Posts by JackElder
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to John Armstrong,
Again, this seems to imply that velcroing a vest on before taking off is grossly impractical, complex, and time-consuming.
It's something else to carry everywhere. It's another layer of clothing on a baking hot day. If legally required, it becomes something else you HAVE to remember every time you get on the bike, or else you can't go anywhere (legally). It's of diminished use if you wear a backpack as well. It's a minor pain.
Of course, all of these criticisms apply to, say, carrying a lock - which takes longer to use and is bloody heavy to boot. But it's another niggling little thing that people might not want to bother with, and which most other countries don't seem to worry too much about.
Actually, that's something that hasn't come up in this conversation yet: are there any other countries/territories that currently require high-vis clothing for cyclists? Anyone know?
-
Hard News: When "common sense" isn't, in reply to BlairMacca,
I thought helmets were only required on public roads?
Er... I thought you were saying that you couldn't see why someone wouldn't wear one? I was just saying that under some circumstances, I think it's safe enough that it's not a big deal if people "free head" it.
-
I also like Hilleke's response to the coroner's report:
It is victim blaming in the worst sense – when the victim actually has done everything right and the driver and infrastructure are clearly to blame. It’s like blaming a child for being bitten by a rogue dog. You can force all children to be wrapped in bubble wrap (or kevlar?) every time they’re outside, but doesn’t it make more sense to tackle irresponsible dog owners?
From the Cycling in Wellington blog (disclaimer: I occasionally post there).
-
But all of these pale in comparision to your head cracking on the ground right?
I'm not going to rehash the arguments here, but for the rational arguments against helmet compulsion, http://helmetfreedom.org/ is a good place to start. Personally, I always ride with one (even in countries where this is not a legal requirement), but I can't really get too fussed about people riding bareheaded around "safe" routes such as the Wellington waterfront.
-
While it seems intuitively obvious that high-visibility clothing should make its wearer easier for vehicle operators, hunters, etc., to see and avoid, there are surprisingly few studies to quantify the effectiveness of high-visibility clothing for particular classes of users.
Wikipedia > High-visibility Clothing
This is part of the problem. It seems intuitively that high-vis should help, so there isn't actually much in the way of quantifiable study. One thing that page mentions is that movement draws the eye more than a static garment - so in terms of visibility, we might be better to concentrate on encouraging people to wear retro-reflective ankle bands or wrist bands.
-
The report’s an odd mix of solid effort and “surely, this must be the case”. The coroner specifically went out to the site of the crash and inspected the changes made to the intersection. He wasn’t impressed, and has good reasons for that – he specifically states that the solution “degenerates in terms of its quality and connectedness and is therefore unattractive for cyclists to use”. So here he went out and physically inspected the site, including investigating wear patterns on road markings (to indicate how much traffic is cutting across the side of the road). That’s not an inconsiderable effort, and this is reflected in the recommendations he makes here: sensible, measured, and basic in a realistic appraisal of human behaviour (painting road marking doesn’t magically prevent drives from drifting across them, a safer solution that drastically slows/inconveniences people will be ignored by many road users). Respect to the coroner for those sections.
Which is why the high-viz thing is a bit out of left field. He cites no evidence. The only people he talks to about it are basically noncomittal on its effectiveness or lack thereof. The only justification for his recommendation is that it’s a “no brainer”, that it “simply must be common sense”. This does not ring like the words of someone who has considered the evidence, consulted experts, and reached a studied conclusion: it is a prejudged principle that the coroner came into this investigation which, and which he is levering into the discourse.
Personally: I wear high-viz when I think it’s appropriate. This morning, I cycled to work wearing a gilet (the Ground Effect Vespa, buy NZ made!) in fluoro yellow. In winter, I wear a high-viz vest over my jersey – but that’s mainly for the retro-reflective stripes rather than for the fluoro yellow. But I’d be firmly against being compelled to wear it. Yes, I think that under some circumstances it’s a good idea; but I think that it’ll strongly put off a lot of people who would otherwise start looking at cycling. The evidence is that the best safety improvement for cyclists is to have a lot more cyclists around, so that drivers start actively looking out for you; requiring everyone to lug around a waistcoat at all times is going to seriously disconcert the person casually considering dropping $400 on a bike to ride to the shops with.
-
And two related points:
The stumbling block for getting cash off people online is to actually get them to make the payment, rather than just having a vague intention to "get around to it". A regular, small payment means you only have to do this once per person, rather than relying on a staccato series of shakedowns. Make it as easy as possible to sign up for a smallish subscription and I think you'll be surprised by the results.
Secondly: I am quietly happy to notice that I've been registered on PAS for several months longer than Megan. Suck on it, Wegan!
-
Hard News: Party on, dudes, in reply to tonyH,
Though a subscription or similar wouldn’t be right, let’s hope PA readers step up and follow Nick Spencer’s example of a contribution via AP.
The Bugle recently adopted a similar funding model. It's a popular podcast that started out as part of the Times Online - then got cut in the aftermath of the hacking scandals. The cast and staff took the name and went off-piste on their own. They've recently implemented a "voluntosubscription" model, where the podcast is still freely available but listeners can sign up to make either one-off or regular payments. I've signed up for regular contributions. This probably wouldn't work with a more irregular content stream, but people seem happier to set up regular payments to get regular content - particularly if it's from a strong brand that they trust (as PAS is). Is it working? Well, the Bugle is still managing to rent studio space in both London and NY and pay the producers, so presumably enough other people have kicked in.
So a useful precedent for people actually putting their hands in their pockets.
-
I liked Tyler Hamilton. He broke his collarbone on the first stage of the 2003 Tour de France, and kept riding the race - even winning on of the later stages. Of course, the next year it turned out that he'd been blood doping, but regardless of that, it takes a shitload of guts to ride that far, that hard, and in that much pain.
Anyway.
One thing that's been annoying me has been everyone talking about this as though it's a sure thing that Lance is about to be stripped of his victories. This is by no means sure. Yes, the US Anti-Doping Agency is conducting an investigation, but they don't run the Tour de France. The UCI (Union Cycliste Internationale) are the relevant governing body, and they seem quite annoyed about the USADA poncing about like they own the place. The UCI are many things, chief among which is Swiss: they can be very, very pedantic about rules, regulations and jurisdictions. So Lance may yet be able to pull the moral high ground about a "rogue prosecution" and hang onto his titles. At this point, it's all about plausible doubt.
-
This is an interesting one. I’ve been vaguely following the case for a while – I got into professional cycling by watching Lance in the 2003 Tour. It looks to me like he’s making a leap for the moral high ground – this way he can criticise the process itself rather than any unfortunate results. Certainly, it’s been sounding like a very large number of former team-mates have been helping the investigation with its enquiries. There were rumours at this year’s tour that various riders were only allowed to ride because they’d co-operated with the USADA investigation into Armstrong. So something’s been a long time coming here.
Do I think Lance doped? Yes, actually, There’s no hard evidence – as pointed out, he’s passed every test he’s ever taken – but there’s a lot of circumstantial evidence. And the late 90s was a big time for EPO – the Festina affair was in 1998, the year before Lance’s first victory – and that scandal involved a team actually pooling their riders’ money, buying dope in bulk, then administering it to the athletes under a doctor’s eye. The justification being that the athletes would do it anyway, and this way it was safer with the doctor monitoring the dosing. Lance’s control of US Postal was legendary, and entirely consistent with a rigid control of a doping program.
Anyway, as we all know, all Lance really had to do was grow his sideburns and start swearing at cameramen, and he'd have won no problems.