Neon? Tron?

Not sure this qualifies as neon, but its more fun to ride than to write about it. Bye for now, and please join LA Bikes!

Vision Zero: Zero Traffic Deaths?

Some interesting reading on the subject of traffic safety.

http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/peir070923.htm

VISION ZEROFOR TRAFFIC DEATHS:
WILD DREAM OR CRITICAL GOAL?

By Neal Peirce

Vision Zero-- no more deaths from highway accidents.
The idea was born in Sweden, where its had spectacular success in reducing traffic fatalities. Now zeroing out all traffic fatalities must become an explicit U.S. and worldwide goal. Otherwise we have no prospect of taming the appalling roadway death toll -- 42,000 lives lost yearly in the United States, close to 1.2 million worldwide....

You light up my life? (bicycle lights, that is).

Its getting to be the time of year when commuter cyclists need to dig out their lighting systems. Mine is a decade old, so I am thinking of upgrading or replacing.

My pet peeve right now is that many bike catalogs do not clearly compare all their lighting products with useful units. Some lights are only listed with power consumed (watts) while others list lumens or candlepower. What we clearly need are good data. Illumination, such as in lumens. Power available, i.e. lighting duration in watt hours or whatever. And, beam pattern and useability.

I am looking for good reviews with this information and will post what I find. If you find a good source, please add to the discussion under the comments section. I also emailed Consumer Reports and suggested they test and rate high-zoot bicycle lights. Scott has a great HID light. Not sure the multi-LEDs have caught up in light quality.

here are a few sources of info, not sure all are up to date.
http://www.mtbr.com/spotlight/lightshootout/
http://www.nordicgroup.us/s78/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_lighting


By all means, make sure you are visible out there. While many riders use taillights or reflectors and bright clothing, you need to make sure you have actual forward illumination, not just reflection. A car turning across your path will not illuminate your front reflector or clothing until it is too late, since their headlights have to be pointed at you to reflect light back to the driver.

Why I Teach

In his book Effective Cycling John Forrester proposes the concept of "Cyclist Inferiority Complex". He asserts that it is responsible for cyclists doing dumb things like weaving in and out of parked cars or riding the wrong way down the street. It causes cyclists to mistakenly assume that cars are attracted to bicycles, and cyclists are safer if they avoid cars at any cost. Unfortunately, "riding as though you were invisible" goes hand in hand with being invisible, and cyclists who avoid cars wind up surprising drivers when they inevitably cross paths (at a driveway, say, or when going around a parked car). Cyclist Inferiority Complex feeds on itself by encouraging unsafe behavior; unsafe behavior begets injuries; injuries beget the feeling that cycling is dangerous.

As has been confirmed time and time again, nobody wants to run into anybody or anything. By making yourself visible and clearly demonstrating where you're headed, you help everybody achieve their goal of not hitting you. Teaching cyclists that they belong in the road with the rest of traffic,and why it's safer and more enjoyable, seems to kill Cyclist Inferiority Complex. As a result, students who pass LAB Road I (the class I call "The Art of Cycling") are safer, more confident, more relaxed, and more predictable on their bikes. And that's why I teach.

The more cyclists we have riding out in the road, acting predictably and responsibly, the better it's going to get for everyone.

Looking for a solution to the animosity

If the discussion in the Monitor had a positive outcome for me, it is an attempt to reconcile the animosity with a solution. Mr. Ragsdale and others like him don't want to share the road. Cyclists want to be able to ride free from harassment. Both are held hostage to a bad paradigm.

Two issues overlap.

First is attitude. Negative attitudes and stereotypes reinforce each other. A cyclist harassed into getting off the road will ride with less respect for others than one who is offered respect in return. A motorist who is flipped off or who has to dodge imbecilic riding will not offer respect to cyclists. As you can see, this is a downward spiral.

Break the pattern.

Second is facilities. If lousy facilities put everyone on edge, people are more likely to want to find fault with each other since we are typically stressed out anyway. So if a narrow road lacks shoulders and someone in an F150 comes over a blind rise or around a curve and into a stressful situation, one will want to find fault. If a cyclist is told it is his/her fault for simply being there, one will want to find fault.

The answer is that we need to respect each other. This means not blaming each other for things beyond our control, trying to accomodate each other, and designing roads that do not drive us crazy. The last of these is called the Complete Streets movement: in this case, put a paved shoulder on NM 4.

It is up to all of us to get out of our own skins and treat each other with some additional respect. For example, West Jemez has a lot of blind rises. These may not be apparent to cyclists due to our slower speed. They are obvious to 55 mph motorists--I have carefully considered them when I drive. Try to ride in consideration of the bloke who has topped one of these rises and suddenly runs into a disorganized double paceline which is spread all over the road. For the motorist, drive the speed limit so when you run into this gaggle, you have some non-fatal options.

See the world (and the road) from someone else's shoes. Respect each other, fix what is broken, and improve our community.

We called that the Traffic Justice movement at last summer's Pro-Bike/Pro-Walk. I'd like to talk about that to who ever will listen.

Final comments on Mr. Ragsdale's letter?

http://www.lamonitor.com/articles/2007/09/20/letters/letters01.txt

Reasons for printing letter not good

Dear Editor,

First, I would like to thank Khalil Spencer for an excellent letter to the Monitor on Sept. 13 in response to the juvenile and antagonistic Ragsdale letter. I was stunned by the publication of the first letter and contacted the editor/publisher. I wish to comment on a few reasons he gave for publishing the Ragsdale letter.

First, he cited the right to freedom of speech. However, I believe this freedom does not permit infringement on the rights of others.

Every person should be incensed if a letter referred to an ethnic group as "targets for the Sportmen's Club." Yet, similar injurious terminology ("mobile hood ornaments") was published in reference to cyclists. This is blatant discrimination with hostile intent, which threatens the rights of cyclists to the road.

Second, the editor claimed to be encouraging debate. However, I challenge that no healthy debate was ever initiated with insults. Such "debates" collapse into shouting matches that inevitably end with an injury or death. There was no kernel of useful debate material in the Ragsdale letter. It was simply an unsettling verbal assault on a part of our community.

Finally, the editor claimed the Ragsdale letter may have been an attempt at humor. However, those who have been threatened by drivers while on the bicycle, or who knew someone killed by a hostile or careless driver, cannot laugh about this threat to their physical well-being.

I am disappointed in any person who finds humor in the injury of others.

Please don't seek a violent outlet against another for the discouraging climate within our county. We, as a community, all face similar frustrations. Let us not add senseless acts of violence to our list of challenges right now. And I ask the Monitor to not encourage such destructive modes of thinking.

Lisa Dougherty

Los Alamos