[bikeqld] In the news....

Tue Feb 17 00:26:00 CST 2009

  BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
  BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article5726827.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=796841
[1]
  From The Sunday Times   February 15, 2009 

DON’T STOP ME NOW, IT’LL WASTE ENERGY
CYCLE GUY

    Richard Caseby    div#related-article-links p a,
div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; } 

	 Why is it a universal truth that cyclists hate losing momentum? If
we were walking, we’d be happy to stop and then start strolling
again. But put us on a bike and we’re crazy mustangs. 

	 I guess it’s because we know instinctively that it’s harder
work picking up speed again on a bike than when walking. But exactly
how much harder is it? The answer from Chris Juden, technical officer
of the Cyclists’ Touring Club, is a revelation. 

	 Well, riding a bike at a steady pace takes as much energy as
walking at a quarter of that speed. So cycling at 12mph is the same
as walking at 3mph. Which explains why most people are as happy to
cycle four miles to work as they are to walk one. Cycling at this
speed on an uninterrupted four-mile journey, lasting 20 minutes,
would result in a total energy expenditure of 90 kilojoules. 

	 Every time a cyclist or pedestrian stops, they lose kinetic energy
and have to work harder on starting off to accelerate and restore
that kinetic energy. Now — and this is the maths bit — kinetic
energy is proportional to mass multiplied by speed squared. This
means to reach a steady cycling speed four times that of walking,
requires a 16-fold increase in energy (plus about 25% more for the
added mass of the bike). 

	 So here it is: the cyclist has to expend about 20 times as much
energy as a pedestrian to reach his normal journey speed again. This
energy could have carried the cyclist a great deal further had no
stop been made. In fact one stop-start is the equivalent to cycling
an extra 100 metres while a pedestrian can stop-start and expend no
more energy than it takes to walk a couple of steps. 

	 And if you’ve ever wondered why children riding bikes have a
natural disregard for road markings, this might be part of the
answer. They also know that bikes are harder to control at low speed
and so will keep going at all costs. 

	 “This is not a peculiar cussedness of cyclists,” says Juden.
“Let anyone ride a bike and they immediately discover that stopping
is a grievous waste of hard-earned momentum.” 

	 For more information on the Cyclists’ Touring Club, go to
www.ctc.org.uk [2]  
 http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/latest/437874
CITY PANEL BACKS PROTECTION FROM OPENING OF CAR DOORS
	  Kristin Czubkowski [3]   —  2/11/2009 7:15 am  

	A proposed ordinance that would protect not only bikers, but also
pedestrians and drivers, from carelessly opened car doors received an
endorsement from the city's safety board Tuesday night. 

	The Public Safety Review Board voted unanimously to recommend the
ordinance for approval by the City Council. It will be taken up by
one more committee -- the city's Pedestrian-Bicycle-Motor Vehicle
Commission -- before it goes to the council for final approval. 

	Ald. Robbie Webber, a sponsor of the ordinance, stressed that the
ordinance protects any users of the road from being hit by a car
door. The ordinance calls for a $100 ticket for a motorist opening a
vehicle's door unsafely or interfering with traffic and a $50 ticket
for leaving a car door open longer than necessary. 

	"It's really just a question of common sense," she said. "People
thought it was on the books already." 

	There is currently an effort at the state level to pass a similar
law, which would likely supersede a local ordinance, but Webber said
she was encouraged by state Rep. Sondy Pope-Roberts, D-Middleton, to
pass a local ordinance in the meantime. Many other states have
similar laws on the books, with Ald. Eli Judge calling the car door
lesson a "staple" of Illinois driver's education. 

	Capt. Richard Bach said Tuesday the Madison Police Department is
"supportive of any measures" to keep streets safer, but the proactive
enforcement of the ordinance will likely be difficult, and the
ordinance will more likely be used as a tool in crash investigations.


	Committee member Michael Scott said even that use would make the
ordinance "more than symbolic" by shifting how insurance companies
see these kinds of crashes and how fault is determined. 

	Members of the biking community who attended the meeting stressed
the need for public education beyond citations in getting the word
out to motorists to begin exercising more caution with car doors. 

	"If you get doored, it's not going to help you to have the law on
the books," said Madison resident John Jacobs. 

	There have been incidents of crashes between car doors and
bicyclists resulting in fatalities, particularly when bicyclists are
pushed into traffic by the impact. 

	The ordinance was written after an incident last summer when a
bicyclist who was hit by a car door opening and suffered fractured
vertebrae was ticketed for biking too close to a parked car. State
law currently requires that bicyclists remain at least three feet
away from parked cars, but Webber said the state law is hard to
adhere to due to insufficient bike lanes and narrow roads that bring
bicyclists too close to cars. 

	"A lot of bicyclists have been bullied into riding as close to cars
as they can, and that's even more true in big cities," she added. 

	The state law will likely be repealed in the Legislature this year
because it does not pertain to any other users of the road, she
added. 

	Also at Tuesday's meeting, the board decided to wait an additional
month on another ordinance sponsored by Webber. The ordinance would
eliminate alternate side parking in Madison except during snow
emergencies. Madison residents who park on the street are currently
required to move their vehicles every day between Nov. 15 and March
15, with odd or even dates matching the side of the street with odd
or even addresses. 

	Webber said she introduced the ordinance after the city increased
parking fines between 200 and 300 percent during snow emergencies,
from $20 or $30 up to $60 per violation. Removing alternate side
parking during non-snow emergencies would allow residents to maintain
the current 48-hour rule and give them a break from potential parking
fines when the weather is clear. 

	"People have frequently said to me, 'Why am I moving my car when it
hasn't snowed in three weeks and it has been drizzling?'" she said.
"This is wasteful environmentally, it's wasteful of gas, and it's
just plain silly." 

	Streets department staff, who were unable to attend Tuesday's
meeting, have cited the importance of training people to use
alternate side parking rules as one reason to keep the ordinance as
well as the source of revenue the tickets provide the city. The city
currently makes about $400,000 per year on alternate side parking
fines during non-snow emergencies. 

	Bach said police were concerned about eliminating the ordinance for
its impact on public safety and the current city routine for checking
winter parking. He pointed out that snow emergencies only come into
effect with more than three inches of snow, and eliminating alternate
side parking could result in a buildup of snow that the Streets
Division would not be able to plow effectively. 

	"Our concern is that if we don't have the alternate side parking
where (the Streets Division) can routinely plow the streets, the
streets will begin to narrow," he said. "The issue there is to the
keep the streets clear enough to get fire trucks and emergency
vehicles" through them. 

	The city also currently hires 11 hourly employees each winter to
administer the alternate side parking fines, and those employees also
help during snow emergencies by doing preparation work for towing
cars. 

	Without the ordinance, those employees would likely not be hired,
and the Parking Utility would need to pay its full-time workers
significant overtime to do the work. Even with overtime, lower
staffing may require snow emergencies extended past the day or two
they currently operate and may take away from regular parking
enforcement during snow emergencies, parking officer Stephanie Niesen
said. 

	Webber said that keeping the ordinance for the revenue it provides
would be poor public policy and that more public education and
increasing snow emergency parking fines even further would provide
better compliance than "training" people to use the rules for four
months each year. 

	"When you need to plow, fine people as much as you need," she said. 

	Board members delayed the vote one month to ensure that the Streets
Division had a representative there and requested more information
from both sides of the debate regarding what other major cities that
see regular snow do to ensure cleared streets. 

	"I just don't feel like we have quite enough information, and I'd
hate to turn this into a simple thumbs up or thumbs down on what's
going to be a very important issue," board member Michael Scott said.


Links:
------
[1]
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article5726827.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&amp;attr=796841
[2] http://www.ctc.org.uk/
[3] mailto:kristinc at madison.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bikeqld.org.au/pipermail/bikeqld/attachments/20090217/4857eb6d/attachment-0001.htm