I'm out of town this weekend and will have more on the WAMPO report next week, but here's something to contemplate in the meantime:
According to the section in the draft on bicycles and pedestrians, the area under WAMPO's administration has 15% of Kansas' population but accounts for 25% of bike and pedestrian fatalities in the state.
Showing posts with label safety. Show all posts
Showing posts with label safety. Show all posts
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Should we negotiate with the automobile? Or would that be appeasement?
Via the weekly WAMPO update comes a link to a recent study that I had seen a couple of weeks ago and had wanted to link to and then, as I am wont to do, forgot about it. Now that it's appeared again, I'd like to link to it and make a connection between it and the recent story in the Eagle that I mentioned in Sunday's post.
The Alliance for Biking and Walking has just completed a benchmarking report (the Quick Facts Sheet is here) that shows that, nationwide, 9.6% of all trips in this country are made either on foot or by bike (those numbers are of course higher in urban areas), yet transportation funding for bike/ped infrastructure accounts for only 1.2% of federal funding--and it may just be that that funding disparity partly explains why cyclists and pedestrians account for 13.1% of all traffic fatalities in the U.S. The fact that WAMPO sees fit to forward this along is, I think, further confirmation that it sees such things as important and seeks to encourage the area's municipalities to give some thought to these issues.
Randal O'Toole's recent visit to town and critique of Wichita's apparent direction in favor of making downtown more walkable is worth taking another look at, especially his comment that (quoting from the article here) "'pedestrian-friendly' development — a cornerstone of Wichita's downtown effort, usually means car-hostile." This of course begs a question: That there is something to be gained in keeping downtown "pedestrian-hostile," some greater good that is worth continued occasional-yet-increasing cyclist and pedestrian deaths, seeing as the numbers of cyclists and pedestrians increased by 42% between 2000 and 2007 and will only continue to increase--whether or not cities and states plan accordingly for those increases.
O'Toole frames the issue in adversarial terms: cars vs. pedestrians and cyclists; the latter two, being the weaker entities, must perforce surrender space to the stronger. It's as though, in fact, that in such a framing autos are assumed to be feral creatures to be accommodated at all costs by us weaker mortals and so, if we appease them by providing them (and then stay out of) nice, wide lanes and plenty of (preferably free or at least cheap) Sudetenland-like parking lots, we will have peace in our time with them.
My analogy is, of course, absurd (I hope no one takes offense at it); but too often it is indeed true that it is the existence of cars, over and above what is better or at least preferable for making a place more livable, that has shaped the cities we live in--and, of course, our decisions about infrastructure priorities. That Mr. O'Toole apparently feels we are compelled to lie prostrate before the automobile and its needs would seem to me a surrender of liberty that, as I said in yesterday's post, I'd think he'd want to resist mightily as the good libertarian that (I assume) he is.
To frame this discussion in Us vs. Them terms is not helpful, in other words. With careful, thoughtful planning, we can easily create urban cores whose streets can accommodate both cars and people afoot and on bikes and whose land-use laws can lead to less need for cars (and lest anyone misunderstand me, not needing a car is not the same thing as being hostile toward them). Those who read the comments section for the Eagle article will find what follows familiar, for a couple of folks there already pointed this out: Complete Streets designs result in streets that can bear the same or greater amount of car traffic as conventional streets and, at the same time, apportion space for cyclists buses and pedestrians--all the while making those streets safer for everyone. The Douglas Design District sees the wisdom in executing a Complete Streets design on one of the very busiest streets in the city, as I noted last month.
Such a reasonable accommodation makes the street, again, a truly public space, and a safer one as well. If this is appeasement, then sign me up.
The Alliance for Biking and Walking has just completed a benchmarking report (the Quick Facts Sheet is here) that shows that, nationwide, 9.6% of all trips in this country are made either on foot or by bike (those numbers are of course higher in urban areas), yet transportation funding for bike/ped infrastructure accounts for only 1.2% of federal funding--and it may just be that that funding disparity partly explains why cyclists and pedestrians account for 13.1% of all traffic fatalities in the U.S. The fact that WAMPO sees fit to forward this along is, I think, further confirmation that it sees such things as important and seeks to encourage the area's municipalities to give some thought to these issues.
Randal O'Toole's recent visit to town and critique of Wichita's apparent direction in favor of making downtown more walkable is worth taking another look at, especially his comment that (quoting from the article here) "'pedestrian-friendly' development — a cornerstone of Wichita's downtown effort, usually means car-hostile." This of course begs a question: That there is something to be gained in keeping downtown "pedestrian-hostile," some greater good that is worth continued occasional-yet-increasing cyclist and pedestrian deaths, seeing as the numbers of cyclists and pedestrians increased by 42% between 2000 and 2007 and will only continue to increase--whether or not cities and states plan accordingly for those increases.
O'Toole frames the issue in adversarial terms: cars vs. pedestrians and cyclists; the latter two, being the weaker entities, must perforce surrender space to the stronger. It's as though, in fact, that in such a framing autos are assumed to be feral creatures to be accommodated at all costs by us weaker mortals and so, if we appease them by providing them (and then stay out of) nice, wide lanes and plenty of (preferably free or at least cheap) Sudetenland-like parking lots, we will have peace in our time with them.
My analogy is, of course, absurd (I hope no one takes offense at it); but too often it is indeed true that it is the existence of cars, over and above what is better or at least preferable for making a place more livable, that has shaped the cities we live in--and, of course, our decisions about infrastructure priorities. That Mr. O'Toole apparently feels we are compelled to lie prostrate before the automobile and its needs would seem to me a surrender of liberty that, as I said in yesterday's post, I'd think he'd want to resist mightily as the good libertarian that (I assume) he is.
To frame this discussion in Us vs. Them terms is not helpful, in other words. With careful, thoughtful planning, we can easily create urban cores whose streets can accommodate both cars and people afoot and on bikes and whose land-use laws can lead to less need for cars (and lest anyone misunderstand me, not needing a car is not the same thing as being hostile toward them). Those who read the comments section for the Eagle article will find what follows familiar, for a couple of folks there already pointed this out: Complete Streets designs result in streets that can bear the same or greater amount of car traffic as conventional streets and, at the same time, apportion space for cyclists buses and pedestrians--all the while making those streets safer for everyone. The Douglas Design District sees the wisdom in executing a Complete Streets design on one of the very busiest streets in the city, as I noted last month.
Such a reasonable accommodation makes the street, again, a truly public space, and a safer one as well. If this is appeasement, then sign me up.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
A cautionary tale
Need some, um, persuading as to the efficacy of bicyclists' wearing helmets and obeying traffic laws? Here you go.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Be careful. We're out there.
Just a quick acknowledgment that everywhere I go of late, not just in my part of town--which has what I'd guess is the heaviest bike traffic in Wichita--cyclists of varying levels of seriousness are far more numerous on the streets than last year. That's good.
What's not so good, though, is when--as I observed last night--a whole gang (by which I mean a half-dozen at least) of these folks think it's okay to just sort of roll out of the alley by the Society of Decorative Arts building at the intersection of Seneca and McLean without checking for oncoming traffic . . . one of whose number happens to be the author of this blog.
Had I hit one of them--how would that be for some irony? Right up there with semiotician Roland Barthes' crossing a street against the light and being run over by a truck.
This isn't meant to be a Dumb/Ignorant/Careless Cyclist post. It's more in the vein of those "It's the first robin of the spring" posts combined with those "Look out for little kids because school's back in session" PSAs. Well, that, and a "Gee--both McLean and Seneca (at least between Kellogg and the river) could really use dedicated bike lanes" post.
It's great to see all the cyclists out there. Really. But cyclists, let's do what we can to keep some of you around long enough to learn the rules of the road and ride accordingly. And motorists: Patience.
What's not so good, though, is when--as I observed last night--a whole gang (by which I mean a half-dozen at least) of these folks think it's okay to just sort of roll out of the alley by the Society of Decorative Arts building at the intersection of Seneca and McLean without checking for oncoming traffic . . . one of whose number happens to be the author of this blog.
Had I hit one of them--how would that be for some irony? Right up there with semiotician Roland Barthes' crossing a street against the light and being run over by a truck.
This isn't meant to be a Dumb/Ignorant/Careless Cyclist post. It's more in the vein of those "It's the first robin of the spring" posts combined with those "Look out for little kids because school's back in session" PSAs. Well, that, and a "Gee--both McLean and Seneca (at least between Kellogg and the river) could really use dedicated bike lanes" post.
It's great to see all the cyclists out there. Really. But cyclists, let's do what we can to keep some of you around long enough to learn the rules of the road and ride accordingly. And motorists: Patience.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday Ride #6: New Gypsum Creek path
Veloroute map. I took my usual commute route to reach the eastern end of the route, took the new route as indicated (included here is my turn north along the Canal Route up to Mt. Vernon), then returned home via my commute route.
Greetings, all. It appears that I can resume something that resembles regular blogging here. Thanks again for the kind wishes sent the Mrs.'s way.
A couple of Saturdays ago, when it looked like spring had arrived, I thought I'd check out the new bike path I'd written about in my previous post. There is good and not-so-good to report.
The good: The path proper is concrete and is indeed complete from George Washington to Wassall. Being so new, it's of course in great shape. There are also places for benches along the path, and it appears the city will be planting some trees in a couple of places. From the path's western terminus at Wassall, it's a short one-block ride down Wassall to the pedestrian bridge that crosses I-135. Moreover, on the day I rode there, the city is putting a new, wider sidewalk in at the intersection of Pawnee and Minneapolis, which will make crossing Pawnee easier and safer. My teaching schedule this spring isn't conducive to bike-commuting (I have late classes each night), but some weekend I plan to take this new route to see how it might fare as part of my commute-route in terms of distance and time.
The not-so-good: as I have noted before about the Canal Route, this new stretch, naturally wend-y by nature because it follows the creek, nevertheless makes some bizarre arbitrary bends on perfectly-flat land. Thus, at times it created in me the sense of not covering much ground. Meanwhile, the pedestrian bridge seems designed to discourage cyclists from riding across it: I suppose one could ascend the ramps while astride one's bike, but they are too steep and turn too abruptly to descend safely. True, to cross the bridge on foot takes just a couple of minutes, but it's that disruption of getting off and then getting on again that strikes me as irritating.
The bad: One word--Plainview. It is no secret to most Wichitans that Plainview is a rough part of town; and, given that the entirety of this new path runs along that neighborhood's southern boundary, sometimes right along the houses' (often unfenced) property lines, riders are hereby alerted to this. On my ride, I saw a couple of pit bulls staked out on chains in backyards--I saw them because, as I said, some of these yards aren't fenced. Granted, their chains were short enough to prevent them from reaching the path, and I apparently was too boring to them to cause them to do much more than bark a couple of times at me; but it's not as though there are signs warning cyclists or pedestrians about all this. It may be that there are plans to install fencing or plant hedges along the route, but I saw nothing that would indicate such a thing. In short: it's a bit dicey down there, even in the daytime, and you need to know this in advance. All that said, though, the city is to be commended for building a path along that route. As I noted in the earlier post, bike commuters on the south side of town heading to the McConnell area should find this route to be useful to them, and it also provides a safe bike route for kids who attend the two schools the path passes. Most important of all, whether intentionally or not and slalom-y curves aside, it argues against the assumption most people (and city-planners) have of cycling as a middle-class recreational activity.
As my first commenter notes on the previous post, there are still more paths to come for the south side, most notably a path (construction to begin this summer) that will link the Arkansas River path's southern terminus at Garvey Park with this same just-completed new path. Good. But now: about that much-needed east-west route through the city's center . . .
Greetings, all. It appears that I can resume something that resembles regular blogging here. Thanks again for the kind wishes sent the Mrs.'s way.
A couple of Saturdays ago, when it looked like spring had arrived, I thought I'd check out the new bike path I'd written about in my previous post. There is good and not-so-good to report.
The good: The path proper is concrete and is indeed complete from George Washington to Wassall. Being so new, it's of course in great shape. There are also places for benches along the path, and it appears the city will be planting some trees in a couple of places. From the path's western terminus at Wassall, it's a short one-block ride down Wassall to the pedestrian bridge that crosses I-135. Moreover, on the day I rode there, the city is putting a new, wider sidewalk in at the intersection of Pawnee and Minneapolis, which will make crossing Pawnee easier and safer. My teaching schedule this spring isn't conducive to bike-commuting (I have late classes each night), but some weekend I plan to take this new route to see how it might fare as part of my commute-route in terms of distance and time.
The not-so-good: as I have noted before about the Canal Route, this new stretch, naturally wend-y by nature because it follows the creek, nevertheless makes some bizarre arbitrary bends on perfectly-flat land. Thus, at times it created in me the sense of not covering much ground. Meanwhile, the pedestrian bridge seems designed to discourage cyclists from riding across it: I suppose one could ascend the ramps while astride one's bike, but they are too steep and turn too abruptly to descend safely. True, to cross the bridge on foot takes just a couple of minutes, but it's that disruption of getting off and then getting on again that strikes me as irritating.
The bad: One word--Plainview. It is no secret to most Wichitans that Plainview is a rough part of town; and, given that the entirety of this new path runs along that neighborhood's southern boundary, sometimes right along the houses' (often unfenced) property lines, riders are hereby alerted to this. On my ride, I saw a couple of pit bulls staked out on chains in backyards--I saw them because, as I said, some of these yards aren't fenced. Granted, their chains were short enough to prevent them from reaching the path, and I apparently was too boring to them to cause them to do much more than bark a couple of times at me; but it's not as though there are signs warning cyclists or pedestrians about all this. It may be that there are plans to install fencing or plant hedges along the route, but I saw nothing that would indicate such a thing. In short: it's a bit dicey down there, even in the daytime, and you need to know this in advance. All that said, though, the city is to be commended for building a path along that route. As I noted in the earlier post, bike commuters on the south side of town heading to the McConnell area should find this route to be useful to them, and it also provides a safe bike route for kids who attend the two schools the path passes. Most important of all, whether intentionally or not and slalom-y curves aside, it argues against the assumption most people (and city-planners) have of cycling as a middle-class recreational activity.
As my first commenter notes on the previous post, there are still more paths to come for the south side, most notably a path (construction to begin this summer) that will link the Arkansas River path's southern terminus at Garvey Park with this same just-completed new path. Good. But now: about that much-needed east-west route through the city's center . . .
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Readers' Ride report; a Wichita cycling eccentric
What has not kept me from posting on last weekend's rides? Well: now that I've dealt with the last of those delays by having my internet service restored, I can offer up a brief report.
I overslept on Saturday the 15th, and it was cold besides. Sunday the 16th, though, could not have been a better day for a ride: sunny; slight breeze, temperatures in the upper-50s/lower-60s. So, I headed down to the softball fields at Plainview Park; and even with a stop for a brief repair (my bike didn't shift gears properly and the chain got hung up between the frame and the rear gears) I arrived there just before 1:00.
No one else showed, alas, but I was still happy to be out. Here's the Veloroutes map of my route. From the softball fields, I followed the bike path up to the intersection of Bayley and Armour, then doubled back down the path to Mt. Vernon and turned west there. I didn't trace the entire route; for those interested, though, it's almost exactly 6 miles from the intersection of Mt. Vernon and George Washington to my apartment, so I ended up riding 20 miles in all.
The main thing I was looking for on this ride was progress on the path-building along Gypsum Creek from Pawnee to Woodlawn. Things looked about the same, as far as I could see, but that means only that: I couldn't see all that far.
On the way home, I had my first truly close call with a car. I was heading west on the Harry Street bridge, approaching the intersection with McLean. A car was at the intersection, stopped for the light and waiting to turn left (south) on McLean. There were no cars in my lane. When I was about 50 feet from the intersection, the light turned green. Suddenly, before the car in the other lane had started forward, a large white truck cut between the car and me. I don't know how close he actually came, but it looked close. I could easily have touched the side of the truck as it passed. But no matter: he certainly could--and should--have waited the few seconds behind me that it would have taken me to reach the corner and get out of the street and onto the bike path there.
Both the ultimate cliché and the ultimate indignity: the truck had Texas plates. I am proud to be a native-born Texan, but I swear that some people feel that the combination of a crew cab and the badge of "Texan" gives them the right to do especially bone-headed things behind the wheel of said crew cab.
Except for the close call, it was a good ride: good enough to cause me to hope for a few more days like it during the winter.
__________
Via Douglas and Main comes the story of Bob Hughes in ncbeat.com by Stephanie Barnard. "Bicycle Bob," who lives just east of downtown, has been getting around by bike since the late '60s and has "about 75" bikes in various states of repair. He figures he's been hit by cars about 40 times. Best quote: "A bike is nothing but a new pair of shoes with a round sole." Anyway: go and read.
I overslept on Saturday the 15th, and it was cold besides. Sunday the 16th, though, could not have been a better day for a ride: sunny; slight breeze, temperatures in the upper-50s/lower-60s. So, I headed down to the softball fields at Plainview Park; and even with a stop for a brief repair (my bike didn't shift gears properly and the chain got hung up between the frame and the rear gears) I arrived there just before 1:00.
No one else showed, alas, but I was still happy to be out. Here's the Veloroutes map of my route. From the softball fields, I followed the bike path up to the intersection of Bayley and Armour, then doubled back down the path to Mt. Vernon and turned west there. I didn't trace the entire route; for those interested, though, it's almost exactly 6 miles from the intersection of Mt. Vernon and George Washington to my apartment, so I ended up riding 20 miles in all.
The main thing I was looking for on this ride was progress on the path-building along Gypsum Creek from Pawnee to Woodlawn. Things looked about the same, as far as I could see, but that means only that: I couldn't see all that far.
On the way home, I had my first truly close call with a car. I was heading west on the Harry Street bridge, approaching the intersection with McLean. A car was at the intersection, stopped for the light and waiting to turn left (south) on McLean. There were no cars in my lane. When I was about 50 feet from the intersection, the light turned green. Suddenly, before the car in the other lane had started forward, a large white truck cut between the car and me. I don't know how close he actually came, but it looked close. I could easily have touched the side of the truck as it passed. But no matter: he certainly could--and should--have waited the few seconds behind me that it would have taken me to reach the corner and get out of the street and onto the bike path there.
Both the ultimate cliché and the ultimate indignity: the truck had Texas plates. I am proud to be a native-born Texan, but I swear that some people feel that the combination of a crew cab and the badge of "Texan" gives them the right to do especially bone-headed things behind the wheel of said crew cab.
Except for the close call, it was a good ride: good enough to cause me to hope for a few more days like it during the winter.
__________
Via Douglas and Main comes the story of Bob Hughes in ncbeat.com by Stephanie Barnard. "Bicycle Bob," who lives just east of downtown, has been getting around by bike since the late '60s and has "about 75" bikes in various states of repair. He figures he's been hit by cars about 40 times. Best quote: "A bike is nothing but a new pair of shoes with a round sole." Anyway: go and read.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Hither and Yon #3
Angry Jack's Tube Tree, out behind the Bicycle X-Change's West Douglas location. Click to enlarge. Image via Riders of Rohan.A round-up of things:
I've been instructed not to apologize for my silences here, so I'll just say that work and other obligations have kept me from here. I am looking forward to our rescheduled Readers' Rides for this weekend, though, and I hope we have the combination of other folks and decent weather. On Saturday the 15th at 9:00 a.m., we'll meet on the south side of Kellogg at Armour; on Sunday the 16th at 1:00, we'll meet at the softball fields at Plainview Park.
Though I wasn't able to do the Readers' Ride this weekend, I was out errand-running on my bike Saturday morning: my first chilly-weather ride, about 10 miles in all. Despite the stiff north wind (which, because of my route, fortunately was something I didn't have to contend with for very long) and a temperature in the mid-30s, I was dressed warmly, if ridiculously, enough (only my toes got a little cold). I was wearing "civilian" clothes, though: a warm but not breathable lightweight jacket; jeans; heavy gloves; a wide elastic band over the ears, tennis shoes. It worked--I stayed warm--but I won no style points, and I was distracted at times by the bulkiness of it all. Maybe Santa Claus will bring me some more-appropriate cold-weather gear . . .
On Election Day I walked to my polling place (I had considered riding, but I didn't know if there would be bike racks; as it turned out, there weren't). At any rate, at the intersection of Central and Wichita (Wichita runs between the county courthouse and the county jail, in case you were wondering), a Cornejo Construction crew was busily at work digging up not only a good bit of sidewalk but also a lot of soil. As I wondered what they were up to, I suddenly remembered the recent news of the new downtown bike path. So: it's good to see that work has indeed begun on that project.
Via local and loyal reader Mark comes some welcome news for touring cyclists:
The United States is on a path to creating what could become the largest official bicycle route network in the world, thanks to the approval of a new plan by America's leading authority on national route designations. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has just approved a National Corridor Plan laying out the framework and guidelines for the development of this system.You can find further information, including criteria for routes and links to other trail sites, here.
The plan identifies corridors connecting America's urban, rural, and suburban areas. The corridors cover well over 50,000 miles, which, if transformed into routes along roads and trails, would create the largest official bicycle route network in any country or on any continent. By comparison, the planned Euro-Velo network in Europe is projected to be 60,000 kilometers or 36,000 miles.
Mark was also kind enough to send along a link to a map showing proposed routes: (pdf file). The astute among you will note that Wichita is included on one of these routes.
You may remember that last month I noted that an Obama administration would be keenly interested in developing alternative-transportation networks. News of the development of this bicycle route network, along with the new administration's transportation policy priorities, is all welcome news to cyclists who use their bikes as more than recreation.
I'm surprised that this thread didn't attract any comments. If you're wary about ratting on your fellow cyclists, you can always post anonymously.
Quote of the week? From the Springfield [MO] News-Leader (via Carbon Trace): "Our study showed people were going fast enough to warrant a higher speed."--Earl Newman, Springfield city traffic engineer. You should read the article, but the upshot is that the city is raising speed limits on some streets for no apparent reason other than the fact that people are already driving faster anyway. Along the lines of this reasoning: one of the local television stations recently had a story in which a reporter confronted drivers who were ignoring school zone speed limits. So, maybe we shouldn't have school zones? Many in Wichita are so small (often about half a block) that the temptation is indeed strong to simply ignore them. Or what about those pesky stop lights? And those folks that drive over 100 mph on the Kansas Turnpike--should we accommodate them as well?
Human nature being what it is, there are folks who push limits, whatever those limits might be. Their default setting for driving speeds is, Whatever the sign says plus 5 (or 10 or . . . ) mph. My former mother-in-law is such a person; her motto is, "You know how fast you need to go." There's no way to safely accommodate such people and protect the safety of those of us who have better control over our ids. Some laws are meant to inconvenience us--for our own good, and that of others. Besides: in these days of greater awareness of fuel consumption and the near-certainty that gas prices will rise, driving slower--enforced through current or reduced speed limits--is an excellent way to reduce fuel consumption.
Mr. Newman is, I'm certain, a fine American. But his thinking about speed limits (not to mention its implications for pedestrians and cyclists) seems born of an earlier America of cheap gas and bikes on sidewalks. Those days are receding from memory. It would be to our mutual benefit if our city planners, you know, planned--for a coming future and not for a past that no longer serves us well.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Readers' Rides postponed
I regret to announce that I will have to postpone the announced Readers' Rides for this weekend. I would like to re-schedule them for the following weekend, Saturday the 15th and Sunday the 16th, at the same times and places as announced earlier.
While I have your attention . . .
Recently in comments, Joe Mizereck asked me to pass along the following bike-safety issue:
While I have your attention . . .
Recently in comments, Joe Mizereck asked me to pass along the following bike-safety issue:
Good morning John. I need your help in getting the word out about a jersey I have developed to remind motorists that they need to give cyclists at least 3 feet clearance when passing from the rear. This is a law in 12 states in the US, but a universal need. Please share my website link with your friends www.3feetplease.com
Here's what one site said: http://womenscycling.ca/blog/?page_id=45
Thank you,
Joe
Joe Mizereck
"3 Feet Please" Campaign
916 Shadowlawn Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32312
1.800.761.0907
joe@3feetplease.com
www.3feetplease.com
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Rousing the blog from its slumber
Apologies for the silence on this end. The combination of getting some reading done before books had to be returned, preoccupations of various sorts, and nothing especially compelling about my own commuting have kept me away from here. Todays' trip, though, provided me with a couple of things worthy of note, along with a question to ask.
The question first: Is it harder to ride in cooler weather than in warm weather? This morning the temperature was in the low 50s--by far the coolest weather I have yet ridden in--and by the time I got to McConnell, I felt physically like I did the first time I rode out there . . . which is to say, awful. Heat wasn't the problem, though; I just couldn't catch my breath. The afternoon, though, was great: temperatures in the 70s, and I had no troubles with the climbs.
I'd appreciate any insight that those of you experienced in riding in cooler weather might have.
The most momentous commuting news is that on Mt. Vernon as of last week, for a couple of blocks on either side of Broadway, the city is laying water and/or sewer lines, and so for that little stretch I have to detour with the rest of the traffic. I read somewhere that that work will be going on until this January. The detour doesn't add any distance to speak of, but now I don't have a traffic light to aid me in crossing Broadway.
Odd sight of the day: The Harry Street bridge, where it crosses the Arkansas, comes through again. Last month, it was a large turtle that had somehow made it halfway across only to be killed by a car. Today, it was a skin that looked like--in size as well as appearance--it had come from the belly of a decent-sized alligator. No alligators this far north, so what I saw today of course begs the question . . .
One of these days, I hope to post on something other than odd bits of carrion.
This afternoon, I saw a car with a front plate that read "#1 Sooner Fan." I (born and raised in Austin to love all things Longhorns) instantly thought, "Some folks, you just want to light a candle for them until they get better."
And: even though gas is now down to $3.39 a gallon for regular, each time I go out, I see more and more cyclists: folks wearing backpacks, some with panniers on their bikes, but too many without helmets, even on the streets. Still: our numbers are growing . . .
The question first: Is it harder to ride in cooler weather than in warm weather? This morning the temperature was in the low 50s--by far the coolest weather I have yet ridden in--and by the time I got to McConnell, I felt physically like I did the first time I rode out there . . . which is to say, awful. Heat wasn't the problem, though; I just couldn't catch my breath. The afternoon, though, was great: temperatures in the 70s, and I had no troubles with the climbs.
I'd appreciate any insight that those of you experienced in riding in cooler weather might have.
The most momentous commuting news is that on Mt. Vernon as of last week, for a couple of blocks on either side of Broadway, the city is laying water and/or sewer lines, and so for that little stretch I have to detour with the rest of the traffic. I read somewhere that that work will be going on until this January. The detour doesn't add any distance to speak of, but now I don't have a traffic light to aid me in crossing Broadway.
Odd sight of the day: The Harry Street bridge, where it crosses the Arkansas, comes through again. Last month, it was a large turtle that had somehow made it halfway across only to be killed by a car. Today, it was a skin that looked like--in size as well as appearance--it had come from the belly of a decent-sized alligator. No alligators this far north, so what I saw today of course begs the question . . .
One of these days, I hope to post on something other than odd bits of carrion.
This afternoon, I saw a car with a front plate that read "#1 Sooner Fan." I (born and raised in Austin to love all things Longhorns) instantly thought, "Some folks, you just want to light a candle for them until they get better."
And: even though gas is now down to $3.39 a gallon for regular, each time I go out, I see more and more cyclists: folks wearing backpacks, some with panniers on their bikes, but too many without helmets, even on the streets. Still: our numbers are growing . . .
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Cycling on the sidewalk
Ray of Bike Noob confesses and explains his rationale. Andrew of Carbon Trace links to Ray and offers his own take.
What say y'all on this?
I'm in no position to pontificate one way or the other. Personally, I use either the streets or designated bike paths; but on occasion, due to heat or getting winded, I've been known to hop onto the sidewalks for a little bit until I feel stronger. That happened much more often during my early days of cycling than it does now (the weather is cooler, and I'm in better shape now). But I am of the opinion, and I've seen it borne out, both while out and about and on others' blogs, that riding in the street and observing of traffic laws (riding with traffic, taking your lane at lights, stopping at lights and stop signs) is on the whole not only safer but faster than (proper) riding on the sidewalk is. And (okay, here I will pontificate a wee bit) if we want to see the day when cyclists are regarded by motorists not as moving road hazards but as also deserving of the same care and caution as other motorists are, the only way that will happen is if we're on the streets as well--it's then that cycling ceases being thought of first as recreation and, instead, as legitimate transportation.
As a commenter says in response to Bike Noob's post, if you feel uncomfortable in the street, you should consider changing your route to your destination. To which I say, "Absolutely!" If I hadn't found Mt. Vernon as an alternative to Pawnee for my commute, I'm not sure I'd still be persisting with cycling to work. As Robert Frost says in a rather different context,
What say y'all on this?
I'm in no position to pontificate one way or the other. Personally, I use either the streets or designated bike paths; but on occasion, due to heat or getting winded, I've been known to hop onto the sidewalks for a little bit until I feel stronger. That happened much more often during my early days of cycling than it does now (the weather is cooler, and I'm in better shape now). But I am of the opinion, and I've seen it borne out, both while out and about and on others' blogs, that riding in the street and observing of traffic laws (riding with traffic, taking your lane at lights, stopping at lights and stop signs) is on the whole not only safer but faster than (proper) riding on the sidewalk is. And (okay, here I will pontificate a wee bit) if we want to see the day when cyclists are regarded by motorists not as moving road hazards but as also deserving of the same care and caution as other motorists are, the only way that will happen is if we're on the streets as well--it's then that cycling ceases being thought of first as recreation and, instead, as legitimate transportation.
As a commenter says in response to Bike Noob's post, if you feel uncomfortable in the street, you should consider changing your route to your destination. To which I say, "Absolutely!" If I hadn't found Mt. Vernon as an alternative to Pawnee for my commute, I'm not sure I'd still be persisting with cycling to work. As Robert Frost says in a rather different context,
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--Though I'm not sure Frost's speaker is being entirely truthful here (read the whole thing carefully), I assure you that, as regards bike-commuting, I am.
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Friday, July 25, 2008
A cautionary tale
File under some category like "Damned if you do . . . " or "Stuff happens" or "Be sure to wear your helmet" or some such:
Yesterday I went to Brownie's for my first haircut there, and was made to feel right at home (thanks, Ronnie!). When I told Ronnie I was a cyclist, he told me that two of his regulars are as well, then told me a story about one of them.
This fellow, a lawyer who bike-commutes to his office daily, approached the intersection of Hydraulic and Douglas(?--I know Hydraulic is right) recently, where he found some street construction that caused him to think that it would not be safe for him to be on the street with cars as well. He decided to get to the corner and cross at the crosswalk. While he waited for the light to change, a car, approaching the intersection too fast, swerved to miss the road equipment and ended up jumping the curb at the corner, hitting the cyclist and knocking him into the air. He had trouble catching his breath; the motorist who struck him thought at first that he was having a heart attack when she came over to check on him. She called 911. Ronnie jokingly asked him if she had a heart attack when she learned that she'd just hit a lawyer.
The cyclist ended up with a couple of broken ribs and a crushed helmet that very likely spared him a serious head injury. I suppose that that's the real take-away from this story; I mean, aside from just not having been at that particular place at that particular time, what else could this man have done to keep this from happening to him?
On the other hand, I don't think Ronnie was trying to dissuade me from this cycling stuff. After all, he told me that I and my bike are welcome there any time.
Yesterday I went to Brownie's for my first haircut there, and was made to feel right at home (thanks, Ronnie!). When I told Ronnie I was a cyclist, he told me that two of his regulars are as well, then told me a story about one of them.
This fellow, a lawyer who bike-commutes to his office daily, approached the intersection of Hydraulic and Douglas(?--I know Hydraulic is right) recently, where he found some street construction that caused him to think that it would not be safe for him to be on the street with cars as well. He decided to get to the corner and cross at the crosswalk. While he waited for the light to change, a car, approaching the intersection too fast, swerved to miss the road equipment and ended up jumping the curb at the corner, hitting the cyclist and knocking him into the air. He had trouble catching his breath; the motorist who struck him thought at first that he was having a heart attack when she came over to check on him. She called 911. Ronnie jokingly asked him if she had a heart attack when she learned that she'd just hit a lawyer.
The cyclist ended up with a couple of broken ribs and a crushed helmet that very likely spared him a serious head injury. I suppose that that's the real take-away from this story; I mean, aside from just not having been at that particular place at that particular time, what else could this man have done to keep this from happening to him?
On the other hand, I don't think Ronnie was trying to dissuade me from this cycling stuff. After all, he told me that I and my bike are welcome there any time.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Some observations on this cycling-lifestyle thing
Via the Bike Commute Tips Blog comes a story noting a correlation between the upsurge in cycling as an alternative transportation and an upsurge in cycling-related injuries. Well, yes: I've noted in, and linked to, various places which sound various cautionary notes regarding cycling safety on the streets. This is advice that I personally have been careful to heed--advice, I might add, that has already spared me from a couple of close calls with cars, if not actual accidents. (In particular, a most grateful tip of the bike helmet to BicycleSafe for #s 4 and 5.)
But safety isn't the subject of this particular post. It's this passage from the story:
I obviously don't know Mr. Schatz, and I sincerely wish him a speedy recovery from his injuries. Nor am I the sort of person who gets all soapbox-y about how people should/shouldn't spend their money. But, like, wow: Even if I had $2500 to spend on a bicycle (full disclosure--that's a bit less than two months' salary for me, and I pay rent and enjoy, you know, eating, so you can do the math), I'm not the sort of person that would spend that kind of money to get some exercise and save money on gas--the reasons Mr. Schatz gives as his reasons for buying his bicycle. So, as I read that I thought, All other things being equal (I don't know the distance he commutes or the terrain of that commute, so maybe such a bike really would be useful for him), does a bicycle that costs that much really better accomplish what my humble Fuji does?
Well, no. So, even as I wish Mr. Schatz well, I found myself wondering as well just what he had bought--or, perhaps better-phrased, bought into--when he bought his bike.
All this is on my mind for a couple of reasons. First up is the blog Bikes for the Rest of Us, which has this as part of its manifesto:
I'd just say, by way of winding all this up, that I'd hope that those of us without (or even those of us with) Mr. Schatz's means not let that get in the way of trying to achieve the sorts of ends Todd hopes to achieve.
But safety isn't the subject of this particular post. It's this passage from the story:
Mike Schatz figured it was the right thing to do. Horrified by his first $70 trip to the gas station, Schatz drove to a bike shop last month, plunked down $2,500 on a new touring bicycle and began two-wheel commuting from his Grant Park home to his office in West Midtown.(italics mine)
I obviously don't know Mr. Schatz, and I sincerely wish him a speedy recovery from his injuries. Nor am I the sort of person who gets all soapbox-y about how people should/shouldn't spend their money. But, like, wow: Even if I had $2500 to spend on a bicycle (full disclosure--that's a bit less than two months' salary for me, and I pay rent and enjoy, you know, eating, so you can do the math), I'm not the sort of person that would spend that kind of money to get some exercise and save money on gas--the reasons Mr. Schatz gives as his reasons for buying his bicycle. So, as I read that I thought, All other things being equal (I don't know the distance he commutes or the terrain of that commute, so maybe such a bike really would be useful for him), does a bicycle that costs that much really better accomplish what my humble Fuji does?
Well, no. So, even as I wish Mr. Schatz well, I found myself wondering as well just what he had bought--or, perhaps better-phrased, bought into--when he bought his bike.
All this is on my mind for a couple of reasons. First up is the blog Bikes for the Rest of Us, which has this as part of its manifesto:
Sometimes I wish Greg Lemond never won the Tour de France in 1986.Exhibit A of the sort of audience Bikes for the Rest of us is targeting is a fellow Wichitan named Todd. Over at his appropriately-named The Todd Blog, he recently posted this query, with questions, about the possibility of his bike-commuting. Go and read--it won't take long. As you can see, he doesn't want, or need, much; nor can he afford much. He just wants to Do Something, some little Something. Todd's thinking is very much in the spirit of this recent post of mine.
At the time, in the excitement surrounding the first American win at Le Tour, there was talk of a “renewed interest” in bicycling. As it turns out, there was a renewed interest in the sport of cycling, but not in building a real, pervasive bike culture here in the United States.
In fact, bike shops across the country began putting aside their single speeds, 3-speeds and cruisers to make room for expensive, lightweight, “high-end” racing bikes. In other words, bike shops lost interest in selling regular bikes to regular people.
[snip]
My hope is that higher gas prices will not only change the way Americans think about bicycles but also the way the bicycle industry thinks as well, so that we can finally have bike shops selling bicycles designed for regular folks who just want to ride from point A to point B and aren’t interested in paying a fortune.
Or winning the Tour de France.
I'd just say, by way of winding all this up, that I'd hope that those of us without (or even those of us with) Mr. Schatz's means not let that get in the way of trying to achieve the sorts of ends Todd hopes to achieve.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
A cyclist's death in Wichita
From Kansas Cyclist comes this story of a cyclist who on the night of June 12 was struck at an intersection not far from where I live and who eventually died of his injuries on July 5. The accident happened at McLean and Central, which locals know is a roundabout where Meridian also intersects.
The following, I hope will serve as a reminder that traffic laws and signage aren't just for motorists and pedestrians:
The following, I hope will serve as a reminder that traffic laws and signage aren't just for motorists and pedestrians:
Investigators determined the SUV driver had the green light at the intersection, and witnesses said [Kevin] Keller ignored the “Don’t Walk” pedestrian traffic signs. The driver of the SUV won’t face charges because Keller was determined to be at fault in the accident.UPDATE: As Anon. notes in his/her comment below, this is a somewhat risky intersection even for motorists, because of the odd angles at which the streets intersect there. Cyclists passing through there would be well advised to observe the lights and WALK signs--especially at night--and proceed with caution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
