WAY off the usual topic post!

 I don't talk about firearms (guns) much online, for an assortment of reasons.

For a long time, I ascribed to what I'll call the "liberal" point of view, over-simplified to be "firearms bad PERIOD." This in spite of the fact that I had a rifle I received as a birthday gift when I was fourteen.

I hadn't fired that rifle since I was fifteen or sixteen, because I didn't have a place to shoot and didn't have a social circle in which shooting was a thing to do. Indeed, I considered using the stock from that rifle as a platform for using my film cameras with long lenses to help steady the camera, but never did so. That rifle got misplaced in one or another of the several address changes, sadly. The rifle didn't deserve such an unnoble fate.

Over the last several years, I've watched as the Overton Window has moved away from what I could consider reasonable. A few years ago, I started thinking that there was reason to think that self-defense was going to be necessary--the radical followers of that detested occupier of the People's White House were on my mind.

Until that time, I had been semi-aware of my personal privilege--of not feeling any need or even desire to have guns. My financial situation was such that I didn't have the money to develop yet another expensive hobby (I have a pile of now-obsolete camera gear, a pile of barely-used rock-climbing gear, several bicycles, and a canoe and a couple of kayaks that absorbed any money I might have spent on firearms).

But, yes, a few years ago, I bought a pistol, to relearn the lessons I had had when in high school ROTC, for target practice, and (hopefully never) for home defense.

To my surprise, I realized that I enjoyed the challenge of shooting, whether it be target shooting, target-acquisition drills, or just plinking.

In the course of learning about firearms (because I'm very much about education), I encountered a number of quite illuminating video channels. One of those channels is a series called "Light over Heat," by David Yamane.

His most recent video (as I type this) discusses how shooting is fun. And, yes, I hesitate to use the word "fun" when talking about a device that is the center of a lot of highly-politicized arguing these days, and I have even more reluctance to use the expression "range toy" when referring to a particular gun. I was not raised to think of guns as toys. I was not allowed to have "toy guns" when I was a kid, because guns are not toys.

But this video from David Yamane points to one reason I have a gun or two.

The Dutch Reach (around)

A year or two ago, I started seeing traffic on the book of faces touting the Dutch Reach.

Perhaps you've seen something about it, and thought to yourself, "Hey, yeah, that sounds like something people should do!"

If you aren't familiar with it, the "Dutch Reach" teaches motorists to reach for the door handle with the right hand (assuming left-hand-drive cars as are common in the United States) as a way to assure that they will look over their left shoulders before opening the car door, to keep from opening said car door into the immediate path of a cyclist. The push for this, largely via cycling-focused forums, was as an idea to reduce dooring crashes.

Like so many crackpot ideas one sees online, I dismissed it as hokum at first.

But the idea persisted. People kept talking about it.

So I decided to test the Dutch Reach (around) a few times, in an assortment of motor vehicles.

The first thing I noticed was that I can (and habitually do) reach my seat belt buckle with my right hand. While reaching for the buckle, I can almost always keep looking straight ahead at what would be my path of travel, except that I also habitually buckle my seat belt before I move the car.

The seat belt buckle, in its stored position, is often eighteen inches or more abaft of the door latch (depending on the car--some latches are even farther forward). Many people are kind of lazy about a lot of things, and one expects a certain laxity regarding twisting torsos when opening car doors. Depending on others' perfect compliance is not a good idea for preventing dooring crashes.

Strike one.

After two years and numerous essays (mostly copy-pasted from the releases by the guy who coined the term in the first place), I doubt that the number of motorists who have heard the term reaches a significant minority. To rely on a "safety process" than fewer than ten (or maybe even fewer than five) percent of motorists knowing for ones own safety is patently absurd, especially when it's so easy to not have dooring crashes by simply staying the heck out of the door zone in the first place.

Strike two.

When I was testing the "Dutch Reach," I found that, without exception, I had a better view of the area where a cyclist might be sneaking up on a dooring crash by using the side mirror. The structure supporting the roof of the vehicle (B-pillar, door frame around the window, etc.) blocked my view entirely when looking over my shoulder. Looking over my shoulder was a waste of time. I already use the side mirror to look for traffic before opening my car door (I parallel park pretty often). I don't want another motorist to take my door off the car!

Strike three.

Teaching the "Dutch Reach" is, then, a waste of time. In our information-saturated lives, it would be far better to teach cyclists to stay out of the door zone and teach motorists to respect cyclists' need to stay out of the door zone. Quoting a friend, "The 'Dutch Reach' is not harmless. It doesn't work. And it normalizes door zone riding."

Ride well away from the Door Zone, people.

A resurfacing of sorts

It's almost like I forgot I had a blog. It's been two years since I posted anything here.

Much has happened in the last couple years. I have started several posts, only to abandon them for some reason or other. It turns out that sometimes, my need to write things down (or, more accurately, type them out) doesn't include putting those things where others can read them.

When I last updated this blog, I had quit working in a bike shop--but not made a lot of noise about it online. A few months before, a long-term house guest had left under a cloud of mutual bad feelings. In the weeks after her departure, I bought a new kayak and got it wet a couple times before using it in my annual volunteer stint for the Ironman event. I've used that boat for three Ironman events, but, sadly, not much else, as will be discussed in a bit.

A couple weeks after my last update, I took a job with a giant, soulless grocery company. I was disappointed in the pay, but it was something to do while I sought better employment (and recovered from the doldrums related to my decision to make a sudden departure from the bike business). The schedule wasn't great, but it was fairly regular (by comparison to the schedule I had when working at the giant soulless hardware and lumber retailer). The working conditions were better than many I've experienced. I got to interact with customers in a cheerful manner.

I also worked every Saturday and every Sunday unless I burned considerable "political capital" to get an unpaid day off. That got old, so about the time of the last Presidential election, I found other employment--this time with a small company that offered a combination of better pay, a more palatable work schedule, insurance... The grocery company knew I wasn't going to stay--that they couldn't offer me enough to keep me there.

However, the new gig wasn't so great in other ways. I know I have retail chops, but I'm not a great "outside sales" person. It didn't help that the product is seeing what appears to be a permanent downturn in popularity; I likened my task to selling buggy whips. I was already considering chasing a better job when I was laid off over company cash flow problems.

So, now I'm working for yet another giant, soulless company.

And I'm happier there than I've been in a long time.

The hours are far better than most retail jobs I've had (so far...). The pay is better than any job I've held in over five years, and better than several I've had prior to that. The commute is within walking distance (although I usually ride a bike, so as to give me more time to be at home for lunch).

Part of the reason I like having more time at home for lunch is that we now have a pair of Basset Hounds. I get to spend more time with them this way.

I'm still an advocate for better cycling information, although I've stepped back from a lot of Facebook groups focused on that sort of thing. I'm still concerned that the city is putting too much money and faith in majick painte as a fix for the abysmal cycling mode share (it hasn't worked to any significant degree...). I had to step back from it a bit, though, to regain some sanity in my own life.

It's interesting to note the parallels between having dogs and having small children. Note that I am not saying the two are the same, only that there are a few parallels. Either create new factors in how one goes about one's day, from how long it takes to get ready to leave for work to how one arranges commutes and meal planning and whether/how time out of town gets arranged.

Of course, a key difference is that having my dogs on a leash won't result in the sort of side-eye one would get due to having children on a leash...

On Jackie Green and his current publicity

There is an article in the local paper regarding Jackie Green and his rejection of a plea deal over a couple of citations he was issued a month or so ago. Discussion around this article raises some questions (along with the ire of several who would ban bicycle use on the roadways), and has me pondering the likely outcomes.

One of those citations was for disregarding a traffic control device, the other was for obstructing traffic.

Reading Jackie's own report of the incident as he posted in a couple of Facebook groups, he admits to following his usual practice of "stop, and if there is no crossing traffic to be affected, proceed when deemed safe to do so." The "obstructing traffic" charge stems from that he was apparently in the left travel lane rather than the right travel lane (there are two travel lanes and a bike lane on that bit of road).

The local paper has an article about the case (new window), saying that Jackie has rejected a plea offer.

In that article, Matt Glowicki offers these two statements:

Jackie Green has contended since he was cited in November that cyclists don't legally need to use bike lanes and don't need to stop and wait at stoplights, as the practice could potentially be dangerous.

Bikes are expected to follow traffic laws, including those involving stoplights and stop signs, Louisville Metro Police spokesman Dwight Mitchell previously told The Courier-Journal. He also said Louisville cyclists generally must use bike lanes when they are present unless they need to be in another lane to turn.

I have talked with Jackie numerous times over the years, and his usual practice I mention above (stop, proceed when clear) is quite different than the characterization implied by "(cyclists) ...don't need to stop and wait at stoplights," as reported by Glowicki. I cannot say that I've ever heard Jackie express that the latter is okay. Jackie has, however, claimed that the practice of _waiting_ at stop lights is potentially dangerous, based on cyclists having been hit while waiting at lights (either from behind, or by other road users turning incorrectly). Jackie usually brings up the lack of structure around a cyclist that would protect against physical harm in such situations, and that such lack of protection meets the standard necessary under the "by their very nature can have no application" clause in the Louisville Metro ordinance (cited below with **). Several people I know have wondered how a judge would view his claim, and perhaps this citation will reach that point.

I'm not a big proponent of having different legal interpretations of core rules of movement for different types of vehicles, as such tends to be confusing and creates antipathy over perceived preferential treatment. I recognize that traffic light sensors are often poorly tuned so that they don't recognize a cyclist's presence, and continue to push for correcting that problem rather than having cyclists in the position of having departure from an intersection second-guessed. The light in question may not even be sensor-controlled, but may be part of a set of signals that are coordinated to enable smoother traffic flow. Whether the light is synchronized to others or sensor-controlled, however, is all but immaterial in this case; I'm not a fan of the practice represented by the "Idaho Stop." It's hard for me to go to bat for Jackie on this one.

The "obstructing traffic" issue is a different issue for me. Jackie has said that he often uses the left of the two travel lanes along that stretch of street (one he uses frequently), as the social harassment is less than if he uses the right travel lane. His stance is that the bike lane is not feasible the majority of the time, as it frequently has glass and/or other debris in it, and is what many refer to as a "door zone bike lane," situated so that a cyclist using the lane risks contact with a suddenly-opened car door. The bike lane on the street in question is almost entirely within the "door zone," with the remainder of the lane in the "startle zone," meaning that a suddenly-opened door would startle a cyclist into swerving, with potentially catastrophic results. It is far safer for a cyclist to use the regular travel lane, rather than have to do the all but impossible extra work of checking every single car for occupants before passing that car, while also maintaining awareness of traffic conditions that preclude swerving to avoid a car door and maintaining awareness of surface conditions (glass, potholes, other debris) that could cause a crash. It might be possible at walking speed, but at ten miles an hour or more? No.

Per Kentucky Revised Statute 189.287, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet is charged with promulgation of regulations governing bicycle use. The regulation is 601 KAR 14:020. Section 7, sub-section b of that regulation addresses bicycle-only lanes and their use. Relevant to this discussion, note item 5:

"If a highway lane is marked for the exclusive use of bicycles, the operator of a bicycle shall use the lane unless:
1. Traveling at the legal speed;
2. Preparing for or executing a left turn;
3. Passing a slower moving vehicle;
4. Avoiding a hazard;
5. Avoiding the door zone of a parked vehicle; or
6. Approaching a driveway or intersection where vehicle (drivers) are permitted to turn right from a lane to the left of the bicycle lane."

As a side note, I will note that the expression "at the legal speed" is sometimes used to mean "at the speed limit" by people who are ignorant of the rules of movement and of traffic law based on those rules. The implication is "if you can't keep up, stay out of the way." Since the street in question is a surface street and not a limited access freeway, "the legal speed" can be any number between zero and the posted speed limit, given that drivers are compelled to stop for traffic signals, slow to avoid hitting other road users that have stopped to parallel park, or figure out which house is the one they are planning to visit, and so on. Movement that is normal for a particular vehicle cannot be considered "obstructing traffic," as the vehicle operator is part of traffic.

Many people assume there to be some minimum legal speed on surface streets, since there is an enforceable minimum speed on some limited-access roads (although rarely posted any more--I remember seeing signs indicating "minimum speed: 40" on some roads with speed limits of 55). Indeed, the operator of a motor vehicle may be charged with obstructing traffic under KRS 189.390 (7), which reads:

"A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at a speed that will impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law."

Note the use of "motor vehicle" in that statute. In KRS 189.010, section 19 (b), "Motor vehicle" is defined as a vehicle with specific exceptions. One of those exceptions applied directly to this discussion: line (8), which reads: "Vehicles propelled by muscular power." Bicyclists are thus exempt from KRS 189.390 (7), and this is certainly a valid application of the last phrase in the Louisville ordinance cited below.

I haven't discussed the citations at length with Jackie, but have had some message exchanges that are consistent with what he has said in open forums online. I happen to like Jackie, and I think he brings some important discussion to the metaphorical table, even if I disagree sharply with some of his views on traffic rules and roles. I don't know that he or his legal team would call me to function as a witness on his behalf, should the citations go to trial, or just how I would respond. I would be more likely to defend him on the "obstructing traffic" issue than on the traffic light issue, as the reader will surmise given my comments above. That ambiguity of defense would likely give him reason to not call me.


**Louisville-Jefferson County Metro ordinances, Title VII, Chapter 70, section 3, paragraph (C) reads: "Every person riding a bicycle or an animal on any roadway, and every person driving any animal on any roadway, and every person driving any animal-drawn vehicle shall be subject to the provisions of this traffic code applicable to the driver of any vehicle, except those provisions of this traffic code which by their very nature can have no application" 

Ironman cometh

About the time of last year's Ironman (tm) event, the announcement was made that this year's event would be held in October. I don't remember all the reasons given, nor are those reasons relevant to much of what I do (since I'm not a triathlete). I suspect that there were reasons other than the publicly stated ones, as is sometimes the case.

Several potential reasons involved hot weather. Late August, the historical time for the Ironman(tm) Louisville event, is bloody hot. October is relatively cool. Athletes don't have so many heat-related problems in cooler weather (thank you, Captain Obvious).

However, it's now scheduled for the same month as the Kona championship event, which means that there will be fewer professional athletes here, among other things not immediately apparent to a non-triathlete like myself.

For the last five or six years, I've done a stint in my kayak while the athletes were swimming. I have found this to be a wonderful time to be on the river--the before dawn quiet is great to experience while paddling into position, and helping the swimmers stay on course feels good to me.

This will be the fourth year for me to get to the river by bicycle. In April or May of 2012, I acquired a Bikes at Work trailer, and found I could haul my kayak on it easily. This made for a great way to get home after my on-water duties had completed--River Road is tough to navigate during the bike portion of the event, but I can use the Waterfront Park path to reach the Butchertown Greenway, which gets me to Story Avenue just east of its intersection with Frankfort Avenue, from which point the homeward trip is pretty easy.

Over the five or six years I've been kayaking during the swim portion of the Ironman (tm) event, I've eyed some of the other boats people were using, and been envious. My boat is a Mainstream Inspiration found at Sam's Club in 2000 or 2001, before I quit patronizing the Walton family businesses.

It's a decent cheap boat--great for recreational use on flat water and open moving water. It's far from fast. It's wide. The coaming feels tall. The underside of the boat has channels molded which probably make it track better, but make it a challenge to pivot-turn.

One of the boat models I've been eyeing covetously is the Current Designs Kestrel 140. It has more dry storage room (two holes--one at each end of the boat), which help make the boat more buoyant when empty. It's narrower, with a smoother hull profile, so moves faster at similar output compared to my pig of a blue boat. The smoother hull also means that, despite being three feet longer, it turns better in close quarters AND can be sculled to one side more readily. It also has a rudder, which makes for easier straight tracking in wind (or if one has an uneven paddling style). It's lighter than my Mainstream Inspiration, too.

A bit over a week ago, I passed the Quest Outdoors "Trail's End Outlet" during a sale they were having. They had boats arrayed in the front parking lot, and one of the boats they had was a Kestrel 140. It was a demo boat, and was marked at a price within the range I was willing to pay.

So, yeah, I brought it home. Of course, I had to go to Quest Outdoors again a couple days later, to get a decent paddle for my new boat, and a spray skirt (in case the weather is cool enough on race day, coming up less than two weeks away).

Frequent readers know that I usually ride a bicycle instead of using a car. My stop at Quest was on my way home from work on a Friday, and I was on my Big Dummy.

You already know where this is going. Yes, I hauled the boat home by bicycle.

Of course, it was only AFTER I got home that I learned there is an elastic gizmo that keeps the rudder in its stowed position for transport.

The balance with the boat aboard was not bad at all. There was a slight lateral wiggle, but not so bad that I couldn't signal turns. I had fun seeing the looks on other road users' faces. There was some little bit of buzz at the store when the sales staff learned I planned to haul it home by bike, and a couple of customers were surprised to see me load it as if I had done so numerous times before.

I got stuff so that I could haul the boat by car, too. The easiest put-in place to reach by bike is the Rowing Club dock, at the Yellow Parking Lot for Waterfront Park. However, the Ohio River is hosting an algae bloom these days, and most people are avoiding paddling on it or within a mile or so of it on the tributaries (like Beargrass Creek or Harrod's Creek), and I wanted to spend some time in the boat on flat water before Ironman (tm), so that I could learn any big differences between this boat and my old boat.

I used the car to haul the boat to Long Run Park last week, and was quite pleased with the new boat from the first few paddle strokes. It really is faster, smoother, and better-handling. Yes, it's a bit easier to tip than the old wide pig, but the edges of its roll are easier to manage. I suspect that I will be able to learn to roll this boat at some point. I haven't needed that skill so far, but it seems a useful thing to be able to do. The old boat is so wide and tall, however, that I didn't think it would roll well. There is a kayak group that teaches rolls in winter, so I'll see about that this time around.

Cycling Savvy classes are scheduled!

With this post, I am ending what has probably been the second-longest period of not making blog posts.

The longest period ended when I started typing this blog five or six years ago.

At times I wonder whether to close this blog. My original purpose was unclear to me even at the time, but this blog quickly became a way of holding myself accountable for bicycling more and leaving the car home more. Many of my topics have been closely related to my cycling experiences and those of others who have influenced my thinking. Some have been reactions to the actions of others who would alter my cycling experience for better or worse. A few have been on other things, like the passing of my long-time friend Aloysius Ebenezer Qat, Esq, six years ago.

Much of my social commentary has taken place on that book of faces, as the thoughts are more ephemeral and of narrower focus (and value) than what would justify a blog post.

In any case:

I have been working a bit to get the Cycling Savvy Louisville classes for 2015 on the schedule, and can announce them to the general public now. The May and June classes are on the schedule!!

I am deeply grateful to the fine people at Spalding University (having been a student there for three semesters in the early 1980s, I keep wanting to call it Spalding College), who have been more than helpful in their dealings with me. They are providing state-of-the-art classroom space for our Truth and Techniques sessions and lovely flat parking lots for our Train Your Bike sessions. They are even welcoming our students to eat at their student center between the Train Your Bike and Tour of Louisville sessions!

On a more personal note: People who know me well know that my grandmother passed away on January 11th of this year. She was 97 years old. A few days before she passed, she looked at me and said, "We've been friends for a long, long time!" I think there was some dementia--enough that I've not been sure she really knew who I was the last few times I visited her--but she knew I was someone important to her. She spent her last week in a hospice facility a couple miles from her home. I was sad that she couldn't experience her home one last time--she had been in a convalescent care facility for six or seven weeks following a fall from which she never truly recovered--but it wasn't to be.

I have been honored to have been her favorite grandson. At times, I suspect I was also the least favorite grandson. I didn't have any competition for either title, as the siblings and cousin on that side of my family tree are women. Still...

Cycletracks? No, thank you. I want safer roads.

I've not seen much traffic on local blogs regarding the Lexington Road Corridor proposals (http://louisvilleky.gov/government/advanced-planning/lexington-road-corridor-transportation-plan), although there has been some (notably Broken Sidewalk's bereft-of-critical thinking post cheering for the cycletrack option a bad idea).

In short, the proposal is to do a road diet on the stretch of Lexington Road between Grinstead Drive and Baxter Avenue.

Good idea, so far, in that road diets in general reduce motorist-vs-motorist crash frequency. We've seen drops in crash frequency in the two road diet installations for which data are available, and expect to in the other more recent installation.

However, there remains the question of what to do with the "extra pavement" left when changing from two lanes each direction to one lane each direction plus either a two-way left turn lane or buffer between the opposing-direction lanes. The length of the project area (~1.7 miles), coupled with the result of one travel lane and no good sight lines for passing (especially along Cave Hill Cemetery) all but forces the city to consider bike lanes to the outside of the general travel lanes, as it's hard to imagine that motorists would tolerate being limited to bicycle speeds for that distance.

So, despite my well-known antipathy regarding painted bike lanes (90% of which give the rest a bad name), I'm sort-of okay with edge-of-pavement painted bike lanes in this case.

Sadly, though, there is another proposal on the table, and this one is very problematic. It's called a cycletrack, and as the illustration at the top of the Broken Sidewalk blog shows, it's a two-way bike lane to one side of the rest of the road.

When I was actively riding club rides, the most common routes for the Sunday afternoon ride and many of the Tuesday evening rides involved this very stretch of Lexington Road. Let's face it, many who enjoy those rides treat them as social opportunities, if not informal races, which results in fairly large groups of cyclists occupying an entire travel lane (all eleven feet of it). Imagine, if you will, such groups confined to a five-foot-wide lane (by law, in fact), with opposing traffic to each side. There is NO room to pass other cyclists without likelihood of head-on collision with either another cyclist or a motorist.

Those in favor of the "cycletrack" option would have you believe that, instead of a five-foot-wide bike lane to the outside of the primary travel lane, you would have a ten-foot-wide bike facility (never mind that it's a two-way street that is only two and a half times the operating width of a cyclist). Cycletrack proponents barely acknowledge the increased crossing-type hazards that such facilities create at intersections, and if pushed to recognize them, dismiss the dangers by saying that additional phases of a traffic light cycle can be added (reducing through-put for motorists who are already anxious about perceived loss of service related to the road diet), or signage and green paint (with magical properties) can be put in place to alert people of the additional hazards created (how many such fixes--and fixes of problems caused by successive fixes---does it take to satisfy Rube Goldberg?). These "fixes" do one thing well: Add complexity that leads to poor compliance and poor safety ratings. That these types of "fixes" have allegedly worked in other cities is more a reflection of a lack of tracking of close calls and lack of understanding of crash causes than of the efficacy of the fixes. Happily, cycling is pretty safe even when done wrong.




Most of the arguments I've heard in favor of cycletracks have focused on "how potential cyclists would feel safer using them than the regular travel lane." There is a conflation at work here: "Feeling safer" is more accurately said as "it's quieter for me." It isn't safer, as has been found by countless cyclists who have tens of thousands of miles of crash-free bicycle driving without such facilities have documented. And what of those potential cyclists? How many of them would simply find other excuses for not using bicycles once the cycletrack has been installed? It reminds me of a game of "Whack-a-mole." The whole "potential cyclists" and "many bicycle users feel better in these" bit comes from a taxonomy devised by Roger Geller in Oregon. Geller's model tells us that there are four types of transportation cyclists (strong and fearless, enthused and confident, interested but concerned, and no-way, no-how!).

Let's look at that taxonomy for a moment: First, how is a person who says "No way, no how!" a transportation cyclist? The people in that group wouldn't ride a bike for transportation on a bet! Second, at the other end of Geller's spectrum, there are two groups that he essentially dismisses as irrelevant--the two groups that have some subject matter expertise when it comes to cycling as a transportation option.

Geller would likely put me in the "strong and fearless" group, based on how I answer the questions in his survey.

I resent that pigeonholing, as I consider myself risk-averse. I am not interested in being hit and am hardly a daredevil. I have instead looked at how crashes happen, where they happen, and why, and have used that knowledge to inform my own cycling style so as to enhance my demonstrable safety rather than do "what feels like it might possibly keep me out of the way."

I urge all who enjoy cycling in our city, and especially on Lexington Road, to go to the site I've linked above and learn more. I suspect you will find that, if you consider your own safety of any importance, you will dislike the cycletrack option being considered. Please make that position known to the people who are making these proposals.

Haulin' loads, part II

In part I, I talked about the first two big cardboard hauls, and showed pictures of the load for the second haul. Here is the scale paperwork on the second haul:

Shortly before that load got taken, we started getting our 2015 preseason bike order. The store was low on bikes (a good thing, in a way) by then, so we built a lot of bikes to fill holes in the display area. It's now been six weeks since that September load went to RockTenn. I had been wanting to make a run with the stack of cardboard in our shed, but various events prevented my doing so (customer bikes due out, out of town company, weather) until today. Consequently, I had a larger load than I had planned to haul two weeks ago, since I've had a couple of weeks to build more bikes for the sales floor.

I knew within the first block that this load was going to be one for a personal record. This was a load that would not accelerate. I had to gather momentum instead. I got to stop at just about every single traffic light on Breckinridge Street, and because I was using the fancy new bike lane, I got to enjoy some of the worst pavement defects on Breckinridge Street (longitudinal crack centered in the bike lane that has been (badly) patched with goop of some sort).

Yes, that scale ticket shows five hundred pounds. A quarter-ton. No wonder I could only gather momentum instead of accelerate. The bike felt AMAZINGLY light once I unloaded it!

Haulin' loads, part I

When Bluegrass Bicycle closed in May of 2012, I decided that I would do some handyman stuff as a stop-gap measure while finding more meaningful work (unless the handyman stuff proved wildly profitable, which it did not). To that end, I bought a Surly Big Dummy and a Bikes at Work trailer for use when the jobs didn't require use of my pickup truck (which has since gone to the salvage yard, the engine having blown enough expensive-to-replace gaskets that repairs were not economically justifiable).

Several months ago, I took a job in a bike shop, after the prior mechanic left the company on short notice. One of my occasional duties has become "haul the stack of bike boxes to the recycling place." A bike shop generates a LOT of cardboard, since every bike sold comes in a large cardboard box, and since lots of other inventory comes in cardboard boxes.

The car that Jenn and I have won't carry many boxes, even broken-down boxes. None of my coworkers have cars. Carson, who owns the store, has a mini-van, but isn't at the store on a daily basis.

In May, I hauled my first load of cardboard to RockTenn, on 11th Street near Broadway. When I left the house, I figured that I'd be hauling a couple hundred pounds, so didn't take my camera. The load felt a bit heavier than I was expecting, but was not unmanageable.

The process at RockTenn is a common one: Weigh the vehicle on arrival, unload, weigh the vehicle again, and the weight difference is assumed to be the amount of cardboard left for recycling.

I was a bit surprised to learn that I had hauled four hundred sixty pounds of cardboard that day, and disappointed that I hadn't taken a picture or two of the load. I did take a picture of the scale ticket when I got home, though:




It was September before we had enough cardboard to justify another trip. This time, I brought my camera. This is what a four-hundred pound load of cardboard looks like:

Continued anger

I'm so disgusted I cannot even choose a good title for this post. I may figure it out, and update the title later.

The League of American Bicyclists needs to find a new name. Their new name should more clearly relate to its current mission, which has been diverted from its historic mission. I'll admit that I don't feel like making proposals to the League, as I don't really want anything to do with the League any more.

I so distrust the League now that I am not willing to pay dues to League affiliates, either. This includes any local bicycling club (read: Louisville Bicycle Club, of which I was once the VP Education).

This is not a new feeling for me. I ceased paying League dues (required to keep my League Cycling Instructor certification current for teaching purposes) a couple years ago--once Jenn and I started with Cycling Savvy, I doubted I'd ever use the LCI credential for teaching again (although I am still able to use it for the purposes of establishing my subject matter expertise, which does not require currency).

I had, however, kept in the back of my mind that I may find it useful to regain currency for teaching, in some odd circumstance. My internal description was "doubtful, but it might happen."

Now I'm sure it won't.

The League has its "bicycle friendly community" program. Others have discussed an laundry list of problems with it, mostly that it shows a bias toward (often poorly-evaluated) infrastructure "improvements" at the expense of better enforcement or education. The current head of that program, Steve Clark, was in Lexington not long ago, and apparently got dared to ride with Cherokee Schill (about whom anyone who has read my blog recently knows).

His opening line was bad. Characterizing Cherokee as strong and fearless, or at least more fearless than he considers himself, discounts her mindfulness in how she chooses her lane position. As I sometimes quote Keri Caffrey, founder of Cycling Savvy, "I control my lane BECAUSE I'm risk-averse." Clark fails to understand that Cherokee's lane position is due to her consciously examining the alternatives available to her. She took the League's class, and put that education to use. She eventually took Cycling Savvy, which mostly reinforced her decision-making process. That she could ride faster that day than he could is irrelevant, except as a sideline to considering her "fast and fearless" in the Roger Geller model (more about the Geller stuff in a bit).

It got worse from there. While acknowledging that Cherokee is doing "as the League's education programs teach," the League clearly disconnects in terms of how Kentucky law affects things and "what the League should do about it."

Ken McLeod then wrote about Kentucky laws as they affect bicycle operators. And missed a few details due to his own bias about cyclists' rights to roadway travel. He clearly thinks that "far to the right" laws are somehow an improvement over "right to drive as operators of vehicles." While consistent with the League's acceptance of the idea that cyclists are not fully-empowered or fully equal road users, the assertion that "far to the right" laws "tell cyclists where to ride" in some positive way is irksome.

Then it was time for "Uncle" Andy Clarke to make his pronouncement, that the League would do nothing to support Cherokee Schill. This was not a surprise, given the dearth of support the League "offered" for Reed Bates (Reed himself has said that there was never any offer like the one described in the linked post on the League's site, suggesting a level of disingenuous behavior on the part of the League--also, the shoulder was not viable as a lane choice, but someone who only looked at it on Google Maps might have missed the layers of sand, gravel, and other detritus that made it so bad) and Eli Damon in their struggles.

After seeing how Andy Clarke explains his positions on bicycle driving, Eli Damon made this comment: "His (Clarke's) idea of what's good for cyclists seems to be something like a little walled garden where you can ride around circles to your hearts content."

The League does not speak for me. I am not "strong and fearless," as the Geller model would call me, but rather "mindful and educated." I consider myself a peer of every vehicle operator, not subordinate to them. I'm just as valid an operator as every other road user. I took the time to learn about crash causes and avoidance techniques, rather than accept "conventional wisdom," since the latter assumes I am something less than a full member of traffic society.


About the Geller stuff: Roger Geller is a marketing whiz. He came up with a taxonomy (or "whackonomy" as friends have called it) shown here, that describes people as they fit into categories of "transportation cyclists."  His categories are "Strong and Fearless," "Enthused and Confident," "Interested but Concerned," and, last but not in the least sensible, "No way, no how." How that last category can be considered a "transportation cyclist" is beyond me. It makes no sense at all that a person who will not do a thing can be considered as one who does that thing.

One of the problems with Geller's whackonomy is that he discounts anyone with subject matter expertise as "strong and fearless," as if our opinions are irrelevant to the discussion (of primarily where to put more bike lanes or how such lanes should be designed). He, and the people who have glommed on to his ideas, have decided to set public policy based on the fears of those who don't know what they are talking about. It's as if to say, "Let's base all our policy and engineering decisions on stone-age mythologies."

Or maybe that's a discussion about "biblical law."

Deep unsettling anger

It's taking me a long time to write type this. I keep needing to storm away and let off some steam.

The issues my friend Cherokee has before her have consumed a LOT of my mental and emotional energy for the last six months. There is much wrong in how she is being treated by the law enforcement community and the Jessamine County Attorney's office.

I've tried several times to type out the background, and have not been able to top what Keri wrote in this recent blog post for the I Am Traffic site. For another take on it, have a listen to the Outspoken Cyclist pod cast interview with John Schubert, as aired on October 4th (John's interview starts about ten minutes into the 'cast).

The short version is that Cherokee has been cited several times for driving her bicycle as if she is a normal vehicle operator (well, she IS operating a vehicle, after all). After finding her guilty of violating KRS 189.290 (which holds that road users must operate with regard for the safety and convenience of other road users), and at the same time ignoring that some of the very motorists the police were claiming proved such disregard were themselves being far worse at operating with any regard for the safety of others, Cherokee was arrested for Wanton Endangerment 2nd Degree.

How a cyclist controlling her lane can be endangering an overtaking road user that has fifteen or more seconds to recognize that he has to slow a little bit and change lanes to pass her defies all rational thought. However, the prosecution's position is that she cannot legally control that travel lane since she is allowed to use the shoulder, and is thus required to use the shoulder without regard for her own safety.

I've ridden the road in question (US27 in Jessamine County). I've driven it several times. I've spent too much time looking at the satellite view of that road. I cannot find any stretch of more than fifty yards' length that is even remotely practicable for a mindful cyclist to ride on, and that ignores surface conditions that involve glass, sand, gravel, detritus from furniture that has fallen from passing motor vehicles, and the like. The shoulder geometry is BAD and horribly unsafe for a cyclist trying to make decent time on the road. There are numerous side streets, not to mention driveways into businesses that front on the road. At every single one of these points, there is significant risk of right-hook and left-cross crashes. A cyclist on the shoulder has to "play chicken" (or perhaps "Frogger" is a better reference?) at every single one of these driveways and cross streets, and the motorists are going a mile a minute (or faster).

I appeared in court as an expert witness several weeks ago. I was one of four experts (two as defense witnesses, two as prosecution witnesses) who testified that for HER safety, the shoulder was not even remotely practicable. At all.

Yet the prosecutor was able to convince the judge that the shoulder WAS practicable, using a series of statements that essentially lead a reasonable person to infer that the prosecutor considers a cyclist's safety to be far subordinate to the perceived convenience of incompetent motorists. Such a position borders on barbaric in its ethical bankruptcy.

Officials in Jessamine County are working hard to keep Cherokee, and by extension ANY cyclist, from using US27 as vehicle operators who can control their own safety. The beneficiaries of this? Incompetent motorists. Only. The. Most. Incompetent. Motorists.

Trials and tribulations

My take on the Jessamine County v Cherokee Schill trial:

Note that this is *my own take*, with a couple of caveats: 1) I am not an attorney, nor do I pretend to be one, 2) Because I was a witness during the proceedings, I was not allowed to be in the courtroom until I was called to testify, and I was the next to last to testify, 3) I haven't had time to review the trial transcript with the attorneys involved to get their take on why this or that did or didn't happen. I am not intending to second-guess any decisions made by the attorneys.

At issue were traffic citations under KRS 189.290 and KRS 189.300. "290" requires operators of vehicles to operate "with regard to the safety and convenience of" other road users, and "300" requires operators of vehicles moving slowly on the highway to keep as far to the right as is practicable, a word that is not defined in KRS 189.010.

The County Attorney (prosecutor) was on his game. He kept hammering the point that nobody among the defense witnesses could speak to conditions at the exact moments of the citations BECAUSE shoulder surface conditions were subject to change often and none of us had been there on the day of the citations. As such, he managed to exclude much of the testimony that I was prepared to offer regarding the dangers of shoulder use in general, and indeed almost excluded me entirely as a witness. One result was all but inevitable: the judge was forced to consider the situation as reported by the people who were on site at the times of the citations—the officers who cited Ms Schill.
Never mind that said officers probably had no better training with regard to the dangers of shoulder riding than the average fifteen-year-old male of the human species (a point that, for whatever reason, the judge either ignored or didn't hear, as I don't know whether such was brought up in cross-examination of the officers).

Never mind that even the officers were no better judge of what was practicable at the exact moment they first saw Ms Schill on her bicycle (assuming that the on-road discussions happened at some distance along the road from that initial point on the roadway), a concept that, in hindsight, was not hammered into the judge's consciousness for whatever reason.
I don't have an informed opinion on why the officers' lack of bicycle-specific training wasn't highlighted. I know that in hindsight, I wish the heck I could have gotten in a statement or two to that issue.

Present at the defense table were Cherokee Schill (of course), Chuck Ellinger, Esq., Steve Magas, Esq., and at times David Middleton, Esq. Defense witnesses included John Schubert, myself, and Ms Schill, who testified last.

As for talk of appeal: At this point, Cherokee wishes to appeal. I understand that desire, as I share it. Appeal may or may not be a good choice for several reasons that will be explored with people more knowledgeable about the appeals process than I.

During my own testimony, I was offered opportunity to see photographs from near the site of one of the citations, showing a debris field from what had been a piece of furniture of some sort that had apparently fallen from a passing vehicle. Apparently some prior testimony had been offered along the lines of “I'd ride right over that on my bicycle!” and I was informed of this by the prosecutor after I had said I wouldn't ride through it lest doing so cause me to lose a tire, or a wheel, or have some other crash.

Speaking for myself only, and in hindsight, there are many things I wish had been done differently. Would the outcome have differed? I don't know. One likes to think so.

Stupid motorist tricks

Looking at prior posts, I realize that it's been almost two months since I posted here. I sometimes wonder whether I need to continue posting, as I never get any feedback anymore.

Anyway...

I ride Washburn Avenue on my way to work. I'm on Washburn for about half a mile, and there is a rail crossing at the 2/5s mark from where I turn onto it. A tenth or so of a mile before reaching it, a guy in a red SUV passed me with little room to spare so that he was going well over the 25mph speed limit to do so (which is sadly common on this street).

My lane position was what you'd expect from a CSI on a two-lane street: left of center, but not quite in the left tire track, so I had plenty of shy room in case he decided to cut his return to our lane short on me.

I crossed the railroad tracks several seconds after he did, thinking to myself that if he was trying to "send me a message**," the message I received (that he was a bigger jerk than he thought me to be) was probably not the one he might be sending.

There is a traffic light at Westport Road, and it's often red for a long time in the mornings. I sort-of hoped to pull up behind him at that light. There was a longer-than-typical queue at the light, and I could see from two tenths of a mile away that he would have gotten caught by the red, except that he passed the car in front of him *in the wrong lane fifty feet from the stop bar* to make his left turn on the now-red light. The motorist that had been in front of him waited until it was safe to make a right turn on red, and proceeded on his or her way, leaving me at the head of the queue.

Several more thoughts went through my head, among them that, had a conscientious LEO seen him pass me, and followed him to see what else he'd do, he would have gotten about nine points worth of tickets (twelve points and your license gets pulled). I also figured that his stupid pass before the rail crossing was less about me on my bike and more about him and his "I'm too important to obey traffic law" attitude.

**When a motorist "sends me a message," I have found that I often interpret the message as indicated above. I'm even happy to stipulate to how >I< interpret that message without the motorist having to prove such. As it happens, I get such yells or swerves about once every several thousand motorists I encounter, which is FAR less than one percent of the motorists I encounter. I get wave-backs from motorists who let me change lanes (and to whom I offer thank-you waves without fail) more than half the time. I get wave backs from motorists I invite to pass me (when it's safe for me to encourage such passes) more than half the time, and this is something that happens more than once per day.

The large emblem on his back window suggested that he was either a student or a supporter of a local parochial school, the tuition for which is high enough that students at that school are generally assumed to be sons (male only school) of jerks and/or jerks themselves. I was only a little saddened that he didn't get to defend his actions to a police officer, as it might have rattled some dried pea in his addled brain.

May is almost over, already?!?

Today is Memorial Day, a day set aside to remember those who lost their lives while protecting our country in some form or fashion.

I would prefer that we consider that cost to our society more carefully before sending people to wreak havoc on the lives of citizens of other countries who have not done anything to us, of course. I would prefer that our country do a better job of caring for those who have suffered injuries--physical and psychological--than our government does.

I don't get to make those decisions, though. I vote for candidates who feel similarly when I can, but too often, I'm also voting more against a candidate with even larger problems.

Today is also a marker that May is almost over. Our second Cycling Savvy class went off well, although I hadn't made comments about it here until now. All four of our Tour students were women, which was only a little bit remarkable. All four got their boundaries stretched a bit, which was good, given that all were smiling at the end of the day.

Memorial Day is also the date for the Mayor's Hike, Bike, and Paddle event. Jenn and I were invited to ride our tandem with another two tandem teams, and decided it was time to get that bike out of the garage for a bit. The Mayor's Ride is always something of a challenge--for much of the ride, cyclist traffic is very heavy and very disorganized. Managing a tandem with total rider and bike weight of four hundred pounds around little kids zigging and zagging at random can be a bit nerve-wracking. Best strategy I've found is to sit back and not try to ride fast--just go with the flow and be mindful of "threat vectors" presented by all riders in the vicinity.

It was actually fun, though, to get out with Dave and Diane and Asher and Dennis. Lunch afterward, at Against the Grain, was more about camaraderie than about the food, although the food wasn't bad. We had a LOT of fun zinging jokes and comments around the table.

After lunch, Jenn wanted to ride the Big Four Bridge, since the Indiana side is now open. We had hopes that the crowds common on the Big Four would be diminished a bit, since the Mayor's Hike, Bike, and Paddle had just happened, but the Big Four was still crowded. It's a great linear park, with vistas over the Ohio River to enjoy. Managing a ten-foot-long bike weighing four hundred pounds in crowds of pedestrians, any one of whom quite capable of stepping sideways into my path with no notice, is even more nerve-wracking than the Mayor's Ride experience. The ramp from the bridge to Jeffersonville is marked with a lane divider. Most folks seem to heed it. To stay on my side of that line (and not interfere with oncoming walkers or cyclists) I found myself descending at less than three miles an hour.

Such speeds are fine for enjoying a linear park. I love that the Big Four is open, and consider it a wonderful linear park in many ways.

If I am going to ride a bicycle across the river to get where I am going, however, I find the Clark Bridge far less stressful and more time-efficient. I sincerely hope that the Clark Bridge is not taken away from cyclists as an option, as the city seems to be finding ways to make two-wheeled pedestrians out of cyclists at every opportunity.

Cycling Savvy class coming up!

It's almost time for our May Cycling Savvy class! As I type this, we have five registrations completed, for a class that has a maximum of ten students.

We (Jenn and I) are excited to be presenting this class. The last one was so much fun, we're doing it again, and have yet another date on the schedule (with more to come).

Action request--please read and comment!

I am not generally one to "cry wolf." I don't like hyperbole, as a rule.

I don't think I'm overblowing the potential significance, here, though.

First, a little background: A woman I encountered through the magic of that book of faces social site was cited not once, but three times over the last several months. Her offense? Driving her bicycle in a manner that shows awareness of safe traffic movement. She was using the right lane on US27 between Nicholasville, Kentucky and Lexington, Kentucky, as she rode to work and back.

Apparently a lot of motorists took umbrage at the gall of a mere cyclist who would use the road as a vehicle operator, and called the police in effort to have her removed from their exclusive domain of fast motoring.

A week or two ago, the Jessamine County Attorney filed to gain an injunction against this cyclist, in effect forcing her to NOT drive her bicycle to work.

As a side note, not that it matters a whit to the situation at hand: Cherokee Schill, the cyclist in question, has a car, but it's old and unreliable. She had some sort of problem maintaining her license in some other state, and is temporarily ineligible to carry a driver's license in Kentucky. As I said, this doesn't change things at all--she still has to get to work to support herself and her two teenagers.

Last week, the judge who was asked for the injunction turned down the request, which was a small victory for Ms Schill--she can still drive her bicycle to work on US27. There remains a trial over the citations, coming in August.

This trial has potential for real consequences affecting cyclists in Kentucky (and perhaps elsewhere). Under the collection of Statutes in KRS 189, a cyclist has the right to a full lane as a vehicle operator. If Jessamine County's charge against Ms Schill succeeds, we could lose a lot of that right.

If she wins, cyclists in Kentucky get another jurist's support. We need that support.

There is a legal defense fund. Please donate. Your right to ride on public roads may be affected by the outcome, so donate accordingly.