Jan 19 2011

Keep your ears warm while riding your bicycle

Helmuffs…

What a cool name for ear muffs made to fit with a helmet.

Gigi Lascurettes is a Portland, OR gal who is the maker of Helmuffs.

Visit the Bike Portland blog for more information and links.

Permanent link to this article: https://trailsnet.com/2011/01/19/keep-your-ears-warm-while-riding-your-bicycle/

Jan 17 2011

Rail trails are all that, plus linear parks

We have looked at rail-trails from numerous perspectives, but we haven’t spent much time considering them as parks or extensions to a park.

Yet in some instances, that is exactly what they are. Some communities even call their trails “linear parks.” (Just like I sometimes refer to highways as “linear parking lots.” Especially during rush hour.)

In a recent blog from the Local Ecologist, rail trails were viewed as an expansion to city park systems. In fact, Rail Trails were sixth on a list of a dozen “approaches to expanding city park systems.”

Rail trails are family trails.

I liked that way of looking at trails, but I suggested that it wasn’t just one of twelve ways to expand the parks; I commented that rail-trail are the best way to expand the park systems. I listed the following reasons why rail-trails are my favorite option for expanding city parks:
– promote exercise
– promote environmentally friendly commuting
– link one park to another
– promote family togetherness
– help fight obesity
– less expensive to maintain than either roads or traditional parks
– often funded & developed by multiple entities such as cities, states, feds, rails-to-trails conservancy, lottery funds, parks departments, private individuals, volunteers, local clubs like bike or snowmobile groups, etc.


As with most blogs, I’m likely preaching to the choir here. Each person reading this blog probably already knows and appreciates the incredible value of rail trails. So our next step is to educate those people who don’t know and convince everyone that trails of all kinds are valuable and should be fully funded.

Permanent link to this article: https://trailsnet.com/2011/01/17/rail-trails-are-all-that-plus-linear-parks/

Jan 17 2011

Pedestrians & bicyclists: Do they mix?

Thanks, once again, to Barry, for providing me w/ today’s topic.


According to the Cycle Kyoto website:
Accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians have skyrocketed in the last 10 years in Japan. In 2009, there were 2,934 such accidents. That is 3.7 times the number recorded a decade earlier.

Why can’t we all just get along?

It looks like Japan and the U.S. have more in common than I thought. I’m not sure if the cyclist/pedestrian accidents have gone up that much in the United States, but I do know that (I’m going out on a limb here) the majority of both cyclists & pedestrians that I see are extremely careless.

The cyclists always seem to be in a race. It’s not about getting from here to there, relaxing, enjoying nature, or even functional commuting. It’s, “How fast can I go on these wheels?” I have to admit, I’m totally puzzled by this attitude and amazed at how prevalent it is.

As for pedestrians, it’s a different problem. Mind you, I notice this not only on trails & sidewalks, but also in stores, in schools, etc. The pedestrians are either a.) oblivious or b.) entitled. The carelessness sometimes amazes me & always angers me.

It gets worse when the pedestrians are in groups. It doesn’t matter how few or how many there are, they have to take up the entire trail, aisle, or sidewalk. Then, if you politely ask to go by (not only if you’re a bicyclist, but even if you’re a walker or jogger) they give you a dirty look and very slowly & grudgingly move.

I know I’m not perfect, but I can honestly say that when I’m walking or riding my bike, just like when I’m driving my car, I’m constantly aware of what’s going on around me, in front and in back. If someone is approaching, I make sure I move over to let them go by. When I’m with someone else, I request that they do the same.

Now, having reported all this negative stuff, I’m glad to report some positive news. Most of the behaviors I’ve chronicled in this post seem to occur on sidewalks, roads (bike/pedestrian lanes), indoors (such as in malls/stores), and on local trail. I have not noticed these problems on long distance trails such as rail-trails. It seems like people are more relaxed, courteous, and considerate on those trails.

Now, after the good and the bad, it sounds like this bicyle and pedestrian carelessness is a major problem in at least the United States and Japan. How about in the rest of the world? I’d like to hear the experiences and opinions of other readers. Am I overreacting or is there a lack of common sense and common courtesy when it comes to bicyclists and pedestrians? And what about the issue of the long-distance trails? Have any of you noticed that those seem to be much more civil? I look forward to any comments.

Permanent link to this article: https://trailsnet.com/2011/01/17/pedestrians-bicyclists-do-they-mix/

Jan 16 2011

Bicycle Helmet Laws Revisited

We’d love to read your comments
about bike helmet laws.

On the January 14 blog, I discussed bike helmet laws in a post titled: trailsnet: Why is it called a “Bike Scheme?”

Later that day, I was happy to see an email from Barry with his view on helmets specifically and safe-biking in general. I especially enjoy hearing from Barry because of his diverse background and love of the outdoors/trails. Barry has lived in multiple countries, so he brings a unique and experienced perspective to any discussion.

Here is what Barry had to say about helmets, helmet laws, and bicycling in general:

Kevin.Your post has struck a sour-note with me.And,if you don’t mind,I will vent my anger.


   About 10-years ago,back home in Aotearoa/New-Zealand, it became compulsory to wear helmets when cycling. If stopped by the police, one could be fined up to $100 for not wearing a helmet. So, to get round this, cyclists found ways to avoid wearing helmets – cycling on the footpath (which didn’t work), using safety/construction helmets(which also didn’t work) or cycling with the helmet attached to the handlebars(which also didn’t work).

   Here in Japan, a country known for it’s courtesy, 99.9% of cyclists show absolutely no courtesy. They ride in a reckless manner showing absolutely no regard for the safety of themselves and others, or any regard for the law. Pedestrians have to jump to safety when confronted by a cyclist on footpaths or suffer the consequences. I could write reams of  stories of my experiences of cyclists and how they don’t get themselves injured or killed. So,while these guys are out defying injury or death on their bikes,they are not wearing a helmet or any other protective gear (I remember my first encounter of such a person – a mother,riding on the wrong side of a poorly-illuminated road,with no lights/reflective gear,with a young child  on the back seat and a baby on the front carrier. Needless to say I was horrified). When I was taught how to drive,I was told that you had to keep as far as to the left as practicable. Here you keep as far as to the right as practicable.And god-help you if you run a cyclist over,regardless if they are in the wrong.You are the one that gets done.

   But, in saying that, I do not agree that wearing helmets when cycling should be compulsory. Like the wearing of safety-belts when driving a vehicle, the wearing of helmets comes-down to the person who is riding. If that person, whether it is them, a member of their family or others, wants to get on a bike and ride in a reckless manner without wearing a helmet,SO-BE-IT.
   But, in saying that, if the authorities want to play with the law, they should look closely at the law regarding neglect. If a parent wants to put a child on a bike, whether alone or with them, they accept that responsibility and the consequences that come with it. If a parent physically abuses a child, doesn’t care for their health, feed/cloth them adequately, they can be charged with neglect. But they will allow them to put that child on a bike without a helmet and nothing is done.

   Here, the wearing of cycle helmets is way down on the list. If one goes into a cycle-shop, the helmet section is in a far corner with a few on display. In a recent promotional campaign by the Japanese Cycle Federation that was centered on cycle safety/repair, there was no mention on the commercial of a child wearing a helmet (the commercial showed a child,who wasn’t wearing a helmet,riding out of control down a hill with failed brakes).

   Back home, if a child arrives at school without wearing a helmet, the principal is informed, a letter is then given to the parent informing them that action will be taken if this continues. If it does continue, the parent is then informed that the matter will be put in the hands of the authorities – and you don’t want that to happen, believe me.

   Phew. I am so glad I got that off my chest. Thank you Kevin for letting me use your space to vent my anger/frustration.

                                                        Regards,

                                                                    Barry.

Permanent link to this article: https://trailsnet.com/2011/01/16/bicycle-helmet-laws-revisited/

Jan 15 2011

Destination Trails

In a recent post on the River Mountain Loop Trail blog, RMLTMan wrote an excellent explanation as to why he thought the RMLT was a destination trail. It got me wondering if there is a set definition out there for a destination trail.

Here are some of the criteria for a destination trail:

  • length – The trail should be over 20 miles long.
  • scenery – The trail should have scenic appeal of one kind or another.
  • accessibility – The trail should be maintained so that a wide variety of guests can use it.
  • attractions – The trail should have certain characteristics to draw tourists such as tunnels, trestles, wildflowers, spectacular views, a distinct landscape, regional characteristics, historical significance, points-of-interest, unique design or construction, water feature, or some other reason that would attract people to visit the trail.
  • nearby attractions – In addition to the trail’s inherent attractions it should also other reasons, nearby, to visit the area. (monuments, parks, architectural structures, waterfalls, mountains, etc.)
  • facilities – The trail should have at least the basics like parking and restrooms. It is also desirable for it to have water, educational signage, and campgrounds or access to lodging.

Mount Vernon Trail with D.C. monuments

Some examples of great destination trails include:

Of course there are others, but as for the River Mountain Loop Trail?
I absolutely think it is a destination trail, and I will be visiting it within the next month.

Permanent link to this article: https://trailsnet.com/2011/01/15/destination-trails/

Jan 14 2011

Why is it called a "Bike Scheme?"

Now I know the topic for my next poll/survey. (The one in the left column of this blog)

Should helmets be mandatory? Normally, I wouldn’t think much about this, because wearing a helmet, to me, seems as natural as wearing shoes. Most times, it almost a reflex action. But a couple recent incidents have made me wonder what the best policy is.

This morning, a friend sent me a link to an article out of Melbourne, Australia. The article was about the Melbourne bike scheme. (I hate that phrase!! More later.)

According to the article, the whole program of providing inexpensive bicycles to the populous was not overly successful. It was a bit expensive and had relatively low user-ship initially. Then, it got worse due to Victoria’s strict, compulsory helmet law. If a bicyclist is caught riding without a helmet, the fine is $146.

At first I thought, “So that’s Victoria’s secret?” Then I started thinking of all the reasons a person might not wear a helmet:

Should helmets be man-
datory for bike riders?

  • helmet not available
  • helmet hair
  • helmets look dorky (to some people)
  • helmets are uncomfortable if you’re not used to wearing them.
  • sweaty head
  • possible head lice w/ rented/borrowed helmet
Mind you, I’m trying to imagine how other people might view the compulsory helmet law, not necessarily how I think.
So they’re trying to encourage bicycle use, but then forcing people to wear helmets or get socked with an outrageous fine. Hmmmmm!! Doesn’t sound very encouraging to me.
So they came up with a partial solution. The government subsidized the purchase of helmets and made them readily accessible to people… and that helped… to the tune of $2 million. Ridership is now up… somewhat.
But the “bike scheme” itself cost a chunk of money, then the helmets cost more.  It’s starting to add up. Of course, my question is, “Do they have good, safe places to ride all these bikes while under the umbrella of these safe, compulsory helmets?”
So this is an instance of: We want to encourage people to ride bikes as an alternative to dirty, stinking, polluting, congesting, impersonal… cars. But then, we make them wear helmets and sock them w/ big fines if they don’t wear the helmets.
So are compulsory helmets going too far? What about if I’m just riding my cruiser bike a couple blocks to get a cup of coffee? What if I’m riding a few blocks from the bus station to my office, and I don’t want helmet head all day at work? What if I temporarily misplaced my helmet and need to do a short ride without it? How am I going to feel about paying a $146 fine in those circumstances? And how encouraging is that if I’m already on the fence about whether this whole bike-riding thing is such a good idea?
And finally, “Why do they call it a ‘bike scheme’?” Isn’t that a poor choice of words. “Scheme” has negative connotations as in, “You no good, filthy, dirty, scheming thief.” Why not a “bike plan” or a “bike promotion” or …
Now’s your chance to tell me I’m full of crap or, worse yet, full of “schemes.”

Permanent link to this article: https://trailsnet.com/2011/01/14/why-is-it-called-a-bike-scheme/