I have the rare opportunity to be teaching a course that thinks about musical cultures through the lens of urban studies. Doing this in a place so remarkably not urban forces me to consider what it all means. Thus, I have decided to write a series of posts contemplating how music from urban centers considers the rural and vice versa. We'll see what this turns up. Thus I present: a blog post in bullet points on rural v. urban academia.
• I've been reading many academic discussions of world/global cities and their role in globalization. Theorists like Saskia Sassen contend that urban centers like New York, London and Tokyo are the main conduits of globalization to such an extent that nation-states are no longer dominant. Fun stuff! It's strange to be thinking so strongly about such megalopoli while living in a rural part of the country. It's even stranger to be discussing different genres of music that romanticize rural life but are, in essence, city born. I'm thinking of the folk music revival of the 1950s and '60s in NYC, the university Forró craze in São Paulo, and the modern mariachi sound from Mexico D.F. This doesn't even begin to approach the hybrid genres that accompany these revivalist movements or transnational transformations of folk genres (like cumbia)... What is it about urbanity in the americas that promotes such romanticizations and reinventions? The easy answer might be the legacy of 19th century nationalism with its idealizations of the land. My instincts tell me that it is probably more complicated. Many of these genres also have to do with social class and sometimes persons celebrating the working class from a position of power leads to gross generalizations and vulgarizations. Think of what John Wayne pictures did to generalize the "American Frontier." Thomas Turino contends that urban, middle class appropriations of rural folk music has to do with a lack of participatory music making (see his Music as Social Life) and a larger lack of marked culture. My mind is spinning...
• On a related note, many of my colleagues commute close to 4 hours a day just so that they can live in a reasonably-sized city and work in the country. Other colleagues commute from central Maine to NYC and even Washington D.C. every weekend. They love their urban lifestyles and their research so much that they will do anything they can to stay connected to it. This seems to me to be the polar opposite of the economic factors that drove urban growth during the last 150 years where people migrated from rural to urban spaces for work. But for this particular group of academics, urbanity is such an integral part of their lifestyles that they go through great lengths to maintain it. I would be traveling with them if I had the time to spare and the money to do it. Alas, I do not and I am getting used to life here in central Maine. Odd that.
• Many of my students have great difficulty imagining urban life that isn't like Boston or New York. As a southern California native I feel like I am at a distinct advantage for understanding the newer geographic formations born in Los Angeles that serve as the template for global megacities (a la Soja and Mike Davis). For the first time in my life, I am thankful that I resided in LA for 10 years and not elsewhere. It really does help when I try to explain why people in these global centers would rather stay home than sit through hours of traffic...
On a related note, I miss good cycling weather.
Showing posts with label commuting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commuting. Show all posts
Friday, October 9, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Earbuds, Listening, and Riding
Just to be clear: I have yet to defend the dissertation. I have, however, written all of my chapters. (Thank you, my dear readers, for your patience through that weird sprint to the finish.) The crazy and intense period of writing is, for all intents and purposes, over and has been for a few weeks now. My diss advisor tells me to let the document sit and work on other things. I consider my forays into sound studies and urban policy issues to be a PERFECT opportunity. So yes, I am back.
----
Today was the first official meeting of the Sound Studies Special Interest Group for the Society of Ethnomusicology. My participation in that meeting (via Skype) prompted me to think about one of the most prevalent activities I witness from my bicycle saddle as I ride around town. Earbuds. Many people drive with earbuds. An even higher percentage of bicycle riders train or commute with their headphones on. In case you didn't know, this activity is completely illegal. According to the California Vehicle Code, you can't operate a vehicle with anything in your ears unless it is for hearing protection (say, if you are operating a very noisy vehicle at a construction site). Many motorcyclists, for example, ride with ear plugs because they are literally damaging their ears when they travel at high speeds. I think the point of the prohibition is a safety concern. Can you hear a car overtaking you from behind as you ride along to your favorite tunes? Can you respond to an emergency if you can't hear it?
I have a problem with the way this law is set out. I personally never ride while wearing earbuds because I would never feel safe. After years of loud rehearsals and long club nights, my hearing isn't as good as it used to be. But I am sure that some people can properly distinguish mediated sound from the sounds of their environment and do it with panache. Many pedestrians walk in unsafe areas while wearing headphones, and earbuds are extremely common in public transit. (And many dangerous things happen to pedestrians and passengers on buses, subways, and trains.) Why the prohibition on riding or driving? What's more: many people who are hard of hearing operate vehicles and there is no prohibition against them. So why such an arbitrary prohibition?
Let me push a little bit more. Many policy makers do not pay attention to other factors that may inhibit hearing, such as construction and landscaping machines. Imagine trying to safely pass a bicycle when you can't even hear yourself saying "on your left." Earbuds don't help that situation, but they are far from the villain. There are so many acoustic factors that make certain traffic situations completely unsafe; yet, they rarely catch the sustained attention of policy makers (in the los angeles area at least).
My (completely unfounded) suspicion is that the prohibition is not against loud noises, but rather that sounds in earbuds are distracting. I could provide an extensive bibliography of theorists who lament the rise in distracted listening practice as a fundamental negative component of late modernity. But many drivers and cyclists long to be distracted. If they pay too much attention to the road or vehicle in front of them, they run the risk of being jittery and overreacting. One's awareness of moving so quickly can quickly heighten reflexes along with anxieties. It can also have the opposite effect: the constant rhythm of lights and lane dividers on the road (or the spandex of the cyclist in front of you) can be mesmerizing and make someone zone out, thereby decreasing reflexes. And in heavy traffic situations, being all-too-aware that you aren't moving can actually heighten road-rage. In these cases, distraction is an important part of process of moderating rather extreme reactions to the commuting experience. It is the most popular coping mechanism for stress and fatigue.
Maybe policy makers need to think of better ways to try to make the commuting experience better instead of encroaching on possible individual solutions to the problem. Maybe?
----
Today was the first official meeting of the Sound Studies Special Interest Group for the Society of Ethnomusicology. My participation in that meeting (via Skype) prompted me to think about one of the most prevalent activities I witness from my bicycle saddle as I ride around town. Earbuds. Many people drive with earbuds. An even higher percentage of bicycle riders train or commute with their headphones on. In case you didn't know, this activity is completely illegal. According to the California Vehicle Code, you can't operate a vehicle with anything in your ears unless it is for hearing protection (say, if you are operating a very noisy vehicle at a construction site). Many motorcyclists, for example, ride with ear plugs because they are literally damaging their ears when they travel at high speeds. I think the point of the prohibition is a safety concern. Can you hear a car overtaking you from behind as you ride along to your favorite tunes? Can you respond to an emergency if you can't hear it?
I have a problem with the way this law is set out. I personally never ride while wearing earbuds because I would never feel safe. After years of loud rehearsals and long club nights, my hearing isn't as good as it used to be. But I am sure that some people can properly distinguish mediated sound from the sounds of their environment and do it with panache. Many pedestrians walk in unsafe areas while wearing headphones, and earbuds are extremely common in public transit. (And many dangerous things happen to pedestrians and passengers on buses, subways, and trains.) Why the prohibition on riding or driving? What's more: many people who are hard of hearing operate vehicles and there is no prohibition against them. So why such an arbitrary prohibition?
Let me push a little bit more. Many policy makers do not pay attention to other factors that may inhibit hearing, such as construction and landscaping machines. Imagine trying to safely pass a bicycle when you can't even hear yourself saying "on your left." Earbuds don't help that situation, but they are far from the villain. There are so many acoustic factors that make certain traffic situations completely unsafe; yet, they rarely catch the sustained attention of policy makers (in the los angeles area at least).
My (completely unfounded) suspicion is that the prohibition is not against loud noises, but rather that sounds in earbuds are distracting. I could provide an extensive bibliography of theorists who lament the rise in distracted listening practice as a fundamental negative component of late modernity. But many drivers and cyclists long to be distracted. If they pay too much attention to the road or vehicle in front of them, they run the risk of being jittery and overreacting. One's awareness of moving so quickly can quickly heighten reflexes along with anxieties. It can also have the opposite effect: the constant rhythm of lights and lane dividers on the road (or the spandex of the cyclist in front of you) can be mesmerizing and make someone zone out, thereby decreasing reflexes. And in heavy traffic situations, being all-too-aware that you aren't moving can actually heighten road-rage. In these cases, distraction is an important part of process of moderating rather extreme reactions to the commuting experience. It is the most popular coping mechanism for stress and fatigue.
Maybe policy makers need to think of better ways to try to make the commuting experience better instead of encroaching on possible individual solutions to the problem. Maybe?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Losing Patience
Today, I officially yelled at a fellow cyclist whose zest for dangerous riding pushed me over the edge.
See, there are many more cyclists out there, the majority of whom never think about safety issues on a bike. They wear headphones and listen to their iPods at top volume completely erasing the only method of signaling from behind that other cyclists have. When a passing cyclist calls out "on your left!" they don't hear, and even sometimes drift leftwards putting the passing cyclist at risk. I don't like being pushed into traffic.
Today, after dealing with many headphone wearing cyclists, I was almost taken out by a cyclist riding ::gasp:: on the wrong side of the road. I was attempting to make a left turn into a bicycle parking lot and was looking for oncoming traffic. This fellow came up from behind and almost hit me. I yelled, "watch out!" Really, though, I shouldn't have to yell. After he realized what had almost happened, I said something along the lines of "traffic laws apply to you too!" Dear. God.
And now, I end with a brief list of other offending actions only committed by irreverent cyclists in town:
• Passing on the right, especially when a cyclist is trying to make a right turn. Disaster waiting to happen!
• Switching rapidly between riding on the sidewalk and the right side of the road causing chaos among cyclists, pedestrians, and cars. Ack!
• Refusing to yield to anyone or anything.
• Riding two or ::gasp!:: three abreast on a busy street at a low speed, thereby eliminating the possibility of safe passing.
• Not looking before moving into traffic thereby almost causing a vehicle to hit a car/ cyclist.
And, my personal favorite:
• Completely running all red lights thereby making all cars hate cyclists. Boo!!
That's all. Someone needs to more actively promote basic courtesy among commuting cyclists. For the love of god, people.
See, there are many more cyclists out there, the majority of whom never think about safety issues on a bike. They wear headphones and listen to their iPods at top volume completely erasing the only method of signaling from behind that other cyclists have. When a passing cyclist calls out "on your left!" they don't hear, and even sometimes drift leftwards putting the passing cyclist at risk. I don't like being pushed into traffic.
Today, after dealing with many headphone wearing cyclists, I was almost taken out by a cyclist riding ::gasp:: on the wrong side of the road. I was attempting to make a left turn into a bicycle parking lot and was looking for oncoming traffic. This fellow came up from behind and almost hit me. I yelled, "watch out!" Really, though, I shouldn't have to yell. After he realized what had almost happened, I said something along the lines of "traffic laws apply to you too!" Dear. God.
And now, I end with a brief list of other offending actions only committed by irreverent cyclists in town:
• Passing on the right, especially when a cyclist is trying to make a right turn. Disaster waiting to happen!
• Switching rapidly between riding on the sidewalk and the right side of the road causing chaos among cyclists, pedestrians, and cars. Ack!
• Refusing to yield to anyone or anything.
• Riding two or ::gasp!:: three abreast on a busy street at a low speed, thereby eliminating the possibility of safe passing.
• Not looking before moving into traffic thereby almost causing a vehicle to hit a car/ cyclist.
And, my personal favorite:
• Completely running all red lights thereby making all cars hate cyclists. Boo!!
That's all. Someone needs to more actively promote basic courtesy among commuting cyclists. For the love of god, people.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Overdoing It
For the past two weeks, I've been using my bike as my only mode of transportation around town. It's been great. Riding from UCLA to the Grove for Rosh Hashannah? Cool! Travelling from Marina Del Rey to UCLA to teach? No problem. Stopping by the pet store to get cat-food? Not even a question.
But then, something weird happened. I continued to do my long training rides on the weekends AND I woke up at an absurdly early hour on Wednesday to ride 20 miles with the UCLA cycling team (up Mandeville Canyon). Around yesterday afternoon, my left achilles tendon started to scream at me. Quite loudly. And then I noticed that my old injury in my right leg was making some noise as well. So, even though I had been training intensely for over 2 months to do the Angeles Crest Century ride, my body was starting to let me know that I have been overdoing it by just a tad.
I skipped the century in favor of my physical health (and to preserve my ability to ride in the future). It's a good thing that my scooter is finally fixed because my legs need a serious rest.
Part of me wonders why I have been riding with such manic intensity. I have it boiled down to three reasons:
Whatever it is, I think I need to tone things down just a tad. Or maybe I ought to stick to slower riding speeds for my training rides. Or something. The good news is that I don't need to be riding to wear my cute Surly cycling cap and look at the new bike models for next year. Nothing heals sore tendons like retail therapy.
But then, something weird happened. I continued to do my long training rides on the weekends AND I woke up at an absurdly early hour on Wednesday to ride 20 miles with the UCLA cycling team (up Mandeville Canyon). Around yesterday afternoon, my left achilles tendon started to scream at me. Quite loudly. And then I noticed that my old injury in my right leg was making some noise as well. So, even though I had been training intensely for over 2 months to do the Angeles Crest Century ride, my body was starting to let me know that I have been overdoing it by just a tad.
I skipped the century in favor of my physical health (and to preserve my ability to ride in the future). It's a good thing that my scooter is finally fixed because my legs need a serious rest.
Part of me wonders why I have been riding with such manic intensity. I have it boiled down to three reasons:
• I cut off my hair a week ago and I now want to take advantage of the increased ease of wearing a helmet. It literally takes me 2 minutes to remove all traces of helmet head. Awesome!
• Getting hit by a car sucks. In my need to not let the accident ruin my love for my bicycle, I've let my riding get a little too intense.
• I recently let go of a very major commitment in my life, and instead of dealing with the reasons for leaving this organization, I want to distract myself from the inevitable.
Whatever it is, I think I need to tone things down just a tad. Or maybe I ought to stick to slower riding speeds for my training rides. Or something. The good news is that I don't need to be riding to wear my cute Surly cycling cap and look at the new bike models for next year. Nothing heals sore tendons like retail therapy.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Wreck
Please forgive me, but I am in a lot of physical pain right now. Today, at 8:00 AM, I was hit by a mini-van at the corner of Barrington and Olympic. I was going straight, she decided to try to go around me to make a right-turn. I was essentially cut-off and thrown to the pavement. It was bad. I am bruised all along the left side of my body, and my left elbow and hand are sporting a seriously nasty looking road rash. She was the better kind of impatient motorist: she stopped to make sure I was ok, listened to me as I explained what she did wrong, put me and my bike in her van, and drove me to UCLA's student health clinic. She also gave me all of her information and never once tried to blame me for what happened. What's sad is that her behavior is the exception not the rule, and that makes me sad. But I'm not blogging today to complain about her, the van, or the intense pain I currently feel in my left arm.
Instead, I need to complain about the many motorists who had the nerve to honk at me once after the accident happened. OK, so you see a cyclist and a car collide resulting in a pretty nasty looking wound including blood, a dazed cyclist, and a whole lot of confusion. Does honking really help the situation? I wonder: if the accident had involved a pedestrian would the other impatient motorists have felt the need to honk at the injured party? Just thinking aloud here...
Instead, I need to complain about the many motorists who had the nerve to honk at me once after the accident happened. OK, so you see a cyclist and a car collide resulting in a pretty nasty looking wound including blood, a dazed cyclist, and a whole lot of confusion. Does honking really help the situation? I wonder: if the accident had involved a pedestrian would the other impatient motorists have felt the need to honk at the injured party? Just thinking aloud here...
Saturday, August 2, 2008
LA Bike Commuters in the Wall Street Journal
Here's the article, which includes some rather prominent omissions in terms of LA bike activism (LA Bike Coalition anybody?). However, the overall tone is: Look ma! Bike commuters are normal people!
Monday, July 28, 2008
More Reasons to go Car-Free
It's official. Aside from the many reasons to go car-free, here's another: it can actually help you save/make gobs of money. Last night Alina sent me this link to a book I should have read back when my car was beginning to show early signs of death: How To Live Well Without A Car. As anyone who has ditched their car can tell you: cars are way more expensive than the price of gasoline and your car payments. Think: insurance, maintenance, parking tickets, toll-roads, and parking. Hell, some apartment buildings go so far as to charge monthly fees for their own residents! The preview on page 8 breaks down all of the financial benefits for you (although in today's sad economy the investment aspect of things might not be quite so apparent). I am pretty sure my first bike purchase paid for itself within the first month of use, and that was when gas was at $2 a gallon! Anyway... I do not need to be given more reasons or guidelines on how to live my life without a car at this point, but it would have been nice if someone had presented the option to me around 2 years before I bought my first bike. And for the record, getting rid of my car did not allow me to save money or pay off my debt, it just stopped my debt from increasing exponentially.
And also, I can't wait to get back in the states just to ride my Surly again.
And also, I can't wait to get back in the states just to ride my Surly again.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Planning a Carless Commute to Irvine
In the middle of August I will be attending a Seminar in Experimental Critical Theory about cultural policy and creative industry at UC Irvine. Getting there will be an adventure. I'll probably take an Amtrak down with my bike and ride to my final destination. It will take some planning, but I think I can make it work. Lucky for me I will be staying a mere 15 miles away for free. I shall thus use my daily commute to and from UCI as a training opportunity. Fun stuff, right? The irony of all of this is that I have been trying to work out the details of doing Orange County without a car for way too long. If you thought LA was addicted to cars, try the orange curtain, which never really had public transportation in mind during as part of its master-plan. Yeah, there are buses, but they aren't realistic for most people's needs.
I find it oddly ironic that this seminar which has such an emphasis on cultural policy is in a place that was thoroughly planned for a world which is no longer realistic. Growing up in a place like Laguna Beach, Irvine was often the target of much derision by my classmates and neighbors mostly because of its connections with the Irvine Company, Orange County's intensely powerful real estate firm. UCI only exists, for example, through a donation of the Irvine Company. Some would go so far as to say that all that is good about the OC only exists through the "generosity" of the Irvine Company. It's kind of hard to swallow.
For much of my youth, the wilderness-loving hippies of Laguna Beach hated everything that the Irvine Company stood for. This was mostly because they were responsible for turning most of Orange County's groves into an endless mass of controlled and pre-planned communities with look-alike homes. In 1989, many of Laguna's citizens (including myself) had to stage repeated protests just to persuade the Irvine Company not to build more tract homes in the Laguna canyon wilderness. (I could go on... but California's endless growth is finally coming to a close due to strains on water supplies.)
The ironies of dealing with the most unfortunate aspects of Orange County's development pattern will make my quest to go without a car quite... well... crazy. I'm pretty sure that my family thinks I'm nuts for insisting on not using a car for two weeks. However, I want to really experience life from my bike-saddle in a place that is really averse to making that work. And, to be honest, I also see my daily climb over Newport Coast drive as an excellent physical challenge...
I find it oddly ironic that this seminar which has such an emphasis on cultural policy is in a place that was thoroughly planned for a world which is no longer realistic. Growing up in a place like Laguna Beach, Irvine was often the target of much derision by my classmates and neighbors mostly because of its connections with the Irvine Company, Orange County's intensely powerful real estate firm. UCI only exists, for example, through a donation of the Irvine Company. Some would go so far as to say that all that is good about the OC only exists through the "generosity" of the Irvine Company. It's kind of hard to swallow.
For much of my youth, the wilderness-loving hippies of Laguna Beach hated everything that the Irvine Company stood for. This was mostly because they were responsible for turning most of Orange County's groves into an endless mass of controlled and pre-planned communities with look-alike homes. In 1989, many of Laguna's citizens (including myself) had to stage repeated protests just to persuade the Irvine Company not to build more tract homes in the Laguna canyon wilderness. (I could go on... but California's endless growth is finally coming to a close due to strains on water supplies.)
The ironies of dealing with the most unfortunate aspects of Orange County's development pattern will make my quest to go without a car quite... well... crazy. I'm pretty sure that my family thinks I'm nuts for insisting on not using a car for two weeks. However, I want to really experience life from my bike-saddle in a place that is really averse to making that work. And, to be honest, I also see my daily climb over Newport Coast drive as an excellent physical challenge...
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
California Alternative Commuting in the News
I woke up this morning to many articles about commuting and bicycles in the news:
• High gas prices are pushing more and more people to commute by bike. You will notice that the article emphasizes how terrifying it is to ride a bike in Los Angeles due to distracted drivers. Despite this danger, bicycle sales for the month of June spiked by 20%. Ironically, for many commuters the biking option is much quicker than driving. Awesome!
I've got to say that there are some major downsides to this spike in bike riders in LA. First, the city has yet to implement its bicycle master plan and thus bike lanes and routes are often not very well advertised or supported. Also, an influx of inexperienced riders on the road can actually be dangerous if no one follows traffic laws. I could tell you stories of the police completely ignoring dangerous cyclists out there. Finally, the article notes that many bike repair shops are completely over-booked with this new influx. New bikes mean that they all have to be tuned-up within the first few months on the road. I guess that I can't just show up at my local shop for a quick diagnosis anymore...
• Apparently with the aforementioned terror of riding with clueless drivers, many cyclists really want to use sidewalks. It is so pressing that the City of West Hollywood wants to abandon its ban of cycling on the sidewalks. This is coming from a city that actually has marked bike lanes! I've got to say that I personally prefer riding with cars than pedestrians. Cars are generally predictable, while pedestrians often aren't looking for anything moving faster than walking speed, let alone a vehicle going 10-20 miles per hour in the path. I think it's great that so many people want to ride their bikes that this is even a consideration, but it sounds to me like a major step backwards.
• Aside from bikes and scooters, the high gas prices are also encouraging southland commuters to use mass transit. No surprise there. I can't wait until SoCal's rail system actually has the capacity and lines to make the transition easier; right now, the system makes very little sense. Just think: it is actually far less of a hassle for my to ride my bike 55 miles south to Laguna Beach than to take a train. None of it makes sense...
• And just when you thought it was safe to live in your car, it seems that the California state government wants to curb the bad habits of its motorists. I'm not talking about talking or texting on cell phones, I'm talking about such offenses as reading a newspaper, painting fingernails, or having one's dog on one's lap. My personal favorite offense is changing an entire outfit while stuck in traffic (which, as a cyclist, I've seen numerous times). If this actually works, perhaps the roads will be more encouraging to the newbie bike commuter and we won't need to have cyclists on sidewalks. I can dream, right?
• High gas prices are pushing more and more people to commute by bike. You will notice that the article emphasizes how terrifying it is to ride a bike in Los Angeles due to distracted drivers. Despite this danger, bicycle sales for the month of June spiked by 20%. Ironically, for many commuters the biking option is much quicker than driving. Awesome!
I've got to say that there are some major downsides to this spike in bike riders in LA. First, the city has yet to implement its bicycle master plan and thus bike lanes and routes are often not very well advertised or supported. Also, an influx of inexperienced riders on the road can actually be dangerous if no one follows traffic laws. I could tell you stories of the police completely ignoring dangerous cyclists out there. Finally, the article notes that many bike repair shops are completely over-booked with this new influx. New bikes mean that they all have to be tuned-up within the first few months on the road. I guess that I can't just show up at my local shop for a quick diagnosis anymore...
• Apparently with the aforementioned terror of riding with clueless drivers, many cyclists really want to use sidewalks. It is so pressing that the City of West Hollywood wants to abandon its ban of cycling on the sidewalks. This is coming from a city that actually has marked bike lanes! I've got to say that I personally prefer riding with cars than pedestrians. Cars are generally predictable, while pedestrians often aren't looking for anything moving faster than walking speed, let alone a vehicle going 10-20 miles per hour in the path. I think it's great that so many people want to ride their bikes that this is even a consideration, but it sounds to me like a major step backwards.
• Aside from bikes and scooters, the high gas prices are also encouraging southland commuters to use mass transit. No surprise there. I can't wait until SoCal's rail system actually has the capacity and lines to make the transition easier; right now, the system makes very little sense. Just think: it is actually far less of a hassle for my to ride my bike 55 miles south to Laguna Beach than to take a train. None of it makes sense...
• And just when you thought it was safe to live in your car, it seems that the California state government wants to curb the bad habits of its motorists. I'm not talking about talking or texting on cell phones, I'm talking about such offenses as reading a newspaper, painting fingernails, or having one's dog on one's lap. My personal favorite offense is changing an entire outfit while stuck in traffic (which, as a cyclist, I've seen numerous times). If this actually works, perhaps the roads will be more encouraging to the newbie bike commuter and we won't need to have cyclists on sidewalks. I can dream, right?
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Bike-Blogging from São Paulo
In today's Folha de São Paulo there's a brief editorial column about bicycle culture in Paris. The author, Clôvis Rossi, describes a married couple arriving at a fancy hotel on bicycles as a way of introducing Paris's Vélib or free bike service. Like other cities around the world, Paris now has approximately 20 thousand bikes at over 14 hundred stations throughout the city for rent with the first half-hour free. Awesome! (A little voice in my head nags: "but what about bike fit?" which I'll ignore for now.) Rossi muses about what this could means for traffic in such large cities like São Paulo (which is, btw, one of the largest cities in the world):
Or in English:
I've got to say, I'm not surprised by the author's doubt. Unlike Rio de Janeiro, there is no ciclovia or specially designated bike lane here. There isn't even enough space in the right lane for cyclists to ride independent of traffic patterns. Cyclists here are the craziest bunch I've ever seen, literally riding in the middle of traffic. They often ride mountain bikes with good reason: it allows them more flexibility to jump up on bumpy sidewalks. If any of my loyal readers ever thought that I was crazy to ride around LA, I present to you the craziness that is São Paulo cycling culture.
A few years ago (before I spoke a word of Portuguese), the Folha ran an article about a reporter's experiences on a bike for a month of his working life. Not only was he robbed, but he was constantly afraid for his life as cars would frequently cut him off. A motorcycle delivery boy (known here as "motorboy") witnessed such an occurence and expounded: "nobody here respects (the rights of) cyclists." Well, to be fair, they don't respect pedestrians either.
É um modelo copiável? Do ponto de vista ambiental, parece interessante. Mas você acha que São Paulo é suficientemente civilizada para que carros e motos não atropelam os ciclistas?
Or in English:
Is it a copiable model? From a distanced perspective, it looks interesting. But do you think that São Paulo is civilized enough that cars and motorcycles wouldn't run over cyclists?
I've got to say, I'm not surprised by the author's doubt. Unlike Rio de Janeiro, there is no ciclovia or specially designated bike lane here. There isn't even enough space in the right lane for cyclists to ride independent of traffic patterns. Cyclists here are the craziest bunch I've ever seen, literally riding in the middle of traffic. They often ride mountain bikes with good reason: it allows them more flexibility to jump up on bumpy sidewalks. If any of my loyal readers ever thought that I was crazy to ride around LA, I present to you the craziness that is São Paulo cycling culture.
A few years ago (before I spoke a word of Portuguese), the Folha ran an article about a reporter's experiences on a bike for a month of his working life. Not only was he robbed, but he was constantly afraid for his life as cars would frequently cut him off. A motorcycle delivery boy (known here as "motorboy") witnessed such an occurence and expounded: "nobody here respects (the rights of) cyclists." Well, to be fair, they don't respect pedestrians either.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Collision
A few weeks back I got hit by my first SUV during my daily commute. Luckily, I didn't get hurt but the timing and circumstances were rather auspicious. Just that morning I had shared stories of bike accidents and the normal trials of my daily commute. See, Alina and I have a route that while not the safest nor most dangerous ride on the west-side, it is certainly prone to road rage and idiocy. Two streets in particular, Barrington and Ohio, regularly feature cars not noticing that they are on a bike route. Ohio serves for many west-siders as an alternative to Santa Monica Boulevard. What this means is that cars treat it like a major thoroughfare when it is, in fact a two lane roud complete with stop signs and driveways. The culprit for my moment of impact was a silver Lexus SUV that was attempting to take a right turn on Federal Ave. Normally, we cyclists look for such signs as slowly swerving towards the curve or ::gasp!:: a directional signal of some sort. This Lexus did nothing of the sort and slowly drove right into me. The driver had a look of panic on his face when he heard the sound of my bike colliding with his door. He did not stop to see if I was ok (the nerve!), and continued to drive.
I'm sorry: whenever a driver realizes that he or she has hit a cyclist, they have a minimum obligation to stop and ensure that the cyclist has no real injuries. My shoulder hurt for a good three days after that accident. Not two days later another SUV pulled out of a driveway on Ohio without looking both ways and nearly hit me. This time I had enough time to yell, "WATCH OUT!" and avoid an accident. But seriously, people, is it that hard to treat moving vehicles like moving vehicles? I know we bikes are smaller, but the street in question is a popular bike route!
Needless to say, I've been much more paranoid on my rides. Maybe it didn't help that I recently spend a weekend sharing memories of a deceased friend and cyclist. Or maybe it's that the drivers are losing their sense of sharing roads. I try not to think of my riding as a full-contact sport, but sometimes I wonder.
I'm sorry: whenever a driver realizes that he or she has hit a cyclist, they have a minimum obligation to stop and ensure that the cyclist has no real injuries. My shoulder hurt for a good three days after that accident. Not two days later another SUV pulled out of a driveway on Ohio without looking both ways and nearly hit me. This time I had enough time to yell, "WATCH OUT!" and avoid an accident. But seriously, people, is it that hard to treat moving vehicles like moving vehicles? I know we bikes are smaller, but the street in question is a popular bike route!
Needless to say, I've been much more paranoid on my rides. Maybe it didn't help that I recently spend a weekend sharing memories of a deceased friend and cyclist. Or maybe it's that the drivers are losing their sense of sharing roads. I try not to think of my riding as a full-contact sport, but sometimes I wonder.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Honk for Louder Horns
From today's opinion section in the LA Times, Honk for Louder Honks, or yet another reason why we need more sound/aural culture studies in daily life. I've never read such an efficient argument for the place of sound in the Los Angeles commute. If I were to stretch the writer's argument to its most practical applications, all users of two-wheeled transportation are in the most need of some serious sound-making strength. But of course, Swati Pandey fails to even consider us. So sad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
