I have no idea if my comments are any good or actually help, but I figured I would try.  I hope, a little, to get a toe-hold in their allegedly metrics-driven brains.


I read all the comments from Toole Design (FHWA-2020-0001-0853, tracking number kn4-yvok-yobh), and agree with them entirely.

A few that I thought were especially on point included:

Placement of crossing signals; these must be accessible from a wheelchair even after typical snow plowing. See attached picture for a bad example (this is a button-requested-signaled-crosswalk across Fresh Pond Parkway in Cambridge, MA). For that particular button, it is also quite close to a road full of sometimes-fast traffic, which can be nervous-making to drivers if a cyclist approaches quickly, and nervous-making to parents with children who wish to cross.

IMG 20190121 182309

Counterflow bicycle lanes; I agree entirely, these should not be unnecessarily restricted. There are some that I use every day on low-traffic roads that are not parking protected, and they are completely fine. If it were up to me, every single road that was “one-way” for the purpose of thwarting cut-through automobile traffic would be two-way for bicycles because of their reduced noise, pollution, and danger to other road users.

I agree with their remarks about way-finding signs. Times are appropriate; in particular, fast riders not only know that they are fast riders, they know how much faster than usual they are, and can deal with estimates for the “average” or “median” bicycling time. (I default to 15% faster than the Google Maps bicycle estimates; this is a thing I know. I can shave off another 15% if I try very hard.)

In urban areas (my commute crosses Cambridge, MA, errands often take me into Somerville) the 85th percentile rule is completely inappropriate. The most basic flaw is that it assumes that which does not exist, “free flowing traffic”. Actual rush hour traffic speeds are roughly the same as the median bicycle speed, or slower.

Furthermore, in the previous year (2020), we conducted a natural experiment on all types of roads to see what would happen to crash rates when we remove cars from the road, allowing traffic to flow more freely at the speeds more often chosen by drivers. The outcome was not favorable; in Massachusetts, the number of fatalities did not fall in proportion to the reduction in traffic (see https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/02/08/metro/driving-decreased-mass-last-year-not-traffic-deaths/ ). This strongly suggests that prioritizing driver speed will reduce safety, and that the “free flowing” part of the 85th percentile rule is especially suspect.

Regarding urban areas again, whenever there is any consideration for “traffic flow”, it must include all road users (pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, scooters, skateboarders — I see all of these in Cambridge) and mass transit users must be weighted individually; i.e., it is not “one bus” but rather “50 passengers”. This is a bare minimum; there are issues of equity and access that I am not really qualified to comment on but I know they exist. There are roads in Cambridge where the bus traffic at rush hour, counting people, exceeds the car traffic (Mt. Auburn Street). This was used to justify a restricted lane for buses, which improved bus speeds and (I heard, and it would be expected for improved bus service) led to an even larger number of people using the bus. There are intersections (Inman Square) where the summer rush hour bicycle traffic is 30+% of the total (this was estimated by counting cars and counting bicycles; for a 45-second green, that’s about 22 cars, and 11 bikes means 33%; this is relatively common at summer rush, and I’ve seen as many as 20 — and it’s not that welcoming an intersection.) Winter traffic is lower, but this is a case where lack of safety (inadequate separation from traffic; lanes narrowed by snow piles) causes a mode shift; walking or waiting at a bus stop are both actually colder than riding a bicycle (source; my daily bicycle commute, and getting uncomfortably chilled walking to lunch when I forget to bring a jacket for walking. I have been doing this for years, and have had the experience multiple times.)

Comments on proposed rule on Automated Driving Safety,

When evaluating safety of automated-driving-vehicles (ADVs), be sure to
weight miles driven by where they are driven and the exposure to
pedestrians, cyclists, and other vulnerable road users (VRUs).

Particulate pollution and noise both damage the health of people near
roads, and to the extent that ADVs can be designed to reduce these
emissions, they should. This might be accomplished through better
management of speed, braking, and cornering, and also simple reduction
in vehicle size.

ADVs will be able to pass other ADVs with smaller clearances than human
drivers need, and because of this, could more regularly leave more space
when passing pedestrians, cyclists, other VRUs. People can stumble or
swerve; any resulting crash would not be directly caused by an ADV, but
an ADV could take steps to avoid or mitigate it. Eventually, ADVs can
allow narrowing of lanes in general. This will free up more room for
pedestrians and cyclists, making them more comfortable and reducing
their conflicts (bikes on the sidewalk, pedestrians in the bike lane).

ADVs should not use street parking in urban areas; they should instead
drop-off and pick-up their passengers at loading zones, and then proceed
to off-street parking. This maximizes convenience for their users, and
allows street space to be reclaimed for other purposes.

ADVs can provide is improved road comfort for cyclists and pedestrians.
Two examples are better crosswalk interactions with pedestrians and
better approach to red lights around cyclists. For crosswalks, the
best-for-pedestrian behavior is to make it clear to a pedestrian, as
soon as it is seen that they wish to cross, that you understand, and
will certainly yield to them. A driver might slow down significantly
well before the crosswalk and flash headlights (on a bicycle, it works
to call out “I see you” and wave/nod). When approaching a red light,
human drivers sometimes drive at full speed to the end of a line of
cars, passing cyclists along the way who later reach and pass the
driver. ADVs can be designed to avoid such no-time-saved passing;
reduced acceleration and braking will also reduce noise and energy use.

Any automatically driven truck should include sensors at all of the
usual truck blind spots, and such trucks should moderate speed whenever
there is a risk of a pedestrian movement (e.g. a stumble) that might
cause an overrun.

NHTSA should work to defuse the vehicle-size “safety” arms race.  ADVs
provide a means for doing this with the promise of an order of magnitude
reduction in crashes (if that’s not possible, I’m not sure why we are so
excited about ADVs), but probably not until their adoption is
widespread. Till then, any ADV owner will likely worry about sharing the
road with fallible human drivers and upsize accordingly. NHTSA could
address this earlier with independent regulations on vehicle size;
larger vehicles reduce safety for other road users, so this is
absolutely within any mission to increase road safety.  Or perhaps,
require anti-collision radar on all vehicles above a certain weight (for
example, 3000lbs), to help provide assurance that a vehicle good at
avoiding its own crashes is less likely to be hit by a larger
human-piloted vehicle.  This will also help mitigate problems caused
during ADV adoption, where ADVs will respond to hazards much more
quickly than the humans around them (in particular, behind them);
putting more vehicles on the road now with anti-collision radar would
reduce this future problem.

I would hope that I do not need to provide references to support claims
that particulate and noise pollution are bad for health, but just in case:
(particulate pollution)
(noise pollution)

For “better practices” around pedestrians and cyclists, I have video,
collected on my daily commute through Cambridge, MA.
(signaling to pedestrians in crosswalks)

(passing cyclists unnecessarily)

This last example is quite long, but demonstrates that if ADVs had wider
knowledge of traffic jams and red lights, they could make more use of
safer, quieter, and energy-saving use of no-more-speed-than-necessary to
make it to reach their goal. This driver was notably aggressive, yet
saved no time at all.


Dear Mr. Matt Genova,

I support the Belmont Community Path and request that the Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization provide Transportation Improvement Program funding for the project as soon as possible.

This path should be funded for many reasons, among them:

It provides a safe, shorter route for kids from many parts of Belmont to reach the new combined middle-high school; in years past many students took an unsafe shortcut across the commuter rail tracks. The tunnel under the tracks will eliminate the unsafe shortcuts, and the path through town bypasses several busy roads and intersections. Not only will this be safer, it will also provide an alternative to driving to the high school, which causes traffic backups every morning.

For commuters to and from Alewife station, and between Belmont, Cambridge, and Somerville, it adds to the existing local network of bicycle trails and provides a safe and comfortable route that allows people to bypass area traffic instead of adding to it. People working in Belmont Center will have another option for getting to work; people who live in Belmont and commute into Cambridge/Somerville/Boston will have another option for their commute.

For recreation, right now, it will give Belmont residents a better option for reaching the Minuteman Bikeway and the community path in Cambridge and Somerville. Eventually it will connect to Waltham and beyond, and will provide that option for people in Cambridge and Somerville.

Around rush hour, Belmont can be completely stuffed full of cars, making short trips across town (in a car) impractical. Getting to/from Alewife can be particularly difficult at those times. This path provides a comfortable, practical alternative for many of these trips.

I will enjoy riding on this path and it will save me a little time and make my life a little better, but this path is really for other people who aren’t biking much now because they don’t feel safe. I already bike to work in Kendall Square every day; when I started biking to work, my health, in all measurable ways, got noticeably better, and the one-year hiatus imposed by Covid and work-from-home has made it clear, again measurable at an annual physical, what I lose when I don’t bike to work. Friends and colleagues, who themselves worry about health, parking, climate change, whatever, ask me questions about routes and bikes, and the one problem that crops up again and again is not feeling safe on the road, not wanting to be honked at, etc. This path would solve that problem for a lot of people in Belmont, and for people nearby who travel into or through Belmont. They’d save time, money, and end up healthier too. Even people who still drive in Belmont would benefit, because each person who travels through Belmont not-in-a-car, whether they walk, skate, scoot, or bike, makes traffic slightly better, and doesn’t take up a parking space, either.

I should add, some of the backyard abutters along Channing Road have objected to this path because they think it will promote crime. I don’t know their logic, but I’ve certainly heard their worry at many public meetings. However, I’ve been biking on the Fitchburg Cutoff to Alewife since it was just a muddy path through the woods, and back then it was substantially creepier and sketchier than it is today with a well-designed multi-use path. Kids used to gather there to drink and spray graffiti, my kids tell me that it was one of the places to go for drug deals, and I didn’t feel super comfortable there after dark. Now, with a path there, it feels safe. No more drinking. No more weird trash campfires. No more suspicion that I just rode my bike through a drug deal. Instead, I see lots of families walking to and from Alewife and beyond, some biking, and quite a few people walking to or from Alewife after dark. It feels safe because people use it, and people use it because it feels safe.

Masks, again

January 18, 2021

I assume that until this bug is over, it’s not over, and until then I will wear a mask around other people, and I would like it to be a good one. I keep reading papers. I’ve learned that an earlier paper about the goodness of high-thread-per-inch cotton had a flaw, where they failed to neutralize the charge on their test particles, which made it (very) easy for a mask to trap the particles and this overstated the effectiveness of tight cotton weaves. More recently, I read about the performance of mask materials over time, and that was depressing; if you use an medical N-95 mask very much at all, it probably loses a lot of its ability to filter small particles because the electrostatic charges on the fibers go away. Medical wrap (Halyard H600) has the same problem. This is especially true with alcohol, which is a polar solvent that can conduct electricity.

Mask material reuse

What this chart says is that for the best protection, you want a new N-95 mask; nothing else is better, and the different between 99% percent efficiency and 98% percent efficiency is twice as many particles, so a real N-95 really is much better. If, however, the mask is worn more than once, especially if it is exposed to alcohol in small amounts (for example, from hand cleaner) then it might not work nearly as well. For a mask that I’m going to wear more than once, “EX101” looks interesting; it turns out to be a high-grade air filtration media used to make air filters for diesel engines. It does, however, resist breathing more than other materials.

Two other things matter, a lot, in a mask. One is how much it resists your attempts to breathe through it, and the other is how well it is sealed to your face. Once you get to 99%-of-particles-filtered efficiency, small gaps can reduce the relative performance of the mask by a lot. In masks I’ve made in the past with high-thread-count cotton, if they get damp from sweat or condensate, they fail in both ways; their resistance to breathing goes way up, and when you exhale, the elastic cannot keep them sealed to your face and you blow unfiltered air out the sides (you can feel it, it is very annoying). On the plus side, this is a validation that the mask design I use can seal tight. I’m a little nervous about masks that only hook on ears; I’ve worn some of them, and they don’t feel like they’re sealing that well, and shopping, a few times I have seen people wearing such masks where from the side I could see between the mask and their face, all the way to their lips and nose.

Another problem with mask made of materials that resist breathing is that they can collapse onto your face, which reduces their surface area and makes inhaling even harder. It also feels disgusting if you’ve been wearing the mask for a while and there’s some amount of condensate in/on it. However, I figured out how to modify an existing design to let me prop it off my face with coffee sticks, and I’ve since improved it; the coffee sticks are inside now, which looks better and is a little simpler to sew, and more of the seams are on the inside, not the outside

So, this is how I got to where I am now, making masks from two less-filtering fabrics surrounding an inner layer made from EX101, and washing them with alcohol as necessary. I wear those masks whenever I go indoors, and for short/slow bicycle rides. For long or fast bicycle riding, the breathing resistance is too high, so I either don’t do that, or wear a mask that is less good (but I am outdoors, moving quickly, and staying away from other people by default).

Here’s the pattern and the instructions, 2 pages, print single-sided, the first page on card stock if you can, and a series of photos from me making a mask using these instructions. Cummins filtration sells 50 packs of EX101 filtration media (it’s about $45). There’s other mask information at the University of Minnesota, where they have other designs that use this filtration media.

And to the obvious question, why am I doing this, why am I not buying a mask instead? Two reasons. First, any N-95 mask that I know is trustworthy and good, I am probably taking out of the hands of someone who needs it. You might say, “but I see a lot of those for sale, I don’t think there’s a shortage”, but that may just mean that we have different levels of trust. Second problem is, how much do you trust the people selling you the mask? Anyone can claim anything, I look for signs that they are or are not thinking about what a mask is supposed to do. When I look at the masks that are for sale, if I see one with ear loops — I don’t really trust it, because an N-95 that isn’t sealing, isn’t really N-95. Or I see a mask (STILL!) with an exhale valve on it, which means that they’ve completely lost the plot with respect to stopping this epidemic. Or I see a mask that claims to have an insertable filter, but it just looks like a cloth pocket, and really, is that going to seal to my face? There’s no regulations about what is sold to the general public, there’s standards, but is anyone checking claims? We’re very much in the land of caveat-emptor capitalism, and right now the way I caveat, is I read papers, buy supplies from trustworthy sources, make my own masks. (Do I trust Cummins Filtration? Pretty much, especially given the independent research into their filter media. It makes plenty of sense that an engine air filter would work for a long long time.) This is a market failure, government could help, but for a little while longer, our government is crap.

Anyone that knows me, if they sew, if they want some of the filter media, I currently have more than I need, ping me. Either research one of the U Minn mask designs (there’s a weird open-source license they want you to do, it’s odd, but harmless, just takes a few steps) or I’d recommend mine. No guarantees, of course, only I did my best in the time available to do it, my evaluation is it fits my face, I can tell when it leaks, it doesn’t collapse when I inhale, I can get enough air through for moderate physical activity. If I could figure out how to give it more non-collapsible surface area without adding too much to the volume, I would, but this works well enough.

Here’s a newly-made mask using the design above, showing the two props, the interior seams, and the loops for attaching laces/elastic:

PXL 20201215 031046847

I’ve done a few experiments along the way. Here’s a picture (below) of one such experiment; it’s a mask that I use for longer/harder biking, that has no filter and so outdoors only, stay away from other people. I had just finished biking a few miles outdoors in mid-30F weather, so there’s a lot of condensation (much below freezing, long term, expect ice — that’s what ends up in my facial hair in a normal winter. Facial hair, bad for a mask seal). Experimentally I tried to use more props, on the theory that (1) aligning them with the elastic/cord attachments would be “better” and (2) two props per side would do a better job of keeping the mask from collapsing. I decided against this; I didn’t particularly notice “better”, and the prop higher on my face can actually be a little irritating because it rides directly on top off my cheekbones and is still a little hard through the fabric. This photo also shows how much condensate ends up in a mask doing physical activity in a cold outdoors. I’m not too surprised by the wet/dry condensate patterns, except that there’s more than I expected down near the bottom where it catches my chin.

PXL 20210117 001922148

This came up at work, where we’re all still WFH and probably will be all through the winter, that Seasonal Affective Disorder is a real thing and likely to bite harder than usual this winter, what with so many people almost entirely at home.

One approach to this is to get fancy lamps and that’s probably not a bad idea, but another, and also this dovetails with how to socialize safely given COVID, is to spend time outdoors. But it’s going to be cold, winter is that way. How do we do this comfortably?

As it happens, I have been riding my bicycle 6 miles to and then from work year-round, near Boston, since early 2015 (and 2+ days every week before that, since 2006, 10 miles one-way). I have some experience staying warm, though it is biased a bit by physical activity and my inherent toaster-ness. However, I know how to round up and have also been out on a bike in single digits, and my advice involves buying stuff from a guy who lets you dial up the warm to levels that have me covered in sweat. Seriously, I have a hat, it has never, ever, failed to make my head sweaty. I call it the dammit hat, as in “dammit, my head and ears will be warm”.

And obviously, tons of people know how to cope already (lots of people work outdoors in the winter, after all), but tons of people are also aghast that I bike in the winter and wonder that I am not frozen when I do. I can only guess that they don’t spend much time outdoors in the winter.  The point is not to endure the cold, but to be warm enough that you don’t care.

“The guy” is Lou Binik, who has a business called FoxWear. He/his minions sew stretchy technical fabrics into things. The ordering process is distinctly old-school, I have always exchanged a few e-mails, the result is at minimum semi-custom for things like tights. I typically pay by USPS-mailing a paper check.

For me, the three best things he makes are (1) tights (2) hats and balaclavas and (3) socks/oversocks. My default fabric choice is stretch polar fleece, he calls it “Power Stretch”, you get your choice of colors and thicknesses. 2.5mm is the thickness of the dammit hat; if you’re willing to settle for black (it is always in style) you can get 3mm. I’ve never tried “double sided fleece” or “Retro-X” but those are even warmer options.

The tights just work, and they’re easy to take care of, just throw them in the washer and then throw them in the dryer (I do tend to use the low heat level in general, to reduce the risk of accidents). They work as an underlayer, too.

For tights-ish pants that are somewhat less stretchy, but more wind, water, and snow repellent, choose “Power Shield” or perhaps “Wind Pro” instead. You’ll need to be sure that it’s not undersized in waist/butt/thighs, because it’s less forgiving there and you may end up feeling like a sausage if they’re undersized. One pair I eventually decided was too tight (my thighs got bigger from the new commute), I gifted them to someone with skinnier legs (For reference, my thighs are 65cm at their largest, so if you’re in that ballpark and ordering pants in this fabric, you might want to mention it). Wearing these, you can go out and shovel snow or run a snow thrower or whatever for a few hours, stomp your feet before you come indoors, and all the snow falls off, your legs are still warm, dry, and comfy.

The socks are a peculiar compromise; they’re not as stretchy and comfy as nicely knit socks, and there’s a seam down the bottom. But, they are super durable, warm, perform well even when (very) wet, and their durability extends to washing and drying; these are fire-and-forget.

Oversocks are a weird thing — super-oversized socks, you pull them on over your shoes. They are unusually helpful for keeping your feet warm, I do not know why. If you actually go for this, you may want to treat the bottom with Plasti-Dip — for that you put a shoe in a thin bag, put the sock on the shoe, find a pan/tray you don’t care about, and then “dip” the bottom of the sock in the Plastic-Dip (more detailed instructions and pictures).

Get the hats with earflaps. Ears get cold, right? If you’re up for a balaclava, you should get one, a stretch polar fleece balaclava is great. Know what your hat size is when you order, that matters.

Another thing to consider is a jacket. I ordered one once, and for me, it’s actually too warm, I almost never wear it biking and instead my son uses it. It’s light on pockets, but warm, comfy, and not incredibly bulky. Looking at the site just now, I see a Snowboard Jacket, and that looks really warm, and it has pockets.

So, my plan for cold winter days when I want/need to just hang around outside, is to wear a pair of thicker tights, the dammit hat, the boots I already own with a couple of pairs of socks (no overstocks), a scarf, and perhaps order myself a Snowboard jacket, with additional wool layers underneath as necessary. If that’s not enough, I have a yellow Land’s End stadium parka to toss over the whole mess that I’ve owned since forever. Gloves, I have some ski gloves for biking, those work. I’ve done this before on Boy Scout skiing trips to Northern Vermont, the goal is not just to survive the cold, but to be comfortable, even just standing around in it.

I’m updating this as I read more, the goal is to write it all down in one place, compactly, with the best information I have in the time that I have.

Senate races that are plausibly close, to donate or volunteer.  Sooner is better,  do what you can.

This guy says “Iowa, Kansas, Georgia, Montana, Alaska, Texas”.  He’s using the “race is close, isn’t rolling in dough already” rule.

Your money goes farthest in these smaller states:
Maine: https://saragideon.com
Montana: https://stevebullock.com/
Alaska: https://dralgrossak.com
Iowa: https://greenfieldforiowa.com

A special election, seated perhaps in time for a Supreme Court vote:
Arizona: https://markkelly.com

These races are also competitive and states not too large:
N. Carolina: https://calfornc.com
S. Carolina: https://jaimeharrison.com
Kansas: https://bollierforkansas.com

Got to hold the seats we’ve got:
Alabama: https://dougjones.com 
Michigan: https://petersformichigan.com 

Don’t forget the state legislatures, those are also important if we want to get rid of Republican gerrymandering: https://idlewords.com/2020/09/effective_political_giving.htm
TLDR? These are good choices from that article, for flipping state legislatures and some overlap with up-ballot turnout.
Swing Left Super State strategy
Sister District State Targets
State Slate Omnibus

These seats are possible:
Georgia: https://electjon.com
Texas: https://mjfortexas.com
Colorado: https://hickenlooper.com
other Georgia (special election): https://warnockforgeorgia.com/

Mitch McConnell sucks, but is decently ahead in the poll and his opponent has a lot of money
Kentucky: https://amymcgrath.com 

For more details: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/16/senate-seats-most-likely-flip-november/

I don’t know how well this actually works; it seems better to me, but since I am biased I don’t trust that.  I made a few for other people and nobody (except my neighbor’s daughter, who is perhaps being polite, but it I notice that hers hangs from the mirror in her car) has declared that it was awesome.  Nonetheless, with “normal” masks people have complained about speaking, complained about breathing (especially jogging and riding a bike) and this really does seem better to me.

First, a picture, so you can see what I put on my face:


Two straps, one an elastic (13”) behind your head, the other a shoelace cut in half and joined with a cord-lock behind the neck.  A nose wire to seal below the eyes, and darts to make it go under your chin.  This mask seals pretty tight and is not designed to be super easy to move up and down, though you can get it off your head with one hand (grab the cord lock at your neck, loosen, bring same hand around to grab your glasses, lift glasses and mask off your head, put glasses back on).

And, unlike most masks, a pointy noise that is held away from your mouth by a pair of coffee stirrers (5.5” long).  The pointy nose adds surface area and the sticks prevent it from collapsing when you inhale hard, as you might riding a bike or running, and as I am doing in this picture.

My current plan is to make most of these out of normal fabrics, nothing fancy (the one in the picture is 700 TPI cotton, and yes you can breathe okay through that until the mask gets sweaty.  It is a little more work; I later modified the mask in the picture to include a second elastic so that I didn’t lift it off my face exhaling, and then wore that mask for 6 miles riding a bike on a hot day.  But regular cotton is easier).  For personal protection, you can also make these out of Halyard H600, if you can get some (I have some).  Halyard’s not washable; one thing I’ve consider doing is just sewing a mask without the props out of Halyard and just put that on over whatever I am wearing when I go into a store, so I wear it only when I really need it protect myself.  Halyard is very good (it’s “medical wrap”).

And yes, it looks a little odd.  I don’t care, consider the situation that we find ourselves in and the fucking idiots that got us into it.  I want a mask I can wear, period, without running out of breath when I ride a loaded bike up a hill.  I think it also helps with talking, since my mouth is not directly against fabric.

So, what if you wanted to make one of these?  Here’s the pattern, at 100% and 110% (I wear 110%; I have a big head).  It is based on a design from the University of Florida Med School, but different fabric, different straps, and of course the most excellent pointy nose.

I made a bunch of pictures while I was sewing up a mask; ignore the fabrics (3 layers, different fabrics, polyester bike jersey is really a pain to work with), look at the sewing steps.  They are similar to the ones in the original UF design.

It’s possible, if you are good at sewing, to make most of the fuzzy edge be inside the mask.  I have managed to do that.  It is a little nicer that way.

And, also, if your mask gets wet enough (drenched in a rainstorm, for example) it’s just not possible to wear it.  The air can’t get through.

Not-quite post-pandemic, lots of people (including me) are not going to be super-enthusiastic about taking the T to get to work; unless everyone on the bus/train is wearing a mask and wearing it well, there’s some risk.  And with many other people sharing this opinion and electing to drive instead, it’s very likely that the roads and parking lots will be filled beyond capacity; driving will be slow and un-fun.  That doesn’t leave too many choices, a lot of people will be biking, I read that bikes are flying off the shelves.  If not biking, then perhaps using a skateboard, or some other small thing with a small electric motor in it; except for the reduced exertion, very much like a bicycle, much of what I say here will still apply.

Cambridge and Somerville have also recently designated some streets for no-through-car-traffic.

In my case I was already riding my bike most places  (literally, my everyday commute plus on-the-way shopping, over 3000 miles per year) so this is no change.  But for some other people this is a new thing.  Here’s my advice for how to enjoy it more. Why should you listen to me?  I’ve been biking for over 50 years, been commuting by bike on and off for over 30 years, over 2500 miles per year for the last 14 years, and exclusively by bike for the last five years.  I raced a little bit when I was a kid, worked in a bike shop for a little bit, I understand the logic and assumptions behind a lot of popular advice that I now think is wrong.  I have (ahem) made some mistakes, some of them painful, some of them merely a waste of money.

And before someone gets fired up about how “I cannot possibly bike because reasons, you are clearly an out-of-touch idealistic dirty hippie” — the first section below is all about things that will make a commute difficult on a bicycle and perhaps make it not your choice.  So not you.  But maybe, if you want traffic flowing faster than a walking speed, and some place to park when you finally arrive, somebody else might ride a bike?

I’d separate my advice into three parts — things that generally hurt a bike commute (that you can’t do much to control), bad things you can avoid, and things that help.  All of this is specific to the area where I live, and to commutes that are roughly parallel to mine, into Cambridge towards Kendall Square.

Things that hurt a bike commute

These things are part of your situation, that you cannot easily change, that will affect whether your commute is pleasant or not.  If too many of these are negative, you might not have a good time biking to work.

Long commutes.  Too long means it will take too long, and you’ll be too tired (especially at first) and perhaps more sweaty than you can tolerate.  I am a middling-speed rider, nowhere near as fast as I used to be when I raced.  I did a 10.5 mile commute a few days per week for about 9 years, so it’s possible, but notice how I didn’t do it every day.  It took too much time out of my week.  On the other hand, my current commute is just over 6 miles (almost exactly 10 km) and I am quite happy to do it every day, it takes less time than driving at peak rush hour, only a little more when traffic is flowing freely.  BUT — I’ve been doing this for years.  If your commute is five miles or longer, maybe start off by biking it on the worst days for driving, till you feel stronger. I made a point of doing my 10.5 mile commute on days when traffic jams were usually worst.

Hills.  Hills tend to be somewhat demoralizing, especially at first.  Shortest route for my old commute (9.5 instead of 10.5 miles) was up Belmont Hill to Park Avenue and up to the water tower in Arlington.  I could save a few minutes that way, but it was too much like work so I almost never did it and took the long way Instead.  This was actually a shame, because from an exercise point of view that sort of serious heart-pounding work is very good for you — but it was just too unpleasant to do it every day.

One additional problem with hills, especially if you are a (re)new rider — you can go very fast on the downhill side.  High speeds are much less safe than low speeds; drivers will misjudge your speed, you‘ll have less time to react, and if something goes wrong, the resulting crash will be much, much worse.  So, should you find yourself descending a hill at a good pace just coasting, then just coast, enjoy the short rest.

Lack of good bike parking. Ideally, there will be some place secure and protected from the weather.  A room or “cage” where the door requires a card for access is good, video monitoring is good.  You’ll need to lock your bike up anyway, because thieves sometimes manage to work their way past the door lock.  Bonus points for clean and well-lit; that’s often not the case.  For smaller vehicles, like electric skateboards, hover boards, or mono wheels, you might be able to store them at your desk instead, and you might want to charge them anyway.  One thing to be wary of is building (landlord) policies; where I work, bikes are not allowed indoors, and it’s possible that the electric batteries on some of these devices would be banned for “safety” reasons.  One problem with asking is that you might accidentally generate an anti-policy, as in “better to ask forgiveness than seek denial”.  So inquire carefully.

Despite all this, I frequently day-park a $2000 bicycle on the street in Kendall Square.  It’s near a cab stand, the cabbies know me, it’s also within view of the security guard’s desk.  It helps that it’s a weird bike (difficult to fence, easier to trace) that doesn’t look like it’s worth $2000.

Bad weather. Weather is less of a problem than people who drive think, but it can take some getting used to.  In the beginning, maybe you only bike when the weather is nice in the morning and predicted to be nice in the afternoon.  After a while, maybe you bike in the morning if the weather is nice, and if it turns bad (that is, rainy) on the ride home, that’s fine, change out of your wet clothes when you get home.  Eventually, you might just ride in the rain. There’s two reasons for this approach.  One is that it does take a certain mental load to do a new thing, and adding rain (and puddles, and potholes, and drivers who fail to adequately compensate for their reduced traction and vision) can be more than you want to deal with.  Second is that rain can be cold, and in the beginning you won’t be as strong.  “Strong” in this case has an aerobic component to it, and the stronger you are, the more heat you can make, and you can keep yourself warm.  But in the beginning this won’t work, and instead you’ll be cold and miserable.

Weather also includes high winds, and snow.  For large enough values of “high wind”, you can’t ride a bike, you’ll just be blown off of it.  For likely values of high wind, it will definitely interfere with your steering, and no-hands will be off the menu.  For snow, if there’s any chance of ice at all, you’ll want studded tires.  This is why you don’t start biking in the winter; studded tires are noisy and draggy, and when storing the bike you have to be more careful because they scratch everything.  The good ones (Schwalbe Marathon Winter) are also expensive.

Really hot weather will tend to make you sweaty, and the longer and hillier the commute, the more this is true.  If there’s showers at work, that can help, otherwise, many people bring or leave a change of clothes at work, and change.  Slowing down also helps.  But this can be a problem.

High-stress traffic.  There are higher- and lower-stress roads  My old commute was completely tolerable for the first eight miles, but the last 2.5 were horrible (out the Middlesex Turnpike into Burlington, past the mall).  Bad hills, bad traffic, and in the winter, terrible snow clearing.  My newer commute has no big hills, quiet neighborhood streets, a separate cycle track section, more quiet neighborhood streets, and finally a 2-lane stretch where there’s room for a bike but the car traffic is so clogged it must go slow.  Slow traffic is good because slow traffic is safe.  But, imagine if you have a commute that is entirely on terrible roads — is that really something you want to do every day?

Too much stuff to carry.  I put this here because it’s a common problem that isn’t really a problem if you decide that you really want to ride a bike —  with a cargo bike, or a trailer, a moderately experienced biker can carry silly amounts of stuff.  But this advice is not for the moderately experienced biker, this is someone starting from near-scratch.  It is generally a good idea to get a rack, front or rear, so you don’t have to carry a backpack all time; those can make your back all sweaty, and wear on your clothing.  I pack my work stuff in a backpack, but normally it rides on the bike.  If there’s enough shopping on the way home that the bike ends up completely full, then I wear the backpack for the last two miles home.

Things to avoid

These things make your commute worse, but you can avoid them, either when they appear, or by choosing routes where they are rarer.

Big trucks. Big trucks are deadly.  In the unlikely event of a crash with a car, your odds of survival are actually pretty good, walking away with bruises and scrapes is common.  That’s not so with a big truck — anything with exposed wheels that can roll over you, can kill you in an instant.  If it seems like a truck driver might want to pass you, find a way to make it easy, find a way to get lots of clearance.  Pulling off to the side is one way to do this.  One place to never, ever be is to the right of a truck at an intersection; when they turn right the rear of the truck tracks a tighter line than the front, and that might end up rolling over you.

Massachusetts Avenue.  Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge, especially west of Harvard Square, is not a safe place to ride a bicycle.  It is better now in places because some protected lanes have been added, but they’re not continuous.  It helps to know why Mass Ave is so unsafe, because it’s not the only unsafe road around here, it’s just the one you’re most likely to end up on.  First, it is mostly businesses, meaning parking for shopping, so cars are constantly parking and leaving and every time a car parks, its door opens.  That is, the risk of dooring is relatively high.  Second, it has more than one lane in each direction, which means that drivers have more things to keep track of besides you on a bicycle, and also that they will be looking for ways to use the other lane to go faster.   There’s other roads, use them when they get the job done.

Trolley and railroad tracks.  Trolley tracks and railroad tracks can grab your bicycle’s tires if you are traveling nearly parallel to the track and attempt to cross it.  This will throw you off your bike, it’s not fun.  So, avoid these, if you cannot avoid these, try to swerve so that you are nearly perpendicular to the track when you cross it.  If all that fails, stop, wait for traffic to clear, or just walk across.  Wider tires help, but it’s more a matter of better odds than solid protection.

Riding too close to the curb.  If it’s been a while since you were on a bike, you’re going to tend more wobbly.  At the same time, because you want to stay away from moving cars, you’ll tend to ride close to the curb or the edge of the road.  If you wobble into it accidentally, you’ll probably crash.  In time you’ll wobble less and can ride closer to the curb, but in the beginning it is about as dangerous as cars are.

Things to do

Get good tires.  If you’re commuting, you want the fattest smooth tires that will fit on your bike.  Thin tires aren’t good at tolerating potholes, require frequent reinflation, and you’ll feel every bump in the road.  They’re easier to get caught in cracks, and their rolling resistance is higher, which matters at typical commuting speeds (this is not conventional wisdom, but I’ve actually measured.  People use skinny tires for racing because at 20+mph the smaller tires have lower wind resistance.)  If you want a specific brand recommendation, Schwalbe.  One of the easiest bike upgrades is to replace the knobby tires on a mountain bike with Schwalbe Big Apples, Big Bens, or Fat Franks.

Get good lights.  Get spare lights.  You don’t want to be caught in the dark without lights, ever.  And it appears, based on one study of good quality, that running your lights in the daytime is also very helpful.  If you consider that cars and motorcycles tend to have daytime lights nowadays, and the number of times drivers will claim not to have seen the bicycle that they just hit, this makes a certain amount of sense.  If possible, get lights with a shaped beam so you can illuminate the road and be noticed by drivers, but also so you don’t blind pedestrians and other cyclist. Some people have real problems with bright light point sources, even in daylight (you may notice them wearing a hat with a brim).

Consider “upright” handlebars. You may discover, as an adult, that your hands and back are not as happy about that aerodynamic bent-over posture as they were when you were younger.  One fix for this is to replace racing handlebars with something “upright” — specific recommendations include Velo-Orange “Left Bank”, Rivendell/Nitto “Bosco” 52cm.  Sitting more upright is easier on your hands and back, makes it easier for you to see what’s going on, makes it a little easier for other people to see you, and if you need to stop fast, makes it a little less likely that you’ll go over the front of the bike (or so one study of moderate quality says).

Be nice to pedestrians. This ought to go without saying, but having watched other people and listened to how they describe these interactions, it needs to be said.  Be nice to pedestrians.  Stop for them when they are in a crosswalk (don’t just swerve around, the law says stop, they expect stop, so stop).  When you do pass them outside a crosswalk, try to pass wide, and try to pass behind, ideally both but at least one.  If you really really think that you need to say “on your left”, do you plan to wait for them to acknowledge you?  What if they are deaf? What if they are not paying attention? (That is legal, for pedestrians.)  What if they are listening to music or reading a book as they walk? (Also legal.)  It’s not your business to be the police for imaginary walking laws, and if not for you on a bike, there would be no problem, so yield, wait, be nice.

If you see small children or dogs, don’t assume that they are paying attention or using the same plan you are, assume that they could do something completely, nonsensically random.  My rule is that 3 kids or dogs means I should be traveling under 5mph with my fingers positioned on the brake levers — fast enough to pass someone walking, but also slow enough to stop on a dime.

Don’t run red lights.  It would be nice if we had Idaho stop, but we don’t.  The Cambridge police will ticket you for this, I have seen it.  All-ways pedestrian scramble is more ambiguous; technically you are running a red light if you ride, I have seen the Somerville police do this at the Mossland-Somerville-Beacon intersection (officer on bridge, over the railroad tracks, waiting to catch people coming from Mossland left onto Somerville, then taking a right onto Beacon).  It is, however, legal to walk your bike on a pedestrian scramble, since you are then a pedestrian.

Three simple tricks for saving time. For hills, work as hard as you can on the uphill, get your wind back on the down hill.  At stops, get yourself back up to a comfortable speed as quickly as possible.  Learn the light timings, and you’ll eventually figure out which lights you can make with a little extra effort, and which you cannot.  A block-long strategic push is easier, safer, and more effective than a last-minute sprint.

Consider slowing down.  If you feel like you’re too sweaty when you arrive at work, or the ride tires you out too much (especially at first), consider slowing down.  You’ll sweat less, be less tired, and you won’t be that much later anyhow — 6 miles at 12mph is 30 minutes, six miles at 10mph is 36 minutes (both of these, plus stops).

Other advice

https://twitter.com/jefposk/status/1258589011230126080 Twitter thread from another guy on a bike (SF)

https://bostoncyclistsunion.org/learn-to-bike-boston Web page, local bike org.

https://www.rivbike.com/products/just-ride Old fart in the bike industry with mostly-good opinions (we disagree mainly on top tube height, I think it should be lower or actually low).

I also enjoyed Bike Snob’s first book. Young fart, mostly-good opinions.

Tech guy here, not a real doctor, officially out of my area. That said, I wish to rant.

For this pandemic, there are a lot of things we can do to control it, and a common criticism is “but X won’t handle Y” (and this is true), and the criticism is posed as if it is a deal-breaker, we should just abandon X, it won’t work. This is wrong. Pile on enough imperfect measures, and you can shut down the epidemic, and as long as those half measures continue to be employed we might be able to “open up” many parts of the economy once the infection rate is low enough. One thing that motivates this criticism is a misplaced focus on what things like masks are for — the mask on your face is not to protect you, that mask is intended to protect other people from you. If the only thing protecting you is the single mask on your face, then it has to be supremely good, and nope, a cloth mask does not meet that standard, those good masks are relatively scarce and doctors and nurses need them because they are exposed to nearly 100% actual sick people. If, on the other hand, you are protected by the dozens to thousands of masks on the faces of all the people you might encounter in a given day, those masks don’t have to be nearly so good, just good enough (in combination with other measures) to stop the epidemic. 

So, first, a discussion about how an infection apparently progresses and spreads. To start, you get some virus in your mouth or eye or up your nose or whatever. A few days go by, and you become infectious. A few more days go by, and you may start to feel generic symptoms, maybe a fever, and are infectious. A few more days go by, and you may start to feel terrible symptoms, check with a doctor, whatever, you’re really darn sick, and infectious. Some people never show symptoms, and they may or may not be as infectious as the sick people, but we’ll assume they are. We’ll also assume that the number of people who don’t show symptoms is “about half”, meaning anywhere from 25% to 75% (this, from randomized sampling in Iceland, and from cruise ships full of old-ish people where everyone was tested and from naval ships full of healthy young-ish people where everyone was tested). There’s guaranteed to be a few days when you’re infectious but don’t feel sick, or think it might just be allergies, and it’s possible that you might be infectious for more than a week without ever feeling sick at all.

The fact that so many infected people are asymptomatic is not good news; it means that it’s much harder to rely on people feeling sick and staying home. It also means that nobody should assume that they are uninfected, which can be hard for some people to understand.

So, now, consider “half measures”:

  • Cloth masks. Cloth masks are far from perfect at stopping inbound, atomized virus (for example, measles). Atomized virus particles are tiny, and require an N95 mask to get someone to the point where they might feel “safe”. Depending on the cloth, cloth masks may not be that good at stopping even bacteria. Or they may be worn too loose to seal properly, or worn in a way that doesn’t cover the nose. But: cloth masks are pretty good at stopping you from projecting infection; if you happen to spray it instead of saying it, it stays in the mask. If you cough or talk loudly, the airflow is thwarted, the larger drops are captured, the medium-sized drops fall to the ground closer to you, the smallest ones are at least not propelled away from you in a puff of air. Perfect? No. But better. Suppose it cuts the rate of outbound infections by half per mask-wearer, and 2/3 of the people wear masks well enough to do this. That means the revised infection rate R’ is R0 * 2/3 * 1/2 + R0 * 1/3 * 1 = 2/3 R0. If R0 was 3, R’ is 2. The virus is still spreading, but not as fast, despite half-effective masks only mostly-worn correctly.
  • Contact tracing.
    The old way: Suppose, crudely, 1/2 the people with the virus have symptoms, and when this causes them to seek medical help, they are asked about their contacts. Suppose that they remember 1/2 of their contacts, who are then re-contacted, and quarantined. I.e., 1/4 of all cases, that would ultimately be both symptomatic and asymptomatic, are now intercepted and quarantined before they can spread the virus. I.e, R’ = 3/4 R0.
    With an app: Assume half the population uses the Google/Apple tracing app (this is actually very optimistic). Now, symptomatic cases, half (1/4 of total) do it the old way and half (1/4 of total) use the app. Naively, the app will yield perfect results for the half of the contacts that also use the app, and the other half have to be done the old way. It’s messy arithmetic, but R’ = 11/16 R0. We’d want more, but this is “free” — one reason to use the app is that it is far less costly, and quick. If we were lucky enough to get 70% of the population using the app, the math is even messier, but the factor is now:
        0.5 [asymptomatic, never traced] + 0.15 * 0.5 [no app, missed half of contacts] + 0.35 * 0.3 [contacts not using app] * 0.5 [half found through old-way tracing]
    or about 5/8. Suppose we couldn’t afford to do detailed person-by-person contact tracing — if 70% of the population used the contact-tracing app and we only relied on the app, the factor is still slightly below 11/16. What this means is that the app can still help when the number of infections is more than can be managed with person-by-person tracing. But if you don’t have at least half the population using the app, it isn’t helping that much.
  • Partial work-from-home. Not everyone can work from home, but many people can. If 1/8 of the workforce that would normally show up at work can stay home, that reduces the infection rate; everything is less crowded. Crudely, if 1/8 stays home, the infection rate is reduced by a factor of 7/8.
  • Partial testing. Testing every person every week or every two weeks is an enormous undertaking, and it doesn’t look like that’s happening soon in the US (I’d love to be wrong). Some jobs require lots of interaction with other people, which creates a high risk of infection for the person working that job and a risk of spreading that infection widely. Assume for the moment that this is the source of 1/4 of infections, mostly on the outbound side. To reduce the risk of infections, test these people frequently (for example, every Monday and every Thursday), and if they show positive, they are quarantined to prevent further spread.

Nothing here is perfect, but enough layers attacking infection spread from different directions can win. Take all these factors and multiply them: 2/3 * 11/16 * 7/8 * 0.75 = 0.3. Together, these are adequate to stop an epidemic that has a reproduction rate of 3, though it would take months (3 * 0.3 = 0.9 which is less than 1, but it would take 0.9 to the 11th power to get reduce the infection rate by 90%). Any improvement — more mask wearing, better mask wearing, wider use of a tracing app, more work from home, more widespread testing — means it can shut down the same epidemic more quickly, or stop a bug with more spread. Small changes matter a lot; if the reduced R0 is 0.8 instead of 0.9, an epidemic is stopped twice as fast (0.9 * 0.9 = 0.81).

Because small changes matter enormously, it’s helpful to examine why people might not do what they need to do, and think of ways to improve. Realistically, some people won’t stay quarantined. Some people might not quarantine immediately, which reduces its effectiveness. Suppose, you’re on your way to pick up your kid from day-care (will we have day care while we’re doing this? Pretend we will) and your phone buzzes and says “you were in close contact with someone who had COVID. Please quarantine immediately, then call this number.” So, do you pick up your kid? If you don’t, who does? If you arrange for someone else to do it, who pays the late pickup penalty? If the “quarantine now” demand comes with some assistance for unwinding your immediate obligations, you’ll be much more likely to do it. If you’re quarantined, what if you don’t have two weeks of food in your pantry? (Or, you don’t have a pantry.) Who does the shopping? This would be a good thing for a public health department to backstop (in some countries, they do just that). And what if someone has a job that cannot be done from home — do they lose their job if they stay home? Who covers their costs for the two weeks they’re not working? If there aren’t good answers to these questions, more people will either cheat on their quarantine, or try to avoid contact with public health officials altogether. That’s not how we stop an epidemic.

Or consider masks. Depending on how they are made and used, they filter inbound and outbound infections with varying efficiency. Workshop N-95 masks do a great job of protecting the wearer, but usually have a valve that allows them to bypass the filter when they exhale, so they hardly stop outbound infections at all. Surgical masks (not medical N-95 masks, which are another step up in quality) are quite good in both directions. On the other hand, surgical and N-95 masks don’t tolerate washing, so they’re harder to reuse. Cloth masks appear to be better at reducing outbound infection than they are at reducing inbound infection, but they can be washed.  If people can get good masks, they will, but if they have to make their own, the materials and fit will be somewhat random. For all kinds of masks the fit matters; if it’s not properly seated to your face, or if the nose piece isn’t snug around your nose, or if someone has the wrong arrangement of facial hair, they can leak around the edges pretty easily, and both transmit and receive infection.

One problem with masks is that many places actually have laws against wearing masks in public, and if people (in particular, not-white people) believe that mask-wearing will create a pretext for harassing them, they might not wear masks. Or, instead, if mask-wearing is the law, how is it enforced? If the first step in enforcement is arrest instead of handing out free masks, that’s not necessarily helpful. If the arrested person is actually infected, the steps to arrest them are quite likely to spread the infection, whereas handing them a mask reduces the spread right then. The traditional enforcement approach does not directly fix the problem, it instead (at outsized expense) “creates incentives” for other people to fix the problem, and just assumes that they have the means and ability to comply. What if they don’t?

Contact-tracing apps don’t work if they’re not widely used, and if they are opt-in they won’t be widely used, especially if people have fears about being tracked or spied on. It’s possible to design a protocol that is resistant to spying and hacking, but how many people will believe that claim? One “solution” to this is to make the app opt-out, or even mandatory; this will cause all sorts of loud objections from a tiny number of well-meaning people who care a lot about privacy, but in practice mandatory or opt-out will save lives.  The traditional contact-tracing process is not exactly privacy-preserving, either. On-the-other hand, a larger fraction of asymptomatic infections will reduce the effectiveness of contact tracing in general, because without frequent and widespread testing, nobody will ever check the contacts of asymptomatic infected people.

Another attack on the transmission problem is to try to remove some of the high-risk infection points altogether. Amazon has experimented with checkout-less shopping; the cart knows what you put in it and know who you are, and you are billed as you walk out the door. There is no cashier, either to be infected, or to spread infection. Bus drivers are at high risk; do they actually need to collect fares? Could collection be automated? Do there need to be fares? (No fares might result in crowding; perhaps we declare that a “full” bus need not pick up new passengers.) Jails and prisons are terrible for transmitting this infection; one way to fix this is to only jail people who really, truly need to be jailed — so for example, unless someone is arrested for a violent crime, maybe they don’t spend time in jail before trial, period. I.e., change it so the default is not to arrest — take the entire process, and make it as if you were arrested, had a bail hearing, posted bail, and were released. The current process is actually bullshit, because it pretends to merely be necessary process and not punishment all by itself, when obviously it is also punishment administered by police with plenty of bias and not much oversight. I’m sure there’s tons more of these, where “we’ve always done it this way” or “we have a process” get in the way of less infection and fewer dead people (I mean, seriously, what about traffic stops? “License and registration, please?” All the information’s on line in law enforcement databases, why should we be tasked with carrying around stupid little pieces of paper?)

It was useful to push some plausible (I hope they are plausible) numbers through and see what popped out. One result of this exercise is that I am much more gung-ho about mask-wearing than I was, and much more worried that contact-tracing will not be nearly as useful as people seem to think. I understand why people like contact tracing; they assume that they’ll never get infected, so it won’t be them having their privacy invaded by a public health official taking notes on exactly where they spent the previous week, and therefore they don’t have to do anything different at all, life will be great. “And why should I let Google and Apple spy on me, I’m sure they’ll just try to sell me more stuff,” so they won’t want to run any app, either. But if half the cases are asymptomatic and we’re not testing very thoroughly, contact tracing cannot reduce the reproduction rate by a better factor than 0.5. In addition, I think any work-from-home that can easily be continued after the economy opens up more is a good thing; it gives us a slight edge in preventing disease spread, where a “slight edge” might end outbreaks twice as quickly.

So, that’s my rant. Don’t dismiss infection control half-measures, combine a few of them and you get some real results. And don’t quit with the half-measure you’re doing just because some new control has been added, the old and the new can work together.

Dear Motorists,

You have surely noticed that streets have many fewer cars on them, and that the edges have many more cyclists and pedestrians.  I realize that it is tempting to indulge the fantasy that we have suddenly landed on the open roads of a car commercial and zoom freely, but please let’s not.

With the pandemic and the resulting stay-at-home, many people are not getting the exercise that they used to, whether at the gym, walking to transit, or biking to work.  Kids are stuck at home — no recess, no Phys. Ed., and playgrounds and town fields are closed to prevent the spread of infection.  Ordinary socializing, at dinner, at church, in coffee shops, wherever, has also stopped for the same reasons.  As a result, people are walking, jogging, and biking, often with their kids, far more than they did before, and also socializing (at a safe distance) with friends that they encounter on the way.  If they didn’t, they’d go buggy, and probably be a lot less happy.

But the sidewalks are tiny; if people walking are to maintain a 6 foot separation, someone has to step into the street when they pass, and if someone is biking in the street they also need to separate from that pedestrian that just stepped in the road.  People now need to use the street for purposes other than driving; it’s a public way, meaning everyone, and transportation in general (and because these are primarily town roads, they’re paid for with property taxes, not gas taxes).

At the same time, because of what this pandemic has done to the hospitals, the risk is greater if anyone makes a bad mistake, and mistakes involving cars are extra-bad.  Hospitals are full of people capable of spreading COVID-19, and medical resources have been allocated away from everything else.  It’s a bad time to visit an ER.  Crashes are rare, but they happen, and right now any crash is a worse crash because medical care is compromised.  The biggest source of risk comes from cars; we (I am a driver — did you think I was not?) need to drive extra-carefully to compensate for the increased medical risk, and for the increased number of pedestrians and cyclists on the road.

And yes, asking drivers to slow down and take more time at intersections is an imposition, but your car does a lot for you that isn’t zooming down the road, and it still does all those things if you drive more carefully.  It still keeps the rain off.  If you don’t like the temperature, it still fixes that for you.  If you’d like to listen to music, it comes with a stereo.  Maybe you need to carry two weeks worth of groceries — it does that, too.  If you hit a pothole, it’s damage to the car, not your ankle —the car ER is not full of coronavirus, and they’d probably really appreciate the business right now.  And in this pandemic, it is downright relaxing to not have to think about masks or separation or any of that stuff.  And also in this pandemic, at least for now, you have all the parking you could want — so enjoy that, it’s just like being in a car commercial.  Just, please, don’t drive like you’re in a car commercial; take your time, go extra slow, be prepared for other people to be using the road, and share it with them.

And also, thank you very much for driving so much less.  The air is much cleaner, it’s a good deal quieter, most drivers are decently careful, but not quite enough people, and it is so easy to be seduced into speeding by the big empty road.