By Tom Demerly for tomdemerly.com

Is road cycling dangerous? What are the chances of being hit by a car while riding on the road? Can cyclists manage risk while riding in a shared bicycle/car environment?

The perception is that road cycling is more dangerous today than a decade ago. And, that driver distraction and higher traffic volume have increased the risk and frequency of car/bike accidents.

There is one problem with this perception: The data does not support it. In fact, there is data to suggest that road cycling is statistically safer today per rider than ten years ago if you compare the frequency of reported accidents to the rate of growth in road and triathlon cycling.

Gina Kolata is a writer for The New York Times. In an October 2013 article published by the Times she wrote, “What remain [in cycling safety studies] are often counterintuitive statistics on the waxing and waning of cycling in the United States, along with some injury studies that could give cyclists pause.” By contrast, in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) 2004-2012 Final File, 2013 Annual Report File (ARF) published by the U.S. Department of Transportation we actually discover only a 2.8% increase in reported cycling fatalities, from 727 in 2004 to 743 in 2013. This statistic is particularly relevant since cycling fatalities must be reported by law, whereas non-fatal accidents have no formal reporting requirement even if the victim receives medical treatment.

Compare this change in cycling fatalities with the growth in the cycling sports: The Outdoor Foundation.org reports a significant “174% growth in Traditional Road Triathlon Participation in the last five years”. The foundation went on to report that, “Activities with high percentages of first-time participants in 2012 included stand up paddling, boardsailing/windsurfing and non-traditional and traditional triathlons.”

Even if you discount the statistics for cycling fatalities and triathlon growth each by 50%, the trend remains clear: Serious road cycling/car accidents are becoming less common per rider.

Why has the perception of road cycling evolved into a belief that riding on the roads in more dangerous than ever? There are likely several reasons.

When you conduct a survey of the literature on cycling accidents you discover that cycling safety statistics are pretty dry, while Facebook and social media posts about accidents are pretty sensational. This proliferation of social media posts about cycling accidents contrasted with boring accident analysis likely contributes to the misconception that cycling is more dangerous than ever.

This last decade has produced a new culture of sport cyclists, many of them attracted to cycling by triathlons. Triathlon is fed by several demographics; participants completely new to endurance sports, participants coming into triathlon from distance running, participants coming from a collegiate sports background. None of these three backgrounds emphasize technical bike handling skills. Few triathlon clubs conduct bike handling and group ride skills clinics. As a result this new culture of performance cyclists are racing their bikes on the roads in triathlons but may not be practicing bike handling and real-world road riding skills.

Road cyclists often default to anecdote when discussing cycling safety in traffic: “Yeah, but my friend knows a girl who was hit by a car and…”

As it happens, I am fluent in the language of cycling accident anecdote. I have been hit three times by cars while riding my bike. My lifelong best friend was killed by a car while riding his bike. I’ve had broken bones, torn skin, destroyed bikes and lost my best friend. A cursory examination of my first person experiences might point to a knee-jerk analysis like this: “See… the sport is dangerous, and your experiences prove it.”

But there is more to each of my experiences. In each instance when a car hit me I contributed, partially or entirely, to the accident. In one I was riding in adverse weather, another I rolled a stop sign on a residential street and the third was just after dark when I was caught without lights. In short, I was at least partially responsible for the accidents. In the instance when my best friend was killed, he was riding in the dark on a busy road with a high speed limit by a drunk driver with an obscured windshield. It was the culmination of the most dangerous factors; the perfect storm.

Therein lies a lesson: Risk can be managed and moderated, but that management must be willful and methodical.

Perhaps the best practitioner of risk management is the military. The military’s model for risk management is simple: Meticulous preparation. Training, learning techniques, drilling key skills again and again. Crawl, walk, run. As a result, soldier preparation and survival on the modern battlefield, the deadliest in history, is better than ever. On both the road and in the water, multisport athletes could take a lesson from military training doctrines in risk management and training for riding in a real world environment.

Cyclists have taken an opposite approach: Avoidance. New cyclists tend to seek ride environments they perceive as less risky rather than work on skills for riding in the real world. New cyclists gravitate toward perceived cycling preserves like Metroparks and bike trails.

There are three problems with the risk avoidance approach; it does not teach necessary cycling skills, it does not reflect the broader cycling environment and it creates a false sense of security at the possible cost of taking time to learn good bike handling and road cycling skills. In fact, in a strange flip-flop of statistical trends, it appears as though areas around Metroparks in Michigan tend to have a higher frequency of accidents than do remote, rural and even low traffic density urban roads like streets in Downtown Detroit and the Michigan Downriver area.

Perhaps the most significant contributor to the cycling-risk dogma is social media. I’ve been a victim, and a villain, of social media misreporting on cycling accidents myself. Several weeks ago a multiple-fatality car accident at a local Metropark was initially reported on social media as a cycling accident. It wasn’t a cycling accident. I shared the reports that the accident was a multiple fatality bike accident. When I learned the accident didn’t involve any cyclists at all, I deleted it from my Facebook page. But the story had already been widely seen and shared. The damage was done. What I should have done is checked the facts before I posted about the accident.

What is the truth about road cycling safety? I interviewed the executive director of the National Bicycle Dealer Association (NBDA), Fred Clements, about trends in road cycling safety. Clements, an experienced industry observer and critic, characterized it well:

“I would consider road cycling to be reasonably safe, though it has much to do with your skills, where you are, and what routes you choose. With reasonable care, the risk can be minimized. The risk is not as great as some people may believe.”

While some may suggest Clements’ perspective is skewed by his position in the industry- that this is the fox watching the hen house- the statistics support his suggestion that road cycling is not as risky as the social media dogma has scared us into believing.

A key reality is that cyclists must assume responsibility for their own safety. Until they do through improved skill training, selecting better routes and being pragmatic instead of sensational then the inaccurate perception that cycling is increasingly dangerous will continue to proliferate.

BY TOM DEMERLY.

A Victoria’s Secret ad run on Facebook after I used Photoshop to retouch back to what I thought were normal looking, physically fit females.

Top fashion brands like Victoria’s Secret have taken heat from consumers and media for manipulating the appearance of their models through both real diet and exercise regimes and also by using photo retouching techniques to make the models appear thinner, taller, and without skin blemishes.

I wondered what would happen if I used Adobe Photoshop to retouch a Victoria’s Secret ad seen on Facebook in the other direction. I wanted to make the models look more “average”, more like my impression of what physically fit females actually look like. Here are the results seen side by side.

The original ad on the left, my retouched version on the right. It took a lot of work to get rid of all that “thigh gap”.

The project took about 20 minutes in Photoshop, and I am not a skilled user. I used the “liquify” tool, the rubber stamp tool and the masking tool. For an expert in Photoshop the results would be better and quicker.

When I put the two photos next to each other I was struck by how truly bizarre the actual Victoria’s Secret ad looks. The two girls in the center with bare midriffs look truly weird in the real ad, and look a lot more realistic in my Photoshopped version.

The thing that struck me the most was that the ad I Photoshopped now looked pretty reasonable. The actual ad, before my Photoshop, looked freakish.

I don’t know how much (if any) Photoshop is done in an ad like this one for Victoria’s Secret. I do know it took 20 minutes of work to restore the image to my perception of a more normal, fit looking bunch of girls on the beach.

By Tom Demerly.

The heart and reality of modern triathlon is the everyday hero, not the thigh-gap supermodel.

Who does triathlons in the United States today? What does the “average” triathlete look like?

Industry dogma suggests all triathletes are high wage earners between 30 and 45 who aspire to race Ironman (or already have). They own a $10K bike, race wheels and a power meter. Their household income is above $120K and they have a graduate level degree. They are the marketer’s dream come true: Young, affluent, fit and shopping.

There are two problems with that “demographic”: it’s outdated and likely wrong. Why?

Set the way-back machine to December 2007. Economists agree this is when the Great Recession started in the United States. It ravaged personal discretionary income and decimated those just hanging on to upper middle class. Many haven’t recovered to pre-recession income and savings levels even though the recovery has thundered ahead, dropping them from the pack like a newbie on their first group ride. Those that have recovered or never suffered an economic loss may be reluctant to part with cash earned during the stock market gains of the past seven years. Americans seem less eager to carry debt, despite an ominous recent spike in credit card debt. Discretionary spending decisions have tightened in the post-recession era.

Many of the tired marketing statistics rehashed about triathlon were collected prior to the 2007 recession– and haven’t been updated since. The post-recession demographics for triathlon have changed.

Americans have also changed physically. We’re heavier- all of us. The number of svelte, uber-athletes is smaller now than it was 20 years ago relative to the general populace, who apparently has been spending what’s left of their shrinking discretionary incomes on Krispy-Kremes, not qualifying for Kona.

Americans, including triathletes, have gotten heavier and may continue to as a population. Triathlon has failed to market effectively to that reality.

As a result of this economic and health demographic shift triathlon has filled from the bottom. The sport is growing from an increasing number of new athletes who are more average, heavier, less athletic but still inspired to participate– if not necessarily compete.

This is good news for the triathlon industry if they become more pragmatic about who is really doing triathlons. History suggests the triathlon industry isn’t very realistic about its own consumership. It continues to (try to) market to the svelte, Kona demographic in print and internet media- even though the inspirational stories that bring people into the sport are usually the saga of the everyman participant who had to overcome to participate, and doesn’t really compete.

This fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction between Participation and Competition is what continues to hold the triathlon industry back. It is also why retailers have a hard time earning consistent profits from a market they are increasingly out of touch with.

There has never been an ad campaign in triathlon featuring realistically sized, average age group triathletes. In fact, the same rebellion that has happened in women’s apparel marketing with consumers raging against brands like Victoria’s Secret and Abercrombie & Fitch is ready to happen in triathlon. The middle 90% wants triathlon to “get real” about who is actually participating, and they don’t care about who’s racing in Kona.

Triathlete Niecia Staggs and his Ocean Swim Club at Torrance Beach, California represent the athlete constituency that truly pushes triathlon forward.

A gold standard metric for triathlon marketers and product managers has been the “Kona Bike Count”, a census of brands and models seen in the transition area of the Ironman World Triathlon Championships in Kona, Hawaii each year. This increasingly irrelevant set of metrics is still used to (try to) sell everything from race wheels to bikes to power meters. There is one problem though- as the sport fills from the bottom the assumption that every participant aspires to emulate the couple thousand athletes in Kona is statistically flawed.

A bike company may devote six figures and more to developing the next triathlon “super bike” costing over $5000 (and even $10K) but they have failed to develop inspiring new designs in entry-level triathlon bikes. If a bike company introduced a comfortable, high head-tube bike with aerobars and a comfortable saddle with an aero appearance at the $1500-$2200 price point it would be an easy decision for new triathletes. New triathletes aren’t interested in the tired marketing paradigm of wind-tunnel white paper dogma that is debated ad nauseam among a shrinking number of triathlon Internet forum mavens. They just want to sit upright on their bikes, be comfortable, look presentable and have a good experience at their triathlon.

Apparel and personal care brands have begun to leverage an inclusive, realistic approach to expand brand awareness and foster broader-appeal sales. Numbers say the approach is working.

Apparel manufacturers have missed the mark too, alienating prospective customers with images of sponsored pros with little or no recognition among average triathletes and building clothing that is too tight, too short and in size runs that are humiliating to try on. If a forward thinking triathlon apparel brand introduced a tactfully marketed apparel line called “PR” with upward-adjusted size runs, modest cuts and middle-road visual appeal they would outsell too-tight, mis-sized brands designed to fit anorexic Kona winners.

The idea of every triathlete being the “alpha consumer” isn’t accurate anymore. Triathlon has changed. The sport is filling from the bottom. It has become an “everyman and everywoman” sport. The vision of the triathlete as a super fit, alpha-consumer threatens the sport by becoming increasingly exclusionary. It fails to welcome new athletes and creates barriers to entry like body image and entry price.

There will be big and quick rewards for the first triathlon brands who acknowledge this in their product mix and marketing message. The money is there to make, but it must be earned through pragmatic product design and judicious, ego-free marketing. The first brands to reach the finish line of the new, realistic paradigm in triathlon marketing will be the new podium finishers on the top of the sales charts long after the “winners” of the Kona Bike Count are forgotten.

By  Tom Demerly.

Top: The semi-automatic sporting rifle possessed by Adam Lanza at the Sandy Hook Shooting. Bottom: An automatic M4 assault rifle used by the U.S. military and heavily regulated for public sale.

Nine families who lost children in the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School have filed a lawsuit against Bushmaster Firearms, the company that manufactured one of the weapons in possession of shooter Adam Lanza.

It is likely the lawsuits will fail to increase restrictions on the distribution and ownership laws of firearms in the U.S. Instead, the suit will continue to divert attention away from the central threat of firearms crime; conduct with a firearm, not the technical specifications of the firearm itself.

The primary reason the suit will fail to achieve meaningful reform of firearms legislation is a common misunderstanding of firearms nomenclature: The difference between an automatic assault rifle and a semi-automatic sporting rifle.

An automatic assault rifle has a mode of operation that enables the user to fire multiple shots with a single depression of the trigger: Pull the trigger back one time and hold it, bullets continue to fire. This is an “automatic weapon”. The sales and distribution of these weapons is restricted in most states to persons holding a specific permit that requires more documentation than other weapons.

A semi-automatic sporting rifle has a mode of operation that fires one bullet for one pull of the trigger: Each time the user fires a bullet they must pull the trigger. The sales and distribution of semi-automatic weapons is less restricted than automatic weapons.

This distinction should be straightforward. What has created confusion is the appearance of semi-automatic sporting rifles is sometimes nearly identical to fully automatic assault weapons.

We have already seen confusion between “semi-automatic” (one trigger pull, one shot) and “fully automatic” (one trigger pull, many shots) among lawmakers. There has been more than one press conference when a lawmaker has brandished a semi-automatic sporting rifle and characterized it as capable of firing “hundreds of bullets” inferring that the semi-automatic rifle they are displaying has fully-automatic capability. It doesn’t. And therein lies the reason why attempts to improve firearms legislation have failed.

Confusion may be understandable, although not excusable. Especially among legislators.

Semi-automatic sporting rifles like the ones manufactured by Bushmaster look like fully automatic weapons. The irony is they actually store less ammunition internally than more benign looking semi-automatic hunting rifles. Some models of hunting rifles, including semi-automatic and even bolt-action hunting rifles with a less military appearance house their bullets in an internal magazine that is a part of the rifle itself. The Bushmaster semi-automatic sporting rifle (remember, it wasn’t an automatic “assault rifle”) possessed by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook holds its ammunition in a separate external “magazine” or metal box that is attached to the rifle when loaded. The magazines for these rifles have assorted capacities that can vary with design. In California, the number of bullets these magazines can hold is restricted to a maximum of 10 bullets. The idea is that, a person is forced to reload their rifle after firing a maximum of 11 bullets (remember, the rifle can chamber or contain 1 bullet ready to fire and the 10 in the magazine a maximum of 11, 10+1=11). Presumably this is intended to limit the damage they can do.

While many firearms owners and manufacturers argue against firearms legislation reform, their adherence to outdated legislation has continued to polarize their position. Proactive reform of legislation with advocacy from the firearms ownership and manufacturing lobby is a more constructive approach.

If the contention of the complaint against Bushmaster is that the rifle Lanza used at Sandy Hook was a combat weapon with automatic capability, then the complaint does not have merit. If the contention is that the Bushmaster rifle used by Lanza is styled after a fully automatic assault weapon, that argument is factually correct. However, it is a difficult argument to prove the styling and appearance of the weapon somehow augment its lethality compared to other semi-automatic sporting weapons.

The problem with the Sandy Hook lawsuits is they do not focus on a central problem in mass shootings; management of potentially violent persons who may have a history of behavior that could lead to violence. This suit also fails to address another critical aspect of all gun violence; the responsibility of the owner of the firearm (any firearm) to secure it from use by other parties. This includes the distribution of firearms through negligence by failing to adequately secure them from theft. Interestingly, in the U.S. Army, failure to secure a weapon- any weapon- from theft or loss is one of the most serious offences, comparable to a felony in civilian terms and sometimes cause for less than honorable discharge, tantamount to a felony conviction.

Firearms owners argue their rights under legislation drafted well before modern firearms were engineered. The capabilities of firearms have changed significantly since the basis of our current federal firearms laws were drafted. It makes sense that legislation governing the ownership of firearms evolves as the firearms technology does. In nearly every other area of law, legislation has evolved with technology and society, often trailing it, but eventually adapting. Firearms law in the U.S. has somehow been largely excused from this evolution. That is remiss.

Furthermore, legislating firearms specifications is an ineffective approach to moderating firearms crime. Instead, improving legislation of firearms ownership liability is a more effective approach. Legislation that would compel firearms owners to secure their weapons or face stiff felony charges, even through their unintentional distribution through theft, need to be imposing enough so that every firearm owner understands the gravity and social responsibility associated with owning a firearm.