Other pictures

I've been meaning to get to taking these pictures for a week or three. A while back, Louisville got really excited about the "soft" opening of the Big Four Bridge. In my comments on that event, I alluded to some dissatisfaction with regard to its value as a transportation option.

Let me restate my opinion a bit: It's a GREAT "skinny park" that spans the Ohio River, and affords views of Louisville and Southern Indiana that have been denied to people for generations. It's a ten- or fifteen-foot wide multi-use path, in essence, in that walkers and bicycle riders are allowed, and many walkers bring their dogs, children, and other family members to enjoy their outings.

I remain a bit disaffected, however, as part of the "selling" of this bridge to the community was that by having it redone in this manner, Louisville, Kentucky, and Indiana could meet a federally-mandated requirement to include bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in the eventual new I-65 bridge over the Ohio River, to be built alongside the existing I-65 bridge over the Ohio River, as part of the Ohio River Bridges Project, a 1950s solution to a twenty-first century problem. Because it is a skinny park, it is NOT a viable transportation option for cyclists wishing to ride apace. My fear is that one result of this bridge being open to cyclists is that the current Clark Memorial Bridge, the only bicycle-legal bridge for some forty or fifty miles up- or downstream, will be repurposed as an off-ramp for I-65 Southbound into Louisville from Indiana, with zero bicycle access available. This is called "putting all the transportation eggs in too few baskets."

At any rate, another objection I have to the way the bridge is arranged is access to the ramp. If one parks in the lot nearest the bridge ramp entrance, and is using a wheelchair, one must be sure to get on the sidewalk exactly at the disabled-specific parking slots, and NOT the ones on the opposite side of the lot from the ramp. Otherwise, one would have to go to the end of the lot at the road to get on the sidewalk along River Road first.

A cyclist entering the lot from River Road must use the sidewalk--and riding on the sidewalk is strongly discouraged in most places, for a variety of reasons. That one must use the sidewalk here reinforces the notion that riding on the sidewalk is acceptable in other places, frankly. To make this a bit easier to understand, here's a link to a googlemaps image showing the ramp during one or another construction phase.

 
View Larger Map

Looking toward River Road from just west of the ramp:

Looking at the sidewalk from in the parking lot:

From deeper in the parking lot. Note the curb in front of my bicycle, which is standing in an area that used to be two parking places:

Looking sort-of east on River Road. Witherspoon Street enters River Road to the right. The ramp is partly visible to the left.

The ramp, as seen from the same vantage point:

Despite my misgivings about this bridge as a transportation option, I remain happy that it's open as a park. I am very happy to see that the community has repurposed this old rail bridge and made it useful again.

A couple of pictures

It seems I neglected to add some pictures to my recent post about working on a velomobile.

As it happens, I didn't get any pictures of myself in the thing, nor do I have any images of the owner in it.

I did, however, get a couple shots of it once I had loaded it on my trailer for delivery to its owner:

This is called the FAW+, short for Flevobike Alleweder Plus, as it's a modification of an early-1990s design. The kit (they offer assembly at additional cost) is available from Pedal Yourself Healthy in Texas.

I've been looking at this thing off and on for a couple of years, and remain mildly interested in owning something like it. It's fun to ride, despite the problems I have fitting in the thing. It can carry a fair bit of cargo--including groceries for several days, or luggage for a several-day tour.

Saturday morning entertainment, of sorts

If you've read much of my blog, you've picked up on enough little hints here and there to realize I don't believe in gods. I really don't mind if another person believes in some god or other, but a person's right to believe in and follow a god ends where it intersects my right to not believe. For this reason, our legal system is, or is supposed to be, secular in nature. I realize that in many circles this would be a controversial position to take, but it's who I am.

Another controversial issue in current society is abortion. In short, I consider abortion a private matter between the woman in question, her medical care provider, and others as SHE sees fit. Regardless of whether I know her, it's not my decision to make.

(more after the jump)

Velomobiles rock!!

It's long been a dream of mine: Owning a velomobile. I haven't had enough money to get serious about buying one, so haven't invested in going to Texas to test out factory demos of the FAW+ or a Quest. As I'm not close to buying, I'm reluctant to ask folks who have them for test-rides.

I have, however, been able to play with one that belongs to a friend for a day or two. He built his FAW+ from a kit, as many do, but lacked the patience to get the front end alignment right. We worked on it a bit last spring, and it was better, but his life was such that he wasn't able to ride it for a while, and so the story goes.

He and I talked a few days ago, and he wanted me to do some fine-tuning on the alignment and install his electrical system for him. As a result, I've taken the liberty of riding the thing a bit (test-riding my work, don't you know), and have a couple of observations:

My largest observation is that I'm a bit wide and heavy for this thing. I can make do, but it's not quite comfortable for me. The foot area isn't quite wide enough (I have big feet, which is part of the problem), and my feet rub the inside of the wheel wells. So do my calves.

One possible fix is a narrower bottom bracket, and perhaps a different crank with a narrower q-factor. I hesitate to do this, as a) it's not my machine, and b) if it was my machine, I'd wonder whether the narrower q-factor would be harmful on my hips or knees.

If I ride with my elbows at my sides, as I did when I had a V-Rex, I'm not moving side-to-side. I'm snug in there. I can ride with my elbows out, but that would probably not work if I'm using the cockpit cover.

Aside from those fit issues (that are most certainly NOT the machine's fault), it's a neat little ride.

Bike crash news as discussion springboard

This morning, near Columbus, Ohio, a cyclist was hit by a person driving a motor vehicle. The cyclist's injuries were reported as "non-life-threatening," which is one of very few good things about the linked report, a key other being that the motorist called police rather than drive away.

Grammar problems aside, there is a line in the article that "Police say the driver will not be charges because the person on the bike was not wearing a reflective vest."

Really? That is why the driver is not being charged? Over a non-standard talisman that probably wouldn't have mattered in the first place?

One wonders whether the cyclist was wearing a helmet, as the "news" article doesn't say...

Was the motorist wearing a seat belt? Talking on his/her cell phone? Eating breakfast? Spilling coffee? Otherwise being generally inattentive to his/her surroundings, to include other legitimate road users? Did the bike have lights? Reflectors as (maybe) required by Ohio law?

The problem I have with this "driver was not charged because..." nonsense is that now drivers will start saying inane things like, "You're not wearing a reflective vest! I can't see you! Lalalala if you are hit it's your fault!"

I happen to prefer bright-colored clothing for my cycling wear. I figure that if I'm going to wear wicking fabric stuff, it may as well be easier to see rather than dark and harder to see. I have a wind shell of Illuminite that is probably eight years old, and looks the part. The back has lost some of its reflectivity, after I've worn it while riding the Vanguard for so many miles. I have reflective vinyl on some pedals I own (Shimano "dual use" pedals that allow riding in cleated shoes or regular shoes are on two of my bikes). I have reflectors (some are homemade) on my bicycles, and reflective tape here and there on some bikes and all three trailers. I also have lights on every bike that is likely to be ridden when it's not light out, and I use those lights.

I have no idea what lights, if any, the cyclist in this news report had in service. I would think lights more noteworthy than a reflective vest in any event.

Brief chuckle

I looked at my view counter today, and noted that the number is now 12666.

Tee hee!

Witness this!

Jenn received a piece of mail today. Or, perhaps I should say a piece of mail came to our mailbox today, addressed to Jenn or "current resident." Inside was a single-page, hand-written note, inviting her to read and respond to the enclosed bible tract, which had been carefully cut from a booklet of similar tracts published by the Jehovah's Witnesses.

As you realize, if you've been reading my blog for a while, both Jenn and I are atheist. We eschew religion. Indeed, we find religion to be all but evil in many ways, but that is beside the point at the moment.

I cannot but wonder whether this is a new tactic being employed by the Witlesses, er, Jehovah's Witnesses, mindful of the quip often attributed to George Carlin that the USPS should hand over final delivery duties to the Jehovah's Witnesses to save time and money.

It also reminds me of a story from my early days in my apartment in Old Louisville:

I had recently moved in to the apartment building, called "The Cavalier," on Fourth just north of Ormsby. One sunny Saturday morning, about nine, my doorbell rang. Despite having gotten home only a couple hours before (I was working for UPS as a ramp rat at the time, loading airplanes, and got off work around six on Saturday mornings), I tumbled out of bed, found some sweat pants and a t-shirt, and was putting them on as I stumbled down the stairs to see who had come to visit me in my then fairly-new-to-me digs (there was one exterior door where the doorbell buttons were, serving six apartments on three floors--I was on the second floor, meaning I had to descend three half-flights of stairs).

When I reached the exterior door, I found a man and a woman wishing to chat. "Hi! I'm Fred, and this is Ethel, and we are from the Kingdom Hall a few blocks down Fourth Street. We'd like to discuss..."

"NO, I'm not interested in your god!" I interrupted, as I turned around and stalked back up the stairs to resume my slumber.

I hadn't learned my lesson, though. A couple weeks later, around the same time on a Saturday morning, my doorbell rang again. Again, I tumbled out of bed, pulled on the same pair of sweat pants, and stumbled down the stairs while pulling on a t-shirt, to find...

"Hi! I'm Barney, and this is Betty, and we're from Kingdom Hall a few blocks down Fourth Street."

Before they could continue, I interrupted them, saying, "Is this the first doorbell anyone has answered this morning? I heard that one of my neighbors is into the occult. I read up on the cult he's rumored to follow, and they do human sacrifice-like stuff. They are supposedly VERY fond of using Jehovah's Witnesses for their ritual sacrifices."

"Barney" and "Betty" were looking at me with, between them, one eye, as one sees in cartoons. Yep, one great big eye, with four little tiny dots in the middle that would have been their pupils.

I lived in that apartment for another ten or twelve years, and never once got another doorbell ring from Jehovah's Witnesses.

yet another birthday

I recently had another birthday. After the larger hubbub surrounding the last two, I opted for a low-key approach this year. Several factors are present and affecting this, not the least of which is that I just didn't feel like having a big to-do.

I did get to visit with some friends that evening over a dinner and a few beers--the Louisville Atheist and Freethinkers group had another of their periodic get togethers at O'Shea's on Baxter Avenue to enjoy Pint Night (buy the beer of the night and get to keep the glass). I'll be going out to dinner with family this evening, I think.

I might even get to ride a bike for a while today, just to ride the thing. THAT would be a change of pace.

In other news of my life (not that anyone really cares): I have been wanting to bring Cycling Savvy to Louisville for some time, now. I am hoping I get to take the Cycling Savvy Instructor course when it is next offered, even though that would mean another expensive trip to Florida.

Along with that desire, though, is a desire to spread the concepts in I am Traffic to cyclists in the Louisville area. I like the site layout better than that of many such sites, and like that Cycling Savvy, I am Traffic, and Commute Orlando (and Commute St Louis) have consistent messaging (this is not by accident...).
 
Eventually, Louisville (indeed, Kentucky) will be listed in the Cycling Savvy "Where we are" section. In the mean time, though, I am preparing to launch Commute Louisville:

 As I get things going, I will be looking for guest posts that share cycling community events, positive encouragement for driving our bicycles, and the like. As the new national organization developing from the I am Traffic Colloquium comes about, I will work toward a solid affiliation here in town and for the region.

Conflicting feelings

I've gotten spoiled, I guess. I've not had any run-ins with law encroachment officers (ahem) over my lane position in over a dozen years and well over thirty thousand miles.

Until yesterday.

I'm not even sure how much I want to say about this publicly, as I really want a couple things to come out of this experience--namely that the department and especially the officer in question quit harassing cyclists for taking control over our own safety.

At issue is the perception by this law enforcement (encroachment?) officer that bicyclists are supposed to stay very close to the white line (fog line, if one prefers), presumably under KRS 189.300. That statute reads (with apologies for kerning issues):

189.300

Vehicles to keep to right.

(1) The operator of any vehicle when upon a highway shall travel upon the right side of

the highway whenever possible, and unless the left side of the highway is clear of

all other traffic or obstructions for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the

overtaking and passing of another vehicle to be completed without interfering with

the operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle

being overtaken. The overtaking vehicle shall return to the proper traffic lane as

soon as practicable and, if the passing vehicle enters the oncoming traffic lane,

before coming within two hundred (200) feet of any approaching vehicle.

(2) The operator of any vehicle moving slowly upon a highway shall keep his vehicle as

closely as practicable to the right-hand boundary of the highway, allowing more

swiftly moving vehicles reasonably free passage to the left.

 On its face, this statute clearly shows a willingness to subvert the safety of a slower-moving road user to the perceived convenience of a faster-moving road user, as there is no specificity of vehicle type. This is wrong at its core.

Never mind that by taking the center of the lane, as I was doing at the time of initial contact, I am far more visible at greater distance, allowing an overtaking road user to adjust to my presence with less drama (and greater safety). Never mind that by taking the lane, I am also communicating with said overtaking road user that it really is NOT safe to pass at the moment, either in my (too narrow for such things) lane or due to possible oncoming traffic.

The cop declared that HE was the one who determined what is practicable, although in states where practicable is mentioned the cyclist has numerous caveats for conditions not readily visible from a motor vehicle being driven at 35+ miles an hour (debris in the roadway, surface defects), or that the lane is too narrow for side-by-side passing, or that the rider is preparing for a left turn, or passing an even slower rider.

The cop gave me a verbal warning, and did not look at my driver's license. I have his badge number and name. Nonetheless, he did warn that if he saw me again, he would cite me and have it go to court. My concern here is that the judges in Oldham County are not over-friendly to cyclists, given the hue and cry from the anti-bicycle-biased citizens of that county we see peak every year about Ironman time (late August, after a summer of triathletes training on US42 all the time). This threatens my freedom to move within the county, which certainly has a deterring element. I don't wish to waste time in court defending my right to drive defensively according to current best practices as recognized on a national level by folks a lot smarter than this law encroachment officious, er, well, police officer.

Now to construct a presentation to the officer's commanders that will help ALL who cycle in Oldham County...