The Ultimate Bike Helmet-related Letter to the Editor

OK, just kidding (sort of). The May/June 2011 Momentum magazine features "The Helmet Debate" by Elly Blue (four pages long), as well as two bike helmet buying guides, a separate short helmet review, a full-page helmet ad, a contest with a helmet as a prize, lots of nice photos of both helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists and also several letters regarding helmets, which were submitted in response to a request in the March/April issue. They printed/posted a short letter of mine. Following is the longer version from which it was excerpted (I sent it at the end of March and tonight I added some additional paragraphs).

Dear Editor,

Very detailed information related to your question of mandatory cycling helmets has been done by the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation. Beyond that, I am quite interested in the imagery of helmetism, i.e. how promotion and compulsion of cycling helmets are, perhaps, closer cousins then we think:

To start, nearly all urban cycling promotion organizations suggest that helmets are safer and implying or explicitly state that you are smart to wear one. This includes both the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and Transportation Alternatives (NYC), the latter with their Biking Rules project, which irritatingly conflates their recommendations of helmets with laws for cycling. An exception is C.I.C.L.E, from Los Angeles, which had what I would call a very pro-choice helmets page, with simple, objective information and links (including to the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation). (Just added: That link is dead now, the C.I.C.L.E. website is in the midst of a re-design and the only new helmet link is typical of most other bike orgs. Will update if it changes back. Sigh).

Consider that most of the other local organization's publications and websites have helmet imagery which might support the view of the organization which created the page but often does not reflect the real helmet-wearing rate in their area and this is worse if the photos are more general, i.e. of how cycling looks in the city they work in.

I believe a good solution for that would be to determine roughly what helmet-wearing rates are and pick and commission photos of helmeted and unhelmeted cyclists to accurately reflect that.

Beyond that, cyclist pictograms in e.g. bike lanes in USA cities without mandatory helmet laws have helmets! As an illustration of a consistent approach to compulsion via promotional bombardment: Washington D.C.'s Capital Bikeshare website has a cyclist with a poorly-adjusted and thus useless helmet. And this from the company which runs that scheme. And that company's president. (I like much of what Alta does but just want to make a point about how helmet promotion can be both directly and indirectly connected with various initiatives.)

Added tonight: Capital Bikeshare sounds successful from all reports I have seen, however I am curious if all members have read the fine print in the contract, which requires them to sign a safety pledge (i.e. to agree to abide by recommendations on the safety page of the website, which of course includes wearing a helmet.) In addition, the contract says that Alta Bikeshare is "...not liable for any claim including those that arise from or relate to [...] failure to wear a bicycle helmet while using a Capital Bikeshare bicycle...".

What I find most troubling with all this is that while Washington D.C.'s helmet law only applies to children under age 16, users of Capital Bikeshare have to be 16 or over. The system is funded in part by taxpayers through Federal and local funds and because of this and also its design function it's a form of public transport. So while the D.C. government does not require helmet-wearing for people eligible to use Capital Bikeshare users via its democratically-created laws, it does require it via membership contracts for this system which it supports financially.

Perhaps someone with better legal knowledge can enlighten me about why there is not something peculiar about this.

On the other hand, B-Cycle - and I mention them because at this moment they and Alta Bikeshare are finalists in getting the NYC bike share gig - makes no mention of helmets in their membership page (at least in this one for Denver -- there is no statewide helmet law in Colorado for anyone). But to be fair to Alta, I assume there are other contracts in the USA which are similar to theirs, though I do know they will be doing something similar with their new operation in Boston.

At some point formal helmet compulsion becomes unnecessary when there is a never-ending barage of helmet imagery. (I am arguing that it does not matter if an org. which strongly promotes helmets say that they are also against laws to mandate it.) If people only see helmeted cyclists, they might not even ask if it is required to wear them or not. They will just assume so. I know that recently in NYC a police officer gave a ticket to an adult cyclist for not wearing a helmet, when actually there is no requirement to wear one, unless the cyclist is doing commercial activity. That is how crazy this gets. It might also be useful to compare how even a majority of opinions against mandatory cycling helmets in response to your query can compete against not just helmet company advertisements in Momentum, but all the other likely ads which have helmeted cyclists in them.

Finally, consider something else: If a serving politician promoted driving helmets they would be voted out of office (If they were running for election they would never win). Another: This is an issue of personal freedom, since helmet wearing - or not - only affects its user, and parents should be able to decide this for their children for the same reason. And one more: Required labels inside helmets do not clearly state under what kinds of crashes are simulated in helmet testing and their marketing is even less precise. I have a suggestion for this.

My accepted abstract for the last Velo-city in Seville, Spain, "Helmetism & Hyper-illumination" provides further information and references. I have a Facebook Page on the subject focused on Velo-city in Vancouver next year.

Kind regards,
Todd Edelman
Green Idea Factory
Berlin, Germany

Velo-city: ECF Sells Out to Big Helmet?!?

Part One of a Two-Part Series on Velo-city Global in Vancouver. For Part Two click here.

Fear comes for Free! Sean van Waes, the Flemish "Head Helmeteer" at Velo-city sponsor Lazer Helmets (of Belgium), used his evil lazer rays to fry the analytical parts of people's brains at ECF (and perhaps the Velo-city organizing committee). 

This just in: Norco Bicycles plans to "outfit every registered delegate [at Velo-city Global in Vancouver] with a new Lazer cycling helmet". Norco and Lazer are "Gold Sponsors" of the conference, which starts in two weeks. Vancouver is in British Columbia, which has an all-ages mandatory helmet law.

From the helmets page of the European Cyclists' Federation (ECF): "ECF are [sic] not against individuals choosing to wear helmets, however we are against mandatory helmet laws and shock-horror helmet promotions. We do this via support to our members, and also by becoming active members in a wide range of trans-national forums."

ECF is pro-choice on helmets, but promotes the idea - which I agree with - that helmets make cycling look more dangerous than it is, and that pushing helmets is a distraction from much more effective methods for making cycling safe. However, there is nothing in the hosting agreement for Velo-city in Vancouver - and presumably in the agreement for the next Velo-city events in Vienna (2013) and Adelaide (2014) -  to prevent helmet companies from sponsoring the event.

The Board of ECF. I have questions for them.

So let's consider "shock-horror helmet promotions"...

From the press release above: "In the spirit of the Velo-city 2012 program theme, 'Essential Elements - Increasing Cycling and Safety,' Norco's contribution will allow delegates to rest assured while exploring Vancouver on their complimentary conference bicycles. Norco and Lazer have delegates covered - literally."

"Essential"? "Rest assured"? "Covered"? Hmm... strong and manipulative but not quite "horror". But consider some examples from Lazer's testimonials page: 

"I am confident the helmet saved my life, or at least saved me from having extreme brain damage."

"I was hit by a car going 55 mph while I was riding my bicycle. story made short I went to the hospital and suffered a concussion and severe lacerations and road burn. I was wearing a Lazer 02 helmet at the time, and it saved my life."

"You saved my brother's life."

Yes, Lazer put a helmet on Vincent van Gogh. He is from Zundert, about 35km from Mr. van Waes's hometown of Antwerp, Belgium. But Zundert is in the Netherlands. Lazer put a helmet on a Dutchman. In an advertisement. No Dutch artist wearing normal clothes on a city bike has ever worn a helmet.

Are we at the level of "shock-horror" yet? Well, let's see some of the other Velo-city sponsors:

• Momentum magazine, one of the two "Media Sponsors", has in its June 2012  digital edition, adverts from three of the major helmet manufacturers (including Lazer), and in another in a seemingly endless series of helmet-buying guides, the introduction says a "helmets [...] can be invaluable additions to your everyday repertoire." The Lazer stuff is much worse, but still,  this is not language that the ECF should be associated with.  The magazine has dozens of helmeted and an equal number of unhelmeted heads, so the imagery is not that big a problem (though they've done worse in the past).
• "Contributing Sponsor" The Canadian Automobile Association, or CAA, has a bike safety page on its national website. This includes an explanation of "Why it is Important" (to wear a helmet), but this uses the repeatedly discredited and unproven magic 85% figure about helmet efficacy. They also imply that cycling is as dangerous as lacrosse or hockey, and not just that...

Sigh.

Do we have aggregate "shock-horror" yet? Maybe not, but please consider the following...

A few weeks ago I learnt that Velo-city organizers were trying to find a pro-helmet person for a debate planned for the conference. As far as I know they did not find anyone. None of the politicians in the all-ages mandatory helmet British Columbia, none of the sponsors... apparently not even the helmet company is willing to defend their product.

But they are distributing at least 1,000 free helmets (this is the figure repeatedly mentioned as the number of delegates for the conference). What is the purpose of this? Nearly everyone who is attending this conference has a helmet if they want one (i.e. it is not an issue of financing as many will be spending upwards of 2,000 CAD for registration, accommodation and transport.). Should people have extra helmets? Should they give a helmet to a friend (are they sure they will get the right size?). I am not sure of the financial arrangements (it sort of sounds like Norco is buying these helmets from Lazer at cost, so perhaps at least 25,000 to 35,000 CAD for this.)

Lazer and Norco are probably thinking that some people will not bring their own helmets (and of course many delegates do not own helmets). They know that there is that mandatory helmet law, and probably many are wondering if it will be enforced. (I started a Facebook Page in order to promote a protest...).

I won't be going, and I also wonder what will happen. Will many simply decline the free helmet? Is that enough of a statement? (What is the ignition temperature of a helmet?) I don't think so, and to get back to my main point, I think that ECF as the owner of the Velo-city Series has been painfully sloppy about this whole issue, and I do think that all the examples I give do add up to "shock-horror". 

On the other hand, via email some time back I mentioned to a current ECF board member that it was clear to me that part of the reason Vancouver was selected was due to a desire to disrupt the helmet law in B.C.. He did not deny this... he did not say anything. I would like to be optimistic but given the way everything has been handled I am not sure I should be.

The operator and supplier of the new bike share system in Vancouver was just announced. Vancouver won’t pursue a helmet law exemption. As nearly everyone reading this knows, the bike share system in Melbourne, Australia - run by Alta Bike Share - has been a disaster due to mandatory helmet laws there.

*****

"My masters, Fear, Greed and Opportunism, bid thee welcome."

*****

For previous entries on the topic of helmets, see here.

Melbourne Bike Share: Helmet dispensers, but no one to help adjust fit

Are 7-Eleven employees in Melbourne trained to fit bike helmets?

The State of Victoria, Australia, requires all cyclists to wear helmets. This reduces the chance to use Melbourne Bike Share spontaneously, a problem its operators are trying to solve by making helmets available near this 3rd Generation system's docking stations.

As I saw on the Bike-sharing Blog, 7-Elevens in Melbourne now have bicycle helmet dispensers. It is well-known that helmets have to fit properly with straps adjusted in order to fulfil levels of protection promoted by helmet advocates. The Melbourne Bike Share website - copying regulations for the State of Victoria - says:

"Bike Helmets - The rider of a bicycle must wear an approved bicycle helmet securely fitted and fastened on their head."

"Securely fitted" seems to very clearly mean expertise is needed, either from personal experience, or from an experienced friend, or of course (as the default) from the staff in the establishment selling the helmet*.

I found nothing on the Melbourne Bike Share website to indicate that any help is available from 7-Eleven staff. The vending machine (see photo) has clearly indicated large and medium sizes (perhaps the small size is hiding) and some text with the title "How to Ensure a Proper Fit", but without graphics. 7-Eleven issued a press release on 13 October which seems to indicate a lack of understanding of the importance of helmet fit:

“7-Eleven makes every effort to stock what you want, where and when you want it. Just as you might pick up your bottle of water, sunscreen and snacks for your picnic, now you can pick up a helmet for a bike ride along some of Melbourne’s scenic parks.” - from Julie Laycock, 7-Eleven Head of Marketing.

Click to enlarge the photo, which is from Capital Bikeshare in Washington, D.C. I am not certain if everyone involved understands how helmets are supposed to fit. (Where do all these cyclists in the photos on the website keep their helmets or is this wishful thinking?).

A poor-fitting helmet can increase injury even more than other inherent design faults of a bicycle helmet (such as rotational issues, often discussed in helmut forums). So if a poorly-fitting helmet increases the injuries to a Melbourne Bike Share user, who is liable? Who is responsible?

Also, it is my understanding that when not being worn a helmet is vulnerable (e.g. just hanging on a backpack) as it is designed to have strength in aggregate with a skull. Perhaps this can be explained in an analogy of a large ship in water, and what happens if it a large part of it leaves the water. I may be wrong about this.

If anyone can provide some answers or thoughts it would be appreciated.

- T

*Certainly, mail order helmets can create the same issues, and of course mail order can also create problems in bike fit which can terminate an interest in cycling... but as we all know the bicycle manufacturers in general prioritize selling stuff over creating more cycling.

** If you're on Facebook, please considering joining a related initiative.

The Netherlands: "Volvo introduces helmet to protect against Volvos"

Couldn't possibly think of something better, so I took the title for this entry from the latest at Bakfiets-n-Meer, from Henry Cutler of Workcycles in Amsterdam. (Cartoon by Wulff Morgenthaler via Copenhagenize).

Volvo Cars is promoting bicycle helmet use for Dutch children.

Very sad, the Cult of Dangerization which has its object and lead symbol the styrosafetycap, is infecting one of the best practice national examples of both urban and rural cycling, ever, in the entire universe: the Netherlands. That the Ford Motor Company-owned Volvo Cars is behind it is not surprising, but also sickening. It is perhaps also ironic this campaign will very likely continue after the completion of the sale of Volvo Cars to Geely Automobile, based in China.

Up until recently these activities were focused on the south or southwest of the country, but the virus is creeping northwards, as the Volvo Cars project was focused on Amstelveen, a suburb of Amsterdam. They are targeting the kids with parents who travel to Amsterdam daily or quite frequently for work or pleasure.

So check out that new entry in Henry's Blog as it also leads to other related good places... I first heard about this new campaign in a short article in Bike Europe, which takes some info from the press release Henry refers to his Blog.

The article ends with some words by the marketing director of Volvo Cars Netherlands: “It’s important for the helmet to also withstand an accident caused by a third party, as such accidents are usually linked with high speeds and extreme impact situations. This is a crucial breakthrough in the current thinking about bicycle helmets.”

Ha. The "also" he refers to is the product he is promoting, and I think the illustration above shows how helmets deal with the "accidents" which he refers to.

But before that the article also notes that this give-away is controversial: "Volvo’s activity in this field gets a lot of flak as it would make people afraid of cycling. Critics say that Volvo should make their new pedestrian safety detection system standard on each car, instead of offering it as an option on just one model the Volvo S60. Handing out free helmets for kids was received with skepticism and seen as the next step of the automobile industry to get a bicycle helmet mandatory. Experience in countries like Australia has shown that mandatory helmet laws only results in a reduction of cyclists."

As I mentioned to a new friend in the Netherlands, pro-choice (or anti-) helmet forces are still in the lead.... so, what to do? Provinces take the lead in communication, but laws are national, so let's hope that today's election does not lead us to the right, or more specifically the wrong side of helmet regulations.

Further, we need our own pro-choice helmet campaign, perhaps loosely inspired by this, something which makes me proud of the looser end of corporate media in the USA (For some details on that Photoshop hack job please also see here).

For those fortunate enough to be able to attend Velo-City in Copenhagen, near the end of this month, I hope at least some brain-storming can be accomplished, as conference co-organiser ECF is focused on the helmet issue.

Perhaps one point which could be addressed is the conference's co-main sponsorship by Clear Channel, which has done some nice things for cycling in places like Barcelona, but also works extensively and intensively with the automobile industry in advertising and facilitating the function of its products. (No, I don't have the numbers, I am sure their business with the automobile industry dwarves their bike share activity).

** If you're on Facebook, please considering joining a related initiative.

(Full transparency: Velo-City Global 2010's other co-organizers are the City of Frederiksburg and the City of Copenhagen. The Danish capital and the adjoining local authority held the Copenhagen Bike Share Design Competition last year, in which my team shared a first prize).

Don't we want honest labeling on bicycle helmets?

(Please click on image for full effect. The original advertisement is used for visualization purposes only. Nutcase, Inc. is not connected with Green Idea Factory.)

Bike helmets are getting more colourful these days. Perhaps they are also better designed, but the fact remains that they are not designed for typical crashes between a cyclist and a motor vehicle, when the latter is operating at typical speeds (above 30 km/h or 20 mph). They are tested to simulate a cyclist falling without the involvement of a motor vehicle, and very slowly, at less than 15 mph.

I would bet, however, than most bike helmet users do think they are tested and make a big difference in a crash with a car. It is clear that helmet producers are not interested in pro-actively communicating information about this design limitation to their customers.

I am pro-choice on helmets, for helmet freedom, and if wearing a helmet gets you on a bike that's great, but correct information is just as important as subjective safety.

If you are interested in helping research what helmet users really think, and pressuring the helmet producers to help create more honest labeling and marketing, please comment here or write me at edelman(at)greenidea.eu.

***

For more information on bicycle helmets see the website of the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation.

To join the Facebook (Fan) Page "No Mandatory Bike Helmets at Velo-city Global 2012 in Vancouver" click here.

You are free to download this image, print and distribute. You may also download a smaller PDF (should print okay in A4 or 8.5 x 11 with white borders) at this link.

 

The "invisible bicycle helmet" is the ultimate example of cycling safety narcissism

My most popular blog entry is about what I call "lux-narcissism", i.e. over-lighting a bike and its rider to the detriment of others legally-illuminated, and pedestrians. I have also written about this invention from Sweden and helmetism in general many times before.

The Hövding is the ultimate example of bicycle safety narcissism. Aside from the obnoxious marketing hyperbole it costs EUR 400 in the EU and 600 in the USA. IF you really think a helmet can help, then buy five 60 dollar helmets for friends and give 300 dollars to your local bicycle coalition or another org. fighting desperately to keep streets save and collisions from happening in the first place.

Very much related, in 2005 helmets became mandatory in Sweden for people up to their 15th birthday and this has not helped improve cycling modal share. So - at least in part - this creation is opportunist.

Please notice that I am not mentioning efficacy, durability, its single use function, comfort or any other technical or aesthetic issues. I also hope that my criticism would be the same for a project led by two men.

The problem is that it is simply far too expensive for most people. Their whole business plan is totally wrong -- they got money from the Swedish or regional government but also from private sources. Regarding the latter, they obviously completely screwed up and should have required a much longer period that investors were willing to wait to get paid back.

It is truly a pity because maybe this works... maybe not. People joke about the "Chinese" ripping off the design, so we'll see if the price on devices exactly like this or better comes down by a factor of five.

Again, I am against helmet requirements for any age group, helmet promotion by governments and similar from non-profits (e.g. urban cycling organizations) which do not show the real deal with helmet efficacy. Most helmet companies also use a lot of hyperbole or even insults e.g. "I Love my Brain". 

I am for infrastructure, training and enforcement that ensures that people on bikes and everyone else dwelling in, visiting or just using the street are as safe, social and have as much fun as they want.

Everyone is wearing a helmet, even if they aren't! Two Contests from Nutcase Helmets!

To celebrate the change in position on mandatory helmet laws from Bicycle Transportation Alliance  (BTA), in Oregon, USA, Nutcase Helmets is holding two contests! 

As the BTA will start to phase out photos of riders not wearing helmets in all publicity materials. BTA Executive Director Rob Sadowsky said "We've traditionally showcased people with and without helmets. In the future, it will only be riders with helmets."

PHOTOGRAPHY CONTEST

People should send in a digital photo of themselves wearing a Nutcase Helmet. There have to be other - and only - helmeted cyclists in the photo. Whoever has the most helmeted cyclists in a photo wins the contest, and for every photo we receive with more than 10 helmeted cyclists Nutcase will give BTA 100 dollars. Also, it is okay to use Photoshop*.

*http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/03/good-news-from-over-there.html

SLOGAN CONTEST

This requires a bit of explanation: Scientific research provided the impetus for Nutcase's well-known slogan "I Love My Brain". We found out that people - not just cyclists - who do not wear helmets are self-hating, and that their most vicious malice is reserved for their "grey matter". This slogan has served us well by creating divisiveness among lovers and friends -- and we are proud that the magazines we place advertising in and retail outlets which sell our product don't seem to notice that! But we think it may be time for a new slogan to put on our helmets. 

There will be two categories: Short slogans and long slogans. Short slogans have to be six words or less. The long ones will not be on the helmets themselves; they will be represented by/linked from a QR code that will be on the outside of every Nutcase Helmet starting in 2012. 

Here are some examples of slogans created by our staff:

Short slogans: 

"Helmet-Wearers Think"

"Real Cyclists Wear Helmets"

"This Is Not Amsterdam"

"I Am Scared Of Spiders"

Long slogans:

"In the Netherlands, nearly 100% of cyclists killed on the roads aren't wearing helmets!"

"In modern professional cycle racing, nearly 100% of cyclists killed are wearing helmets."

Rejected slogans (staff-members were terminated, also for other activities):

"Think Rationally About Risk"

"I Love My Driving Helmet"**

"Safety Through Infrastructure, Not Armour."

"Proud Victim of Fear Mongering." 

See the Nutcase Helmets website for more info.

** Driving is safe

Slow Factory is a proud partner of this initiative for safety and hopes to see you in Vancouver for Velo-city in 2012!

How Do We Please the "American" God of Bike Helmet Compulsion?

From Capital Bikeshare in Washington D.C. Helmet imagery everywhere is bad enough, but showing bad fitting is pathetic (and I told them directly and indirectly many times about this photo).

Well, well, well...

You would think that they (Alta Bicycle Share, various govt. officials with the honourable and good intentions of implementing bike share, etc.) would have learned (a lesson in/their lesson in) Melbourne.

Capital Bikeshare in Washington D.C. is bad enough, seemingly not strictly requiring helmets but limiting liability of the operator if injuries are incurred by helmet-less users (helmets are not required under D.C. law for people old enough to use the bikes) See Section 26 of User Agreement in the previous link and their Safety Page. (This programme is partly funded by taxpayers; one wonders why people who ride collective public transport in D.C. do not have to sign a safety pledge about e.g. proper foot attire.)

Sadly, with the new bike share system in another USA right-coast city which opened last week, it gets worse.

NYC's bike share operator may be decided this month. Whoever the winner, given the high amount of helmet-wearing there, endorsement of helmets by Janette Sadik-Khan and Transportation Alternatives, and general victory of the "Everything is Good" Committee, I would not be surprised if the rules there also mandate helmets.

Draw a Line in the (left-coast Canadian) Sand against Helmetism at Velo-city Global 2012 in Vancouver!


Update - 9:44pm: @BrooklynSpoke Tweeted earlier this evening: "I don't think they will enforce helmet use. Seems like a way for Hubway to cover itself against litigious Americans." - This is clearly the case, but - as I mentioned above - why does collective PT not have the same conditions, and how about just using the pavement (sidewalk)? Compulsion is compulsion.

NYC: Haiku Hi-viz! Commissioners' Conflicting Missions?

Old skool messaging...? The well-known(?) signage in Queens, NYC, by NYCDOT, 2007. Photo by Joe Shlabotnik.

Foreword: I lived in NYC from late 1996 until early 2000. 

Since Occupy Wall Street began, I was curious to see if any organizations, publications or blogs etc in NYC or abroad focused on sustainable mobility and better streets, or at least the major ones, would show support or even comment on, amongst other things, the actions of New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. The lack of mobility choices of many of the 99% is clearly connected with the policies of the 1%, and, after all, what good is a public space if you get attacked by the state for being in it?

Time's Up! in NYC did respond, as did J. H. Crawford of Carfree.com (the latter with a video "Occupy All Streets!" linked below). But as far as I can tell no other groups etc. did (tell me if I missed something). 

What is keeping these organizations quiet? I knew that - just to name one example - in 2009 the Bloomberg Foundation donated 125 million dollars to a coalition including EMBARQ, and that within a year EMBARQ praised Bloomberg policy in a video without mentioning this funding (and in the meantime a deputy mayor of Bloomberg had been appointed to simultaneously head his charity (!).... and that, generally speaking, sustainable mobility professionals working in NGOs find it personally prudent to separate a friendly issue from a sticky one. At least a couple people told me privately to do this in my related blog comments, Tweeting and so on.

BUT I don't roll like that. For me it's about solidarity and sustainability. And I don't want to single out Bloomberg: As I write this the Portland police are evicting Occupy Portland - wonder how this affects the street cred - or whatever - of the mayor of that city famous for cycling (in the USA context.)

Recently in my gentrifying neighbourhood in Berlin, I complained to a friend and neighbour  - he is about 50 and has been active in local politics at a grassroots level and has lived in the same co-op since the 1980's - about all the anti-social cycling that happens in the somewhat traffic-calmed neighbourhood. He passively encourages it, and does not mind if the restored cobblestone pavements (sidewalks) are covered with trash.

He said "We made this neighbourhood so nice that we can't afford to stay in it."

***

Gritting and gnashing my teeth as I leave aside gentrification (!), the "stop & frisk" policy of the New York City Police Department, lack of city support for animal shelters, support of the abusive carriage horse industry, and, connected with Occupy Wall Street, the destruction of a library in public space,  arrest and harassment of journalists and pepper spraying of peaceful protesters -- all of which NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg is ultimately responsible for, I, like many, appreciate what the NYC Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) has recently done for surface transportation safety in NYC, as part of the goals of PlanNYC, created by the Bloomberg administration.

Mike Bloomberg and his partner Diana Taylor, out for the evening, dressed in black. Photo from Business Insider.

Separated bike paths, bike parking, bike share (depending on its yet un-named sponsor) ... good stuff. Bloomberg's "lieutenant" in charge of this, the NYC Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, is popular for good reason. Her personal style is well known, too. She dresses in black, like the night, when riding a bike.

Curious if Sadik-Khan wants a bike with a proper, full chaincase so she doesn't have to keep on begging people for extra rubber bands. Photo by Fred R. Conrad/NY Times.

Last Tuesday NYCDOT introduced a new traffic safety awareness campaign. "Curbside Haiku" is meant to "... draw attention to the critical importance of shared responsibility among pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists in keeping New York City’s streets safe."

New skool messaging?

One of the signs - also a woman in black! The signs are small. Very small, so that they won't distract drivers, says Sadik-Khan in the NY Daily News (but then how does the "shared responsibility" of motorists get "attention"?).

Indeed, why is the campaign focused on blaming the victims? It might be because the budget - sourced from drunk-driving fines - was so small that larger driver-focused signs were impossible budget-wise. It could be because this was not very long in planning, and the connection was simply a 2010 New Yorker mention of the artist John Morse's earlier haiku work in Atlanta. 

Why is the campaign biased towards owners of smart phones which can read the QR codes? Half of the images will be presented with a QR code only, but perhaps only 1/3 of people walking and cycling in NYC have smart phones.

And now a few more of the signs:

It is not clear if the intention is driver vs. pedestrian here, but if it is, comparing the aggression of a driver and a pedestrian is an absurd non-starter. An aggressive pedestrian might push and shove on the sidewalk, but what can they do (compared) to a driver, let alone a car? An "aggressive pedestrian" is most likely to be injured themselves, or possibly make a cyclist fall, but no chance of doing the same kind of damage as a driver.

The blame the victim thing seems to be artist Morse's thing. In the anti-Sadik-Khan New York Post he says "... think about the fragility of your body. You're just a human. You're nothing against these cars. Poetry underscores the harshness of this reality. That's why it has this power." 

This is strange because the NYCDOT seems to recognize this. It is why separated bike paths - the best insurance against cyclist injury and death in a city (and world) where most people are still not prepared to stay or be carfree - are being built in NYC. This makes me think that NYCDOT is confused about how it wants to handle this "power". 

Well, Ms. Sadik-Khan, if the bike lane is this dangerous why is it not a separated bike path?

You may have noticed the partners of NYCDOT in "Streetside Haiku". The Safe Streets Fund includes both the Toyota Foundation and the American Automobile Association of NY. While these groups have every right to be involved with driver behaviour, I am not surprised that they support this partial pedestrian and cyclist victim-blaming action. They also support the NYCDOT's free helmet programme, which uses statistics on helmet safety - e.g. "Wearing a [...] helmet reduces the risk of serious head injuries by 80%..." which I believe are quite exaggerated, and then tosses out hyperbole like "...helmets are a good idea for cyclists of all ages..." while - I am sure - never telling parents something like what is in the proposed label at the bottom of this advert.

Confusion within NYCDOT communications, while possibly chronic, is perhaps nothing compared to how its gains in subjective (real) and objective safety are at least partly offset by the dangerously passive behaviour in regards to safety by the NYPD. 

The situation is now being investigated by Transportation Alternatives (TA). On Tuesday it "... delivered over 2,500 citizen letters to NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly demanding that the NYPD crack down on dangerous driving, and announced a comprehensive probe into how the department handles traffic crash investigations." The press conference video is here.


Stop & frisk is also, obviously, anti-freedom, so it works against the freedom increased by public squares and bicycle infrastructure. 

Another Bloomberg "lieutenant", Ray Kelly, in black! He is also quite popular. Some say he is a kind of general to Bloomberg's commander-in-chief.  Photo from Brooding Cynyx.

The NY Daily News story mentioned above reported that TA responded to the NYCDOT haiku action with:

Safe street designs. check,

But where is the enforcement?

It's your turn, police.

In the same vein, coverage in The New York Times "City Room" blog, comments were - by request - in the form of haiku. The most popular, by Steve in Brooklyn:

Drivers kill and maim

Hundreds die every year

Police ticket bikes

***

As you can see above Bloomberg (and his partner) plus his two commissioners most directly responsible for safety of NYC's surface transportation wear black often and very likely at night. They - like anyone - should feel free to do so. NYC - and all - drivers following reasonable speed limits should be able to see them. If they cannot see them, it is because they are driving too fast (and that the street might have too fast a speed limit or other designs which prioritize motorized traffic flow over everything else).

***

To be fair to the artist Mr. Morse (and NYCDOT), they did do one image and haiku I really like. 

Non-profit pro-helmet group in Canada sponsored by automobile producer

In September 2010 Prohab organised some kind of helmet-themed art show, and in a subsequent entry in their blog they thanked this sponsor for their support of the show.

In a related video, the (presumably) staff of Profab pilot "borrowed" samples of sponsor's product in order to show how they could avoid obstacles in a modern city.

p.s. Also related.

***

Join "No Mandatory Helmets at Velo-city Global 2012 in Vancouver" on Facebook.

Is the ECF the Elite Cyclists' Federation?

Part Two of Two-Part Series on Velo-city Global in Vancouver. For Part One click here.

As ECF's annual conference event enters its last day, it seems a good time to ask how "Global" the conference is every other year (the first Velo-city Global was in Copenhagen in 2010 and the next will be Adelaide in 2014), and very much related to that, how inclusive it is.

Global Diversity - Men of European origin in front row in a secret bunker in Canada the day before Velo-city: Bernard Ensink (director of ECF, at far left); Alain Ayotte (CEO of PBSC, lead sponsor of Velo-city Global in Vancouver, second from left); Manfred Neun (President of the Board of ECF, fifth from left); Gregory Robertson (Mayor of Vancouver, sixth from left). Photo by Victoria Furuya and David Phu; Copyright European Cyclists Federation (c) 2012

I very much appreciate the work of the European Cyclists' Federation, and think it's great that they have grown by leaps and bounds in programmes and staff size in the last two to three years. I have participated in two Velo-city conferences, in 2007 (Munich) and in Copenhagen - the first as a presenter - had a paper accepted for 2011 in Seville related to this but was not able to attend, and have also co-organized a European project (albeit unfunded, just barely) that included the ECF. I have recently engaged the ECF in an article originally for the now defunct or suspended Cycling Mobility magazine -- this included some tough criticism which they responded to with action!

My biggest or most chronic criticism has been about Velo-city itself. I like the programming and side events and so on. I love to see my old mostly virtual friends there. So the main issue is the high cost of registration, which seems to be based in part on an understanding that it is urban elected officials and staff that can do the most to improve bike policy.

(Full disclosure: I have attended both events above for free as media (with press credentials), though I was otherwise self-funded and stayed in the local homes of friends).


Is the grassroots in attendance?

The main problem with a focus on city leaders is that they tend to leave office (either voted out, or with related staff changes). In the months after Velo-city 2011 in Seville, there was an election in which the people at the top who pushed the changes - the changes that resulted in part in Velo-city being held there - were voted out. Since then, I have confirmed reports that both pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and space is getting turned back into car parking, and also unconfirmed information that the bicycle share programme is not being maintained properly.

The biggest and baddest case comes from Bogota, where Enrique Penalosa famously created or built on a lot of improvements not just in cycling in the late 1990s, but - when comparing the situation to Sevilla, above, a friend - and expert - from the Colombian capital says:

"Sounds a lot like the 'post-2000 Bogotá syndrome'... We definitely need a stronger civil society to counteract these problems!"

The problem is the lack of focus on the grassroots. The support of normal citizens transcends elections, and election battles, and even multiple terms in office of even the best and most effective politicians.  I would also define civil society in the urban cycling world as not just NGOs, but also independent activists, activist bikeshops and bloggers. The grassroots in their members or supporters.

It is grassroots support that coalesced in the "Stop the Child Murder!" campaign in the 1970s that has created the highest-in-the-world bike modal share and great cycling conditions in the Netherlands, even as its national government has moved to the Right in recent years. Politicians there, from all parts of the political spectrum, implement continued improvements because they have to, because the citizenry supports these improvements.

Certainly, representatives of cycling organizations were able to attend and present. But pre-conference publicity spoke of over 1,000 expected delegates -- the reality is about 200 less, or a bit over 800.

So can these people afford going to Velo-city?

Let's consider costs for someone from St. Louis, Missouri to attend Velo-city Global in Vancouver. With an early discount good til 30 April - registration is CAD $995, or  very nearly the same in USD. Perhaps a free home stay could be arranged, but airfare was at least USD 500. Some meals and extras are not included, so let's say this thrifty person can get away with only 200  extra. In total this is 1700 USD (paying for accommodation could bring it easily to 2000)...

But this is Velo-city Global. "Global" - to me - means people mostly from e.g. Latin America (e.g. Santiago for 1600), but also Africa (Nairobi for 2600) and Asia (New Delhi for 1600). (Cheapest round-trip flights, in USD, found on Kayak.com).

Who are these 800+ delegates?

A press release I received after the first day said they came from over 40 countries on six continents. In 2010 a similar line was put forth about delegates at the first Velo-city Global, but a fairly accurate count I did myself based on the list handed out to delegates showed that about only 15% of the delegates came from countries outside the EU and richer countries of the Global North.

Starting Monday of this week I repeatedly asked both the Velo-city publicist Mark Mauchline, the ECF communications manager Julian Ferguson and a member of the Board for an electronic version of the hand out, at least showing how many people came from each of those 40 countries. Well, now it is early Friday morning, and my emails, Tweets and text messages have not been returned. I expect to the get the truth eventually - e.g. when a friend who attended has a chance to scan or fax their delegate list to me - but for now I suspect that the organizers are hiding something... namely that most of the delegates are from rich countries.

What are the organizers doing to ensure diversity?

On the ECF Forum, in early December 2011, I asked a few questions about these issues in a message  entitled "Registration Costs and Related". Richard Campbell, who took over as head of the conference in the interim, promised to respond but never did.

Related to that, I heard of no programmes which would help locals attend -- just people connected or not with local cycling groups who are not able to afford the high registration cost. 

Within the main conference programme itself there were two more issues, both related to technology:

First of all, free WiFi is only available inside the venue to guests of the Sheraton, which is on the same site as the conference. The Sheraton is one of the most expensive hotels recommended for Velo-city delegates.

The other issue extends beyond the hotel, or, rather, does not. There is no livestream of any sort. A live webcast allows participation of some sort by people not only who cannot afford to attend, but simply do not have the time to do so. While a good livestream set-up is expensive, I am afraid to say that I think the organizers of the Velo-city series.think that it will affect the number of delegates who pay .

After conference activities...

"Welcome aboard, ladies and gentlemen! This is Julie, your cruise director. First of all, an extra special welcome to our guests who have been at Velo-city Global in Vancouver this week!..."

YES, there is a post-conference cruise! This is a week long and costs at least 1000 extra plus possibly an extra night of accommodation. When you get to this elite level in the cycling world how relevant are discussions? Traditionally, on the weekend after the conference there are one-day trips and longer bike tours, perhaps assisted by regional trains.

If you are interested in the "green" benefits of cycling, consider that a cruise adds a significant environmental burden to the overall trip: 

“Conference participants from Canada or the US would more than double (if not quadruple) their total carbon footprint for this conference trip when joining the Alaska cruise post-conference programme, regardless of whether they would be flying or using other modes. However, even for participants from Europe, the cruise share of their total carbon footprint would be considerable (around 40%) and, in view of this being (only) a post-programme event, quite doubtful from an environment point-of-view. Particularly where stakeholders in cycling often (and justifiably) boast about the good environmental and emission record of their industry.” - Eke Eijgelaar, Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Transport, NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences.

click to enlarge

Reference:

Eijgelaar, E., Thaper, C., & Peeters, P. (2010). Antarctic cruise tourism: the paradoxes of ambassadorship, “last chance tourism” and GHG emissions. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18(3), 337–354.

***

In conclusion:


The "Global" in Velo-city Global is somewhat of an exaggeration. At least for now. This is important to consider as ECF director Bernard Ensink has alluded to making the ECF a global organization.

This means that Brussels is not necessarily the most logical spot for an HQ (could be Geneva, NYC - main office of UNEP and UNDP, respectively - or even Beijing for that matter. Or what about South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa?).

ECF's board is from the EU10 countries (aside from two members) -- and this reminds me that the various committees for Vancouver had no representation from the Global South.

Add to that the lack of intent for electronic distribution and an unwillingness of staff to respond to difficult issues, and I think we have an organization that is simply not mature enough to expand beyond the EU. If there are big changes in how the Velo-city Global is organized in Adelaide it will make a big difference (I am thinking of very concrete representation and participation from East Asia).

It is also not clear if a global organization for (mostly) urban cycling is really needed. Participation in such an entity requires financial resources that are simply beyond the reach of normal people who ride bikes... and their leaders. ECF seems to want to play with the big boys and girls, but that runs  contrary to the philosophy of many people who are interested in a more modest lifestyle than leaders in other industries (for example the automobile industry). There is really no reason to hold the conference in a five-star venue, or to cater with excess.

This does not mean that expenses should be reduced, only that money is spent more logically. I would bet that many would be happy in a less fancy location if it could mean that there would be high-quality livestream, or just lower prices in general. Many, smaller regional events are in order -- this was suggested by the expert from Colombia.

Separate from the ECF Forum discussion, I wrote to both ECF and Velo-city Vancouver management and suggested some kind of sliding scale based on GDP of origin country, organizational budget and travel expense. Let's hope that idea sinks in, and see what comes out of it.

Hope to see you in Vienna for Velo-city in 2012.

***

Some more highlights of Velo-city Global in Vancouver:

In a simulation for "Operation Dutch Columbia", cycle-mounted soldiers from the Netherlands attack Vancouver from three directions.

Dutch soldiers discuss tactics.

Dutch soldiers and "prisoner" relax prior to wargames. ECF President Neun plays himself as German mercenary with helmet. From this source.

***


One last comment on helmets (please see my last blog entry):


Velo-city delegates who received a bicycle for use during the week had to sign a form which read:


'I hereby agree that cycling is inherently a highly dangerous activity, (...) potentially leading to heavy injury or even death'


This can be easily dismissed as a symptom of Canada/USA excessive lawyering, but the lawyers themselves feed into and thrive on the cult of cycling fear in these countries. This keeps modal share low, and helmets popular.


It is easy for me to say it now (not in Vancouver, and after the fact) but would have not accepted the bike if I had to sign a statement like that. Hopefully in the future - e.g. if the helmet law is not overturned in Adelaide by the time of Velo-city Global, though this in part a separate issue  - delegates make the same choice if confronted with this situation.

The Free Design - a song by Stereolab

...when the higher spheres
tell us to and not to
everyone agrees
demanding more veto
our earthly design
can we be so detached
what crushes our desire
not to be trapped?