This past Saturday afternoon, after doing my dance duty at the annual “Dancing in the Street” at Grand Center, across from Powell Symphony Hall, I wandered the booths of the adjacent “Green Homes and Renewable Energy Festival” going on in Grandel Square behind the stage. There were plenty of solar panels, windmills, composters, insulation plans, PAC’s, and so forth.

But what really impressed me was this oversize black surfboard-looking thing under an awning surrounded by young Christians. It was the second place winner of the North American Solar Challenge 2008: The Principia Solar Car.

I regularly see Principia College students who drive down from Elsah, IL to dance with us. But it was a pleasure to converse with the young engineers, craftspeople, and even marketing students who created and support this little marvel.

Each of the little GaAs solar cells costs over $30, and the body was hand made by sudents out of graphite mesh, resin, and structural honeycomb. Even the wheels were custom made. These younguns are every bit as dedicated as I remember from my college daze. [sic]

How can I spot them as Christian? Well, Principia is explicitly “A Liberal Arts College for Christian Scientists”. They might have some odd ideas about Life, the Universe, and Everything, but Gould’s principle of Nonoverlapping Magisteria seems to allow them a solid education outside of that realm.

And How to Build a Solar Car is not their title for these galleries of building the car, but it should be.

As I’ve indicated before, I live about 4 1/2 miles from the office where I work as an attorney.  Because I cycle about 14 mph on average, I am about 20 minutes away from work by bicycle.  That’s only ten minutes more than it takes to drive.  Riding a bike instead of driving offers many other types of benefits too. Cycling to work is thus my routine, but it sometimes offers a good anecdote.

Yesterday morning, while cycling to work, I came to a stop at a red traffic light next to a tall man who was also riding a bicycle. He was decked out in fancy bike riding clothes (a distinct contrast from my standard uniform–inexpensive cotton t-shirt and shorts).

I said, “Hey.”

He nodded in acknowledgment.

When the traffic light turned green, he took off, peddling hard to the next traffic light one block away. I peddled at a steady pace, almost reaching him again because he stopped because that light was red.  Just as I approached that light, though, it turned green and he took off again, pedaling hard.

The same thing happened at the next intersection.  Because he was peddling hard, he got to that third intersection faster than I did but, again, the light was red for him. By the time I arrived that traffic light had turned green, and the man quickly accelerated toward the fourth intersection.  It too was red when he got there, but it also turned green as I approached.

The man on the bike turned left at that fourth intersection, while I road straight through.  Right after I crossed that intersection, the man–who had stopped after making his left turn–called to me across the intersection. He yelled, “Hey!”

I paused and yelled back at him, across the intersection, “What’s up?”

“I am twice as old as you!”

I was puzzled, wondering whether I heard him correctly.  I responded, “What makes you say that?”

He proudly replied, “I’m 57 years old!”

“But I’m 52,” I said.

He looked perplexed, and said “Whu . . .?  Ohhh . . .”  Then he rode on without saying anything else.

All I can figure is that this man thought I was younger than I am.  More interestingly, he thought we were somehow competing. Apparently, he was working hard to race me to the next stoplight, whereas I was simply peddling to work.  I think he was proud because he thought that he was in much better shape than a much younger cyclist.

This story serves as an allegory for me.  How often are other people intensely competing with us while we are simply living our lives, oblivious to this “competition”?  I suspect that this happens all the time. Most of the time, this competition occurs sub-consciously.

For me, Exhibit A regarding this competition is the rampant consumerism in America, where people constantly strive to keep up with others, or stay ahead of each other.  Exhibit A-1 is the American love affair with the automobile–it’s amazing how much money people will spend in order to get a machine that merely allows you to get from Point A to Point B.  Consumer purchases are easy to spot forms of competition, but there are many others.   Darwin would remind us of competition for mates, as well as all of the resources on which human animals rely (shelter, food).

I must confess–quite often, when my bicycle is stopped at a red light alongside cars, and then that light turns green, I often peddle hard to beat the cars across the intersection.  It’s surprisingly easy to do and it gives me a strange sense of satisfaction.  I hear the roar of the engines of the motor vehicles and I think of the gas I’m saving by not driving.   It’s harmless competition, of course.  Just like the competition enjoyed by that 57-year old man who was trying to beat that much younger cyclist.

Did I remember to mention that that man thought I was much younger than I actually am?

An acquaintance, a bicyclist, sent this article to me.   The article was then picked up by a blog called “Chicago Bicycle Laws.” According to the first article, by Ray Thomas of Portland, Oregon, lawyers who handle bicycle cases are noticing that jurors are showing increasing frustration with injured cyclists:

When trial lawyers report that bicyclists are losing cases that should be won, we must respond or lose the hard won progress that got so many people on bikes in Oregon in the first place. There are many things we can do to improve our image in the minds of people. Not running stop signs, flipping people off, or yelling is a good start. But there are other ways as well. All of us should also become jurors as often as we are called upon to do it. The views of experienced riders give important experience and perspective to the jury . . .

We must recognize that the law provides legal recognition of rights to the roadway that are misunderstand or otherwise not recognized by many motorists.

An exemplar case involved a woman cyclist who was injured when she took the full lane rather than unsafely move far to the right, which would have invited dangerous passing.   There is increasing concern that because more cyclists are out on the road, this will invite ever more frustration on behalf of motor vehicle drivers.

My town has a tradition on the August Saturday night closest to the full moon called the Moonlight Ramble. I attended it last night, and worked up a sweat along with several thousand others on bicycles riding along 17 miles of closed city streets from midnight to 3. Most of the riders paid $25 each to join the festivities. There were lots of kids, and bikes of almost any description.

I checked the (online) local paper this morning. The ride was only mentioned in a photo spread of 6 images for which I had to search. One image taken from a scissor lift shows a few thousand people as they packed blocks of Market Street, and was captioned “Hundreds of riders attended the event”. It took over an hour for everyone to cross the starting line that was across 6 lanes.

I wonder why this event is so under-reported? I certainly don’t suspect a conspiracy of auto makers and fuel producers who need to keep the idea of bicycles on streets marginal.

But it was kind of magical to look ahead up the commuter artery known as the Forest Park Parkway and see a dense moving carpet of twinkling bicycle taillights as far as the eye could see. Bells tinkled warnings, and horns squeaked as riders of differing speed negotiated the route. Smaller kids often had blinking lights clipped to their shirt collars, as well. I was amazed at then number of weans on their first bikes, little wheels and no gears, as they gamely kept up with the slower part of the throng.  I saw teens on vintage tandems, seniors on titanium recumbent trikes, and plenty of die-hards on almost ordinary looking bikes that are worth more than my car.

Here is the simple goal for those participating in Naked Bike Ride: Protest our dependency on oil and celebrate the power and individuality of our bodies. In America, most people tend to have a warped attitude toward bicycles. They see bicycles as toys and amusements, not as incredibly efficient and serious modes of transportation. More than anything else, Naked Bike Ride is an attempt to change this attitude and to get people to choose bicycles rather than gas guzzling motor vehicles, whenever possible.

This combination was pure marketing genius. If 1,000 people had assembled in the middle of St. Louis to promote alternative sustainable methods of transportation, the media wouldn’t have given a rat’s ass. Because these organizers promised to wrap this serious message about bicycle riding in a package of nudity, however, the media was there in droves.  Here’s an video interview of two of the organizers.

Now, what kind of nudity did those curious media types actually see when they got to the assembly prior to the bicycle ride? Well, they saw some of this:

As well as some of this:

The evening could also have been accurately called Slogans Painted on Partially Naked People on Bikes Night, but that would have been unwieldy.

This use of nakedness to promote the message that we desperately need to start using sustainable transportation methods has been successfully executed in numerous other cities. Tonight, the event came to my home town. I decided to both participate in a minimally naked way . . .

. . . and report on the St. Louis edition of “Naked Bike Ride.” Yes, the message on my back was not creative. I went for the brutally clear approach.

The St. Louis organizers encouraged participants to push the nakedness to the legal limit, but not more than the limit:

[W]e also met with the police tonight. We wanted you all to know the official word after that meeting. Here’s the city ordinance that they went over with us. We are encouraging strategic coverage of the controversial areas (genitals, buttocks, breasts) but maximum exposure within the law and if people decide to bare it all you need to know that that is in violation of the ordinance and the police have to right to make arrests if there are complaints.

What goes on during Naked Bicycle Night? The cyclists have the opportunity to take a 12-mile bicycle ride on the city streets devoid of gas-slurping automobiles, along with hundreds of other concerned citizens in various states of cycling nudity.

Perhaps you are wondering whether it would be uncomfortable to ride a bicycle while naked. The national organizers dedicated several paragraphs to that topic here.

It might have been more accurate to call it Underwear Bicycle Ride, but there was, indeed, some nakedness, including several people riding totally in the nude. It was hilarious to watch the expressions of the numerous bystanders who saw the totally naked bicycle riders passing. Many of them had that look (”Oh my. It looks like . . . no, it couldn’t be . . . but maybe it is . . . but is that legal?” I would estimate that there were 500 riders tonight. We passed by a several thousand people staring out hotel and restaurant windows but many more cheering on the streets. Many people cheering knew about Naked Bicycle Ride and were lined up along portions of the route.

The crowds often shouted lots of enthusiasm, honked horns, jumped up and down and waved. As we passed through the applauding people early in the ride, a woman riding next to me said, “This is such a rush.” Indeed.

I snapped this shot as my group paused at an intersection in front of a brightly lit gas station. That’s what it’s all about, right?

There were many creative body paintings. Note this woman’s violin motif, for example. I took most of these photos while riding my bicycle, holding onto the bike with my left hand and shooting with the right, without looking through at or through the camera. Given the haphazardness of the situation, I was surprised that I was able to capture so many usable images. As you can see, this includes images of many people conveying the an unsurprisingly coherent political mood.

(more…)

Here’s a thoughtful and well-researched article on the safety of bicycling by Alan Durning of Grist.  Here’s his bottom line:

Biking is safer than it used to be. It’s safer than you might think. It does incur the risk of collision, but its other health benefits massively outweigh these risks. And it can be made much safer. What’s more, making streets truly safe for cyclists may be the best way to reverse Bicycle Neglect: it may be among communities’ best options for countering obesity, climate disruption, rising economic inequality, and oil addiction.

He also concludes, based on ample research, that

if you’re a cautious, law-abiding, risk-averse cyclist, biking is far safer than you’d think from the aggregate statistics, which are inflated by the proliferation of two-wheeling daredevils.

Durning thinks we can do a lot better to protect cyclists.  He advocates better cycling facilities, such as bikeways, bike boulevards, traffic calming, blue lanes, and cycle signals (the use of bike lanes is disputed, however, as you can see in the comments).  He also advocates for better educating drivers and cyclists.  For instance, in Germany, fourth graders are required to demonstrate cycling proficiency.

At this site, we’ve often advocated cycling as a mode of transportation (see here, for example).  I’m linking to Durning’s article because it is a good resource.  The comments continue the good discussion well.

As I read the statistics in Durning’s article, I had to agree with the need for cyclist education, as well need to educate motor vehicle drivers of the existence of bicycles. But back to those cyclists.   I cringe at the way half of them ride.  They violate virtually every traffic law.  They weave all over.  They don’t wear helmets.  Many of them ride much fast than is safe in the traffic.   I would think that U.S. bicycle/car collisions could be cut in half were the cyclists made to feel that the traffic laws pertain to them too.   My concern is a source of optimism, too, because it might be possible to dramatically cut the bicycle collisions without any substantial costs.

Raymond Learsy reports on one aspect of post-oil:

Renault Nissan, and California-based Project Better Place, are working together with the government of Israel to make the country oil independent by 2020. Denmark has already signed on to implement the sinews of this major electric car initiative.

In broad outline, Renault Nissan will build cars powered by lithium-ion batteries running purely on electricity and delivering performance on par with a 1.6 liter gas engine. These electric car models will become available as of 2011. A key component will be the preparation and development of a national infrastructure to access electric power. “Project Better Place” will arrange for the installation of 500,000 charging hook-ups throughout Israel. It is estimated electric power charging costs for the lifetime of this car will approximate the cost of fueling an equivalent gasoline powered vehicle for some two years at current gasoline prices.

Denmark plans to provide the power supply for electric cars with wind power. Israel is planning huge mirrors in the Negev Desert to capture the solar energy needed for its electric cars. With an extensive grid of plug-in locations there will be no need for lengthy charge periods so that charging up shouldn’t take much more time than tanking up currently.

My bicycle is not shifting smoothly.  The problem has developed over many months.   I’ve adjusted the cables repeatedly, without success.

I received some not so bad news today.   I took my bicycle into a neighborhood bike shop.   The crank teeth are worn down, as are the back sprockets and the chain.  This will be a substantial repair for a bike– more than $100.   This should put my bicycle into perfect riding shape.  I quickly agreed to go ahead with the repairs.

As I’ve described before, I often use a bicycle to commute to work.   I put almost 1,500 miles of wear on the bike every year.    Riding a bike (rather than driving a car) provides many benefits, including improved health and less stress on the environment.   I’ve described those benefits at this comprehensive post.   I also note that the IRS now reimburses workers about 50 cents per mile for use of a car.   Based on the IRS rates, I save about $750 per year by merely riding a bicycle to work.

To put my “big” bicycle repair bill in even better perspective, my neighbor (who drives a large gas-chugging vehicle) just told me that he now pays more than $100 to fill his tank one time.   He fills up that tank once every week.   My major bike repairs were needed for the first time after constant use of the bike over a period of seven years.

Here’s one other thing to consider.  It is often possible to ride a bike rather than driving a car/truck/SUV.   Most trips many people take require traveling only 5 miles from their residence, an easy distance to cover with a bicycle. 

With these thoughts, in mind, I decided to file this post to remind others of the many benefits of riding bicycles whenever possible.   Again, for a more fact-filled version of this post, check out this previous post. 

On Feb. 28, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. submitted House Congressional Resolution 305 for consideration to the House of Representatives: “Recognizing the importance of bicycling in transportation and recreation.” I assume that this resolution is a perfectly valid reaction to this boneheaded statement by one of Bush’s appointees.

I don’t think Blumenauer’s resolution has any chance of passing, because it suggests that some money now going for highways should actually be used to encourage people to use bicycles for their transportation needs.   God forbid that we actually encourage such a perfectly sensible mode of transportation.  You know the arguments, prevents obesity, uses no fossil fuel, cheap, is perfect for urban commutes.  I’ve previously posted on some of the many reasons to use a bicycle for commuting.  There are, indeed, many reasons for doing so, especially in an urban area where many commutes are fewer than five miles.  BTW, what would a bicycle-friendly city look like?  Here’s one version.

I learned of Bluemenauer’s resolution by reading Andrew Leonard’s article in Salon.com, “Life and death and bicycling.”  Just because you use a bicycle doesn’t mean you are “green.”  Leonard includes a Sierra Club test to see how “green” you are.  I am a rather cool 92 out of 100, a very green cyclist! 

I do want to publicly thank Representative Blumenauer for bringing some much-needed attention to bicycles as a serious mode of transportation.   His resolution is chock full of statistics that should (but likely won’t) wake up those who don’t yet take bicycling seriously.   I’m pasting in, below, the full text of Bluemauer’s resolution on the importance of bicycling (here’s another place to read the full resolution):

110th CONGRESS2d SessionH. CON. RES. 305Recognizing the importance of bicycling in transportation and recreation.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESFebruary 28, 2008

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself and Mr. OBERSTAR) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

---

CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONRecognizing the importance of bicycling in transportation and recreation.

Whereas a national transportation system conducive to bicycling produces enriched health, reduced traffic congestion and air pollution, economic vitality, and an overall improved quality of living is valuable for the Nation;

Whereas by dramatically increasing levels of bicycling in United States cities tangible and intangible benefits to the quality of life for cities and towns across the country will be realized;

Whereas we now live in a Nation with 300 million people, and that number is expected to grow to 365 million by 2030 and to 420 million by 2050 with the vast majority of that growth occurring in urban areas with limited ability to accommodate increased motor vehicle travel;

Whereas since 1980, the number of miles Americans drive has grown 3 times faster than the United States population, and almost twice as fast as vehicle registrations;

Whereas one-third of the current population does not drive due to age, disability, ineligibility, economic circumstances, or personal choice;

Whereas the United States is challenged by an obesity epidemic, 65 percent of United States adults are either overweight or obese, and 13 percent of children and adolescents are overweight, due in large part to a lack of regular activity;

Whereas the Center for Disease Control estimates that if all physically inactive Americans became active, we would save $77 billion in annual medical costs;

Whereas over 753 of our Nation’s Mayors have signed onto the climate protection agreement of the United States Conference of Mayors urging the Federal Government to enact policies and programs to meet or exceed a greenhouse gas emission reduction target of a 7 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2012;

Whereas the transportation sector contributes one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and passenger automobiles and light trucks alone contribute 21 percent;

Whereas bicycle commuters annually save on average $1,825 in auto-related costs, reduce their carbon emissions by 128 pounds, conserve 145 gallons of gasoline, and avoid 50 hours of gridlock traffic; (more…)

We do many inefficient things.  Why don’t we simply do those things differently, in a more efficient way?  Often, we don’t change things because we’ve done them a certain way for so long that it would take too much time and psychological effort to do them in new ways, even though the new ways would be easier and more inefficient in the long run.

The QWERTY keyboard is a great example. We could rearrange our keyboards, which would cause us to struggle with our new configurations for a few months or years, but then we’d all be better for the change.  We don’t do this, however.  It would take too much initial effort.

Scientific theories are quite often strained by the discovery of new evidence that doesn’t fit the theory, yet we cling to the old inadequate theories.   This is another tendency toward path dependence.   For example, until the 17th century, “epicycles” were used to explain the perceived retrograde motion of planets and stars.  Epicycles were finally discarded in response to Kepler’s work.   Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out that scientific progress does not occur smoothly, but rather in the form of periodic revolutions that that he termed paradigm shifts. The fact that scientists tend to hold onto old unworkable theories longer than they should can be seen as another manifestation of path dependence.

It would make a lot of sense to simplify the spellings of many words used in the English language.  We don’t do this, however.  It would take too much time and effort in the short run, even though it would be well worth our while in the long run.  And shouldn’t we all switch over to a universal language, so everyone could understand everyone else?  Esperanto, anyone?

We don’t have the determination to make many long-term improvements due to the time and energy it would take to make the short-term change.

I thought of path dependence yesterday when I drove past the campus of St. Louis University, a large Jesuit college in St. Louis, Missouri.  I attended the St. Louis University school of Law.  I know many people who have received fine educations from St. Louis University.  I know that many of the people associated with University are good-hearted people who do wonderful things for the community.  On the other hand, St. Louis University is a school based upon an unsubstantiated belief that a bloody crucifixion occurring 2000 years ago “saved” humankind.  What does my well-reputed school of law have to do with claims that a man/God visited Earth to save his wretchedly undeserving children?  Many people would say nothing at all. The Law School is attend by many students who don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus. It could be argued that the education provided by the St. Louis University School of Law could equally be provided by a university that didn’t make any claim that a man named Jesus rose from the dead.  After all, I attended law school for three years and never once heard Jesus discussed in any law school class.  So, why is it that a law school that teaches nothing about Jesus is considered to be a Jesuit law school?  Good question.  I consider it to be another manifestation of path dependence.  The buildings and administration of an existing Jesuit college simply made for a good foundation for the Law School.  The Jesuits would argue that the SLU School of Law is as good as it is because it is Catholic.  They would hear some good arguments that this is not the reason from some of the many fine law schools that are not Catholic, however.

Speaking of law, the legal principle of stare decisis holds that an ongoing legal dispute should be decided a particular way solely because a previous and similar case was handled that way.   (more…)

On Bill Moyers’ Journal, Bill Moyers discussed this multifaceted issue with Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. 

This video is well worth watching for many reasons.  The introduction includes a clip of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech to Southern Baptist preachers to answer their opposition to a Catholic president.  Kennedy’s understanding and articulation of the wall between church and state is inspirational. 

Watching this video, I learned of the “You Choose” site within youtube.com, where you can watch the candidates speaking on issues, side by side.  For instance, here are the candidates’ positions on energy independence. (check out Barack Obama’s position on energy in a speech he gave in Detroit.  In my opinion, he is one of the few candidates that “gets it.”).

Jamieson and Moyers spend substantial time analyzing the “avalanche of misogyny” aimed at Hillary Clinton, some of these attacks Bible-based, many of them verging on pornographic (here’s another site documenting these attacks).  Here’s a sampling of the discussion between Moyers and Jamieson:

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON:  [U]nderlying many of these assertions is the assumption that any woman in power will, by necessity, entail emasculating men and, as a result, a statement of fundamental threat.

So, why shouldn’t you vote for Hillary Clinton? Well, first, she can’t be appropriately a woman and be in power. She must be a man. Hence, the site that says Hillary Clinton can’t be the first woman president; Hillary Clinton’s actually a man. But also explicit statements that suggest castrating, testicles in lockbox. She’s going to emasculate men. It’s a zero-sum game in which a woman in power necessarily means that men can’t be men.

BILL MOYERS: And you can’t use your uterus and your brain. That’s the old argument, right? You can’t be caring and tough. That’s the old argument against women, right?

KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Well, and at one time there was actually an argument that if women became educated, they would become infertile. There was also, for a long period of time, serious penalties for women who tried to speak in public. And the residue of this is a language that suggests that women in power cannot be women and be in power. And as a result, as Hillary Clinton certifies herself as being tough enough to be president, competent enough to be president, these attacks say then she can’t be president because she’s not actually a woman. And you can’t trust someone who is that inauthentic. So underlying this and underlying the vulgarity and underlying the assertions of raw sexual violence is deep fear about a woman holding power.

Here’s yet another incarnation of Brownie: Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters. As indicated in this Salon.com article writer Katharine Mieszkowski wrote that Peters recently complained that the Minnesota bridge collapsed because frivolous things like bike paths are siphoning too much of the transportation budget.  On PBS’s NewsHour, Peter’s argued that projects like bike paths and trails “are really not transportation.”   Mieszkowski argues otherwise: 

In fact, only about 1.5 percent of federal transportation dollars go to fund bike paths and walking trails. In the meantime, 10 percent of all U.S. trips to work, school and the store occur on bike or foot, and bicyclists and pedestrians account for about 12 percent of annual traffic fatalities, according to the Federal Highway Administration. “We represent a disproportionate share of the injuries, and we get a minuscule share of the funds,” says Robert Raburn, executive director of the East Bay Bike Coalition in the San Francisco Bay Area, who calls the Peters’ comments “outrageous.” Plus, he notes, with problems like global warming, the obesity epidemic and energy independence, shouldn’t the U.S. secretary of transportation be praising biking, not complaining about it?

What really drives cyclists around the bend is that while they’re doing their part to burn less fossil fuel — cue slogan: “No Iraqis Died to Fuel This Bike” — they’re getting grief for being expensive from a profligate administration. “War spending, tax cuts for the rich, and gas taxes are all big sources of funding. Bike spending is not,” fumes Michael Bluejay, an Austin, Texas, bike activist, in an e-mail. “The few pennies we toss toward bike projects is not enough to fix our nation’s bridges, not by a freaking long shot.”