Home

Layoff shit

January 28, 2023

I survived the layoffs at work, a lot of other people did not.  It occurred to me that I have some unfortunate experience with unplanned loss of job, and should pass on a little bit of what I have learned over the years.  Some of this is dated, some of it is better now, but this is also somewhat about setting expectations and avoiding mistakes.

First, expect it to take at least two months to find a new job.  Maybe three.  It was worse in 2002.  Things might be better in this economy, since we’re not actually in a recession (2022 4Q real growth of 2.9% according to Justin Wolfers on Twitter — not a recession).  You should treat this like a full time job, not just send out a few resumes and wait for the magic to happen, but make lists of places you know, and people you know, and ask those people, etc, and keeping going until you have a written offer that you have accepted.  You may want that second or third offer to help with negotiation, or if the negotiation goes poorly, or maybe you’ll just turn up a better offer late in the game.

If you have friends or former colleagues who were laid off, if you hear about job openings, tell them, pass on probes from recruiters, etc (I may ignore pings from recruiters if I am happy and busy at my job, but I am never, ever rude, you never know, if not for yourself, maybe for a friend).

Some places you interview, even famous respected tech companies, may not acknowledge receipt of your application.  In at least one case they may not let you know that you did or didn’t get the job after an interview (in that case, asshole that I am, I just applied again a few months later and was amused by the confused/embarrassed response from the recruiter, yes, this was 2002, you take your fun where you find it.)

And, isn’t it fucking amazing that you have to pass an interview again?  Like, you cleared the hurdle to work at BigCorp, they had interviews, you worked there for years, maybe, interview for the delta, did you learn anything since the last interview?  But no, write a function to plot the time on a clock, or how would you deal with a difficult co-worker, or design a login system for tiered access to different magazines from the same publisher.

Second, health insurance.  COBRA is the thing that requires your employer to give you the option of paying to continue your group insurance with them.  It’s a law, you can thank Ted Kennedy for it.  HOWEVER: there are deadlines, and they are hard, not “fix it with penalties”, if you miss them, boom, no health insurance.  I hand-delivered checks.

If you/spouse is pregnant and has a child born under COBRA-extended insurance after a job change, it may be the case that the mom’s costs are paid by COBRA but the new child’s insurance is under the new job (a brand new dependent, right?).  This causes paperwork, the hospital will not get this billing right.  Also in this situation, continue the COBRA coverage for mom until the postpartum seal of approval from a doctor.  This may have changed since Obamacare, because insurance companies are no longer allowed to play the pre-existing condition game like before.  But, beware, and beware of conservative political shenanigans (judges etc) that might revert things to a worse state.  Conservative politicians don’t care if their actions kill or bankrupt you, so just be careful (maybe enthusiastically support their better-to-at-least-less-awful competition, so the future will suck less).  To summarize, if you are in this situation, (1) you do have access to insurance if you get the Mother-May-I incantations right and on time (and perhaps pay for it) but (2) get good advice on the details and (3) be a little careful about any single source of advice; ideally former-HR, hospital billing, and insurance will all agree on how things are supposed to work, and (4) do not be late with any bills or paperwork.  Best healthcare in the world, that’s us here in the USA, ain’t it great?

If instead you decide to retire, there are some weird deadlines involving Medicare and change of job.  I don’t know these exactly, but if you get these wrong, the costs are permanent.  Again, get good advice, there’s enough time to do this right if you don’t dilly-dally.

Third, new employers.  If this is your first job, or you’ve never worked for a startup, or only at California companies, here are some things that I learned along the way.

Depending on their size/age/competence, startups may or may not have all benefits, they may or may not offer a competitive salary, a lot of your compensation may be in the form of magic beans which it turns out are usually worthless.  Their funding may get uncertain, for example, if there’s an angel investor involved, the angel may have a cash flow hiccup, or a divorce, or who knows.  If there’s two angels, they may get into a “renegotiation” over investment shares that ends badly for the startup.  Or a bunch of Saudi Arabian “religious” fanatics might decide to fly some planes into buildings and tank the economy.  So, that is startups.  Startups can be fun, it is different as heck from paperwork and process-filled mega-corps. But they might not be stable.  I am still good friends with many of my former startup colleagues, from Centerline (aka Saber), NaturalBridge, Oryxa, and even Thinking Machines.

If you’ve only worked at California companies (e.g., Facebook, Apple, Netflix, Google, Oracle, Intel, Twitter) you have probably not been asked to sign a non-compete agreement.  If you get a job offer from a not-California company, a non-compete may be a condition of the offer.  These are bullshit things that employers in a lot of other states do, they are bullshit because one sure (if not easy) way to get rid of them is to get a job with a California company, especially if you move to California.  They’re also bullshit because the California economy shows that non-compete agreements are not only unnecessary for a healthy, diverse economy, they might even be bad for it; rational business owners who wanted to be more successful would organize to get them banned everywhere, to help replicate the California experience (perhaps business owners as a class are more control freaks than income maximizers, that’s one explanation that fits observations).  Employment lawyers can help, or you can just sign the damn things, knowing that they are likely unenforceable.  These are not always carefully drafted, especially at startups, and startups may have ridiculously grandiose ideas about the scope of their business (“software, all of it”).  There’s intermittent efforts to get rid of these, but for now, they’re a thing.

So, that’s what I’ve learned, or at least what I recall learning.  To anyone in this situation, I am truly truly sorry, I have been there, it really sucks.  Long-term consider supporting unions, consider voting for actual European-style social safety nets, consider voting for actual job protections.  And always have a plan B, if you can manage it.

When I first heard about effective altruism, it was, from a certain point of view, a completely sensible thing; given dollars to donate, how can you make those dollars have the greatest effect?  And, the guy I heard it from, very much walked the talk, he donated an admirably substantial portion of his non-trivial tech-industry compensation to charity.  I might hedge a little on “how sure are you about the numbers guiding your donations?”, but basically super-admirable.  Effective, even.

However, apparently, recently, some weird crazy “longtermist” bullshit has taken hold in EA, and someone got the brilliant idea of claiming that their goal was to save the maximum number of lives in the future, where by future they mean “hypothetical future space civilization of unimaginable size” and/or “a giant AI into which we have uploaded zillions of human minds”.  “Altruism” is helpfully redefined as “whatever maximizes the number and/or welfare of these completely imaginary people”.  I.e., it’s bullshit, intended to let its proponents claim that whatever silly-ass thing they want to do, is “altruism”, and furthermore, that it is the best possible altruism.

So, why is it bullshit?  First, it’s very, very unlikely that we’ll expand out of our solar system, and if somehow we do, we have no idea when that will be possible, because we currently lack the physics and biological knowledge necessary to make it happen.  It takes too much energy, propulsion systems are too energy-hungry, and the time scales far exceed our ability to keep humans alive with no external support.  All these problems need solving first, assuming that they even have solutions.

Second, where would we go?  We haven’t identified any actually-habitable planets anywhere else, yet.  That’s something that we might be able to do in the not-too-distant future, with another turn of the giant space telescope crank, but as yet, zero other planets are ready to support human life out-of-the-box, and we have no guarantee that the habitable planet we do find will be at anything like a feasible distance.  10 light-years is unimaginably far, but what if it is 1000?.  Or, suppose we compromise, and try terraforming?  We haven’t even done that in our own solar system, and the best possible day on Venus or Mars is still more lethal than the worst day anywhere on earth outside of an actual natural disaster.  Anything we could possibly do there, we could more easily do here to fix problems with our own climate.  (A good start might be “stop doing stupid shit, stop other people from doing stupid shit”.  If we can’t even manage that here….)

Third, even if we accept the airy-fairy bullshit that we’ll be able to leave the solar system, find a planet to adapt, change it, and bootstrap a civilization there, then repeat this process exponentially, we have no clue what the timescale for doing this will be.  We haven’t solved any of the problems yet, and we’ve got no particular reason to believe that we’ll solve them in this century or the next.  Implicit in the bullshit longtermist hubris, is the assumption that *we* will be the ones to solve them, and that *we* know the steps towards that solution, so obviously, whatever is good for *us*, is good for those future hypothetical humans.  Or perhaps, we expect an answer from that general-purpose-human-exceeding-AI (that, like self-driving cars, is coming real soon now) that we have already determined will find solutions to these problems, instead of telling us, “actually,  no, you are stuck here on earth.  Period.  Here’s the proof”.  Assuming, of course, that such an AI is even possible, and that some other scaling law doesn’t crap out first.

I would propose that it is more prudent and effective to pay attention to the very high probability event that almost all humans live on Earth, and will continue to do so for hundreds of years, and that we should worry about ensuring that civilization-endangering disasters are avoided here, and that human capital (i.e., health, happiness, longevity, intelligence, education, productivity) is maximized.  We should assume that whatever we do in the distant future, we are stuck here for a long, long time, and if we don’t make plans for that long long time here, there won’t be a future beyond. That would mean taking climate change more seriously than the US currently does, and that would mean looking at obvious inefficiencies (the US, fat and happy, has quite a few of these) and replacing them with better systems.  It would mean taking all the “not-first-world” countries seriously, taking their health, social, political, and economic needs seriously, and not just exploiting them for a quick buck.  We should think about political systems that are resistant to fascist, racist, and nativist impulses, and adopt those systems.

And, in the unlikely event that we do start a galactic civilization, these efforts here would not be wasted.  If we can’t maintain a habitable atmosphere and climate on a favorable planet, it’s hubris to think we’d do it elsewhere, so we’d better start practicing till we get good at it.  The same externalized-cost problems of capitalism that make planet-scale pollution hard to control here, will surely travel with us wherever we go, running away from one’s own intrinsic problems is (ahem) a well-known waste of time.

Postscript: today I discovered that their bullshit extends to climate science.  These guys are truly full of shit.

Disclaimer: I am not completely unaware of the intricacies of voting systems, but there’s a lot that I don’t know.

Once upon a time I was a fan of ranked choice voting, but I’ve decided that for a single-winner election we would be better off switching to a primary+runoff where the primary is done with approval voting, and the runoff (between the top 2 from the primary) in the usual way.  Understand, I am in no way a fan of the first-past-the-post status quo, I merely think that we ought to seriously consider another alternative.

There are three reasons.

First, complex ballots are a problem, and people can screw them up.  A ranked choice ballot is more complex and there are easy ways to get it “wrong” so that you no longer have a valid vote, and then what happens?  There’s also many more bubbles to mark — if 5 candidates, 20 choices, of which only 4 may be marked.  Approval voting, 5 candidates, 5 bubbles, you can (sensibly) mark as many as 4 or as few as 1.  Screwing up one bubble leaves the others still valid, whereas screwing up one bubble on a ranked choice ballot may invalidate the ranking.

Second, the process of tallying up the vote is complicated and difficult to explain.  I’ve seen the explanation, and I agree with how it works, but it is complicated and plenty of people will be confused by it, perhaps not trust it.  Approval voting is easier to explain; each candidate gets the number of people who thought they were “okay”, and the primary will be between “most ok” and “next most ok” from the approval vote.

The combination of these two problems means that sore losers may challenge elections, and it will be difficult to convincingly demonstrate that they are just more losers.  (Of course, Republican sore losers will challenge any result that does not go their way, but with a simpler system, they’ll look more ridiculous). More ballots will be spoiled, and recounts will be tricky and annoying.

Third, approval and 2-way runoff have the property that counting can be split by precinct, and then the sub-results combined.  Ranked choice doesn’t work that way; reasoning about partial results is far harder.

One thing that I think inclines people towards or against ranked-choice is different models of voter motivation.  One advantage of ranked choice is that expressing a secondary preference does not harm your first choice (or so I understand).  If I like Alice then Bob, then Carl, I just express that preference, my 2nd-choice vote for Bob does not harm Alice’s chance.  This is very important to some people.  In contrast, in approval voting, if I “approve” both Alice and Bob, that vote for Bob may reduce Alice’s chances; if voters are focused on a favorite candidate winning (“Alice or bust!”), this may lead them to try to do the sort of strategic voting that we hate in the current First-Past-The-Post system (“I really like Alice, and Bob and Carl are both okay, but I think a lot of other people like Bob so I’ll only vote for Alice, and Carl just in case”).  On the other hand, if your goal is just to get good candidates into the runoff, then you’ll vote for anyone who doesn’t suck.  And if you wish to merely vote against a particular candidate, approval voting makes that easy, just vote for everyone but the bad guy, where ranked choice might require more strategic thought.

There’s another alternative voting system that is more expressive than approval voting and shares some of its good properties, and dodges Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem.  Instead of approving or ranking candidates, voters assign “scores” to candidates, for example, numbers between 0 and 9, subject only to limits on the maximum and minimum scores.  This is called “score” or “range” voting, and its proponents are very enthusiastic.  Tabulating votes can be done in parallel, and it is harder to spoil a ballot, though the ballot is more complex than an approval ballot.  The difficulty, to me, of score voting is that it is hard to reason about what a range of scores means — if I prefer Alice to Bob to Carl, is that 9-8-7 or 9-5-1?  Do I have an easy way to measure my hypothetical satisfaction?  I suspect that it many cases it may devolve to 9/0 approval voting.  One advantage of score voting is that it can be done in a single election; one disadvantage is that it might be vulnerable to accusations of “complexity” or “voter confusion”, though not as much (in my opinion) as ranked choice voting.  Wikipedia calls these “cardinal voting systems”.

Hello all, you are probably unsurprised to hear this from me, but I like the new bike lanes on Concord Avenue. I ride on them at least 6 times a week (5 days to/from work, plus farm share from Farmer Tim on Sunday), and they reduce stress even for someone as accustomed to traffic as I am.

I was also pleasantly surprised at the quality of the pavement; there are a few imperfect spots, but it is not as bad as I had thought it might be, and I would not hesitate to recommend it to other people.

I’ve heard through the grapevine that people now parking closer to traffic feel that is not comfortable to get in and out of their cars, and why yes, I have biked in that same space many, many, many times, I can see how they might feel that way.  That is sort of the whole point of a protected bike lane, reduce exposure to traffic.  Drivers newly exposed to traffic may feel this rather keenly, but it is a constant risk to someone riding on a street on a bicycle.

One reason to have such a bike lane is that it reduces the overall person-minutes of traffic exposure; it is a net win for that problem. Here are some measurements and estimates that I hope demonstrate this.  I timed myself this evening traveling from Baker to Orchard, and it took 2 minutes. I also experimentally got in and out of a car parked in our driveway and walked around it, and I was easily away from the side of the car in 15 seconds either entering or exiting. That is, each person on a bike traveling that stretch of road is exposed to about 4 times as much passing traffic as someone entering or exiting a car (2 minutes versus 15 seconds to enter plus 15 seconds to exit). If I had to guess conservatively, I’d say that (in one direction) there’s at least 15 bikes per hour between 8am and 10am and again between 5pm and 7pm (60 bikes), plus (really guessing) at least 5 bikes per hour between 10am and 5pm (35 bikes), for a total of 95 bikes, for one direction. I base my rush hour estimate on seeing at least one bike moving in each direction almost every time I commute on Concord Avenue, and they are as much as 2 minutes away from me, and I don’t count because I am the observer, so bikes are 4 minutes apart at rush hour, or 15/hour. 95 bikes times 4 is 380 — if fewer than 380 cars park on one side (or the other) in a given day, then the protected bike lanes result in less traffic exposure. I counted parking spots from Baker to Orchard on the north side (which has more spots) and got 57.  380/57 is 6-and-2/3 — unless the average weekday parking traffic per spot is over 6-and-2/3, we’re better off (fewer people-minutes of traffic exposure) with protected bike lanes. I don’t think there’s that much traffic in those spots. I suspect that the average weekday cars per space is closer to 2, so I could be off quite a bit in my estimates and the protected lane would still be a net win.

This is also just raw traffic exposure, ignoring dooring risk, and assumes that someone parking their car gets in or out of their car without waiting for traffic to clear; time is time, they’re exposed for 15 seconds. Actual cautious-driver behavior reduces this risk whenever there’s any gaps in traffic (it’s easier to find a 15 second gap, than a 2-minute gap).  There are caveats and quid-pro-quos, but none of them results in winning arguments against a protected bike lane; for example, in the old configuration, if no cars are parked, then I would often ride through parking spaces (where the protected lane is now) to increase my distance from traffic — but if no cars are parked, people aren’t exposed to traffic parking their cars.  Or, if there is very high turnover per space, yes drivers are more exposed, but then the risk of dooring becomes high enough that it cannot be ignored.

I do sympathize with people who think parking is unpleasant, and that’s one of the reasons I ride a bike instead — I hate parking, too.  I’m not young, I’m not thin, it’s not a short commute, I do this year round, I keep waiting for more other people to realize that they could do the same.  A protected bike lane removes one of the frequent and otherwise intractable objections that many people have to riding a bike around here.

A friend of mine long ago told me that I forget that most people don’t know what I know, and don’t figure things out as quickly.  And even so, it took time for me to figure things out, I know of things that were right in front of my face for decades, and I did not notice them.  So, after over 40,000 commuting and errand miles on cargo bikes since 2006, and as someone who has more than one copy of Bicycling Science, as well as my own personal copy of Food, Energy, and Society, here’s some stuff about bikes that I’ve learned and other people appear to be less clear on.

Stopping power, turning ability, bike geometry

The physics behind the numbers below is discussed, in detail, in Bicycling Science.

A useful thing to know is that rubber on road has a sticking grip force that is about the same as the force against the road, for dry pavement.  That means that a vehicle that is low enough to the ground that it will not flip will have a maximum deceleration before it skids of 1g (g = earth’s gravitational pull), or 32 feet per second-squared (9.8 meters per second-squared, or 22mph per second).  That is, if you are in a car traveling 22mph, the quickest you can possibly stop is one second (your speed decreases by 22mph per second of 1g braking), and in that one second you will travel 16 feet (the formula for distance traveled is x = v0t + 0.5at2), t is 1, a v0 is 32 ft/s, a is -32ft/s2, so 16).

On a “normal” bicycle, two things limit this.  Because the rider is most of the mass and is positioned relatively high, before the front tire exceeds its grip on the pavement, the rider will instead rotate over the front of the bike onto the road.  This occurs at about 1/2 g. A corollary of this is that it’s not a great idea for a cyclist to tailgate a car; if the car stops hard, the cyclist is physically unable to stop as quickly without being flung onto the pavement or the back of the car.  The exceptions to this are bikes where the center of mass is further back; a tandem with two riders, or a box bike, or a long-tail cargo bike that is also well-loaded to the rear.  On the other hand, a penny-farthing or high-wheeler, where the rider is positioned almost on top of the front axle, has very limited ability to brake without flipping.

The other problem is that even on differently designed bicycles where the rider will not flip, because a bicycle rider uses their front wheel for steering, when it goes into a skid it becomes very likely that the bike (and its rider) will fall down.  This is not guaranteed, and with years of experience I have survived such skids once or twice, but the first time I had a front wheel skid I hit the ground so fast I was down and in pain before I realized what had happened; it’s much faster and more violent than a rear wheel skid.

A further problem is that stopping quickly requires a fair amount of arm force to keep you on the bike, and in the worst case you’ll just keep moving while the bike stops underneath you.

Rear-wheel braking is slower yet; because stopping shifts your center of force forward, it reduces the force on the rear wheel, which if it is the braking wheel, will have less road grip.  On a normal bicycle this limits rear wheel braking deceleration to about 0.25g, whether you do it with a caliper brake, coaster brake, or by jamming your legs on a fixie.

In theory (not to be confused with practice), a skilled rider with enough spare room on the road could turn their (normal) bicycle with a full g of centripetal acceleration in the same forward displacement needed to stop it (with 1/2 g of forward deceleration).  (Math: for centripetal acceleration, the radius of the circle is v2/acentripetal; for forward deceleration, the distance to zero velocity is 0.5v2/abraking; however because a normal bicycle can turn twice as hard as it can brake, the circle radius and stopping distance are equal.)  HOWEVER, in practice this would be stupidly risky, because it does not reduce your kinetic energy and if you fail (failure is always an option) the resulting crash will be far more dangerous.  This daring maneuver also requires much more clear road space than simply braking.  And, on a tandem or cargo bike of any sort, the longer bike’s improved braking ability beats its unimproved ability to turn.

Perception and reaction time

Bikes lack stopping power, but for most people on bicycles (upright bicycles, rider not wearing headphones, not seriously impaired hearing) a person on a bike is far more able to perceive what is going on around them.  They are (usually) seated higher, don’t have an additional layer of glass in front of their eyes, or supports for that glass obstructing their view, or bulky hood hiding who knows what, and don’t have the noisy engine or layers of acoustic insulation obscuring sounds around them.  And, because the front of a bicycle is much shorter than almost any car’s hood (excepting front-box cargo bikes) their riders are able to position themselves far forward and look around corners.

Reaction times for bicycle riders seem better (from videos of my own reactions) than the norm assumed for drivers.  I think this is mostly a result of better human factors in the brakes; to stop a car, a driver must lift their food from one pedal, move it over, and depress a different pedal, whereas a cyclist with hand brakes can maintain their fingers over brake levers in traffic, and activate the brakes in a single motion.  I’ve measured real-world on-bicycle reaction times as low as 0.6 second, and some perhaps as low as 0.5 second (which through the camera lens, looks superhuman).  0.9 second, which is about the estimated driver reaction time, is what I get when I am distracted — it looks fine on the video, but at the time it felt like I had made an enormous mistake.  The failure modes for panic stops in cars and bikes also differ; on a bike, there’s a risk of a header from braking too hard, on a car the risk is that your foot will miss the proper pedal and you will accelerate instead.

There’s an additional problem related to cognitive load; if you’re actually evaluating everything within your stopping distance that could go wrong, as your speed increases, that distance increases, and it increases at a greater rate than the speed increase.  A driver traveling 30 miles per hour has 2.5x their stopping distance at 15mph; to understand what’s in front of them, they need to know 2.5x as much “stuff” about their surroundings, and they need to update that knowledge at twice the rate.  The same thing applies to someone on a bicycle, but common case there is 20mph or below, not even 25mph, so this is less of a problem (people biking should be really careful at “high” speeds like 30mph, because we have so little experience at those speeds; my time over the last 16 years traveling 12-20mph is measured in months, my time above 25mph is measured in minutes.)

The combination of better reaction time but lower stopping deceleration means that up to about 20mph, hand-braked bicycles and cars have about the same stopping distance, with bikes slightly ahead at 17mph and slower.  However, because people on bikes have much better perception and less cognitive load, they’re more aware of what’s around them and can make more sense of it.  A corollary of this is that to a driver, a cyclists’ choices may appear “random”, but this is because the cyclist is (often) acting on information that the driver lacks.  Just for example, if I hear a car approaching an intersection from the left, I may stop without ever looking in that direction, even if the right is obviously clear.

There are other not-obvious-to-drivers effects at work.  When stopped at traffic lights, because they take up so little space, cyclists usually are stopped at the front, and over time, can collect a lot of information about signal timings, local road conditions, and local traffic patterns.  This can mean things like “the walk signal comes 3 seconds before the green” or “the light is long to allow pedestrians to cross, the side traffic usually clears after 5 seconds and then it is safe to run the light”.

 Two wheels versus three wheels

People who have problems with balance or coordination can’t necessarily use a bicycle, and can instead use a tricycle.  For lower speeds, the tricycle is more stable because the center of weight sits well within its wheels.  At high speeds, however, tricycles become riskier to turn because most tricycles cannot tilt, and because they cannot tilt, they risk flipping.  This is not universally true; there are tilting tricycles, very-low-to-the-ground recumbent tricycles, and experienced riders can throw their weight around on the tricycle to counteract this effect, but these are not common case.

So, basically, three wheels is more stable at low speeds and easy turns, less stable at higher speeds and with rapid turns.

“Motor” efficiency

Bicycles are efficient for carrying one or two passengers because bicycles have small weight and move relatively slowly (both compared to cars), but viewed as a motor, we humans are only about 25% efficient; 75% of the food that we eat for physical energy, we turn into heat, and the food that we eat took energy to produce. Because humans are such inefficient motors, and modern batteries, motors, and their controls, are quite efficient, it is entirely possible for an e-bike to be the more efficient choice, depending on details:

  • Humans have varying diet; the more carnivorous someone is, the greater the energy cost of their diet (generally, there are further details, but meat tends energetically expensive).  But, contra that, what matters is the marginal calories, not the average calories.  When you exercise more, you may find yourself craving carbs more than usual, not lobster.
  • An e-bike, being easier to ride, will tend to generate more travel and thus consume more energy.  However, if that extra travel would have occurred in a car, then it is still a win.  An e-bike makes it easier to ride more quickly (up to 20 mph in the US), which is somewhat less efficient than riding at typical commuting speeds (12-15mph seems typical without e-assist).  However, if the alternative to a rapid trip by e-bike is a trip in a car, then again, it is still a net win.  Notice how in both cases, the unfavorable comparison is to a bicycle trip that might be purely hypothetical, whereas, if the actual other trip is in a car, the e-bike is far and away the energy-saving choice.

Another under-appreciated corollary of the wastefulness of the human engine is that we get hot and need the airflow that a bicycle provides.  Climbing hills is famously hot because our energy (and heat) output go up, while the speed of the cooling wind goes down.  Stationary bicycles tend to require fans.  And pedal-powered electricity generation gadgets are usually a bad idea; yes we get the exercise, but we also get very hot, will get extra-sweaty, and may require a fan for ventilation, and the fan is not energy-free.

A happy corollary of our wasteful human engines is that in cool weather it’s not that hard to stay plenty warm.  Our extremities still need protection from the wind (so, toes, fingers, ears) but everything else tends warm, after we have physically “warmed up” to the exertion.

Ventilation

This is a little odd, but one thing people miss is that when you bike there is a lot of airflow.  Yesterday I biked in 95F-ish temperatures, about 40-50% humidity, and as long as I was rolling, actual physical exertion in that heat was still comfortable.  Rolling along at 12mph, or 18 feet per second, I sweep through about 10 square feet of air (crudely, 2 feet by 5 feet), for 180 cubic feet per second of ventilation, or 10,500 cubic feet per minute.  That’s about 5 20-inch box fans on high, all aimed at me.  At the same time, in the winter, because of this airflow, one of the most important ways to stay warm is to block the wind.

Double-counting bicycle time.

Because humans are not the finest motors, and because some (tasty!) food has a high energy cost, in some cases the end-to-end miles-per-gallon of a bicycle can be as bad as some fossil-fueled automobiles.  However, up to at least 100 miles per week, we get to double-count time/distance on a bicycle as exercise; time spent on the bicycle is time not spent at the gym, and calories burned on the bicycle are calories not burned at the gym.  So for example, five days each week, I get about 30 minutes of exercise before and after work, and then in zero time spent and zero energy consumed, arrive at work.  (To be fair, that is a lot of exercise, but it’s not wasted; there were measurable changes at my annual physical, worse from the low-commute Covid year, and then recovery to the better place in the next year.)  Energy expended at the gym also incurs a ventilation cost; to cool you down, gyms tend to be air conditioned and often include fans, where each fan consumes 50-100 watts.

And, the same as when you drive, you can also listen to podcasts or books on tape while you bike to work.

Typical speeds

People sometimes make wild estimates of bicycle speeds.  Cyclists who can cruise at 25mph are not common; well-trained cyclists can, but most people are not well-trained cyclists.  Even cruising at 20mph is not that common; I could, as a teenager, but it took a lot of practice, and I can’t do that now.  Sprints are faster, but similarly limited.  E-bikes come with various limits; the US federal law specifies two speed levels for assist, 20mph (still a bicycle) and 28mph (a “type 3” e-bike).  California state law uses these same rules, I think that this is the general plan for new e-bike legislation, especially the 20mph part.  But, for federal law purposes, if the assist can propel you faster than 28mph, then it is not a bicycle, at all.

Cargo capacity

Most people have a poor intuition for how much you can or cannot carry on a bicycle or a trailer.  Far and away the most important factor is the interaction of loads and hills; the greater the load, the smaller the hill that you will be able to manage.  Very low gears make hill-climbing with larger loads possible, but every rider has a minimum speed at which it becomes very hard for them to balance a bicycle, and there are physical limits on drivetrains.  On a cargo tricycle, however, balance is not a problem, only the torque limits of the drivetrain.

A second problem is managing the ability to brake; default bicycle brakes are sized for a default bicycle load.  Larger disk brakes and drum brakes help with this; managing downhill speed also helps with this.

On flat ground, the main limit is the rider’s ability to handle the load at very low speeds.  As the load gets heavier, more time is spent at low speeds, and the harder the load is to rebalance.  In practice I can pretty easily start and balance a load that weighs about as much as I do (over 200lbs), but I have also seen a video of someone riding a cargo bike loaded with 500lbs of bananas, and they needed help to get started.

Using a trailer avoids the balance problems, though the hill problems remain, and braking can be more difficult depending on how weight is distributed on the bicycle and trailer.  

Weird rules

Your intuition about what is or is not a “bicycle” may not agree with the law, which in turn depends on where you are.

The rules about what is a legal bicycle are a little odd, sometimes devolved to the states, and tend to differ in important ways from Europe.  So, at the US federal level, a “bicycle” is defined by its power and number of wheels; if it has no assist and 1, 2, 3, or 4 wheels, it is a “bicycle”.  If it has up to 750 watts of inhuman power assist, its assist is limited to 28mph, and 3 or fewer wheels, then it is also a “bicycle”.  There appears to be no US federal limit on “bicycle” width or weight.  But, if it has an e-assist propelling it faster than 28mph, then that is not a bike, that is not an e-bike, legally, that is some other device.

However, at the state level, there are a variety of rules and regulations, with a variety of e-assist power and speed limits.  California has rules that conform to the federal standards, with additional use requirements on so-called “type 3” e-bikes that have assist past 20mph.  As of this writing Massachusetts treats them as mopeds, though that may change within a month. New York State has a 36-inch width limit on cargo bicycles, with a bill proposed to increase that to either 55 or 48 inches, but that bill also includes a lower speed limit (12mph) and insurance requirement for e-cargo bikes.

Rules in the EU are more detailed and still evolving. Older rules limited assist for cargo bikes to 250 watts, which is completely inadequate for actual cargo in hilly places.  Four-wheeled e-bikes and e-cargo-bikes are legal.  The new rules allow more assist, but also have detailed remarks about brakes and bicycle durability.  As of that cited document, EU rules were silent on width, but Germany’s DIN has proposed regulations — 1m width and 250kg for 2-wheels, 2m width and 300kg for 3 or 4 wheels.

How to bike in Cambridge and Somerville (and perhaps other places)

Goals are safety, low stress, harmony with pedestrians and other micro mobility users.  This is informed by my experience biking through Belmont, Cambridge and Somerville daily for the last seven years, and biking through Belmont, Arlington, Lexington, and Burlington for nine years before that, recently exceeding 40,000 miles of commuting and errands.  I’ve also been biking long enough not just to have made mistakes, but to see patterns in my mistakes.  I collect a lot of video, note the sketchy bits, and sometimes review them.

I intended this to somehow not be as heavy-handed as I know it is, but this afternoon I was sitting on my bike on the sidewalk next to a bike lane, and as a pedestrian stepped into it to get to their parked car, the oncoming bike dealt with this by yelling “head up heads up heads up” instead of, say, slowing down.  This is exactly wrong, for reasons detailed below.  This whole thing has been bouncing around in my head for a while.

And, also, this is not the “best way” to increase safety and comfort, this is merely what you can do on your own.  Better regulations and better road design are both better choices than solo safety, but solo safety  doesn’t need focus groups or community meetings to approve it.

Edit: A second opinion, from a local Twitter friend who I hope to someday meet IRL. Scan down past my reply on Twitter for commentary. Some of the remarks will be interspersed below, in italics, either for emphasis or missing perspective.  One general problem is that the discussion of panic stops and stopping distance is not right, it could be better, but neither of us quite knows how. One particular issue is that “panic” stop is old-biker jargon; it means a really fast stop, which is a useful skill. Another issue is that the math is distracting, and the choice of numbers is not well justified. The TLDR summary of that flawed section could be: don’t ride too fast, learn to stop quickly, react sooner, not later, be aware that you can go over the handlebars if you stop too fast, so definitely wear a helmet when you practice stopping.  And, I didn’t say it because it’s as obvious as the nose on my face, never tailgate a car.  Bikes have a reaction time advantage, but cars have a braking ability advantage, and if they stop for something you can’t see (or out of malice), you have no reaction time advantage. Probably deserves its own discussion.

Existing traffic law is a poor guide

I don’t mean that you should ignore traffic law, and you certainly have to be aware of laws, but only obeying traffic laws will leave you exposed to various unsafe situations, and in some cases breaking traffic laws can lower your risk, principally from turning traffic, especially trucks.  Too much focus on the law causes you to think about blame, not mitigation, and any time spent analyzing a situation from a legal point of view (“is that pedestrian jaywalking?  If their foot isn’t in the road yet, am I really required to stop?”) is time spent not thinking about how to reduce risk.  No you cannot multi-task as well as single-task, the goal is to make the safest choice the habitual choice, and legal analysis gets in the way of that.  If you’re thinking about safety, your first thoughts should not include “what is the traffic law?”

For more on the ineffectiveness of blame, see Jesse Singer’s book There Are No Accidents and also the discussion of maritime versus airline safety in Charles Perrow’s Normal Accidents.

Practice safety and prevention

And by “practice”, I don’t mean, “be constantly stressed about”, but instead, cultivate good habits, make your usual behavior be the safer behavior, and make your snap reactions be the safer ones.  You’ll make mistakes sometimes anyways, but you’ll make fewer mistakes.  (I made a mistake today, I apologized a whole darn lot to the pedestrian that I did not hit.)

  • Look for “I’m about to ride where I can’t see what’s coming” situations, and be prepared to stop quickly and completely.  Properly designed infrastructure ought to make these rare, but, ha-ha, this is a guide to biking in Cambridge and Somerville.  It’s common for us to have loading zones with trucks in them completely blocking the view of a crosswalk or intersection.  Someone might step or drive out from behind that truck (I have video).
  • Learn to pass behind; whether cars, other bikes, or people, they all tend to start or keep moving forward more often than moving backward, passing behind reduces the chance of a bad interaction, and removes the need for a negotiation about who goes first or speeds up or slows down.  It’s just simpler.  Another reason:
    “The passing behind advice: good, but I also prefer keeping a bad driver in front of me vs me in front of them; if they’ve done one dumb thing when I could see, I assume they do dozens more dumb things every hour. If I’m behind them then they’ll have a harder time affecting me.”
  • Train yourself to react to emergencies by braking first, and practice braking so your panic stops don’t turn into headers.  Upright posture helps with fewer headers, so does a heavy bicycle, especially if it is loaded to the rear.  Braking even a fraction of a second early can make a big difference; an extra half second at half a g (a best-case hard front wheel brake) can cut your speed by 8 feet per second, or over 1/3 at 15mph (15 mph/22fps -> 10 mph/14fps). The goal is not to be tense about this, but just to turn it into a habit, so that your snap reaction is the safer one.  Swerving can also work but swerving requires that you not swerve into something else — this is more complicated that braking.
  • When in doubt, slow down. It’s a mistake to try to “zip past” a sketchy arrangement of cars and pedestrians.  Doing that just adds to the sketchiness, adding speed makes crashes hurt more.  This is a hard habit to break.
  • Don’t treat your bell as an emergency safety device.  Brake first.  Don’t try to convince yourself that you can do both just as well as one, no, you cannot.  Bells are low-bandwidth, useless for signaling drivers (their cars make them deaf), and pedestrians aren’t required to be listening, able to hear you, or paying attention.  Braking is one reaction time away, bell-ringing means the response is at best two reaction times away.
    “Also triple OMG yes about bells. I think bells are good for a quiet path when you’re like 100 feet away. If you’re close enough to talk, do that. Jeez. Instead dudes (almost always dudes) think it’s a “GTFO” signal.”
  • Don’t expect other people to do more than obey the law.  Don’t delude yourself with expectations of what other people “should” do (should control their dog “better”; should not wear earbuds; should wear reflective clothing at night on a shared-use path; should pay more attention to their toddler).  Those things are not even the law, why would you expect people to obey not-laws when they break actual laws often enough?
  • Slow and wide for pedestrians everywhere. In a bicycle-pedestrian crash, the person on the bike is at greater risk, but it’s them that brought all the energy to the crash, not the pedestrian.  Pedestrians are inherently safe, even more so than bicycles.

 Don’t optimize for top speed

This is not obvious if we just react to how we feel about being passed, especially close-passed, but if you are merely bumped by a passing car or truck and lose control, higher speed is not on your side.  You can also see this by looking at relative trip risk between motorcycles and bicycles; the per-trip risk of death on a motorcycle is TWENTY-FIVE TIMES HIGHER, despite the louder pipes, despite the brighter always-on headlights, despite the greater mass and stability of the motorcycle, despite the better and in-most-states legally-required helmet.  There is a speed somewhere between typical bicycle speed and typical motorcycle speed at which adding speed makes things more dangerous, not safer.  It might not be a very high speed, maybe as low as 25mph, maybe a little less.  I think it is telling that European E-bikes are assist-limited to 15mph; the Europeans are much better at road safety than we are, and they chose 15mph, not 20mph.

Higher speeds hurt in several ways:

  • Drivers aren’t expecting bicycle speeds above 15-20mph; they will be surprised, perhaps angry, perhaps unsafe.  You will have a better experience at a slightly lower speed.
  • Crashes get much worse between 15, 20, and 25mph.
  • Stopping distances increase dramatically with speed, even bicycle speeds.  My best-case stop at 15mph (0.6s reaction time, 0.5g braking) is 28 feet; at 23mph, it’s about about double that.  Braking more sedately (0.25g, a skidding rear wheel), 15mph results in a 43 foot stop, 20mph needs 71 feet, 23mph needs 91, and 25mph, 106.
  • That stopping distance is the minimum you need to scan for surprises; you can do a much better job of that when it’s 30 feet, than 60 feet.
  • Resist the urge to attain maximum speed down a hill.  Instead, bust your ass on the way up (on a commute, that produces the maximum time savings for a given amount of sweat) and rest and recover coasting downhill. But beware “workout brain” clouding your judgement after a hard hill climb. (Yes, this is a real thing.) 

“The part about speed is good, the analogy to motos is great and you should press the point about ebikes more IMO.

I disagree that drivers aren’t expecting bikes to go above 15-20mph, I think it’s more like 10-15 just based on interactions. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”

Identify and avoid bad roads and dangerous vehicles

  • Multilane roads are a bad idea.  Drivers are more distracted because there is more going on, some of them will use the second lane to drive fast and/or accelerate unpredictably.
  • Door zone bike lanes in non-residential areas are a bad idea;
    Door zone bike lanes in permit-parking-only are less risky;
    Pay attention to folded-in mirrors (good), lit brake lights (bad), Uber/Lyft stickers (bad), and taxis (bad) and cars with New York “T&LC” limo plates (very bad);
    Riding fast in the door zone is a bad idea.
  • Trucks with large exposed wheels are deadly.  If you don’t feel comfortable with one approaching, leave the road.  Don’t depend on the driver, their truck is not designed for your visibility or your safety, they may not see you (and that’s certainly what they’ll claim if they hit you, and the police will believe them).  Yes, the whole situation is completely appalling, European regulations make big trucks somewhat safer, but in this country we have other priorities.

If you got this far, thank you for your patience.

A few years ago I started playing with a laser cutter in a “maker space”, and the thing that I have had the most luck with was chain guards for my bicycles, to help keep my pants slightly cleaner.  I made one out of mirrored acrylic which looks Very Flashy, but the acrylic is not that durable.

IMG 20191127 184302

During Covid, I lost access to the maker space, and needed a new chain guard for one off my bikes, so I went and ordered one in 3mm acetal from Sculpteo, and it has worked very well.

I don’t recall if I sent them a PDF or a SVG, but it was one of the two.

Anyhow, my chainring was creaking, some of the chainring bolts were working loose, so this seemed like a good time to take it all apart, tighten things up, and take some pictures.  Obviously the chainring needs some parts to hold it together, and these are shown here.

First, mounted on the bike.  The gap for the crank arm makes life very, very easy, compared to the aluminum ones that usually come with bicycles.  

PXL 20220625 214923330

This is my spare copy (I ordered two, shipping for two was as high as shipping for one).  Notice all the little spacers in the waste section in the center; those will be useful later.

PXL 20220625 213925958

Here is the old one, removed, with screws and washers still in place, and all the spacers in the box below.

PXL 20220625 214405561

To reinstall, use tape to hold the screws and washers in place, then put a pair of spacers (each is 3mm) on the backside.

PXL 20220625 214525857

Here I’ve tilted it the other way so you can see the spacers.

PXL 20220625 214529517

Insert the long skinny screws through the center holes in the chainring bolts, and spin the little nuts on the backside so the screws won’t come out, remove the tape, and crank them down pretty tight (because acetal is tough, unlike acrylic).

PXL 20220625 214706736

To the Belmont Select Board,

I am writing to support the proposed parking-protected bicycle lanes on Concord Avenue. I believe these will make it safer and more comfortable for most people to bike on Concord Avenue and attract more people, especially students, to use a bike instead of arriving at the schools by car. I have biked on Concord every working day, year-round for the last seven years, so I know the road well and especially its risks from a biking point-of-view.

Parking protected lanes would increase safety in at least two different ways: removing risks from swerves (either bike into car or car into bike), and dooring risk. Some dooring risk remains, but the left (driver’s side) door is the one most frequently opened from a parked car, so riding on the right side of a parked car is safer. Riding on the right side also means that in the event of an abrupt door opening, all the other obstacles are stationary and will never be a large truck with exposed deadly rear wheels.

Obviously, having surer separation from traffic makes the ride more comfortable. With luck, more middle and high school kids will use these lanes to bike to/from the middle and high schools instead of driving or bothering their parents for a drop-off by car, thus reducing traffic jams during the school rush.

These new lanes will inconvenience some people. Turning onto Concord from a side street will be more difficult because it will be somewhat harder to see oncoming traffic. Cyclists whose primary goal is speed may find themselves less able to pass other, slower, cyclists (in Cambridge and Somerville, this is just how things are at rush hour, so I have ample experience as both delay-er and delay-ee). These problems, however, are of a different and lesser category than personal physical safety.

We should also recognize that some of these abutter convenience compromises are themselves the result of other compromises; if we did not care so much about minimizing the number of lost parking spaces, we might instead construct a bidirectional protected lane (using Jersey barriers, perhaps) on the north side of Concord Ave along Clay Pit pond and the high school. This would not only leave the south-side abutter experience unchanged, it would also provide easier passing for higher-speed cyclists, remove turning risks from the south-side streets (either right-hooks from Concord onto the side street, or T-bones from the side street onto Concord), eliminate the right-side door-zone risk, and provide a guaranteed-available route for emergency vehicles (wide bidirectional bike lanes are used for this purpose around the world, including even in Cambridge, I have video). To be blunt, a whole lot of advantages, including safety advantages, were traded away for the purpose of preserving parking. We like parking a whole darn lot here in Belmont, otherwise we’d make different choices.

One place where the current plan is particularly lacking, and may want future improvement, is on the stretch of Concord approaching the Post Office and underpass. There, a bidirectional north-side lane would be a lovely safety improvement, but I don’t know how to reconcile that with the obvious need for short-term parking, especially handicapped access parking. It is, however, the most dangerous and least comfortable stretch of Concord (the very same short-term parking that is so necessary, also creates a dooring hazard, and the underpass is an abomination from the point-of-view of comfortable, safe biking). I have some hope that the Alexander Avenue tunnel under the railroad tracks, when completed, will provide a suitable alternative for safe, low-stress bicycle access to the Winn Brook neighborhood and Belmont Center from the high and middle schools.

Assuming we create these protected lanes, one detail that would help is to check the pavement for flaws and irregulaties, and correct those. I’ve recently looked at the road where the protected lane will be, and what I could see looked generally okay, but there’s a few spots that could be improved. Potholes are a surprisingly common cause of bicycle crashes, especially for less-experienced riders.

Yours,
David Chase

So, I ride a cargo bike most of the time, have for about 15 years and 38,000 miles, I sometimes forget that lots of people only have experience with “normal” bikes (or worse, only with a car), and just work with that knowledge.  And I end up explaining this stuff, or parts of it, over and over again to people who think they understand what a “bicycle” is and what its “limits” are.

Read the rest of this entry »

I tried to take pictures of each step along the way.  The goal here is to make a durable, “washable” (soak in boiling water, or alcohol; I don’t think detergent is good) mask that filters very well and also breathes pretty easily, seals well, will not collapse if you breathe hard, and muffles your voice somewhat less.  I tried making one of these with no fabric, just filter material, and that is not strong enough to last; the interior layer is necessary (and feels nicer on your face).  The filter media I use here filters well — it looks good on paper, and when the west coast smoke blew into Boston, it stopped the smoke smell (it does not stop smaller smelly molecules).  For reference, from that paper, here’s the graph of filtering effectiveness and breathing resistance (which is high).  It’s the pink lines at the top, just under never-washed N95:

Mask material reuse

The difference between this material, and medical N95, is that those use electrostatic charge, which is magically good till it wears off because you washed it (note that this chart quits at half a micron, so it is not the whole story).  Not using magic electrostatic properties means that the filtering survives exposure to alcohol, but also that the breathing resistance is much higher.  Nonetheless, I manage, most other people should as well.

The mask is shaped like a duck bill, beware, and there’s a tradeoff between area (ease of breathing) and volume (rebreathing of CO2).  The pattern itself is parameterized, so that you can adjust its size somewhat for your own personal face and your own personal preferences for ease of breathing vs rebreathing CO2 (we have varying lung sizes) vs ridiculous appearance; I put a program on the web to do this; it creates the pattern in two halves, which you print on card stock, cut out, and tape together (as seen below).  I’ll update it from time to time; notice how the pattern below printed “elastic” in the wrong place (fixed), labels one of the darts wrong, and I really wish it had a QR code that would let someone reproduce the mask without retyping parameters.

This is the 4th iteration of a design that started with one from the UF School of Anesthesiology.

Materials

  • Cummins Filtration EX 101.  This comes in packs of 50.  I can send smaller quantities to friends and family, the rest of you have your own friends and family.
  • Heat shrink tubing for capturing wire ends in the nose wire, and for holding the coffee stirrer nose brace together.
    2:1 shrink ratio, 90 degrees C activation, 1/8”, 3/16”, 1/4” (I use NTE clear from Digikey).  You can use tape for the brace joints, and if you have some other way of making a nose wire, you don’t need this.
  • 5.5” Coffee stirrers (Amazon link) for the nose brace.
  • Wire for nose wire (I use 19-gauge copper wire that I rescued from the side of the road after a lawn mower ran over a phone wire bundle).  I did once try 19-gauge stainless wire from the hardware store, it is not comfortable.
  • Cord/shoelace and cord lock for neck strap.
  • Elastic for head band.
  • Fabric — I use linen or hemp for the interior, whatever for the exterior.  Goal is both should breathe easily (the filter does the filter work), interior should be strong enough to deal with cords and braces, exterior (which is actually optional) should protect the filter from abrasion, perhaps have an appearance.  So while you can use old T-shirt for the exterior, it’s probably wrong for the interior because it is too stretchy.

Photos of steps (high-res album version):

Nose wire first.  This is 9.5 inches of copper wire, alternately use 2 pieces 4.5 and 5.5 inches long with the longer wrapped around the ends of the shorter.  To bind it all together, use heat shrink tubing, fold in a piece of fabric, then apply an iron, blast a few times with steam.  It will stick slightly to the fabric, which is why you wrap it in fabric because that is better than sticking to the iron or the ironing board.

PXL 20210904 023523185

PXL 20210904 023531413

After doing the ends, also.

PXL 20210904 023625318

Filter media and pattern.

PXL 20210904 023204153

Pattern just fits the filter media, this is by design.  For the filter, don’t bother with any flaps or tabs, and don’t do the darts yet either.

PXL 20210904 023307597

Foreshadowing: this is the ultimate destination of the nose wire.

PXL 20210904 023655681

Pattern traced.

PXL 20210904 023816436

Pattern cut, precisely around the face, with slop around chin and nose, to be trimmed later.

PXL 20210904 023910469

Pattern on the interior layer, which gets all the tabs, flaps, and alignment marks for the elastic and cords.

PXL 20210904 024056745

Traced

PXL 20210904 024213041

Cut, again with some slop.  The flaps will fold down, and then iron to make it easier to sew.

PXL 20210904 024401693

Exterior layer, which is a used tie-dye T-shirt.  No marking for cord attachment or tabs. Cut this with a fair amount of slop.

PXL 20210904 024947492

And cut:

PXL 20210904 025052422

Here’s an extra bit of more T-shirt to go inside the nose-wire flap, to help cushion the nose.

PXL 20210904 025212597

Sewing the nose wire flap.  This is the only place where pins are appropriate, once the filter is in the mix, use clips instead because holes in the filter are to be avoided as much as possible. I have access to nice clips because my wife sews very well and my mother-in-law is a fiber artist (it was her that sent me the original pattern from UF) but bulldog clips get the job done and I have also used those.

PXL 20210904 025434746

Sew along the bottom to leave a channel.  This will get narrower when the filter and exterior are sewed to this.

PXL 20210904 025456158

Trim away the excess.  It doesn’t need to be super pretty, nobody will see this.  The nose wire goes inside, just shown here on the outside to show how it will be positioned.

PXL 20210904 025749322

And with the pockets sewed.  These will also be sewed across the bottom, later.

PXL 20210904 025951403

Recipe for stacking the layers.  This part is important, I copied it from older instructions for another pattern.  Steps will appear below.  The filter “outside” has more dimple-y dimples, bright light helps for telling them apart.

PXL 20210904 030007131

First put the interior together, using clips to get the cords positioned right.

PXL 20210904 030332766

Align the exterior layer on top; it’s good to get the patterns aligned for later, but this one is mostly for show, and excess will be trimmed soon.  One problem with too much extra fabric is it gets in the way of aligning the filter (one top) and the interior layer (own the bottom), which is what really matters.

PXL 20210904 030505470

Carefully position the filter.  Goal is that its face edge (the part that curves up, around, and down from left to right) is well-aligned with the interior layer at the bottom.  Apply lots of clips to keep everything from shifting.

PXL 20210904 030646686

One big stitch from lower left around the top to lower right.  I take my time.  It just now occurred to me, if I had no machine, could I sew this by hand, and I think the answer is “yes”.  It would be tedious, but it is entirely at the edge and I think you could whip stitch it, just fold the exterior up and on top and bind it all together.  I might start in the middle and then go to one edge, then the other.  The pockets and nose flap would be more work, but you can use more fabric there and take your time, that’s just sewing fabric.

PXL 20210904 030714036

Use fingers to keep everything moving together, don’t want cords to shift.

PXL 20210904 030800169

Done, from the top of the stack. (Links to high-res)

PXL 20210904 030900574

Done, from the bottom of the stack. (Links to high-res)

PXL 20210904 030908157

Prepare to flip interior around.

PXL 20210904 030940670

Flipped, looking at interior and cords.

PXL 20210904 031040380

NOW use the pattern to put the darts on the mask.  Align the pattern with the filter, which is hidden under the exterior in this photo.,

PXL 20210904 031211285

Marked.

PXL 20210904 031220203

I sew it somewhat more generously than the mark, probably ought to reflect that in the pattern.  Note that the clean side of the sewn dart goes against your face, for better comfort and better seal.  Design of this mask, most people won’t see the underside of your chin anyhow.

PXL 20210904 031316229

Both darts done.

PXL 20210904 031434007

This is the relatively tricky part and is probably subject to some further improvement.  The two chin edges need to be brought together, and then sewed.  I’ve left the pattern un-cut in the nose because there is always some imprecision here and this lets me even things up at the nose.  The clip here marks where the sewing stops.

PXL 20210904 031630872

Finish the chin with a stitch across the darts and the center.

PXL 20210904 032103577

After sewing the chin, need to sew the nose.  The mark on the pattern shows where.

PXL 20210904 032057830

After sewing across the nose, clip off the excess.

PXL 20210904 032234324

Next need to make the nose brace.  This is pretty much by eyeball, and I got the short one in the nose too long the first time.  I cut the coffee stirrers to length with some wire clippers, then use sandpaper to take off the sharp parts.

PXL 20210904 032506476

To join the coffee stirrers together I use 1/4” heat shrink tubing.  I’ve also used gaffers tape, probably fabric adhesive tape would also work.  Again, wrap in scrap fabric and use a steam iron to shrink.

PXL 20210904 032601896

I use two layer of heat shrink tubing — this is the completed brace.

PXL 20210904 032733469

To fit, anchor the ends but do not fit the nose.  Put the not-in-nose angle in the chin, then push into place.  If this seems impossible, shorten as necessary.  If you need to shorten the center, either pull it apart or razor off the tubing.

PXL 20210904 033057565

Brace in position.

PXL 20210904 033119606

On my face. This is a lot of mask, I am trying to figure out how to fit a restraining thread through the middle of the bill to reduce its volume, that will still allow me to remove/replace the brace if I want to,  To wash this thing, take out the nose wire and brace, and either soak in boiling water or alcohol.  I tried a washing machine once, and to me it seemed to increase the breathing resistance until I washed it again in boiling water.  I’ve used one of these (not this one, but very similar design) to ride a bicycle 6 miles home from work, when we had the nasty smoke blow in from across the country.  I did not ride 100%, but I rode fast enough.  I also used a smaller one for a few hours on an airplane — it would not be adequate for exercise, but worked fine for sitting.

PXL 20210904 033253539 PORTRAIT