Sunday, 28 March 2010

The Theory of Big (or, How to claim your space on the road)

The views expressed below are those of the writers themselves, and do not reflect the opinions or position of Coffs Harbour BUG or Bicycle NSW in any way.

When I restarted cycling at the age of 50+, I searched the Net looking for safety tips for cyclists. That's when I first saw the article reproduced below. Every now and then I come back to it. I love the author's style and sense of humour. His ideas really give a cyclist something to think about. I have taken the liberty of copying the article to our Bug site as smaller sites have a habit of disappearing overnight. The article is written by a British cyclist. I hope you enjoy the article as much as I do. From Carrie Trike.

My Aussie experience of the Theory of Big
by Carrie Trike (c) 2010

In a previous life, I developed my own Theory of Big. At the time, I was working at Auburn (centre of Sydney, Australia) and drove daily in peak hour traffic. The route included Victoria Rd, Silverwater Rd and Parramatta Rd. Yee ha, Grandma! Mr. Toad would have loved it. Poop! Poop!

The icing on the cake were the semi-trailers that lined up to collect their loads after the O/N (overnight) run from Brissy (Brisbane) or Melbourne. The light industrial area with all its accompanying trucks was a piece of cake in comparison! The drive took 45 minutes. There were 17 sets of traffic lights in 13 km. It would have been good training for the Bathurst 500 except the cars went in all directions.

I had a small car - a Corolla Hatch which had to be off the road for 6 weeks due to an argument it had lost with a car on my left. This car had gone through a Stop sign in a desperate attempt to get to know my car better. A friend offered me the loan of a Nikki (a Fiat Bambino rebadged by the Polish - a tiny, tinny car) for the duration of the Corolla's stay in hospital. My friend rode his BMW motor-bike to work in preference to the Nikki. This should've been my first clue. That he'd won the Nikki in a raffle was my second clue. He held the Nikki in such high-esteem that it was currently used to store his dogs' food (True!). My third clue. It was waiting to be driven to his hobby farm near Bathurst. It was covered in cobwebs such was his hesitation to usher it over the Blue Mountains and west to Bathurst. No more clues were necessary.

Despite knowing all this, I accepted his offer. What can I say? That I was desperate?

When I sat in the driver's seat for the very first time, my fears were confirmed. The top of my head (I'm 161 cm short) touched the inside of the roof, and the roof wobbled each time my head touched it. Such was the musicality of the sounds it made that it would have put Rolf Harris' wobble-board playing to shame.

Foolishly, I rejected my friend's offer of the loan of a motor-bike helmet as I drove away. The image was too ridiculous to contemplate - me driving this car with a full-face helmet? I was a school teacher, what would the kids think, let alone jeer as I drove into the high-school car park?

"Do you wear your helmet visor up or down, miss?" No, the image of me driving this car with a helmet was too ridiculous to contemplate.

As I careened to a halt at the first Stop sign I came to, I realised, the sweat trickling off my palms and onto the steering wheel (yes, it had one), that the brakes worked but not all that well. And they were definitely not ABS. Had the Poles heard of disc brakes? I pondered. Or, were these rear drum brake only, like my first car (a 1952 Morris Minor 850)? Sadly, I knew the answer as I thought the question. My stomach churned.

Later, I was to dwell on the eternal dilemma: "Why, in our society, are we prepared undertake risky behaviour for the sake of social conformity?" Me, who won't park the car in the home garage without putting on my seat belt first but I wouldn't put on a helmet in this tin can of a car. I found my understanding of the 17 year old hoons I taught deepening in leaps and bounds. At the time, I was 40+ and the mother of two small children yet I chose to take the risk rather than risking the derision.

During the ensuing 6 weeks, I developed my own Theory of Big and it worked! I survived the next 8 years of peak hour traffic without mishap! (from Carrie Trike)

The Theory of Big (a British viewpoint)

"From our earliest days we have been indoctrinated by this nation's pathological love affair with the motor car. As a hangover of the class system of antiquity, we, the unfortunate possessors of a healthy mind and body, are bombarded daily with the mistaken view that roads are for cars. Driven, sometimes literally, off the roads by our fellow citizens in steel boxes, we begin to realise that never before in history have so many been subject to so much machinery.

It's not just using the cars that is a problem. Without the resources to house their cherished possessions properly, our social betters see fit to leave the stabling of their salary-sucker to be a stumbling block for the rest of us, whether it be on the pavement or on the Queen's highway.

So, from where does the problem come? Deep within the subconcious of every British citizen is the acceptance of the motor vehicle's priority on the roads, fortunately with no basis in law. 'Roads were made for cars' is a common refrain that exemplifies the convoluted thinking that carbon monoxide and benzene can induce.

There is the self-belief that any person who dares to shrug off their carapace and emerge naked to their environment on the road is some bicycling Baldrick or a forelock tugging "yer 'umble servant, sir". Such types as are fit only to be driven off the road at the whim of Mr Toad as he goes past on his more important journey. 'Poop poop!' and a cloud of exhaust are all that remain as he thunders off into the distance whilst you pull yourself out of the hedge. Never mind that roads were created for people to use for transport (not for people to use as car parks).

How does one claim one's space on the road without the support of a herd of highland cattle? This is where the Theory of BIG comes in.

Life on the roads is a power struggle. Not of physical ability, but of psychology with roots in the antiquity of animal behaviour.

The late twentieth century Homo sapiens (the nomenclature comittee is revising the specie's classification), unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, has been stripped of its evolutionary heritage. There are no natural displays of preening or prowess that are socially acceptable so we have subverted transport to be our display of BIG. If we have a display that is more BIG than the other guy then we win. He backs off. We get the girl (at least that is what the advertisements say). This isn't quite true. One can display a generally fit, healthy body in best evolutionary manner, but not when sat inside a car.

Beer drinking, pay packet, driving prowess, prettyness of girlfriend. All these are lads' new evolutionary power struggles. And the most insidious of these is transport.

Ever heard a group of company reps talking? 'I was doing 100 in the outside lane when a rep-mobile GT pulls up behind me and wants to overtake. No way, cos I've got a rep-mobile GTX and there's no way I'd let a mere GT go past me'. Loss of BIG you see. All psychological. Willing to be a stupid git to out psyche someone he's never met and probably will never see again. All to boost his self-BIG.

But how does this work out when you are on a bike and I am in a car. Surely you lose by default?

Not at all. BIG in transport terms is partly about what you drive and partly about how good a driver you are. And the drivers have already lost to the cyclists. Every time you pass a car in a traffic jam his BIG shrinks. You have just told him by your presence that despite all his prowess at driving and super smart car, you are still getting from A to B faster than him. Ouch, that hurts.

And appearance counts too. A scratch on your shiny new year's model Fraud Mundano GLTXi turbo is like turning up to a formal dinner in shorts and a baggy-T. Unthinkable. It says 'even though I have a great car I am a crap driver'. And cyclists do a lot of damage when you hit them. They have lots of sharp sticky out bits that can remove wing mirrors or scratch body work. Definitely to be avoided.

He will remember this. So remind him. Say 'I've got more BIG than you' as you take your rightful place on the road and let him be subservient to you. You get the girl. He gets a heart attack. After all, you can wear lycra and get away with it and he has to suffer with a shirt on a coathanger.

But driving prowess is what leads the macho rep to only leave 6 inches from wing mirror to cyclist as he brushes past. So good he can hold a line that close, preferably the faster the better. Obviously, he has to allow you the space that you use on the road, as hitting you means he loses face. And how much space you for something on the road depends on how BIG it is.

BIG isn't about how large you are but about how large you seem. The rules of BIG are very simple. Be visible. Be noticed. Be in the way. Be expensive. The more BIG you have, the more space needs to be left.

Ever seen a car brush past a moving, wobbly, deferential Baldrick-on-a-bike with a scant hands breadth to spare, only to leave room for a double decker bus to pass between it and the skip further down the road? BIGger things need a BIGger distance when you pass it.

Be visible.

If they don't see you they won't remember to bow down and worship the ground you pedal over. So be seen. BIG things to wear are solid bright colours. Prefereably big and baggy so they flap a bit. Gives a bit more uncertainty where the edge is. Broken patterns and suchlike are not BIG. They merge with the transport background and break up your outline to a lot of SMALL rather than one BIG.

Wide tyres, wide panniers, anything to make the bike BIG. And don't forget to signal. Makes drivers take a bit more notice. BIG signals with BIG eye contact. 'I am turning right, just see if I don't'.
Be noticed.

Just another bicyclist? Not me mate. I'm different. You'll notice me. A trailer on the back. It has it's own BIG from it's size, but it hits what passes for the driver's brain more because they are not used to it. Different is BIG. A recumbent or a tandem is BIG. Heck, even riding along with a silly hat on or a dinosaur with wings is pretty BIG. A child seat and 'Baby on Board' sticker is also good.

Another trick is to wobble slightly. If you look unsafe on a bike (it takes a lot of practice to get a really good wobble going) then they will notice you more, increasing your BIG. And movement across the field of vision is BIGger than movement towards or away.

Be in the way.

OK, how much room do you need to ride a bike on the road? The least I have ever used was about four inches from kerb to wheel whilst being brush-passed by a juggernaught at 40+mph (64+kph). Big laundry bill that day.

But how much do you really need to be a law abiding cyclist? Try this. Ride along at your normal distance from the edge of the road. Now open up your Highway code and do a proper left turn signal. Thats right, arm straight out. If you are really BIG then you won't have slapped the pedestrian waiting to cross at the lights around the face by accident, or wrapped your elbow around the Belisha beacon*. There you go. A minimum is so you can perform legal signals and still be totally on the road.

OK, so you are now a bit further out, maybe further than you are used to. And now you discover something. BIG things stick out further into the road than little things. And BIG things need more room. And strangely enough, the more room you take up, the more space cars leave for you!

Broadly speaking, cars will leave you as much room as you leave yourself so keep out from the edge of the road about the same distance you want cars to keep out from you.

This is only a guideline. Sometimes you will have left just enough room for the driver to sneak through without having to alter course and you still get brush-passed. Not what you want. So move out a bit more. Enough so he has to conciously move around you. If you have to be steered around then you are really BIG and need to be left more space. About level with the front nearside wing, just inside the wheel track that has been nicely swept clean of broken indicator and windscreen glass and other motor effluent that the master race deem the peasant classes worthy of riding over.

Now put the boot on the other foot. Imagine you are the victim of a cruel conspiracy and are forced to transport yourself inside a glass and metal cage everywhere. You come to a road junction where you have to give way. Where are you looking? At the cars of course.

So, thankfully reverting to uncaged mode, where do you want to be to be seen? Where people are looking! Yup, and they are looking at the line of cars so you want to be tucked right up against the pavement ... not! Get into the line of sight and you will be seen. Stay out of it and you won't be. People see BIG things. BIG things are what people see. BIG is in the line of sight.

Now of course one doesn't need to get in the way if the road is plenty wide enough to share, but only when it is uncomfortably narrow for Mr Toad to steer his fume conditioned three-piece-suite-in-a-tin alongside you without giving you the space you need.

Cowering in the dirt and potholes of the gutter, your body language screaming 'I am not worthy, O great infernally combustioned one. Chastise me for presuming to use this road and taking a mere second of your time for that urgent trip down the corner shop for a packet of fags and the Sunday paper. It is my just reward if I am left bleeding and injured amongst the remains of my bicycle as you continue your blissful journey onwards.' is not a particularly BIG attitude, but it is what our autocracy would have you believe.

Let me tell you a secret: They are not telling the truth.

Be expensive.

Running over a child is still frowned upon in this society. Having to admit you ran a child on a bike off the road is a bad thing for your BIG. What an excuse for having children? No, but a child seat is a useful accessory for carrying the shopping and if you have a nice high-backed one the cars can't see there is no child in it until they are past.

On the other hand, wearing a police uniform (when allowed to, of course!) is about as BIG as you can get. Wait a few months till the bike police are out in force and then go get your black and white helmet with POLITE written on it and your bright yellow jacket with reflective stripes...

Have you ever wondered why so many people ride motorbikes whilst wearing 'Hell's Angels' type denim jackets or leathers? Well, imagine what would happen if you carved one of these salubrious characters up in your car.. not a pretty sight? So you leave them plenty of space. The consequences of hitting them are quite BIG.

The scale of BIG

BIG calculator

Add up the relevant sections below and see what your own BIG is:

Cyclist type

Uniformed policeman on a bike 10
Tricycle, Bike with trailer 8
Well lit, visible touring cyclist at the right distance from the kerb 6
Well lit, visible touring cyclist at the kerb 3
Unlit cyclist at night (no cycle friendly law) 1
Unlit cyclist in long black coat creeping along the pavement in a university town 0

Bicycle type

Road Racing bike 0
Mountain bike 1
Bike with panniers fitted 2
Recumbent bike/Tandem 3
More than two wheels (Tricycles, trailers etc) 4
Any bike with no rear lights at night 1
Any bike, no rear lights or reflectors 0
Bonus for any number >1 of bright (>=10W) lights at night (to a maximum of 4) 1

Clothing

No reflectives at night time 0
Dark 'natural' clothing 0
Bright jazzy patterned clothing 1
Bright solid colours/Good reflectives at night 2
Stark naked 2

Position

Taking a narrow lane 4
Creeping along the kerb 0
Just outside the car wheel tracks (medium road) 1
Just inside the car wheel tracks (medium road) 3
On a shared use path 0 (I'd give you minus if I could!)

Add it all up and get a score out of ten.

Your rating:

0-2 Imminent Road Kill
3-5 Bicycling Baldrick
6-8 Effective Cyclist
9-10 Road Warrior

Where do I rate? Somewhere between 8 and 10 depending on circumstances (I just got some super bright headlamps and it depends whether I take the trailer or not)."

Theory of BIG copyright (c) David Martin 1998

* A Belisha beacon is an orange globe lamp on top of a tall black and white pole, marking pedestrian crossings of roads in the U.K., Ireland, Singapore and Hong Kong. (Source: Wikipedia)

Labels: , ,

Monday, 22 March 2010

Are cycleways the answer?

SMH Letters to the Editor March 16 2010

Keep cyclists apart for all to be happy

As an avid cyclist who has spent many hours riding to and from work in Sydney and Melbourne, I was astounded to read that Sydney's drivers are considered more aggressive than the maniacs in Melbourne (Letters, March 15). Sure, the infrastructure in Sydney is miles behind that of Melbourne, but I believe Sydney's drivers are far less openly aggressive.

But what strikes me every day is that motorists have no idea how dangerous it is to cut off or intimidate a cyclist on a busy road. A simple bump and the person they were trying to scare ends up under a car, and the driver faces serious charges or civil action.

Drivers and cyclists needn't be mortal enemies - a bit of patience and some mutual respect would do us all the world of good.

Lachlan Spark Surry Hills

I am a 58-year-old cyclist. Since arriving in Sydney a little over a year ago I have twice broken my arm in cycling accidents. Both were caused, in part, by the poor road surface. To cycle on King Street, Newtown, is one of the most hair-raisingly dangerous experiences I can describe, with its uneven surface, ruts and potholes.

I have to tell Janese Boots (Letters, March 15) that I cycle on the footpath as often as possible.

I have frequently cycled past police officers, who clearly understand that cyclists do not belong among the cars. I have never been reprimanded by the police for cycling on the footpath.

I do not dislike pedestrians. Nor do I dislike motorists. I like safety.

Kevin Griffith Enmore

I am a motorist, a cyclist and a pedestrian, and when I am one, I dislike the other two. The only solution is to keep us away from one another. The best way to achieve that is for all three groups to come together to pressure the government into providing the solution. Let's work together to keep us apart.

Anthony Johnsen Marrickville

So basically everyone wants the same thing - separated cycleways. If you want bikes off the footpaths and out of the way of cars, give them their own space. Works everywhere else.

Alacoque Dash Ultimo

Labels: , , , , ,

Do motorists really hate bikes?

Sydney: the city that hates bikes
MATTHEW MOORE
SMH March 13, 2010 For discussion and non-profit use only

Sydney is one of the developed world's most hostile cities for cycling, according to a US academic who spent a sabbatical year researching ways to boost bike-riding levels in the city.

''I did not cycle that often because I almost got killed several times - people cutting me off, squeezing me off the road and not stopping,'' John Pucher said of his efforts to ride to Sydney University from his Stanmore home.

''Whether I was a pedestrian or cyclist I found the level of the hostility of enough Sydney motorists worse than I had seen anywhere in the world.''

For decades Dr Pucher, from Rutgers University in New Jersey, has been riding bikes - from the cycling wonderlands of Amsterdam and Copenhagen to the car-choked streets of many US cities. But he was still stunned by his experience here.

''In Texas or in the south-east of the US it's aggressive but there was an incredible level of aggression from Sydney motorists … It's not every motorist but there were enough of them, whether it was resentment, irritability or just aggression, I don't know.''

In a paper to be published in the Journal of Transport Geography, Dr Pucher and two Australian colleagues explain why Sydney cycling levels lag much of the developed world.

Their paper compares cycling in Sydney and Melbourne and finds twice as many trips are made by bicycle in Melbourne as Sydney with the rate of trips in Melbourne growing at three times that of Sydney.

Dr Pucher says Melbourne's flatter terrain and lower rainfall alone do not explain why in hilly San Francisco the percentage of trips by bike has grown to 2.5 per cent, 3½ times Sydney's rate of 0.7 per cent.

More significant than topography is reducing aggression among motorists. Making cyclists, especially female cyclists, feel safer, is a job Melbourne has done much better than Sydney. Dr Pucher says women are a litmus test for cycling safety as many will ride only if they feel safe. Twenty-five per cent of commuting cyclists in Melbourne are women, but only 17 per cent in Sydney. In Denmark the figure is 45 per cent and in the Netherlands 55 per cent.

Still, he was impressed with the City of Sydney's spending $76 million on a 200-kilometre network of bike lanes. The Premier, Kristina Keneally, says that since she took up riding to work more than a year ago she has never had an incident. ''I see some drivers perhaps not being as aware of cyclists as they could be. That said, there are cyclists who take risks that I wouldn't.''

Labels: , , , , ,

Compulsory Helmet Controversy

Safety experts urge cyclists to sit up and take notice
MATTHEW MOORE URBAN AFFAIRS EDITOR
SMH March 16, 2010 For discussion only and non-profit use

SYDNEY will never be a bicycle-friendly city until it develops a ''second cycling culture'' which encourages relaxed European-style riding without the compulsory use of helmets, experts have warned.

Instead of advocating racing bikes with drop handle-bars, or mountain bikes with flat bars, cycling groups should encourage the use of traditional upright European styles, often called Amsterdam bikes, to make cycling a mass, utilitarian activity where bikes are used for shopping, running errands and commuting.

John Pucher, a US professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey who has written a paper explaining why Sydney cycling levels are half those of Melbourne, believes scrapping two decade-old laws requiring all cyclists to wear helmets would encourage a lot more people on to bikes and provide an overall improvement in community health levels.

While he agrees helmets save lives in accidents, he said they were not compulsory in any city in Europe, where cycling injury rates were far lower than in Sydney, a city which he said had very aggressive attitudes to cycling and which needed to encourage a much higher use of pedal power. ''I would be in favour of doing away with the helmet use law for adults,'' he said.

Compulsory wearing of helmets was ''a Band-Aid strategy'' adopted by governments shying away from more difficult initiatives of building separated cycle ways, calming neighbourhoods and educating drivers and riders.

British research showed motorists drove closer to bike riders who wore helmets. There was also evidence helmet laws stigmatised cycling as dangerous and encouraged cyclists to take more risks and ride faster than they might otherwise.

His views were echoed by Mike Rubbo, a cycling blogger who has made more than a dozen short films about cycling. He says introducing the upright bikes used in Europe is the best way of creating a new cycling culture that would encourage slow cycling and a friendly ''come ride with me'' attitude.

''If we can get more people on this type of bike we will get rid of the monoculture of those people, bent down over the bars with sunglasses … who are happy on roads and don't want to share bikeways with slower riders,'' he said.

The owner of Concord Sports Store, Mike Ryman, said the ''more elegant, classic'' European style of bike was becoming increasingly popular for commuters in flatter areas where there were good cycleways.

The vice-president of Bicycle NSW, Richard Birdsey, said European bikes were not what local riders needed. ''Upright bikes are all well and good in low speed and flat environments, but I don't think they are suitable for what you have here in Sydney,'' he said. ''They are designed, without sounding sexist, for women.

''If you are moving in the serious traffic here you need something a bit quick, something you can throw around, something more performance oriented.''

He was also strongly in favour of retaining the helmet laws even though Australia and New Zealand were virtually the only countries with them.

''We don't have the same riding environment with the lower speeds, greater awareness of cyclists they have in Europe. We don't think we should be weakening those for anybody.''

Andrew McIntosh, associate professor at the University of NSW, is researching bicycle helmets and defended the laws as ''an incredibly cheap approach'' to improving safety.

While he agreed cyclists needed better facilities, he said these could be built without removing helmet laws.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, 18 January 2008

Kids on bikes.

This afternoon (a couple of blocks from home in Sandy Beach) I nearly hit a kid on a bike. He sailed, downhill, out of a T-intersection, in front of me, and I had to hit the brakes hard.

No helmet. And as I discovered when I got out to give him a lecture - his brakes did not work!

He was teary. (I was shakey. And mad.). "I could have killed you! For starters, where is your helmet?" (He said he forgot it and was going home to get it.)

"And the road rules! If you are going to ride a bike on the road, you have to know what you are supposed to do!! You were coming out of that T-intersection. You were supposed to slow down or stop to check for cars!"

Him, with a tear running down his face. "I know. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was trying to stop."

His brakes did not work.

I asked for his name, but he was too incoherent. My daughter with me recognised him from school. She thinks he is only going into Year 3 this year which puts him at about 8 yrs old!!

I told him, for heaven's sakes, to get his parents to fix the brakes on his bike! And to ALWAYS wear a helmet. I hope he was shaken enough to say something once he got home, but chances are, of course, he might be too scared to tell his parents.

My daughters thought they knew his last name (from the school bus) but I was unable to locate them in the phone directory. I wanted to let his parents know how close he came to being injured. Or killed. Mind you, I don't know what sort of reaction I would have got. How do you essentially rail at another parent that they are irresponsible for letting their 8 year old ride a defective bike, with no helmet?

As those BUG members who assisted on the Bike Week Schools rides will attest, he would not be the only one. I lose count of the number of kids, teenagers, and adults I see riding around with no helmets.

The local primary school did hold a "Bike Safety Day" last term, but frankly I can't see that it really does anything to teach kids how to ride safely on the streets. It doesn't get bikes (and brakes in particular) maintained - particularly if the parents don't know how to do it. I'd hazard a guess that most of the kids' bikes being used have been bought from Big W or the like (because of the cheaper price) and thus there is no follow-up service available as there would be through a Local Bike Shop.

I don't know what the answer is, because you are not going to change purchasing habits. I do, however, intend to follow this up with the school, and discuss ways we can get more bike safety through to the kids AND parents.

Perhaps there is a role for the BUG, local bikes shops and council.

Tracey Schmidt

Labels: ,