blog-reading finds

Poking around on blogs can be one of those "black hole of time" things. Sometimes, however, interesting nuggets of information can come out of the clutter that is the internet. In terms of bike safety, some of the posts I've seen are thought-provoking.

This one, for example. It's an article on a recent study done in England, showing that cyclists' deaths are not commonly due to poor behavior on the part of the cyclists. It's usually poor behavior on the part of the motorists. A quote from the article: "With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time." Wow. That differs from my sense of the data taught in LAB-certified classes.

Even so, a quote from the study is interesting:

"We believe this report strongly supports our view that the biggest problem for cyclists is bad driving. With that in mind we are greatly concerned that the government still seems fascinated with analysing (sic--British spelling) and promoting cycle helmets, the value of which appears to be inconclusive. We believe that the government should now focus on tackling the causes of injury which appears to be mainly inconsiderate and dangerous driving. Reduced speed limits, stronger traffic law enforcement and cycle-friendly road design are the solutions."

A brief digression: To read the source study, you would have to register to receive the .pdf download. It doesn't cost anything, unless you want to have them send you a printed copy.

Getting back to the study and the article, I mentioned that it's thought-provoking. I have an assortment of ideas that come immediately to mind, in no particular order. Based on a quick read of this article:

• "Bike Ninjas" will claim that they can continue being such
• "Wrong way riders" will make similar claims
• "Sidewalk pedalers" will echo the claims above
• Motorists, or rather, "Anti-cyclists" will gripe that all the blame gets put on them again when "the roads are meant for CARS, stoopid! and get those dratted bikes off the roads!"

I'll keep riding as part of traffic, though, thank you very much, and I'll do my usual things to remain visible to other road users.


Also found, in responses to an NPR article on cargo bikes (well worth reading, BTW), was this gem: "If you divide the number of miles you need to go by the amount of time you spend in your vehicle PLUS the amount of time you spend to pay for it, for gas, and for insurance, you may find that a bike is faster than a car. This kind of calculation yields what is called 'effective speed.' For most people in the United States (yes, here) bikes have a higher effective speed than cars.

My effective cycling speed is around 7mph. My effective driving speed would be about 1.5mph. (I don't make a lot of money and don't need to go very far)."

I'm no mathematician, so I'm not sure how to set up that equation. Still, it's an interesting concept--that time it takes us to pay for stuff affects how cost-effective that stuff is in our lives. It makes sense to me, but I can see how it would confuse many folks who are dependent on their cars.

Of course, cost-effectiveness isn't the only reason we do things. We are emotionally driven animals, after all. On my to-read list is Cotten Seiler's Republic of Driving, in which he explores some of the emotional baggage associated with automobiles and their (mis)use. Of course, the Louisville Public Library seems to not have this book, so I'll have to cycle over to Carmichael's to order a copy.