Cardboard Cycle, and a Bobby’s Bike Ban

Two stories to emerge from England over the last few days:

Phil Bridge, a 21 year old design student from Manchester, England, has designed the ultimate “Cheap” bike, made of cardboard.

A cycle made from re-cycled material; you can’t get any greener than that. Phil hopes his bike will sell for around fifteen British Pounds. ($30.)

The plan is that the bike will be so cheap, no one will steal it. Don’t count it, have you ever noticed that hotel coat-hangers are made without hooks, because people steal ’em. And if thieves don’t steal it, vandals might set fire to it.

No doubt, the honeycomb construction will ensure a sweet ride. I am wondering, will it come in a box, and will the box cost more than the frame? Here’s an idea, the box could be the frame. Now that’s thinking outside the box.

My apologies Phil for having fun with your project. As long as your business doesn’t fold, you’ll probably end up making a packet and retiring early.

All joking aside, I congratulate Phil Bridge. Whether or not this project turns into a practical application, anytime someone brings the concept of the bicycle to the forefront of the daily news, this is a good thing.

In addition, Phil has captured the media’s attention, and obtained worldwide publicity which, in of itself is a huge achievement.

Read the story in the Telegraph

The second story could be straight out of a British police comedy movie.

It is a news item about a British Bobby banned from riding his bike. The reason, he hasn’t passed the cycling proficiency test; even though Officer Nick Barker (Right.) has ridden a bike without incident since he was a kid.

It gets worse; it appears there are not enough police cars to go round, so Nick must ride the bus to patrol the three hamlets (Very small villages.) of Halstead, Knockholt and Badgers Mount, in Kent, in the South East corner of England.

If Nick happens to be in Knockholt and an incident takes place in Badgers Mount, he is at the mercy of the local bus schedule.

Let’s hope the crime rate is pretty low in this neck of the woods; never-the-less let Nick take his cycling proficiency course, and get him back on his bike pronto, before the local villains get hold of a bus time-table, and have a field day.

This story in the Daily Mail

Friday Fun: Limericks

I composed some limericks for your amusement, with a cycling flavor of course.

A professional golfer from Spain
Decided cycling would be his new game
He had a good year
'Til he slipped a gear
And dimpled his balls on the frame.

A roadie pedaling hard as he could
Was passed by a "Fred;" that’s not good
Legs, hairy and pale
With a flapping shirt tail
And a dirty sweat shirt with a hood.

Riding my bike, who would guess?
That I would come off second best
Got into a fight
With a girl at a light
Turned out, was a bloke* in a dress.

*bloke = man

This last one tells a story in four verses.

A weight weenie said with a grin
My bike is the lightest it’s been
I’ve got ceramic balls
That weigh nothing at all
Then his bike blew away in the wind.

It sailed ’cross the sky like a kite
Gave airline pilots a fright
Made the six o’clock news
And Larry King too
Spoke of a runaway satellite.

Landed in some Middle East Nation
They asked the US for explanation
But even Dick Cheney
Couldn’t explain the
Mysterious flying sensation.

The CIA probed the mystery
And George Bush had to go on TV
Let this be a lesson
A weight weenie’s obsession
Could’ve started World War III.

Dear Penny

I came across this rant from someone in England, and decided to post my response. Here is the original piece and my reply:

“Dear Mr. Cyclist,

Please learn how to ride your bike on the roads.
YOU ARE NOT A CAR!

Good for you being out riding your bike at 7.45am, Yay for the environment and Yay for your health and fitness, but there is no Yay for me being late to work, because I can’t drive around you. You are not doing the speed limit, you have space to ride your bike quite happily over to the left WHERE YOUR MEANT TO BE!

This is England, we have little roads that sometimes means it is impossible to get past you bikers when there is constant traffic on the other side of the road and when you are so far out that we have to actually drive on the other side to get past.

Kind Regards!

The Red Micra crawling behind you this fine morning.”


Dear Penny in your red Micra,

You just don’t get it do you. It is precisely because I do know how to ride my bike that I am riding out here a short distance from the edge of the road.

Oh I could ride on the extreme edge of the road, amongst all the broken glass and other crap people throw from their cars. Then you could speed on by at 60 mph. as if I didn’t exist.

But what if at the precise moment you pass, I come across a large pothole, a storm grate, or a fallen limb from a tree. Where do I go? Do I swerve into your path; do I hit the obstruction and risk falling under your wheels? Will you be able to stop at 60 mph, I doubt it.

I am not riding out here just to piss you off; I am riding out here because on this particular piece or road it is unsafe to pass me, unless you do it carefully. That means slowing down, waiting for a small gap in opposing traffic, and simply driving around me.

And no, you don’t have to go into the opposing lane to pass. If you include the short distance I am from the edge of the road, I am about four or five feet wide, and seven feet long, and traveling at 20 mph. It is not like passing a London Transport Bus; you will be past me lickidy-split and on your merry way.

Count how many times you are delayed and it is not a cyclist. On the Motorway (Freeway.) for instance; no cyclists there. How often do you have to sit behind someone waiting to turn? Do you get your knickers in a twist, and curse at the driver for being so inconsiderate as to stop in front of you while he waits to turn into his own driveway.

I will be always be considerate to you as long as doing so doesn’t endanger my life, that’s where I draw the line. If I am passing a row of parked cars for example, I am not going to ride within five feet of them. Drivers have been known to open their doors, knocking the cyclist in front of your red Micra speeding by.

So if I am in the middle of the lane at that point, I am sorry it is such an inconvenience for you to slow, signal, and move over to the other lane.

You would do well to remember I am a fellow human being, cut me I bleed; run over me and I squish and my bones break. I am someone’s son, someone’s father, someone’s husband. These people would miss me terribly.

Oh, and if I should make you late for work. I am sorry, but I am not responsible for poor planning on your part. Try leaving home a few minutes earlier. You may get delayed by a traffic accident, road repairs, any number of reasons. It is all part of driving on the roads today.

Get used to it, and get over yourself, just because you are in a motorized vehicle and mine is pedal-powered. Does that make you more important that me, or my life any less valuable.

Regards,

Dave Moulton

(Unofficial spokesman for cyclists.)


Footnote: Within minutes of posting my comment Penny deleted her post, and posted an apology here. See the first comment.

Thank you Penny.

Bike lanes may disappear on Coleman Blvd.

The people of my home town of Charleston, South Carolina, are proud of the new Cooper River Bridge. (Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge.) Opened in 2005, it is a beautiful structure, and connects the Charleston Peninsula with Mount Pleasant on the east side.

The new bridge replaced two older bridges (Since demolished.) built in 1929 and 1966. The old bridges were narrow and with no provision for pedestrians or bicycles.

Cyclists on the Charleston side, wishing to ride in the Mount Pleasant area, would have to transport their bikes across by car, and vice-versa. Commuting by bicycle or even walking the four miles across was not an option.

In the initial planning stages, the new bridge was also to be for motorized traffic only. However, local cycling advocacy groups, along with pedestrian and running groups successfully petitioned for a separate bicycle/pedestrian path to be added.

This is a tremendous triumph for these advocacy groups, because since it opened the path is used by hundreds of pedestrians, runners, and cyclists, every weekend.

Walking or riding the bridge is now one of the “must do” things for visitors to Charleston. The only way to really appreciate the view of the harbor and the old city of Charleston, is on foot or by bicycle.

The picture at the top shows the bridge from Charleston Harbor side, looking inland. The pedestrian/bike path can be seen on the near side. There is a cement barrier between the path and the motorized traffic, which is four lanes in either direction.

Recently the City of Charleston, built a bike/pedestrian path on Bay Street, leading onto the bridge path entrance.

On the Mount Pleasant side the path emerges on Coleman Blvd. This is a wide road, with a bike lane, two lanes of traffic each direction, and a center turn lane. Coleman Blvd. is the direct route to the beach communities of Sullivan’s Island, and The Isle of Palms.

Some disturbing news has just come from the City of Mount Pleasant. Together with the South Carolina Department or Transport, they are planning to remove part of the bike lane from Coleman Blvd. and reroute cyclists onto side streets.

The reason; to allow parallel parking of cars on Coleman Blvd. Once again, making provision for automobiles is more important than people. Pushing cyclists off onto side streets will only reinforce the average motorists view, that cyclists don’t belong on Coleman Blvd.

I rode Coleman Blvd. on Sunday, and I fail to see why they need to park cars on this particular road. It is a normal business district that you would see in any American city, and every business has its own ample parking lot.

Local bicycle advocacy groups are asking that they keep the bike lanes along side the parked cars. My personal view is that this is a bad idea. I must emphasize this is my view and not that of any other group.

This would not be a problem but for a certain number of drivers who can’t seem to exit a vehicle without flinging the door open with complete disregard for the passing cyclist in the bike lane.

This negligent action usually results in the death of the cyclist as he is knocked from his bicycle into the adjacent traffic lane and under the wheels of a passing vehicle. Two such deaths have occurred this month in Chicago, and in Moorestown, New Jersey.

The City of Chicago, which is trying very hard to encourage bicycle riding, has taken criticism for bike lanes next to parked cars. On their own city website, they have posted a safety tip urging cyclists to use the outside edge of the bike lane, leaving at least a four feet door zone. (Left.)

The Charleston area has precious few bike lanes as it is, we cannot afford to loose what we have. Mount Pleasant’s plans are a huge step backwards. We have this beautiful bridge with a bike path, encouraging people to ride over to Mount Pleasant. Cyclists need to be accommodated when they get there.

Here is an idea for the city planners. If you must park cars on Coleman Blvd. put a four foot “Door Zone” next to the parked cars. (Clearly marked “Door Zone.”) If necessary make the bike lane only eighteen inches or two feet wide at the point.

I feel this makes more sense than making a five-foot bike lane, then advising cyclists (On some obscure website.) to only use the outside one foot of the lane. Coleman Blvd. is a wide road; if necessary make the traffic lanes narrower and lower the speed limit.

It is my understanding that this whole parking cars issue is because of plans to make Mount Pleasant a new and vibrant town center. Lowering the speed limit and enforcing it, would ensure that motorist do not simply speed through on their way to the beach. And in doing so completely miss your new and vibrant town center.


More on the Coleman Blvd. plans here.


Footnote: In the top picture you can just see the two old bridges behind the new; as mentioned in the article, these have been demolished.

Why do cyclists shave their legs? The only explanation you will ever need

It’s hotter’n hell, 90 degrees (32 C.) and we are going out for the evening. My wife is wearing long pants.

“Aren’t you going to be hot?” I ask. “Why don’t you wear a dress or shorts?”

“I can’t, I haven’t shaved my legs.”

End of questioning, no further explanation needed.

My lovely wife doesn’t want to be the only one in a roomful of ladies with silky smooth legs, while she is sporting stubble. Even though I would have to get down on my knees with a magnifying glass to find a tiny emerging follicle.

This is exactly the same reason why cyclists shave their legs, No one wants to go out on a group ride and be the only wooly mammoth in the pack.

Even if I am riding alone, I still shave my legs; I never know who I might meet on the road. Shaved legs simply look better on a cyclist. Some call it vanity, frankly I find that an affront to my pride.

I started racing in 1952 and that’s when I started shaving my legs. The European professional riders shaved their legs because they were riding the big stage races like the Tour de France and the Giro d’Italia.

Stages were long back then, sometimes in excess of 180 miles. (289.6 km.) They needed some serious massage therapy at the end of each day in order to have the leg muscles supple and relaxed ready to go again the next morning. It is neither comfortable for the cyclist or the masseuse to be massaging hairy legs.

The long, smooth legs in the picture at the top belonged to “Il Campionissimo” Fausto Coppi. I was no different from any other cyclist of the 1950s; we all wanted to emulate the great professional riders of that era. So we shaved our legs.

Shaved legs are faster; it is psychological. Like polishing the engine on a hot rod car; you can’t see inside the engine but you polish the outside. The cyclist is the “engine” of his bike; you can’t see the heart or the lungs inside, but by making the legs smooth and clean so you see every vein, sinew, and muscle, it is a definite psychological boost.

Professional cyclists today shave their legs for the same reason as their predecessors, and road cyclists of all levels, from amateur racers to weekend warriors follow suit. End of story, there should be no further explanation needed.

Fellow cyclists understand, but non-cyclists question this practice. We come up with all kinds of creative reasons for shaving our legs. We pretend that it is in case we fall and get road rash.

Sure with hair free legs it is easier to clean and dress wounds, but that is not why we shave our legs. A lady known only to me as “Jan” commented on a recent post. “If you fall and get road rash on your legs, wouldn’t you also scrape up your arms?” Good point, cyclists rarely shave their arms. (That would be weird.)

If someone asks me, “Why do you shave your legs?” I answer simply, “It’s traditional.” That is the only answer I need. No one questions it or doubts my word. After all, if something is traditional, who am I to break with tradition?

Professional racing cyclists have been shaving their legs for at least 100 years, that’s probably longer than ladies have been shaving their legs. So the practice definitely qualifies as a tradition.

Think of it like the running of the bulls in Pamplona, Spain; when someone asks, “Why would you run down the street in front of a herd of stampeding bulls?”

“It’s traditional.”

“Oh well, that explains it. No further explanation needed.”

Or, “Why are you taking that dead pine tree into your house at Christmas.”

“It’s traditional.”

You see how it works; it doesn’t matter how bizarre or irrational the act, just say, “It’s traditional,” and it is immediately accepted.

It is so easy. No more excuses, no more lies about road rash or guilt feelings over vanity. The answer is, “It’s traditional.”

No further explanation is needed.

Helmets: Now you can vote

After the first three comments on my last “Dispelling the Myth” post, I posted my own comment saying I hoped this wasn’t going to turn into yet another helmet discussion.

Then I thought “To hell with it,” deleted my comment, stepped back and let the discussion grow legs and go wherever it wanted.

I am now glad that I did because it turned out to be a highly civilized, intelligent debate. I enjoyed reading all the comments, and I would like to thank all who took the time to post.

I hope no one lost sight of the theme of the original post; the “Myth” is that cycling is dangerous. With or without a helmet, it is not as dangerous as some think it is.

If someone wants to ride a bike for no other reason than a transport to and from work, or wherever he or she needs to go. And they choose to do so in regular clothes and no helmet, they should be encouraged, not discouraged.

In many cases drivers will give such a person more room because they are not sure how experienced they are.

If you look to the right hand side-bar of this page and scroll down a bit, you will see I have added a “Helmet” poll.

I plan to leave it there for a while, the more people participate, the more accurate it will be. I will then post the results as a separate blog, and it will be here permanently.

Dispelling the myth

I have just read a wonderful pro cycling article in the British Medical Journal. (BMJ) It came out last December so you may have already seen it. If not, there is a link at the end.

What makes this piece different is that it is not written by a cycling advocacy group, but is an article for doctors by an independent writer pointing out the health benefits of cycling, and how these benefits far outweigh the slight risk of riding on the road.

This is a view that I strongly agree with. If cycling is ever to become popular again in the western world, the myth that cycling is dangerous must be dispelled.

The BMJ article comes out against helmet use on the grounds that it gives the impression that cycling is more dangerous than it really is. I am inclined to agree to a certain degree. I wear a helmet, but it is my choice; I am opposed to helmet use being mandatory, especially if it stops people from cycling.

The article points out, when helmets were made compulsory in Australia, hospital admissions from head injury fell by 15-20%, but the level of cycling fell by 35%. Ten years later, cycling levels in Western Australia are still 5-20% below the level they were before the introduction of the law yet head injuries are only 11% lower than would be expected without helmets.

At the same time, 17 times more motorists than cyclists died of head injuries in Australia during 1988, and yet no one is advocating mandatory helmets for motor vehicle drivers.

The BMJ article refers to the inherent risks of road cycling as trivial. Of at least 3.5 million regular cyclists in Britain, only about 10 a year die in rider only accidents where there is no other vehicle involved. Compare this with about 350 people killed each year by head injuries after falling down steps or tripping. (Total cycling fatalities in the UK in 2005 were 148.)

Another study estimated that out of 150,000 people admitted to hospital annually with head injuries in the United Kingdom; road cyclists account for only 1% of this total, yet 6% of the population are regular cyclists and a further 5% are occasional cyclists; 60% of admissions were alcohol related. Maybe we need helmets for walking drunks.

Finally, the BMJ article touched on a point that is the crux of the whole road death issue. In 1983, compulsion to wear seatbelts cut deaths among drivers and front seat passengers by 25%. Up until 1983, there had been a long established trend of declining deaths in car accidents. This reversed and just six years later by 1989 death rates among car drivers were higher than they had been in 1983.

Evidently, the driving population "risk compensated" away the substantial benefits of seatbelts by taking extra risks, at the same time putting others in more danger. This period saw a jump in deaths of cyclists.

Although temporary, the jump was followed by a decline and can be explained by cyclists having adapted to a more dangerous road environment through extra caution, or simply giving up cycling.

It is no coincidence that the long decline in cycling in the UK began in 1983. Between 1974 and 1982 cycling mileage in Britain increased 70%, but there was no increase in fatalities until the seatbelt law was introduced in 1983.

The civilized world should be outraged at the appalling casualty rate on our roads. It is the drivers of automobiles who are doing all the killing. In particular, aggressive drivers are the problem, speeding, running red lights, and taking all kinds of other risks.

In many cases, an aggressive driver is an angry driver, and I have heard it said that an angry driver is as much danger as a drunk driver. However, aggressive driving does not carry the social stigma that drunk driving does. It is time that it did; a dead person is just as dead whether killed by an aggressive driver or a drunk one.

Aggressive driving is unnecessary; it is just a habit, the sad this is, it has become accepted as the norm. Driving aggressively may only take five minutes off an average thirty-mile trip. Aside from the danger, there’s the mental stress, the wear and tear on the vehicle, and the gas wasted. Is it really worth it?

In spite of this, it has been proven that experienced cyclists are still safe because they become street smart, and ride defensively. Just as good, defensive drivers stay out of trouble. Inexperienced riders need to seek advice on safe riding practices, and get out there and ride. Like all skills there is no substitute for actually doing it.

It is a myth that cycling is dangerous, and car driving is safe. That seat belts save lives, because indirectly seat belts have lead to more deaths due to unsafe driving practices. However, we cannot go back. Making seat belts optional would claim more innocent lives, and would not stop aggressive driving.

I will go out on a limb here and state that it is also a myth that helmets save cyclists lives, because it is mostly the experienced bike riders who wear the helmets. It is experience that protects a cyclist’s life; but like the seat belt situation, we cannot go back. I for one will continue to wear my helmet.

Read the BMJ article here

Looking one way, driving another

A cyclist is about to ride across a busy main highway; there are two lanes westbound, and two lanes eastbound, with a center median or possibly a turn lane.

There is no traffic light, and only a two-way stop; cross traffic does not stop. The cyclist’s plan is to wait for a gap in eastbound traffic, then ride halfway to the relative safety of the center median.

At the same time the cyclist arrives at the south approach stop sign, a car arrives way across on the opposite north side. The car driver plans to cross over the eastbound side and make a left. He does not see the cyclist because he is looking to the left for westbound traffic. (Top picture.)

There is a gap in traffic so the driver does a rolling stop and continues across the two westbound lanes. He still does not see the cyclist because he is now looking to the right for a gap in eastbound traffic.

Meanwhile the cyclist saw a gap in eastbound traffic, and also did a rolling stop. This is his first big mistake and things will only get worse from this point on. He is now in the middle of a two-lane highway and he sees the car for the first time. (Picture below.)


The cyclist is completely screwed at this point, he cannot stop in the middle of the highway with traffic bearing down on him at 60 mph. He should be waving frantically and shouting at the top of his lungs, trying the get the driver’s attention.

The car driver has still not seen the cyclist because he is continuing to look to the right. The driver has seen the same gap in eastbound traffic that the cyclist saw, and he starts to accelerate.

He may glance forward to the southbound approach, but sees no one there because the cyclist has left that spot, and in all probability is in the driver’s blind spot caused by the door pillar and his driving mirrors. The driver is already turning while accelerating, still not looking ahead, and will only realize the cyclist is there when he runs over him. (Below.)


Who is at fault? The car driver of course for failing to see the cyclist, but this is of little consolation the cyclist at this moment. This is sloppy and aggressive driving that is all too common on roads to day. However, cyclists cannot afford to be sloppy.

Had the cyclist come to a complete stop and assessed the whole situation before crossing he would have seen the car on opposite side. He should have not only been looking for a gap in traffic on his side, but also looking at the traffic on the opposite westbound side.

If there was westbound traffic, this would be his safety buffer and the car opposite would not pull out and he would have time to get to the center median.

If the car starts out from the opposite side at the same time the cyclist does, there is no way the cyclist can beat the car to the center. Cars are faster, and the above scenario is very possible.

Don't count on drivers using turn signals; don't assume a car is going straight just because his turn signal is not on.

The cyclist may miss the gap in traffic, and have to wait a little longer, but let the car drivers be in a hurry, a cyclist cannot afford to rush.

Vehicles turning in front of cyclists is the most common bicycle/vehicle accident on roads today and will continue to be if people drive in one direction, while looking in another.

Sloppy, bad driving is not going away anytime soon, so always be on the lookout for situations like this one. Think ahead, ride smart, and ride defensively.


Footnote: Written for US readers. For UK readers and others who ride on the left side of the road, read left for right, and right for left. If possible, copy the pictures and flip to a reverse image.

Readers have asked me in the past, what do I use to make the drawings? I use MS Visio for the line drawings, save the picture as a JPEG, then fill in the colors with Photoshop.

New South Carolina Laws to Protect Cyclists

Mark Sanford, Governor of my adopted home state of South Carolina, signed a new bill into law yesterday, clarifying that cyclists have as much right to the state's roads as motorists do.

Motorists will be required to keep a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the cyclist. As I see it, there is no three-foot passing law that other states have enacted, but I guess at least if a motorist hits a cyclist he can’t argue that he was at a safe distance.

There are provisions for fines of up to $1,000 if a cyclist is seriously injured.

It is now a misdemeanor to harass, yell at, honk at, or throw and object in the direction of a cyclist. Punishable by a $250 fine, or 30 days prison, or both.

Cyclists are required to use a bike lane where provided, but may move into the road to avoid a hazard. Cyclists are not required to use a separate multi-use bike path, and can opt to ride on the road.

A cyclist can ride on the shoulder of the road, or the road, but is not required to ride on the shoulder.

Cyclists are not allowed to ride more than two abreast on public roads, which means they can ride in twos if circumstances allow. (This has been the law in SC all along and remains the same.)

A cyclist is no longer required to have a bell on their bike. (Someone should get a no-bell prize for that one :) I guess if it is a misdemeanor to honk at a cyclist, it is only fair that cyclist should not be allowed to ring their bell in anger.

Cyclists should signal a left turn by extending their left arm straight out, and in the case of a right turn, may signal with the right arm straight out. In other words, point in the direction they intend to go.

I am pleased, as this is what I have been doing all along. It seems to make more sense than signaling a right turn with your left arm at a 90 degree angle pointing upwards.

This bill has been kicking around since 2004. Sadly, it was the deaths of two cyclists that spurred it on. The new bicycle safety legislation was signed into law yesterday, Tuesday, June 10th, 2008, the day after Rachel Giblin’s birthday and the day before Tom Hoskins’ birthday. Rachel would have been 17. Tom would have been 50. Both died in vehicle-bike crashes.

South Carolina is unfortunately seventh in the nation when it comes to cycling fatalities, a horrible record. It saddened me when my local paper, the Post & Courier, printed this story on Monday and many hateful comments from readers were posted.

It only goes to show when people can no longer discriminate on the grounds of race, religion, or sexual orientation, they can improvise and still find someone to hate.

I am not a Lance Armstrong wannabe, I was racing bikes before Lance Armsrtong’s parents were born. I just want to ride my bike and come home safely, as we all do. I have a wife and also two daughters who love me, and would miss me.

I don’t expect attitudes to change overnight, however, this is a huge step forward. Every time another state passes laws like these, it makes it a little easier for the remaining states to follow suit.

The West Ashley Greenway

I recently learned of SCtrails.net which lists all the Biking and Hiking Trails in the State of South Carolina.

On this website, I discovered the West Ashley Greenway, which runs from the Windermere district, just over the Stono River from James Island, to Main Road on Johns Island. I had heard of this trail, but I did not realize it was so long. (10.5 miles.)

On Sunday I decided to check it out and picked up the trail at about the half way point about a mile from my home. I headed west towards Main Road; there was no one else on the trail at 7:00 am. The first part of the trail was hard packed dirt and grass, easy riding on my road bike; I stopped to take a few pictures.




As I neared Main Road the trail went over some marshes; the last mile was loose stones and a little tough, but still ridable. (See below.)

The trail emerged under the railroad bridge on Main Road, just before the Stono River Bridge. There is easy access onto the Stono Bridge without having to cross Main Road, and even on the way back, you make a left at the foot of the bridge, and keep going left under the bridge (See below.) to the access road on the opposite side that takes you back to the trail head.

The trail was once an old railroad line and runs parallel with Savannah Highway (Route 17.) Savannah Highway is the main road South out of Charleston and has very heavy traffic. I will only ride it on the weekends when the traffic is a little lighter.

The trail enables me to bypass Rte.17 altogether. Main Road is also a busy two-lane highway that leads to Kiawah Island and Seabrook. Not good for riding, however, the Stono River Bridge has a wide shoulder, and once over the bridge it is only a short distance to a light where a right turn takes you onto Chisolm Road.

Chisholm is a road that goes nowhere; it just does a ten-mile loop and then joins back up with Main Road. As a result the only traffic on this road are local residents, and they are so used to seeing cyclists that they always give plenty of room when passing.

The road has a nice surface and much of it is shaded by trees on both sides, giving respite from the summer heat. (See picture below.)

On the weekend it is not unusual to see as many cyclists on this road as cars. Many local cyclists drive out there, then park and ride their bikes. I hate to do that on principal, plus we are a one-car family, so tying up the vehicle while I ride my bike would be a little selfish.

I am excited about the Greenway Trail because for me it makes riding Chisolm a possibility during the week and not just weekends. I actually enjoyed riding it, took me back to my old cyclo-cross days.

The European pros know from experience of riding on cobblestones, the faster you ride over rough ground the more comfortable it is. I rode this trail using the highest gear I could handle. A high gear gives more traction, and when you are pushing hard your weight is on the pedals rather than the saddle. Arms bent and holding the bars loosely allows the bike to float over the rough ground.

The only time I will not be able to ride this trail is when the ground is wet; I will also have to clean my bike a little more often. This is a chore I could do without; I would rather ride my bike than clean it. Oh well.

A Million Bucks? What a Crock*

This is a bike that Koga has developed for Dutch Olympic hopeful Theo Bos. Koga claims they have spent a million US dollars developing this special one off bike.

I’m sorry I don’t buy it, all I see is just another carbon fiber bike. If this was new technology I might be convinced, but CF bikes have been around for twenty years or more, they were built for the Olympics in the 1980s.

It’s a bicycle fer Cri-sakes, not a Formula One race car; where do you get a million bucks. Give us a breakdown of where the million dollars went.

What about truth in advertising? Because this is what it is. You build a one off bike, and then you think of a number. Okay, a million dollars is a nice round figure.

Next, put out a press release saying you’ve spent a million developing this special bike that is so light a fart would blow it away.

The press and the general media, knowing sod all about bikes goes with the story.

When it comes to bicycle racing it is the strongest rider that will win every time. If Theo Bos is the best rider he would still win on a stock bike that anyone can buy.

Can’t Koga see that? If Bos were to win on one of their stock bikes, it would in the end sell more bikes. Because what they are saying is, our stock bikes are not good enough for the Olympics we have to spend a million dollars.

The smart thing to do would be to pay Theo Bos a million dollars if he wins the gold on a stock bike.



* UK translation: What a Crock = What a Load of Bollocks!

Footnote from Dave: Ooops! Koga not Kona, mistake edited. See first comment. Thanks Darren

Graffiti

A car collides into cyclists participating in a race in Mexico's northern border city of Matamoros on Sunday. One rider died, ten are injured.

This is extreme ugliness, man made ugliness as it always is. How can I write about a such a tragedy in a positive light? The answer is I can’t, but I can at least try.

A man paints a building pristine and white, and along comes a graffiti artist in the night and creates ugliness on one tiny corner of the building.

The owner of the building must go out the very next day and paint over the offending graffiti. If he doesn’t other graffiti artists will come and before long the beauty of the building will be destroyed.

For most reading this, the incident didn’t even happen in our country, so we can’t protest to our government. All we can do is paint over it and not allow it to spoil the beauty of the thing we love, namely cycling.

That doesn’t mean we ignore it and pretend it didn’t happen. The man who has to go out and repaint his building is neither ignoring it, nor pretending it didn’t happen. But he must deal with it, what else can he do?

Those who knew the cyclist that died will suffer the most, along with the people injured and their friends and relatives. Those of us who didn’t know them personally will suffer to a lesser degree, but never-the-less suffer.

Those completely detached from our sport will read the report and look at the sensational picture above and simply remark, “Will you look at that.”

Just as someone detached will drive by a building covered in graffiti and make a similar remark. One block further on they have forgotten about it. Those who care will not forget.

I hope no one comments here that graffiti has a beauty of its own. I am not writing about graffiti, it is just a metaphor. There will no doubt be those who even see beauty in the above picture as the riders and their bikes fly through the air in some grotesque ballet.

That is if they forget at the precise moment the camera froze this moment in time, someone died, and others were experiencing extreme physical pain.

The picture is ugly, the incident was ugly. It is impossible to write about such ugliness and make it pretty, any more than it is possible to write about it and make it go away.

James Starley: Father of the Bicycle Industry

James Starley (1830 - 1881) is considered to be the "Father of the Bicycle Industry." Born in Albourne, Sussex in the South of England, James Starley (Above.) left home at eighteen years old and took a job as a gardener.

Starley was a mechanical genius who gained a reputation for mending clocks and inventing useful gadgets. It is interesting how chance meetings in a person’s life can not only change the course of that individual’s life, but in this case change the course of history.

Starley’s employer, John Penn, bought an expensive sewing machine for his wife, which broke down. James of course fixed the problem and, what is more, envisioned improvements to the mechanism.

Penn knew Josiah Turner, one of the partners of the makers of the sewing machine, and in due course Starley was taken on as an employee at the London sewing machine factory.

His talent was such that Turner and Starley started their own sewing machine company around 1861. The pair moved to Coventry, in the West Midlands of England, because of the abundance of skilled machinists there. Coventry had previously been known for its clock making industry.


Once again a chance happening steered the company in a new direction. Turner's nephew brought a French Velocipede, (Above.) commonly known as a boneshaker to the factory in 1868, Starley again saw room for improvement and the company soon started making bicycles.


They built a bicycle called the “Ariel,” meaning “Spirit of the Air.” (Picture above.) The machine was lighter than the old Velocipede with a tubular steel frame and wire-spoke wheels that were far lighter than the old solid compression spoke wheels. James Starley later invented tangent or cross spoke wheels that were patented in 1874. Tangent spokes are still used today.

The Ariel evolved into the Ordinary or Penney Farthing bicycle, as the front wheel became larger in a quest for speed. James Starley would later partner with William Hillman to produce the Ordinary bicycle and also tricycles.

Steering problems, while riding a side-by-side tricycle tandem, caused by the unequal power input of the ageing James on one side and his stronger son on the other that prompted James Starley to invent the differential drive in 1877. This also solved the problem of the different speed of the inside and outside wheels when cornering. The differential was ready and waiting when the motor car needed the device.

Also brought into the bicycle manufacturing business was James Starley's nephew John Kemp Starley who would later start his own company in partnership with William Sutton. The early tricycles that John Starley worked on with his uncle were lever driven; later models were chain driven.


This chain drive would feature in John Kemp Starley’s “Rover” (Above.) safety bicycle first built in 1884. The Rover had 26 inch wheels that are still a standard size today, and although the frame did not have a seat tube, the diamond shape is basically the same as bicycles built today.

The name Rover had been previously used on a James Starley tricycle, (Left.) however, the name really suited the new bicycle as it freed the people to “rove” all over the countryside.

Others had experimented with chain-driven "safety bicycles" but the Rover was really the first practical model. It made its mark to the extent that "Rover" means "bike" in some countries such as Poland.

In due course, motor-driven bicycles became motorcycles and were followed by motor cars. John Kemp Starley experimented with an electric tri-car around 1888 but the petrol-driven Rover 8 h.p. car was released in 1904, two years after his death.

The Rover car company still exists. (Although throughout the years, it has been under different ownership.) Today they produce the Land-Rover.


William Hillman who partnered with James Starley to build bicycles, also went on to produce cars and for many years Hillman was a famous British name in automobiles.

And the first bicycle Starley produced, the “Ariel” became a famous British motorcycle.

Motorcycle enthusiasts will remember the Ariel 1000 Square Four from the late 1940s, early 1950s. (Pictured left.)

John Kemp Starley’s Rover set the standard design for the bicycle that has remained basically the same since. However, it was his uncle James Starley who paved the way for the “Safety Bicycle” with his use of chain drive. This, along with his other inventions and production methods, makes him the Father of the Bicycle Industry.

Assorted Starley bicycles can be seen in Coventry’s excellent Transport Museum. The City of Coventry is well worth a visit for this museum and for the beautiful cathedral.