Government Bicycle Program News

On 6/27/2020 8:11 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, 27 June 2020 07:54:27 UTC-4, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 6:00:16 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
No, I wasn't defining "recreational cyclists" as those who wear fancy
cycling gear, although the usually do, I was rather trying to
differentiate between people who ride a bicycle for "fun" and those
who use it as their only means of local transportation.

John B.

I'd agree with that statement. Recreational cyclists ride their bikes
for fun and exercise. They do it because they want to. And most, almost
all, wear bicycle specific clothing to do it and ride newer style bikes.


So when I’m commuting to the office on my pretty new CF Tarmac with my
backpack on top of my bicycle specific kit does that make me a recreational
cyclist?

If you insist on a binary condition: No, riding your Tarmac does not
make you a recreational cyclist, at least at that moment.

But Russell didn't say what your question implies. "Most recreational
cyclists wear bike clothing" does not equate to "Anyone in bike clothing
must be a recreational cyclist." It's an elementary logic problem that
you seem to have missed - the logic of sets and sub-sets.

Most riders I see on the road around here doing any more than a few
kilometre commute wear cycling kits. Maybe it’s different where there are
few cyclists.

I'd be curious about a couple aspects of that claim. What number
constitutes "more than a few kilomters"? And how do you know how far
someone is riding? Do you do interview them, or do other detective work
to get each data point?

When I ride my bicycle and especially when I was using a bicycle* to commute to work I was both a utility (transportaional) bicyclist and a recreational/fitness bicyclist. My commute was used as a training ride and I did lots of interval training on those rides. Often on the way home I'd ride a longer route to enjoy scenery and to de-stress. That would be a recreational bicyclist. Horrors of horrors, sometimes I'd even pick up something at the store and that would make me a utility bicyclist.

It's possible to be many types of bicyclist on the same ride.

Cheers

* this was a full on racing bicycle with no provision for the mounting of fenders or racks. It was a bicycle that would have been at home in any of the Grand Tours.

I certainly agree with the possibility of being a recreational, utility
and sport cyclist simultaneously. In my commuting days, I rode 7 miles
to work, and sometimes rode back "the long way." About half the time I
rode home as fast as I possibly could, stopwatch running. Other times I
stopped at shops on the way home.

If I weren't a recreational cyclist, I probably wouldn't have chosen to
commute that distance. If I didn't want to increase speed and fitness, I
wouldn't have done the climb out of the valley at a painful speed.

That bike had and still has fenders, a rear rack that carried my
briefcase, a big handlebar bag and dynamo lighting. And unless I was
riding in at noon in summer, I rode in my normal business casual clothing.

BTW, Bike Nashbar's outlet store was not far off my normal route home.
It was often a fun place to stop.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/27/2020 1:20 AM, wrote:
On Friday, June 26, 2020 at 6:10:34 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/26/2020 3:54 PM, wrote:

Just to add one more point to the index. In my neighborhood I have noticed a lot of kids and old people riding bikes on the street in front of my house. Window looking at street. In the afternoon. Likely/certainly due to the Covid-19. They are at home and exercising or just moving about. Most, many do have helmets.

I'd be interested in numbers, percentages, etc. Also I'm interested in
your general location. I've traveled a lot, and biked in (so far) 47
states. The only place I remember seeing most cyclists in helmets is
Portland. In my area, I did my own counts for two years running and
found about one third in helmets.

--
- Frank Krygowski

I am in Des Moines, Iowa. Center of the Midwest. I do not have numbers. Other than each afternoon for the past few weeks or so, I have seen 2-3-4-5 or so people and kids riding bicycles on the street and sidewalks in front of my house. I live in a residential neighborhood so not too much traffic on the streets. Most, 51%+, of the people I see riding through my front window, have helmets. Some do not. But I'd estimate more do than don't. These people for the most part are not devoted serious bicyclists who populate Google bicycle forums. They are nearby residents and kids who are bicycling now due to Covid-19. Their bicycle rides may only be 0.5-1-2 miles long. They are just on their bicycles due to Covid-19 quarantine. I also see some kids on their bicycles who are riding on the sidewalks because they are kids who must live nearby. They don't have helmets. But the kids I see riding with their parents walking behind them do have helmets.

I also ride on the hundreds of miles of paved bicycle trails around my town. Almost all on the trails fit into the recreational cyclist definition. Riding newer, last 30 years, bicycles and wearing cycling shorts and jerseys. And helmets too.

OK, I just returned from a new experience. A guy we like but have only
sporadic contact with phoned this morning and asked if we'd like to take
a walk on a certain MUP. I've mentioned this MUP before; it was a park
roadway until closed for MV traffic. It's about 1.5 miles by 18 feet and
very popular, although it was emptier than normal today. (There's some
chance of rain.)

As we walked along, I did my best to count bicyclists with and without
helmets. There were about 9 with helmets and about 14 without. That's a
higher percentage helmeted than I observed a few years ago, when I got
31% in helmets if I ignored two organized rides where they were
mandatory, and about 33% if I included those rides.

Regarding the lycra-helmet correlation: Roughly half the helmeted
cyclists were on road bikes and wearing lycra; the rest on comfort bikes
or mountain bikes. Only two unhelmeted cyclists were on road bikes and
wearing lycra.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 09:56:01 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

I don't make fun of people riding in normal clothing (whatever
normal might mean). I make fun of the officious cycling busybodies.
https://cyclingsavvy.org/wp-content/...k-1030x773.jpg
Yikes. Instructors! Clear the way!
https://cyclingsavvy.org/wp-content/...orange-ave.jpg

Yesterday, I was climbing a small hill in my Subaru, when I came upon
a cyclist wearing some kind of "instructor" t-shirt, climbing up the
same hill. On the right was the usual too narrow bicycle lane. The
cyclist was doing a rather poor job of staying in the narrow bike
lane, while talking on his smartphone. Although I had plenty of room
to pass on his left, I was worried that he would swing into my lane,
force me to cross the center divider, and into possible oncoming
traffic from over the top of the hill, which I couldn't see until I
went over the top. I haven't received any bicycling instruction
recently, but it makes me wonder if such instructors ride safely only
when accompanied by students or photographers.



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:56:44 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506

Compare the traffic (both cars and bicycles) from 2016, to todays
traffic cameras showing empty streets in Portland:
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/75624
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/75625
It's like a ghost town. Ok, it's a weekend, but I would have expected
a few more riders than zero. Is there a ban on bicycle riding on
weekends?

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 6/27/2020 4:43 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 15:24:53 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/26/2020 1:44 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/25/2020 6:58 PM, John B. wrote:

snip

Interesting. Over here there is no "helmet Law" for bicycles yet I
can't remember when I've seen a recreational cyclist without a helmet.
Note that IÂ* differentiate between, would one say "normal" cyclists,
and recreational cyclists as we still do have a certain number of
people that use a bicycle as their only means of local transportation.

Frank is wrong of courseâ„¢.

There has never been any evidence that helmet laws have led to a
reduction in cycling.

Bull****, as usual, which ignores available data. And repeating bull****
doesn't make it true. See
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...8/?tool=pubmed
for just one example.

Cycling levels go up and down for a plethora of reasons including
economic cycles, changes in mass transit, changes in bicycle
infrastructure, weather, and now apparently, pandemics (at least in the
U.S.).

Of course cycling levels rise and fall. That does not mean mandating
helmets has zero effect.

Again, there are certainly some people who will decide a MHL proves
cycling is just too dangerous. There are certainly some people who
decide they just don't want to wear a helmet for reasons of comfort or
style. There are those who can't afford a helmet. (Our bike club has
given bikes to people who can't afford a $20 used bike; they can't
afford even a $10 helmet.) Those and other people will ride less, or
give it up entirely.

But nobody will say "Whoa! Now I have to wear a weird hat to legally
ride a bike?? That does it! I'm taking up bicycling!"

Do some reading. Get someone to help you think about the issues.

https://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets

https://www.outsideonline.com/237323...e-safety#close

https://www.northcoastjournal.com/hu...nt?oid=2913125

And please don't pretend the skepticism is only mine.

On the other hand, I understand that skiers now wear helmets, and of
course horsemen wear helmets and, oh lets see, scooter riders,
motorcyclists, most people in the building trades, those that climb
mountains, and I could go on and on.

I'd say that _some_ skiers wear helmets. We get horsemen and horsewomen
riding through our local nature preserve, none with helmets. I almost
never see a helmet on a scooter rider. I'd say only a microscopic
fraction of the building trades wear helmets. Can't say about mountain
climbers.

Strange that it is only
bicyclists that refuse to wear them. "No Siree Bob!
I ain't gonna ride no stupid bicycle if I gotta rear a skid lid!

Of course, it's not only bicyclists refuse to wear them. Besides what I
listed above, one might look up the activities that actually cause the
most brain injury deaths. One could learn what they are, and how many
participating in those activities wear helmets.

(I can help, if you need me to.)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/27/2020 11:07 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
[Frank] tries to pretend that he doesn't read me because he's so superior, but it's pretty obvious the reason he's hiding from me

Bull****, Jute. I skim almost every post you make, just as I do with
others. I don't bother to read yours in detail because you are an
obnoxious ass, and I almost never respond because you are a troll.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...hs-and-sadists

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/27/2020 5:02 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 19:27:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/26/2020 7:00 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:25:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/25/2020 9:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:47:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/25/2020 7:02 PM, sms wrote:


Remember the AHZ argument that if helmets are required then health care
costs will increase because, instead of buying a $20 helmet, former
cyclists will stay home watching TV and eating fatty snacks causing
nationalized health care costs to soar? Perhaps they'll make the same
argument here, 'without government funded bicycle repair we're going to
not ride and it'll cost the government even more money.'

Mayor Scharf (AKA "sms") should stick to losing one argument at a time,
instead of resurrecting past losses.

Data clearly shows mandating helmets reduces cycling, typically by about
30%. A reasonable person might doubt the exact percentage, but only a
fool would say there would be no effect.

Interesting. Over here there is no "helmet Law" for bicycles yet I
can't remember when I've seen a recreational cyclist without a helmet.
Note that I differentiate between, would one say "normal" cyclists,
and recreational cyclists as we still do have a certain number of
people that use a bicycle as their only means of local transportation.

If you define "recreational cyclist" as a person with a stylish bike as
promoted in some bicycling magazine, with clipless pedals (um... that
you clip into), wearing lycra shorts, riding gloves, a brightly colored
cycling jersey (bonus points if it advertises the brand of bike) then
yes, that person will almost certainly wear a helmet. Come on! Would you
expect the Shriners to parade without their red hats?
https://medinah.org/wp-content/uploa...rs-parades.jpg

No, I wasn't defining "recreational cyclists" as those who wear fancy
cycling gear, although the usually do, I was rather trying to
differentiate between people who ride a bicycle for "fun" and those
who use it as their only means of local transportation.

Amazingly we still have some people here that don't own an auto or
motorcycle and use a bicycle as a transportation device. You can see
them every morning going back and forth to either local shops or a
large open market for the day's food. Usually with a basket on the
front and often a large plastic crate strapped on the rear carrier.

And never a helmet :-)

But if you talk about other people riding bicycles, the majority in my
area do not wear helmets. And if you told them they must wear a helmet
or be subject to a penalty, ridership would certainly decrease by some
amount. in Australia and New Zealand, where those laws are still being
enforced, ridership is way, way down, especially if you index it to
population growth.

It must be something local as there is a helmet law here for
motorcycles and it is rigidly enforced and strangely enough small
~100cc motorcycles are literally "all over the place".

I've noticed that motorcycle helmet laws are also universally obeyed in
the European countries I've visited. But I think there are significant
differences between MHLs for bicycles and for motorcycles - even small
motorcycles.

I wouldn't say that the motorcycle helmet law is universally obeyed
here but I would say that seeing a motorcyclist without a helmet on is
rather unusual, primarily because the police enforce the law.

As a sort of "test" of your theory I asked the Cleaning Lady my wife
has in several days a week if she ever gave any thought to not riding
her 100 cc motorcycle because the police made her wear a helmet...
and she looked at me as thought I was some sort of idiot and replied,
"how would I get to work?"

So apparently, here at least, the terrifying helmet law doesn't seem
to cause "transportation motorcyclists" to give up motorcycles because
they have to wear a helmet.

The first difference is the danger level. Many people seem to think that
anything with two wheels has the same level of risk, but that's not even
close to true. I've seen data rating motorcycling at over 30 times more
dangerous than bicycling per hour exposure.

There's also a difference in convenience. A bike is a lightweight,
highly portable device with, typically, no locked storage capacity.
Motorcycles are relatively large, heavy devices that usually have some
relatively secure way of storing a helmet. And the helmet inconvenience
anyone when carrying a motorcycle indoors, because nobody does that.

There's the relative expense. The typical motorcycle helmet costs more
than the typical bike helmet, but it's a negligible percentage of the
machine's cost. A cheap bike helmet can cost as much as a garage sale bike.

For many people, there's a comfort issue with bike helmets - they feel
hotter when riding in one, or they have problems with sweat in the eyes.
There's much less of that with a motorcycle.

And most people are very familiar with bicycling - indeed, most people
probably rode bikes as kids, and without helmets. The bike helmet is a
new imposition. Very few ride motorcycles as kids, at least in the U.S.,
and IME, those that do are wannabe off-road racers. Their parents suit
them up like the pros from an early age. Of course, that includes the
helmet.

Rationalize it any way that you want to but my guess is that if the
state were to promulgate a helmet law, and enforce it, that the
numbers of bicyclists would remain about the same.

You're ignoring available data when you say that. Despite Scharf's
denials, the drops in Australia were roughly 30%, which is far different
from "about the same." What's your reasoning?

Or are you telling us that if you were forced to wear a helmet you
would give up bicycles?

You're proposing a wildly hypothetical situation. Still, I would not
give up bicycles, but I'm hardly a typical American in that regard - or
many others.

BTW, a few years ago, a vacation took us through New Brunswick, Canada.
It has an all-ages MHL. We rode our bikes. We did not have helmets. We
did get stopped and lectured. We got no ticket.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/27/2020 11:06 AM, Lou Holtman wrote:
On Saturday, June 27, 2020 at 12:56:20 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Frank ever asked yourself why you provoke this kind of posts again and again?
From another thread:

'I hadn't noticed that not far behind him was one of our village cops!
I'm sure he saw the whole thing, and I'm sure it enhanced my reputation
for competence.'

Geezz....

What part do you object to? Like it or not, I have a reputation for
competence. Village cops know me. Many village and city residents know
of me. I've been the subject of several articles and interviews in local
media. I've served on quite a few relevant committees, taught classes,
written articles, etc.

Does all that offend you?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/27/2020 5:11 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 19:31:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/26/2020 7:27 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/26/2020 7:00 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:25:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/25/2020 9:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:47:46 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/25/2020 7:02 PM, sms wrote:


Remember the AHZ argument that if helmets are required then health
care
costs will increase because, instead of buying a $20 helmet, former
cyclists will stay home watching TV and eating fatty snacks causing
nationalized health care costs to soar? Perhaps they'll make the same
argument here, 'without government funded bicycle repair we're
going to
not ride and it'll cost the government even more money.'

Mayor Scharf (AKA "sms") should stick to losing one argument at a
time,
instead of resurrecting past losses.

Data clearly shows mandating helmets reduces cycling, typically by
about
30%. A reasonable person might doubt the exact percentage, but only a
fool would say there would be no effect.

Interesting. Over here there is no "helmet Law" for bicycles yet I
can't remember when I've seen a recreational cyclist without a helmet.
Note that IÂ* differentiate between, would one say "normal" cyclists,
and recreational cyclists as we still do have a certain number of
people that use a bicycle as their only means of local transportation.

If you define "recreational cyclist" as a person with a stylish bike as
promoted in some bicycling magazine, with clipless pedals (um... that
you clip into), wearing lycra shorts, riding gloves, a brightly colored
cycling jersey (bonus points if it advertises the brand of bike) then
yes, that person will almost certainly wear a helmet. Come on! Would you
expect the Shriners to parade without their red hats?
https://medinah.org/wp-content/uploa...rs-parades.jpg

No, I wasn't defining "recreational cyclists" as those who wear fancy
cycling gear, although the usually do, I was rather trying to
differentiate between people who ride a bicycle for "fun" and those
who use it as their only means of local transportation.

Amazingly we still have some people here that don't own an auto or
motorcycle and use a bicycle as a transportation device. You can see
them every morning going back and forth to either local shops or a
large open market for the day's food. Usually with a basket on the
front and often a large plastic crate strapped on the rear carrier.

And never a helmet :-)

But if you talk about other people riding bicycles, the majority in my
area do not wear helmets. And if you told them they must wear a helmet
or be subject to a penalty, ridership would certainly decrease by some
amount. in Australia and New Zealand, where those laws are still being
enforced, ridership is way, way down, especially if you index it to
population growth.

It must be something local as there is a helmet law here for
motorcycles and it is rigidly enforced and strangely enough small
~100cc motorcycles are literally "all over the place".

I've noticed that motorcycle helmet laws are also universally obeyed in
the European countries I've visited. But I think there are significant
differences between MHLs for bicycles and for motorcycles - even small
motorcycles.

The first difference is the danger level. Many people seem to think that
anything with two wheels has the same level of risk, but that's not even
close to true. I've seen data rating motorcycling at over 30 times more
dangerous than bicycling per hour exposure.

There's also a difference in convenience. A bike is a lightweight,
highly portable device with, typically, no locked storage capacity.
Motorcycles are relatively large, heavy devices that usually have some
relatively secure way of storing a helmet. And the helmet inconvenience
anyone when carrying a motorcycle indoors, because nobody does that.

There's the relative expense. The typical motorcycle helmet costs more
than the typical bike helmet, but it's a negligible percentage of the
machine's cost. A cheap bike helmet can cost as much as a garage sale bike.

For many people, there's a comfort issue with bike helmets - they feel
hotter when riding in one, or they have problems with sweat in the eyes.
There's much less of that with a motorcycle.

And most people are very familiar with bicycling - indeed, most people
probably rode bikes as kids, and without helmets. The bike helmet is a
new imposition. Very few ride motorcycles as kids, at least in the U.S.,
and IME, those that do are wannabe off-road racers. Their parents suit
them up like the pros from an early age. Of course, that includes the
helmet.

Typing mistake. "And the helmet _doesn't_ inconvenience anyone when
carrying a motorcycle indoors..."

Well, if a bicycle helmet inconveniences you when carrying a bicycle
indoors then I would have to say that you must be so uncoordinated
that it is a miracle that they can even ride a bicycle.

And yes, I have a helmet hanging on the handle bars of whatever bike I
plan to ride that day and I take my bikes "indoor" when I'm not riding
them.

Again, out of curiosity, I asked my wife to move my "Sunday" Bike
inside and lo and behold! She went ahead and wheeled it right inside.
Hot Damn! And she is 75 years old.

Dealing with carrying, storing, safeguarding a helmet isn't a major
thing for a lot of people, but it is a thing. It's one of the many small
reasons and annoyances that cause the vast majority of the world's
bicyclists to not wear helmets.

Give them that choice, please. And don't try to scare them into another
choice.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 6/27/2020 2:45 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2020 09:56:01 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

I don't make fun of people riding in normal clothing (whatever
normal might mean). I make fun of the officious cycling busybodies.
https://cyclingsavvy.org/wp-content/...k-1030x773.jpg
Yikes. Instructors! Clear the way!
https://cyclingsavvy.org/wp-content/...orange-ave.jpg

Yesterday, I was climbing a small hill in my Subaru, when I came upon
a cyclist wearing some kind of "instructor" t-shirt, climbing up the
same hill. On the right was the usual too narrow bicycle lane. The
cyclist was doing a rather poor job of staying in the narrow bike
lane, while talking on his smartphone. Although I had plenty of room
to pass on his left, I was worried that he would swing into my lane,
force me to cross the center divider, and into possible oncoming
traffic from over the top of the hill, which I couldn't see until I
went over the top. I haven't received any bicycling instruction
recently, but it makes me wonder if such instructors ride safely only
when accompanied by students or photographers.

First: Are you sure the "instructor" designation had anything to do with
bicycles?

Second: I'm sure there are incompetent bicycling instructors, especially
since LAB grossly lowered its instructor qualifications. Last I checked,
a person could pass the beginners' course one day and become an
instructor in another day or two. And I've come across LAB instructors
lobbying in favor of really foolish stuff, like bike lanes in door zones.

Cycling Savvy is a much better program. And a significant amount of its
content is available online.

--
- Frank Krygowski