Rocky Hillside

Image by Wojtek Michniewicz from his review at crazyguyonabike. Captioned "Peeling laminate on SP touring jacket." More images there.

Another negative experience with the Showers Pass Touring Jacket.

I discussed my problems with the Touring Jacket, here and here. The thread also describes some positive experiences with Showers Pass and some design improvements to one model.

Sounds to me as if the Showers Pass Elite jacket may be made from different materials than the Touring and Transit jackets and that the Elite Jacket doesn't leak -- or at least doesn't leak as much.

The Showers Pass jackets, in my opinion, are pricey enough that they should perform well. The Touring jacket is $150. Even if the jacket performed as advertised, that's quite a bit of money.

If you have a Touring jacket, and are having problems, return it. If the vendor won't take it back, ask Showers Pass for a replacement. I think that may be the best way to reiterate to Showers Pass that (at least some of) these jackets have serious problems. And it will give Showers Pass a chance to "make it right." It seems like a good company that made a mistake with one product.

If you are shopping for raingear, consider whether the cost of a cycling-specific jacket is actually worth it. Gerty wears her regular, brightly-colored rain jacket and does just fine. (In fact, on our last rain-drenched tour she was much drier in her hiking jacket than I was in my Touring jacket.) I feel a bit dumb that I shelled out over $100 when I could just wear my hiking raingear -- particularly since I routinely rail about the evils of materialism.

If you really want cycling-specific gear, take a look at J&G Cyclewear's line. One commenter highly recommends them. I have no experience whatsoever with them. Their website, which is not nearly as slick as that of Showers Pass, says that they, too, are a small Oregon company.

Data from Teschke et al., Route Infrastructure and the Risk of Injuries to Bicyclists, Table 4, descriptions modified, *P less than .05

The Atlantic's Cities blog has a decent summary of a recent paper aimed at determining the impact of various kinds of cycling infrastructure on injury rates. Among the study's conclusion is that bike lanes significantly reduce the rate at which cyclists are injured.

Terminology & Denver's Paths

At the outset, I should note that study's terminology doesn't match up well with how we in Denver refer to things. According to the study's definitions, the Cherry Creek and Platte Greenways are "multiuse" paths ("meant for nonmotorized use by pedestrians, cyclists, skaters and others, either alongside city streets or away from city streets") not "bike paths."

I'm not sure how the study would classify Denver's designated sidewalk/bike routes. Those monstrosities fit both the definitions of sidewalk ("paved path meant for pedestrian use, either alongside city streets or away from streets") and multiuse path. (As far as I know, we don't have any "bicycle-only paths" in Denver.)

Multi-Use Paths Are (Relatively) Unsafe

The study's results are interesting for several reasons. First, in terms of safety, multi-use paths are less safe than everything except sidewalks and major streets with parked cars and no bike infrastructure.

That probably surprises a lot of planners. Multi-use paths are assumed to be the safest place for cyclists to be.

If the results apply to Denver, Denver has built (and designated) a lot of infrastructure that is less safe to use than simply riding on a major street that doesn't have parking. In particular, where Denver has designated sidewalks as bikeways it has created conditions that are about as unsafe as they can be for cycling.

Parking Poses Problems

Another interesting thing is just how much difference street parking makes. Eliminating parking makes even major streets safer than adding a bike lane or sharrows would. (The risk for major streets with no parking and no infrastructure are not statistically significant.)

If cyclist safety is an issue, planners should consider removing parking before considering adding cycling infrastructure. (Anyone who has worked on these issues in Denver knows that's wishful thinking. A bike planner once told me -- sarcastically -- that City Council, given a choice between a few dead cyclists and the calls triggered by eliminating a few parking places, would choose dead cyclists every time. He might have been sarcastic, but I think he was right.)

What's Hurting Us

Finally, how cyclists were injured surprised me. Only about a third of cyclist injuries were caused by collisions with motor vehicles. About a quarter were caused by collisions with things like train tracks, potholes, or rocks. Collisions with animals, other cyclists, and pedestrians accounted for only about 7% of the injuries. Looks as if keeping streets maintained on bike routes would help a great deal. Drivers would appreciate it, too.

=> Read more!

Image by Michael Sauers. Some rights reserved.

What we packed for the weekend trip:

• Bikes (a ride near Glenwood and to get around)
• Skis (passing my favorite ski area, so why not stop for an hour or so?)
• Camping gear (should be warm enough, at least the first night)
• Day packs (hike on Sunday)
• Camera (because Colorado is stunning)

Yehuda Moon by Rick Smith and Brian Griggs

Yehuda is great.

Around our house use the "Parking Lot Rule": If you are warm in the parking lot, you are going to be way too hot.

Image via Reno Rambler.

Obviously, if this image had come out sooner Obama's radical revolutionary/communist/socialist/sharia plans would have been indisputably proven.

Beware America! He's coming for your cars!

Also speed limit enforcement!

When I say this to those who complain (including Gerty!), I am treated like a lobotomized flatworm. (Apparently everyone except me knows that speeding is a basic human right.)

From a Washington Post editorial:

HERE’S AN IDEA for motorists who complain about having to pay the fines assessed by the District’s traffic cameras: Obey the laws. Driving the speed limit, stopping at red lights and not making prohibited right turns on red are the best defense against getting a ticket.

Now we need turn signal cameras . . . .

This sounds very fun and very cool:

Primal Wear brings you Denver's First Ever Urban CX Race, Ever. Not the suburbs of Highlands Ranch or Castle Rock, not Golden, not Boulder, but right smack in the middle of Denver. Mile High Urban CX Chaos (MUCCY) is a one of a kind event in Colorado breaking ground in a truly gritty urban metropolitan environment: graffiti, warehouses, construction, train tracks, abandoned tires and empty lots.

They had me at "Not the suburbs of Highlands Ranch or Castle Rock, not Golden, not Boulder . . ."

So, in review, why race MUCCY?

• It is the first and only truly urban, full category, sanctioned CX race in Denver(Bronze Level in the Colorado Cross Cup)
• It is building the first adaptive CX course
• Lagunitas Brewing Co. is providing the beer with the proceeds to benefit BikeDenver. The Lagunitas Beer Garden will be at the Fat Bros. Bar & Grill - they will open at 8am and have some amazing breakfast burritos!
• There is an opportunity to help build bikes for kids with Project Re-Cycle
• It is a great group of individuals and companies that have come together to celebrate the cycling community in Denver

Needs a better name though.

Image by will_cyclist. Some rights reserved.

Padraig at RedKitePrayer (Patrick Brady) wrote on Thursday to announce to the world that he believed Lance was a doper all along (or at least before Lance's first Tour victory.)

Trouble is, Padraig and the cycling press didn't share their beliefs about Lance with the rest of us. Not only didn't the press tell us Lance was a doper, most writers didn't support those telling the truth about Lance and, worse, some actively helped demean and discredit those Lance's critics. (I discussed Padraig's post here, contrasting it with another writer who appears to have some remorse about the press's behavior.)

A fair reading of Padraig's "The Cynic" post is that, after struggling a great deal about his role as cycling writer, Padraig decided not to write about Lance's doping because Padraig was a) frightened of Lance; b) wanted to keep working as a cycling writer; c) figured he would pretend that the peloton was clean as long as the UCI didn't do anything; and/or d) figured that Lance "should" have success (scamming the public?) because the UCI was inept.

I suspect that Padraig didn't expect the response his post received. (Padraig deserves credit for posting the unfavorable comments and repeatedly responding to them.)

A few commenters aren't happy with Padraig or the cycling press. One commenter, Evan, reminded Padraig that not telling the whole truth is a problem:

[N]ot speaking the whole truth and nothing but, one commits moral turpitude. This was hard, perhaps the hardest thing in my life to face as I have lived a life serving others often at great peril to myself. I almost always prevailed, changing occupations rather than not speak out. . . .

Only you can know truly why you choose to stay a journalist and be silenced. None of us have the right to judge you nor tell you why.

I disagree with Evan a bit: Padraig has told us why he chose "to stay a journalist and be silenced." (I've listed what Padraig told us about that above.) So, we know and can comment on Padraig's reasons -- but that's a mere quibble.

Trouble is Padraig still doesn't understand why his readers might be angry at the cycling press. And, as to his own culpability, whether large or minuscule, Padraig is having none.

Although in "The Cynic" Padraig describes himself as "wrestling" with what Lance's doping meant to him since he was making a "living writing about cycling," he responds to his critics with by saying that he, "really wasn’t writing about pro cycling at all."

Had I been writing about pro cycling much during that Armstrong era, I might have done things differently. The fact is, from ’99 to ’02, I really wasn’t writing about pro cycling at all. From ’03 to ’05 I was publishing a lifestyle magazine and covering pro cycling wasn’t part of its editorial mission.

I confess I'm puzzled. If Padraig wasn't really writing about pro cycling or couldn't write about it, what was all his anguish/concern/cynicism about? If he was not writing or couldn't write about pro cyclists, who cares if he cynically treats dirty cyclists as clean cyclists or cynically believes Lance should be successful? Why should we even credit his opinion from back then about the UCI's enforcement efforts? We care about those things only if Padraig could have written about Lance but refrained.

I don't think Padraig wanted us to take away from his post that Padraig was out of the pro cycling loop, wasn't really writing about pro cycling, and couldn't have written anything about his belief even if he hadn't been so cynical.

His response to his critics is hard for me to square with the original post.

=> Read more!