Attention

A few weeks ago I saw a Ford commercial on TV that really depressed me. I wasn’t sure I heard it correctly, so I went online to verify the bad news. It was true: e-mail will be infiltrating Ford automobiles. And not just e-mail—you’ll be ensconced in a 55-mph cellphone. Or is it a 70-mph computer? It depends on how big a hurry you’re in and what you urgently need to get done as you hurtle down the road.

From marketwatch.com:

Ford Motor Co. (F) will unveil […] a hands-free Bluetooth wireless system and in-vehicle operating system developed by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) as an option for its entire Ford brand lineup. The system will integrate some of the features of a personal computer into a car’s cockpit, according to sources familiar with the auto maker’s plans.

The move is Ford’s latest attempt to spruce up its U.S. product portfolio and follows the company’s recent decisions to expand satellite radio offerings and introduce features such as connection jacks for Apple Computer Inc.’s (AAPL) iPod music player. The new system, to be dubbed “Sync,” will allow for hands-free cellphone communication and other wireless information transfers inside the car, including the ability to receive email.

So why am I bummed by this? Why should I care that today’s hyperstimulated, overcaffeinated, maximally distracted drivers have internet access in their cars? That’s their business, right?

It’s simple: I commute by bicycle.

The news report goes on to describe the Sync system and Ford’s rollout plans at some length before ending on a sour note—the note I heard right off the bat, the note that got louder the more I read:

The drive to install more and more electronic features in cars has sparked debate in the auto industry concerning the amount of distraction that drivers encounter in the cockpits of their cars.

Gosh, it’s reassuring to know there’s “debate in the auto industry” about this! The question is, where’s the US Congress? Where’s 60 Minutes? Where’s Ralph Nader when you need him?

A few days ago, I got a mailing from the League of American Cyclists on biking fatalities and what needs to be done to make biking safer. Among the horror stories was “the case of Matt Wilhelm, who was killed by a teenage driver with four previous traffic violations in just 17 months”:

The driver admitted she was downloading ring tones for her phone when she struck him with the driver’s side of the car as he rode to the right of the fog line on the highway shoulder.

You’re starting to get the picture, right? Driving while distracted can be fatal … to the bicyclist (or pedestrian). The driver almost invariably walks away without a scratch, and usually gets off with a slap on the wrist (in this case, six months’ probation and a $1,000 fine).

Could it be an attitude problem? From the same League letter:

“That’s what happens when you ride on the road …”

That’s what a police officer told an Albequerque cyclist who had just witnessed a fellow rider being killed by a driver swerving into their path.

People often complain (and rightfully) about bicyclists behaving recklessly and making a nuissance of themselves. But from what I can tell, most cyclists who are killed or maimed are following the rules of the road. They are simply wiped out by careless, distracted, or impatient motorists. (Or drunk drivers—a mortal hazard to us all, whether we’re on bikes, in cars, or walking.) The January/February issue of Bicycling magazine has a long article by David Darlington about cyclists who were struck by cars—some of them died, some were paralyzed. All were obeying the law.

For instance, did you know it’s legal in all 50 states for a bicyclist to “take the lane”? Do you know what that means? It means a bicyclist isn’t restricted to riding on the edge of the road. If safe cycling requires it, you can take up an entire lane, forcing cars to pass (using another lane, not grabbing the lion’s share of yours to “slip past”). I used to avoid that technique—until I was doored.

Perhaps you’ve never been doored, or even heard the expression. It means having the door of a parked car opened right in front of you while you are pedaling full out. Luckily, because I was on a side street, I escaped with bruised ribs, a bruised hip, a twisted shoulder, and a permanently heightened tension about parked cars.* (Have you ever had a bruised rib? It’s no picnic.) The fact that I was cycling properly was no defense against a guy in a hurry on a drizzly evening with crying kids in the back seat who opened his car door all the way with great force without looking. In this case, the door whacked me and sent me flying. Others have had the door present itself suddenly before them, offering the split-second option of somehow diving over the handlebars into the driver’s lap, or hitting the door edgewise, or glancing off it and ending up in a sprawled tangle with the bike in traffic, or God knows what.

Depending on whom you listen to, a cyclist should give a parked car three or four feet of clearance. Did you know this is acceptable (i.e., legal) behavior for a bicyclist? Sometimes this means taking the lane, and believe me, I am no longer shy about doing it. Some drivers seem to understand, and some seem not to. It’s never too late for the latter to learn. I don’t know if some people will ever accept the fact that bicycles are a legitimate mode of transportation, not just a plaything. The dirty looks and honks I sometimes get—for no good reason, believe me—seem to say: Why don’t you move to Europe? (Actually, what they’re probably saying is: Why don’t you go to hell?)

A sidebar to the Bicycling article asks: “Is it getting worse?” And answers: “Apparently, no. But actually yes—and for a surprising reason.” Which is this: while the number of cycling fatalities has remained steady over the last decade, the number of “serious” cyclists has declined, leading to a higher fatality rate. (Are there really fewer serious cyclists now than in 1995? Do commuters count? The data cited leave room for wonder.) “What becomes clear,” the author concludes, “is that, as numbers of cyclists increase, the rate of fatalities decreases.” He cites a recent study:

This inverse relationship is borne out by a 2003 report entitled “Safety in Numbers” by Peter L. Jacobsen, a public-health consultant in Sacramento, California. Studying cities of varying sizes from California to Scandinavia to the United Kingdom to the Netherlands, Jacobsen found that collisions between motor vehicles and people walking or bicycling declined with increases in the numbers of pedestrians and cyclists, partly because motorists in foot- or bike-prone communities are themselves more likely to walk or bicycle occasionally, and thus give greater consideration to others who are doing it.

I had thought the reason might be different: I figured the more drivers see me, even if I inconvenience them a little bit, the safer it gets for cyclists because drivers are more used to seeing cyclists (not because they’re cyclists themselves). Whatever the causation, Jacobsen’s fundamental conclusion is this:

“A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking or bicycling if more people walk or bicycle.”

So do me a favor and ride your bike in traffic!

Failing that, when you’re in your car remember that you’ve got at least two tons of steel and stuff protecting you. Act accordingly. Don’t be like that Albequerque cop. In addition to all their other advantages over cars, the fact remains: bikes were here first. Cars should have respect for their elders.

Thank you, and see you on the streets!

__________
*Somehow the laptop slung over my shoulder escaped harm, even though I ended up on my back. But the hard drive in my mp3 player in the saddlebag was toast after the crash. [back]