Football - safer than riding a bike!

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
- Mark Twain

Need some evidence of that?

You've probably heard the ongoing dialogue regarding football injuries, specifically brain injuries caused by repeated concussions.  Just this week, NFL player Chris Borland announced his retirement from the San Francisco 49ers at the age of 24, because he doesn't want to risk those kind of injuries.

In response, on Tuesday Dr. Joseph Maroon, a neurosurgeon, said, "There are more injuries to kids from falling off bikes, scooters, falling in playgrounds than there are in youth football. Again, it’s never been safer. Can we improve? Yes, we have to do better all the time to make it safer, but I think if a kid is physically able to do it and wants to do it, our job is to continue to make it safer. But it’s much more dangerous riding a bike or a skateboard than playing youth football."

Is he talking "tackle" bike riding, or "flag" bike riding?

It might be meaningful that Dr. Maroon earns money as a consultant to the NFL Head, Neck and Spine Committee.  He's also team neurosurgeon to the Pittsburgh Steelers.

It's probably a safe bet that more kids break their heads riding bikes than do playing football.  But Maroon is obviously and conveniently ignoring the fact that for every kid who plays football, probably 1000 ride bikes.  And 999 of those 1000 kids emerges unscathed.

If he really believes what he says... perhaps he's had a few concussions over the years.

Story HERE.

NOTE!  I unhesitatingly advocate wearing a helmet (both children and adults!), and wear one myself, because of the possibility of konks to the noggin!  Don't get me wrong!  Cyclists suffer head injuries every day of the year.  But let's get real, and not try to convince people by distorting facts.

21st-century bike computer

I was probably a bike-computer "early adopter."  I bought one in 1986 - a Cateye Solar.  It was battery powered, but a solar cell supposedly provided supplemental power.  And... it was quite functional, even by the standards 25+ years later.  It didn't automatically start and stop... you had to push the button or it would just keep ticking away.  (It was always a bummer when I parked it for 2 or 3 hours and, having forgotten to turn it off, discovered that my average speed was now 0.6mph!  haha)  But - it even had the cadence function, with a separate pedal sensor.  I haven't had the cadence counter for a long time; back then it was typically 90-95.  Nowadays I bet it's dropped by 10 or so; I no longer ride in world-champion form.

I've always had good luck with Cateye computers, so I've stuck with the brand mostly.

I'm looking at the current models.  That 1986 "Solar" model cost me close to $80, as I recall.  Now the entry-level model is around 20 bucks... it's the Velo 7.  For a few bucks more, you can get the Velo 9 instead.  And as one might guess, it has 2 more functions than the 7-function Velo 7.

The two additional functions on the Velo 9?  Are you ready?
- Calorie Consumption
- Carbon Offset

Pardon me while I laugh.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Calorie consumption?  Um... how will it know?  (Unless it has a human-USB interface or something.)  Calorie consumption is dependent not only on speed, but on slope, terrain, head- or tailwind.  It's also dependent on the rider's weight, metabolism, etc.  Example... if I'm riding up the Kristin Armstrong Road (a fairly steep paved road) at 10mph, I bet I'm burning more calories than Kristin Armstrong does, when she's riding down at 30mph.

Carbon offset?  I better not even get started on that one!  Is the baseline my wife's Family Truckster, or Algore's private jet?  If I pedal even harder, will it save an iceberg?

I think I can pass on those two extra functions.  If somebody reads this and has experience with the Velo 9, I'd love a "counterpoint" explanation of the value and accuracy of those bells and whistles... please share!

A final note about the Kristin Armstrong Road... it's the bottom half of the road to Bogus Basin.  I rode to Bogus... once.  Ten years ago, on July 4th, in the morning.  My average speed was nowhere near 10mph... in fact on the bottom half, it was maybe half that.  By the time I got halfway up, I was near tears I was so tired... didn't know if I could make it.  I stopped and rested... and discovered that the top half levels off considerably.  It was far easier.  Kristin can probably ride up as fast as I ride down!  And she probably weighs right around half as much as me.

Bike/Car crashes in L.A. County

Los Angeles County may not be the first place you think of in the context of bicycle transportation.  I imagine the freeways that chop the infrastructure into little pieces are a major obstacle.  But the weather is certainly agreeable, and lots of people ride bikes, even in such an unlikely, car-centric place.

Lots of bikes - lots of crashes.  In 2012, the authorities documented 5090 crashes involving a bicycle and a car.

What can we learn from the statistics?

1) Cyclists were more likely to be at fault, according to the authorities.  (Nationwide in such crashes, the fault is pretty evenly divided between the cyclist and the motorist.)

2) In the 1878 crashes that were determined to be the fault of the motorist, failure to yield was the most frequent behavior leading to a collision.  Second was improper turning.  Other causes - disobeying traffic signals, "other hazardous violation," and excessive speed.  No surprise there.

3) In the 2759 crashes that were caused by the cyclist's behavior... the #1 behavior by a wide margin was "biking on the wrong side of the road."  (Others, but small percentages: failure to yield, disobeying traffic signals, improper turning.)  No surprise?  Unfortunately, it's unlikely that this sort of empirical information will make much of a difference... against-traffic riding laws are rarely enforced unless a crash is involved, and the against-traffic riders seem perfectly content to expose themselves to additional risk, riding along in blissful ignorance.

Story HERE.

New bike/pedestrian bridge underway?

For several years, the public servants who run Garden City have been threatening to build a new bridge across the Boise River, for pedestrians and cyclists.

Part of their motivation is to mitigate the bicycle bottleneck created by their arbitrary closure of a stretch of Greenbelt through the neighborhood the mayor developed.  They call it their "nature trail," and it's closed to bicycle traffic.  After all... it's common knowledge that the fragile ecosystem and the furry and feathery woodland creatures can thrive while surrounded by pedestrians, dogs, lawn mowers and backyard barbecue parties, but would be irreparably harmed by punks on bikes.

Okay, I've vented.  (And I've vented before.)

A couple weeks ago I rode out there to get the lay of the land.  A half mile or so west of the "edge of civilization" (the last houses) on the south side of the river, I came across a sign announcing the closure of the Greenbelt.  (I've got to hand it to the Garden City Fathers... they are good at closing the Greenbelt!)

 

Shortly past the sign, there are stakes in the ground, which I imagine mark the trajectory of the pathway and bridge that should start taking shape any time.

 

 

In this photo, taken from the south side of the river, you can see a stake in the foreground, and on the other side there's a small clearing, pretty much straight above the stake... I imagine that's where the bridge will meet the north bank.

 

Here's a rendering of the bridge, taken from the Garden City website:

 

 

(If I were in charge, we'd spend a few extra bucks and make it look like a tiny replica of the Golden Gate Bridge.)



Boise River Bark Busters

Ride along the Greenbelt in these parts, and you'll notice that many of the tree trunks are wrapped with chicken wire.  When the wire is missing, its purpose quickly becomes evident.  Mysterious creatures - perhaps the same ones that make crop circles? - buzz the bark right off!

I'm no botanist, but my understanding is that the nutrients flow up a tree trunk in a thin layer between bark and wood... can these trees remain healthy?

Presidents Day = Bicycle Day?

Washington's birthday - February 22 - became a national holiday in 1885.  (Back then, Lincoln's birthday was a couple weeks earlier.  Now, by government decree, they were both born sometime in between.)

Also in 1885, the USA was going bicycle-crazy!  The "safety bicycle" was the big fad - the "smart phone" of its day.  Everybody had to have one, hundreds of companies were manufacturing them, and the competition made them very affordable, even for common folk.  Because of the bike craze, many cities starting with Boston declared "bicycle day" as well.  After all, since businesses were closed and people had free time, why not give them some bicycle events to participate in?

An article at The Atlantic explains it.  "Riders prepared for the occasion, including the many women who were taking to the new hobby. Many new gowns are already ordered and will be worn on Bicycle Day if the weather will permit... Stores competed to attract the crowds. At the Tinkham Cycle Company, for example, the Royal Hungarian Band played, bicycle bells rang, acetylene and electric lamps flashed, and visitors gawked at bikes with three, four, six, or ten seats. Every customer took home a lily bulb to plant; the owner of the handsomest and tallest flower could redeem it for a hundred-dollar bicycle come June."

Of course, that was back before global warming.  Back when bikes could be ridden in mid-February.  Nowadays there's 4 feet of snow on the ground in Boston.  HEY!  Wait a minute!  What the?!!?  (Boston would be in no shape to host a "bicycle day" this year!  I'm expecting my third grandchild, to be born in Providence RI, just down the way from Boston, and the Missus is having a heck of a time finding transportation to get there.)

Happy Bicycle Day!

Drivetrain of the future?

Last year as the days were getting longer and warmer, I posted a note about the Novara Gotham bicycle that I've had my eyes on for several years.  In most respects, it's a fairly conventional "urban bicycle" with relaxed geometry, medium-width tires, and upright riding position.  But what continues to capture my attention and imagination is the drivetrain.

The Gotham doesn't have a derailleur at either end.  Instead, it has a NuVinci constantly-variable hub that has a 360% range of "gear" ratios, using some balls and specialized oil.  And in place of the conventional chain, it has a belt.  (Similar to the Harley-Davidson motorcycles I've been riding for 18 years.)

Last spring, I visited the local REI store on a nice Saturday morning, and asked if I could take a test ride on their Gotham - the first one I'd ever seen in person.  (It's funny - on the day I went in, the Gotham was parked next to a "fat bike" with the super-wide tires.  The fat bike had a half-dozen young fellows surrounding and admiring it... nobody was giving the Gotham the time of day.)  I signed my life away, and rolled the bike toward the door to test ride it.  The sales guy said, "Please don't leave the parking lot."  HUH?  What kind of test ride is that?  So, I rode around in the parking lot for 10 minutes.  Big wup!  (I don't feel like I got a fair shake at the test ride, but I liked what little I could sense of the drivetrain - silent, and the constantly-variable thing was pretty cool.)

I'd probably buy the Gotham - it's one of the few "factory" bicycles with the NuVinci and belt, and at around $1400 it's not outrageously expensive.  (The hub alone costs $360 or so.)  The only thing that's holding me back is the question of long-term durability.  REI guarantees the bike for a year.  Fallbrook - the company that builds the NuVinci - guarantees their product for two years.  Frankly, I'd want my $360 hub to give me ten years of trouble-free service!  Or at least five years.

I sent email inquiries to both Fallbrook and REI, asking about the long-term reliability... what a high-mileage rider could reasonably expect.

REI, to their credit, got back to me within 24 hours... with a non-answer.  They told me to contact Fallbrook and ask them, so I could make an informed decision.  (Obviously they weren't willing to go out on a limb and vouch for the product's long-term durability.)

I haven't yet heard back from Fallbrook.  Not a good sign.

The concept is ingenious - totally!  The mechanism is complex, compared to a derailleur.  But it's super-simple compared to one of those 8- or 11-speed internal hubs!  (It's called the NuVinci as homage to Leonardo DaVinci - the renaissance artist/inventor/genius - who produced some conceptual drawings that inspired the design of the hub.)  But a fantastic design is only that, if the real-world product isn't durable for real-world use.

I have no such hesitation about the belt drive.  Harley's been using it for 30 years, and it's a winner - lasts longer than a chain, and essentially zero maintenance.  (One comment about the belt - since it is a continuous piece, the bicycle frame needs a void.  The Gotham bicycle has a small section that unbolts from the right side seat stay.)

I'd sure like somebody to step forward and declare that he/she has been using a NuVinci hub for 50,000 worry-free miles.  (I've got nothing against the derailleurs I've been using for 50+ years... but I'd not grumble if I didn't have to clean and lube and replace chains and cogs.)