Some folks in Chicago are a little confused about why city engineers would actually want to make cyclists ride against traffic. In infrastructure terms this is known as a “contra-flow bike lane.” At first glance, it takes the norm of bikes riding the same direction of travel as cars and intentionally turns it on it’s head.

In some implementations calling it “Contra-flow” is more a nod to the way things used to be, and less about how the bikes and cars interact. A good example of this is the Polk Street Contra-Flow Bike lane in San Francisco. By being physically separated from the motor vehicle traffic (“protected bike lane”) it seems a bit of a stretch to say that the cyclists are really riding against traffic. There are numerous dedicated or mixed use paths across the country that have much less physical separation from the motor vehicle lanes they parallel than the Polk street implementation.

The new contra-flow bike lane in Chicago, however, will not be physically separated from the rest of the traffic on the one-way road. The bike lane will pass between moving traffic and parked cars – both going in the other direction. This will force parking cars to cross the bike enter the bike lane heading in the opposite direction. I’m also curious what cyclists that are going with the flow of motor vehicle will do, and if that will create conflicts with other cyclists going in the opposite direction.

According to reporting in the local media, this may just be legalization of already existing, common cycling behavior. It will be interesting to see how this plays out after the lane opens.

Interestingly enough, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition just recently rejected a new bike lane proposal on Turk St. in San Francisco. According to StreetsBlogSF, this is the first time ever that the coalition has taken a “No” stance against a new bike lane. They are pushing for a safer, parking protected bike lane instead of the cities painted-stripes-in-the-door-zone approach.

Five days ago I ran across an article in the San Francisco examiner titled “Time to mandate bicycle licenses.” I did my obligatory eye-roll and read the article. It was the same arguments we hear over and over again:

• Don’t get mad at me, I’m a cyclist myself
• Cyclists need to be held accountable
• Cyclists need to be treated the same as (those poor) motorists

Funny the article was titled “Time to mandate bicycle licenses.” As if the idea hadn’t ever been suggested before, but now is different. Now is the time.

Yesterday, the plot thickened…

What I didn’t realize at the time is the author of the op-ed piece, Joel Engardio, is also running for the San Francisco board of Supervisors (District 7). And as often happens in politics, there is someone with a different view. This differing view was also expressed on the pages of the San Francisco Examiner by a man running for a District 1 board seat. His response?  Cyclist licenses: Great crankbait, bad policy.

Mandatory registration, license and insurance could ease ongoing resentments between cyclists and motorists. Cyclists will get more protection while motorists will be glad they aren’t alone in being held accountable on the road.

Joel Engardio, arguing in favor of bicycle licensing

Licensing bicycles and their riders won’t help make our streets safer or healthier. It won’t help pay for badly needed infrastructure and programs. In fact, it would probably make things worse for everyone.

Andy Thornley, arguing against bicycle licensing

However, Engardio also brings in the topic of bicycle insurance, which Thornley does not specifically respond to. I also am going to set this topic aside for now, as I plan to write a piece about insurance for cyclists shortly. I also think it is wise to separate the two issues, because the are in fact very very different.

Licensing for bicycles is something that has actually been actively tried and extensively discussed. We have real data to show that it simply does not provided the benefits that those advocating for it hope.

For one thing, the idea of accountability is simply laughable. Putting a little tag on the back of my bike with a number in no way makes me more accountable to the laws than I currently am. The fact that you can easily see my face as I’m on my bike probably makes me more accountable than were my sneering mug hidden behind the reflections on a windshield. A license plate on a vehicle adds traceability to the vehicle itself, not to the person driving. Moving violations are given to drivers, not cars. There are obvious exceptions to this (parking tickets for example) but the point is it is no easier, or more likely, for me to be stopped and ticketed should I break the laws simply because of a license on the back of my bike.

Bicycle licensing is a great campaign statement. It is one of those things that just seem “so obvious” to the folks out there that don’t ride bikes. It is a very subtle us against them inducing statement that has become all too common in politics today. Engardio’s statements imply that he wants bicycle licensing to increase the safety of the roads. He is relying on this common sense gut feeling to make people falsely assume that it will makes our roads safer. He provides absolutely no reasons why it would make things actually safer.

Instead, he peppers in a bunch of anecdotal stories

Currently, bicyclists experience a lot more risk than well-insured car drivers. Seaman recently hit a car door that had opened into a bike lane he was riding in. His injury required 34 sessions of physical therapy. His bike had substantial damage. Yet his auto and home insurance didn’t cover his bike accident (not all policies do). He was on the hook for thousands of dollars in expenses.

But the glaring fact here is that this story has absolutely nothing to do with his argument. The type of accident described above wouldn’t even be covered by the type of insurance mandated for motorists by the state of California. In fact, in the above example it is arguable the the liability insurance mandated for the driver that opened his/her door into the bike lane should have been paying for poor Seaman’s injuries.

Bodily Injury Liability — Pays for medical expenses, legal expenses, and judgments against you when you or your car are involved in an accident that causes the injury or death of another person.

Collision — Covers the damage to your vehicle resulting from a collision, regardless of who is responsible. Collision coverage requires the payment of a deductible by the insured.

http://www.lohmanandlohman.com/Auto-Insurance-Basics-Liability,-Collision,-Comprehensive.c383.htm

Based on the above story, it seems Engardio actually wants cyclists to have more mandated coverage than motorists do. He seems to want cyclists to be on the hook for liabilities caused by the negligent actions of other drivers.

Or maybe he just wanted to stir up people’s emotions about the perceived dangers of riding a bike and related the only bike crash story he knew. You know, because no one reads things critically any more anyhow, right? The plot thickens indeed…

Adult bicycle helmet laws draw no end of passion on both sides. We don’t call them the “bicycle helmet wars” for nothing. But until recently I was under the mistaken belief that there were few – if any – jurisdictions in the United States that actually had laws regarding adult usage of bicycle helmets. This belief was shattered on a recent trip to Washington state where, coincidentally, two totally different people completely unconnected made comments about King County Washington having a helmet requirement for adults.

Me being Mr. Skeptical of course went to the one and only authority as soon as I got home – Google. I was admittedly surprised.

Washington State adult bicycle helmet laws

My search turned up a page on the Washington State Department of Transportation website listing jurisdictions in Washington state with bicycle helmet laws. There were two things that jumped out at me.

First, apparently Washington State has not state-wide law regarding bicycle helmets for either children or adults.

Second, there are a ton of counties and/or cities that do have adult bicycle helmet laws.

Third, of all the jurisdictions with laws, a surprisingly small number (2) are targeted exclusively at children, while the vast majority of them (33) target all ages

I started off assuming there were no laws anywhere in the United States regarding adults and bicycle helmet use. I found 33 examples – in one state alone – of where I was wrong.

Clearly I needed to do some more research.

Nation wide adult bicycle helmet laws

There were actually not one but two assumptions I had made that were proving wrong. First, I assumed the majority of all states had laws regarding children’s bicycle helmet usage (For the duration of this article, I’ll lump all laws that require bicycle helmets for youth under any age from 12-18 as “children’s helmet laws.”) According to data compiled on the website helmets.org, there are only 21 states with state-wide mandates for any age groups. Of those, the vast majority are for children aged 16 years and younger. California, Delaware and New Mexico require helmets for riders 18 or under. Massachusetts and New Jersey, 17 and under. West Virginia, New Work and Louisiana require them for ages 15, 14 and 12 respectively. I was correct that no state anywhere in the US has any laws on the books requiring adult bicycle helmet usage.

My shock at the number of adult bicycle helmet laws in place in cities and counties within Washington state – 33 – was easily explained however. It just so happens that Washington state has far more adult bicycle helmet laws than any other state. Again, according to all-ages helmet requirement data compiled by helmets.org,  there are currently 67 laws on the books. Just to reiterate, 33 of those 67 are in Washington state. The next highest – Missouri – has only 14. All told, there are 15 states that contain jurisdictions with adult bicycle helmet laws on the books.

A note about helmets.org

Some readers may be surprised to see me site data from helmets.org. The website is, after all, an advocacy group promoting the usage of bicycle helmets. Justanothercyclist.com has a history of being against bicycle helmet advocacy efforts, and questioning the common wisdom about what protection is actually provided. With that apparent contradiction admitted, helmets.org is very clear about presenting data and encouraging folks to draw their own conclusions.

Our own belief, of course, is that a cyclist should wear a bike helmet. We are helmet advocates, after all.

In 2010 we saw an increase in blog posts from cyclists who do not believe you should wear a helmet. They challenged the conventional wisdom that helmets are necessary to reduce brain injures. That has continued now for the intervening years. The positive experience with shared bicycle programs has raised basic questions about the need for helmets, and some riders are reconsidering.

http://www.helmets.org/shouldi.htm

While I may not agree with their particular stance, I fully support their forthright presentation. Distinguishing data from beliefs is something increasingly rare. Not only in the “helmet wars” but in all things humans seem to disagree on on the internet.

It has been over 8 months since Bay Area Bike Share announced their plans to expand and started soliciting feedback from the public. And now, presumably after evaluating usage data and feedback from the numerous surveys, they have started to reveal many of the proposed new stations.

While plans are to expand Bay Area Bike Share tenfold all over the bay area – including east bay – the released locations are all in San Francisco and San Jose. The San Francisco locations are focused in the south-east section of town, including SOMA, the Tenderloin, Mission Bay, as well as Castro and the Mission.

Not only have they published maps of the proposed sites in PDF format, they are also soliciting additional feedback now that the new locations are starting to be known.

Type 1 diabetes sucks. Cycling, however, doesn’t suck. So how do we put the two together? With hard work, diligence, knowledge and a sprinkling of modern technology. At least – that is my approach.

First off – a disclaimer. I’m not a doctor. Please read my Standard Medical Legal Mumbo Jumbo. Did you read it? I’ll wait…

Training for cycling events at even the moderately-serious recreational level takes a lot of fine-tuning. In a sport where a few watts can make a huge difference, things like diet, sleep patterns, and training scheduling can separate the mediocre from the truly awesome. Throw in a metabolic disorder like diabetes and it can feel like 10 times the number of variables to try and manage.

But before we get all doom and gloom don’t forget that there are Type 1 diabetics performing at the highest level of almost all sports. And cycling has an entire world class team full of diabetic riders. So no, diabetes is not an excuse not to excel at cycling if you want to.

But… it doesn’t hurt to have some tools. If you are a diabetic, you’re undoubtedly already aware of these devices.

CGM

CGM stands for Continuous Glucose Monitor. It is a device that does what finger-stick blood tests do, but constantly and throughout the day. However, they do it in a slightly different fashion. They (generally) do not measure your blood glucose levels directly, but rather infer it by taking measurements in the interstitial fluids – the fluid that surrounds the cells of our body. These all involve some sort of device that is inserted under the skin that takes the measurements. They then transmit this data – usually wirelessly – to some external receiver.

Since they are not measuring blood glucose (BG) levels directly, there are some trade offs. First, these devices generally lag behind about 15 minutes or so from actual blood glucose (BG) changes. What does that mean? Well, if my BG was actually 85 mg/Dl 15 minutes ago, and has now plummeted to 50, my CGM may incorrectly tell me that it is currently a safe 85.

To help alleviate this, many CGM manufactures are now employing software algorithms to predict BG trends in advance and thus mask this lag.

In addition – a CGM is not a replacement for sticking your finger for traditional BG measurements. Again, since the CGM is not measuring directly some calibration of the numbers are needed. This means that most CGMs have a small amount of “learning” that the devices need to do to correlate the data from the sensor with actual, real BG levels. Part of this learning involves traditional finger sticks, and feeding that “real” number into the CGM so it can help fine-tune the algorithmic calculations.

However, with this data streaming in near real time, CGMs can alert you when BG levels are dangerously high or low. And – perhaps more importantly – they can even alert you when they are within range but are changing rapidly. This can be invaluable when you are on the bike and training hard – giving you enough time to get some carbs into, and absorbed by, your body before being impacted from an energy sapping hypoglycemic event.

Personally, I can not imagine riding the way I do without a CGM. This is especially true for folks like me that have an insensitivity to the symptoms of hypoglycemia. Even if I do feel the symptoms, they very much resemble the same sensations I can naturally induce with a really hard, pushing the boundaries type effort. This can make it extremely easy for a diabetic cyclists to completely ignore a hypoglycemic event until it is so severe they become incapacitated.

Impromptu survey:
Do you use a CGM?
If so, which one?
Scale of 1 to 5, 1 being hate it and 5 being wouldn’t ever change brands, what do you think of your CGM?

I recently did a bit of an impromptu survey on a Type 1 Diabetic Athletes group I belong to on Facebook. The overwhelming response (like 20 to 1 in this very unscientific poll) was that these folks had a CGM and loved it. In addition, almost as high of a percentage of the respondents reported using a Dexcom CGM in specific. This is, incidentally, the same CGM that I use.

Insulin Pump

Type 1 diabetics – in contrast to the very different yet similarly named Type 2 diabetics – have to inject insulin. Period. No insulin, no life. As in going to long without insulin will literally result in your death. There is no amount of diet control, exercise, or lifestyle choices that will change that.

Type 1 diabetes – so goes the current scientific research – is an autoimmune disorder. It is the result of the diabetic’s immune system attacking and killing off the cells in the body that would normally produce the hormone insulin. That is why Type 1’s need to inject insulin – there simply isn’t any other source.

However, how those injections are physically carried out is another matter. Traditionally, this has been via syringes. This is sometimes referred to as MDI in the diabetes community – Multiple Daily Injections.

But this is where things get a bit tricky. There are actually two different functions performed by insulin.

Bolus

Bolus insulin is the insulin that is delivered in direct response to eating. This is actually what most people will probably think of – if they think anything at all about diabetes. If I eat anything with carbohydrates, I then take an amount of bolus insulin in direct response to those consumed carbs. I want this insulin to be very fast acting – it needs to be in my blood stream to counteract the glucose that my digestive tract is going to start dumping into my bloodstream. Count carbs… take insulin… eat. Count carbs… take insulin… eat. This is a huge part of the diabetic’s day. How much insulin to take (the insulin/carb ratio in treatment terminology) can actually be very much impacted by your exercise levels. You see, exercise makes it easier for glucose to get into your cells – meaning less insulin for the same effect.

But let’s take a step back and address what we haven’t yet. What the heck does insulin actually do?

There are 101 really great explanations about insulin out there on the web. But the huge oversimplification: insulin allows your cells to use glucose as fuel. Glucose is the gasoline for the engine of your cells. And insulin is like the release for the fuel door on your car that allows more gas to get into the tank and fuel the engine. No insulin, and it is as if the fuel door is locked despite you standing there with a gas pump in your hand. Eventually, the engine will run out of fuel and stop running. (Please people. This is just an illustrative analogy. Don’t sit at the gas pump with your car running…)

So, continuing our crude “fueling up the car” analogy – exercise makes the nozzle you use to fill the fuel up flow a little easier. You can think if it a slightly different way and say that exercise makes your body use insulin more efficiently. Because of this, the diabetic cyclist has to be aware of this change and modify their bolus levels when they are out training. Oh…. and don’t forget, that exercise potentially impacts the interaction between carbs and insulin well into the next day. This is, unfortunately, one of those things that you will need to work with your doctor to figure out what is right for you. Human bodies are extremely varied, and diabetes management unfortunately requires a fair amount of trial and error to get right.

But adjusting bolus rates isn’t the hardest part of this this. Remember when I said there were two different functions performed by insulin?

Basal Insulin

Basal insulin is probably the trickiest part for any diabetic athlete. Our bodies naturally introduce a slow, steady trickle of glucose into our blood stream. This is the fuel for our bodies “baseline”… one of the most important of which is brain function. Because of this, our bodies need a slow, steady trickle of insulin to match it. This is basal insulin.

Traditionally, this was accomplished by manufacturing a completely different type of insulin to be injected separately from bolus insulin. The basal insulin was engineered to release slowly, over time. This allowed Type 1 diabetics engaged in insulin therapy to take one, maybe 2 injections per day to account for this basal function – instead of a new injection ever 30 to 60 minutes.

However – remember what I said above about exercise changing how much insulin is needed for a given level of glucose? That same thing applies to basal insulin. And if I’m filling my body up with the proper amount of basal insulin for a day I’m sitting on the couch, but instead go out for a hard physical effort… bad things can happen. Or, conversely, if I go for bike rides every day, but take a day or two off for some reason, I may find that my basal rate is way to low for my lower activity level. Result: high blood glucose levels.

But, technology to the rescue. Insulin pumps, unlike multiple daily injections of combinations of bolus and basal, provide much more flexibility. That is because they can actually utilize the same fast-acting insulin used for bolus injections, but also slowly trickle it in to address the basal needs. This simply would not be practical with multiple daily injections. And that can be a game changer.

If I am simply trickling in insulin in near real time for my basal treatment, and I decide to go out for a bike ride, I have a new option. I can dial down my basal rate temporarily while I’m exercising. I’m not “committed” to that big, slow-release basal insulin taken via injection. I can adjust things – on the fly!

And this is something I often do. If I know I am going out on a good ride I will use my insulin pump to reduce my basal rate. For me (again, through trial and error) I’ve found that reducing my basal rate to 50%, starting an hour before my ride and continuing an hour after it, works really well. Why an hour before? Keep in mind that these are human bodies, and insulin released into the blood stream isn’t immediately delivered to the cells that need it. Furthermore, insulin injections are also not delivered directly to the blood stream, but rather are injected into the fatty or muscle tissue to be slowly absorbed into the blood stream. This delay provides a valuable buffer that can “smooth out” the insulin reaction. But it also means that us T1Ds need to be patient at times. We need to think about how much insulin is already floating around in our bodies before we go cramming more in.

Frankly, this basal rate adjustment is quite possibly the most important tool I have in managing my diabetes on the bike. I’ve often wondered, if I was forced to give up one of either my pump or my CGM, which would it be? I don’t honestly know…. but I feel like in the overall scheme of things as a cyclist the pump is more important.

Caveats

I wouldn’t be surprised if any non-diabetics that have read through all this (which would be fantastic if they did, by the way) are thinking “Great! CGM. Insulin Pump. You’re set!”

Yea. I wish.

Truth is, all the trial and error leading to carefully planned regimen in the world will fail some days. Human bodies are complex beyond our ability or current knowledge to predict. Just like a 70% chance of rain tomorrow may end up with bright blue clear skies all day, that 50% basal rate adjustment before a ride might go horribly wrong one way or another.

There is however one specific issue I’d like to bring to the attention of diabetic cyclists out there. It is something that it took me years – and finally a helpful diabetes educator – to understand.

Our bodies have evolved to conserve fuel as much as possible. And glucose is that fuel. But our bodies also know when it is important to pour the fuel on for that big effort. And that big effort in this case is going anaerobic.

The liver sits on some huge stores of energy, and is willing to release them into the bloodstream if the muscles need them. Grinding up a hill, sprinting to the city limits sign, turning into a gnarly head wind… these are all things that can result in your muscles screaming for glucose.

Now remember above… all those carefully calculated reductions in basal insulin rates that resulted in a lower quantity of insulin in the blood stream during exercise? What happens if our body decides to release a flood of glucose to meet the demands of our muscles.

That’s right – high blood sugar. While exercise usually results in lowered BG levels compared to the non-exericising baseline, there is a tipping point where the exact opposite can happen.

I’m not going to go into more details on this. It is something to discuss with your healthcare professionals. But I really do wish someone had made me at least aware that this was something that could happen much much earlier on in my life. I spent countless time thinking that I had simply adjusted my basal/bolus rates incorrectly before I understood this concept. Since then things have definitely improved for me.

But there is on inescapable fact. Until they give us an artificial pancreas or other treatment option, Type 1 diabetes will be a hard, challenging, time consuming demon to live with. And while it is true that it is not an obstacle that can not be overcome, it is still a colossal pain in the ass.

Which brings me to my final point. Like diabetes management, diabetes research is hard, and expensive. And the companies that make our pumps, our CGMs, and the insulin are, unfortunately, not motivated to find real cures that would ultimately undercut what is a very lucrative business for them. One can easily spend the equivalent of a good commuter bike a year on diabetes management with really good insurance. And the price of a stable of Pinarellos if you don’t have good insurance (…or Colnagos, or Cannondales, or whatever the cool kids are riding these days.) As such, funding for diabetes cure research has to come from other places.

Those are places like the American Diabetes Association, that have a long history with cycling. They put on events like the Tour de Cure. In fact, Tour de Cure was the first public cycling event I ever took part in. I highly encourage you to find a local Tour de Cure ride and take part. I’m doing two of them myself this year. Or, if you prefer, find a rider and sponsor their efforts (like me, or maybe even… me.) Every little bit helps. While you may be throwing a donation to Just Another Cyclist, you may ultimately help save a life.

The city of Sacramento, CA has a long and rich baseball history. And a big part of that history has traditionally been embodied by a dark yet friendly little corner of the world known as Joe Marty’s bar. The walls of the bar were lined with historic portraits of baseball players and pictures of the old baseball diamond that used to sit right around the corner where the Target is today.

Unfortunately the landmark establishment was hit with a kitchen fire in 2005 and sat vacant for a decade. Then two local businessmen decided to resurrect the name at the same location. And that brings us to why I’m talking about this on a cycling blog…

Before the fire, when I was a Sacramento resident, Joe Marty’s was on my short list of favorite bars. I’d known about the fire, but didn’t know that it had reopened. When I was back in Sacramento recently for the North American Hand Made Bike Show, I decided to check out the newly renovated place with my son.

When we walked in the door, one of the staff greeted us. As I was gazing about the place, she made a comment about the bicycle tattoos I have on my arm. That lead to a quick, impromptu conversation about bicycle, and then she said something that I completely didn’t expect…

She drew my attention to a TV mounted above the bar. The TV was dedicated to displaying live security camera footage of… the bike rack outside. This immediately struck me as so simple, yet so brilliant.

I had to know more. I reached out to the business and was able to talk to reach the owners, for a quick email interview:

JustAnotherCyclist: What is your name, and what is your role at Joe Marty’s?

Joe Marty’s: Jack Morris and Devon Atlee, owners

JAC: How long have you be associated with Joe Marty’s?

JM’s: …we just opened two months ago

JAC: The decor and ambience of the interior is true to the baseball influence that is central to Joe Marty’s history. However, among the big screens with baseball games is also a TV with a very different view from all the others. Can you tell us about that TV?

 JM’s: We actual added the bike racks to the parking lot just before we opened. We added an outside camera so our customers could sit at the bar have a drink or some food and not have to worry about anyone messing with the bikes.. so far a great addition.

JAC: A security camera displayed above the bar specifically for the cyclists isn’t something that is very common. What inspired Joe Marty’s to do this? JM’s: We did it for the neighborhood . At night [the] camera on the TV shows up just like you were watching in the day time.

JAC: When I visited Joe Marty’s, the staff recognized me as a “bike guy” by the bicycles tattooed on my arm. They are the ones that pointed out the security camera to me. Is this something staff are encouraged to actively promote?

JM’s: Yes. it has been a conversation piece for the staff and customers.

JAC: Does Joe Marty’s enjoy a significant amount of patronage from folks that ride their bikes in?

JM’s: Now that the weather is getting nice we are seeing more and more people riding over from the neighborhoods.

JAC: Any suspicious activity at the bike racks been caught and averted because of the cameras?

JM’s: Not so far.

JAC: Anything else you’d like to say to the cyclists living in, or visiting, Sacramento?

JM’s: We have enough bike parking space for 20 plus bikes. Baseball season is starting up and we will have the MLB baseball package. The River Cats [local Sacramento AAA baseball club] will also shuttle people to and from Joe Martys every Thursday for RiverCats home game. stay tuned!!

If your cyclist fiends want to join our e-newsletter [for] events and specials  go to gojoemartys.com

 

JAC: Thank you for taking the time to talk to us. I know that I’ll be stopping by on my bike for a pint and more of those street tacos next time I’m in Sacramento!

Joe Marty’s Bar & Grille is located in Sacramento’s Land Park neighborhood in the Tower Theater complex at 1500 Broadway. And yes – I really do recommend the tacos.

The new Audi A3 plugin hybrid. I’d actually be inclined to respect it – if not for some idiotic advertising.

So many things wrong with this.

First off – despite what Audi might like to believe, not everyone on a bike is secretly wishing they could have a powerful car. Many of us that ride a bike for errands, commuting, or just general gettin’ ’round do it because… wait for it… we actually prefer to be on a bike. I know… I know… Not what you would hope for auto makers.

Second, the guy installing the solar panels. Yea, so no reason for him to be jealous of you. Because as much as you might like to think that a plug in hybrid magically pulls energy out of thin air, that car is still burning fossil fuels. Yes, indeed, Mr. Audi A3 Plug In Hybrid Owner, that electricity flowing through that extension cord actually has to come from some where. So unlike the house with the solar panels, you’re releasing more carbon than the woman on the bike.

So, in the words of Sons of Science, here’s my “tiny carbon footprint up your ass.”

Thanks to BikingInLA for sharing this. He has always been the perfect counterbalance to our random nonsense here at Just Another Cyclist.

Ad asks “Does Your Car Qualify for Uber.” I don’t know… does it?

I love riding my bike. I feel quite comfortable riding on the streets of San Francisco, or the country roads of California’s central valley. From my perspective, what negative interactions I’ve had with cars have generally been due to simple mistakes – misjudging speed, not looking in the right rear view mirror when turning right, etc etc. I’m the guy that spend a lot of time complaining about how dangerous others make cycling out to be. I’m the guy urging everyone to stop the fear mongering.

But then someone has to be an asshole. And that can be just flat out scary.

It was the classic “gun the engine and pass the cyclist as closely as I possibly can” maneuver. Problem was, closely as possible was close enough to catch the back bumper on my leg as (s)he passed. Oh yea … and that maneuver was performed so that (s)he could make a right hand turn at the very next block. And I was going around 30 MPH on a down hill section (speed limit 25 MPH). And had to grab a hand full of brake to avoid hitting the back of the car so clearly I wasn’t holding anyone up.

It quite literally scared the hell out of me. I managed to stay upright so the only harm was mental. But it did immediately fill my head with unpleasant thoughts about the driver. And it definitely lead to an overall feeling of vulnerability.

Will this experience change my perspective the next time I’m out on the roads? Don’t know. Only time will tell. I definitely hope not. I tend to think we find what we are looking for. If I go for a ride expecting motorists to put my life in jeopardy, I’ll find evidence to back this up. If I go out on the road expecting to have an enjoyable ride, I’ll find that too. Unless some obviously contradictory situation comes up such as the one I experienced this morning.

I often wonder if I am being overly optimistic – even naive – in my general feeling of relative calm and safety on the roads. Other times I think it has more to do about the fact that I am quite vigilant while riding. I’m always looking ahead. I’m watching for blinkers or movement in the lane as I approach an intersection that might indicate a car is about to make a right hand turn. I avoid passing cars on the right at intersections for that very reason. I recognize situation where drivers may simply not be able to see me through no fault of their own. I tend to slow down a little in favor of caution, and I have very few altercations.

I also hesitate to tell stories like this one, as people seem to get the impression that this is a daily occurrence for cyclists. That couldn’t be farther from the truth – at least for me. In fact, in the last few years I can only think of 2 incidents that seemed to stem from aggressive actions against me by motorists. Coincidentally, they were both within a couple of miles of each other on 3rd Street in San Francisco. But nothing will stop people from being jerks. Even completely separate bike infrastructure won’t stop people that simply don’t like cyclists. When even mountain bike trails are not safe from aggressive actions against riders, we must remember that jerks gonna be jerks. We must resist the urge to perpetuate the idea that cycling overall is a dangerous activity.

One of my coworkers recently came back from Amsterdam. I just happened to pass him when he was talking to another coworker. He was showing him what I assume was a picture on his phone and stated

“See, ” said coworker 1, “they ride in a separate place. The bikes don’t even ride where the cars go.”

Coworker 2 replied “Why can’t we learn that here?”

I don’t think either of them are cyclists.

Changing one mind at a time…