Long time JustAnotherCyclist blogger friend BikingInLA posted a rather interesting tweet tonight:

The Culver City Chamber of Commerce might as well just tell bicyclists to take their business somewhere else. http://t.co/ezzhWOKZ6z #bikLA
3/29/13 8:17 PM

So of course I checked out the link. While disappointed, I was unfortunately not surprised by the comments of Chamber of Commerce President Steve Rose. The crux of his argument is, basically, that cyclists are being granted rights without corresponding responsibilities. Here it is in his words:

Here are a few points I would like to ask about bicyclist’s responsibility:

• Insurance in case of an accident. Is my uninsured motorist insurance going to be raised because of bicyclists’ rights?
• Motorcyclists are required to wear helmets. Are all bicyclists?
• Why can a bicyclist ride in the street and then on the sidewalk and then back on to pedestrian walkways?
• Bicyclists should not only have lights on the front and rear of their bikes, but lights that can be seen from a legal distance.
• Should bicyclists be allowed to straddle the white line and then stop in front of vehicles at a red light?
• Why do bicyclists not stop at stop signs, as vehicles legally must do?
• How do we tax bicyclists for maintenance of the right of way, as motor vehicle owners have to do?

Oh boy… I don’t see a single point of any value here. But in fairness, let’s look at each one individually.

Insurance in case of an accident. Is my uninsured motorist insurance going to be raised because of bicyclists’ rights?

Two big flaws with this question. One, it assumes that all cyclists are uninsured. In fact, cyclists are often covered by a myrid of policies – homeowner’s insurance and even auto insurance carried by the cyclist. Yes Mr. Rose, many cyclists are also licensed motorists too. Second, the amount of damage a cyclist can do, in the vast majority of cases of collisions with automobiles, is financially insignificant. Insurance rates are based on risk. The financial risk of property damage caused by a cyclist just isn’t that large.

Motorcyclists are required to wear helmets. Are all bicyclists?

No they are not. But this question has no relevance either. Debates about cycling helmets aside, Mr. Rose seems to be indicating that an arbitrary number of laws is what is required to entitle cyclists to access to the highway infrastructure.

Why can a bicyclist ride in the street and then on the sidewalk and then back on to pedestrian walkways?

Well, in fact this is the exact issue that the campaign Mr. Rose is opposing intends to address.

Bicyclists should not only have lights on the front and rear of their bikes, but lights that can be seen from a legal distance.

The legal requirements for lighting and reflectors are clearly laid out in the California Vehicle Code. Unless Mr. Rose has more specific complaints, this feels like a straw man argument in a way far more obvious than the rest of his points.

Should bicyclists be allowed to straddle the white line and then stop in front of vehicles at a red light?

This is, in fact, required by state law (As far right as practical). In addition, again, this is one of the issues that campaign Mr. Rose is opposing intends to address.

Why do bicyclists not stop at stop signs, as vehicles legally must do?

Such a tired argument. First, his statement implies that cyclists never stop at stop signs. It further implies that motorists do stop at stop signs (ever hear of a California Stop?) The argument itself is fundamentally flawed, implying that only those groups that follow the laws as a whole are entitled to rights on the road. By the same argument, I (as a cyclist) could counter that motorists should be denied rights to the road due to the statistically significant number of motorists that ignore posted speed limits.

How do we tax bicyclists for maintenance of the right of way, as motor vehicle owners have to do?

And last but not least, the mythical road tax argument. Learn the facts, Mr. Rose. We already tax bicyclists for maintenance of the right of way. Again, not only are the vast majority of cyclists also licensed owners of legally registered vehicles, the vast majority of the monies used to maintain our roads come from taxes collected from the general population, regardless of how much or how little they use the roadways.

I’ll leave you with this parting thought to consider Mr. Rose. As the president of the Chamber of Commerce, I would think that your primar interest (in that role) would be to foster business in your community. I would encourage you to look at the financial impact directly attributable to cycling as a lifestyle and/or recreation choice. In addition, I would further encourage you to look into the commercial impact created by behavior changes induced by cycling. There have been a number of studies demonstrating how cyclists are more likely to stop at, and patronize, urban business compared to the population of motorists driving by the same establishments. As President of the Chamber of Commerce, you may best serve your community by evaluating the economice impact of increased cycling as opposed to the emotional reaction your “questions” demonstrate.

I was walking around the city the other day, headphones on, rocking out. I’d just crossed the street, and took a step to the left off of the curb, getting ready to turn left and immediately cross another street. I heard a squeal (which in retrospect was the sound of bike brakes on the rims) and felt a thud against my left shoulder. Before I knew what was happening, I saw a guy smack onto the pavement in front of me. I’d just blindly walked in front of a cyclist riding in the road next to the curb, knocking him to the ground.

The guy popped up – and I could immediately see the blood starting to ooze out of the scrapes across his left arm. He glared right in my face and said “Maybe if you knew how dangerous it is on the streets already you could pull your head out of your ass and watch where you’re going.”

My immediate reaction was “Me? What if *I* knew how dangerous it is on the streets? Do you know who I am???“

OK. So in actuality the story above is entirely fictitious. I’ve never actually walked out in front of a cyclist on the streets. However, early today I did almost do that. Or rather, I was preparing to turn left, looked and was surprised to realize how close to the street I was, and an actual, flesh and blood, non-imaginary cyclist that was riding in traffic. That’s when it dawned on me how amazingly easy it is to have a momentary lapse in attention and get yourself in that situation. I then imagined the scenario described above as I stood there waiting for the cross signal to turn.

It was something of a revelation.

You see, I can see me reacting exactly as my imagined cyclist above did. I could see me chewing the guy out for stepping in front of me and knocking me over. And I could see me doing that, all the while assuming that the guy was just a “stupid pedestrian that had no idea about bikes, or riding in traffic, or the dangers.” And that guy losing his attention for just a moment could be a pro cyclist, or the president of the League of American Dudes that Ride Bikes, or the president of Trek Bicycles, or whatever. All I would think in that moment of rage and frustration was that he knocked me over, therefore he was my enemy, and by extension the enemy of cyclists everywhere. (Oh c’mon. Before you go labeling me an egotistical prick, really really think how you would react in the same situation.)

The revelation for me was how often we, as cyclists, tend to look at ourselves as vulnerable – as victims on the road. But is this accurate? I’ve ridden in traffic for a while now and I’ve only made contact with a car in a way that was a surprise once. All of my accidents that resulted in broken bones or scraped flesh were a result of road conditions, hazards, or (yes) my momentary laps of attention while I was on the bike. I’ve drawn more blood working on my bikes than I have riding them.

A lot of the effort to push for safer cycling infrastructure has an unfortunate side effect – it makes cycling look dangerous to the population at large. But is it really? Well, according to data shared on helmets.org, in 2010 616 people were killed in cycling accidents. Obviously there is no denying the impact those unfortunate deaths had on the people that knew them. Each of those 616 cyclists were someone’s riding buddy, mother or father, son or daughter. But if you compare that number to the deaths of people walking on our sidewalks, or riding in cars on our highways, it is statistically almost nothing. According to the 2010 US Census, there were 308,745,538 people living in the United States at that time. That means less than one out of every 500 thousand people were killed in a cycling related accident.

Since I already likely pissed off half of my readers with my “stop talking about helmets” rants, I might as well piss off the other half with this statement:

I really really wish bicycle advocacy groups would stop using the danger of death and injury to cyclists as a tool in their arsenal to effect change.

There have been so many relatively fit, active and receptive folks that I’ve talked to about dropping the car and cycling to work that cite safety as their primary reason for not riding. They’re convinced that if they start cycling on a daily basis that eventually they will get run over by a car. That’s simply not true, and the numbers cited above speak to that. In addition, if places like those glorious northern european cycling utopias have taught us anything, it is that more cycling can actually (and counter-intuitively) result in less cycling related deaths instead of more.

Believe me – I’ve done my fair share of feeling like a victim while I ride on the road. However, the more I reflect and look on that objectively instead of emotionally, the more I realize that it simply isn’t the case. Sure, I’ve been told to get out of the road, to put on a helmet, to get the hell out of the way by motorists. But that is a social, human problem – not a safety problem.

I feel safer on my bike these days then I do when I drive my car. Yes – I even feel safer when I’m travelling along side or amongst all those SUVs that the common wisdom would tell me are trying to mow me down on a moment’s notice.

Knock off the fear mongering folks. If you truly want to get more people out riding bikes (and thus voting for things that support cycling) stop scaring the hell out of them and instead show them how safe it is – even with the crappy cycling infrastructure we have in most places in the US.

I waited until I got home and had a beer in me before reading it. The headline kinda says it all: Why You Hate Cyclists. I mean – with a title like that how couldn’t I expect something, um… inspiring. I’m an opinionated guy, thus I’m always on the lookout for fellow opinionatedees. And this was going to tell me why I hate cyclists. Clearly I don’t hate cyclists, so right off of the bat I’m assuming the article is targeted towards motorists. Yea. This is gonna be good… But then I read it. And reread it. And it actually wasn’t terrible, nor terrific. In fact, I’m still not sure what I think about it, or its author. According to his bio he’s an attorney and a writer. Oh yea – and according to his own article he’s a cyclist. And kind of a jerk. While the article was definitely quite a bit tongue-in-cheek, he made some reasonably good points about the psychology of people’s reactions. All in all I was a little bit let down – having anticipated finding something to get all outraged about by reading the title. But the intertubez were not to fail me. For anytime an article about cycling is posted there is an almost pre-ordained script that will be played out in the public comments. Let’s review our cast of characters that seem to always show up in these threads:

• Country Truck Driver: This guy (always seems to be a guy) references the numerous times he’s encountered a cyclist on some unnamed country rode, holding up all the traffic. It seems it is always precisely 10 cars that are held up. And this cyclist is generally cited as going 5 MPH up some hill, and forcing (yes – forcing) our poor country truck driver to illegally pass on a dangerous corner.
• Grizzled bicycle advocate: You can recognize comments from the grizzled bicycle advocate. While their arguments are generally low-key, carefully stated and non-inflammatory, they are nonetheless filled with a bewildering array of citations of state and local ordinances (generally by number, with hyperlinked references where available.) These folks generally do not post comments directly about the article, but rather reply to the comments of others, providing their counter-points.
• The Lance-Armstrong-wannabe-wannabe: These folks always make statements about “the Lance Armstrong wannabes,” with references to their “racing suites” or sometimes even “obscene clothing.” Their primary concerns appear to be centered around what the cyclists look like and not so much what the cyclists are doing. It is also unclear if any of them are aware of the fact that no one actually wants to be Lance Armstrong right now.
• Sidewalk bicycle advocate: These folks generally “commuted to work for several month some years ago” but are no longer active cyclists. In their hardened experience, they learned that riding exclusively on the sidewalks was the only safe bet, and therefore all current cyclists – regardless of where they ride – belong on the sidewalks only and not in traffic. To ride a bicycle on the roadways with cars is, in their opinion gained through experience, irresponsible and reckless. The more extreme among these will go so far as to suggest or even state outright that cyclists killed in traffic are getting what they deserve for wandering off of the safety of the sidewalks.
• The tax advisors: Paramount to these commenters is the implication that their enhanced contribution to tax funds (enhanced compared to the cyclists, presumably) gives their opinions elevated value. These folks will talk about how “their tax dollars paid for the bike lanes” therefore cyclists are obligated to use them no matter what. Apparently opening car doors and left hand turns are not even valid excuses to “invade the traffic lane.” They also seem to operate under the beliefe that are roads are built up solely with tax revenue derived directly from the gas pumps. It is unclear if this beliefe implies that a driver of a Prius also has less rights to the road, while a blown 1969 Mustang would presumably have more rights. Also inherent in this position is the idea that somehow us cyclists live charmed, tax-free lives.
• The “I know you are but what am I” cyclist: These folks will counter the complaints that motorists make in general about cyclists (blowing stop signs and lights especially) by pointing out all the laws that motorists break, thereby attempting to negate the motorist’s argument. This emotional argument can be summed up in the single phrase “Oh yea – well I’ve got it waaaaaay worse than you!”
• The “I know you are but what am I” motorist: In contrast, these folks will generally take the stance that they are not required to give cyclists any legal rights on the road until cyclists follow all rules of the road, to the letter, 100% of the time. Catch phrase: “I’ll share the road with them when they stop blowing through intersections endangering themselves and others”
• The victim of the law: This used to be predominately a persona of cyclists, but an interesting trend has developed and motorists are taking this stance. The argument generally goes along the lines that, no matter what accident may happen, the motorist is always (legally) to blame, therefore it is the responsibility of the cyclist to ensure that the motorist is not put in a situation where they inadvertently injure a cyclist and are therefore bankrupted by this legal liability that has been placed upon motorists.

To be honest – it is this last one that has really started to chap my hide. Believe me, as a cyclist, I would like just a bit of legal protection out there on the roads. But the truth is the roads of america are about the only place in the country where you can actually kill someone and not even face a misdemeanor. On the road ways a vehicle accident is considered just that – an accident – until someone can prove negligence or other criminal liability. To put it in very real-world terms, you could run me over on my bike and end my life and probably not get much more than a point on your license, if that. So you see, oh debaters of the internet post, in almost all cases bicycles actually have more restrictions placed upon them than motor vehicles, with absolutely no additional protections. Yup, in many states I’m forced to ride in a skinny patch of pavement painted on the road, but if your SUV drifts into that space I’m required by law to be in it is simply an “accident.” In some jurisdictions I can get a ticket for swerving out of the bike lane as I see someone making a motion that looks like they are about to open their driver’s side door into my path, but if I hadn’t swerved and they do open their door in front of me it is just an “accident.”

I’ve adapted my behaviors on the road to motorists do. Maybe motorists could do the same the few times when one of us on a bike actually does cause you as much trouble as you like to think we do.

In other words, I’ve got it waaaaaay worse than you!

I was leaving work – late – the other night in what seemed a normal manner. It was dry and clear, but dark as I’d stayed at work solving a problem (funny how you can be most productive in an office environment when 80% of the rest of the company has already left.) I grabbed my bike off the rack, flicked on the lights (they are nice and bright) and roll out the door.

About halfway home from the office I’ve got this strange feeling something isn’t right. I’m riding on lit streets, but on a whim I put my hand in front of the Planet Bike Blaze 1/2w Headlight mounted on my handlebars. It barely illuminates my palm at 4 inches.  Damn. Dead batteries. While I’m at it I stop and check the tail light. Completely dead. I try to turn it on. Dim light then nothing. Damn. More dead batteries.

Not to worry – I have spares in my backpack.  Hmmm….. my backpack. That would be helpful if I actually had my backpack instead of my messenger bag. Which also means I don’t have a lock for my bike. I’m disinclined to leave my bike sitting outside a gas station store unlocked while I grab batteries, and since I’m about half way home anyhow I decided to just pedal on and get fresh batteries at home.

As I head out, knowing I don’t have any lights seems to created a heightened state of awareness. I look both ways at intersections - about 5 times. I find myself looking over my shoulder a lot more. My hearing seems more acute - I’m conscious of hearing cars approaching from side streets. But then I remember something that I said myself, in a different context, that makes me immediately feel like hypocrite:

If you find yourself riding differently when you are not wearing a helmet then when you are, then you are doing something wrong. If you are more careful, or imagine that you would be, when you are riding without a helmet then you are putting far too much stock in the idea that the helmet will protect you. You should ride with just as much care regardless of what you have strapped on your head. Not only are helmets not shown to offer any real protection statistically, that plastic hat isn’t going to provide any protection against the more common injuries in bike crashes – road rash, broken collar bones, wrists and ribs. Don’t assume your safety equipment will protect you – always operate as if you have no safety equipment. To do otherwise is folly.

At the time I was talking more about bicycle helmets. But here I was, relying on my safety equipment. My 1/2w headlight doesn’t really provide any significant illumination of the rode in front of me as I pedal along at 15-20 MPH. It is there more to make me more visible than to make the road more visible to me.

So why was I riding differently now that I was conscious I didn’t have my bike lights. Why was I paying more attention to the road than the night before when my lights and been (presumably) shining brightly?

Well, frankly, because I was doing the exact same thing I’d advised others not to in my quote above. I was presuming that my safety equipment would protect me in a way that allowed me to relax – lower my defenses slightly.

Shame on me. I’m glad my batteries died that night. I reminded me not to let my awareness dim like my lights did – ever…

I just got done watching “Line of Sight” – an alley cat racing film by Lucas Brunelle. Right off the bat I feel a bit conflicted writing about this movie. It is about alley cat races – which means a bunch of guys riding like jack asses; completely ignoring all traffic laws in a dense urban area. It is exactly what we DON’T want to encourage our children to do, and personifies each and every negative stereotype that uneducated motorists will hurl at us as we pedal on the run.

It is also one hell of a lot of fun to watch.

Predominately filmed by Lucas Brunelle using a custom helmet cam rig of his own creation, the film covers alley cat races across the globe. In addition to actual race footage the film features a dramatic representation of a “shoot out” between messengers in the streets of Guatemala, a ride on the Great Wall of China, and scened from the Bicycle Film Festival in San Francisco. Aside from the Guatemalan shootout fun, this is all real footage of actual events – unlike the Hollywood representation in Premium Rush (Spoiler Alert: Premium Rush kinda sucks).

Hard core bicycle advocates will probably want to avoid this one. But those of us that can set aside the obviously wanton lawlessness that is alley cat racing will likely find themselves with a bit of an adrenalin rush watching traffic and pedestrian dodging. Yea, sometimes people pick the wrong lines and the relative positions of the wheels and saddle get inverted. That just adds to the fun. Oh, the classic heavy metal soundtrack doesn’t hurt either.

The soundtrack itself actually indicates a key point that a lot of people miss with these types of urban cyclists. The stereotype is a young, early-twenties, PBR swilling male hipster grabbing cars and riding the wrong ways in traffic. In truth, most of these folks are much older – later 30s – and have been riding in traffic for 10-15 years or more. And yes – there are women in these races too. This experience has taught them how to do what they do – to predict the ebb and flows of traffic, to read to signs. While many would call what they do reckless – and it is – there is a certain knowledge that has been gained by years of earning a living carting parcels from one side of a city to another. What you see in this film is a minority of urban cyclists, and even a minority of bike messengers. These are folks that know and intimately understand the risks of what they do. In other words, don’t try this at home. There is nothing cool about being dead.

Enjoy the movie, but leave the wrong way riding, intersection blowing and pedestrian annoying to others. And if nothing else, the scenes of Lucas doing trials riding, underwater in scuba gear is worth the 60 minute run time of this picture.

Line if Sight is available on DVD from select retailers, on online for $20 from the online store at https://www.lucasbrunelle.com/shop/

Lance who?

While riding the Amtrak Capitol Corridor train again today I found a card advertising a survey (pictured at right). I’ve been riding the Capitol Corridor trains for years, and I had some time to kill on my one hour 50 minute trip, so I figured “why not.” I was a bit surprised, however, when I found out that the grand prize in a drawing of those that take the survey is a Brompton M3L folding bike. Seemed a little bit of an odd give-a-way item, and raised my interest even further.

Once I started taking the survey I found out why that bike was associated with this survey. Seems Amtrak is considering running a rental-bike program.

Capitol Corridor is considering offering an easy to use folding bike rental system like the one pictured below called Brompton Dock which is popular with commuters in the UK.

The Brompton Dock system provides a high quality three-speed, internal hub folding bike that can be easily rented from the fully automated electronic dock it is stored in. It can be used to ride the “last mile” from the train station to your destination or for longer term – weekly or monthly rentals as well. The folding bike can be taken on the train or other transit without the need for bike space and can be easily stored in the office or at home. In order to rent a bike, you would register online with Brompton Dock and set up an account. You can then send a text message to rent or return a bike. Capitol Corridor plans to offer this service at a low cost between $1.75 and $2.50/day depending on how often you rent.

– From Capitol Corridor Survey Question at http://capitolcorridor.org/survey

Image of possible Brompton “vending machine” from Amtrak Capitol Corridor Survey

I can’t help but suspect this has something to do with recent policy changes regarding bicycles on the Amtrak Capitol Corridor trains. I’m excited to hear that Amtrak is giving this enough thought to even run the survey. I for one hope that this happens. If you ride these trains, and especially if you use a bike on the train, or would consider using a bike with the train, go take the survey yourself.

Interesting side note – the survey is actually hosted at BARTs (Bay Area Rapid Transit) web address - http://www.research.bart.gov. Is BART looking into this program too?

Photo Credit Ross Del Duca / VeloReviews Media. Used with permission.

Of all of the things I’ve written about here on JustAnotherCyclist, few subjects tend to spark as much disagreement – from both cyclists and non-cyclists alike – as my posts regarding bicycle helmets. Many seeing me roll up to work or wherever without my helmet on have referred to me as reckless, stupid, crazy, nuts, or even… well, you can probably imagine. I’ve been told I’m an irresponsible parent, setting a bad example for my children. I’ve been told I make drivers on the road nervous, thus increasing motorists/cyclist contention. I’ve even been told I “deserve to crack my skull open” because I opt to sometimes ride without a helmet.

I’ve never once encouraged anyone to ride without a helmet. Instead, I’ve spoke of my own opinions and ideas on the subject, encouraging others to find out the facts and make an educated, reasonable decision on their own.

I have not yet had the opportunity to travel abroad nearly as much as I would like. But in all my reading, conversations, and writings I’ve come to believe that the United States, along with Australia and New Zealand, seem to have a near religious vigor for encouraging helmet usage. Almost every cycling club I’ve come in contact with has some sort of helmet clause in their waiver or bylaws. I’ve heard of some racing teams that will actually expel members from the team if they are spotted riding without a helmet – weather in team kit at the time or not. While no jurisdictions in the United States (that I am aware of) require the use of bicycle helmets by adults, the pressures are there nonetheless. I recall one member of my old club that told me, point blank, that he’d refuse to go on a group ride if one of the riders showed up without a helmet because it “made him too uncomfortable.” Every news article regarding a cyclist being injured or killed in an accident seems to make a comment pointing out if the cyclist was or wasn’t wearing a helmet at the time. Unfortunately, this is true even if the cyclist died from injuries that would not have been prevented with a bicycle helmet.

So it was with some surprise that I found the New York Times, of all publications, would publish an article expounding the benefits of not wearing a cycling helmet. While the focus of the article is on bike share programs, and how helmet use (either required by law or societal expectations) can hinder their effectiveness, it touches on many of the same concepts and topics that those labeled “Anti-Helmet” often cite. Again, I encourage you, my readers, to look at the information, think, and decide for yourselves.

Ahhh social media. Not only do you get provocative messages - you get provocative discussions about who the provocative messages actually came from.

Adding to the “intrigue” is the fact that the message was posted to the Greg LeMond timeline at least 13 separate times – the identical post – at the time of this writing. Speculation was already rampant that the posts didn’t in fact come from Greg himself.

Maybe, maybe not. But here’s the full text of the post in quesiton:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/news/kimmage-felt-rage-deflation-during-mcquaids-armstrong-press-conference_262474
Can anyone help me out? I know this sounds kind of lame but I am not well versed in social marketing. I would like to

send a message to everyone that really loves cycling. I do not use twitter and do not have an organized way of getting some of my own “rage” out. I want to tell the world of cycling to please join me in telling Pat McQuaid to f##k off and resign. I have never seen such an abuse of power in cycling’s history- resign Pat if you love cycling. Resign even if you hate the sport.
Pat McQuaid, you know dam well what has been going on in cycling, and if you want to deny it, then even more reasons why those who love cycling need to demand that you resign.
I have a file with what I believe is well documented proof that will exonerate Paul.
Pat in my opinion you and Hein are the corrupt part of the sport. I do not want to include everyone at the UCI because I believe that there are many, maybe most that work at the UCI that are dedicated to cycling, they do it out of the love of the sport, but you and your buddy Hein have destroyed the sport.
Pat, I thought you loved cycling? At one time you did and if you did love cycling please dig deep inside and remember that part of your life- allow cycling to grow and flourish- please! It is time to walk away. Walk away if you love cycling.
As a reminder I just want to point out that you recently you accused me of being the cause of USADA’s investigation against Lance Armstrong. Why would you be inclined to go straight to me as the “cause”? Why shoot the messenger every time?
Every time you do this I get more and more entrenched. I was in your country over the last two weeks and I asked someone that knows you if you were someone that could be rehabilitated. His answer was very quick and it was not good for you. No was the answer, no, no , no!
The problem for sport is not drugs but corruption. You are the epitome of the word corruption.
You can read all about Webster’s definition of corruption. If you want I can re-post my attorney’s response to your letter where you threaten to sue me for calling the UCI corrupt. FYI I want to officially reiterate to you and Hien that in my opinion the two of your represent the essence of corruption.
I would encourage anyone that loves cycling to donate and support Paul in his fight against the Pat and Hein and the UCI. Skip lunch and donate the amount that you would have spent towards that Sunday buffet towards changing the sport of cycling.
I donated money for Paul’s defense, and I am willing to donate a lot more, but I would like to use it to lobby for dramatic change in cycling. The sport does not need Pat McQuaid or Hein Verbruggen- if this sport is going to change it is now. Not next year, not down the road, now! Now or never!
People that really care about cycling have the power to change cycling- change it now by voicing your thought and donating money towards Paul Kimmage’s defense, ( Paul, I want to encourage you to not spend the money that has been donated to your defense fund on defending yourself in Switzerland. In my case, a USA citizen, I could care less if I lost the UCI’s bogus lawsuit. Use the money to lobby for real change).
If people really want to clean the sport of cycling up all you have to do is put your money where your mouth is.
Don’t buy a USA Cycling license. Give up racing for a year, just long enough to put the UCI and USA cycling out of business. We can then start from scratch and let the real lovers in cycling direct where and how the sport of cycling will go.
Please make a difference.

I’ll let you be the judge.

Ugh. I know. I probably shouldn’t be writing about Lance Armstrong now. Enough is enough. What I was really thinking about is all those folks that are now going to have to go over the record books with erasers, Wite-Out® and heavy black markers obliterating all occurrences of the name Lance Armstrong from the official record of winners. I think the ancient egyptians were good at erasing fallen pharos from the record too, so maybe we can take some cues from them.

But in our digital age, getting rid of records is a little trickier because any joker with a keyboard (say, like me) can write an article. And those articles will have undoubtedly used the name Lance, Armstrong or, if you’re not into that whole brevity thing, Lance Armstrong. But it becomes really awkward to just schwack his name from all the records. I mean, sentences wouldn’t even make sense.

For example: “…the federal investigation into seven time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong has been closed with no charges filed…” just doesn’t work with his name redacted. “…the federal investigation into seven time Tour de France winner has been closed with no charges filed…”  See – that just doesn’t work, because, well, there now is no one that has ever won 7 Tour de France victories.

Or how about this: “Despite the evidence, Lance Armstrong continues to maintain that he never used performance enhancing drugs.” Take out his name and “Despite the evidence, continues to maintain that he never used performance enhancing drugs” just sounds like a court transcript where the court reporter got lazy.

So it occurred to me that we need some sort of a place holder we can use to replace his name, and fill the gramatical hole created by redacting his name from the record. Something to fill the gap – fill the space left by the absence of Armstrong’s name. Something to fill the hole left behind by Armstrong – the Armstrong hole. Hmmm… Something to fill the Armstrong hole.

Oh! The A-Hole!  That’s perfect!

So now, wherever we would have said “Seven time Tour de France Winner” or “Lance Armstrong” or “Lance” or “Armstrong,” we simply substitute “The A-Hole” and it all works:

“…the federal investigation into seven time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong has been closed with no charges filed…
becomes…
“…the federal investigation into The A-Hole has been closed with no charges filed…

Likewise, ”Despite the evidence, Lance Armstrong continues to maintain that he never used performance enhancing drugs.”
becomes…
“Despite the evidence, The A-Hole continues to maintain that he never used performance enhancing drugs.”

Nice thing is, this can become a handy twitter hash-tag too! In fact, I highly encourage anyone posting any tweet about The A-Hole to also include #theahole in the tweet, so that we can all easily find it without needing to type out the guys actual name.

Just a modest proposal.