With the release this year of the White House Climate Change Report, there was a lot of talk in the media about the topic of climate change and environmentalism. There's the usual talk about the consequences of climate change and some of the ways we can start to slow down its effects (since honestly, at this point it's probably unavoidable). In light of this, I again start to think of the massive green-washing that's taken place and the false environmentalism that many progressives seem to believe in. While I'm normally a fairly optimistic person, I can't help but feel that if the most progressive among us can't make actual "green" life choices, we're pretty much SOL.
Want an example? That Prius you're driving might be getting better gas mileage than the SUV someone else drives, but you're still likely driving it far too often. About half of the trips people in metro areas make are less than three miles and over a quarter are less than one mile. Yet autos are still by far the dominant mode of travel for these trips. Let me emphasize - THIS IS INCREDIBLY UNNECESSARY. One more time - if you're traveling under one mile, there's almost no reason to drive. Only your biggest loads couldn't be carried by bike or foot. Even if you're driving a Prius, it's still an unnecessary drive and a trip that could easily be avoided. Not only are trips of this distance unnecessary, they're some of the worst environmentally. Your car has yet to warm up and produces far more pollutants. With some small changes in behavior, a huge number of the trips currently taken by automobile could be replaced by walking, biking, and transit. Would this solve our climate problems? Not by a long shot, but it would represent a significant change in the right direction and one that's currently not happening to a large enough extent. Increases in mileage efficiency are great, but the most efficient car is still far less so than going by bike or foot.
The term RINO gets tossed around by Tea Party types to signify someone who is a Republican by title or name, but not in behavior and voting (at least by their standards). But the opposite of this also exists - what I would term either the EINO or PINO (Environmentalist or Progressive In Name Only). How can we expect conservatives, who don't even "believe" in climate change, to change their behavior when most progressives don't either. While many out there are working hard to bring about real change at a personal and larger level, far too many of us aren't. It's time to change that, bring about real, progressive change. Get off your butt - walk or bike to those close destinations. You'll feel better about yourself mentally and physically. Plus you'll actually be taking cars (and their emissions) off the road. Truly stand up (really, I mean it, get up and walk!) for what you believe in and make change happen. Remember - don't be an EINO!
Friday, July 20, 2018
Blackstack Brewing
As I mentioned previously, I'm going to work on detailing (and rating) bike parking options at St. Paul breweries. Some are awesome (I'm looking at you, Dual Citizen and Urban Growler) and some well, suck. For the first in the series, I'm starting at one that is pretty far toward the "suck" end of the spectrum, Blackstack Brewing.
Blackstack has potential. To begin with, it's pretty accessible by bike. While Minnehaha and Prior aren't the nicest bike facilities, like most in St. Paul, they exist and neither road is terrible to bike on. Plus, you can access it from nice quiet neighborhood streets from the interior of Hamline-Midway. I guess technically you can get there via the "bike lanes" on Pierce Butler, if you like biking through debris while being passed by a steady stream of high speed cars and semis. Though I bike there at times, I'm assuming most people avoid those "lanes". But again, by St. Paul standards, probably a B for accessibility by bike.
Then there's the situation once you're there. You start in a pretty tight parking lot that's always crowded (good for them and Can Can Wonderland). Up until recently, they had no bike parking. This for a location with a brewery, mini-golf, coffee roaster, axe throwing, and tool library. So just on that aspect alone they probably should fail. The first time I went I complained about there being no parking to all three of the main businesses in the complex at the time (Can Can, Blackstack and True Stone). They seemed aware and sympathetic and even said I could bring my bike inside if needed. I was told the building owner was "looking into adding some". Which is always a bad sign. Building owners clearly almost never ask anyone who actually rides a bike what good bike parking should look like. Or seem incapable of finding any of the excellent resources available FOR FREE from Dero about bike parking. So I was sadly not surprised when some of the worst bike racks ever showed up. Now granted, they did *technically* add bike parking. And the times I've visited, it has been well used. But I will never park on it because it's almost completely insecure.
Above we have Blackstack's bike parking. The Marin is parked in about the most secure way possible, but I'm still guessing you could clip that bar curving up pretty easily. The next few bikes, not so secure.
Unless I missed it, this Trek is literally not even locked to the rack. So while someone couldn't ride it away, being locked to itself, you could easily throw it in a car and run. Really tough to secure it with that rack being so low.
Next, this bike could also easily be stolen. Granted, those aren't quick release, so it would take a little more work, but barely, and all this poor sucker would come back to would be a front wheel. Bummer.
The parking is also rather tough to access. While the bollards might actually help a bit and provide some protection from drivers parking their cars, they also make the overall space really tight and tough to maneuver, especially given the lack of overall space for the bike parking here.
And if all that isn't enough, you're also right next to the smokers' pole. So if someone is taking a smoke break while you arrive or leave (or recently finished and didn't put out their cigarette), you get to enjoy secondhand smoke with your bike parking - BONUS! But seriously, this is just another factor in making this some of the worst bike parking I've seen.
Blackstack has potential. To begin with, it's pretty accessible by bike. While Minnehaha and Prior aren't the nicest bike facilities, like most in St. Paul, they exist and neither road is terrible to bike on. Plus, you can access it from nice quiet neighborhood streets from the interior of Hamline-Midway. I guess technically you can get there via the "bike lanes" on Pierce Butler, if you like biking through debris while being passed by a steady stream of high speed cars and semis. Though I bike there at times, I'm assuming most people avoid those "lanes". But again, by St. Paul standards, probably a B for accessibility by bike.
Then there's the situation once you're there. You start in a pretty tight parking lot that's always crowded (good for them and Can Can Wonderland). Up until recently, they had no bike parking. This for a location with a brewery, mini-golf, coffee roaster, axe throwing, and tool library. So just on that aspect alone they probably should fail. The first time I went I complained about there being no parking to all three of the main businesses in the complex at the time (Can Can, Blackstack and True Stone). They seemed aware and sympathetic and even said I could bring my bike inside if needed. I was told the building owner was "looking into adding some". Which is always a bad sign. Building owners clearly almost never ask anyone who actually rides a bike what good bike parking should look like. Or seem incapable of finding any of the excellent resources available FOR FREE from Dero about bike parking. So I was sadly not surprised when some of the worst bike racks ever showed up. Now granted, they did *technically* add bike parking. And the times I've visited, it has been well used. But I will never park on it because it's almost completely insecure.
Above we have Blackstack's bike parking. The Marin is parked in about the most secure way possible, but I'm still guessing you could clip that bar curving up pretty easily. The next few bikes, not so secure.
Unless I missed it, this Trek is literally not even locked to the rack. So while someone couldn't ride it away, being locked to itself, you could easily throw it in a car and run. Really tough to secure it with that rack being so low.
Next, this bike could also easily be stolen. Granted, those aren't quick release, so it would take a little more work, but barely, and all this poor sucker would come back to would be a front wheel. Bummer.
The parking is also rather tough to access. While the bollards might actually help a bit and provide some protection from drivers parking their cars, they also make the overall space really tight and tough to maneuver, especially given the lack of overall space for the bike parking here.
And if all that isn't enough, you're also right next to the smokers' pole. So if someone is taking a smoke break while you arrive or leave (or recently finished and didn't put out their cigarette), you get to enjoy secondhand smoke with your bike parking - BONUS! But seriously, this is just another factor in making this some of the worst bike parking I've seen.
Given all this, it's not surprising that like myself, you often see that people have locked their bikes to the railings of the entrance. Given that people clearly want to bike here, Blackstack really needs to add capacity and up the quality. This goes for the entire complex, Can Can and True Stone aren't immune from these issues either. While the site earns a St. Paul B for access, it gets a solid D- for parking, simply because it does actually have some, and really should get an F. Though it's the closest brewery to my house, I pretty much avoid the place because I don't feel welcome as a person cycling there, which is really too bad as it's among the easier breweries to bike to in the city.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Bike Parking in St. Paul
The types of bike parking you find vary drastically by location and to me, too often reflect how much a given business (or the property owner) value or acknowledge that people might arrive at their business by a means other than driving. As an example of this, and as a resource to other people biking hopefully, I'm going to do a series of posts featuring different bike parking options at breweries in St. Paul, Minnesota.
But before jumping into that, I'd like to offer a couple of examples that do a good job documenting how people who bike are treated in St. Paul. Yes, we have a few bikes lanes (mostly narrow, door-zone lanes) and some great MUP options, but in general, the city is a long way from being a safe-biking mecca, let alone a place where anyone but the "strong and fearless" rider type feels comfortable.
Again, the above pictures pretty well illustrate what it's like to bike in St. Paul. You are tolerated, and in some cases have basic accommodations made for you, such as squeezing in the most basic bike lanes or a bike rack added here or there. But as soon as any conditions deviate from optimal, right when you need those facilities the most, they disappear. People freely block the bike lanes, hardly even making an effort to get closer to the curb and bike racks are ignored and not cleared of snow, in addition to being bent and damaged and basically unusable. While these things are absolutely complaints and damning about how seriously our city takes its commitment to improving conditions for people cycling, I'm also going to try and highlight the work of awesome people who are doing things right and setting us on a path for a new standard of bike infrastructure.
But before jumping into that, I'd like to offer a couple of examples that do a good job documenting how people who bike are treated in St. Paul. Yes, we have a few bikes lanes (mostly narrow, door-zone lanes) and some great MUP options, but in general, the city is a long way from being a safe-biking mecca, let alone a place where anyone but the "strong and fearless" rider type feels comfortable.
Again, the above pictures pretty well illustrate what it's like to bike in St. Paul. You are tolerated, and in some cases have basic accommodations made for you, such as squeezing in the most basic bike lanes or a bike rack added here or there. But as soon as any conditions deviate from optimal, right when you need those facilities the most, they disappear. People freely block the bike lanes, hardly even making an effort to get closer to the curb and bike racks are ignored and not cleared of snow, in addition to being bent and damaged and basically unusable. While these things are absolutely complaints and damning about how seriously our city takes its commitment to improving conditions for people cycling, I'm also going to try and highlight the work of awesome people who are doing things right and setting us on a path for a new standard of bike infrastructure.
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Lack of justice
Late 2015 to 2016 saw two more black men dead at the hands of police in Minnesota. At this point, a tragically familiar, but no less shocking, outcome of systematic racism and a militarized police force. Both were not all that different in age from myself. In such cases, it's impossible to not try and put yourself in their shoes. Both just trying to live their lives, but both living in a very different world than myself, largely due to something as seemingly benign as the color of their skin. One is claimed to have resisted arrest, a crime certainly not punishable by death in any state or jurisdiction in this country. The other, according to currently available information, followed every possible rule in his interaction with law enforcement, and still wound up dead. Some will blindly claim, no matter what, that the officers were justified in their actions. Any claims otherwise are sometimes targeted as "anti-cop".
I would argue exactly the opposite. Demanding justice for improper or unjustified use of force is decidedly pro-law enforcement. Law enforcement officials themselves should strive to bring "bad cops" to justice. Proliferation of bad cops and improper use of force makes work harder and more dangerous for the officers who are just, unbiased, and trying to protect and serve. Those actions, and inactions on the part of prosecutors and district attorneys, only breed and foster mistrust and a justified view that the justice system is anything but just for people of color. While some officers continue to treat all people of color like thugs or criminals who only make up a small portion of that population, it is hard to justify not judging all officers in the same way. That a "bad cop" can be completely exonerated and resume their job speaks ill of the entire force, and broader system, leading to citizen doubt over the role and integrity of law enforcement. If a system cannot regulate itself and grows too powerful, we must do what we can to push back and fight for tougher regulation and expect more from those we entrust to protect us.
With all this in mind however, if you're a white person in the US, you have likely never encountered the kind of harassment, mistreatment, and systematic racism people of color are exposed to every single day around this country. If you make statements or have thoughts that had they should "pull up their pants and follow the laws", you are buying into stereotypes. You've grown up with privilege so ingrained in our society that you can't pretend to know what it's like to fear the police, to not see them as either helpful at best, or at worst, a benign, annoying force who gave you a speeding ticket. You don't have to worry that an officer will shoot you during that stop. But for people of color, it's a very real concern. A concern that is amplified by thoroughly proven racial profiling that exists nearly everywhere. You're more likely to be pulled over as a person of color, and those interactions are more likely to involve use of force.
These people, and don't forget for a second that these are people who are now dead, will never see justice. Their fate was decided by officers who deemed themselves judge, jury, and executioner in a split second. They didn't have the benefit of a jury of their peers, representation by an attorney, or the other aspects of the justice system (ignoring the fact that often justice is perverted even within this system). That isn't the code and beliefs professed by our society and it can't continue.
I would argue exactly the opposite. Demanding justice for improper or unjustified use of force is decidedly pro-law enforcement. Law enforcement officials themselves should strive to bring "bad cops" to justice. Proliferation of bad cops and improper use of force makes work harder and more dangerous for the officers who are just, unbiased, and trying to protect and serve. Those actions, and inactions on the part of prosecutors and district attorneys, only breed and foster mistrust and a justified view that the justice system is anything but just for people of color. While some officers continue to treat all people of color like thugs or criminals who only make up a small portion of that population, it is hard to justify not judging all officers in the same way. That a "bad cop" can be completely exonerated and resume their job speaks ill of the entire force, and broader system, leading to citizen doubt over the role and integrity of law enforcement. If a system cannot regulate itself and grows too powerful, we must do what we can to push back and fight for tougher regulation and expect more from those we entrust to protect us.
With all this in mind however, if you're a white person in the US, you have likely never encountered the kind of harassment, mistreatment, and systematic racism people of color are exposed to every single day around this country. If you make statements or have thoughts that had they should "pull up their pants and follow the laws", you are buying into stereotypes. You've grown up with privilege so ingrained in our society that you can't pretend to know what it's like to fear the police, to not see them as either helpful at best, or at worst, a benign, annoying force who gave you a speeding ticket. You don't have to worry that an officer will shoot you during that stop. But for people of color, it's a very real concern. A concern that is amplified by thoroughly proven racial profiling that exists nearly everywhere. You're more likely to be pulled over as a person of color, and those interactions are more likely to involve use of force.
These people, and don't forget for a second that these are people who are now dead, will never see justice. Their fate was decided by officers who deemed themselves judge, jury, and executioner in a split second. They didn't have the benefit of a jury of their peers, representation by an attorney, or the other aspects of the justice system (ignoring the fact that often justice is perverted even within this system). That isn't the code and beliefs professed by our society and it can't continue.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
What is a cyclist?
As a "cyclist", I'm many things depending on who you ask (or who volunteers their opinion). Most commonly, I'm probably annoying. I'm in your way, riding too slowly, and should be on the sidewalk (despite what the law and safety data show). I'm also arrogant, elitist, poor, rich, white, minority, too fast, too slow, an environmentalist, definitely a scofflaw who runs stop signs and red lights with impudence, a target, stupid, entitled, and any number of other things.
In a way, you're right. Cyclists are all of those things and none of those things. There are arrogant cyclists, poor cyclists, rich cyclists, elitist cyclists, dangerous cyclists, slow cyclists, and fast cyclists. The point is, I am not every cyclist and every cyclist is not me. Chris Bucchere killed Sutchi Hui - I didn't. I've never even come close to hitting a person and ride with great care around others and most cyclists I observe act the same way. Can you say the same? Do you speed or text while driving? I encourage you to really think through your own behavior before admonishing others and painting us all with the same brush.
What am I really? I'm a person, just like you. I have just chosen to get around by a different means most of the time. I still deserve to get where I'm going safely. Believing that my life is more important than a couple seconds of your time to slow down and pass at a safe distance and speed doesn't make me elitist or entitled, it means I'm human. If you're so selfish to believe your few seconds are more precious than my safety, you're not human - you're awful and need to re-evaluate your priorities.
In a way, you're right. Cyclists are all of those things and none of those things. There are arrogant cyclists, poor cyclists, rich cyclists, elitist cyclists, dangerous cyclists, slow cyclists, and fast cyclists. The point is, I am not every cyclist and every cyclist is not me. Chris Bucchere killed Sutchi Hui - I didn't. I've never even come close to hitting a person and ride with great care around others and most cyclists I observe act the same way. Can you say the same? Do you speed or text while driving? I encourage you to really think through your own behavior before admonishing others and painting us all with the same brush.
What am I really? I'm a person, just like you. I have just chosen to get around by a different means most of the time. I still deserve to get where I'm going safely. Believing that my life is more important than a couple seconds of your time to slow down and pass at a safe distance and speed doesn't make me elitist or entitled, it means I'm human. If you're so selfish to believe your few seconds are more precious than my safety, you're not human - you're awful and need to re-evaluate your priorities.
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Enjoy the ride
Something I'll never understand is why more people don't try commuting or running errands by bike. Millions of people ride bikes for fun and exercise, yet when it comes to getting somewhere they could easily travel to by that same way, they choose a way that costs them money and is generally frustrating. No one likes being part of a traffic jam, yet most of those same millions who ride a bike for fun leave it at home and choose getting stuck in traffic in their cars instead. Yes, there are some circumstances that might "necessitate" driving: working more than 10 miles from your home, grocery shopping for a family of 15, etc. But most trips aren't actually for those purposes and are only a few miles, which is quick and easy to cover on a bike. Why not save the money and ride your bike? Study after study shows bike commuters are among the most satisfied commuters (I'm sure even those that control for our smug-induced happiness). Yet people don't seem to get it or try to make a change. Why?
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Driving Reality
Consume any media from a major outlet and you'll likely be bombarded with car commercials depicting the "freedom" afforded by car travel. Either someone is driving down open roads or they somehow magically have streets all to themselves in a dense urban area. In both cases, the truth is vastly different. Think of the last time you were driving in the downtown area a big city. Were you the only one on the road? Unless it was the middle of the night, probably not. The reality is usually gridlocked traffic, honking horns, and frustration. Reality, even on most freeways, looks more like this:
Now of course I don't blame car companies. They're only giving people what they want, right? A big house in the 'burbs and a nice fast car (to sit in traffic)? Yet time and time again, the happiest commuters are those that have short commutes, especially those who commute by bike or foot. So maybe people don't actually want this but see no alternative? But in reality, you probably have a choice. Sure, some "super commuters" may have no choice but to drive to their jobs, but for most people, there are other options, most obviously biking, walking, and public transit. Some of these might not be as "fast" or "easy" as driving, but they are generally a whole lot less stressful (you can relax and read or get exercise), better for your health (more than 30,000 people were killed in automobile crashes last year, and the year before that, and the year before that), and cheaper (biking and walking are essentially free and transit is a bargain). Speed and "ease" aren't everything.
Another huge deviation from reality is parking. Too many people expect to just have free, plentiful parking at their disposal, just like in the commercials. Heaven forbid if there isn't an open space right in front of your destination! But the reality of parking is again hugely problematic. It's often over-supplied, leading to scenes such as:
This horrible waste of public space happens all over the United States. Parking (and traffic lanes) are usually built for peak capacity, which only happens a few times a day at best, so most of the time they sit open like this, wasting public space that could be home to businesses, green space, or wider sidewalks. Of course, then at peak times, some areas will look like this parking garage in Manhattan:
Again, a huge amount of space dedicated to the storage of a completely wasteful form of transport for most people! That's not to mention the huge amount of money wasted on paying for this parking! But you never see this reality in car commercials. And speaking of wasted money, no matter where you're driving (even if it is the "freedom" of the open road), you're going to eventually have to fill up your gas tank:
Car companies do show people at gas stations a lot, but never what they're spending and how much that adds up. I can't remember the last time I worried about the price of gas, since I have to buy it so infrequently.
So what's the solution? Well, as I said, for some people, nothing much, unless you finally get a job closer to home or move closer to your job. But for many of us, exploring a few easy alternatives to driving isn't the barrier it might appear. You probably have a capable bike in your garage already. Pump up the tires and ride to the store or walk instead of driving! Far too often I see people drive mere blocks to the store and come out with less than a full bag of groceries. Just walk instead and get a little fresh air and exercise. Try to take the bus or train to work. Bring a book or some paperwork and see how much you can get done on that "longer" commute. Instead of arriving drained and stressed from driving, you'll arrive with a headstart to your day! While biking isn't always completely stress free (if confronted with hostile drivers or bad infrastructure), I'll take it over driving any day myself. I arrive feeling energized and ready to start my day. Riding is usually a blast and it's free. Plus, you get to avoid the frustration of idiots like this:
Next time you're shown the "freedom" of driving, think twice and consider what might actually make you feel free. FREE YOURSELF from the stress, cost, and harmful effects of driving. Enjoy some fresh air, meet your neighbors or complete strangers, and see the world from a different perspective!
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Bike "Friendly" Businesses
I really do appreciate the efforts that some businesses make to appear bike-friendly. Putting bike racks out front does go a long way over nothing at all and I certainly appreciate steps like that. Especially when the racks are fairly prominently placed so you don't have to walk through a sea of car parking after locking up your bike. But bike racks alone do not a bike-friendly business make. There are plenty of ways that this can be messed up. One that I've observed far too often is racks that would otherwise be useful clogged up with shopping carts and other things. I've seen two particularly egregious examples of this at a Target and Safeway. In each case, instead of leaving bike parking open and creating an inviting situation, the parking is blocked with shopping carts. In the case of Safeway in El Cerrito, CA, it almost appears as though this was being done intentionally by someone working there. Luckily in this case, there are additional racks to use. In the case of Target, it appears to be the case of someone putting the cart there by mistake. Hopefully an employee removed it later so the person with their bike parked there isn't crowded out and can easily access their bike.
Another way that businesses can fail in this way is to provide absolutely worthless bike parking. Again, Safeway is an offender here. Again, the racks are located in a decent location, near the front entrance of the store. But if you want to actually lock your bike up securely, this type of rack is worthless. You can use the ends, as this bike owner did, but that means the whole rack can hold two bikes. Otherwise, you're only able to lock your front wheel which can be easily stolen with or without quick-releases.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
May the Health Be With You
There are lots of reasons to ride and I'm sure I'll cover a lot of them in due time. But for me, one of the best reasons is to stay healthy. There was a time in my life when I wasn't very healthy. I wasn't fat or entirely out of shape. I played soccer and could run just fine. But it would hurt. I got shin splints. I would be sore after games. I didn't even realize at the time that all this was a product of being out of shape. Finally, I decided to make a change and started doing a spin class on top of the soccer. I slowly dropped some pounds and got faster on the bike and on the soccer field. I didn't hurt after the games. I could hike for hours without getting tired or sore. When I moved, I started riding my bike regularly. Eventually, my commute consisted of about ten miles of riding. At this point, I could ride 50-60 hilly miles at a quick pace without a problem. I would ride to parties up in the Berkeley hills (see photo below for views) and people would be shocked and comment on how "intense" I was. But it was just something I enjoyed. All of this isn't to brag or anything remotely like that; as a Minnesotan, it's not in our nature. It's more to state that just about anyone can get to this point. Riding is easy to start and the more you do it, the more you enjoy it and the easier it gets. To me at this point, stopping riding seems harder than starting. If I go a few days without being on a bike, I can start to feel the difference and feel sluggish and anxious. Your body needs regular exercise to keep in shape. Without, you'll just start to fall apart, simple as that.
If more of us rode bikes or walked to get where we need to go, we would save billions of dollars in healthcare costs. Ailments and conditions wouldn't magically go away, but many of them would be significantly lessened. Even small amounts of activity count for a lot if you're currently not doing anything. Say that instead of driving that half mile to the grocery store or your friend's house, you walk instead. By walking there and back you've walked about 20 minutes. The CDC recommends that you get 22 minutes of exercise each day, so by simply walking that short distance, you're done. It's really not hard to get enough exercise each day, you just have to make the right choices. I love riding to get that exercise and feel so much better for doing so. I guarantee, start getting exercise and you will, too!
If more of us rode bikes or walked to get where we need to go, we would save billions of dollars in healthcare costs. Ailments and conditions wouldn't magically go away, but many of them would be significantly lessened. Even small amounts of activity count for a lot if you're currently not doing anything. Say that instead of driving that half mile to the grocery store or your friend's house, you walk instead. By walking there and back you've walked about 20 minutes. The CDC recommends that you get 22 minutes of exercise each day, so by simply walking that short distance, you're done. It's really not hard to get enough exercise each day, you just have to make the right choices. I love riding to get that exercise and feel so much better for doing so. I guarantee, start getting exercise and you will, too!
Friday, August 16, 2013
Prepare for Zombies, Ride Your Bike
I'm a big fan of zombie stories. There are so many fantastic parallels to our modern lives - disease outbreaks, societal breakdown, and resource scarcity, to name just a few. Many different sources have covered strategies for surviving a zombie outbreak, most famously and completely in the Zombie Survival Guide by Max Brooks. REI also has a pretty great guide from the outdoors-enthusiast perspective. But one thing that most of these guides don't stress enough is the sheer, awesome utility of a bike in the event of a zombie outbreak (Brooks does give it due cred, but misses some key points). The simple bicycle is awesome for the reasons I'll summarize below.
First and foremost - a bike never runs out of gas. Almost any zombie movie you watch will feature some struggle with cars running out of gas or people fighting over limited gas supplies. Inevitably, some survivors die in the conflict or are caught when zombies catch up to their powerless cars. Once it's out of gas, a car is just a cage, holding you until the zombies come. Windows are no match for the beating of dozens of undead fists of the zombies that have surrounded you while you thought you were still safe!
Second, bikes are essentially silent, while cars are loud. Go stand next to a freeway and you will instantly see how loud a car is (and hundreds of them especially). Since noise attracts the undead, the quieter you can be the better! A properly maintained bike will cruise along without creaks or squeaks, carrying you in silent safety from the undead.
As alluded to above, bikes are generally quick and easy to maintain. If you know how to fix a flat, lube your chain, change/repair the chain, and have a few spare parts, a solid steel-framed bike could last you basically forever. Best of all, all the tools for this would weigh no more than a few pounds and many could be easily found as well. Didn't stock up on your chain lube? Just find a broken down car and drain the oil and use that!
For a basic kit, I'd suggest some tubes, tires (you can get nice folding tires now that hardly take up space), chain lube, chains, a basic multi-tool, a nice floor pump that fits both presta and shrader valves, and a set of hex wrenches (or use the Park 3-Way Wrench, which could double as a close-combat weapon!). If you have a group of cyclists, you can easily split up the kit and have an even better supplied tool kit with which you can fix just about anything. Plus, you can use many of the same parts on different bikes, eliminating the need to carry too many extras.
Next - you won't get stuck on a bike like in a car. Again, watch any zombie movie or TV show (The Walking Dead is a perfect example) and you'll see the group of survivors get stuck on a freeway crowded with abandoned cars. This would never happen on a bike, where you could easily weave around the stalled cars. In addition, you can easily take the right bike off-road. Any decent mountain bike will give you a huge advantage over a car. No matter how well a car is built for going off-road, a bike is better prepared and can go more places. And on a bike, if the going gets too tough, you can get off and push or carry it.
Lastly, while most people suggest that a bike is limited by what it can carry, that's definitely not true! You can easily outfit your bike with panniers or a trailer to carry a ton of stuff or choose one specifically designed for the purpose like an Xtracycle, Surly Big Dummy, or a cargo bike! A cargo bike isn't quite as adept at going off-road and can't be carried as easily, but it's still much more versatile than a car, plus has all the other benefits discussed above!
The folks in Portland have outlined the great utility of the bike for disaster relief and many of the same principles would apply to a zombie outbreak: http://bikeportland.org/2013/07/13/disaster-relief-trials-bring-30-miles-of-urban-apocalyptica-back-to-portland-90373 So if you want to be the best prepared for the undead, forget your car and outfit your bike! As a special benefit, same applies for your daily commute or running errands - your bike is often the best vehicle for the job!
The ultimate choice for Zombie Survival transportation!
Second, bikes are essentially silent, while cars are loud. Go stand next to a freeway and you will instantly see how loud a car is (and hundreds of them especially). Since noise attracts the undead, the quieter you can be the better! A properly maintained bike will cruise along without creaks or squeaks, carrying you in silent safety from the undead.
As alluded to above, bikes are generally quick and easy to maintain. If you know how to fix a flat, lube your chain, change/repair the chain, and have a few spare parts, a solid steel-framed bike could last you basically forever. Best of all, all the tools for this would weigh no more than a few pounds and many could be easily found as well. Didn't stock up on your chain lube? Just find a broken down car and drain the oil and use that!
For a basic kit, I'd suggest some tubes, tires (you can get nice folding tires now that hardly take up space), chain lube, chains, a basic multi-tool, a nice floor pump that fits both presta and shrader valves, and a set of hex wrenches (or use the Park 3-Way Wrench, which could double as a close-combat weapon!). If you have a group of cyclists, you can easily split up the kit and have an even better supplied tool kit with which you can fix just about anything. Plus, you can use many of the same parts on different bikes, eliminating the need to carry too many extras.
Next - you won't get stuck on a bike like in a car. Again, watch any zombie movie or TV show (The Walking Dead is a perfect example) and you'll see the group of survivors get stuck on a freeway crowded with abandoned cars. This would never happen on a bike, where you could easily weave around the stalled cars. In addition, you can easily take the right bike off-road. Any decent mountain bike will give you a huge advantage over a car. No matter how well a car is built for going off-road, a bike is better prepared and can go more places. And on a bike, if the going gets too tough, you can get off and push or carry it.
Lastly, while most people suggest that a bike is limited by what it can carry, that's definitely not true! You can easily outfit your bike with panniers or a trailer to carry a ton of stuff or choose one specifically designed for the purpose like an Xtracycle, Surly Big Dummy, or a cargo bike! A cargo bike isn't quite as adept at going off-road and can't be carried as easily, but it's still much more versatile than a car, plus has all the other benefits discussed above!
The folks in Portland have outlined the great utility of the bike for disaster relief and many of the same principles would apply to a zombie outbreak: http://bikeportland.org/2013/07/13/disaster-relief-trials-bring-30-miles-of-urban-apocalyptica-back-to-portland-90373 So if you want to be the best prepared for the undead, forget your car and outfit your bike! As a special benefit, same applies for your daily commute or running errands - your bike is often the best vehicle for the job!
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Bad Infrastructure = Bad Behavior
Do cyclists who ride on sidewalks bother you? Do you get annoyed when someone takes the lane in front of you and "slows you down"? Think all those cyclists rolling through stop signs are a bunch of idiots? You're as much to blame for that as anyone!
See, here's the issue - as I've touched on before, one of the primary reasons for all of the above behaviors is bad infrastructure. Cyclists don't generally ride on the sidewalk because they want to - it's often crowded, you have to ride slower, and the facts show it's actually much less safe than riding in the street, even with no bike facilities. But for most sidewalk riders, it's about perception. Given the choice of having cars zoom by mere inches away in some cases, or ride on the sidewalk, the safer option in many cyclists' heads is to head to the sidewalk.
I observed this time and time again with a bike lane near my house. The lanes, which had continued for over a mile, abruptly ended several blocks from the next major intersection with nothing more than a tiny sign (seen above) and most people (especially those with children in tow) would transition over to the sidewalk. Given high vehicle speeds (due to speeding, not an inherently fast speed limit), I can certainly sympathize with the choice. But what this really illustrates is that if you want to avoid bad behavior, avoid bad infrastructure. I never observed someone riding on the sidewalk in the stretch with bike lanes (aside from children, who are allowed to do so). It was only the bad infrastructure design that dropped the bike lanes that caused them to make that choice.
What constitutes bad infrastructure? Well, any number of things, but especially notable are transitions from good to bad. As mentioned above, bike lanes abruptly ending is one example. I've mentioned before the example near AT&T Park where a cyclist was killed after the bike lane she was riding in abruptly ends and she was hit and killed by a cement truck.
Other examples include band-aid infrastructure improvements - most often in the case of sharrows. Because these markings mostly do nothing (especially because they haven't been accompanied by education as to what they actually represent for drivers and cyclists), they often aren't heeded by cyclists, who instead continue to ride in the door-zone and car drivers still don't give bikes safe space due to impatience. Separated trails often just end - as I recently encountered approaching the Berkeley Marina along a new Bay Trail extension. I'm heading along a beautiful trail, when all the sudden, BAM, I'm dropped into a gravel parking lot with no signs as to where I should go. Granted this is new, so maybe markings are still coming, but when was the last time you ever drove down a road that didn't say very clearly that it was a dead end or not a through street?
Next time someone complains that cyclists don't deserve better infrastructure until they all follow the rules, keep in mind that much bike infrastructure is designed in a way that basically encourages cyclists NOT to follow the rules out of concern for their own safety or schedule. For a great example of how good infrastructure works, SFMTA recently installed protected bike lanes along the Great Highway near the Cliff House. I used to ride up the sidewalk in this stretch. It's wide, generally not too crowded, and as a natural continuation of the trail along the beach, it was convenient too. However, now that they installed the lanes pictured below, I made sure to use them, since I want to leave pedestrians with the sidewalk. Now that I have a safe way to head up this route (since you're especially vulnerable when going uphill and slowed down), I'll choose that every time! Improvements like this are a great example of getting it right with infrastructure!
See, here's the issue - as I've touched on before, one of the primary reasons for all of the above behaviors is bad infrastructure. Cyclists don't generally ride on the sidewalk because they want to - it's often crowded, you have to ride slower, and the facts show it's actually much less safe than riding in the street, even with no bike facilities. But for most sidewalk riders, it's about perception. Given the choice of having cars zoom by mere inches away in some cases, or ride on the sidewalk, the safer option in many cyclists' heads is to head to the sidewalk.
I observed this time and time again with a bike lane near my house. The lanes, which had continued for over a mile, abruptly ended several blocks from the next major intersection with nothing more than a tiny sign (seen above) and most people (especially those with children in tow) would transition over to the sidewalk. Given high vehicle speeds (due to speeding, not an inherently fast speed limit), I can certainly sympathize with the choice. But what this really illustrates is that if you want to avoid bad behavior, avoid bad infrastructure. I never observed someone riding on the sidewalk in the stretch with bike lanes (aside from children, who are allowed to do so). It was only the bad infrastructure design that dropped the bike lanes that caused them to make that choice.
What constitutes bad infrastructure? Well, any number of things, but especially notable are transitions from good to bad. As mentioned above, bike lanes abruptly ending is one example. I've mentioned before the example near AT&T Park where a cyclist was killed after the bike lane she was riding in abruptly ends and she was hit and killed by a cement truck.
Other examples include band-aid infrastructure improvements - most often in the case of sharrows. Because these markings mostly do nothing (especially because they haven't been accompanied by education as to what they actually represent for drivers and cyclists), they often aren't heeded by cyclists, who instead continue to ride in the door-zone and car drivers still don't give bikes safe space due to impatience. Separated trails often just end - as I recently encountered approaching the Berkeley Marina along a new Bay Trail extension. I'm heading along a beautiful trail, when all the sudden, BAM, I'm dropped into a gravel parking lot with no signs as to where I should go. Granted this is new, so maybe markings are still coming, but when was the last time you ever drove down a road that didn't say very clearly that it was a dead end or not a through street?
Next time someone complains that cyclists don't deserve better infrastructure until they all follow the rules, keep in mind that much bike infrastructure is designed in a way that basically encourages cyclists NOT to follow the rules out of concern for their own safety or schedule. For a great example of how good infrastructure works, SFMTA recently installed protected bike lanes along the Great Highway near the Cliff House. I used to ride up the sidewalk in this stretch. It's wide, generally not too crowded, and as a natural continuation of the trail along the beach, it was convenient too. However, now that they installed the lanes pictured below, I made sure to use them, since I want to leave pedestrians with the sidewalk. Now that I have a safe way to head up this route (since you're especially vulnerable when going uphill and slowed down), I'll choose that every time! Improvements like this are a great example of getting it right with infrastructure!
Friday, July 19, 2013
No Infrastructure for You!
If you peruse almost any online article dealing with cycling in any form, you will undoubtedly come across cries from bike-haters along the lines of, "cyclists don't deserve better infrastructure until they follow the rules", usually with more cursing and bad grammar and often wishes of bodily harm. It's hard to know where to start dissecting such arguments, so I'll just deal with one aspect here: if you want to make this argument, we should hold car drivers to the same standard. Therefore, I propose that nationwide we make absolutely no improvements to roads until all road users follow all the rules.
That I-5 bridge over the Skagit River that recently collapsed? Sorry, we can't fix it until no drivers in Washington are pulled over for speeding. If no drivers in Washington are pulled over for traffic violations for one month, then they can begin work to repair the bridge. That resurfacing taking place on the road down the street from you? Nope, can't finish it until no one in your city is seen double-parked or on their phones while driving. These are of course absurd suggestions, as are those that cyclists don't deserve better infrastructure because some cyclists don't follow all rules.
The worst part of this situation is that many cyclists don't meticulously follow the rules exactly because of bad infrastructure and out-dated laws. Many cities are finally investing in bike infrastructure and have seen fantastic gains in their cycling rates. This is great news for those cities, their cyclists, and their citizens in general for all the great reasons I won't detail here. However, much of this improvement is happening in a highly piece-meal fashion and because of this, what starts as a good or great bike facility can suddenly vanish before your eyes, dumping you into the middle of a street crowded with speeding traffic. For many people, this event is enough to even keep them from riding, but for many others, it just encourages them to hop up on the sidewalk where they feel relatively safer (though many studies show you're actually at a much higher accident risk while on the sidewalk, but that's another story).
I'm not advocating that this is alright, but I certainly understand this behavior from less-confident or fit cyclists. If you're new to cycling in an urban environment (and often even when you've been riding in one for some time) there are situations with speeding, impatient, inattentive drivers that can be downright terrifying. One particular spot where this occurs is on King St. in San Francisco, between 2nd and 3rd. In this spot, Diana Sullivan was killed earlier this year when the bike lane she was riding on vanished and she was then hit by a cement truck. As can be seen in the Google Maps screenshot below, this lane just ends (the dashed line is the last breath of it, move around Streetview to see more of the location) with a small sign and one sharrow on the roadway ahead to give any indication of what's going on. I've ridden through this spot many times myself and while pretty confident on my bike around cars, I always leave this spot with an adrenaline high and a deep breath, because you without fail are dealing with impatient, speeding cars - speaking of, it would be great if the SFPD actually enforced speed limits on the Embarcadero instead of pointlessly harassing cyclists!
Dangerous gaps in bike infrastructure like the one detailed above only serve to encourage "bad" behavior among cyclists while making conditions dangerous and frustrating for both cyclists and drivers. So to all the cycle-haters out there; no, "scofflaw" cyclists don't mean that there shouldn't be improvements made to cycling infrastructure - it means quite the opposite! If there were more continuous, protected cycletracks, people would be much less likely to ride on the sidewalk. If you reform laws that force cyclists to conform to car-centric rules, again, cyclists would be far less likely to break them (allow stopping and proceeding if safe at red lights and treating stop signs as yields, both of which most cyclists do very safely already). The more common and safe-feeling that cycling becomes, the less it will carry an "outlaw" feel to it and cyclists will encourage better behavior among each other as well!
That I-5 bridge over the Skagit River that recently collapsed? Sorry, we can't fix it until no drivers in Washington are pulled over for speeding. If no drivers in Washington are pulled over for traffic violations for one month, then they can begin work to repair the bridge. That resurfacing taking place on the road down the street from you? Nope, can't finish it until no one in your city is seen double-parked or on their phones while driving. These are of course absurd suggestions, as are those that cyclists don't deserve better infrastructure because some cyclists don't follow all rules.
The worst part of this situation is that many cyclists don't meticulously follow the rules exactly because of bad infrastructure and out-dated laws. Many cities are finally investing in bike infrastructure and have seen fantastic gains in their cycling rates. This is great news for those cities, their cyclists, and their citizens in general for all the great reasons I won't detail here. However, much of this improvement is happening in a highly piece-meal fashion and because of this, what starts as a good or great bike facility can suddenly vanish before your eyes, dumping you into the middle of a street crowded with speeding traffic. For many people, this event is enough to even keep them from riding, but for many others, it just encourages them to hop up on the sidewalk where they feel relatively safer (though many studies show you're actually at a much higher accident risk while on the sidewalk, but that's another story).
I'm not advocating that this is alright, but I certainly understand this behavior from less-confident or fit cyclists. If you're new to cycling in an urban environment (and often even when you've been riding in one for some time) there are situations with speeding, impatient, inattentive drivers that can be downright terrifying. One particular spot where this occurs is on King St. in San Francisco, between 2nd and 3rd. In this spot, Diana Sullivan was killed earlier this year when the bike lane she was riding on vanished and she was then hit by a cement truck. As can be seen in the Google Maps screenshot below, this lane just ends (the dashed line is the last breath of it, move around Streetview to see more of the location) with a small sign and one sharrow on the roadway ahead to give any indication of what's going on. I've ridden through this spot many times myself and while pretty confident on my bike around cars, I always leave this spot with an adrenaline high and a deep breath, because you without fail are dealing with impatient, speeding cars - speaking of, it would be great if the SFPD actually enforced speed limits on the Embarcadero instead of pointlessly harassing cyclists!
Dangerous gaps in bike infrastructure like the one detailed above only serve to encourage "bad" behavior among cyclists while making conditions dangerous and frustrating for both cyclists and drivers. So to all the cycle-haters out there; no, "scofflaw" cyclists don't mean that there shouldn't be improvements made to cycling infrastructure - it means quite the opposite! If there were more continuous, protected cycletracks, people would be much less likely to ride on the sidewalk. If you reform laws that force cyclists to conform to car-centric rules, again, cyclists would be far less likely to break them (allow stopping and proceeding if safe at red lights and treating stop signs as yields, both of which most cyclists do very safely already). The more common and safe-feeling that cycling becomes, the less it will carry an "outlaw" feel to it and cyclists will encourage better behavior among each other as well!
Friday, July 12, 2013
If I Don't Have it, You Shouldn't Either
And now for something different! All my posts except the intro have focused on bike stuff. Well not this one! The Bay Area recently endured a BART strike. BART employees were striking for a number of reasons, but chief among them were salary and benefit concerns. Basically, BART wants the employees to contribute more to pensions and healthcare and doesn't want to give them significant raises. When topics like this come up, you hear all kinds of arguments. The type that always surprise me are basically the equivalent of, "Well, I don't have ___, so why should they get ____?" You can fill in the blank with "pensions", "health insurance", "decent wages", "vacation days", etc.
In this case, employees wanted raises more in tune with the very rapidly rising cost of living in the Bay Area. Rents have been soaring in this area on top of big jumps in other cost of living factors (gas, food, etc.) over the past few years. BART employees haven't received raises in several years (since 2008 I believe) under efforts to cut system costs during the recession when ridership dropped significantly. Well, now the Bay's economy is doing well again and BART is seeing record ridership and surpluses. Now would seem a good time to reward the sacrifices and hard work of employees with long-overdue raises, even if only to reflect cost-of-living increases. In light of this, BART employees asked for a 23 % raise over several years. BART countered with 8 % with several ridiculous conditions (such as lower numbers of employees taking federally protected family leave).
This gets me to my original thought - I've heard several people who are otherwise very liberal comment that BART workers don't deserve these salaries. Yes, I agree that for a mostly unskilled job, they receive a pretty high salary, but that's exactly the point. We should be fighting for living wage salaries for everyone regardless of education level or "intelligence". BART employees average base pay in the $60-70,000 range (before overtime and benefits). In some parts of the country, yes, this would be a large sum, but in the Bay Area, this is just barely a living wage for a family, and probably isn't even depending on where the family lives. And when BART managers have an average salary of >$300,000, the disparity becomes even greater. Yet, here even normally pro-labor people have been critical of the BART workers.
As a defense of this viewpoint, it was referenced that teachers don't make nearly what BART workers do in many cases and work super hard at very skilled jobs. Yes, that's all true, and my counter would be that the BART workers shouldn't get less, the teachers should get more! Yes, teachers work super hard and are in many cases grossly underpaid but that doesn't mean that BART employees don't deserve a living wage, too.
The same holds true for other benefits such as health care and vacation. I never understand arguments that suggest that somehow some people shouldn't get generous health care or vacation benefits (often those in the public sector) because other workers don't. Again, the flip side here seems like a much better alternative - those with good benefits should keep them and those without deserve more than they currently have!
What this often boils down to is a case of those on top pitting those below against each other. The managers at BART like to report employee salaries as a total value of salary, overtime, health care, and pension benefits. This is a pretty deceptive way to report this, since almost none of us think of our salaries inclusive of those extras (though it's important to consider these too). By doing so, the managers, who already make FAR more than all but the richest of us, are trying to deceive us into thinking that the BART employees are overpaid. The rich seek to avoid class warfare in the traditional "rich-vs-poor" sense, but seek to pit the poor and middle-class against themselves. This allows them to continue robbing the piggy bank while we're all too busy surviving to notice. But we have to pay attention and hold them accountable and one great way to do that is to refuse to turn against those just looking for a living wage like we all deserve. Myself, I strongly support the BART workers! For more commentary on this topic, browse on over to the following article which gives some valuable points: http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=11574
In this case, employees wanted raises more in tune with the very rapidly rising cost of living in the Bay Area. Rents have been soaring in this area on top of big jumps in other cost of living factors (gas, food, etc.) over the past few years. BART employees haven't received raises in several years (since 2008 I believe) under efforts to cut system costs during the recession when ridership dropped significantly. Well, now the Bay's economy is doing well again and BART is seeing record ridership and surpluses. Now would seem a good time to reward the sacrifices and hard work of employees with long-overdue raises, even if only to reflect cost-of-living increases. In light of this, BART employees asked for a 23 % raise over several years. BART countered with 8 % with several ridiculous conditions (such as lower numbers of employees taking federally protected family leave).
This gets me to my original thought - I've heard several people who are otherwise very liberal comment that BART workers don't deserve these salaries. Yes, I agree that for a mostly unskilled job, they receive a pretty high salary, but that's exactly the point. We should be fighting for living wage salaries for everyone regardless of education level or "intelligence". BART employees average base pay in the $60-70,000 range (before overtime and benefits). In some parts of the country, yes, this would be a large sum, but in the Bay Area, this is just barely a living wage for a family, and probably isn't even depending on where the family lives. And when BART managers have an average salary of >$300,000, the disparity becomes even greater. Yet, here even normally pro-labor people have been critical of the BART workers.
As a defense of this viewpoint, it was referenced that teachers don't make nearly what BART workers do in many cases and work super hard at very skilled jobs. Yes, that's all true, and my counter would be that the BART workers shouldn't get less, the teachers should get more! Yes, teachers work super hard and are in many cases grossly underpaid but that doesn't mean that BART employees don't deserve a living wage, too.
The same holds true for other benefits such as health care and vacation. I never understand arguments that suggest that somehow some people shouldn't get generous health care or vacation benefits (often those in the public sector) because other workers don't. Again, the flip side here seems like a much better alternative - those with good benefits should keep them and those without deserve more than they currently have!
What this often boils down to is a case of those on top pitting those below against each other. The managers at BART like to report employee salaries as a total value of salary, overtime, health care, and pension benefits. This is a pretty deceptive way to report this, since almost none of us think of our salaries inclusive of those extras (though it's important to consider these too). By doing so, the managers, who already make FAR more than all but the richest of us, are trying to deceive us into thinking that the BART employees are overpaid. The rich seek to avoid class warfare in the traditional "rich-vs-poor" sense, but seek to pit the poor and middle-class against themselves. This allows them to continue robbing the piggy bank while we're all too busy surviving to notice. But we have to pay attention and hold them accountable and one great way to do that is to refuse to turn against those just looking for a living wage like we all deserve. Myself, I strongly support the BART workers! For more commentary on this topic, browse on over to the following article which gives some valuable points: http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=11574
Monday, July 8, 2013
Car Culture - The Culture of "F**k You"
Bad interactions can skew our perceptions much more strongly than good. This is highly unfortunate in some ways, but can carry important lessons as well. Take for instance the thankfully small number of motorists who belong to a small sub-group of Car Culture. Such motorists belong to the part of car culture I think of as the "culture of f**k you".
This is the motorist that races up behind you at a stop sign, engine revving. You stop your bike, they edge up way farther than necessary (see the video at the end of this post for a good example), then as you proceed through the intersection, they speed after you and fly by too close. Out of concern for their safety, the responsible cyclist no doubt looks back to make sure this person isn't about to hit them. As you look at the driver, an unavoidable mix of confusion and anger might fill your face, but you keep your mouth closed - lessons learned from too many interactions with the culture of f**k you and a general belief in not automatically thinking the worst of people. But as you look, you see those two powerfully pointless words on the driver's lips - "F**k you!"
As usually happens, such things only escalate a situation and of course this genius in the "safety" of his steel cage thinks he's seen the last of you. But you follow him now, his words having transformed you into an asshole-seeking missile. He stops his grey Ridgeline at a red light or parking lot (or to drop off his son at El Cerrito Plaza BART station). He tries to ignore you outside his window at first, but finally rolls down the window and you inquire why he felt the need to yell those two words at you. His response comes as a surprise, though by now it shouldn't, "because you were looking at me, why were you looking at me?" Well, Mr. F**k You Ridgeline, "because I wanted to be careful and observant and make sure I wasn't about to be run over." "That's good. (window rolls up)" His son looked to be about my age which makes me wonder - how would this guy like people driving and talking like that around his son? Why on earth would he do it to someone else's son, or another human being in general? Well, because once he steps into his car he belongs to the car culture of f**k you, as perfectly described by Louis CK.
Where on earth does this culture come from? What makes an otherwise (hopefully) rational person yell "f**k you" at a complete stranger for merely looking at them? I don't pretend to have the answer, but I have some guesses. 1) A deep-seated insecurity and anger toward anything and anyone different. Perhaps such people are just generally angry at the world and for some reason just seem to get angry when they see someone riding a bike. 2) From years as part of the culture of f**k you, these people don't even know how to act like decent human beings anymore and aren't even aware how horrible they are. 3) They've never ridden a bike on a road and don't realize what it feels like to have a multi-ton vehicle piloted by someone highly unaware of what happens when a car driver hits a cyclist (hint, the cyclist always loses). 4) They're so selfish and clueless that 1 second of their time is worth more than your safety. 5) They're jealous. Riding a bike is tons of fun, despite jerks like this guy. You get and stay healthy, save tons of money, and aren't choking the planet with your actions.
I actually think in most cases it's a mix of all five of the above, plus 100 other possible reasons. For instance, I'm sure most members of the car culture of f**k you have interacted with truly horrible cyclists and this has clouded their judgment - I don't hold cyclists as a group blameless in this situation by any means. But in the end, it's up to all of us to act like decent human beings and look out for each others' safety and well-being. I was doing what I could in that case; the ball was in his court and he swung and missed.
What lessons can we all take from something like this? First, it's obviously important to keep in mind that people like this make up the vast minority of drivers out there. Thankfully, most human beings are patient, good people or at least decent enough that even if they think bad thoughts, they would never yell "f**k you!" or honk at a complete stranger for looking at them. But it's also important to remember is that this guy isn't alone. While in the minority, too many like him are out there. When off the road, they also populate web comment sections with words of hate and claims that they'd like to run over every cyclist they see. For some reason, it's OK for such comments to be put forth by members of the car culture of f**k you, while we would never tolerate such vitriol about other groups. So while it's important to not assume that all motorists are going to act like this, you also have to be prepared for those that will and be as safe as you can. As examples of the culture of f**k you in action, I leave you with the following video:
This is the motorist that races up behind you at a stop sign, engine revving. You stop your bike, they edge up way farther than necessary (see the video at the end of this post for a good example), then as you proceed through the intersection, they speed after you and fly by too close. Out of concern for their safety, the responsible cyclist no doubt looks back to make sure this person isn't about to hit them. As you look at the driver, an unavoidable mix of confusion and anger might fill your face, but you keep your mouth closed - lessons learned from too many interactions with the culture of f**k you and a general belief in not automatically thinking the worst of people. But as you look, you see those two powerfully pointless words on the driver's lips - "F**k you!"
As usually happens, such things only escalate a situation and of course this genius in the "safety" of his steel cage thinks he's seen the last of you. But you follow him now, his words having transformed you into an asshole-seeking missile. He stops his grey Ridgeline at a red light or parking lot (or to drop off his son at El Cerrito Plaza BART station). He tries to ignore you outside his window at first, but finally rolls down the window and you inquire why he felt the need to yell those two words at you. His response comes as a surprise, though by now it shouldn't, "because you were looking at me, why were you looking at me?" Well, Mr. F**k You Ridgeline, "because I wanted to be careful and observant and make sure I wasn't about to be run over." "That's good. (window rolls up)" His son looked to be about my age which makes me wonder - how would this guy like people driving and talking like that around his son? Why on earth would he do it to someone else's son, or another human being in general? Well, because once he steps into his car he belongs to the car culture of f**k you, as perfectly described by Louis CK.
Where on earth does this culture come from? What makes an otherwise (hopefully) rational person yell "f**k you" at a complete stranger for merely looking at them? I don't pretend to have the answer, but I have some guesses. 1) A deep-seated insecurity and anger toward anything and anyone different. Perhaps such people are just generally angry at the world and for some reason just seem to get angry when they see someone riding a bike. 2) From years as part of the culture of f**k you, these people don't even know how to act like decent human beings anymore and aren't even aware how horrible they are. 3) They've never ridden a bike on a road and don't realize what it feels like to have a multi-ton vehicle piloted by someone highly unaware of what happens when a car driver hits a cyclist (hint, the cyclist always loses). 4) They're so selfish and clueless that 1 second of their time is worth more than your safety. 5) They're jealous. Riding a bike is tons of fun, despite jerks like this guy. You get and stay healthy, save tons of money, and aren't choking the planet with your actions.
I actually think in most cases it's a mix of all five of the above, plus 100 other possible reasons. For instance, I'm sure most members of the car culture of f**k you have interacted with truly horrible cyclists and this has clouded their judgment - I don't hold cyclists as a group blameless in this situation by any means. But in the end, it's up to all of us to act like decent human beings and look out for each others' safety and well-being. I was doing what I could in that case; the ball was in his court and he swung and missed.
Monday, July 1, 2013
Entitlement, or "Why'd you take a picture of my car?"
A lot of noise gets thrown around trying to claim that cyclists are an "entitled" group. While most of this comes from the same small group of internet trolls and their equivalents in "the media" (most notably recently, people like Dorothy Rabinowitz, whose delusional anti-cycling rants have garnered too much attention), such arguments are troubling because of their complete lack of connection with reality.
First off, yes, most cyclists are entitled by definition. If we look for a definition of entitlement, we find, among others, "a right to benefits specified by law or contract". To my knowledge, every state has laws that cover cyclists, usually under the context of other vehicles. While I'd never claim that all cyclists follow all of these rules all the time, most of us do ride courteously and safely, always yielding when required and in a manner appropriate for the conditions. The problem, as in most cases, are the outliers. In any group of people, there will be those who either don't know or choose not to follow the rules. This is true for cyclists, drivers, pedestrians, transit riders, and any group of people anywhere.
Problems arise when outliers are treated as the norm and people ignore the infractions of their own "group". For example, some drivers will go on and on about how they see cyclists going through stop signs while ignoring that most drivers do exactly the same thing and these cyclists in all likelihood didn't endanger or inconvenience anyone. Go to any intersection and see how many drivers actually come to a complete stop. In both cases, this is usually utterly harmless, since you can clearly judge if the intersection is clear and it's safe to proceed slowly instead of coming to a complete stop. On a bike, with better visibility, hearing, maneuverability, and an already slower speed, this is especially the case.
But back to the idea of entitlement. As I already said, cyclists are entitled to use the road (with the exception of most freeways of course, but that's another post), but that's of course not what anti-cyclist ideas imply. These usually imply that cyclists somehow think they're better than drivers and are above the law. This idea is almost laughable. First of all, cyclists get ticketed just like drivers do, often for pointless reasons that do nothing to enhance safety, simply because police squads decide to "blitz" an area and user group. Second, in the rare cases where people have been killed in incidents with cyclists, both cyclists in SF have faced charges. It is extremely rare that drivers face charges when killing cyclists or pedestrians, even if it's clear that the pedestrian was in a crosswalk with the right-of-way. These cases are usually just called "accidents" and no criminality is suspected as long as the driver wasn't drunk and didn't flee the scene. The driver's word is often the only one taken, since it's hard to be a witness when you're unconscious or dead. If you're riding a bike, often the first thing noted is whether or not you were wearing a helmet, even though this is not required in most places and certainly doesn't do much to protect you when getting hit by a car or garbage truck.
In my opinion, the real issue of entitlement boils down to concepts of selfishness versus recklessness. Much of the entitled behavior of drivers is selfish and endangers others and that by cyclists is reckless and only endangers themselves. Drivers park in bike lanes, speed, pass too closely, honk when you're "in their way", and text while driving. All of these are selfish behaviors that generally don't endanger the driver, but greatly endanger those around them, particularly cyclists and pedestrians. When cyclists blow through stop signs, change lanes without looking, or ride too fast for the conditions, they usually put only themselves in danger (with notable exceptions mentioned above). The selfish behavior of drivers is a much bigger sign of an entitled attitude in my opinion. In the picture below, the driver was parked right in the middle of the bike lane where traffic in the auto lane generally speeds by well over the posted limit. There are plenty of better options to temporarily park. I stopped behind her to take this picture and as I passed she yelled out her window, "Why'd you take a picture of my car?" I just said because she was illegally parked in a bike lane and continued on my way knowing from past experiences that any more of an explanation wasn't worth my time.
On the same day I had a driver buzz by then stop right in front of me in the bike lane to park causing me to have to slam on the brakes and swerve into the auto traffic lane after being sure I had room to do so. The light right ahead was red so I turned around and asked her if she had seen me. She said yes, but had apparently not cared enough to wait 1 second more for me to pass safely. The law entitles me to use that bike lane; her selfish sense of entitlement made her see no issue with cutting me off to save one second and put me in danger of hitting her or getting hit by passing traffic. These are just a few of the daily instances I see where the idea of entitled cyclists falls flat. In too many cases, "modal bias" makes those who spend most of their transport time behind the wheel ignore the bad behavior of drivers while being overly critical of those who use other means. None of this is to say that cyclists can't or shouldn't make strides to better follow the rules, but to claim that all cyclists don't and that all drivers do is completely divorced from reality and a dangerous misconception.
First off, yes, most cyclists are entitled by definition. If we look for a definition of entitlement, we find, among others, "a right to benefits specified by law or contract". To my knowledge, every state has laws that cover cyclists, usually under the context of other vehicles. While I'd never claim that all cyclists follow all of these rules all the time, most of us do ride courteously and safely, always yielding when required and in a manner appropriate for the conditions. The problem, as in most cases, are the outliers. In any group of people, there will be those who either don't know or choose not to follow the rules. This is true for cyclists, drivers, pedestrians, transit riders, and any group of people anywhere.
Problems arise when outliers are treated as the norm and people ignore the infractions of their own "group". For example, some drivers will go on and on about how they see cyclists going through stop signs while ignoring that most drivers do exactly the same thing and these cyclists in all likelihood didn't endanger or inconvenience anyone. Go to any intersection and see how many drivers actually come to a complete stop. In both cases, this is usually utterly harmless, since you can clearly judge if the intersection is clear and it's safe to proceed slowly instead of coming to a complete stop. On a bike, with better visibility, hearing, maneuverability, and an already slower speed, this is especially the case.
But back to the idea of entitlement. As I already said, cyclists are entitled to use the road (with the exception of most freeways of course, but that's another post), but that's of course not what anti-cyclist ideas imply. These usually imply that cyclists somehow think they're better than drivers and are above the law. This idea is almost laughable. First of all, cyclists get ticketed just like drivers do, often for pointless reasons that do nothing to enhance safety, simply because police squads decide to "blitz" an area and user group. Second, in the rare cases where people have been killed in incidents with cyclists, both cyclists in SF have faced charges. It is extremely rare that drivers face charges when killing cyclists or pedestrians, even if it's clear that the pedestrian was in a crosswalk with the right-of-way. These cases are usually just called "accidents" and no criminality is suspected as long as the driver wasn't drunk and didn't flee the scene. The driver's word is often the only one taken, since it's hard to be a witness when you're unconscious or dead. If you're riding a bike, often the first thing noted is whether or not you were wearing a helmet, even though this is not required in most places and certainly doesn't do much to protect you when getting hit by a car or garbage truck.
In my opinion, the real issue of entitlement boils down to concepts of selfishness versus recklessness. Much of the entitled behavior of drivers is selfish and endangers others and that by cyclists is reckless and only endangers themselves. Drivers park in bike lanes, speed, pass too closely, honk when you're "in their way", and text while driving. All of these are selfish behaviors that generally don't endanger the driver, but greatly endanger those around them, particularly cyclists and pedestrians. When cyclists blow through stop signs, change lanes without looking, or ride too fast for the conditions, they usually put only themselves in danger (with notable exceptions mentioned above). The selfish behavior of drivers is a much bigger sign of an entitled attitude in my opinion. In the picture below, the driver was parked right in the middle of the bike lane where traffic in the auto lane generally speeds by well over the posted limit. There are plenty of better options to temporarily park. I stopped behind her to take this picture and as I passed she yelled out her window, "Why'd you take a picture of my car?" I just said because she was illegally parked in a bike lane and continued on my way knowing from past experiences that any more of an explanation wasn't worth my time.
On the same day I had a driver buzz by then stop right in front of me in the bike lane to park causing me to have to slam on the brakes and swerve into the auto traffic lane after being sure I had room to do so. The light right ahead was red so I turned around and asked her if she had seen me. She said yes, but had apparently not cared enough to wait 1 second more for me to pass safely. The law entitles me to use that bike lane; her selfish sense of entitlement made her see no issue with cutting me off to save one second and put me in danger of hitting her or getting hit by passing traffic. These are just a few of the daily instances I see where the idea of entitled cyclists falls flat. In too many cases, "modal bias" makes those who spend most of their transport time behind the wheel ignore the bad behavior of drivers while being overly critical of those who use other means. None of this is to say that cyclists can't or shouldn't make strides to better follow the rules, but to claim that all cyclists don't and that all drivers do is completely divorced from reality and a dangerous misconception.
Friday, June 7, 2013
Rule Breakers?
It's been a long time since I last wrote anything here! This isn't due to lack of things to write about of course - with the topics of this blog there are honestly too many things to write about. But for this post, I want to comment on an old topic that is particularly irritating. Many in the anti-bike realm suggest that cities and states shouldn't make improvements for cyclists until all cyclists follow all the rules of the road. While I can't add any new pieces to this debate, I'd just like to point out the biggest flaw in their argument. A huge number of drivers (and likely all of them at some point) break the rules of the road, too. Though this was crystal clear already, the past two days I've bothered to stop and take pictures of some of the offenders - in this case drivers parked in bike lanes. Whether running in for coffee or sitting in a delivery van, each of these drivers has blocked the space designated for cyclists and created a safety hazard where cyclists have to go around them in traffic. In the case of the Accord on 16th, this driver had parked right around the corner from where the bike lane turns, so anyone riding around the corner would be put in extra risk due to lack of visibility to see the offending motorist's car.
The van on Howard just didn't seem to care and was too busy having a smoke break to move out of the way.
In either case, the main issue here is lack of concern for others and putting your own convenience first. And while I'm the first to admit plenty of cyclists do this too, drivers can't claim innocence. Whether parking in bike lanes, texting and talking while driving, speeding, not giving enough space when passing, running red lights, running stop signs, blocking intersections, not looking when opening your door, or cutting off a cyclist to save a half second (or no time at all, since you're often rushing to get to the next red light) drivers break plenty of rules everyday, yet no one argues that they shouldn't have safer, smoother, and less congested roads until they follow the rules. Instead we keep widening freeways, repaving streets, and making other improvements that dwarf overall spending on cycling infrastructure. I'm all for cyclists behaving better and try to be a good example myself, but you're living in a fantasy land if you believe drivers don't break many (of the same) rules every day!
The van on Howard just didn't seem to care and was too busy having a smoke break to move out of the way.
In either case, the main issue here is lack of concern for others and putting your own convenience first. And while I'm the first to admit plenty of cyclists do this too, drivers can't claim innocence. Whether parking in bike lanes, texting and talking while driving, speeding, not giving enough space when passing, running red lights, running stop signs, blocking intersections, not looking when opening your door, or cutting off a cyclist to save a half second (or no time at all, since you're often rushing to get to the next red light) drivers break plenty of rules everyday, yet no one argues that they shouldn't have safer, smoother, and less congested roads until they follow the rules. Instead we keep widening freeways, repaving streets, and making other improvements that dwarf overall spending on cycling infrastructure. I'm all for cyclists behaving better and try to be a good example myself, but you're living in a fantasy land if you believe drivers don't break many (of the same) rules every day!
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Single-file Subarude
Topics of this blog will cover both planned topics as well
as ones based on my own recent experiences. Regarding the latter, I’ll be
addressing the issue of single-file riding and passing today. While heading
back from the market today, my roommate and I started out riding side-by-side. We
pulled up behind a line of cars going slower than we were, so were not
obstructing traffic flow in any way. Pulling onto another street, the same slow
car turned and was going slower than my normal speed. The driver behind me followed
far too closely and intermittently revved his engine. He eventually raced by
once we turned from behind the truck and there was a shred of space but I
caught up to him at the next stoplight (advice to drivers – this happens much
more often than you might expect, so don’t be surprised when you suddenly
have an upset cyclist outside your window). I asked him to be a little more patient
and considerate next time and give some space, particularly because I wasn’t
the one slowing down traffic. His only reply was that my friend and I were
riding side-by-side, which isn’t allowed.
There are two glaring problems with his argument: 1) it’s not true, 2)
such an “offense” isn’t justification for unsafe behavior.
Expanding on point 1 – that his whole argument is invalid.
To start with, we weren’t riding side-by-side for the majority of the time he
was following me. Second, CA vehicle code says that bicyclists should stay as
far right as is safe, but only in certain cases, none of which applied in this
case. Most importantly, we were going the same speed as traffic. Also, traffic
lanes here aren’t more than 14 feet wide and there are many driveways and cross
streets where right turns could be made.
All of these mean we had every right take the lane and don’t have to
ride single file, the necessity of which is never even explicitly stated in CA
vehicle code, only implied by the requirement to ride to the right as far as
safely practicable.
As for point 2 – just because you’re annoyed that we’re “in
your way” (which we weren’t even in this case) it doesn’t justify your unsafe,
rude behavior. You’re driving a multi-thousand pound car; I’m on a 25 pound
bike. Give me a little space, especially since you’re not going anywhere even
if you pass me since I’m not the one slowing things down. A good rule of thumb:
be an adult. Just like any other situation, a little bit of knowledge and courtesy
toward your fellow human beings goes a long way. Instead of only justifying his
unsafe behavior with inaccurate accusations, this motorist could have said, “Hey,
sorry, I could have given you more space. Also, I felt like you could have ridden
single-file back there”. That’s how communication works; you acknowledge the
other person and then respond.
In conclusion, a little courtesy goes a long way on everyone’s
parts. In this case, I stopped at stop signs, signaled my turns, did everything
right. There was no excuse for this motorist to put me in an unsafe situation.
Before you lash out (and this goes for everyone – cyclists, motorists, pedestrians),
check that you actually understand the law you’re using as an excuse for your
poor behavior. In this case, the motorist was not only tailgating me (prohibited
under CA vehicle code), but was also harassing me, for which I could take them
to civil court thanks to recently passed changes to Berkeley city code. We’re
all just trying to get where we’re going safely; give everyone a little space
and respect. Have a great weekend all -
get out and ride!
Thursday, July 5, 2012
An Introduction
This blog will cover the three topics I currently care about
most: bikes, politics, and science (the occasional post about music might
appear too). I’m interested in each of these topics for different reasons, many
of which I plan to cover in the following posts. These topics also overlap
quite a bit from time to time, for better or worse, and I'll definitely discuss
those overlaps.
When it comes to bikes, my primary interest lies in riding them. I won’t be reviewing the newest Dura Ace components – I can’t afford them and neither can most people who ride bikes and better qualified people than me already have it covered. As for politics – if you think President Obama’s an America-hating Muslim, you’re probably in the wrong place. I’m a liberal and believe in facts and well-reasoned arguments. Which brings me to science. Science gives us answers and information – evolution and climate change are real. While it is our responsibility to continuously question and think critically about what science tells us, it is also our responsibility to heed what we learn from science and plan for the future. Plus, science is just really cool.
So to sum up the focus of the following posts and draw this introduction to a close: get on your bike and ride, be knowledgeable about and involved in politics, and make an effort to understand science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)