First, let me just say that I love that picture! I got it from this Chris Beam column in Slate. He explains how one can cheat in NASCAR--a rather appropriate topic given the huge cheating scandal at the Daytona 500 which has even tainted the popular Jeff Gordon (though he didn't intentionally cheat; his case would be akin to an Olympic athlete who didn't realize that there were minute traces of a banned substance in his/her cold medication).
I find this all very interesting being that my sport (bicycling) is still under the pall of doping. Speaking of cycling, it seems that disgraced Tour de France champion Floyd Landis will be releasing his autobiography on the opening day of this year's Tour. Perhaps he should name it If I had doped for the Tour, this is how I did it.
I've been carless for six years now; I've been a bicycle advocate for four of those years. As a long time bicycle commuter, I am highly concerned about safety. Two lemmas that are drilled into us and that we parrot back to novices are: 1. Always wear a helmet. 2. Obey all traffic laws.
What I am about to say will probably make heads spin if any of my friends over at the bike coalition should stumble upon this post. I don't always practice what I preach. In fact, I think I'm being safer when I don't.
To be clear, I do wear a helmet most of the time. It's demonstrably helpful for most spills a cyclist will take. But does that mean that you're safer when wearing one? Not according to Dr. Ian Walker.
Dr. Walker performed a study where he rode a bicycle fitted with an ultrasonic distance sensor both with and without a helmet.
Dr Walker, who was struck by a bus and a truck in the course of the experiment, spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half the time bare-headed. He was wearing the helmet both times he was struck.
He found that drivers were as much as twice as likely to get particularly close to the bicycle when he was wearing the helmet.
...
“By leaving the cyclist less room, drivers reduce the safety margin that cyclists need to deal with obstacles in the road, such as drain covers and potholes, as well as the margin for error in their own judgements.
“We know helmets are useful in low-speed falls, and so definitely good for children, but whether they offer any real protection to somebody struck by a car is very controversial.
“Either way, this study suggests wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely in the first place.”
But why would this be so?
Dr Walker suggests the reason drivers give less room to cyclists wearing helmets is down to how cyclists are perceived as a group.
“We know from research that many drivers see cyclists as a separate subculture, to which they don’t belong,” said Dr Walker.
“As a result they hold stereotyped ideas about cyclists, often judging all riders by the yardstick of the lycra-clad street-warrior.
“This may lead drivers to believe cyclists with helmets are more serious, experienced and predictable than those without.
“The idea that helmeted cyclists are more experienced and less likely to do something unexpected would explain why drivers leave less space when passing.
That actually makes some sense. I know that when I ride on the public bike (and multi-purpose) paths, I always give extra space to unhelmeted riders (or riders with cellphones, ipods, etc.). Although I can usually gauge a cyclist's bike handling skills by simply watching them ride for a second or two.
I'm still a believer in helmets most of the time, but if I'm just making a quick trip to the store, I'll generally pass on the foam hat. My own philosophy is that I always wear a helmet when I'm donning lycra (~90+% of my riding). If I'm out of uniform, the helmet is optional. This fits in well with Dr. Walker's findings. His conclusion is quite apt.
“The best answer is for different types of road user to understand each other better.
“Most adult cyclists know what it is like to drive a car, but relatively few motorists ride bicycles in traffic, and so don’t know the issues cyclists face.
“There should definitely be more information on the needs of other road users when people learn to drive, and practical experience would be even better.
“When people try cycling, they nearly always say it changes the way they treat other road users when they get back in their cars.”
Now what about obeying traffic laws? According to your driver's manual, a bicycle on the road is a vehicle and must obey all the same laws that automobiles follow. I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. (coalition heads spinning) First, that statement isn't technically true: all motorists must be licensed. Second, the vast majority of those laws were not written with bicycles in mind. Some of the traffic rules seem absolutely preposterous for a vehicle that can travel in the shoulder. Others make no sense for a vehicle that weighs under 200 pounds.
I generally use my own judgement as to when to obey and when not to. I think that I'm actually riding safer when I use my acumen rather than following motorist's rules. I realize that that's just based on gut feeling and anecdotes, but they come from at least ten years experience riding almost every day. And Coturnix thinks that even cars are being safer when negotiating traffic rather than acting like automatons.
Seed Magazine has an article by Linda Baker about how some cities (like Portland--rated the best cycling city in the USA) are even taking some of those rules away in order to make the roads safer.
Portland's so-called "festival street," which opened two months ago, is one of a small but growing number of projects in the United States that seek to reclaim streets used by cars as public places for people, too. The strategy is to blur the boundary between pedestrians and automobiles by removing sidewalks and traffic devices, and to create a seamless multi-purpose urban space.
Combining traffic engineering, urban planning and behavioral psychology, the projects are inspired by a provocative new European street design trend known as "psychological traffic calming," or "shared space." Upending conventional wisdom, advocates of this approach argue that removing road signs, sidewalks, and traffic lights actually slows cars and is safer for pedestrians. Without any clear right-of-way, so the logic goes, motorists are forced to slow down to safer speeds, make eye contact with pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers, and decide among themselves when it is safe to proceed.
Now I'm not advocating riding like a bicycle messenger--those guys are crazy! But seriously, messengers are probably some of the best cyclists out on the road. They are experts at negotiating city traffic. (Another myth is that bicycling in the big city is more dangerous than out in the suburbs. Quite the contrary is true. There are several reasons for this, but the most important is that city motorists expect to see bikes. A suburban motorist who isn't expecting bikes, can look right at a cyclist and not "see" him. Then after the accident say "He came out of nowhere!" City drivers know cyclists are entitled to share the road. In all my years of city cycling, I've never had a motorist scream "Get off the fucking road!"--the same cannot be said for the suburbs.) They (messengers) use their judgement just like I do, albeit with different lines they don't cross. When you see a messenger riding like he's oblivious to all the traffic around him, remember that he sees more than you. For example, while an automobile driver is contained inside a box at least two meters behind the front of the vehicle, a cyclist is only a foot or two from the front of his vehicle and out in the open with full use to his peripheral vision.
In the following video of a 2004 New York City bike messenger race, you get to see them in action. The first time I saw this, I thought they were all lunatics. But the more I watch it, the more I recognize how skilled they are. For example, while it may seem that they are recklessly blowing through red lights, if you pay careful attention, you'll see that they are following each others cues as well as running interference for each other. And remember that the helmet-cam doesn't have the same perspective and peripheral vision that the cyclist does. In fact, the most dangerous thing I saw was the guy coming off the bridge without brakes and with his feet off the pedals. (I also wouldn't recomend getting stoned right before you go riding.)
Today we have a new leader in the Vuelta a España: Spain's equivalent of the Tour de France. It is none other the charismatic Kazak rider Alexandre Vinokourov. The stage was won by Tom Danielson, a rider a met a few years back when he broke the record at Mt. Washington. But the racer wearing the golden jersey of race leader is the fan favorite affectionately known as "Vino." He now holds a 9 second lead over Spaniard Alejandro Valverde. Vino saw a moment of weakness in the Spaniard who had been so strong throughout the race, and pounced to take the lead.
Now I know what you're thinking. You think he's on the juice, don't you? After all, doping cyclists have been in the news quite a bit lately. There's the two ex-teammates of Lance Armstrong who've admitted doping while riding for Armstrong. (one of them, Frankie Andreau, I've met and done a bike ride with). Another ex-teammate of Lance's, Roberto Heras, is serving a two year suspension after being caught doping then getting disqualified from winning last year's Vuelta. Ivan Basso, winner in spectacular fashion of Italy's grand tour, il Giro d'Italia, is under investigation for his role in Operación Puerto: cycling's version of the BALCO scandal. Because of his implication in the scandal, Basso wasn't allowed to start the Tour de France this year, leaving the door wide open for American Floyd Landis to win ... that is until Floyd is officially disqualified for doping. Speaking of not being allowed to start this year's Tour, Vino was one of those riders who wasn't there to go wheel to wheel with Floyd. No, our Kazak friend wasn't implicated in Puerto, but so many of his teammates were that his entire team was banned from the race.
That was the Tour; this is the Vuelta! I'm sure he's on his best behavior in Spain. Well, except for that small incident three days ago where he and fellow Kazakhstani teammate Andrej Kashechkin missed doping control. But hey, it wasn't his fault. It's still a glorious day for Kazakhstan!
President Nazarbayev will visit the White House and the Bush family compound in Maine when he flies in for talks that will include the fictional character Borat.
That's right! It seems the Kazakhstanis are upset about British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, and they're pulling out all the stops to show how upset they are about the new Borat movie.
Anti-Borat hard-liners have pulled the plug on borat.kz, Borat's Kazakhstan-based Website after his frequent displays of anti-Semitism and his portrayal of Kazakh culture.
Nurlan Isin, President of the Association of Kazakh IT Companies took the action after complaints.
He said: "We've done this so he can't badmouth Kazakhstan under the .kz domain name.
"He can go and do whatever he wants at other domains."
And so that is how Borat has become the subject of a presidential summit. It is indeed a glorious day for Kazakhstan!
UPDATE: Today's stage was won by Kazakh rider Andrej Kashechkin while Vino retained the lead. And yes, that is the very same Kashechkin that missed doping control a few days back. I'm not one to make accusations, so let me just say: It's been another glorious day for Kazakhstan!
UPDATE #2: Vino won Saturday's penultimate stage on his 33rd birthday. With the cushion he just put on his lead, the final stage into Madrid is now pretty much ceremonial. He will be crowned champion on Sunday. Another glorious day for Kazakhstan!
