Living in the city of San Francisco in 2015, you are constantly confronted with issues of class struggle and gentrification.  In most parts of the city the rent you’d pay for 1 month in a 1 bedroom apartment could buy you a functional used car elsewhere in the country (or one hell of a nice bike). I also happen to live in a neighborhood that was, until recently, one of the most affordable (relatively) in the city. As a predominately African American community, this puts the area directly in the crosshairs of everything potentially bad about gentrification and displacement. Lots of new people moving in, demanding change. Lots of established families that have been in the neighborhood for generations feeling pushed out both socially and economically.

It is against this backdrop that I came face to face with an issue that at first seemed completely unfathomable for me: for many, cycling is a sign of gentrification.

It started with a post I put on Facebook about expanding the local bike share program to my neighborhood. The Bay Area Bike Share, when initially launched, was concentrated in the more affluent areas of the city. Makes sense – when you are testing a new service you want to launch where you have the most customers (which was not my neighborhood.) However, after the concept was proven they were ready to expand their capacity by a factor of 10, and were asking for community input on where to put the new stations.

For me the addition of a Bay Area Bike Share station in my neighborhood seemed like a big win. First off, as one of the resident bikey types, I just want to see more people riding bikes in my neighborhood. I subscribe to the theory that says the more cyclists on the road, the safer it is for all cyclists.

Second, I think that bike share programs address another issue we face in San Francisco – bike theft. It is unfortunate the number of trips I didn’t take because I was nervous about my bike being stolen when locked up outside wherever it was I wanted to go. The way most bike share programs work, you take them from one station and dock them at another. No worry about the theft of your beloved whip.

Finally, I think this service actually is an economic win too. One of the complaints I got about my recommendation for a station in my neighborhood was basically that if people want to ride bikes, they’ll buy one. However, you’re looking at a few hundred bucks easy to buy a ridable bike. (Sure, you can find some damn nice bikes on the streets of San Francisco for $25-$50 bucks. Want to guess where they came from?) So you need a few hundred minimum to buy the bike, maybe another hundred or two a year in maintenance, replacement tubes, and locks. Then add on the risk of theft…. at $88 a year bike share sure looks like a cheaper alternative. How could a cheaper alternative for folks in a neighborhood where many are economically challenged possibly be a bad thing?

The person attacking my Facebook post was pretty adamant in her beliefs, and it was after much reflection that I started to understand why. For her (I’ve come to believe) people on bikes were one of two kinds: wealthy 20-something hipsters who work for tech companies, or out of town tourists that serve to water down the culture of a neighborhood.

Putting aside my doubts that she actually understands what bike share is, or that those two groups are not its target market, her complaints raised some interesting considerations.

Historically, cycling has been concentrated on the extremes of the socioeconomic spectrum. On the one hand you had those that rode a bike because they wanted to. They tended to be folks that had enough income to support what can be – let’s face it – a rather expensive endeavor. While most of america was in love with their cars (the working person’s mode of transportation) the cyclists were mostly those with enough wealth and privilege to not really care what everyone else was doing.

On the other hand you had those that were riding around on cobbled together bikes because they had no other option. Either from financial hardship, or past legal mistakes (like a DUI) they found cars to be unavailable, and turned to the next best thing – the bicycle.

These two extremes still exist. But bicycles have grown in both popularity and social acceptance to the point where these historical groups are the minority. The most visible group riding now – and the one most often thought of by non-cyclists – are the GenY folks that have turned to the bike instead of the car for reasons of style and ease. A fixed gear bike has usurped the coveted coming of age milestone that was once occupied by the driver’s license.

These younger urbanites are all to easy to associate with the stereotype of the “tech dude” that has become the de-facto social evil in San Francisco. The term hipster started out just as a description, morphed into a funny stereotype, then became an object of ridicule and hatred. And it is hipsters (so goes the common conception) that are the ones pushing for more bikes in the city.

The frustrating part for me is that bicycles offer a lot of opportunity for folks of all levels. That is why I think that bike share programs are actually more valuable to economically depressed areas then affluent ones. Once you have an area that can sustain such a service, the next step really should be to spread that service to parts of that community that couldn’t support it on their own. If anything I see this as an equalization of opportunity (and therefore wealth) instead of yet another divisive change that pushes the haves farther away from the have-nots.

I can fully understand why folks – fearing displacement – get upset with gentrification. I can even understand how those folks can easily direct that frustration towards any symbol they see as representative of the vague force that is threatening their way of life. But claiming that a bike share program is hastening this displacement makes about as much sense as saying that public transportation does the same thing.

If you want to preserve the unique character and culture of a particular neighborhood that is struggling economically, then you need to provide that neighborhood with every opportunity to succeed and support itself. Providing opportunities for mobility gives families the opportunity to continue to live and interact with their community in the way they always have, while still giving space and flexibility to pursue a comfortable living.

Bicycles are becoming an integral part of all parts of our society – a viable alternative to the automobile in all things. Don’t let them become the baby you throw out with the bathwater. Gentrification is a real social issue that needs to be discussed and addressed. Bikes, however, are neither a cause nor symptom of that problem.

Speed and competition seems to exist in some form in all of us. I’m willing to bet that even the most casual of casual cyclists has, at some time, felt the urge to go faster than someone or something in their vicinity. It seems to be a universal constant. For some, that urge is a lifelong passion, and those folks have come up with amazing ways to make the bicycle go faster and faster.

The bicycle, at certain speeds, is actually the most efficient form of travel known to man. Like all moving things on earth, aerodynamic drag changes that equation pretty quickly – requiring ever-increasing amounts of energy to go faster. For this reason, aerodynamic improvements are often a primary focus. This has the nasty side effect of making some of the fastest bicycles in the world not really look much like bicycles.

Taken to the extreme, this can result in 80+MPH speeds driven by human power alone of flat ground. But that doesn’t mean you have to take it to this extreme to gain an advantage in aerodynamics. Kids somehow instinctively know to duck down to go faster on a bike. Pros, like the Optum Pro rider pictured above, will spend hours in wind tunnels perfecting every detail – the position of the rider on the bike, seat height, head position – to shave precious fractional seconds off of their time trial speeds. And every-day cyclists can show gains too.

The Lightning F-40, marketed as the fastest bike available for sale, is such a thing. The F-40 applies the same world record setting concepts, but in a more approachable and rider friendly form.

But again, kids instinctively know how to go faster. When getting low isn’t enough and going as fast as possible is your goal, gravity is your best friend. You can take a regular bike, find the fastest, smoothest, steepest slope possible, and go faster yet. That will get you up to 138 MPH – the current downhill record.

Unfortunately the quest for speed – in any form – always seems to result in catastrophic failures and dramatic video. Luckily Eric Barone survived the horrific looking crash in the video at left. All the better, because another human instinct seems to be to love watching our heroes fail, and pick themselves up and carry on.

But if you want to go really fast? Cheat. Or shall we say – enhance your performance. One way to do it is to almost completely eliminate the aerodynamics from the equation by having some vehicle drive directly in front of you. OK OK. So this is actually motor-pacing, and it isn’t cheating per se, as the records there are specific to the motor-pacing crowd. But still… you’re using fuel to power a car that is breaking the wind for you. But hey – it allowed Fred Rompelberg to get up to 167 MPH. Pedaling. On a bike.

And then there’s this guy:

Folks familiar with my writings will know I have a bit of a flair for the dramatic. JustAnotherCyclist has always been an OpEd platform. However, one thing I’ve always tried to maintain is a link with the truth. It is possible to make dramatic statements without distorting the truth. However, it can be all too easy to slide on the wrong side of that divide. That is why I was unfortunately not surprised to hear of the Oregon Department of Transportation taking issue with some facts recently stated by Oregon bicycle advocacy group Bicycle Transportation Alliance.

The issue arises from an infographic the BTA created in an attempt to demonstrate how public dollars are actually allocated to highway projects. According to a report in the Oregonian, ODOT claimed a number of inaccuracies in the information presented in the infographic. BTA’s efforts go beyond a simple infographic. In fact, they’ve launched an entire campaign to attempt to combat one of the common complaints many cyclists face. Namely, the argument from motorists that cyclist receive an unfair amount of highway dollars, without paying their fare share. These arguments usually stem from a mistaken generalization that highway funds come almost exclusively from fuel and license taxes. Therefore if you don’t drive a car (so the argument goes) you are not contributing financially to the public funds that pay for those roads. It is an old argument that takes place all over the country – even all over the world.

The image attached to this article is the corrected version, modified by BTA in response to ODOT’s objections.

So, was the BTA trying to be intentionally misleading? I doubt that, but clearly I don’t know for sure. I do know that every side in a debate will present information that supports their side. They will present the information in a way that bolsters their position. Perfectly normal – this is human behavior. It is important to remember that BTA is an advocacy group. It is their job to push for a particular set of goals.

It appears that BTA is making good faith efforts to correct errors. I just hope that BTA can remember that, while exaggerations are par for the course in advocacy, outright falsehoods can do more damage to a cause than remaining silent. I fully support the BTA’s apparent goals and hope that they can find the right balance.

I’ll admit I’ve been known to kinda geek out on maps. It started when I was a kid and somehow ended up with a ton of National Geographic maps. National Geographic Magazine used to include full maps in some of their magazine editions (do they still?) and I had a large cardboard box full of them. From topo maps to maps of the moon to a map of concentrations of religions across the world, I was introduced to the idea that maps could convey a lot more information than just place names, roads and boarders. That’s why, despite some of the comments to the post on See Through Maps, I think this is one of the neatest maps of bike routes in San Francisco yet. 

Created by Mat Kladney, the map represents bike routes the way city transit maps show bus and train routes. Routes are color-coded lines, and intersections are represented the way “stations” are on BART diagrams. This map (or chart, or diagram, if you want to get into semantic arguments about what actually constitutes a map) quickly and easily answers a fundamental question that cyclists face in the city: what is the best route to get from this location to that location. In Mat’s own words:

The current San Francisco bicycle map is difficult to approach, especially when answering the simple question, “how to I get from here to there?”  This map has everything you might possibly want in a bicycle map in a hilly city: the grade and name of every San Francisco street, four different types of bike lane, even contour lines for every hill from Twin Peaks to the slight elevation change found in the Mission.  Unfortunately by trying to be everything, it loses much of its usability.  Tracking the best way to get across the city becomes more difficult when confronted with so much data.  This new simplified map helps cyclists to quickly and easily find the shortest route through town.

— http://seethroughmaps.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/map-kladney-mat/

I for one will keep a copy of this on my portable devices for reference when I need to figure out the best way to get from where I am to where I need to go.  Thanks Mat!

I was walking around the city the other day, headphones on, rocking out. I’d just crossed the street, and took a step to the left off of the curb, getting ready to turn left and immediately cross another street. I heard a squeal (which in retrospect was the sound of bike brakes on the rims) and felt a thud against my left shoulder. Before I knew what was happening, I saw a guy smack onto the pavement in front of me. I’d just blindly walked in front of a cyclist riding in the road next to the curb, knocking him to the ground.

The guy popped up – and I could immediately see the blood starting to ooze out of the scrapes across his left arm. He glared right in my face and said “Maybe if you knew how dangerous it is on the streets already you could pull your head out of your ass and watch where you’re going.”

My immediate reaction was “Me? What if *I* knew how dangerous it is on the streets? Do you know who I am???“

OK. So in actuality the story above is entirely fictitious. I’ve never actually walked out in front of a cyclist on the streets. However, early today I did almost do that. Or rather, I was preparing to turn left, looked and was surprised to realize how close to the street I was, and an actual, flesh and blood, non-imaginary cyclist that was riding in traffic. That’s when it dawned on me how amazingly easy it is to have a momentary lapse in attention and get yourself in that situation. I then imagined the scenario described above as I stood there waiting for the cross signal to turn.

It was something of a revelation.

You see, I can see me reacting exactly as my imagined cyclist above did. I could see me chewing the guy out for stepping in front of me and knocking me over. And I could see me doing that, all the while assuming that the guy was just a “stupid pedestrian that had no idea about bikes, or riding in traffic, or the dangers.” And that guy losing his attention for just a moment could be a pro cyclist, or the president of the League of American Dudes that Ride Bikes, or the president of Trek Bicycles, or whatever. All I would think in that moment of rage and frustration was that he knocked me over, therefore he was my enemy, and by extension the enemy of cyclists everywhere. (Oh c’mon. Before you go labeling me an egotistical prick, really really think how you would react in the same situation.)

The revelation for me was how often we, as cyclists, tend to look at ourselves as vulnerable – as victims on the road. But is this accurate? I’ve ridden in traffic for a while now and I’ve only made contact with a car in a way that was a surprise once. All of my accidents that resulted in broken bones or scraped flesh were a result of road conditions, hazards, or (yes) my momentary laps of attention while I was on the bike. I’ve drawn more blood working on my bikes than I have riding them.

A lot of the effort to push for safer cycling infrastructure has an unfortunate side effect – it makes cycling look dangerous to the population at large. But is it really? Well, according to data shared on helmets.org, in 2010 616 people were killed in cycling accidents. Obviously there is no denying the impact those unfortunate deaths had on the people that knew them. Each of those 616 cyclists were someone’s riding buddy, mother or father, son or daughter. But if you compare that number to the deaths of people walking on our sidewalks, or riding in cars on our highways, it is statistically almost nothing. According to the 2010 US Census, there were 308,745,538 people living in the United States at that time. That means less than one out of every 500 thousand people were killed in a cycling related accident.

Since I already likely pissed off half of my readers with my “stop talking about helmets” rants, I might as well piss off the other half with this statement:

I really really wish bicycle advocacy groups would stop using the danger of death and injury to cyclists as a tool in their arsenal to effect change.

There have been so many relatively fit, active and receptive folks that I’ve talked to about dropping the car and cycling to work that cite safety as their primary reason for not riding. They’re convinced that if they start cycling on a daily basis that eventually they will get run over by a car. That’s simply not true, and the numbers cited above speak to that. In addition, if places like those glorious northern european cycling utopias have taught us anything, it is that more cycling can actually (and counter-intuitively) result in less cycling related deaths instead of more.

Believe me – I’ve done my fair share of feeling like a victim while I ride on the road. However, the more I reflect and look on that objectively instead of emotionally, the more I realize that it simply isn’t the case. Sure, I’ve been told to get out of the road, to put on a helmet, to get the hell out of the way by motorists. But that is a social, human problem – not a safety problem.

I feel safer on my bike these days then I do when I drive my car. Yes – I even feel safer when I’m travelling along side or amongst all those SUVs that the common wisdom would tell me are trying to mow me down on a moment’s notice.

Knock off the fear mongering folks. If you truly want to get more people out riding bikes (and thus voting for things that support cycling) stop scaring the hell out of them and instead show them how safe it is – even with the crappy cycling infrastructure we have in most places in the US.

I was leaving work – late – the other night in what seemed a normal manner. It was dry and clear, but dark as I’d stayed at work solving a problem (funny how you can be most productive in an office environment when 80% of the rest of the company has already left.) I grabbed my bike off the rack, flicked on the lights (they are nice and bright) and roll out the door.

About halfway home from the office I’ve got this strange feeling something isn’t right. I’m riding on lit streets, but on a whim I put my hand in front of the Planet Bike Blaze 1/2w Headlight mounted on my handlebars. It barely illuminates my palm at 4 inches.  Damn. Dead batteries. While I’m at it I stop and check the tail light. Completely dead. I try to turn it on. Dim light then nothing. Damn. More dead batteries.

Not to worry – I have spares in my backpack.  Hmmm….. my backpack. That would be helpful if I actually had my backpack instead of my messenger bag. Which also means I don’t have a lock for my bike. I’m disinclined to leave my bike sitting outside a gas station store unlocked while I grab batteries, and since I’m about half way home anyhow I decided to just pedal on and get fresh batteries at home.

As I head out, knowing I don’t have any lights seems to created a heightened state of awareness. I look both ways at intersections – about 5 times. I find myself looking over my shoulder a lot more. My hearing seems more acute – I’m conscious of hearing cars approaching from side streets. But then I remember something that I said myself, in a different context, that makes me immediately feel like hypocrite:

If you find yourself riding differently when you are not wearing a helmet then when you are, then you are doing something wrong. If you are more careful, or imagine that you would be, when you are riding without a helmet then you are putting far too much stock in the idea that the helmet will protect you. You should ride with just as much care regardless of what you have strapped on your head. Not only are helmets not shown to offer any real protection statistically, that plastic hat isn’t going to provide any protection against the more common injuries in bike crashes – road rash, broken collar bones, wrists and ribs. Don’t assume your safety equipment will protect you – always operate as if you have no safety equipment. To do otherwise is folly.

At the time I was talking more about bicycle helmets. But here I was, relying on my safety equipment. My 1/2w headlight doesn’t really provide any significant illumination of the rode in front of me as I pedal along at 15-20 MPH. It is there more to make me more visible than to make the road more visible to me.

So why was I riding differently now that I was conscious I didn’t have my bike lights. Why was I paying more attention to the road than the night before when my lights and been (presumably) shining brightly?

Well, frankly, because I was doing the exact same thing I’d advised others not to in my quote above. I was presuming that my safety equipment would protect me in a way that allowed me to relax – lower my defenses slightly.

Shame on me. I’m glad my batteries died that night. I reminded me not to let my awareness dim like my lights did – ever…

There is a rather large and growing collection of humours, self-deprecating, but often true songs and music videos that folks have made regarding cycling.  Usually these poke fun at some of the more eccentric aspects and stereotypes of the cycling culture.  I thought it was about time someone put together a list of the best of them. Of course, this is just my opinion, and is therefore fact…

Number 7: Bike-Friendly City (funny song about bike safety in Toronto)

Obstensibly a bicycle saftey piece, but we all know that no one listens if we talk about bike safety seriously.  So lets try it with a little humor:

Number 6: SRSLY

Just try and make it past the Cliff Shot slurping scene in the beginning…

Number 5: Le Velo

The first entry from Robin Moore – the only guy to make my list not once, but three times.  This video probably would have ranked higher if he had chosen a better wine.

Number 4: Get Dirty

After poking fun at the euro crowd, Robin Moore goes after the MTB set.  Truth be told though, you may want to hold off on watching this one until you’ve watched the rest of the list.  There are references in this video to the number one video on our list.

Number 3: All You Haters ( Suck …censored… )

Something about making fun of anger is hysterically funny to me – and a heck of a lot better than actually being angry.  Warning – if you would be offended on a Juniur High School camups by the language, you should skip this video…

Number 2: Motherf<censored>ing Bike

Yes.  They swear.  A lot. But again, making fun of anger is just too enjoyable. Yes – this is the genesis of that famous “Tour de F*** You.”  Nearly every stereotype of urban cycling culture is in here.  In truth it was a very hard decision to decide the actual order of the top two.  Ultimately it came down to seniority alone.

Ooooh – and it is in HD!

Numero Uno: Performance

For me this is the first and still best bicycle music video.  The third entry from Robin Moore.  If you do nothing else in your cycling life, get this stuck in your head on your next ride.  Eminently quotable – ‘Cause its all about performance…

And speaking of quotable, one final thought:

I’m sure I’m not the only one that has imagined it – bicycle jousting.  The subject came up in an email chain at work (draw your own conclusions there) so I went poking around.  Sure enough, there were links and videos a-plenty:

Much to my surprise, it apparently appeared in a movie as well:

And as with anything remotely quirky in the cycling world, those crazy tall bike folks have taken over the whole scene.  Which just makes the entire jousting experience just silly, doesn’t it?

It is unfortunately difficult to ride a bicycle on public streets in most parts of the country without running into someone expounding on all the ways that bicycles hinder auto traffic.  While there is no denying that a car has occasionally been slowed by a cyclist, the more realistic truth is that cars do a much better job of slowing each other down than a cyclist cruising in a bike lane ever will.  In fact, that cyclist is actually helping by removing one car from that traffic snarl.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that on the whole California cyclists do have the governmental support – even if sometimes that doesn’t trickle down to the general population.

This was brought to the forefront of my thoughts with a tweet from The Path Less Pedaled:

whoa. a CalTrans page all about bike touring! http://1.usa.gov/l4f7x7

I was a little surprised myself when I followed the link to that page.  In fact it does have some good information.  The page is specific to District 1, which according to the supplied map is the area around along the coast north of Napa and Sonoma.  Honestly this has got to be one of the more beautiful parts of the state, and if there was to be anywhere that deserved this much cycle touring attention, this would seem to be a good candidate.

The guide features maps, as well as documents on bicycle related topics such as cycling related laws, safety tips, and a rather handy list of contacts in each of the 12 Caltrans districts for all things bicycle related.

If you are planning on attending the finish of Stage 2 of the Amgen Tour of California.  Sacramento can be tricky it park in and negotiate on a good weekend day.  Throw in all of the traffic for a major cycling event and you’re likely to find yourself walking miles even if you do drive downtown.  However, Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates (SABA) are helping to solve this problem for you.

As in previous years, SABA will be manning a bike valet service on the lawn of the capitol building.  You can ride your bike right to the finish line, and SABA volunteers will place your bike into a safe, fenced, staffed ‘bull pen.’  You’ll be given a claim ticket which you can use to claim your bike when you are ready to depart.  And besides, riding your bike to a bike race just seems to complete the experience – doesn’t it?