chicbicyclist
05-09-06, 02:35 PM
Hey, you're just a commuter, what do you know?
View Full Version : From a messenger website.....
Pages :
1
[2]
SirMike1983
05-09-06, 02:59 PM
I think these are just two straw men he set up in order to knock them down. It smacks of a narcissistic manifesto. (Or am I just being grumpy? :) )
Agreed- Politics and inner city transportation don't lend themselves to a magical solution in a single forum post. I can't wait to see next week's single-post proposal to analyze conflict in the Middle East.:rolleyes:
Agreed- Politics and inner city transportation don't lend themselves to a magical solution in a single forum post. I can't wait to see next week's single-post proposal to analyze conflict in the Middle East.:rolleyes:
sggoodri
05-09-06, 03:32 PM
I disagree with the article's contention that cycling according to vehicular traffic laws is a liberal act. I believe that it is a conservative act, whether it is done out of blind obedience of tradition and authority, or out of insight into the reduced probability of collisions and improved cooperation with others. Plenty of intelligent cyclists respect the principles behind the vehicular traffic laws for purely selfish reasons based on experience, because their operational characterstics as vehicle drivers are similar enough to the circumstances for which the laws were written.
Attempting to change the traffic laws for altruistic purposes could indeed be a liberal act. But it could also be a conservative one. A conservative might observe that mandatory bicycle registration or bell requirements are onerous, and seek to eliminate them. A liberal might observe that rear lamps are more effective than rear reflectors, and mandate use of rear lamps at night. Independent thinkers might see the tradeoffs of both proposals, and approve or disapprove of either.
Attempting to change the traffic laws for altruistic purposes could indeed be a liberal act. But it could also be a conservative one. A conservative might observe that mandatory bicycle registration or bell requirements are onerous, and seek to eliminate them. A liberal might observe that rear lamps are more effective than rear reflectors, and mandate use of rear lamps at night. Independent thinkers might see the tradeoffs of both proposals, and approve or disapprove of either.
chicbicyclist
05-09-06, 04:25 PM
Well, hes just trying to fit into the whole, bicycles are for liberals so he kinda moved a bit left on the political spectrum, thus the messengers are anarchists.
webist
05-09-06, 05:33 PM
I also left out conservatives. Where do you all fit into this? Are you drinkin' with or against us?
Riding my bike when I choose to for as long as I want while minding my own business. Sometimes I drive an SUV also.:)
Riding my bike when I choose to for as long as I want while minding my own business. Sometimes I drive an SUV also.:)
-=Łem in Pa=-
05-09-06, 06:17 PM
Next to cars I think roadies are the biggest plague we real riders must contend with today.
Roughstuff
05-09-06, 07:52 PM
Next to cars I think roadies are the biggest plague we real riders must contend with today.
I think the basic point of the original article is, perhaps there a times when we need to push the envelope a bit. He just isn't intelligent enough to say it succinctly, and had to lay a big ideological trip on everyone.
roughstuff
I think the basic point of the original article is, perhaps there a times when we need to push the envelope a bit. He just isn't intelligent enough to say it succinctly, and had to lay a big ideological trip on everyone.
roughstuff
SirMike1983
05-09-06, 09:18 PM
I think the basic point of the original article is, perhaps there a times when we need to push the envelope a bit. He just isn't intelligent enough to say it succinctly, and had to lay a big ideological trip on everyone.
roughstuff
Roughstuff- I think that's on point, but I'm not sure it's intelligence at issue so much as pure bombast and hot air. He seems to have some decent level of intelligence but stretches the analogy too broadly. I cycle plenty, sometimes commute by bike, and obey the rules whenever possible, and I don't consider myself to be a liberal. I just don't think the analogy the post used adds up. It seems to attempt to substitute substance for filler hot air.
roughstuff
Roughstuff- I think that's on point, but I'm not sure it's intelligence at issue so much as pure bombast and hot air. He seems to have some decent level of intelligence but stretches the analogy too broadly. I cycle plenty, sometimes commute by bike, and obey the rules whenever possible, and I don't consider myself to be a liberal. I just don't think the analogy the post used adds up. It seems to attempt to substitute substance for filler hot air.
SirMike1983
05-09-06, 09:25 PM
Next to cars I think roadies are the biggest plague we real riders must contend with today.
A bit off topic, but what's a roadie? That's one I've actually never heard before.
A bit off topic, but what's a roadie? That's one I've actually never heard before.
randya
05-09-06, 09:57 PM
...what's a roadie?
Cartopper; weekend warrior; spandexed club rider...
Cartopper; weekend warrior; spandexed club rider...
SirMike1983
05-09-06, 10:01 PM
Cartopper; weekend warrior; spandexed club rider...
Ahhh... Yeah spandex anything is the enemy in my book. As a Raleigh 3 speed rider I usually end up see the ass-end of anything spandex...:eek:
Ahhh... Yeah spandex anything is the enemy in my book. As a Raleigh 3 speed rider I usually end up see the ass-end of anything spandex...:eek:
Bekologist
05-09-06, 11:36 PM
there's a world of difference between messengers, faux-essengers, dawdling or hammer-time commuters, committed long distance road riders and 'road toads' in full kit and shoebonnets.
Traffic doesn't discriminate, however. Bikers are self-identified into cliques. It helps to have several types of bikes to mix up your self-identification.
Traffic doesn't discriminate, however. Bikers are self-identified into cliques. It helps to have several types of bikes to mix up your self-identification.
Mos6502
05-10-06, 12:09 AM
This article doesn't make any sense to me at all. Does anybody know what if anything the writer was trying to say?
badhat
05-10-06, 12:38 AM
man this is like magneto vs picard in xmen 2
Helmet Head
05-10-06, 12:50 AM
Wow. I missed out. I haven't looked at this thread until just now. I just read the whole thing, including all the posts. Interesting stuff. Most of my thoughts on BillDozer's essay quoted in the OP have already been noted by others. I'll just cite some that really stood out to me.
If you spent more time in cities you would realize that messengers operate in a manner that, while outside the written law, is generally courteous to fellow citizens, respects right-of-way, and is thus sustainable. Ignoring the traffic code, they adhere quite consistently to the underlying codes of conduct in the cities where they work.
If you know what you're doing, you can break the law in many instances safely, and, operating a bicycle, you're mostly only putting yourself at risk, not others. The main reason I oppose blatant law breaking is because it's bad PR for cycling in general, and me in particular.
Uhhh lots of words and not much said.
Basically the example sums it up: If one rides like a 2nd class road user, one will be treated as such. If one rides according to vehicular rules of road (pass on left), one will fare better. Unfortunately the writer of the articles presumes themself as 2nd class, otherwise they would not consider merging into traffic and passing on the left a d-head manuever.
but all that crap about lawbreaking, mess vs. com experience, etc is garbage. there are folks who remain idiots who spend hours doing the same thing over and over again. everyone can break a law if they want, sometimes it does buy one some time, but its not a sure thing. some drivers find they get faster by speeding and running reds, or going the wrong way here or there, big deal.
:beer:
You either did not read it, or read it with an agenda. It was probably the latter. Your post is "case in point" to the object of the OP. Even your vocabulary: 2nd class vs. ...what, 1st class? Garbage? Idiots?
Pot. Kettle. Black. Methinks it's you that did not read the essay very carefully, Brian. The vocabulary, 2nd class, is straight from the essay: "Drivers, as a rule, do NOT see you as traffic. And no matter what the law says, they will never see cyclists as the same as them. This is rude, pushy America, where cars rule and cyclists are second-class."
If you think others see you as being second-class, then you see yourself, at least in their eyes, as being second-class. That you missed this blatant flaw in his thinking is very revealing... You might want to read the essay again, particularly that last paragraph, Brian. A little slower this time, and drop your agenda.
My point is that this is not an article about what to do, but rather an article about what the problem is. The problem is similar to the problem we have on this board regarding the hardliners vs. the relativists, when it comes to cycling style. The problem is an impass. Each feels threatened by the other, and so we spend time pulling each other's hair, instead of addressing the underlying problems.
Like I said, read it without your agenda. The above summary is your agenda, by the way, and not what the essay is about.
But even the most hard core of us have experiences which pale in comparison to a messenger. A messenger might spend more than 40 hours a week on the streets, in traffic. He's figured out how to run a red safely, and it is obvious to him; intuitive. To us commuters, we think like the drivers: "how'd he do that?" and "how in the world can that be safe?" And, of course, a little side of "why can't I do that?" envy. While we commuters can show what ought to be done, the messengers show us what can be done. There is value in that.
Oh, please. Riding in traffic is not so complicated that it requires doing it 40 hours a day to master it. No competent cyclist looks at a messenger with envy, or wonders, "why can't I do that?". We choose not to blatantly violate the law, and we, well most of us, understand why. I, for one, want to be respected by drivers. I want to be treated like a legitimate driver of a vehicle, and I know I'm never going to get respect like that unless I act like a legitimate driver of a vehicle.
BillDozer, the author, believes that a messenger must often ride "outside of the law" because the law works against him. For example, he writes, approvingly, "The radical philosophy has little respect for the law. 'The law doesn't respect me, so why should I respect the law?' is a common mantra. It is the belief, well-founded many would say, that the rules of the game are made by and for the winners, and the only way to escape is to play a different game."
But like the messengers he defends, he clearly does not understand the rules of the road, their purpose, or how he can make them work for him. This is made clear when he writes about the cyclist who properly goes straight at an intersection as follows: "He/She instead slows down, cuts [cuts? why not merges?] into traffic to pass the offending automobile on the left. This cyclist, although in violation of the law, continues on his/her merry way."
What, pray tell, did this cyclist, using textbook proper destination positioning at intersections, do that is "in violation of the law"? And why does this "expert" write about it as a violation of the law. If they think legitimate and common sense natural maneuvers like this in traffic are against the law, no wonder they feel the law is against them and they have a legitimate right to operate "outside of it". The thinking expressed in this essay exudes ignorance, not expertise.
I agree that wide outside lanes are not a cyclists panacea. They are a stop-gap measure as are bike lanes.
While bike lanes are a stop-gap measure, an unpleasant but necessary step on the path to segregated bikeway nirvana, I disagree that wide lanes are stop-gap measure for anything. First, a substandard 9' narrow traffic lane is already a first class , or at least "business class", facility for bicycling. Converting it to a WOL (with added pavement, by removing onstreet parking, with restriping, or all of the above), whether or not a BL stripe is added, is mostly to provide a better passing facility for motorists. It's nothing but the cherry on top, if that.
In closing, I don't like half-arsed systems. But, if you are gonna have a half-arsed system, I would want the more flexible half-arsed system.
Bingo. I suspect this [sentiment] is behind most of the WOL advocate's arguments.
That sentiment is certainly not behind my argument for WOLs. I support WOLs because they make passing slow cyclists easier for motorists (motorists don't have to change lanes to pass), because it makes it easier for cyclists to pass slow or stopped motorists, because it allows for improved sight lines to/from cross traffic to the right (when using a far left position in the WOL), because it makes it easier for a cyclist to turn right into and proceed along a busy outside lane, and because it makes cycling less stressful for cyclists who are stressed about having to require motorists to change lanes to pass. Period. Nothing half-arsed about any of it.
People who obey the laws generally don't obey all of them to the letter as he implies. (Anyone here who makes a complete stop at a stop sign even when you can see down all directions way in advance and no one's coming, raise your hands. How about sitting all by yourself at a car-activated left-turn light until a car comes to trigger it for you?) In my book, the reason for obeying traffic laws is not out of respect for the law as an abstract entity, but out of respect for my own safety. It's just generally more safe to obey the law than not. It's practical, not ideological.
:beer:
I disagree with the article's contention that cycling according to vehicular traffic laws is a liberal act. I believe that it is a conservative act, whether it is done out of blind obedience of tradition and authority, or out of insight into the reduced probability of collisions and improved cooperation with others. Plenty of intelligent cyclists respect the principles behind the vehicular traffic laws for purely selfish reasons based on experience, because their operational characterstics as vehicle drivers are similar enough to the circumstances for which the laws were written.
Attempting to change the traffic laws for altruistic purposes could indeed be a liberal act. But it could also be a conservative one. A conservative might observe that mandatory bicycle registration or bell requirements are onerous, and seek to eliminate them. A liberal might observe that rear lamps are more effective than rear reflectors, and mandate use of rear lamps at night. Independent thinkers might see the tradeoffs of both proposals, and approve or disapprove of either.
:beer:
Overall, I would say that many of the posts in this thread showed more intelligence and insight than was expressed in the essay quoted in the OP.
If you spent more time in cities you would realize that messengers operate in a manner that, while outside the written law, is generally courteous to fellow citizens, respects right-of-way, and is thus sustainable. Ignoring the traffic code, they adhere quite consistently to the underlying codes of conduct in the cities where they work.
If you know what you're doing, you can break the law in many instances safely, and, operating a bicycle, you're mostly only putting yourself at risk, not others. The main reason I oppose blatant law breaking is because it's bad PR for cycling in general, and me in particular.
Uhhh lots of words and not much said.
Basically the example sums it up: If one rides like a 2nd class road user, one will be treated as such. If one rides according to vehicular rules of road (pass on left), one will fare better. Unfortunately the writer of the articles presumes themself as 2nd class, otherwise they would not consider merging into traffic and passing on the left a d-head manuever.
but all that crap about lawbreaking, mess vs. com experience, etc is garbage. there are folks who remain idiots who spend hours doing the same thing over and over again. everyone can break a law if they want, sometimes it does buy one some time, but its not a sure thing. some drivers find they get faster by speeding and running reds, or going the wrong way here or there, big deal.
:beer:
You either did not read it, or read it with an agenda. It was probably the latter. Your post is "case in point" to the object of the OP. Even your vocabulary: 2nd class vs. ...what, 1st class? Garbage? Idiots?
Pot. Kettle. Black. Methinks it's you that did not read the essay very carefully, Brian. The vocabulary, 2nd class, is straight from the essay: "Drivers, as a rule, do NOT see you as traffic. And no matter what the law says, they will never see cyclists as the same as them. This is rude, pushy America, where cars rule and cyclists are second-class."
If you think others see you as being second-class, then you see yourself, at least in their eyes, as being second-class. That you missed this blatant flaw in his thinking is very revealing... You might want to read the essay again, particularly that last paragraph, Brian. A little slower this time, and drop your agenda.
My point is that this is not an article about what to do, but rather an article about what the problem is. The problem is similar to the problem we have on this board regarding the hardliners vs. the relativists, when it comes to cycling style. The problem is an impass. Each feels threatened by the other, and so we spend time pulling each other's hair, instead of addressing the underlying problems.
Like I said, read it without your agenda. The above summary is your agenda, by the way, and not what the essay is about.
But even the most hard core of us have experiences which pale in comparison to a messenger. A messenger might spend more than 40 hours a week on the streets, in traffic. He's figured out how to run a red safely, and it is obvious to him; intuitive. To us commuters, we think like the drivers: "how'd he do that?" and "how in the world can that be safe?" And, of course, a little side of "why can't I do that?" envy. While we commuters can show what ought to be done, the messengers show us what can be done. There is value in that.
Oh, please. Riding in traffic is not so complicated that it requires doing it 40 hours a day to master it. No competent cyclist looks at a messenger with envy, or wonders, "why can't I do that?". We choose not to blatantly violate the law, and we, well most of us, understand why. I, for one, want to be respected by drivers. I want to be treated like a legitimate driver of a vehicle, and I know I'm never going to get respect like that unless I act like a legitimate driver of a vehicle.
BillDozer, the author, believes that a messenger must often ride "outside of the law" because the law works against him. For example, he writes, approvingly, "The radical philosophy has little respect for the law. 'The law doesn't respect me, so why should I respect the law?' is a common mantra. It is the belief, well-founded many would say, that the rules of the game are made by and for the winners, and the only way to escape is to play a different game."
But like the messengers he defends, he clearly does not understand the rules of the road, their purpose, or how he can make them work for him. This is made clear when he writes about the cyclist who properly goes straight at an intersection as follows: "He/She instead slows down, cuts [cuts? why not merges?] into traffic to pass the offending automobile on the left. This cyclist, although in violation of the law, continues on his/her merry way."
What, pray tell, did this cyclist, using textbook proper destination positioning at intersections, do that is "in violation of the law"? And why does this "expert" write about it as a violation of the law. If they think legitimate and common sense natural maneuvers like this in traffic are against the law, no wonder they feel the law is against them and they have a legitimate right to operate "outside of it". The thinking expressed in this essay exudes ignorance, not expertise.
I agree that wide outside lanes are not a cyclists panacea. They are a stop-gap measure as are bike lanes.
While bike lanes are a stop-gap measure, an unpleasant but necessary step on the path to segregated bikeway nirvana, I disagree that wide lanes are stop-gap measure for anything. First, a substandard 9' narrow traffic lane is already a first class , or at least "business class", facility for bicycling. Converting it to a WOL (with added pavement, by removing onstreet parking, with restriping, or all of the above), whether or not a BL stripe is added, is mostly to provide a better passing facility for motorists. It's nothing but the cherry on top, if that.
In closing, I don't like half-arsed systems. But, if you are gonna have a half-arsed system, I would want the more flexible half-arsed system.
Bingo. I suspect this [sentiment] is behind most of the WOL advocate's arguments.
That sentiment is certainly not behind my argument for WOLs. I support WOLs because they make passing slow cyclists easier for motorists (motorists don't have to change lanes to pass), because it makes it easier for cyclists to pass slow or stopped motorists, because it allows for improved sight lines to/from cross traffic to the right (when using a far left position in the WOL), because it makes it easier for a cyclist to turn right into and proceed along a busy outside lane, and because it makes cycling less stressful for cyclists who are stressed about having to require motorists to change lanes to pass. Period. Nothing half-arsed about any of it.
People who obey the laws generally don't obey all of them to the letter as he implies. (Anyone here who makes a complete stop at a stop sign even when you can see down all directions way in advance and no one's coming, raise your hands. How about sitting all by yourself at a car-activated left-turn light until a car comes to trigger it for you?) In my book, the reason for obeying traffic laws is not out of respect for the law as an abstract entity, but out of respect for my own safety. It's just generally more safe to obey the law than not. It's practical, not ideological.
:beer:
I disagree with the article's contention that cycling according to vehicular traffic laws is a liberal act. I believe that it is a conservative act, whether it is done out of blind obedience of tradition and authority, or out of insight into the reduced probability of collisions and improved cooperation with others. Plenty of intelligent cyclists respect the principles behind the vehicular traffic laws for purely selfish reasons based on experience, because their operational characterstics as vehicle drivers are similar enough to the circumstances for which the laws were written.
Attempting to change the traffic laws for altruistic purposes could indeed be a liberal act. But it could also be a conservative one. A conservative might observe that mandatory bicycle registration or bell requirements are onerous, and seek to eliminate them. A liberal might observe that rear lamps are more effective than rear reflectors, and mandate use of rear lamps at night. Independent thinkers might see the tradeoffs of both proposals, and approve or disapprove of either.
:beer:
Overall, I would say that many of the posts in this thread showed more intelligence and insight than was expressed in the essay quoted in the OP.
-=Łem in Pa=-
05-10-06, 03:19 AM
A bit off topic, but what's a roadie? That's one I've actually never heard before.
I was just joining in the festivities of generalizations....I was being facitious of course.
Well, sort of.....With spring here the part time boutique riders have come out of
hibernation and with it comes a new influx of arrogance and uncivil behaviour. Only in
these instances it is bicycle attacks car.
I was just joining in the festivities of generalizations....I was being facitious of course.
Well, sort of.....With spring here the part time boutique riders have come out of
hibernation and with it comes a new influx of arrogance and uncivil behaviour. Only in
these instances it is bicycle attacks car.
Roughstuff
05-10-06, 07:20 AM
Roughstuff- I think that's on point, but I'm not sure it's intelligence at issue so much as pure bombast and hot air. He seems to have some decent level of intelligence but stretches the analogy too broadly. I cycle plenty, sometimes commute by bike, and obey the rules whenever possible, and I don't consider myself to be a liberal. I just don't think the analogy the post used adds up. It seems to attempt to substitute substance for filler hot air.
Yeah good point. I really should have just stuck with the idea that he is/was too wordy.
roughstuff
Yeah good point. I really should have just stuck with the idea that he is/was too wordy.
roughstuff
I-Like-To-Bike
05-10-06, 08:39 AM
Riding in traffic is not so complicated that it requires doing it 40 hours a day to master it. No competent cyclist looks at a messenger with envy, or wonders, "why can't I do that?".
True and true. Nor does any cyclist need to read a dang book, books, or treatise from a Bicycling Expert or Zen Master to become a "competent" cyclist.
True and true. Nor does any cyclist need to read a dang book, books, or treatise from a Bicycling Expert or Zen Master to become a "competent" cyclist.
SirMike1983
05-10-06, 08:42 AM
I was just joining in the festivities of generalizations....I was being facitious of course.
Well, sort of.....With spring here the part time boutique riders have come out of
hibernation and with it comes a new influx of arrogance and uncivil behaviour. Only in
these instances it is bicycle attacks car.
I notice it some too. When the trails here get crowded (especially on the weekends) there seem to be so many angry cyclists who are militant. I'm not sure whether they're angry commuters or weekend cyclists who are come out when the sun is full. The pedestrians aren't as bad if they stay on their side of the trail, but some of the cyclists are just nuts. And of course when they get stuck behind the old 3 speed they seem to become lunatics. Of course the angrier they get the slower I go. :D
Well, sort of.....With spring here the part time boutique riders have come out of
hibernation and with it comes a new influx of arrogance and uncivil behaviour. Only in
these instances it is bicycle attacks car.
I notice it some too. When the trails here get crowded (especially on the weekends) there seem to be so many angry cyclists who are militant. I'm not sure whether they're angry commuters or weekend cyclists who are come out when the sun is full. The pedestrians aren't as bad if they stay on their side of the trail, but some of the cyclists are just nuts. And of course when they get stuck behind the old 3 speed they seem to become lunatics. Of course the angrier they get the slower I go. :D
SirMike1983
05-10-06, 08:47 AM
Yeah good point. I really should have just stuck with the idea that he is/was too wordy.
roughstuff
I will say that I agree totally with what you said awhile back (was it in this post? I can't remember now with all this mishmash about politics mixing in) about not all cyclists being urban road warriors. I grew up and cycled for many years in rural CT myself (Litchfield County to be exact). The drivers there are fewer but when they do happen on a bicycle they don't seem to know what to do. If you get a nice country road though it's a blast because the traffic is so sparse. I hate all the hills though...:fight:
roughstuff
I will say that I agree totally with what you said awhile back (was it in this post? I can't remember now with all this mishmash about politics mixing in) about not all cyclists being urban road warriors. I grew up and cycled for many years in rural CT myself (Litchfield County to be exact). The drivers there are fewer but when they do happen on a bicycle they don't seem to know what to do. If you get a nice country road though it's a blast because the traffic is so sparse. I hate all the hills though...:fight:
huhenio
05-10-06, 09:53 AM
If you get a nice country road though it's a blast because the traffic is so sparse. I hate all the hills though...:fight:
Get a lower low gear and the hills will love you.
Get a lower low gear and the hills will love you.
recursive
05-10-06, 10:12 AM
Next to cars I think roadies are the biggest plague we real riders must contend with today.
To chime in with all the others expressing confusion about this, I'm a roadie, and a real rider. Am I a threat to myself?
To chime in with all the others expressing confusion about this, I'm a roadie, and a real rider. Am I a threat to myself?
Helmet Head
05-10-06, 11:59 AM
Riding in traffic is not so complicated that it requires doing it 40 hours a day to master it. No competent cyclist looks at a messenger with envy, or wonders, "why can't I do that?".
True and true. Nor does any cyclist need to read a dang book, books, or treatise from a Bicycling Expert or Zen Master to become a "competent" cyclist.
Well, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
The fact that learning to ride comfortably and safely in traffic is not rocket science does not mean that anyone can just pick up a bike and do it without any experience or training or education.
Hundreds of cyclists die and thousands more are seriously injured every year in the U.S. alone due to their own incompetence. Gaining knowledge and skills through education and experience about how to avoid death and injury and how to ride comfortably in traffic is certainly helpful.
True and true. Nor does any cyclist need to read a dang book, books, or treatise from a Bicycling Expert or Zen Master to become a "competent" cyclist.
Well, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
The fact that learning to ride comfortably and safely in traffic is not rocket science does not mean that anyone can just pick up a bike and do it without any experience or training or education.
Hundreds of cyclists die and thousands more are seriously injured every year in the U.S. alone due to their own incompetence. Gaining knowledge and skills through education and experience about how to avoid death and injury and how to ride comfortably in traffic is certainly helpful.
SirMike1983
05-10-06, 12:19 PM
Get a lower low gear and the hills will love you.
Once in awhile I take out the 10 speed and that helps quite a bit. I just can't resist my 3 speeds though. :rolleyes: They're original equipment style restorations so I run the stock 3 speeds with those.
Once in awhile I take out the 10 speed and that helps quite a bit. I just can't resist my 3 speeds though. :rolleyes: They're original equipment style restorations so I run the stock 3 speeds with those.
sbhikes
05-10-06, 12:20 PM
Get a lower low gear and the hills will love you.
Get a trike and you can win a snail race up any hill, maybe even take a little break half way up. A little snooze in your lawn chair. :)
Get a trike and you can win a snail race up any hill, maybe even take a little break half way up. A little snooze in your lawn chair. :)
Roughstuff
05-10-06, 02:17 PM
I will say that I agree totally with what you said awhile back (was it in this post? I can't remember now with all this mishmash about politics mixing in) about not all cyclists being urban road warriors. I grew up and cycled for many years in rural CT myself (Litchfield County to be exact). The drivers there are fewer but when they do happen on a bicycle they don't seem to know what to do. If you get a nice country road though it's a blast because the traffic is so sparse. I hate all the hills though...:fight:
Ahh yes, Litchfield county. Sort of like Connecticut's answer to the berkshires. I am a hill rider, I enjoy it. Work my way up, but coast on the way down since I am a slow rider.
roughstuff
Ahh yes, Litchfield county. Sort of like Connecticut's answer to the berkshires. I am a hill rider, I enjoy it. Work my way up, but coast on the way down since I am a slow rider.
roughstuff
SirMike1983
05-10-06, 09:14 PM
Ahh yes, Litchfield county. Sort of like Connecticut's answer to the berkshires. I am a hill rider, I enjoy it. Work my way up, but coast on the way down since I am a slow rider.
roughstuff
And there's some beautiful country too if you get the right road (especially in the autumn). I try to stay off the state highways as much as possible though. There's no shoulder space and the cars fly through too fast in many sections. The side roads are much more pleasant often. I think the Berkshires would be a nice ride with the right bike though.
roughstuff
And there's some beautiful country too if you get the right road (especially in the autumn). I try to stay off the state highways as much as possible though. There's no shoulder space and the cars fly through too fast in many sections. The side roads are much more pleasant often. I think the Berkshires would be a nice ride with the right bike though.
buzzman
05-11-06, 11:27 AM
Harvard University had 113 bicycle messengers respond to a survey about work related injuries. Here are some of the figures:
Most working couriers have incurred an injury resulting in days away from work (70%) and in visits to a health-care professional or hospital (55%). Annual incidence rates were large at 47 injuries resulting in days away from work per 100-bike couriers. The national average is 3 lost-work injuries per 100 workers, with the highest rate at 15 lost-work injuries per 100 workers in the meat packing industry. Bone fractures accounted for the most days away from work, followed by dislocations, sprains and strains.
Collisions and avoiding collisions with motor vehicles, including being “doored,” and pedestrians accounted for the majority (66%) of events leading to injury. This suggests the close proximity of other vehicles and pedestrians of the downtown environment may play an important role in the events leading to injury.
Road and weather conditions and bike features, such as a broken chain accounted for 16% and 11%, respectively, of the events leading to injury. Cumulative trauma and assaults accounted for the remaining 7% of events.
While many messengers consider the occupation to contain moderate to high risk, only twenty-four percent of the messengers wear a helmet on a regular basis and 32% have health insurance.
Having been a bike messenger in Boston way back in 80's I can attest to it's challenges but part of me bristles at some of the "philosophy" expressed in the article posted by the op.
An injury rate 3 times higher than the meatpacking industry?!- if bike messengers were carpenters they'd be chopping their hands and fingers off faster than they could remodel your kitchen. Claims of expertise in handling the challenges of urban cycling are not supported by the rate at which they collide with car doors, pedestrians and falls due to basic maintenance problems like broken chains. It's like the keystone cops deliver the mail on bicycles.
And while the fact that only 32% have health insurance is more an indictment of a socio-political flaw in our system it's ironic that the tab for all these hospitalizations are picked up by liberal, buy into the system workers who would prefer to "watch their backs" for them rather than leave their broken bodies by the side of the road.
It reads more as adolescent bravado on wheels creating an illusion of invulnerability when in fact these self proclaimed bike emperors have no clothes never mind some cloak of invisibility and impenetrability.
Most working couriers have incurred an injury resulting in days away from work (70%) and in visits to a health-care professional or hospital (55%). Annual incidence rates were large at 47 injuries resulting in days away from work per 100-bike couriers. The national average is 3 lost-work injuries per 100 workers, with the highest rate at 15 lost-work injuries per 100 workers in the meat packing industry. Bone fractures accounted for the most days away from work, followed by dislocations, sprains and strains.
Collisions and avoiding collisions with motor vehicles, including being “doored,” and pedestrians accounted for the majority (66%) of events leading to injury. This suggests the close proximity of other vehicles and pedestrians of the downtown environment may play an important role in the events leading to injury.
Road and weather conditions and bike features, such as a broken chain accounted for 16% and 11%, respectively, of the events leading to injury. Cumulative trauma and assaults accounted for the remaining 7% of events.
While many messengers consider the occupation to contain moderate to high risk, only twenty-four percent of the messengers wear a helmet on a regular basis and 32% have health insurance.
Having been a bike messenger in Boston way back in 80's I can attest to it's challenges but part of me bristles at some of the "philosophy" expressed in the article posted by the op.
An injury rate 3 times higher than the meatpacking industry?!- if bike messengers were carpenters they'd be chopping their hands and fingers off faster than they could remodel your kitchen. Claims of expertise in handling the challenges of urban cycling are not supported by the rate at which they collide with car doors, pedestrians and falls due to basic maintenance problems like broken chains. It's like the keystone cops deliver the mail on bicycles.
And while the fact that only 32% have health insurance is more an indictment of a socio-political flaw in our system it's ironic that the tab for all these hospitalizations are picked up by liberal, buy into the system workers who would prefer to "watch their backs" for them rather than leave their broken bodies by the side of the road.
It reads more as adolescent bravado on wheels creating an illusion of invulnerability when in fact these self proclaimed bike emperors have no clothes never mind some cloak of invisibility and impenetrability.
galen_52657
05-11-06, 11:59 AM
If you ride like an idiot 8 hours a day, you are bound to bounce off a few cars/peds/curbs/water fountains
comradehoser
05-11-06, 12:07 PM
sorry to break into this idyll of rural hill-riding, heinously long, self-congratulatory and tedious requotes, and general reactionary poo-pooing,
the original point of the article is that messengers' cycling style and selective regard of "the law" is based on a pragmatic approach to cycling in the *urban environment* where efficiency is most desired and experience dictates the safest/quickest movement.
I would also add that in urban environments with messengers, ******* riding can create a more bike-sensitive automobile population.
commuters in an urban setting tend to cycle from the point of principle ("the law") and expect "equal rights" as other vehicles despite what other vehicle operators do in practise.
The author sees pragmatic urban cycling as a positive good, and cycling from principle as ungainly at best.
He DOES NOT have anything to say regarding rural cycling, accident rates, the free speech rights of commuters, etc. BTW let me point out that the high rate of accidents mentioned in the Harvard study is no doubt due to the fact that these are people who spend 40 hours a week in traffic. Judging their "expertise" riding in traffic would require some sort of comparison group. It also doesn't say if these are noob messengers, what sort of riding style they employ, what kind of rig, etc. Also, the snide comment regarding falls due to broken chains is kind of ignorant--it's not a problem on a freewheel bike, but broken chains are a major problem for fixie riders, esp. those riding brakeless.
comrade "yes I am a commuter" hoser
the original point of the article is that messengers' cycling style and selective regard of "the law" is based on a pragmatic approach to cycling in the *urban environment* where efficiency is most desired and experience dictates the safest/quickest movement.
I would also add that in urban environments with messengers, ******* riding can create a more bike-sensitive automobile population.
commuters in an urban setting tend to cycle from the point of principle ("the law") and expect "equal rights" as other vehicles despite what other vehicle operators do in practise.
The author sees pragmatic urban cycling as a positive good, and cycling from principle as ungainly at best.
He DOES NOT have anything to say regarding rural cycling, accident rates, the free speech rights of commuters, etc. BTW let me point out that the high rate of accidents mentioned in the Harvard study is no doubt due to the fact that these are people who spend 40 hours a week in traffic. Judging their "expertise" riding in traffic would require some sort of comparison group. It also doesn't say if these are noob messengers, what sort of riding style they employ, what kind of rig, etc. Also, the snide comment regarding falls due to broken chains is kind of ignorant--it's not a problem on a freewheel bike, but broken chains are a major problem for fixie riders, esp. those riding brakeless.
comrade "yes I am a commuter" hoser
SirMike1983
05-11-06, 02:07 PM
If you ride like an idiot 8 hours a day, you are bound to bounce off a few cars/peds/curbs/water fountains
Now THAT is the pragmatic answer, isn't it?:D
Now THAT is the pragmatic answer, isn't it?:D
badhat
05-11-06, 03:34 PM
well i'm glad we had this chat
buzzman
05-11-06, 07:54 PM
the original point of the article is that messengers' cycling style and selective regard of "the law" is based on a pragmatic approach to cycling in the *urban environment* where efficiency is most desired and experience dictates the safest/quickest movement.
there is nothing efficient, safe, quick nor in my opinion pragmatic if the accident and absentee rate due to injury on the job is as high as demonstrated in the Harvard Study.
BTW let me point out that the high rate of accidents mentioned in the Harvard study is no doubt due to the fact that these are people who spend 40 hours a week in traffic. Judging their "expertise" riding in traffic would require some sort of comparison group. It also doesn't say if these are noob messengers, what sort of riding style they employ, what kind of rig, etc.
One would conclude that bicycling on the street in an urban environment is far more dangerous than most bicycling advocates would have us believe then. If cab drivers, Fed Ex and UPS drivers had an accident and personal injury rate that high there would be some effort to determine the cause and lessen or eliminate the problems.
Having been a messenger I can assure you that although messengers put in 8 hour days they are not on the bike in traffic for that entire time. A large percentage of the time is spent in elevators, locating offices, picking up, dropping off and even waiting for the packages, waiting to sign into some buildings, locking the bike. Since many commuters like me spend roughly 1.5 hours per day commuting plus if they use their bike as their primary means of transportation for errand running and transportation other than commuting to work that means riders like me might spend as much as 3 hours a day riding in an urban environment. Even if bike messengers were on the bike twice that amount then we could conclude that commuters like me would have roughly half the rate of injury and that 23 of every 100 bike commuters would be missing a day of work due to injuries incurred bicycling and that is simply not the case.
Regarding the Harvard Study so far as I know it was pretty much a cross section of the bicycle messenger community. Messengers have a high turnover rate (I wonder why, huh?) and yes, a large percentage of them are inexperienced riders who like the romantic appeal of the job and stay with it for a relatively short period of time. The old-timers, who've stayed with it for a while, have their share of injury but do, indeed, get better at the job.
Also, the snide comment regarding falls due to broken chains is kind of ignorant--it's not a problem on a freewheel bike, but broken chains are a major problem for fixie riders, esp. those riding brakeless.
having ridden a fixed gear and for a time as a messenger I added a brake because I knew that I didn't want to overstress the chain with all that stopping and starting in traffic- and when that chain breaks there go your brakes. There are two reasons to ride a fixed gear bike in city traffic without brakes- 1) image 2)ignorance.
comrade "yes I am a commuter" hoser
And where and when were you a bike messenger?
there is nothing efficient, safe, quick nor in my opinion pragmatic if the accident and absentee rate due to injury on the job is as high as demonstrated in the Harvard Study.
BTW let me point out that the high rate of accidents mentioned in the Harvard study is no doubt due to the fact that these are people who spend 40 hours a week in traffic. Judging their "expertise" riding in traffic would require some sort of comparison group. It also doesn't say if these are noob messengers, what sort of riding style they employ, what kind of rig, etc.
One would conclude that bicycling on the street in an urban environment is far more dangerous than most bicycling advocates would have us believe then. If cab drivers, Fed Ex and UPS drivers had an accident and personal injury rate that high there would be some effort to determine the cause and lessen or eliminate the problems.
Having been a messenger I can assure you that although messengers put in 8 hour days they are not on the bike in traffic for that entire time. A large percentage of the time is spent in elevators, locating offices, picking up, dropping off and even waiting for the packages, waiting to sign into some buildings, locking the bike. Since many commuters like me spend roughly 1.5 hours per day commuting plus if they use their bike as their primary means of transportation for errand running and transportation other than commuting to work that means riders like me might spend as much as 3 hours a day riding in an urban environment. Even if bike messengers were on the bike twice that amount then we could conclude that commuters like me would have roughly half the rate of injury and that 23 of every 100 bike commuters would be missing a day of work due to injuries incurred bicycling and that is simply not the case.
Regarding the Harvard Study so far as I know it was pretty much a cross section of the bicycle messenger community. Messengers have a high turnover rate (I wonder why, huh?) and yes, a large percentage of them are inexperienced riders who like the romantic appeal of the job and stay with it for a relatively short period of time. The old-timers, who've stayed with it for a while, have their share of injury but do, indeed, get better at the job.
Also, the snide comment regarding falls due to broken chains is kind of ignorant--it's not a problem on a freewheel bike, but broken chains are a major problem for fixie riders, esp. those riding brakeless.
having ridden a fixed gear and for a time as a messenger I added a brake because I knew that I didn't want to overstress the chain with all that stopping and starting in traffic- and when that chain breaks there go your brakes. There are two reasons to ride a fixed gear bike in city traffic without brakes- 1) image 2)ignorance.
comrade "yes I am a commuter" hoser
And where and when were you a bike messenger?
RobertHurst
05-12-06, 08:08 AM
there is nothing efficient, safe, quick nor in my opinion pragmatic if the accident and absentee rate due to injury on the job is as high as demonstrated in the Harvard Study.
It's not a study. It's a survey, and a very small one, from which we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Over the years I have known hundreds of bike messengers and have been very well acquainted with the accident and work histories of many dozens of them. With this personal knowledge I can say with some confidence that veteran bike messengers have the lowest accident rate (accident per mile or per hour) of any class of cyclist. The world of bicycle accident surveys is spotty at best, but perusing the few surveys that are available we find that the lowest accident rate reported by any groups of cyclists was reported by LAB members in 1996, in a survey by William Moritz ("Adult Bicyclists in the United States"). These respondents claimed an average of 14 years experience on the bike at about 3000 miles per year, and reported suffering "serious" injury-causing bike-wrecking accidents about once per 30,000 miles, and minor accidents far more often than that. This was a real survey with almost 2000 valid responses. www.bicyclinglife.com/library/Moritz2.htm.
Now, that rate might seem acceptably small to most of you, but to a veteran bike messenger like myself, it is completely unworkable. At that rate, I would have already suffered about 8 serious accidents and over 100 minor accidents. But, luckily for me and my veteran messenger brethren/sistren, who are on the bike generally about twice as much as the most dedicated commuters, we are able to far surpass the awareness level and traffic skill of the average LAB member with 14 years experience, and can thus bring our accident rates way down--usually to about half or one third that seen in the Moritz survey.
The thought that messengers might be the safest riders on the road is highly unpalatable to some who are heavily invested in the philosophy that safe riding begins with obeying the traffic laws. It does not. Safe riding depends on the rider's awareness. Period. One can obey all the laws and still be riding unsafely. This is a critical lesson that can be learned from the messengers, if anyone would care to open their minds about it.
Notice I have been referring to veteran messengers, not rookies. The messengers as a whole probably have some pretty sorry accident rates, due to the indiscretions of the rookie population, many of whom have very little experience even riding in traffic, and are kind of like the guys on Star Trek with the red shirts.
Robert
It's not a study. It's a survey, and a very small one, from which we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Over the years I have known hundreds of bike messengers and have been very well acquainted with the accident and work histories of many dozens of them. With this personal knowledge I can say with some confidence that veteran bike messengers have the lowest accident rate (accident per mile or per hour) of any class of cyclist. The world of bicycle accident surveys is spotty at best, but perusing the few surveys that are available we find that the lowest accident rate reported by any groups of cyclists was reported by LAB members in 1996, in a survey by William Moritz ("Adult Bicyclists in the United States"). These respondents claimed an average of 14 years experience on the bike at about 3000 miles per year, and reported suffering "serious" injury-causing bike-wrecking accidents about once per 30,000 miles, and minor accidents far more often than that. This was a real survey with almost 2000 valid responses. www.bicyclinglife.com/library/Moritz2.htm.
Now, that rate might seem acceptably small to most of you, but to a veteran bike messenger like myself, it is completely unworkable. At that rate, I would have already suffered about 8 serious accidents and over 100 minor accidents. But, luckily for me and my veteran messenger brethren/sistren, who are on the bike generally about twice as much as the most dedicated commuters, we are able to far surpass the awareness level and traffic skill of the average LAB member with 14 years experience, and can thus bring our accident rates way down--usually to about half or one third that seen in the Moritz survey.
The thought that messengers might be the safest riders on the road is highly unpalatable to some who are heavily invested in the philosophy that safe riding begins with obeying the traffic laws. It does not. Safe riding depends on the rider's awareness. Period. One can obey all the laws and still be riding unsafely. This is a critical lesson that can be learned from the messengers, if anyone would care to open their minds about it.
Notice I have been referring to veteran messengers, not rookies. The messengers as a whole probably have some pretty sorry accident rates, due to the indiscretions of the rookie population, many of whom have very little experience even riding in traffic, and are kind of like the guys on Star Trek with the red shirts.
Robert
chipcom
05-12-06, 09:11 AM
The radical philosophy has little respect for the law. "The law doesn't respect me, so why should I respect the law?" is a common mantra. It is the belief, well-founded many would say, that the rules of the game are made by and for the winners, and the only way to escape is to play a different game.
How about cagers adopting a 'radical philosophy' towards driving and cyclists...like just running us off the roads or gleefully dooring us as we pass?
Respect of the law and other users of the roadway is how 'winners' behave - it's the losers who make up excuses not to do so.
How about cagers adopting a 'radical philosophy' towards driving and cyclists...like just running us off the roads or gleefully dooring us as we pass?
Respect of the law and other users of the roadway is how 'winners' behave - it's the losers who make up excuses not to do so.
buzzman
05-12-06, 10:28 AM
Robert,
There is little in your post I can say I whole heartedly disagree with and many things with which I am in complete agreement.
My concern about the "philosophy" expressed in the article posted by the OP is that it fosters some erroneous misconceptions that glorify aspects of bike messenging that attracts waves of rookies fueled by a mythology of invulnerability that may, in fact, be responsible for a relatively high accident rate. And also makes unnecessary, unwarranted and inaccurate generalizations about cyclists other than messengers.
Rookie messengers do things like get a fixed gear bike (often without brakes) and start riding it in heavy traffic with little or no experience. For example, a kid just brought me an old Gitane he'd pulled from the trash he'd like to convert to a fixie and when I pointed out that he may have trouble getting new cups, bearings and axles because the bottom bracket might be French threaded he looked at me like I'd just spoken an unknown foreign language. They often have little or no basic mechanical skills. And what they lack in mechanical knowledge is only outpaced by their lack of riding skill. And in general they are learning by trial and error and those errors can have serious physical consequences.
And let me fall prey for a moment to gross generalizations but: To me many of these riders are no different than the lycra clad wannabes on $3500 bikes who weave all over the road once a week and claim to be competent cyclists. Their costume is different- skull cap, torn jeans and a mini-u-lock in the back pocket on an old steel framed fix gear but same kind of rider.
And we are in complete agreement regarding the following:
Safe riding depends on the rider's awareness. Period. One can obey all the laws and still be riding unsafely.
As I mention in my previous post messengers have a high turnover rate and the percentage of people working as messengers, unfortunately, include a high percentage of rookies- who have not learned the lesson of rider awareness. They model their riding style on the behavior of their more experienced counterparts who split lanes, run stop lights, jump curbs but the rookies haven't learned how to keep their head up, how to use all their senses to anticipate dangers less experienced cyclists would never expect.
It's not a study. It's a survey, and a very small one, from which we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
You're right. Good point. a study would have cross checked the information by including hospital records, police accident reports to support any inferences drawn from the survey. But a survey of 113 bicycle messengers in the city of Boston is a pretty comprehensive survey. I'm not sure of the total number of messengers in the city but I would guess it to be roughly 20%-40% of all full time messengers in the city.
I am familiar with the Moritz survey.
This was a real survey with almost 2000 valid responses.
The Harvard Survey was also a "real survey" and while Moritz worked in conjunction with LAB to do his survey the Harvard survey was done in conjunction with the International Federation of Bicycle Messenger Associations. And 2000 valid responses from LAB members may not be as high a percentage of overall riders as the 113 valid responses represent of total Boston bicycle messengers.
Please note that in my post I say "if" the accident and absentee rate due to injury on the job is as high as demonstrated in the Harvard Study."- "if"- I'm not jumping to conclusions I'm just saying the results of the survey are worth examination for those of us who care about the safety of all cyclists and messengers in particular.
Over the years I have known hundreds of bike messengers and have been very well acquainted with the accident and work histories of many dozens of them. With this personal knowledge I can say with some confidence that veteran bike messengers have the lowest accident rate (accident per mile or per hour) of any class of cyclist.
Certainly worth a study to see if your observations are accurate and I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions you may very well be right. Though I might be inclined to say that for mileage on the road and hours on the bike veteran long distance bicycle tourists probably have the lowest accident rate of any class of cyclist.
As I mentioned in my post:
The old-timers, who've stayed with it for a while, have their share of injury but do, indeed, get better at the job.
Notice I have been referring to veteran messengers, not rookies. The messengers as a whole probably have some pretty sorry accident rates, due to the indiscretions of the rookie population, many of whom have very little experience even riding in traffic, and are kind of like the guys on Star Trek with the red shirts.
But, like it or not, when looking at bike messengers as a group it must include the high percentage of rookies and wannabes not just the veterans with a lower accident rate.
Now, that rate might seem acceptably small to most of you, but to a veteran bike messenger like myself, it is completely unworkable. At that rate, I would have already suffered about 8 serious accidents and over 100 minor accidents. But, luckily for me and my veteran messenger brethren/sistren, who are on the bike generally about twice as much as the most dedicated commuters, we are able to far surpass the awareness level and traffic skill of the average LAB member with 14 years experience, and can thus bring our accident rates way down--usually to about half or one third that seen in the Moritz survey.
If I applied the Moritz results to my own years and miles of riding as a commuter, tourist, racer, mountain biker, messenger and guy riding to the grocery store I, too, would have been in at least 8 serious accidents by now and have broken every bone in my body. It's too bad we have to include in any of these surveys the people who are either unlucky, unskilled or a combination of both with dedicated accident free commuters and riders who ride carefully and with skill and have very few accidents and make all of us look like bozos on bikes statistically.
And thus my problem with the article posted by the OP. How do veteran messengers feel when they are categorized as a group and held accountable for the lowest common denominator? I'm one of those riders who rides in ripped jeans on a beater bike one day, a mountain bike in the woods the next, tour with panniers another day and go for a lycra clad time trial the next so I have a tough time with these classifications. I don't like them as a social phenomenon in life in general and find them repugnant in the small world of cycling where some loose kind of unity would benefit us all.
One can obey all the laws and still be riding unsafely. This is a critical lesson that can be learned from the messengers, if anyone would care to open their minds about it.
Absolutely totally correct. All cyclists have a tremendous amount to learn and owe a debt of gratitude to the courage and conviction of dedicated, veteran bicycle messengers. Your book is a terrific example. It would be great if there were some mutual respect and open minds on the part of some messengers, and here I refer to the article posted by the OP, for potential lessons to be learned from all cyclists.
There is little in your post I can say I whole heartedly disagree with and many things with which I am in complete agreement.
My concern about the "philosophy" expressed in the article posted by the OP is that it fosters some erroneous misconceptions that glorify aspects of bike messenging that attracts waves of rookies fueled by a mythology of invulnerability that may, in fact, be responsible for a relatively high accident rate. And also makes unnecessary, unwarranted and inaccurate generalizations about cyclists other than messengers.
Rookie messengers do things like get a fixed gear bike (often without brakes) and start riding it in heavy traffic with little or no experience. For example, a kid just brought me an old Gitane he'd pulled from the trash he'd like to convert to a fixie and when I pointed out that he may have trouble getting new cups, bearings and axles because the bottom bracket might be French threaded he looked at me like I'd just spoken an unknown foreign language. They often have little or no basic mechanical skills. And what they lack in mechanical knowledge is only outpaced by their lack of riding skill. And in general they are learning by trial and error and those errors can have serious physical consequences.
And let me fall prey for a moment to gross generalizations but: To me many of these riders are no different than the lycra clad wannabes on $3500 bikes who weave all over the road once a week and claim to be competent cyclists. Their costume is different- skull cap, torn jeans and a mini-u-lock in the back pocket on an old steel framed fix gear but same kind of rider.
And we are in complete agreement regarding the following:
Safe riding depends on the rider's awareness. Period. One can obey all the laws and still be riding unsafely.
As I mention in my previous post messengers have a high turnover rate and the percentage of people working as messengers, unfortunately, include a high percentage of rookies- who have not learned the lesson of rider awareness. They model their riding style on the behavior of their more experienced counterparts who split lanes, run stop lights, jump curbs but the rookies haven't learned how to keep their head up, how to use all their senses to anticipate dangers less experienced cyclists would never expect.
It's not a study. It's a survey, and a very small one, from which we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
You're right. Good point. a study would have cross checked the information by including hospital records, police accident reports to support any inferences drawn from the survey. But a survey of 113 bicycle messengers in the city of Boston is a pretty comprehensive survey. I'm not sure of the total number of messengers in the city but I would guess it to be roughly 20%-40% of all full time messengers in the city.
I am familiar with the Moritz survey.
This was a real survey with almost 2000 valid responses.
The Harvard Survey was also a "real survey" and while Moritz worked in conjunction with LAB to do his survey the Harvard survey was done in conjunction with the International Federation of Bicycle Messenger Associations. And 2000 valid responses from LAB members may not be as high a percentage of overall riders as the 113 valid responses represent of total Boston bicycle messengers.
Please note that in my post I say "if" the accident and absentee rate due to injury on the job is as high as demonstrated in the Harvard Study."- "if"- I'm not jumping to conclusions I'm just saying the results of the survey are worth examination for those of us who care about the safety of all cyclists and messengers in particular.
Over the years I have known hundreds of bike messengers and have been very well acquainted with the accident and work histories of many dozens of them. With this personal knowledge I can say with some confidence that veteran bike messengers have the lowest accident rate (accident per mile or per hour) of any class of cyclist.
Certainly worth a study to see if your observations are accurate and I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions you may very well be right. Though I might be inclined to say that for mileage on the road and hours on the bike veteran long distance bicycle tourists probably have the lowest accident rate of any class of cyclist.
As I mentioned in my post:
The old-timers, who've stayed with it for a while, have their share of injury but do, indeed, get better at the job.
Notice I have been referring to veteran messengers, not rookies. The messengers as a whole probably have some pretty sorry accident rates, due to the indiscretions of the rookie population, many of whom have very little experience even riding in traffic, and are kind of like the guys on Star Trek with the red shirts.
But, like it or not, when looking at bike messengers as a group it must include the high percentage of rookies and wannabes not just the veterans with a lower accident rate.
Now, that rate might seem acceptably small to most of you, but to a veteran bike messenger like myself, it is completely unworkable. At that rate, I would have already suffered about 8 serious accidents and over 100 minor accidents. But, luckily for me and my veteran messenger brethren/sistren, who are on the bike generally about twice as much as the most dedicated commuters, we are able to far surpass the awareness level and traffic skill of the average LAB member with 14 years experience, and can thus bring our accident rates way down--usually to about half or one third that seen in the Moritz survey.
If I applied the Moritz results to my own years and miles of riding as a commuter, tourist, racer, mountain biker, messenger and guy riding to the grocery store I, too, would have been in at least 8 serious accidents by now and have broken every bone in my body. It's too bad we have to include in any of these surveys the people who are either unlucky, unskilled or a combination of both with dedicated accident free commuters and riders who ride carefully and with skill and have very few accidents and make all of us look like bozos on bikes statistically.
And thus my problem with the article posted by the OP. How do veteran messengers feel when they are categorized as a group and held accountable for the lowest common denominator? I'm one of those riders who rides in ripped jeans on a beater bike one day, a mountain bike in the woods the next, tour with panniers another day and go for a lycra clad time trial the next so I have a tough time with these classifications. I don't like them as a social phenomenon in life in general and find them repugnant in the small world of cycling where some loose kind of unity would benefit us all.
One can obey all the laws and still be riding unsafely. This is a critical lesson that can be learned from the messengers, if anyone would care to open their minds about it.
Absolutely totally correct. All cyclists have a tremendous amount to learn and owe a debt of gratitude to the courage and conviction of dedicated, veteran bicycle messengers. Your book is a terrific example. It would be great if there were some mutual respect and open minds on the part of some messengers, and here I refer to the article posted by the OP, for potential lessons to be learned from all cyclists.
SirMike1983
05-12-06, 10:32 AM
How about cagers adopting a 'radical philosophy' towards driving and cyclists...like just running us off the roads or gleefully dooring us as we pass?
Respect of the law and other users of the roadway is how 'winners' behave - it's the losers who make up excuses not to do so.
Amen to this. If everyone on the road becomes a "radical" we'll have Mad Max. The rules are there to make movements regular and predictable so people don't get run over left and right.
Respect of the law and other users of the roadway is how 'winners' behave - it's the losers who make up excuses not to do so.
Amen to this. If everyone on the road becomes a "radical" we'll have Mad Max. The rules are there to make movements regular and predictable so people don't get run over left and right.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.