Joining a cycling club is something every beginner cyclist should do. Club rides make cycling safer (safety in numbers) but also massively help your own learning curve as a cyclist (they'll show you the ropes in terms of group etiquette, basic bike maintenance & repairs, how to ride safely on the road and you'll also have someone to ask those questions you have as a newbie, like do I wear undies under my lycra). Most decent clubs run a beginners ride once a week or month. Go. You'll also probably meet some nice people who live & ride in your area, so you'll also get the tips on good places to ride (and avoid), best routes to commute, best local coffee, etc, as well as make some new friends. And if something bad does happen on a ride, you'll be riding with people equipped and prepared for such situations.
Too many beginners fall into the thinking "I might slow them down", which is a shame as they will benefit the most from the experience around them on a club ride. And yes, you probably will be slow to start. Guess what though? People don't care. The people from the club leading the ride (who are quite probably very experienced and fit) don't lead a beginner's ride with the expectation they can blast along at their normal speed. Quite the contrary. Beginners rides are riddled with mechanical issues and have a slow average speed. Why? Because the cyclists are beginners. And that's true of everyone on a beginner's ride - they know what to expect.
And clubs have members of all standards. Ranging from uber-fit, shaved leg 20 somethings through to more gentler paced octogenarians.
So will you be slow? Probably. But that's expected.
If the people leading the ride want a good physical workout they'll do other rides. If they are anything like the people why typically lead rides in my club (the Dulwich Hill Bicycle Club) they are very strong riders who rack up 10000km+ per year. Even with 12 months hardcore practice, you'll still be "slowing them down". But they don't mind leading some beginners, as it will see their club grow and they love sharing their sport with others.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Monday, January 20, 2014
Lane Filtering: Pick your Moments
So I'm working thru cycling behaviors. Last post was taking the lane, this time it's lane filtering (also called lane splitting). Lane Filtering is the practice of riding between slow or stationary lines of traffic to get to the front (typically at traffic lights). Now for the drivers out there this is an entirely legal practice.
Being legal doesn't though make it automatically responsible or safe - so pick your moments.
If the cars you are passing by filtering are just then forced to either (again) pass you soon after the lights or queue up behind you, I would suggest this is a incredibly bad point to filter. As a driver, it's bloody annoying.
The right times to filter are where you are accessing a bike lane just beyond the intersection or are about to turn off.
One could of course argue that filtering is entirely legal and a driver should pass you safely regardless, but I think as a cyclist one needs to realise that filtering can frustrate drivers, and frustrated drivers don't always drive as safely as one would like. How then safe a decision is the one to filter if the driver you pass are going to be passing you, frustrated, 100 metres down the road ? It also fails the test of being a considerate road user if you are filtering simply because you can, and are exhibiting that Must Get in Front mentality which causes many an accident.
Being legal doesn't though make it automatically responsible or safe - so pick your moments.
If the cars you are passing by filtering are just then forced to either (again) pass you soon after the lights or queue up behind you, I would suggest this is a incredibly bad point to filter. As a driver, it's bloody annoying.
The right times to filter are where you are accessing a bike lane just beyond the intersection or are about to turn off.
One could of course argue that filtering is entirely legal and a driver should pass you safely regardless, but I think as a cyclist one needs to realise that filtering can frustrate drivers, and frustrated drivers don't always drive as safely as one would like. How then safe a decision is the one to filter if the driver you pass are going to be passing you, frustrated, 100 metres down the road ? It also fails the test of being a considerate road user if you are filtering simply because you can, and are exhibiting that Must Get in Front mentality which causes many an accident.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Why cyclists ride in the middle of the goddam lane
It's a common complaint from motorists. "The bloody cyclist was riding in the middle of the goddam lane. Arrogant twat. Why doesn't he stick to the left?"
(International folk - keep in mind we drive on the left in Australia. Just replace left with right).
Indeed Jeremy Clarkson just made song and dance about such things on Twitter.
The practice is actually encouraged in cycling circles. It is known as taking the lane
Taking the lane is misunderstood by drivers. In that sense Clarskon is just like others. He is stuck in the thinking the best place for bikes is on the left. That may well be true for the drivers looking to pass, but often not for cyclists. We're not riding in the middle of the lane because we are arrogant. We know and understand it's not the most convenient spot for the following cars. The centre of the lane is often the safest place to ride.
Why exactly?
A few reasons:
1) It makes us clearly visible. Failure of a driver to see a cyclist lies at the heart of many car-bicycle accidents, so being in the middle of the lane is the best way to address that.
2) The side of the road is the collection point for all manner of litter, debris, gravel, glass and other crap on the roads (as well as catseye reflectors, which often mark the edge of a lane). All rather dangerous when you're on a bike. If parking is also permitted on the left of the road, it becomes a prime zone for dooring (which occurs hen a car passenger/driver opens the car door directly in your path).
3) Drivers often feel they can squeeze past if the cyclist is on the far left of the lane, regardless of variables like total lane width, oncoming traffic, corners, crests, etc. And the cyclist often (literally) wears the outcome of poor judgements. By sitting in the middle the cyclist makes a clear statement that the driver needs to overtake properly (i.e by moving into the opposite lane) and can't try "squeezing" past.
And, yes it does mean we will hold up the odd car. By a few seconds, which they'll probably regain at the next traffic lights. In our opinion an entirely reasonable trade off for someone's safety. Particularly our own.
And yes, we would be safer riding away from cars. Shame cycling infrastructure sucks and riders are forced onto the roads.
For mine, this is the ideal topic for an education campaign. It's a practice that's badly misunderstood by drivers, is entirely legal on roads without a bike lane, and could simply be addressed with a good ad. It's also a practice that drives a big wedge between cyclists and drivers.
(International folk - keep in mind we drive on the left in Australia. Just replace left with right).
Indeed Jeremy Clarkson just made song and dance about such things on Twitter.
The practice is actually encouraged in cycling circles. It is known as taking the lane
Taking the lane is misunderstood by drivers. In that sense Clarskon is just like others. He is stuck in the thinking the best place for bikes is on the left. That may well be true for the drivers looking to pass, but often not for cyclists. We're not riding in the middle of the lane because we are arrogant. We know and understand it's not the most convenient spot for the following cars. The centre of the lane is often the safest place to ride.
Why exactly?
A few reasons:
1) It makes us clearly visible. Failure of a driver to see a cyclist lies at the heart of many car-bicycle accidents, so being in the middle of the lane is the best way to address that.
2) The side of the road is the collection point for all manner of litter, debris, gravel, glass and other crap on the roads (as well as catseye reflectors, which often mark the edge of a lane). All rather dangerous when you're on a bike. If parking is also permitted on the left of the road, it becomes a prime zone for dooring (which occurs hen a car passenger/driver opens the car door directly in your path).
3) Drivers often feel they can squeeze past if the cyclist is on the far left of the lane, regardless of variables like total lane width, oncoming traffic, corners, crests, etc. And the cyclist often (literally) wears the outcome of poor judgements. By sitting in the middle the cyclist makes a clear statement that the driver needs to overtake properly (i.e by moving into the opposite lane) and can't try "squeezing" past.
And, yes it does mean we will hold up the odd car. By a few seconds, which they'll probably regain at the next traffic lights. In our opinion an entirely reasonable trade off for someone's safety. Particularly our own.
And yes, we would be safer riding away from cars. Shame cycling infrastructure sucks and riders are forced onto the roads.
For mine, this is the ideal topic for an education campaign. It's a practice that's badly misunderstood by drivers, is entirely legal on roads without a bike lane, and could simply be addressed with a good ad. It's also a practice that drives a big wedge between cyclists and drivers.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Roadies - swap to 25mm tyres
The standard for tyre width on a road bike for several years has been a 23mm tyre.
Over the last few years there has been a trend toward 25mm. Not just by recreational cyclists either. Orica Greenedge, FDJ, BMC Racing, Omega Pharma & Sky are just a few of the teams running the wider rubber on the UCI tour.
Going to 25mm allows you run a lower tyre pressure (perhaps 15-20 psi less) without the issue of pinch flats. Which makes for a more comfortable, compliant and this safer ride. You have that bit more rubber on the road, so your traction is also improved. The bike will have more grip and is harder to unsettle, as well as being more comfortable.
The interesting thing though this doesn't though come at the sacrifice of speed (hence the pro teams adopting it) - in fact the 25mm option is faster under most conditions. The physics behind this isn't simple. But in short, the rolling resistance (i.e. friction) created by tyres isn't so much caused by the contact area of the tyre, rather how much the tyre distorts from it's standard shape when in contact with the ground. And 25mm tyres are much better than 23mm. Aerodynamically 23mm tyres have an advantage, but the rolling resistance benefits outstrip the aerodynamic drawbacks.
The road surface also has an impact. If the surface is billiard table smooth, 23mm tyres might be the better bet, but on bumpy, coarse chip roads, 25mm tyres are the clear winner.
So throw tradition out the window, and strap on some 25mm rubber. Most bikes will take 25mm no dramas, and you're unlikely to need to change rims. You'll be safer, more comfortable, and quite possibly faster. And if it's good enough for Cadel Evans, Richie Porte, Chris Froome, Simon Gerrans, Matt Goss, Luke Durbridge, Mark Cavendish & Tony Martin, my guess is you'll cope fine.
Over the last few years there has been a trend toward 25mm. Not just by recreational cyclists either. Orica Greenedge, FDJ, BMC Racing, Omega Pharma & Sky are just a few of the teams running the wider rubber on the UCI tour.
Going to 25mm allows you run a lower tyre pressure (perhaps 15-20 psi less) without the issue of pinch flats. Which makes for a more comfortable, compliant and this safer ride. You have that bit more rubber on the road, so your traction is also improved. The bike will have more grip and is harder to unsettle, as well as being more comfortable.
The interesting thing though this doesn't though come at the sacrifice of speed (hence the pro teams adopting it) - in fact the 25mm option is faster under most conditions. The physics behind this isn't simple. But in short, the rolling resistance (i.e. friction) created by tyres isn't so much caused by the contact area of the tyre, rather how much the tyre distorts from it's standard shape when in contact with the ground. And 25mm tyres are much better than 23mm. Aerodynamically 23mm tyres have an advantage, but the rolling resistance benefits outstrip the aerodynamic drawbacks.
The road surface also has an impact. If the surface is billiard table smooth, 23mm tyres might be the better bet, but on bumpy, coarse chip roads, 25mm tyres are the clear winner.
So throw tradition out the window, and strap on some 25mm rubber. Most bikes will take 25mm no dramas, and you're unlikely to need to change rims. You'll be safer, more comfortable, and quite possibly faster. And if it's good enough for Cadel Evans, Richie Porte, Chris Froome, Simon Gerrans, Matt Goss, Luke Durbridge, Mark Cavendish & Tony Martin, my guess is you'll cope fine.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Brilliant NZ road safety ad (where's the cycling version?)
If you haven't seen this already, take a minute. Powerful stuff:
Cycling safety needs an ad like this (especially in NSW, which is off to a bad 2014 after an ugly 2013). A clear statement of our right to be on the roads and some of the cycling specific laws would be good start (though I'm sure something more creative is easily doable).
Sunday, January 5, 2014
The one bit of the Greenway we actually got.....
Someone in the state Government has obviously got an evil sense of humour or perhaps irony. The incoming O'Farrell Government saw fit to can the Greenway project, a 5km bike and pedestrian path to run along side the light rail extension between Dulwich Hill and Lilyfield:
In spite of the project being binned, they still found budget to manufacture and install the signs telling us where the Greenway was _going_ to be:
As I said, someone in the Government has an evil sense of humour or irony.
The real shame of the Greenway getting canned was it was a rather key bit of cycling infrastructure that would have made cycling to the city from the Inner West safer and gotten cyclists off the roads (which surely all motorists applaud. Believe it or not, cyclists don't actually like jockeying with cars in traffic). The Greenway would have hooked the Cooks River cycleway at the Dulwich Hill end with the Anzac Bridge cycle path, which would have given almost everyone in the Sydney's Inner West (think Tempe to Homebush) a car free ride to the CBD, not to mention something for people riding from the outer suburbs to connect into
5 Km doesn't sound like much, but that stretch is really awkward on a bike. There are no neat back street routes meaning cyclists have to mix it with cars on busy roads to go that way.
Keep in mind the light rail extension is still going ahead. With it's $176 million dollar price tag. It was just the cycling-pedestrian path which got binned. Which saved all of $37 million dollars (surely a drop in the ocean when one considers the cost of building any infrastructure in Sydney). And it was a project that would have helped both cyclists AND drivers (and probably also would have taken pressure off public transport as well)
The only good news is the O'Farrell government has come to realize the folly of it's anti-bicycle stance, and that encouraging bicycling makes sense economically. I live in hope the Greenway project may be brought back to life.
Good news is we already have the signs.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Helmets: Are they the only thing stopping you from cycling?
Off the back up my last post, I ended up in a long-winded debate (at least by twitter standards) with some card carrying members of the anti-mandatory helmet crew. Was a good insight into their perspective (so I thought I'd try summarise).
I'd probably describe them as being idealists rather than deluded (which was a long way from where I started today). Predictably they put more stock in the scientific studies that show helmets having negligible effects. No shock there. They though see mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) as a *massive* dampener on people's interest in cycling and willingness to take up riding, (not a view I share, but anyhow) which in turn slows the development of cycling infrastructure (which would certainly help cycling safely massively).
They also see as helmets as being a last line of defence, and that the focus should instead be on car drivers giving cyclists more respect and preventing accidents happening in the first place. And when reports such as this one emerge from the University of Adelaide, which showed drivers were the at fault party in 8 out of 10 accidents involving cyclists, one can see where they are coming from. It also raised their ire that a cyclist not having a helmet on was pretty much the end of accident investigation - rather premature, as having a helmet on wouldn't have prevented the accident nor perhaps limited the severity.
There was also a feeling that helmet law was a government cop out, a rather feeble substitute to developing proper infrastructure.
The anti-MHL types were also keen to point out they are practising a rather cruisy form of cycling - low speed, local rides avoiding major roads as much as possible. They feel this type of cycling is far lower risk. Some will actually happily don helmets for more "hardcore" cycling.
There were also numerous references to Amsterdam, and frequent civil libertarian ("I don't judge your decision to wear a helmet, don't judge my informed decision not to") comments throughout the discussion.
So that's the summary. If any anti-MHL folk feel I haven't captured their position fairly, leave a comment or ping me on Twitter
I'm still though very much pro-MHL, and would counter their key points as follows:
It would though be interesting to know how many people are genuinely turned off cycling because of helmet laws in Australia (let me know in the comments). Studies have been conducted, but they've given widely varied results. And I keep coming back to other European cities without MHLs not having an Amsterdam like uptake of cycling.
I'd probably describe them as being idealists rather than deluded (which was a long way from where I started today). Predictably they put more stock in the scientific studies that show helmets having negligible effects. No shock there. They though see mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) as a *massive* dampener on people's interest in cycling and willingness to take up riding, (not a view I share, but anyhow) which in turn slows the development of cycling infrastructure (which would certainly help cycling safely massively).
They also see as helmets as being a last line of defence, and that the focus should instead be on car drivers giving cyclists more respect and preventing accidents happening in the first place. And when reports such as this one emerge from the University of Adelaide, which showed drivers were the at fault party in 8 out of 10 accidents involving cyclists, one can see where they are coming from. It also raised their ire that a cyclist not having a helmet on was pretty much the end of accident investigation - rather premature, as having a helmet on wouldn't have prevented the accident nor perhaps limited the severity.
There was also a feeling that helmet law was a government cop out, a rather feeble substitute to developing proper infrastructure.
The anti-MHL types were also keen to point out they are practising a rather cruisy form of cycling - low speed, local rides avoiding major roads as much as possible. They feel this type of cycling is far lower risk. Some will actually happily don helmets for more "hardcore" cycling.
There were also numerous references to Amsterdam, and frequent civil libertarian ("I don't judge your decision to wear a helmet, don't judge my informed decision not to") comments throughout the discussion.
So that's the summary. If any anti-MHL folk feel I haven't captured their position fairly, leave a comment or ping me on Twitter
I'm still though very much pro-MHL, and would counter their key points as follows:
- Eliminating helmet laws won't magically turn our cities into Amsterdam, and flood the streets with cyclists. Most of the major cities in Europe have no bike helmet laws, but have similarly low cycling participation rates to our own. This BBC article looks at why participation is so high in Holland v other countries, and came up with infrastructure (again), the fact kids are taking up cycling early (it's on the school curriculum), and Amsterdam is flat and compact.
- For every publication that casts some shadow over the efficacy of helmets, there is another clear cut study like this publication in the Medical Journal of Australia (summarised by TheConversation) which showed you are 5 times better off (ie. safer) with a helmet (versus without) in an accident when you hit your head.
- Tying to argue everyone else needs to do more to ensure cycling safety whilst trying to remove laws that articles such as the one above (even if you don't buy into it's findings for whatever reason) show protect cyclists is an incredibly tough sell. As I said in the previous post, refusing to don a helmet because it's inconvenient, uncomfortable, strikes at your civil liberties or costs 50 bucks then asking others to spend millions or alter their behaviour is entirely unrealistic. Surely one would be better off accepting the helmets for now in the interests of getting other aspects of cycling safety have improved and revisiting it in a few years time.
- I agree cruisy cycling is lower risk than commuting or riding fast. Is it zero risk though? No. You're still subject to drivers not paying attention or giving you due care, imperfect riding surfaces, etc.
- By focusing almost entirely on the behaviour of drivers, they fall into the unhelpful blame cycle I mentioned in an earlier post
It would though be interesting to know how many people are genuinely turned off cycling because of helmet laws in Australia (let me know in the comments). Studies have been conducted, but they've given widely varied results. And I keep coming back to other European cities without MHLs not having an Amsterdam like uptake of cycling.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Removing MHLs is likely to have a negative effect on motorist behavior
The debate about mandatory helmet laws (MHLs) continues to rage among cyclists. I'm pro-MHL, but the anti-MHL brigade point to the fact MHLs have a negative impact on cycling participation numbers, and thus limits the development of cycling infrastructure, which makes cycling safer. The benefits of a helmet in an accident aren't as clearcut as commonly thought. There are indeed studies which show helmets have a major positive effect on outcomes, others that show effect the effect is negligible.
My own personal take in this is that accidents vary. Wildly. Your speed, your point of impact, any secondary impacts, your weight, your body position, whether you were hit by a car or not, the surface you land on, your attire, speed of medical attention - all of these things (plus any more variables) vary accident to accident. And equally the value of a helmet will also fluctuate massively accident to accident.
I'm also concerned that by pushing hard for removal of MHLs, those cyclists are basically pushing cycling safety to the backburner as an issue. The most simple logic suggests helmets help in accidents (ie. if you fall on head, you are better to protect head) and there are also plenty of studies that have produced that same finding (not to mention plenty of cyclists who support MHLs). So being unwilling to don a helmet is tantamount to saying your safety isn't a concern. If we aren't going to take such a basic and simple step to contribute to our safety, why should we ask drivers make an effort? Or why should governments spend millions on improving infrastructure to address cyclist safety when cyclists can just spend $50?
My own personal take in this is that accidents vary. Wildly. Your speed, your point of impact, any secondary impacts, your weight, your body position, whether you were hit by a car or not, the surface you land on, your attire, speed of medical attention - all of these things (plus any more variables) vary accident to accident. And equally the value of a helmet will also fluctuate massively accident to accident.
I'm also concerned that by pushing hard for removal of MHLs, those cyclists are basically pushing cycling safety to the backburner as an issue. The most simple logic suggests helmets help in accidents (ie. if you fall on head, you are better to protect head) and there are also plenty of studies that have produced that same finding (not to mention plenty of cyclists who support MHLs). So being unwilling to don a helmet is tantamount to saying your safety isn't a concern. If we aren't going to take such a basic and simple step to contribute to our safety, why should we ask drivers make an effort? Or why should governments spend millions on improving infrastructure to address cyclist safety when cyclists can just spend $50?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)