Cycle safety: ur doin it rong

Visibility is incidental to cycle safety.

   - J Edgar Whoever

Much has been written and spoken about safe cycling. Most of it, in recent years, has centred on helmets and visibility. In my opinion, neither of these has much to do with being safe on the roads. Helmets don't keep you safe; all they can do is mitigate head injuries. Far better not to crash in the first place. It's much easier to not crash in the first place and furthermore it's something that's entirely under your own control. Any collisions you have are your own responsibility. There's no point in being extra-visible if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, you're still gonna get nailed. And I'd like to observe that they don't collide with you; you collide with them, regardless of which direction they're coming from.

So this is what I do. It's unorthodox, perhaps, but it's always worked for me. I've been learning these techniques since I was ten years old, riding to school. 30 years later, I ride to work every day and do open-road touring and I still use these techniques.

The most important thing to understand is the mental attitude which makes you safe. Cycling is the safest thing in the world. It's as safe as sitting in an armchair in your lounge. As long as you don't collide with anything or fall off - and that goes for armchairs too - you're essentially invulnerable, at least when viewed on a moment-by-moment basis, which is how things work when your state of awareness is what it is while cycling. You need to be alert in order to take whatever action may be necessary to Avoid Collisions.

Expecting other people - eg motorists - to be partly responsible for your own safety (and advertising it by wearing special hi vis clothing in broad daylight) might seem like a sensible idea, but it's only addressing secondary considerations. Being visible has little to do with avoiding collisions. You don't want to be colliding with anything - cars, other cyclists, gutters, lamp posts, anything at all. And who has the final say in what you collide with? You do. You're in control. If you take 100% responsibility for your own safety, you're half way to being genuinely safe on the road.

Consider the so-called mountain biker. The notion that "the tree jumped out and knocked me off my bike" is as ludicrous as it is childish, yet people say almost the same thing about urban car/bike crashes as if the car (or driver) is at fault for running into you. You could have avoided the collision, but you didn't. 


It's you and your bike, moving together through a landscape of predominantly inanimate objects, be they trees, parked cars or anything in between. You're in control. When riding, everything is moving relative to your frame of reference. You don't want to hit a parked car any more than you want to hit a moving car. 

If you are involved in a collision, you did something wrong. 


I have never had a bike crash that wasn't entirely my own fault. For the record, I averaged one crash which involved being knocked off my bike every year when at high school. The the following decade, I fell over a few times when trackstanding at lights and I once hit a gutter (at low speed, but I still fell off) which I couldn't see because I didn't have any lights. 


I've never been clipped from behind and until recently had never been doored. (The dooring occurred at 5:30 pm on Courtenay Place; an SUV discharged a front seat passenger while stopped at a pedestrian crossing. In retrospect it was pretty obvious that this was likely to happen, with people picking up and dropping off at that place and time quite frequently, and rearward visibility in the car being poor due to the rain. In the event the door just clipped the edge of my mudguard bolt, which pinged off. I was lucky I didn't catch my knee). How could I have avoided this? Simply by avoiding that stretch of road and going a different route, with more space.

Sometimes, motorists will open car doors in the path of oncoming cyclists without realising that the cyclist is there. This can be fatally dangerous. I've read numerous tales of the rider swerving out into the traffic to avoid the door, then getting run down by a truck or bus that they didn't seem to notice was in the process of overtaking them at the time. I expect that if these unfortunate dead cyclists could run through the scenario again, they'd probably have opted for just crashing into the door, sacrificing a front wheel and quite possibly the frame and fork, but probably walking away without broken bones or head impacts.

The cylists was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not in a general sense - only at that precise second where the space they has been moving into was already taken by something else. They should have taken the hit on the door and not swerved out into the traffic; or they should have been riding in the middle of the lane where the door wouldn't reach them. 

The second half of cycle safety is when you realise that taking 100% responsibility for your own safety isn't enough. I will explain. My policy is that no only am I responsible for my own actions, I am also responsible for everyone else's actions as well. 

Adopting this attitude automatically makes you more communicative to the rest of the traffic. As I am not separate from the traffic - in this sense meaning all the other vehicles and pedestrians within visibility or earshot - I move with it, a distinct unit yet a part of an undifferentiated whole. Traffic. Consider. It's difficult to judge at what rate a cyclist is decelerating when coming to a stop. Pedestrians need to eyeball you for a couple of seconds to gauge where you'll be on the road when they walk out to cross. I demonstrate to the peds that I'm slowing down and intend to stop by not only braking, but by unclipping one foot and sliding forward on my saddle, pedal leg straight, soon about to put a foot down, can't possibly accelerate in that posture - therefore safe. The pedestrians can confidently step out, knowing that the guy on the bike is under control.

By doing this, I control the behaviour of the pedestrians, at that moment, because I am responsible for the pedestrians, at that moment.

Consider taxis. The pull out on you unexpectedly, they don't indicate, they block a lane of traffic outside a hotel and you have to look over your shoulder to see if anything's coming to wipe you out when you overtake it... The first and most important thing to know about taxi drivers is that they work really long hours and make really low incomes. If you enjoy the luxury of being able to ride your bike to work, you are almost certainly on a higher hourly rate than all the taxi drivers you saw this morning. Taxi drivers need our love. 

More than this, taxis are Good Practice. Being professional full-time drivers, they are much safer on the roads than you might think. Sure, they often spend much of their time edging around at very low speeds, attention on potential fares, with their indicators in various states of display. And sure, that's a bit of a hassle and something you need to deal with. So deal with it: taxis are like that, so give them the room they need. Expect the taxi to do its taxi business, maybe hang back a little in the middle of the lane so the driver can see you clearly through the centre rear view mirror. He'll be looking for you and you can indicate, through body language, which side you're hoping to pass him on, or that you're turning and not overtaking, or whatever it is. In this way you control the taxis, because the taxis need you to show them where you're going.

Buses are long, wide and have engines in the back, which makes them difficult to hear. Fortunately, they are easy to see and have predictable habits. Also, the driver has great forward visibility and big mirrors to see behind with. 

You need to get into the habit of looking over your shoulders (both sides equally well). Do it every few seconds; in dense, fast traffic you'll be doing it constantly. On a seemingly empty country road with good visibility, every 30 seconds or so. This gives you snapshots of the road conditions behind you. Some people like mirrors, but I prefer to see the scene directly; also the regular spine twist is good exercise, especially in the long term.

You should be able to tell a riding companion, real or imagined, what is happening behind you at all times. <glance> there's a bus... <glance> can hear it now... <glance> about 10 seconds away... <glance> ah, bus stop coming up - it'll overtake me then pull over to the left and stop <glance> the bus driver knows I'm aware of the bus - stop pedalling so he/she knows I expect the bus to pass me <bus overtakes> looking ahead, I can see the driver in the bus's left mirror, driver is looking at me, all good <glance> hmm, another bus coming up behind me and a third coming the other way - not much room there; I'll hang back and let the buses pass, then overtake the one at the stop.

Another hypothetical example. You're on your bike at an intersection and there's a bus. You're on different streets and you are both stopped at red lights. You and the bus driver can see one another. The bus has right of way, but the driver, based on her experience in the job, wouldn't be surprised if you, the cyclist, takes off early before your green light, in order to beat the traffic behind you.

In this situation, I do one of two things. Generally I will anticipate a green light by watching the lights on the other streets in the intersection. If it's an intersection I know well, I'll generally ride through the red a couple of seconds before the cars get their green. There's a very important reason why I do this. 

Cars and bikes accelerate differently. A bike can take off quicker than a car and will maintain a lead for about 1-2 seconds. After that, the speed of the car has matched the speed of the bike, which at this point would be about 5 Km/h. If the cyclist is able to get into a higher gear and push really hard for a couple of pedal revolutions, he can still lead the car for perhaps another second, but not longer if the car is accelerating to a speed above which the cyclist can easily match.

In city traffic, from a standing start, a bike has perhaps 5 seconds to get as far away as possible from all moving and non-moving objects. You can only collide with something if you're touching it. If it's nor near you, you can't collide with it. If it's on a course which won't intersect with your course, you can't collide with it. If you start off a couple of seconds before the cars do, no only are you placing yourself as far away from all possible collision objects, you are also making yourself maximally visible to all the cars in the intersection, who will be easily able to see which way you're going. 

The main problem with the strategy of anticipating green lights and taking off a second or two before the cars behind you do, is that there is a small but non-zero chance of colliding, in the middle of the intersection, with another cyclist who is using the same strategy. 

Conversely, if I don't want to anticipate the light, I will indicate this to the bus driver and anyone else who's looking at me by Not Doing a Trackstand. Sometimes you won't need to do much at all to indicate that you're giving someone else the right of way at a red light, or even on a side street or driveway. Try these techniques, in order:

• look the driver in the eyes, then look away
• keep one foot on the ground
• get off your saddle
• take your hands off the handlebars
• fold your arms
• look away while keeping your head straight and turning your shoulders

If that sounds like the Horse Whisperer, it should. If you want the driver to take the lead, there should be no ambiguity about it. There's nothing less classy than a cyclist doing a trackstand in front of an Alfa Romeo, both hesitating, neither prepared to take control. You, the cyclist, are in control. Lead, follow or get out of the way.

A few other observations. 

Cycling in groups is risky. Racing is dangerous, even if you're just pretending. If you're in the middle of a group, you must match the speed and direction of the people around you: no other course is possible. Your forward visibility is restricted. So when a car crosses the centreline and ploughs into your bunch, there's really not much you can do about it except pray. I've read too many stories about cyclist losing lives and limbs to this sort of accident. So what can be done? Although riding it groups can be fun, you have to realise that in a emergency you don't have many options. I almost always ride alone, or at least well separated from any companions with the same destination. I maintain good visibility of the road ahead by not tailgating trucks and buses. And I try to stick to wide roads. 


For example, one sad story from a few years back in Wellington involved a lady going under the wheels of a vehicle rounding the corner in John St, which connects Taranaki St to Newtown. I very seldom ever take John St, as it involves climbing a hill just as the road narrows to one lane in each direction. Cars are wanting to accelerate past you up the hill while you are going increasingly slow due to the gradient. There's no room for error. Being visible is all very well, but if you're on a collision course and you have nowhere else to go, you're going to collide with something and that is what you should be avoiding. Better to go through the Basin Reserve and up Adelaide Rd, it's flat and much wider.

Don't put yourself in a position on the road where somebody can hit you. And if somebody is actually trying to run you down, then it's up to you to be aware of it well before it happens, because you know what's happening behind you because a few seconds ago you looked over your shoulder and saw what's happening behind you and you can hear what's happening behind you. Awareness and responsibility. Maintain awareness of the entire situation you are riding in and you will be able to take 100% responsibility for everything within that situation, as it happens.

And finally, to say something about dress - who do you think gets more appreciation on the road? This lady?

Or this one?

Keep looking over your shoulders - both of them. You'll never know what you'll see there unless you look.

Rethinking Black Tie

H'imagine! Yuh dress up yuh inna di latest gear

Put on yuh Versace cuz di tight pants deh wear

Yuh come out an' hear a rastaman seh "Bun dung a queer!" 

Yuh feel like yuh wan disappe-a-a-ear

     - Beenie Man, Better Learn (2006)

"It would kill me to have to live in New York," he went on. "To have to share the air with six million people! To have to wear stiff collars and decent clothes all the time! To——" He started. "Good Lord! I suppose I should have to dress for dinner in the evenings. What a ghastly notion!"

I was shocked, absolutely shocked.

"My dear chap!" I said reproachfully.

"Do you dress for dinner every night, Bertie?"

"Jeeves," I said coldly. The man was still standing like a statue by the door. "How many suits of evening clothes have I?"

"We have three suits full of evening dress, sir; two dinner jackets——"

"Three."

"For practical purposes two only, sir. If you remember we cannot wear the third. We have also seven white waistcoats."

"And shirts?"

"Four dozen, sir."

"And white ties?"

"The first two shallow shelves in the chest of drawers are completely filled with our white ties, sir."

I turned to Rocky.

"You see?"

The chappie writhed like an electric fan.

     - The Aunt and the Sluggard, from My Man Jeeves by P G Wodehouse (1919)

Trying to figure out what to wear of an evening is a problem to vex even the most rabid clotheshorse. However, it ought to be borne in mind that decisions in this regard are essentially unnecessary. There are rules, which, once understood, may simply be bent to suit the occasion. Woe, however, betide those who ignore these rules or, worse, know not that they even exist.

In this piece I shall endeavour not to reinvent the wheel by reiterating what has already been iterated many times before on other blogs. 

Nor too shall I be posting pictures of Barack Obama looking justifiably uncomfortable in a poorly thrown together white tie ensemble, nor even shall I upload a clip from Jeeves & Wooster S02E03 15:30 - 16:00 demonstrating black tie at the roller derby. Incidentally, when viewing Period Costume Dramas such as this, do bear in mind that the operative term is indeed costume - these are not the clothes you're looking for, they are modern interpretations designed to illustrate and embellish the story. 

Far better to look up actual illustrations or photographs from the period you want to be influenced by. Personally, I tend towards the 1930s. The 20s are also nice, but the 30s are better because you get all the style of both decades at the same time. The 40s, of course, were marred by war - more on what this means in a minute - the 50s were the Beginning of the End and the 60s and after have been a complete write off. I blame Socialism and the Inversion of Quality, which led to such deviance as wearing mining clothes (denim jeans) when you're not a miner, underwear as outerwear (tee shirts), sports shoes when you're not playing sport and no hats (a conspiracy of pharmacists intending for everyone to catch cold).

Do not take your cues from the people around you, nor from photographs in contemporary magazines. There are very few well dressed people willing to be photographed by the paparazzi; you are far better to stick to historical images, as the bad stuff has already been weeded out by the sands of time.

The principle effects on clothes of the 1940s, if we examine the British tradition, were the result of fabric rationing. This led directly to the demise of the waistcoat and its substitution with the knitted vest (a la Duke of Windsor, or more familiarly, Monty Python's Gumbies). The rise of Italian tailoring post-war cemented in the no-waistcoat, as much of Italy has a warm climate which makes the extra layer unnecessary, I guess you could say. Waistcoats are also notoriously difficult to sell off the peg, as they almost always don't fit at all and need to be tailored, as you will have noticed. 

"But I'm a hideous fattie, ill suited to such garb", I hear in translation. I would direct such opinion to photographs of Winston Churchill, or better, Richard Griffiths, which demonstrates just how dashing a vast protuberance can be when girt with an accurately cut waistcoat. As David Hockney rightly said, don't go to the gym, go to a tailor. There's no need to reshape your body when you can reshape your clothes. Who do you think you are?

Nobody notices that I too am a hideous fattie, as I keep my jacket on. When viewed from the front of from behind, the waist is accentuated by the broadening of the shoulders and the flare of the, er, skirt, I suppose you'd call it. Viewed from the side, the top button (on a two button SB jacket) or the middle button (on a 3 button) should occur at the natural waist, creating a slimbening effect. 

Anyway, back to black. As I said, there are Rrruelles which, if followed, will see you right. Say it's Saturday night and you're off to a party. You want to feel relaxed and want the girls to at least not totally shun you, protuberance or no. At the same time, you don't want to draw undue attention to yourself by being massively overdressed. Read on and learn how you may remain massively overdressed yet not out-Herod the hostess or get mistaken for a waiter. 

I won't go into the history of black tie, its relationship to white tie, Edward VII or midnight blue as these topics are covered exhaustively elsewhere. What I will cover is how we might consider and employ evening wear today, in 2011.

To my mind, there are a few inviolable rules which absolutely must be adhered to. Break any of them and you will look like a Complete Tool. The reason is simple. Servants on a pre-war Ruling Elite country home - being essentially a sort of privately held hotel - were dressed by the owners in a hodgepodge of assorted Very Nice Clothes. It was important they they we well turned out, but equally important was that they were not mistaken for anybody important. The way this was achieved was by dressing them in a nonsensical mixture of evening dress and morning dress. You can still see this today in the better hotels - women wearing waistcoats and men's neckties, for instance. Porters wearing silly hats. Don't go there.

• The ensemble must consist of black trousers and a black jacket. Midnight blue is acceptable only if you have cause to own more than one black tie outfit, which you probably don't.
• The shirt must be white and it must have double cuffs with cufflinks. Novelty cufflinks are made to be sold, not bought.
• The tie, or its substitute, must be black. Coloured ties are absolutely wrong and to be scorned. White is also wrong, as this only goes with a tailcoat and I don't care what the costume designer for Boardwalk Empire says.
• Evening clothes are not to be worn before 6pm koz duh. 

However, there are other rules which I feel we may now safely bend or ignore.

The waist, it is traditionally said, must be covered with either a waistcoat or a cummerbund. I've never liked cummerbunds. It's a dumb word, the idea of pleats facing upwards is just weird and they tend to come in colours other than black. Also, there is no daytime equivalent, and I like equivalence. Waistcoats are very nice but not absolutely necessary. The idea behind a covered waist is that the body presents a nice regular silhouette, not being cut in half at the waist. I doubt anybody has seriously considered this in about sixty years and I think it looks fine to have the shirt visible around the waist. But - and it's a big but - the shirt needs to be cut so it has no extra fabric to bunch up and ooze out of your trousers. If it does it really will spoil your nice profile. Skinny boys don't have much of a problem with this but they do tend to find keeping their shirts tucked in a challenge. A nice black brocade waistcoast will keep your shirt out of everyone's way.

Black tie, being less formal than white tie, employs an unstarched shirt, traditionally with studs instead of buttons. I have never even heard of anybody who knows how or where to get a shirt starched; just forget it. Studs are nice, but I think it's good to also have a white shirt with fancy buttons. It helps normalise things. It is the 21st century, after all. Wing collars which show the whole of the tie are considered anachronistic in British usage and I am inclined to agree. They often crop up in Americicia, which speaks for itself. A conventional fold-down attached collar which won't collapse with the top button undone is the way to go. Choose a French placket front: it's not a business shirt. Eschewest thou the fly front, you'll look like Jenny Shipley. Finally, the shirt front should be sufficiently opaque to hide what's behind it, be it a singlet or your scrawny body.Very fine fabric on the sleeves can be rather nice, though, if you have the arms for it. 

Tautologically speaking, black tie is not black tie without a black tie. Omit tie; embrace Toolhood. However, ties of any sort at any time of day are pretty rare these days, due to Socialism, television and the notion that the tie serves no practical function (thank you Nassim Nicholas Taleb - you only get away with the black polo neck because you're Lebanese). I declare the tie shows whether or not the wearer has imagination, is interested in knot theory and can coordinate colours. It allows him to differentiate himself from his peers, if he has any, and it also keeps the neck warm (see pharmacists, above). I'm given to understand some ancient Chinese aphorism exists advising keeping one's neck warm and as a cyclist, where there is usually a cool breeze, I agree. Tracheotomees may wish to either cover up or possibly show off their special neck styles but please, if you plan on leaving the ballpoint pen in place, make sure it's black.

Morgan Freeman has been seen sporting a black cravat with his evening clothes at an Oscars - not a bad result, though even as a habitual cravattie I would hesitate for evening wear as it's perhaps just a bit cazh. New Zealanders may wish to substitute the tie with a piece of dark greenstone, which I think is quite classy and also says something about the wearer. A dog collar of sorts could almost work, as could a velvet choker if you're gay at heart. Use your imagination.

So in essence you have a black suit and a white shirt. As black has not been an appropriate colour for day wear since Queen Victoria abandoned mourning dress, it is reserved for after dark. Black in the day makes you look like an undertaker and even ethnic goths can do better. Prince Albert's death plunged the whole Empire into mourning, to a large extent, and such late Victorian fancies as silk or grosgrain lapels on morning coats are now thoroughly forgotten, especially among the under-25s. Is it therefore acceptable to omit silk facings on the dinner jacket? If it's adequately cut, I think so. And if it's not, why the hell are you wearing it in the first place? Similarly, the concomitant silk stripe down the leg can be omitted too. Personally, I'd opt for a muted silk in each case, and would be inclined to keep the stripe as slim and subtle as possible. It shouldn't be the first thing you notice; the wearer should be the first thing you notice. 

The fabric should be solid black, with no stripe, herringbone or check. A velvety texture or perhaps some tiny spotting to add visual interest is worth considering. The fabric shoul be heavy enough to keep you warm enough but no more. Your local climate should be your guide. Then again, much has changed since Edward's day. Decent heating and air conditioning is now the norm and practically everywhere is illuminated with electric light. This ubiquitous daytime we have invented for ourselves really means that daywear is now wearable all night, but it's nice to wear something special in the evenings when you settle down in front of the monitor with a nice torrent. After all, you gotta wear something, so why not wear something sensible? 

Since the suit jacket is indoor wear, you're unlikely to have sufficient excuse to remove it, especially in the cool of the evening. If it's cold outside, wear an overcoat in any colour you wish as long as it's black. SB overcoats match an SB jacket, a DB overcoat for a DB jacket. I favour single button, single breasted peaked for both, as it's as simple and therefore elegant as you can get without looking like Daniel Craig in Casino Royale. Notched lapels on a dinner jacket is as underwhelming as a Bond movie with no jokes. Never forget that Vespers chose the jacket for him! If he'd had the guts to stand up to her there and then the movie might have been saved. (And none of this complicated martini recipe nonsense either. Go with the house mix and if you don't like it, just leave the drink pointedly unfinished).

Such ready to wear DJs as are presently available, at least in this town, appear to be exclusively of the shawl collar variety. Embrace it if you will, though personally I don't like it as there's nowhere to put the buttonhole. A small cornflower or equivalent is nice as a way of adding colour; the girls will notice. Alternatively, a small brooch - a chrome trimmed black star or a silver weta, perhaps, continuing with the Wellington theme - could work as long as it won't snag on anything.

Ciaosers should be suspended with black or white braces, if a waistcoat is worn, or trimmed with hip adjusters if not. Although a belt could work in theory, I'd advise against it. This is not a lounge suit, this evening wear and you're not at work.

The shoes are inarguably the easiest thing to get right and the easiest to get wrong. Closed lacing and no broguing are key. Pumps are unobtainable and also completely crazy. Patent is good, but not easy to find; any smooth and polishable calfskin will do. Nothing too square or too pointy, as they don't seat well in the toeclips. If playing host, Pope slippers are a classy choice. Billy Conolly wears them fly fishing, you know. Socks should be black and sleek - you'll need sock garters, which are enormous fun if you've not tried them.

Tradition legislates that once in full fig - all the usual plus boutonniere, hankercheif etc - it is pertinent to balance the ensemble by taking one thing off. Trousers are the preferred choice, but it's heavily situation dependent. Dare to dream.

Hats are a grave problem and have been in crisis since JFK's inauguration. In a perfect world, I'd opt for a Hancock style Homburg, though these are so rare nowadays as to be unidentifiable even in name (I'm just using a pointer to an image, really, I don;t know what they're called either and they're not really Homburgs, in my opinion). By day, I favour the Kangol 504 as it's very much a design classic. In the tropical cloth it breathes nicely when on the bike and affords good sun protection. As evening wear, however, I am dubious and Samuel Jackson's uptake of same, while interesting, isn't really doing it for me. Top hats are wrong, fedoras too slouchy. I like fezes (fezes are cool) but they break the rule of not attracting the attention of the reggae artiste when he feels he must reiterate his sexual orientation, often several times in a given verse. I'm not sure of the answer to the hat problem. Possibly a black wool fedora with a slim snap brim? 

In conclusion, it ought to be stuck in head that you should look like a nice guy in a dark suit with a white shirt and nothing more. The clothes dress the man, not the other way round. The fact that you're "wearing a tuxedo", as other people will inevitably put it, should be tertiary to your looking classy and feeling on top of your game. You might say you should look good despite wearing what you're wearing. It's like being noticed for riding a tandem, rather than for not wearing a helmet.