Boss Doesn't Want Me to Cycle

[Elisa Francesca Roselli]

Last Tuesday, I went to a meeting with some colleagues at the
Headquarters of the firm where I usually work in the Training Center.
The HQ is in a place about 10 kms from the Training Center, and very
inaccessible by public transport. The way there involves the first 8 km
practically all gently downhill, then a brutal ascent up a very steep,
windey forest road, then a rather bumpy dirt path. On the way back, the
topology is reversed - steeply downhill at the beginning and then an
upward faux plat all the way home.

I had tried the route by bike three times last summer and had got the
trip out in about an hour and a half. On Tuesday, I tried a different
route for the first time, got lost once, had to stop at every traffic
light to figure out the continuation, and took 2 hours 30 minutes to
cover the trip out of 9.56 km. On the way back, I walked almost the
whole distance, because even if and where it would have been easier to
cycle, I was too tired to trust my judgement on the road. Even though
her steering was fixed a few weeks ago, Behemoth is still rather wobbly
in low gears and at slow speeds, especially as fully loaded with company
documents and water bottles she aproaches 30 kgs, so I felt safer
pushing her along the sidewalk. Besides which those low speeds put
terrible pressures on my wrists and I didn't want them to go into spasm
again. As the temperatures were also well above 30 Celsius I was going
slow and drinking water frequently. The trip back took less time than
the trip out (yes, I do walk faster than I cycle), giving me a round
trip of 4 hours 30 minutes for a total 19.01 km, with 3 km per hour my
most frequent going rate. My heart monitor, which I took with me,
revealed that I was over my aerobic zone, in threshold or redline, for
about half of that time, and within it for the remaining half with no
time under. The monitor also showed that my max heart rate of 168 was
attained on the trip.

I did the trip out mainly within my lunch break and the trip back after
hours. I fully understand that 4 and a half hours to cover 19 km could
not be integrated cost-effectively into a work routine.

However, I know the trip out could be a lot faster once I learn the
"script" for the route. I believe it could be managed in about 1 hour 10
minutes, allowing a half-hour to ascend the hill at the end on foot
(where my heart rate tends to max out). The same journey by bus has
taken me 1 hour 10 minutes so the time is comparable, and the bike
offers much more freedom than the bus which only runs a few times a day.

But my supervisor is insisting that I am "not safe on the bike" and that
in future I must take a taxi for this trip, which might install itself
as something I need to do every Tuesday. I REFUSE! Meetings with the
Documenation team and closer liaisons with HQ have come about on my own
initiative entirely and one of my big reasons for doing this was to get
the opportunity to train up to bike commuting on the journey. If I have
to use stinky petrol to go, there isn't even a point ot it.

The cab trip would cost about 20 Euros one way and I would have to go
through a big rigmarole to claim it on the company. I would also be
stranded out there with no way to get back (except on foot) unless I
could persuade the company to disburse a further 20 Euros to get me home
or beg a ride from a colleague (and be entirely dependent on other
people's routes and schedules). Not only this is majorly inconvenient
but I can see eyebrows being raised about the expense and myself being
targetted as an unnecessarily costly employee at a time of company
cut-backs (I am the only Carfree person in the company but the French
have even less understanding of Carfreedom than they do of
Childfreedom). Alternatively, the bosses will try to force my colleagues
to give me lifts but the colleagues will resent it and I will have to
deal with their bad temper. My impression is that my supervisor dislikes
my rapprochement with HQ and is trying to punish me by playing up
transport difficulties and creating issues where there aren't any. I
also particularly resent the way these motorist assholes go on about my
"safety". Yes, I am terrified of road traffic which is why I spend so
much time on sidewalks. But whereas early death by road is a
possibility, early death by heart disease and diabetes is a near
certainty for me if I retain the sedentary lifestyle of the IT geek.

So it looks like I have some civil disobedience on the way. I WILL NOT
TAKE THAT CAB!.

EFR
Carfree By Choice in Ile de France

[Peter Clinch]

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:


> But my supervisor is insisting that I am "not safe on the bike" and that
> in future I must take a taxi for this trip

If he cannot justify this point in a tangible way (preferably in
writing) then unless you are in a company with a 17th Century grievance
procedure and you aren't in a union either I don't really see how it can
be forced.

> Besides which those low speeds put
> terrible pressures on my wrists

I don't really understand this. Speed shouldn't have any particular
effect on wrist load on a roadster bike, as most of your weight should
be on the saddle with your body sat straight up from it, and hands/arms
just resting on the bars. If you're leaning forwards with weight onto
the bars then move and/or change the bars is my advice.
It may also be part of why you have some problems riding one handed. If
there's weight leaned forward onto the bars, moving one hand off to
signal immediately unbalances the steering as the hand still on the bars
will push forward, no longer balanced by a similar push on the other
side. If you can get a bolt upright seating position it removes all the
stress from your wrists[1] and makes the steering easier.

Pete.

[1] more on your backside, of course, but a good saddle should prevent
problems there.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Roger Zoul]

Some advice: don't talk about stuff at work that you don't need to discuss.

Why does your boss have reason to fear for your safety? While I can't be
sure, it sounds potentially like a situation you created. I've seen similar
(not biking related) things happen before that were the result of too much
info given at work.

Still, I hope you work it out.


Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
:: Last Tuesday, I went to a meeting with some colleagues at the
:: Headquarters of the firm where I usually work in the Training Center.
:: The HQ is in a place about 10 kms from the Training Center, and very
:: inaccessible by public transport. The way there involves the first 8
:: km practically all gently downhill, then a brutal ascent up a very
:: steep, windey forest road, then a rather bumpy dirt path. On the way
:: back, the topology is reversed - steeply downhill at the beginning
:: and then an upward faux plat all the way home.
::
:: I had tried the route by bike three times last summer and had got the
:: trip out in about an hour and a half. On Tuesday, I tried a different
:: route for the first time, got lost once, had to stop at every traffic
:: light to figure out the continuation, and took 2 hours 30 minutes to
:: cover the trip out of 9.56 km. On the way back, I walked almost the
:: whole distance, because even if and where it would have been easier
:: to cycle, I was too tired to trust my judgement on the road. Even
:: though her steering was fixed a few weeks ago, Behemoth is still
:: rather wobbly in low gears and at slow speeds, especially as fully
:: loaded with company documents and water bottles she aproaches 30
:: kgs, so I felt safer pushing her along the sidewalk. Besides which
:: those low speeds put terrible pressures on my wrists and I didn't
:: want them to go into spasm again. As the temperatures were also well
:: above 30 Celsius I was going slow and drinking water frequently. The
:: trip back took less time than the trip out (yes, I do walk faster
:: than I cycle), giving me a round trip of 4 hours 30 minutes for a
:: total 19.01 km, with 3 km per hour my most frequent going rate. My
:: heart monitor, which I took with me, revealed that I was over my
:: aerobic zone, in threshold or redline, for about half of that time,
:: and within it for the remaining half with no time under. The monitor
:: also showed that my max heart rate of 168 was attained on the trip.
::
:: I did the trip out mainly within my lunch break and the trip back
:: after hours. I fully understand that 4 and a half hours to cover 19
:: km could not be integrated cost-effectively into a work routine.
::
:: However, I know the trip out could be a lot faster once I learn the
:: "script" for the route. I believe it could be managed in about 1
:: hour 10 minutes, allowing a half-hour to ascend the hill at the end
:: on foot (where my heart rate tends to max out). The same journey by
:: bus has taken me 1 hour 10 minutes so the time is comparable, and
:: the bike offers much more freedom than the bus which only runs a few
:: times a day.
::
:: But my supervisor is insisting that I am "not safe on the bike" and
:: that in future I must take a taxi for this trip, which might install
:: itself as something I need to do every Tuesday. I REFUSE! Meetings
:: with the Documenation team and closer liaisons with HQ have come
:: about on my own initiative entirely and one of my big reasons for
:: doing this was to get the opportunity to train up to bike commuting
:: on the journey. If I have to use stinky petrol to go, there isn't
:: even a point ot it.
::
:: The cab trip would cost about 20 Euros one way and I would have to go
:: through a big rigmarole to claim it on the company. I would also be
:: stranded out there with no way to get back (except on foot) unless I
:: could persuade the company to disburse a further 20 Euros to get me
:: home or beg a ride from a colleague (and be entirely dependent on
:: other people's routes and schedules). Not only this is majorly
:: inconvenient but I can see eyebrows being raised about the expense
:: and myself being targetted as an unnecessarily costly employee at a
:: time of company cut-backs (I am the only Carfree person in the
:: company but the French have even less understanding of Carfreedom
:: than they do of Childfreedom). Alternatively, the bosses will try to
:: force my colleagues to give me lifts but the colleagues will resent
:: it and I will have to deal with their bad temper. My impression is
:: that my supervisor dislikes my rapprochement with HQ and is trying
:: to punish me by playing up transport difficulties and creating
:: issues where there aren't any. I also particularly resent the way
:: these motorist assholes go on about my "safety". Yes, I am terrified
:: of road traffic which is why I spend so much time on sidewalks. But
:: whereas early death by road is a possibility, early death by heart
:: disease and diabetes is a near certainty for me if I retain the
:: sedentary lifestyle of the IT geek.
::
:: So it looks like I have some civil disobedience on the way. I WILL
:: NOT TAKE THAT CAB!.
::
:: EFR
:: Carfree By Choice in Ile de France

[dwb]

"Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
...
> Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
>
>
> > But my supervisor is insisting that I am "not safe on the bike" and that
> > in future I must take a taxi for this trip
>
> If he cannot justify this point in a tangible way (preferably in
> writing) then unless you are in a company with a 17th Century grievance
> procedure and you aren't in a union either I don't really see how it can
> be forced.

My company, a large multinational, views the use of bicycles and motorcycles
for company purposes in a dim light, mainly due to the higher risk of
injury.

Their thought process would seem to be that if you have an accident on
company time, you will blame the company - in a way I can see their point -
they have a responsibility to your health and safety whilst you are working.

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...

....

> So it looks like I have some civil disobedience on the way. I WILL NOT
> TAKE THAT CAB!.
>
> EFR
> Carfree By Choice in Ile de France

Well said! I hope you can come to a reasonable conclusion.


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[Peter Clinch]

dwb wrote:

> My company, a large multinational, views the use of bicycles and motorcycles
> for company purposes in a dim light, mainly due to the higher risk of
> injury.
>
> Their thought process would seem to be that if you have an accident on
> company time, you will blame the company - in a way I can see their point -
> they have a responsibility to your health and safety whilst you are working.

But is that their perception or a higher risk that turns up in hard
figures? Pedestrians and young drivers are actually more at risk from
head injuries than cyclists on the road, for example: do they take a dim
view of people walking if they're adjacent to roads, or driving if
they're relatively inexperienced?

If they can put serious numbers on their objections then they'll have a
point. If they can't or won't it suggests it's just an ill informed
perception from management who are largely unaware of cycling reality.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[James Annan]

dwb wrote:

> My company, a large multinational, views the use of bicycles and motorcycles
> for company purposes in a dim light, mainly due to the higher risk of
> injury.

I think you should ask them to justify that prejudice or abandon it.
What do they think about car v train use, for example?

James

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:22:29 +0100 someone who may be "dwb"
> wrote this:-

>My company, a large multinational, views the use of bicycles and motorcycles
>for company purposes in a dim light, mainly due to the higher risk of
>injury.

ISTR that walking is more dangerous than riding a bike. Do they
object to that?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:46:27 +0200 someone who may be Elisa
Francesca Roselli >
wrote this:-

>But my supervisor is insisting that I am "not safe on the bike"

Does your supervisor have a religious view that it is not safe to
ride a bike, or are they amenable to reason?

>I
>also particularly resent the way these motorist assholes go on about my
>"safety".

"Safety" is often trotted out when the real reason is different.

>Yes, I am terrified of road traffic which is why I spend so
>much time on sidewalks.

There are ways of cycling that remove much of the terror for many
people.

>But whereas early death by road is a
>possibility, early death by heart disease and diabetes is a near
>certainty for me if I retain the sedentary lifestyle of the IT geek.

Phrased differently this might be a good argument to use.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...

....

> >But whereas early death by road is a
> >possibility, early death by heart disease and diabetes is a near
> >certainty for me if I retain the sedentary lifestyle of the IT geek.
>
> Phrased differently this might be a good argument to use.

Or even with the same phrasing (just translated into French, of course).


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 09:21:21 -0400 someone who may be David Kerber
> wrote this:-

>In article >,
says...
>
>...
>
>> >But whereas early death by road is a
>> >possibility, early death by heart disease and diabetes is a near
>> >certainty for me if I retain the sedentary lifestyle of the IT geek.
>>
>> Phrased differently this might be a good argument to use.
>
>Or even with the same phrasing (just translated into French, of course).

I would end the sentence with, "if I have a sedentary lifestyle."


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

[[Not Responding]]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:20:37 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
> wrote:

>Some advice: don't talk about stuff at work that you don't need to discuss.

A motto that has seen me well in life; "it's easier to ask forgiveness
then to ask permission". Following this line means you avoid the
corporate kneejerk "No" to any unusual request.

>Why does your boss have reason to fear for your safety? While I can't be
>sure, it sounds potentially like a situation you created. I've seen similar
>(not biking related) things happen before that were the result of too much
>info given at work.
>
>Still, I hope you work it out.

[Gawnsoft]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:46:27 +0200, Elisa Francesca Roselli
> wrote (more or less):
....
> my supervisor is insisting that I am "not safe on the bike" and that
>in future I must take a taxi for this trip, ...

This should be a refutable statement. If you can find no stats
specific to France, ther eare stats available showing what exposure to
var=ious forms of traffic lead to an expectation of fatality for the
UK.

Cycling is, perhaps counter-intuitively to your boss, safer than other
forms.

Can someone else point Elisa to a place where the stats are
published?


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Peter Clinch]

[Not Responding] wrote:

> A motto that has seen me well in life; "it's easier to ask forgiveness
> then to ask permission".

hmmmm. See
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20040531.html

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Roger Zoul]

David Hansen wrote:
:: On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:46:27 +0200 someone who may be Elisa
:: Francesca Roselli >
:: wrote this:-
::
::: But my supervisor is insisting that I am "not safe on the bike"
::
:: Does your supervisor have a religious view that it is not safe to
:: ride a bike, or are they amenable to reason?
::
::: I
::: also particularly resent the way these motorist assholes go on
::: about my "safety".
::
:: "Safety" is often trotted out when the real reason is different.
::
::: Yes, I am terrified of road traffic which is why I spend so
::: much time on sidewalks.
::
:: There are ways of cycling that remove much of the terror for many
:: people.
::
::: But whereas early death by road is a
::: possibility, early death by heart disease and diabetes is a near
::: certainty for me if I retain the sedentary lifestyle of the IT geek.
::
:: Phrased differently this might be a good argument to use.

I wish....the problem is that Elisa is doing this for work, and if there is
a preception (no matter where it came from) that cycling along a given route
is unsafe, then the employer must act in both the best interest of the
employee and the company. One can easily argument that one can address a
sedentary lifestyle outside of work hours. Of course, bossman can't stop
her from riding durning lunch or to/fro work. But bossman might have
something to say about riding during work hours.

[John Everett]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:46:27 +0200, Elisa Francesca Roselli
> wrote:

>Meetings with the
>Documenation team and closer liaisons with HQ have come about on my own
>initiative entirely and one of my big reasons for doing this was to get
>the opportunity to train up to bike commuting on the journey. If I have
>to use stinky petrol to go, there isn't even a point ot it.

I may be an avid cyclist, but I'm also a former executive with a
Fortune 500 company. The above says it all. Seems to me the only point
of the meetings is to give you an opportunity to get in some cycling.
If that's the case cancel the meeting! You should have no expectation
that your company will pay for time spent on your bike.


jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

[Mark Thompson]

>> my supervisor is insisting that I am "not safe on the bike" and that
>>in future I must take a taxi for this trip, ...
>
> This should be a refutable statement. If you can find no stats
> specific to France, ther eare stats available showing what exposure to
> var=ious forms of traffic lead to an expectation of fatality for the
> UK.
>
> Cycling is, perhaps counter-intuitively to your boss, safer than other
> forms.
>
> Can someone else point Elisa to a place where the stats are
> published?

For the UK:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7250&Pos=&ColRank=
1&Rank=272

short(ish) link to the same thing:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D69F13988

Click on excel option to get nicely formatted table, the general option
thingy to get ugly, unformatted version.

[Ben A Gozar]

From your supervisor's point of view, having you with what are
considered important company documents on a bicycle with an admittantly
questionable ride in high temperatures is not the safest way to get
around. Especially when you take the very high (30C?) high temperature
and low gears into consideration? What if you were to become injured or
suffer from a heat related trauma?

If making your living isn't worth making a stand about the cab, I would
negotiate cab fare compensation with my supervisor. If it is important
for the company that you make this meeting and take a cab in between for
health/safety reasons, then the company should willingly and happily pay
for it.

I have seen coworkers make stands on the many trivial issues, and some
have lost jobs (and lifestyle) over it. While their ego may have felt
justified and satisfied, losing their income and not being able to match
it with another income even close to the one they gave up, was not worth
listening to their ego imo. You should really yhink about whether taking
a cab or not is more important than what you are doing for a living. If
it is so be it, you can go to sleep with a happy soul.

Please keep in mind too, that we offer up advice off our cuff at times
as there is nothing at stake for us in the advice we give. jmho

[Pat Lamb]

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
> The cab trip would cost about 20 Euros one way and I would have to go
> through a big rigmarole to claim it on the company. I would also be
> stranded out there with no way to get back (except on foot) unless I
> could persuade the company to disburse a further 20 Euros to get me home
> or beg a ride from a colleague (and be entirely dependent on other
> people's routes and schedules). Not only this is majorly inconvenient
> but I can see eyebrows being raised about the expense and myself being
> targetted as an unnecessarily costly employee at a time of company
> cut-backs (I am the only Carfree person in the company but the French
> have even less understanding of Carfreedom than they do of
> Childfreedom).

I'd suggest a sneakier approach than outright refusal. Go ahead and
take a cab both ways next week. File a reimbursement claim (I assume
said boss has to sign it, right?). Don't push it, put it in the system
and let it go.

If you haven't been reimbursed by the following week, ride your bike,
because you haven't been reimbursed for last week's cab rides, and
continue until you get the check. With luck, you'll have a couple of
safe weeks under your tires before the check comes back, and nobody will
care any more.

Pat

[Peter Clinch]

Roger Zoul wrote:

> I wish....the problem is that Elisa is doing this for work, and if there is
> a perception (no matter where it came from) that cycling along a given route
> is unsafe, then the employer must act in both the best interest of the
> employee and the company.

But he won't be. He'll be acting in the interests of the company as
seen through a false perspective, which isn't the same thing at all! He
should be able to justify his view of the company's best interests, and
if the best he can do is "because I said so" then that's what things
like unions and grievance procedures are for.

> her from riding durning lunch or to/fro work. But bossman might have
> something to say about riding during work hours.

If she's wasting company time that's a good reason in itself, but if
that's the problem then that is the reason that should be given. But
the given reason is safety, which I suspect is a case of this guy being
Certificate Clueless about the real risks of cycling.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[trg]

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:
> Last Tuesday, I went to a meeting with some colleagues at the
> Headquarters of the firm where I usually work in the Training Center.
> The HQ is in a place about 10 kms from the Training Center, and very
> inaccessible by public transport. The way there involves the first 8
> km practically all gently downhill, then a brutal ascent up a very
> steep, windey forest road, then a rather bumpy dirt path. On the way
> back, the topology is reversed - steeply downhill at the beginning
> and then an upward faux plat all the way home.
....
> EFR
> Carfree By Choice in Ile de France

Where is your work located and where is your meeting? Maybe Those of us who
bike in the area can suggest an optimal route.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> I wish....the problem is that Elisa is doing this for work, and if there
is
> a preception (no matter where it came from) that cycling along a given
route
> is unsafe, then the employer must act in both the best interest of the
> employee and the company. One can easily argument that one can address a
> sedentary lifestyle outside of work hours. Of course, bossman can't stop
> her from riding durning lunch or to/fro work. But bossman might have
> something to say about riding during work hours.

Worse, bossman may have either a contrived or real concern regarding the
reliability of Elisa's chosen method of transportation. There could also be
a concern on the part of bossman regarding whatever the French equivalent of
worker's compensation is, given that Elisa has spoken of "terrible pressure
on my wrists and I don't want them to go into spasm again." And then
there's the simple practicality of this particular trip by bike, given that
the bike, loaded down, weighs over 60 pounds. That's a lot to handle,
either riding or pushing, and it's apparent that Elisa isn't yet up to
Lance's caliber of riding.

Finally, as far as safety is concerned, it's not always going to be the case
that a given cyclist can safely navigate a given route. Could be that Elisa
has no choice but to use roads that are quite hostile to cyclists in
general, and require a degree of skill & strength that isn't possessed.

I hate to sound like I'm negative towards an attempt to use cycling in one's
daily life, but there may be issues here that go beyond the norm.

By the way, if Elisa would be interested in posting the beginning & end
points of the route, I'd possibly be able to check it out late July, when
I'll be spending some time in Paris. Heck, my daughter will even have a
video camera... we could film a documentary! Just kidding... but I am
curious.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[Pete]

"Elisa Francesca Roselli" >
wrote
>
> But my supervisor is insisting that I am "not safe on the bike" and that
> in future I must take a taxi for this trip, which might install itself
> as something I need to do every Tuesday. I REFUSE! Meetings with the
> Documenation team and closer liaisons with HQ have come about on my own
> initiative entirely and one of my big reasons for doing this was to get
> the opportunity to train up to bike commuting on the journey. If I have
> to use stinky petrol to go, there isn't even a point ot it.
>
> The cab trip would cost about 20 Euros one way and I would have to go
> through a big rigmarole to claim it on the company. I would also be
> stranded out there with no way to get back (except on foot) unless I
> could persuade the company to disburse a further 20 Euros to get me home
> or beg a ride from a colleague (and be entirely dependent on other
> people's routes and schedules). Not only this is majorly inconvenient
> but I can see eyebrows being raised about the expense and myself being
> targetted as an unnecessarily costly employee at a time of company
> cut-backs (I am the only Carfree person in the company but the French
> have even less understanding of Carfreedom than they do of
> Childfreedom). Alternatively, the bosses will try to force my colleagues
> to give me lifts but the colleagues will resent it and I will have to
> deal with their bad temper. My impression is that my supervisor dislikes
> my rapprochement with HQ and is trying to punish me by playing up
> transport difficulties and creating issues where there aren't any. I
> also particularly resent the way these motorist assholes go on about my
> "safety". Yes, I am terrified of road traffic which is why I spend so
> much time on sidewalks. But whereas early death by road is a
> possibility, early death by heart disease and diabetes is a near
> certainty for me if I retain the sedentary lifestyle of the IT geek.
>
> So it looks like I have some civil disobedience on the way. I WILL NOT
> TAKE THAT CAB!.
>
> EFR
> Carfree By Choice in Ile de France

Your boss has a few concerns, some justified, some not.

Safety aspect - typical in the non-riding populace.
Time aspect - If this is during the workday, he may have a semi-valid
concern about the time thing. If it takes you 2+ hours round trip by bike,
thats 2+ hours out of your workday, just to get back and forth to a meeting.
How long does it take by car (cab)?
"If the other people can get there in 20 minutes, why can't you?"

Is there more than one than one person going from your HQ to the Training
center and back at the same time? If so, then carpool, every time! Not just
you, everyone! This week, Marie drives, next week Pierre drives, the week
after that, Marta drives...
Organize the rotation, push it as cheaper and more comfortable for the
individual employee, get the bosses support if you can (...in the interest
of time and efficiency, blah, blah, blah...).

Being car-free does not have to mean never, ever using motor transport. Just
be judicious in how it is used. And "civil disobedience" is not always good
when it's your boss. Choose your battles. Using work time for bike training
is usually not a good battle.

Pete

[Tanya Quinn]

> slow and drinking water frequently. The trip back took less time than
> the trip out (yes, I do walk faster than I cycle), giving me a round
> trip of 4 hours 30 minutes for a total 19.01 km, with 3 km per hour my
> most frequent going rate. My heart monitor, which I took with me,

While I fully agree that you should be able to use your transportation
method of choice so long as you aren't billing the company for the
time it takes to do so - why not walk if you can walk faster than you
cycle? (assuming there's space to do so the whole way) And if you do
walk faster than you cycle, maybe you could find some cyclist training
somewhere near where you are, because it actually seems to me to be
quite quite difficult to ride at 3km/h. Its almost certainly to cause
a lot of knee pain to go at that speed. Even to go at a still quite
leisurely pace of 15 km/h (with the exception of the steep uphill)
you'll save yourself tons of time!!

I'm also sure your co-workers should have no problem taking you along
if they are going over at the same time, and although it may feel
against your principles, they are going to take their car there anyway
so might as well fill the space in it.

But yeah, someone telling me I can't cycle because its not safe would
be enough to make me really angry at them.

[Pat]

> But yeah, someone telling me I can't cycle because its not safe would
> be enough to make me really angry at them.

paternalistic.

[Jacques Moser]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:46:27 +0200, Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:


> (...)(I am the
> only Carfree person in the company but the French have even less
> understanding of Carfreedom than they do of Childfreedom).

What do you mean by the French not having understanding of Childfreedom ?

[Pat]

>
> > (...)(I am the
> > only Carfree person in the company but the French have even less
> > understanding of Carfreedom than they do of Childfreedom).
>
> What do you mean by the French not having understanding of Childfreedom ?

People not getting married and having children? or getting married but not
having children? Living their adult lives without children and having
somebody thinking ill of them because they don't want to procreate?

Pat in TX

[garmonboezia]

Peter Clinch > wrote in news:cacefj$t4n$1
@dux.dundee.ac.uk:

> http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20040531.html

Or better yet:

http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Hopper.Danis.html

(Excerpted from the website,)

Admiral Hopper was also famous for a remark she made on television in 1983.
She said " It is much easier to apologize that to get permission". She
explains this in her interview with Voices of America "... I want them to
go ahead and do it. I've seen that happen in the Navy. There was one young
lieutenant junior grade, and he was ordered to a very small ship; the Navy
thought it was too small to have a computer. He was in the administrative
department so he took his own computer aboard with him. In a very short
time he had the ship's records in his computer; he was getting all the
reports out on time; everything was going beautifully. When he was
transferred, the captain had to buy his computer as the ship could not run
with out it any more. He didn't have to apologize. He did it.".

[loki]

I guess it depends on one's circumstance but if my boss told me to stop
bicycle commuting - after I stopped laughing - I'd suggest he insert the
tail pipe of his truck into his mouth and blow.

But then I've been told I have a 'problem with authority'

--
'I'm a man.
But I can change.
If I have to. -Red Green's
I guess.' The Man's Prayer

[Tim Hall]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:46:27 +0200, Elisa Francesca Roselli
> wrote:

<snip>
>
>So it looks like I have some civil disobedience on the way. I WILL NOT
>TAKE THAT CAB!.
>


Soyez réaliste, demadez une bicyclette


Tim
--
For those who have trouble distinguishing, cynicsm, sarcasm, humour etc,
try mentally inserting smilies thoughout my post until it either
matches what you'd like to read, or what you'd expect me to write.

(Jon Senior urc)

[H. R. Bob Hofmann]

As a person with supervisory experience, I believe the reason for not
approving bicycling to the meeting is a liability issue. ASsuming that
a 4-wheel vehicle is safer than a 2-wheel vehicle is probably correct,
and the boss wants to not be liable for your demise or injury, so he
recommends the safest possible way to get to the meeting, Since the
meeting is on company time, and you are going from one company
location to another, you are definitely on company business and they
are responsible for your safety to some degree or another.

IF the boss recommends you take a cab or other 4-wheel vehicle, and
you do, and there is an accident, the conmpany is probably liable for
your injuries.

IF you do not follow the recommendation, and your are injured on your
bicycle, you may have a hard time collecting from your company since
you violated their recommendation on transportation. You could still
sue, but your chances of collecting are not too good since you
violated your company's advice.

Now, if they don't pay for you to get from one location to another,
and it has to come out of your own pocket if you take a cab or other
payable transportation, and you take your bicycle, you might have a
much batter chance of collecting in case of an accident. Please let
us know what you decide to do.

H. R. Hofmann

[Pete]

"H. R. Bob Hofmann" > wrote

> ASsuming that a 4-wheel vehicle is safer than a 2-wheel vehicle is
probably correct,

That may be an incorrect assumption.

It might easily be the way the boss thinks, but it is not necessarily
correct. Would the boss have pitched a bitch if her normal mode of transport
was a motorcycle (provably less 'safe' than a car)? Doubtful.

A bicycle is, in many eyes, an abnormal mode of transport. "Be normal. Drive
a car." To be sure, the bike may well take longer than something motorized.
Which is where the boss's real concern comes in. And pretty justifiable.

Pete

[Bernie]

Pete wrote:

>"H. R. Bob Hofmann" > wrote
>
>>ASsuming that a 4-wheel vehicle is safer than a 2-wheel vehicle is
>>
>probably correct,
>
>That may be an incorrect assumption.
>
>It might easily be the way the boss thinks, but it is not necessarily
>correct. Would the boss have pitched a bitch if her normal mode of transport
>was a motorcycle (provably less 'safe' than a car)? Doubtful.
>
>A bicycle is, in many eyes, an abnormal mode of transport. "Be normal. Drive
>a car." To be sure, the bike may well take longer than something motorized.
>Which is where the boss's real concern comes in. And pretty justifiable.
>
>Pete
>
>
How about "don't be an eccentric, be like everyone else". I work in a
sales agency, and oddballs are not wanted. Management wants us all to
appear successful and "normal".
Big surprise! We are all human instead, all hiding our real humanity in
order to appear "normal" - except me, unfortunately, because I appear
every morning on a bicycle. (I do dress for business when I am there tho).
I think management's desire for us all to be "normal" is a big kicker
though.
The safety issue is bogus imho.
Bernie

[S o r n i]

Elisa Francesca Roselli wrote:

{big ol' snip -- story had to do with riding bike to mandatory weekly
meetings}


My question would be, if it takes 2+ hours each way, that's at least half
the day spent riding your bike. Could it be your employer prefers that you
/work/ during that time?

An exaggerated example would be if an east coast company had, say, monthly
meetings on the west coast. If an employee hated flying and wanted to drive
or even take a train, no employer would allow that due to lost time
(presumably on the company's dime).

Bill "or am I missing something?" S.

[Ian G Batten]

In article >,
S o r n i > wrote:
> An exaggerated example would be if an east coast company had, say, monthly
> meetings on the west coast. If an employee hated flying and wanted to drive
> or even take a train, no employer would allow that due to lost time
> (presumably on the company's dime).

Dennis Bergkamp got away with it. But then, he's Dennis Bergkamp.

ian

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

S o r n i wrote:

> My question would be, if it takes 2+ hours each way, that's at least
> half the day spent riding your bike. Could it be your employer
> prefers that you /work/ during that time?

Read the original: two hours going, of which one is personal time (lunch);
return is also in personal time. So only one hour is lost to the company,
for which they geta round-trip to an office which is (as I read it) more
than half an hour's drive away.

Guy

[Jeremy Parker]

>
> But my supervisor is insisting that I am "not safe on the bike"

I've no idea what the French figures are, but here in Britain
swimming is about five times as dangerous as swimming. You could
comment with something to that effect.

Also your boss's statement, as you have written it in English, is
rather ambiguous. He could be implying that your behaviour makes you
in particular at risk, or he could be saying that he thinks cycling
in general is dangerous. It's probably too late to ask him which.

You might try to confuse him by telling him that he is not worried
enough about cycling on the road. There are probably whole classes
of accidents that he has not thought about. After all, as he drives
along in his car he is not going to murder the cyclists he sees on
the road. There are usually too many witnesses, for a start. The
people your boss is going to kill are the cyclists he doesn't see.
He needs an education in what the usual kinds of accidents are.

Jeremy Parker

[Roger Zoul]

Bernie wrote:
:: Pete wrote:
::
::: "H. R. Bob Hofmann" > wrote
:::
:::: ASsuming that a 4-wheel vehicle is safer than a 2-wheel vehicle is
::::
::: probably correct,
:::
::: That may be an incorrect assumption.
:::
::: It might easily be the way the boss thinks, but it is not
::: necessarily correct. Would the boss have pitched a bitch if her
::: normal mode of transport was a motorcycle (provably less 'safe'
::: than a car)? Doubtful.
:::
::: A bicycle is, in many eyes, an abnormal mode of transport. "Be
::: normal. Drive a car." To be sure, the bike may well take longer
::: than something motorized. Which is where the boss's real concern
::: comes in. And pretty justifiable.
:::
::: Pete
:::
:::
:: How about "don't be an eccentric, be like everyone else". I work in
:: a sales agency, and oddballs are not wanted. Management wants us
:: all to appear successful and "normal".
:: Big surprise! We are all human instead, all hiding our real
:: humanity in order to appear "normal" - except me, unfortunately,
:: because I appear
:: every morning on a bicycle. (I do dress for business when I am
:: there tho). I think management's desire for us all to be "normal" is
:: a big kicker though.
:: The safety issue is bogus imho.

They all secretly envy you, Bernie.

[Bernie]

Roger Zoul wrote:

>Bernie wrote:
>:: Pete wrote:
>::
>::: "H. R. Bob Hofmann" > wrote
>:::
>:::: ASsuming that a 4-wheel vehicle is safer than a 2-wheel vehicle is
>::::
>::: probably correct,
>:::
>::: That may be an incorrect assumption.
>:::
>::: It might easily be the way the boss thinks, but it is not
>::: necessarily correct. Would the boss have pitched a bitch if her
>::: normal mode of transport was a motorcycle (provably less 'safe'
>::: than a car)? Doubtful.
>:::
>::: A bicycle is, in many eyes, an abnormal mode of transport. "Be
>::: normal. Drive a car." To be sure, the bike may well take longer
>::: than something motorized. Which is where the boss's real concern
>::: comes in. And pretty justifiable.
>:::
>::: Pete
>:::
>:::
>:: How about "don't be an eccentric, be like everyone else". I work in
>:: a sales agency, and oddballs are not wanted. Management wants us
>:: all to appear successful and "normal".
>:: Big surprise! We are all human instead, all hiding our real
>:: humanity in order to appear "normal" - except me, unfortunately,
>:: because I appear
>:: every morning on a bicycle. (I do dress for business when I am
>:: there tho). I think management's desire for us all to be "normal" is
>:: a big kicker though.
>:: The safety issue is bogus imho.
>
>They all secretly envy you, Bernie.
>
>
:) nice thought! I ride because I want to live and be well. I'm too
old to worry about about the opinions of my "alright and up tight"
colleagues.
"Envy"? You should see the eyeballs roll when I breeze in on a rainy
November morning. I don't think it's envy. In fact, I believe they
(mainly) haven't a clue that I am enjoying my commute - they shudder at
my imagined suffering. They are too insulated to understand. (Cept for
my employer, bless him!)
Keep rolling! Life IS good.
Bernie

[Leo Lichtman]

"Jeremy Parker" wrote: (clip) here in Britain swimming is about five times
as dangerous as swimming. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now, THAT's a fascinating statistic. How was the survey done?

[loki]

"Leo Lichtman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeremy Parker" wrote: (clip) here in Britain swimming is about five
times
> as dangerous as swimming. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Now, THAT's a fascinating statistic. How was the survey done?

Well they took a control group of 25 swimmers and told them to go ride a
bike. Then they took 25 cyclists, tossed them into a lake while clipped in
and told them, to sink or pedal.

:)


--
'Keep on riding north and west
Then circle south and east
Show me beauty
but there is no peace.' -rush

[Gawnsoft]

Elisa wrote (more or less):
>>> my supervisor is insisting that I am "not safe on the bike" and that
>>>in future I must take a taxi for this trip, ...
>>
>> This should be a refutable statement. If you can find no stats
>> specific to France, ther eare stats available showing what exposure to
>> var=ious forms of traffic lead to an expectation of fatality for the
>> UK.


"...
Contrary to the impression created by cycle helmet legislation,
cycling on public roads is a low-risk activity. One hour’s use of a
bicycle in Britain is not more likely to result in road death than one
hour of driving, and is most probably less likely [5], because the
risks imposed on third parties by cyclists are trivial. An increase in
cycling at the expense of driving would almost certainly reduce road
deaths. Cycling ought to be treated as a means to address the worst
road injuries, not a major cause of them.

The salient issues are that a) cycling levels are too low, and b)
cycling is misperceived as dangerous when it is not. Practitioners
should address these problems to achieve a favourable public health
outcome.
....

(5) Wardlaw M. Assessing the actual risks faced by cyclists. Traffic
Engineering and Control (Dec) 2002;43:420-5."

Wardlaw,M., Letter to Injury Prevention, [on-line],
http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/9/3/266, Accessed: 19th june
2004
--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Rick Onanian]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 02:14:13 +0100, Gawnsoft
> wrote:
>"...
>Contrary to the impression created by cycle helmet legislation,
>cycling on public roads is a low-risk activity. One hour’s use of a
>bicycle in Britain is not more likely to result in road death than one
>hour of driving, and is most probably less likely [5], because the
>risks imposed on third parties by cyclists are trivial. An increase in

While it may be sufficient to convince her boss, there are three
reasons why that is not applicable to the OP's question:

1. Comparing risk per hour is great if you're choosing between
driving for an hour or riding for an hour (as in recreation), but
the time spent will be different, while the _distance_ remains the
same. A more appropriate statistic to use would be per kilometer.

2. Her boss wasn't concerned about third-party risk. His expressed
concern was for _her_ safety; so the statistic should be limited to
driver/rider risk.

3. I believe her other option was not driving herself, but rather
public transportation. Comparing to driving, then, is entirely
irrelevant.

Maybe the statistics exist that would work properly for the OP's
situation, but the quote above certainly does not include them.
--
Rick Onanian

[Gawnsoft]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:00:26 -0400, Rick Onanian >
wrote (more or less):

>On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 02:14:13 +0100, Gawnsoft
> wrote:
>>"...
>>Contrary to the impression created by cycle helmet legislation,
>>cycling on public roads is a low-risk activity. One hour’s use of a
>>bicycle in Britain is not more likely to result in road death than one
>>hour of driving, and is most probably less likely [5], because the
>>risks imposed on third parties by cyclists are trivial. An increase in
>
>While it may be sufficient to convince her boss, there are three
>reasons why that is not applicable to the OP's question:
>
> 1. Comparing risk per hour is great if you're choosing between
>driving for an hour or riding for an hour (as in recreation), but
>the time spent will be different, while the _distance_ remains the
>same. A more appropriate statistic to use would be per kilometer.

In urban conditions, often a bicycle is /faster/ than a car, therefore
time at risk would also be smaller.

At worst, the car and bike times are roughly comparable


> 2. Her boss wasn't concerned about third-party risk. His expressed
>concern was for _her_ safety; so the statistic should be limited to
>driver/rider risk.

True - but these stats are more difficult to come by. (and yes, I
realise that it's a 'looking for keys under the lamppost' affair).

To what extent car drivers are likely to kill without being killed is
a key issue, but unlikely, I would suggest, to be overwhelming. (It is
difficult to see how a driver could be likely to kill another
motorised vehicule user without exposing him/herself to a similiar
degree of danger. A significant number of those killed in the UK in
motorised RTAs are motorised vehicle users. Taken together, this
suggests that the difference will be significantly smaller than an
order of magnitude effect.)

> 3. I believe her other option was not driving herself, but rather
>public transportation. Comparing to driving, then, is entirely
>irrelevant.

No, as the boss would have no objection to her driving, or being
driven, on safety grounds. (The fact that Elisa would not drive is,
therefore, the irrelevance).

>Maybe the statistics exist that would work properly for the OP's
>situation, but the quote above certainly does not include them.

And I disagree, for the reasons stated. (barring point 2, the
significance of which is arguable)


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 04:47:12 +0100, Gawnsoft
> wrote in message
>:

>It is
>difficult to see how a driver could be likely to kill another
>motorised vehicule user without exposing him/herself to a similiar
>degree of danger.

- driver of vehicle fitted with airbag crashes; passenger (no airbag)
dies
- car T-bones car; driver hit dies due to inadequate side impact
protection

That sort of thing. But it's less unequal than car v bike, for sure.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University