”. Just a suggeestion.
I just graduated from college in the UP of Michigan and miss it dearly ski untill may sometimes, I even xc skied to class a few times then ride bikes till 11 in the late summer sun
Set asides for bicycles (lanes, “bike boxes,” paths, etc.) are all things that advocates and politicians can point to as progress (and be photographed next to for credit during the next election or fund drive). Regardless of the results of studies, and I am not dismissing or contesting the results of any study, I think set asides promote a false sense of security among many cyclists and a real sense of frustration among many drivers. And accidents will occur when these two sub-groups collide, literally. Set asides also require the additional expenditure of finite resources. (The cost of EACH bike box in Portland is $6,000!!! See: <http://preview.tinyurl.com/24gvd3p>.) Set asides can be thought of like training wheels. Yes, you’re riding close to traffic, but you’re admitting that you’re not really prepared to ride in traffic.
I’m all for roads and bridges and intersections designed to accommodate bikes and vehicles safely, as well as rails-to-trails and other recreational bike paths. However, no amount of paint, signage, barriers, or separate paths will make a single cyclist more capable of riding safely in traffic or a single driver more willing to accept cyclists in traffic. You need proper education, training, and experience to do that — on both sides of the bumper.
Share the road? Absolutely! Share the responsibility? Definitely! It may very well be time for governments to require cyclists to obtain an operator’s license at an appropriate age and concurrently register bicycles in the same manner as motor vehicles. They should also require a bicycle question on motor vehicle license tests, as has been suggested by others on this site. Finally, equitable enforcement of traffic laws is a must, including citing cyclists for running stop signs and traffic lights and for wrong-way travel.
I’d like to see mandatory testing (written and driving) for all drivers rather than the simple renewal process that is nothing more than a fee.
This would be a great way to introduce new laws, reinforce existing ones, and make sure that drivers have the motor skills (no pun intended) to actually operate a 3000 lb+ motorized missle.
Retesting sounds good in theory, but wouldn’t be practical. Where I live, it often takes multiple trips to the DMV to get a first-time license, because they can handle only so many applicants per day. When my son got his learner’s permit, it took two trips to the DMV just to get a chance to take the written test — and both times we arrived before sunrise and waited in line for a couple of hours. Fortunately he was able to take the actual driving test at school, as a part of his Driver’s Ed class, or we might have spent a week or more, going to the DMV every day, before he could have taken the driving test. (That’s what happened with my oldest son, who got his license before they started letting Driver’s Ed instructors give the driving test.) It can take several hours just to renew a license now, when all you have to do is stansd in line and get your picture taken. Adding the testing process to those renewals would mean weeks or even months of delays for people who couldn’t afford to spend hours each day, every day, for several days in a row, in line at the DMV.
The test can be done on-line! When training to be a driving instructer I used s/w to help me learn the skills to get learners to a competent level to take their test. In particular, the Hazard Perception test – A video runs and you press a button to indicate a hazard. Repeated use trains you where the hazards are though and with enough use, you can learn when to press the button to pass the test, unfortunately. However, it is a great tool for teaching the principle of perception and I imagine a similar tool might work for cycle-related hazards?
“ It may very well be time for governments to require cyclists to obtain an operator’s license at an appropriate age and concurrently register bicycles in the same manner as motor vehicles.”
Sure, if your goal is to reduce bicycle modal share to .001%. The question is, when people grouse that cyclists need to get licenses, what would be the goal of that? Bicycles are already safe. The do not represent a significant danger to the public safety. How many people are killed by improperly operated bicycles in the United States every year? 10, maybe? Of the only 700 or so people who die while riding bicycles how many would be saved by compulsory licensing? Take away the little children that get crushed by car backing out of driveways (they won’t be licensed), the drunks that will still ride drunk just like the drunks are still driving, and the cyclist deaths that are caused by motorist error and you’re talking about a pool of fewer than 200 people, and they would probably still f*ck up even if they were licensed. 100 million Americans should be forced to get licenses to save maybe fewer people than 10. Are they even going to bother getting licenses? No. If we did that how many millions of Americans would die sooner from diabetes and heart disease? Simply put, it isn’t a practical suggestion, and I’m not even sure what it would be meant to solve anyway.
The right to travel is a common law right, a recognized right under international human rights law, and has been recognized by the US courts as one of the ‘unenumerated’ US constitutional rights. (See Mionske’s BICYCLING AND THE LAW for further details.)
Because motor vehicles are so dangerous even when controlled by trained drivers, much less untrained ones, public safety mandates that operators be licensed. But in order for such licensing to pass constitutional muster, unlicensed forms of travel must be preserved. Such as bicycling.
The current lot views the Constitution of the United States of America as a hindrance to their agenda. Fortunately the next session of Congress will see the grownups in charge.
@jon4t2: I heartily agree with almost everything you said, well put sir!
My wish is that every person who desires to have a motor vehicle operators permit be first required to pass a written & on road test ON A BICYCLE. For the very reason that we know bicycles are less dangerous to both the operator & especially the surrounding people & property. People must prove they know the rules of the road while operating the safest vehicle beyond two feet before we allow them to operate a 3000 lb motorized missle.
I don’t agree that licensing bicyclists is a good idea as a) it is unneccesary; b) serves no public safety factor; and c) is cost prohibitive, it could never pay for itself.
Now licensing bicycles is a differnt argument. Since most roads are funded by local property taxes, a locality can & should impose a use tax to maintain their roads. But it must be directly proportional to the damage caused by each vehicle. Sinc edamage is directly related to weight, then the use tax should be as well. Perhaps something along the lines of $.02 per lb. A bike & rider would come in at no more than 300 lbs = $6 annually. A typical small car at 2500 lbs = $50, a semi at 40,000 lbs = $800 (since they cause most of the damage to the roadway.)
And how much would you charge for the bicycle that is ridden once every couple of weeks and then is left to rust in the backyard? No riding = no damage contribution. The problem with this argument is that the roads are built to withstand the abuse given them by heavy motorized vehicles. There is no conclusive proof that average bicycle traffic on any shared road adds to the damage. If cars and trucks were removed from a road and only bicycles allowed, that road would last practically for the life of the city, not counting weed growth.
When I was last in NL they were talking about having bicycles registered by the bike shop when purchased. In theory, one could opt out of the registry, but the thought was that very few people would choose to do so.
That actually is not a bad idea, and one that I believe should be adopted everywhere. The Toronto police have an on-line bicycle registry. Cycle shops, when doing the warranty registration would simply ask the customer “and shall I register this with the Toronto police?” I would be willing to wager that very few people would say no.
@SDMSS & @D. Sage: You’re right. A reckless cyclist is not as likely to maim and kill people or to destroy property as a reckless driver, but cycling idiocy does not occur in a vacuum. Many drivers stupidly slam on their brakes to avoid hitting squirrels that dart into the road, and they’d do the same if an idiot cyclist unexpectedly crossed their path; initiating a chain of God-only-knows-what events leading to possible injury, destruction, and suffering. I want to hold everyone using the roads to a high standard of conduct.
A point I implied but did not expand on in my original post concerns the “equal rights” of cyclists and drivers on the road. Since most U.S. states classify bicycles as vehicles with the right to use most roads, cyclists are certainly justified in their demand for the safe use of public pavement. However, since, as cyclists, they are not required to be licensed or to license their bicycles in a manner similar to drivers and their vehicles, they do not share “equal responsibilities” with drivers. I believe that this unequal treatment under the law brings into question the principle of bicycle as vehicle and contributes to the animosity to sharing the road with cyclists.
Cyclists have the responsibility under the law to obey the same traffic laws as drivers, but I don’t think they have the same incentive, even though they are at greater risk of personal injury. There is no mechanism for assessing points on a cyclist’s license with a possible increase in insurance premiums or possible license revocation with mandatory traffic school to get it back, as there is with motor vehicles. I don’t know what current law allows, but without a cyclist’s license, I think all you’re left with are fines and perhaps jail time to punish law breakers who don’t injure themselves.
Licensing cyclists probably would be more difficult than herding cats and it might not alter the accident statistics, but it would help equalize cyclists’ responsibilities with those of drivers. It would give authorities an additional mechanism for dealing with idiots on bicycles. And in an ironic sort of way, it would put drivers and cyclists on the same team, sharing the inconvenience and irritation of dealing with the government in order to get permission to use public thoroughfares. Such shared misery might encourage a mutual tolerance, if not respect.
@WV Tenor: I hadn’t considered the right to travel. Thanks for mentioning it. Still, since most roads and paths are paid for with public funds, and since riding a bicycle on such public rights-of-way is a choice, unlike walking or wheelchairs, one might be able to argue that a minimum level of proficiency is required, at least when sharing the road with motor vehicles. Such proficiency could be attested to with a valid license. It’s not a fool-proof scheme, but then neither are driver’s licenses.
And, as much as I detest them, mandatory seat belt laws and mandatory child safety seat laws are on the books. If one accepts the underlying principle of these laws that government has the authority to protect people from themselves, then requiring a minimum level of proficiency on a bicycle wouldn’t be much of a stretch.
Sharrows don’t help. Let’s be honest and say that motorists will never understand. If you take that attitude and just accept that, you will have less stress and possibly take a few years back of your life by not letting these motorist drive you crazy.
I appreciate the comment about the hat…
Here’s the thing about sharrows. I was thinking about this on the ride home. As long as it’s Yehuda painting them, I have no problem. He’s saying, “Where I bike, cars and bikes should share the road.” Great! I wish we all had automatic sharrow painting equipment trailing behind us. (Lightweight, no drag, etc.)
But what I know is going to happen is some city traffic planner is put in charge of deciding where to put the sharrows. He may or may not know anything about biking. He’s going to put them where he thinks bikes should be. The implication being, bikes should not be where there are no sharrows. The next thing you know, somebody hits a cyclist on a street without sharrows and gets off with the argument that the biker was riding unsafely, since there were no sharrows. And we end up getting restricted in where we can ride, in exchange for a bunch of drawings on the road that gradually get obliterated and which drivers ignore anyway.
BTW, as to the WP avatar — no idea how that happened. It’s avatar possession, I think.
Yep, and that’s what happened in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, recently – the city planner decided that bikes belong in the gutter, so that’s where he put the sharrows. They’re supposed to go at least 4 feet from the curb. The really sad part about the whole debacle is that the bike coalition in the area actually endorses and promotes them, crowing about how great they are to every media outlet who will listen. I think Yehuda may have been brain washed by them, as he is spewing the exact same BS that they are. Only difference is that maybe Yehuda isn’t putting them in the gutters, though it’s hard to tell from the illustrations…..
No one is addressing how Yehuda’s cap actually DOES make cycling safer. First, it keeps the sun out of his eyes. Big win there. Secondly, it protects against things kicked up by car tires hitting Yehuda in the eyes. Third, it keeps his head warm. There’s no frigging way a regular ventilated styrofoam helmet would have kept Yehuda’s head insulated in the snow last year. The only reason he’s alive today is cuz of that cap, people. Joe is so wrong it’s pathetic.
um, like in Panel 3 Joe is magically talking with his mouth shut. sounds like you are saying “dislike” to that then. As for me I do wear a helmet and several bike friends at work swear they have been saved by theirs.
Maybe not safer, but still, makes cyclists feel welcome, I reckon. We don’t get them in Poland, though. Only the poorly designed sidepaths.
Not entirely true. In Poznań there are some bike lanes too. However, they are mostly in less significant, low-traffic streets.
One thing that would be a good idea is the bike lane in the one-way street of Krakowska allowing cyclists to ride both ways. The stupid thing about it is, that cyclists riding in both ways are meant to use the same, slightly wider than average lane.
Unless people are looking for bicycle traffic coming from both directions, riding the wrong way on a one-way street is really dangerous.
Try telling that to the average cyclist I see each and every morning.
I’d advise foreigners to always assume that bike-paths have traffic in both directions despite signs telling you otherwise …
And yes … that’s in bike-utopia Netherlands
In france since 2007 we have this in many cities: cyclists are allowed to ride both ways in some one way streets. there is an added sign right under the one way street sign. this is meant slow cars as well as make it easier for cyclists (no detour needed).
This is now in place in quite a number of large cities (not sure about the 3 larger paris lyon marseilles). and in french towns the streets are really narrow with car parked on both sides so this requires an effort both from the driver and the rider to allow safety. official statistic is that there has been no reported accident caused by this change in traffic law.
They only work if they’re well planned out and placed on roads where cyclists aren’t going to be crushed by traffic that is too close to the end of the road. In Ottawa, bike lanes are very poorly placed. They often end for no reason, forcing anyone in that lane to suddenly have to merge with heavy, fast moving traffic.
In oklahoma city there is next to no respect for cyclists, but in one part of central okc there is an arts district and a university where it is common to see a cyclist riding to work or class or the coffee shop. I don’t get to ride in that area very often but when I do I always pass at least one sharrow and it is just nice to know that people know cyclists are around in that area.
first? I am always just a little tempted to go paint some myself
just like road signs…after a month or so no one notices them anymore. I don’t, but I don’t need sharrows to know. Tansportation boys here in Columbus were all proud, none of it does a damn bit of good without outreach and education.
Have those in some streets in Montreal (my hometown).
By the way, love this strip.
Joe is absolutely correct: based on my UK experience. Indeed it leads to the abuse from motorists of “Get in the cycle lane/cycle path/cycle facility and get off my ****ing road!”
With a sharrow the marking *is* in the same travel lane as motorists. That comment backfires.
i rather feel amused than abused if a driver gets mad and yells at me.
I iz jealous! That would make a whole world of difference if I could be so relaxed on an average ride.
oh yehuda…your heart is in the right place, but from what many fine folks on these comments have said, your logic may not be. i wish he would just rest and be happy that he’s not burned to a crispy crisp AND that he got sidewalk jerkface. but if he were to just relax, then there would be no adventures to draw, i suppose. *sigh* such is life.
(ps this is not to say that i dont love this strip Rick, because i do i do!)
Don Quixote and Pancho Sanchez
Don Quixote and Sancho Pança
The Cisco Kid and Pancho
Angel & Buffy
Lone Ranger and Tonto
Han Solo and Chewbaca
Luke and Chewbaca
Laurel & Hardy
Laurel & Hearty Handshake
Gilgamesh and Enkidu
@NHJim: Luke and Laura
Cheese and Onion.
Frick and Frack.
Peas and carrots.
Godzilla and Mothra
Wayne and Wendy.
Bevis & ——
Darmok and Jalad (at Tanagra)
My favorite episode!
My favorite episode!
My favorite episode!
Picard totally rooled in that episode.
(I’m such a nerd…)
Abbot and Costello
Pinky and the Brain
Adrian Monk and Natasha
Boris and Natasha
Sacco and Vanzetti, Leopold and Loeb, Thelma and Louise…
Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd
Ziva and DiNozzo.
Abby and McGee.
Hitler and Stalin (pace Godwin)
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
me and Bobby McGee
Moose and Squirrel
Joe’s comment about Yehuda’s cap reflects my disappointment. Following the advertisement on this page, I ordered a Walz wool earflap cap for the winter. This is my 3rd cycling cap and so far the most expensive and least useful one on the bike. As i can’t properly see from the brim, it makes cycling not too safe and/or gives me a neck ache.
Dude.. cut some eyeholes in it and ride ninja style.
I have an Octopus Cap made of repurposed wool fabric and sweater knit for ear flaps. very nice. I found that if I wear it backwards (brim to back) it fits under my helmet and i can still see my rearview mirror. but in these cold temps lately the balaclava is a better choice anyway.
I have one of those too and I can second the low brim. If I wear it on my road bike I cannot see, however, it works great on my old Raleigh Sports 3-speed. I wish they would add a line with a shorter brim as I do like my 3 panel Walz cap.
I have drop bars, so the low brim is a real problem. I started using it off the bike (hiking, PT commuting), but the brim still somehow bothers me.
The other thing is that even the ear flap cap is starting to be cold around +2 / 0 Celsius. In 10C I have to wear a balaclava anyway, but I wouldn’t mind having a nice cap with a brim that covers my ears for the less rough winter days. And somehow, the balaclava is too much for me in the mildly freezing range.
I’d like to see some sharrows in my neighbourhood.
There are a few in Atlanta and they have been well received.
For those who haven’t seen it already, heres’ a great video on the pros and cons of bike lanes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADUhqva9PwU&feature=player_embedded
I’m not sure if that video presents any pros, and man on the street “this makes riding more dangerous” always irk me (at least present your opinion as an opinion and not as fact, man on the street). I does bring up an interesting point, that one of the guys interviewed touched on: cycle tracks for rider who are accustomed to vehicular cycling takes some adjustment and getting used to. When you vehicular cycle you’re pretty much obligated to minimize the speed divergence between yourself and the motorists, which requires the rider to ride as fast as humanly possible. Riding in a cycle track is totally different. Since there is no obligation to go as fast as humanly possible to avoid obstructing traffic, it becomes the responsibility of the cyclist to adjust his or her own speed to that which is safest, which is typically between 10 and 12 mph. If you’re going under 12 mph you can stop and avoid collision with just about anything. To the rider who is accustomed to ALWAYS going 16+ mph, there is going to be some adjustment, because you cannot go 16 mph safely in an urban cycle track; or at least that’s my opinion.
I dispute that you’re “pretty much obligated to … ride as fast as humanly possible” when you ride vehicularly. I ride vehicularly, and I ride at a comfortable rate for me. Since I’ve been doing it for 8 years now, I’m in shape and no doubt I ride a bit faster than most beginners, but I don’t push myself. I admit I would be hard pressed to go less than 10 (except uphill or with a strong headwind), just from impatience myself. But I’ve ridden vehicularly, occupying a lane on a multi-lane road, at 12 MPH (intentionally, looking at my speedometer), and not experienced any more problems than from doing the same at 15 or20.
I agree you can’t safely go 16+ on a cycle track. That’s why I don’t want to use them. But putting one there increases the social pressure on me to use it, and sometimes legal pressure as well. So now I’m inconvenienced because my trip time is increased now that I am forced to be less efficient. Or, if I use the travel lane, sometimes that inconveniences the motorists, by making me more likely to have to control the travel lane because it is now too narrow to share. I’m not sure you can really have your cake and eat it too, in terms of letting cyclists choose to use a cycle track or use the road, at least in terms of public opinion.
For me that’s a small price to pay to make room on the street for cyclists that may be elementary school students, senior citizens or anyone else not in athletic adult condition. Having to slow down for cycle tracks used to irk me too, but I learned to stop worrying and love the bike lanes. I’m no longer riding like I’m training for a triathlon or something, but I’m getting good exercise and getting around just fine, even if it takes me 5 or 6 minutes longer to go 7 miles.
JohnB is correct: Vehicular cycling isn’t about keeping up; it’s about losing one’s timidity and using one’s right to travel on the public streets and roads safely. My AARP membership expired about seven years ago, and it’s been a lot longer than that since there’s been any hope of my keeping up with the rest of the traffic. For Ohioans, see ORC 4511.25: we are not required to compromise our safety in order to make it easier for the operators of other vehicles to overtake us.
My guess is that most of the motorists who wind up behind me wouldn’t be able to tell whether I’m going 8, 18, or 28 mph. What registers in their minds is, it’s slower than they want to go. So, if I’m signalling by my lane position that they’re not invited to try to pass me within the lane, they slow down and wait until it’s safe to change lanes to pass. About 1-2% honk or yell something stupid and boring, as they pass. (That percentage goes up a lot when there are bike ghettos I’m not using.)
Yes, well. You’re hard pressed to go less than 10 MPH. I think the comment holds true for cyclists hard pressed to go as fast as 10 MPH. They’re out there.
So for some humans the comment holds true.
My fixed gear is geared at around 65 inches, so do the math. And on a street posted 25 mph it don’t make a crap if I’m going 10, 15 or 20 mph; the cars will be doing about 40.
As to “legal pressure” to use the cycle track, if it goes where I’m going I might think about it. If it doesn’t, I’ll ride in the street and take my lane as God intended. They can take their horns and shove ‘em.
Interesting clip about NY and 1st Ave bike lanes. In Melbourne, Australia, a number of roads have recently acquired bus lanes but the signs designating them as such have got an extra label saying “Bicycles Permitted”. Kinda nice because that means that a bike has somewhere to go out of the main motor traffic flow, it’s a big fat lane, nobody’s going to park in a bus lane ’cause bus lanes are “real” lanes and nobody’s going to put a car parking lane alongside the bus lane trapping all the buses in their lane in the event of a problem. I haven’t actually ridden many of them sharing with the buses but on other rides I’ve generally found the bus drivers to be understanding and, if they’re not stopping too often or for too long, it’s easy enough just to wait behind at the bus stop and avoid the constant game of leapfrog.
The only problem is that bus lanes have, well, buses. Around here the impression I get is that bus drivers expect everyone in their way to get out of it so they can keep up with their schedules, and they don’t seem to appreciate that they’re driving buses and not compact cars. I’ve had more close encounters with city buses than any other kind of vehicle.
I find that on urban gridded streets bicyclists and buses go just about identical speeds. There’s a huge difference between dealing with bus drivers that have no respect for you and one drives as though he or she understands that they’re going the same general speed as a cyclist. I’ve dealt with both, and my city has Bike/Bus lanes. I know what you’re talking about – there’s nothing worse than the bus driver that blasts their horn at you like you’re in their way, cuts around and buzzes you only to have to stop and block your path 10 yards up ahead – dumbasses. I think it’s really a matter of better driver training. It’s also helpful to have a public transportation authority that is responsive to complaints about their drivers and the way they interact with cyclists, and our bus system manager has been asking for input from the cycling community, which is a positive.
I have watched some of David Hembrow’s videos and the ‘bus drivers expect everyone in their way to get out of it’ is rare as the Mango seems to be passing THEM most often!
There are days when even my slow speed is enough to pass the bus when it has too many passengers – ride at rush-hour and cyclists are usually fastest thng around in built-up areas. (Coventry, UK)
-8 degrees with #$%@!! snow as I get on my bicycle to go to work this morning. Long range weather forecast is that we’ll be in the deep freeze until spring. Another @*&$%!!! white Christmas. Sometimes I just want to move to California.
Kevin, In California you’d fit right in. Of course you might complain about earthquakes, mudslides, wildfires, riots, crime, heat, drought, mountain lions, rattlesnakes, poison oak, sharks, smog, unafordable housing, … yeah it’s paradise. Start packing right away.
Not to mention the acid-flashback of 1970s Governor Moonbeam, Jerry Brown.
After the past couple days it seems balmy today here in TO.
Yes, after too many days of &*^%$!!! 15 degrees, “only” -8 does seem balmy. Last winter was great. Record low snowfall and a couple of nice thaws in the middle.
Waitaminnit, Kevvie- -8 as in them phoney-baloney Canuckistani degrees? That’s around twenty on a real thermonenometer, ain’t it? That was about the reading yesterday. I rode. I just wore work clothes, a sweater and a heavy jacket. I didn’t suffer. Maybe take the motor off your “bike”, because like they say at work when someone’s pussing out about the cold, “There’s heat in the tools”. Just a suggeestion.
-8° C = 17.6° F
It could be worse. BlogTO has an article about this time of the year in 1944. Ouch. See:
http://www.blogto.com/city/2010/12/the_great_toronto_snowstorm_of_1944/
That’s nothing (actually quite impressive!)…
If you love snow, the Keweenaw is the place to be.
http://postcardy.blogspot.com/2008/03/record-snowfall-keweenaw-county.html
It’s also quite nice for riding when it’s not snowbound. Few cars, great roads and trails, spectacular scenery.
I just graduated from college in the UP of Michigan and miss it dearly ski untill may sometimes, I even xc skied to class a few times then ride bikes till 11 in the late summer sun
Chicago in ’67. 23″ over a little over 24 hours. THAT was a fun snow – IF you were a kid. Which I was.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-chicagodays1967blizzard-story,0,1032940.story
Don’t mess with the hat man!! That just ain’t right!
Set asides for bicycles (lanes, “bike boxes,” paths, etc.) are all things that advocates and politicians can point to as progress (and be photographed next to for credit during the next election or fund drive). Regardless of the results of studies, and I am not dismissing or contesting the results of any study, I think set asides promote a false sense of security among many cyclists and a real sense of frustration among many drivers. And accidents will occur when these two sub-groups collide, literally. Set asides also require the additional expenditure of finite resources. (The cost of EACH bike box in Portland is $6,000!!! See: <http://preview.tinyurl.com/24gvd3p>.) Set asides can be thought of like training wheels. Yes, you’re riding close to traffic, but you’re admitting that you’re not really prepared to ride in traffic.
I’m all for roads and bridges and intersections designed to accommodate bikes and vehicles safely, as well as rails-to-trails and other recreational bike paths. However, no amount of paint, signage, barriers, or separate paths will make a single cyclist more capable of riding safely in traffic or a single driver more willing to accept cyclists in traffic. You need proper education, training, and experience to do that — on both sides of the bumper.
Share the road? Absolutely! Share the responsibility? Definitely! It may very well be time for governments to require cyclists to obtain an operator’s license at an appropriate age and concurrently register bicycles in the same manner as motor vehicles. They should also require a bicycle question on motor vehicle license tests, as has been suggested by others on this site. Finally, equitable enforcement of traffic laws is a must, including citing cyclists for running stop signs and traffic lights and for wrong-way travel.
I’d like to see mandatory testing (written and driving) for all drivers rather than the simple renewal process that is nothing more than a fee.
This would be a great way to introduce new laws, reinforce existing ones, and make sure that drivers have the motor skills (no pun intended) to actually operate a 3000 lb+ motorized missle.
Retesting sounds good in theory, but wouldn’t be practical. Where I live, it often takes multiple trips to the DMV to get a first-time license, because they can handle only so many applicants per day. When my son got his learner’s permit, it took two trips to the DMV just to get a chance to take the written test — and both times we arrived before sunrise and waited in line for a couple of hours. Fortunately he was able to take the actual driving test at school, as a part of his Driver’s Ed class, or we might have spent a week or more, going to the DMV every day, before he could have taken the driving test. (That’s what happened with my oldest son, who got his license before they started letting Driver’s Ed instructors give the driving test.) It can take several hours just to renew a license now, when all you have to do is stansd in line and get your picture taken. Adding the testing process to those renewals would mean weeks or even months of delays for people who couldn’t afford to spend hours each day, every day, for several days in a row, in line at the DMV.
The test can be done on-line! When training to be a driving instructer I used s/w to help me learn the skills to get learners to a competent level to take their test. In particular, the Hazard Perception test – A video runs and you press a button to indicate a hazard. Repeated use trains you where the hazards are though and with enough use, you can learn when to press the button to pass the test, unfortunately. However, it is a great tool for teaching the principle of perception and I imagine a similar tool might work for cycle-related hazards?
Registration? “From my cold dead hands!”
Oh wait-Wrong topic. Nevermind.
“ It may very well be time for governments to require cyclists to obtain an operator’s license at an appropriate age and concurrently register bicycles in the same manner as motor vehicles.”
Sure, if your goal is to reduce bicycle modal share to .001%. The question is, when people grouse that cyclists need to get licenses, what would be the goal of that? Bicycles are already safe. The do not represent a significant danger to the public safety. How many people are killed by improperly operated bicycles in the United States every year? 10, maybe? Of the only 700 or so people who die while riding bicycles how many would be saved by compulsory licensing? Take away the little children that get crushed by car backing out of driveways (they won’t be licensed), the drunks that will still ride drunk just like the drunks are still driving, and the cyclist deaths that are caused by motorist error and you’re talking about a pool of fewer than 200 people, and they would probably still f*ck up even if they were licensed. 100 million Americans should be forced to get licenses to save maybe fewer people than 10. Are they even going to bother getting licenses? No. If we did that how many millions of Americans would die sooner from diabetes and heart disease? Simply put, it isn’t a practical suggestion, and I’m not even sure what it would be meant to solve anyway.
The right to travel is a common law right, a recognized right under international human rights law, and has been recognized by the US courts as one of the ‘unenumerated’ US constitutional rights. (See Mionske’s BICYCLING AND THE LAW for further details.)
Because motor vehicles are so dangerous even when controlled by trained drivers, much less untrained ones, public safety mandates that operators be licensed. But in order for such licensing to pass constitutional muster, unlicensed forms of travel must be preserved. Such as bicycling.
The current lot views the Constitution of the United States of America as a hindrance to their agenda. Fortunately the next session of Congress will see the grownups in charge.
@jon4t2: I heartily agree with almost everything you said, well put sir!
My wish is that every person who desires to have a motor vehicle operators permit be first required to pass a written & on road test ON A BICYCLE. For the very reason that we know bicycles are less dangerous to both the operator & especially the surrounding people & property. People must prove they know the rules of the road while operating the safest vehicle beyond two feet before we allow them to operate a 3000 lb motorized missle.
I don’t agree that licensing bicyclists is a good idea as a) it is unneccesary; b) serves no public safety factor; and c) is cost prohibitive, it could never pay for itself.
Now licensing bicycles is a differnt argument. Since most roads are funded by local property taxes, a locality can & should impose a use tax to maintain their roads. But it must be directly proportional to the damage caused by each vehicle. Sinc edamage is directly related to weight, then the use tax should be as well. Perhaps something along the lines of $.02 per lb. A bike & rider would come in at no more than 300 lbs = $6 annually. A typical small car at 2500 lbs = $50, a semi at 40,000 lbs = $800 (since they cause most of the damage to the roadway.)
And how much would you charge for the bicycle that is ridden once every couple of weeks and then is left to rust in the backyard? No riding = no damage contribution. The problem with this argument is that the roads are built to withstand the abuse given them by heavy motorized vehicles. There is no conclusive proof that average bicycle traffic on any shared road adds to the damage. If cars and trucks were removed from a road and only bicycles allowed, that road would last practically for the life of the city, not counting weed growth.
When I was last in NL they were talking about having bicycles registered by the bike shop when purchased. In theory, one could opt out of the registry, but the thought was that very few people would choose to do so.
That actually is not a bad idea, and one that I believe should be adopted everywhere. The Toronto police have an on-line bicycle registry. Cycle shops, when doing the warranty registration would simply ask the customer “and shall I register this with the Toronto police?” I would be willing to wager that very few people would say no.
My apologies for the lateness of this reply.
@SDMSS & @D. Sage: You’re right. A reckless cyclist is not as likely to maim and kill people or to destroy property as a reckless driver, but cycling idiocy does not occur in a vacuum. Many drivers stupidly slam on their brakes to avoid hitting squirrels that dart into the road, and they’d do the same if an idiot cyclist unexpectedly crossed their path; initiating a chain of God-only-knows-what events leading to possible injury, destruction, and suffering. I want to hold everyone using the roads to a high standard of conduct.
A point I implied but did not expand on in my original post concerns the “equal rights” of cyclists and drivers on the road. Since most U.S. states classify bicycles as vehicles with the right to use most roads, cyclists are certainly justified in their demand for the safe use of public pavement. However, since, as cyclists, they are not required to be licensed or to license their bicycles in a manner similar to drivers and their vehicles, they do not share “equal responsibilities” with drivers. I believe that this unequal treatment under the law brings into question the principle of bicycle as vehicle and contributes to the animosity to sharing the road with cyclists.
Cyclists have the responsibility under the law to obey the same traffic laws as drivers, but I don’t think they have the same incentive, even though they are at greater risk of personal injury. There is no mechanism for assessing points on a cyclist’s license with a possible increase in insurance premiums or possible license revocation with mandatory traffic school to get it back, as there is with motor vehicles. I don’t know what current law allows, but without a cyclist’s license, I think all you’re left with are fines and perhaps jail time to punish law breakers who don’t injure themselves.
Licensing cyclists probably would be more difficult than herding cats and it might not alter the accident statistics, but it would help equalize cyclists’ responsibilities with those of drivers. It would give authorities an additional mechanism for dealing with idiots on bicycles. And in an ironic sort of way, it would put drivers and cyclists on the same team, sharing the inconvenience and irritation of dealing with the government in order to get permission to use public thoroughfares. Such shared misery might encourage a mutual tolerance, if not respect.
@WV Tenor: I hadn’t considered the right to travel. Thanks for mentioning it. Still, since most roads and paths are paid for with public funds, and since riding a bicycle on such public rights-of-way is a choice, unlike walking or wheelchairs, one might be able to argue that a minimum level of proficiency is required, at least when sharing the road with motor vehicles. Such proficiency could be attested to with a valid license. It’s not a fool-proof scheme, but then neither are driver’s licenses.
And, as much as I detest them, mandatory seat belt laws and mandatory child safety seat laws are on the books. If one accepts the underlying principle of these laws that government has the authority to protect people from themselves, then requiring a minimum level of proficiency on a bicycle wouldn’t be much of a stretch.
Oh no he di’n't.
Huh. I thought for sure Joe’s last comment would start a helmet war. Amehzing. Too subtle?
If you’re trying to start a helmet war I hope you’re ready to finish it.
Actually, I think Rick was trying to start one. I’m just bored with the sharrow chatter.
see my comment…
touche
Sharrows don’t help. Let’s be honest and say that motorists will never understand. If you take that attitude and just accept that, you will have less stress and possibly take a few years back of your life by not letting these motorist drive you crazy.
Dear Rick,
I just received your postcard. Thanks so much!!
Chers Jasmin (Aachen, Germany)
I appreciate the comment about the hat…
Here’s the thing about sharrows. I was thinking about this on the ride home. As long as it’s Yehuda painting them, I have no problem. He’s saying, “Where I bike, cars and bikes should share the road.” Great! I wish we all had automatic sharrow painting equipment trailing behind us. (Lightweight, no drag, etc.)
But what I know is going to happen is some city traffic planner is put in charge of deciding where to put the sharrows. He may or may not know anything about biking. He’s going to put them where he thinks bikes should be. The implication being, bikes should not be where there are no sharrows. The next thing you know, somebody hits a cyclist on a street without sharrows and gets off with the argument that the biker was riding unsafely, since there were no sharrows. And we end up getting restricted in where we can ride, in exchange for a bunch of drawings on the road that gradually get obliterated and which drivers ignore anyway.
BTW, as to the WP avatar — no idea how that happened. It’s avatar possession, I think.
Yep, and that’s what happened in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, recently – the city planner decided that bikes belong in the gutter, so that’s where he put the sharrows. They’re supposed to go at least 4 feet from the curb. The really sad part about the whole debacle is that the bike coalition in the area actually endorses and promotes them, crowing about how great they are to every media outlet who will listen. I think Yehuda may have been brain washed by them, as he is spewing the exact same BS that they are. Only difference is that maybe Yehuda isn’t putting them in the gutters, though it’s hard to tell from the illustrations…..
re: ‘automatic sharrow painting equipment’ http://www.lightlanebike.com/
Okay – only works at night but better than nothing!
No one is addressing how Yehuda’s cap actually DOES make cycling safer. First, it keeps the sun out of his eyes. Big win there. Secondly, it protects against things kicked up by car tires hitting Yehuda in the eyes. Third, it keeps his head warm. There’s no frigging way a regular ventilated styrofoam helmet would have kept Yehuda’s head insulated in the snow last year. The only reason he’s alive today is cuz of that cap, people. Joe is so wrong it’s pathetic.
I like Joe more every time Rick opens his mouth.
um, like in Panel 3 Joe is magically talking with his mouth shut. sounds like you are saying “dislike” to that then. As for me I do wear a helmet and several bike friends at work swear they have been saved by theirs.
In box #4 subtitles are just a bit out of sync
What subtitles? There is a note about the mask that actually points TO the mask…