A few weeks ago we became aware that our carbon fork does not meet our expectation for product safety.  We have seen a couple forks begin to crack around the steerer tube and one had the steerer tube separate entirely from the fork legs.  Thankfully, the rider was not seriously injured when the separation occurred.

We’ve conducted 3rd party testing and have concluded that the problem we’re seeing is the fork was designed to be stiff so that under braking, the legs would not wander around creating a noodly fork feel.  An unanticipated by-product of this leg stiffness is that the fork legs aren’t moving at all during regular braking and in turn, all of the braking force is passed up to the crown.  These forces are over time will lead to potential failure.

We are in the process of contacting all of the bike shops that have purchased forks, or Hylands with the forks installed.  The dealers will be working to contact all of the consumers that have purchased Hyland bikes or Hyland carbon forks.  100% of the Civia carbon forks are affected by this recall.

If you own a Hyland that has a carbon fork, or have purchased the Civia Carbon fork, please contact your dealer for information about how to go about obtaining a replacement Civia steel fork.  We are also extending a credit to the consumer through the bike shop as compensation for the change in value from carbon to steel.  For more details of the recall, please contact the dealer you purchased your Hyland or carbon fork from.

Beginning now, all Hyland complete bikes are coming with Civia steel forks.  Pricing has been adjusted accordingly so that now Alfine builds are retailing for $1,575 and Rohloff builds for $3,250.

They have done this project in conjunction with the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy and have a “Report a Problem” tool to allow you to suggest changes when the route Google produces need changing. Based on listserv and forum discussions going on today, there are already several Austin specific changes that will need to be made including most obviously the inclusion of the Hike & Bike Mopac bridge and the Shoal Creek trail system.

At the most basic level, those wanting to support cycling resources can sign the People for Bikes pledge here which says:

I am for bikes. I’m for long rides and short rides. I’m for commuting to work, weekend rides, racing, riding to school, or just a quick spin around the block. I believe that no matter how I ride, biking makes me happy and is great for my health, my community and the environment we all share. That is why I am pledging my name in support of a better future for bicycling—one that is safe and fun for everyone. By uniting my voice with a million others, I believe that we can make our world a better place to ride.

There are also other great organizing tools and ways to spread the word to friends, family, and co-workers.

This system should be installed by this summer.

Tuesday night, the City of Austin Urban Transportation Commission met to review the current progress on plans to create Austin’s first bicycle boulevard on Nueces Street. A group of property owners who oppose the project spoke in addition to members of the cycling community who spoke in support of concept. No new points of opposition were brought up but several previously mentioned points were, points that have been addressed as factually incorrect yet are still being spouted by this group.

Included in the criticisms were:

• parking will be removed (false)
• automotive traffic will be prohibited (false)
• street access to current properties will be removed (false)
• emergency vehicle times will be impaired (technically true BUT fire and EMS consider these delays negligible for response time)
• we don’t have the money (false, voter approved bond money is already set aside for this project)
• the bike boulevard will hurt businesses and property values will decrease (unproven PLUS all Austin and national data on traffic calming say the opposite.)

Although each of these issues have been addressed and corrected, the property owners are continuing to use these misleading statements to call for a delay or removal of the project from Nueces Street. What is most disconcerting is that two of the city selected property owner representatives for a committee to draft a compromise plan, Scott Sayers and Susan Harris, used some of these discredited points in their presentations. How can we expect a good faith solution from the stakeholder committee if members are continuing to make these statements in public?

Earlier this week, we saw a conspiracy theory floated against the cycling community by a business owner. He claimed we are all organizing through our blogs to ride more on Nueces Street to improve the traffic counts in a traffic study that is being done right now. Unfortunately, it was pointed out that the days and time of the traffic counts were unannounced to protect the integrity of the data. Also, I have not see a single cycling blog in this city suggest trying to skew numbers. Possibly are the bicycle counts higher than the opposition wants? Hey, if you don’t like the results, just make things up, right?

As I predicted earlier once Rio Grande was put into serious consideration, property owners on that street express similarly irrational NIMBYism. Indeed, a couple Rio Grande owners spoke at the UTC in opposition. We heard lots of people say how much they support cycling just as long as nothing is done to impede as much automotive traffic as possible. This seems truly patronizing and disingenuous. I believe you cannot create facilities that will encourage new cyclists to ride without a trade off in automotive traffic volume and speed.

The fact that the opposition is making wild accusations and repeating false statements does not bode well for finding a good faith compromise that will create a true bicycle boulevard and making these owners happy. I do not think the cycling community has much room to move here except to come out in strong support of a bike boulevard plan such as the League of Bicycling Voters proposal. The LOBV has an online petition supporting this plan you can sign online here.

City staff recommend ending 9:00 PM free swim at Barton Springs Pool

At Wednesday night’s Parks Commission meeting, there was a hearing to consider removing the 9- 10 PM nightly free swim at Barton Springs Pool to charging the $3 entrance fee charged during regular hours. The free swim at the pool has become very popular with large social bike rides causing a sharp increase in the number of people using the pool. This measure is seen as a way to offset staff costs and possibly reduce the numbers. Public input is being taken until February 25th. Anyone who wants to chime in with comments can contact the aquatics office at aquaticsoffice@ci.austin.tx.us.

Saturday, Jan 30^th – Traffic Laws and Crash Avoidance (optional hosted ride Marathon Preview)

Saturday, Feb 13^th – The Bicycle from Parts to Fit to Tools (optional hosted ride Another Pleasant Valley Bike Ride)

Saturday, Feb 20^th – Basic Maintenance and Flat Repair (optional hosted ride Southern Culture Off the Grid)

Saturday, Feb 27^th – Group Riding Skills and Etiquette (optional special event Group Ride)

Saturday, Mar 13^th – Handling Basics and Hazard Avoidance Maneuvers (optional hosted ride Hill of a Ride)

All the classes will be held at 8:30 AM at Mellow Johnny’s Bike Shop, 400 Nueces St. Each class is $50 or $25 if you are already an ACA member and you can register online. (Join ACA at the $25 membership today, and you’ll pay the same as one class and get the others at a discount!)

The CAMPO Transportation Policy Board met last night to (among other things) decide which of a handful of projects should be selected for implementation given a $5M pool of available funds.  City Staff had recommended selections, but because of recent changes (mainly fiscal-related), the board directed a new analysis, which resulted in a reshuffling of the selections.  Originally, City Staff had
recommended the 360/183 intersection improvements, but the reshuffled selections didn’t include that project.

The short story: There’s good news, and bad news.

The bad news is that the proposed (and Staff-recommended) improvements for the 183/360 intersection were NOT included in the list of projects that the board approved for implementation.

But, there are several bits of good news.  The board approved a project to improve Brushy Creek in Cedar Park.  That one item consumed the lion’s share of the funds (at some $3M out of $5M available).  The good news there is that that section of roadway will be improved with both sidewalks and bike lanes.

In the end, the decision came down to which alternative most completely utilized available funds, and the board-proposed selections evidently did a better job of that than did the Staff-selected ones,
especially given changes in project implementation costs.

But, perhaps the best outcome of the meeting was that it became clear in the minds of the board members that the 360/183 intersection truly is an area of concern, and that the project needs to have priority in the next round.  The likely outcome will be that the project will be approved in a year, best I can figure–possibly sooner.

Long-time bicycle advocate, Tommy Eden, was there with me to speak to CAMPO.  I believe that our comments were very well received. Afterwords, Tommy related to me a sense that things are really
changing.  After many years of consistently giving the cycling community the short shrift when it comes to allocating resources toward cycling infrastructure, Tommy feels like they are now finally
starting to “get it.”  And, Chris Riley spoke quite masterfully to his fellow board members, providing a very compelling case for trying to make up for past negligence.  Of course, the proof will be when we see some real commitment.

In short, we still have  a long way to go, and there’s a LOT of work ahead, but early signs are that our efforts are having the desired effect–not as fast as we’d like, but we’re getting there.  We just need to keep on ‘em.

-Lane

PS I do want to throw out a plug for Annick and her crew in Bike/Ped (including our new teammate, Nadia).  They work their butts off, and do a fantastic job.  Most of the improvements you see today are because of them.  It sucks that they won’t (yet) have the opportunity to do the much-needed 360/183 project, but I’m sure they will not be sitting still.

We encourage you to attend the CAMPO meeting tonight or contact their offices directly to request these facilities be reinstated.

CAMPO Transportation Policy Board
Wednesday, January 20, 2009 at 6:00 p.m.
Joe C. Thompson conference center, University of Texas Campus, Room 2.102
Dean Keeton (26th Street) and Red River Streets, Austin Texas 78723

The bicycle’s fork legs can separate from the fork crown and cause the rider to lose control, posing a risk of serious injury if the rider falls.

The firm is aware of three reports of forks separating with minor injuries reported in one of the incidents.

This recall involves all 2010 Redline Conquest Pro Cyclocross bicycles and framesets. The bicycles and framesets were sold in pearl white/blue and have aluminum frames with carbon fiber forks and aluminum steerer tubes.

These bikes were sold at bicycle specialty stores nationwide between August 2009 and November 2009 for about $1,900 for the bicycle and about $550 for the frameset. They were manufactured in Taiwan.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and framesets and contact their local Redline bicycle dealer to receive a free inspection and fork replacement.

For additional information contact Redline Bicycles at (800) 283-2453 or visit the firm’s Web site at www.Redlinebicycles.com.

With the Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen remains very much in the news especially on the bike front. As a city with a dominate car culture until the 1970s, Copenhagen pulled back from the gasoline induced sprawl most of the Western world embraced and now has 37% of commuter trips and over 50% of other everyday trips taken by car.

In the last week, StreetFilms produced this video with of some of the latest bicycle infrastructure innovations in Copenhagen with Copenhagenize author Mikael Colville-Andersen.

Some of the improvements include:

• Counter of bike traffic for planning records and civic pride
• Double bike lanes on high bike traffic routes
• Separate stop lights for bikes allowing bike a 5-10 second head start before cars are allowed forward
• On-street bike lockers for cargo bikes
• LED lights embedded in the road warning drivers not to turn right when bikes are approaching in the inside lane
• And my favorite: Stop lights synchronized to the speed of bikes allowing bike movement without stops

Copenhagen is not letting up with a goal of 50% bicycle commuting by 2015. And lest you say “well, that’s Denmark, it will never work here”, the Practical Cyclist reminds us that these proposals met resistance from the public when first implemented. Danish urban planner Jan Gehl who is credited with spearheading the changes that made Copenhagen a cycling mecca says the initial response he got was “We Danes will never agree to this—Danish people won’t ride bikes.”

If the Danes can go from bikes being outside of the norm to a beacon of transportation cycling, than so can we. Couldn’t we all use a little more Copenhagenization?