A note on sources

Many of these posts were written in response to news items in local papers, over a number of years. I'm sending them up, as is, because I think they illustrate particular aspects of cycling - at least as a form of driving - that need our attention. 

The Motor Vehicle Act (Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1996, Chapter  318) is the governing legislation I drive under - whether by bike or car. It mandates the use of helmets by all cyclists, at all times. It requires us to light up, during hours of darkness - or at any other time when, in my opinion as operator, it would be prudent and necessary. It requires both head and tail light to be fixed to the bike - white aimed forward, and red back - and permits me to use a blinking light "that is of a design approved by ICBC". (To my knowledge, though I've not specifically researched this, ICBC - the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia - the Crown Corporation who is our primary insurer on the roads - ALL drivers must purchase basic minimum insurance through them - has not yet signed off any tail-light designs as specifically meeting requirements.) The Act specifically states that a cyclist "has all the rights and privileges of a driver", and then goes on to enumerate a few things specifically for ourselves - lighting and helmets being the brunt of the matter.

This last is good, though it is marred, in my view, by the section of definitions, that specifically removes the bicycle from the definition of a vehicle. As an aside - how one can be a driver, when one is NOT driving a vehicle is a legal conundrum beyond my powers of logic. The only thing I can figure, is that, since the primary thrust of the act is concerned with MOTOR vehicles, whenever one says vehicle, one assumes it is motorised, that the descriptive adjective is redundant. I far prefer the Ontario Statute, where a bicycle is still defined as a vehicle, and, under one clause is specifically permitted to be away from the curb, and at the centre-line, when approaching a left turn into another street, or into a driveway. Otherwise the two acts are almost identical. 

I grew up in Ontario, but moved out to this coast in the mid-60's. I've no desire to leave, thanks to an equable climate that allows and encourages riding all year round.

So - when I cite my local legislation, I specifically invite YOU, gentle reader, to do likewise, wherever you live. Know your local laws. That way, you will have some basis for your claims, when you have to complain to police.

I'd be glad to help compare local laws, if you would be so kind as to send me back links, so that I can check them myself. No, it's not (quite) a nasty, suspicious mind. I took my degree in Linguistics, but my study love has always been History. One thing one learns, or should, in getting a basic undergraduate degree is HOW to study, how to master a subject, how to research and interpret what one has found, and how to present it, to make sense of something, for someone else for whom it is just another essay. That's, really, all I'm trying to do here.

Bike Riders should pay for Roads

I take some exception to Mr. Kidd's comments in this morning's paper. As a driver, whose family has two motor vehicles, but who regards his bike as his "go-to" vehicle, I find his reasoning fallacious. It would appear that he is under the impression that all road costs are derived solely from taxes on fuel. This is not so, and for good reason.

In the first place, these are PUBLIC streets, owned by the Crown or the Municipality, and open to ALL, without regard to affluence, race, citizenship, age, or residence - let alone mode of travel. The costs of maintenance have been, always, met out of General Revenue, rather than from specific, tied taxes. This is so for two vital reasons: a) It is a principle of Parliamentary Government that Expenditure shall be only at the vote of the governing body - Parliament, Legislature, or Municipal Council. b) The benefit of Public Roads is for all people, not just that restricted class that drives in motor cars. Otherwise, it would be illegal for my children or grandchildren - or Mr. Kidd's, for that matter - to walk along the side of the roadway (the sidewalk), to and from school. It would also be illegal for an aged relative, still ambulatory but no longer a motorist, to go for such a walk. Or does he wish to impose tolls on sidewalk users?

As for paying, I know that fuel taxes were introduced to raise revenue to IMPROVE public streets - for the benefit of motorists - about 80 years ago. My father and grandfather were involved in this effort in Ontario at that time. But note, please, that the revenues were for the improvement of roads, and principally those outside municipal jurisdiction (rural Highways). If all roads were to be paid for strictly by the users, we would not, in all likelihood, be able to drive from here to Mt. Washington, for example. Or, if we could, it would be a much slower journey, with restrictions on start times. It would also be far more expensive, with costs rising during the winter (when we wish to go there) to pay for clearing - if it be done at all.

As it is, I have not noticed that I pay significantly less property tax because I am a cyclist. I pay the same sales tax as everyone else. I pay the same license fees, and the same insurance premium for my cars. When I do drive the car, and park, I pay the same parking fees. Income taxes? The only reason mine might be lower than others is that I am partly retired, and have moved to a lower income bracket. The point here is that cyclists pay the same taxes as everyone else, and get the same privileges and services from the state as everyone else.

He states that motorists are paying more than their fair share of road costs. How so? As a cyclist, I find that a narrow road works just as well as a six-lane spread of asphalt. I can (and have, for half a century) travel just as quickly on gravel as on pavement. I do not need thousands of dollars-worth of reconstruction annually, because bicycles do not pound ripples in the pavement, as was the case at Finlayson and Blanshard, or Fort St., by the Jubilee Hospital. I do not need acres of land made impervious to rain, just to let my machine stand, so that rain-water immediately flows into the creeks and storm-drains, and creates instant floods. All these are at the demand of motorists, who scarce can move, now, if the road is not smooth as a billiard table.

 Don't blame it on me, pal. Look to your own habits and demands, and (please) put a cheque in the mail to City Hall, to pay for your own costs.

 

Cyclists and the Law

A fellow enthusiast of mine said he refused to wear a helmet - not because of safety, for he freely admitted that he would be safer with it - but because he felt the Law to be demeaning and patronising. To some extent, I would agree with him. I do not feel that a law should be there solely to protect a fool from the inevitable results of his folly. Yes, safety laws have a place. Their thrust must be to protect others from the results of that same folly. I will let the reader develop examples of this.

For what worries me about this attitude is that it sets me - the chooser - above the law. I am now deciding what parts of the law - which I expect everyone else to accept - shall apply to me. The folly of this is that, logically, what I demand for myself I must grant to others. If I can decide that the helmet law is demeaning, and should not (or need not) be obeyed, then I must accept that So-and-so has the right to decide that speed restrictions, or drinking/driving restrictions do not apply to him. He could even decide that a legal judgement that he not be permitted to drive was an unwarranted intrusion on his personal freedom.

The result is, not greater freedom, but Chaos. If we accept this premise, then there is no traffic law. Any one can do whatever he likes. But - and here is the catch - he is now at the mercy of everyone else. He cannot rely upon others doing the normal thing. He cannot rely upon position as a clue to what someone is going to do, much less public signals. There would be no reason to believe that, in this case, a driver at the centre-line of the road, and showing a left-turn signal WAS, in fact, about to do so. He could just as well decide, without looking, to turn right, or go straight on.

Red lights, stop signs, turn restrictions, one-way streets - all these things, and thousands more that we rely on daily to be able to drive safely would be irrelevant and a waste of time.

I'm worried, both for this cyclist, and for myself, for I seem to see a growing number of drivers for whom this is, in fact, the way things are.

 Our safety - like that of all other drivers - depends heavily upon general acceptance of the law, demeaning and patronising as it may be. If we cannot do this, we should, really, stay off the streets - not just as drivers, but a pedestrians, as well. I do not think a world where we are all confined to our houses would be desirable, though. Just look at life in, say Lebanon, Iraq, or Afghanistan today, and be thankful we have such patronising laws, and that, in general, we obey them.

To Light or not to Light

As the equinox approaches, we will find that sunrise will come at 7 or
later, and sunset at 7 pm, or earlier.  May I remind my fellow cyclists, and
motorists, for safety, to light up?
Lights are required, under the Motor Vehicle Act (section 183.6) from ½ hour
after sunset to ½ hour before sunrise. These must be a white light, pointing
in the direction the cycle is going, capable of being seen 150 metres away,
under normal conditions, and a red light and reflector to the rear.
Please, do not tell me these lights don't let me see better. That's my
problem, as far as the law is concerned. The real purpose is to make me
visible to others. To my certain knowledge, this law is substantially
unchanged over the last fifty years, and on hearsay evidence, more like the
last hundred.  It is your own skin. If drivers cannot see us, they cannot
avoid us. If they can't avoid us, they may just hurt us, and could claim it
was our own darn fault! Why, when we have enough hassles, should we hand
motorists another reason to be annoyed with us?  It just doesn't make sense.

They Don't Get It

We see the Government - Provincial,  Municipal - even (occasionally) Federal - making announcements of great aid to cycling. There are, they assure us, initiatives to make all sorts of people want to ride bikes. Yet, all too often, little seems to appear, at great expense, and less of it seems to make any difference any real impact on getting people out of cars and on to bikes.

How can this be? Well - to start off, those devising the policies, those allocating funds and setting priorities are not, themselves cyclists, and have little or no idea what really works. Further, being politicians, they are wedded to the concept of some physical evidence of success - a trail, a set of stripes along roadsides, some amenity that "fixes" it, so that we will ride. After all, if there's no physical evidence, then the money was simply wasted, as there is nothing to show.

Being motorists, they think, if they think of bikes at all, of them as primarily a recreational aid - as something to help with fitness, health, and simple pleasure. There's nothing wrong with this notion - I've used it, myself, for years as an explanation for my odd enjoyment of cycling. But, this is not the whole story. To become main-stream culture, a bicycle must be seen by many 9if not most) people as primarily a means of transport. Like other means, it can be enjoyable. In deed, it MUST be, or we wouldn't put up, for one moment with the discomfort of riding into the teeth of a winter storm, with the exhaustion of pounding along in the broiling summer sun, with the sweat, the aches and pains in our muscles, or the wild gasping for air as we wait at the traffic light. But, primarily, the bike gets me from here to there - in jig time, with little fuss, less expense, and convenience. The more I set things up so that I require special clothing or footwear, that I must get rid of, to appear in public away from the bike, the less appealing it is to me, the less convenient it is.

No - what cyclists require, more than special lanes, more than separate (but equal) facilities - Gee, does that remind anyone of Segregation or Apartheid? - is a climate of acceptance, where the cyclist is seen by other drivers as simply another one of them. In that climate, my folly as a cyclist, my habit of ignoring traffic lights, or stop signs would be seen as MY folly, not as a blanket condemnation of all cyclists. Drivers (some of them) habitually run red lights, roll through stop signs, ignore pedestrians, or School and Playground zones. We all speed - yes, even I do, in order to make the traffic flow smooth - yet these are seen as individual faults, not as blanket condemnations of drivers in general.

When people in politics, police and other practical policy makers, see cycling as merely another form of transport, then we shall see a shift in perception. It won't, magically, build miles of bike lanes, or dedicated off-road paths for us. We really don't need that, even in the busiest cities. What it will do is have the driver overtaking a cyclist AUTOMATICALLY shift to the other lane to overtake, no matter how much room there is. Drivers will check to the right, as well as to the left, will look for, and see cyclists, and help set things up, by road position, to avoid "pinch" moves. Cyclists will light their bikes, not simply because ti's required, but because, as part of traffic, they want to be seen, so they can be avoided. We will all be one mass of traffic, with the same general end in view.

Of course, that day, also, the lion will lie down with the lamb, and the child play on the adder's burrow. I'm not holding my breath - just yet.

The Greatest Risk to Cycling.

There are many risks involved in cycling. This is a truism that we all feel. Yet we ride, most of us, feeling that the rewards outweigh the risks. Is it possible to list, assign level, and sort these risks? Definitely, and in so doing, we can achieve some sort of control over them. 

So what sort of risks do we face? I will argue we face three basic risks: ourselves, other road users, and the road itself.

Let’s look at the road, first. These risks are the ones we see most immediately, and are ones we can do something about or have someone deal with. Breaks in the pavement – cracks, pot holes, and lifts – are things that will affect both ourselves and other drivers. A call to the appropriate authority will usually get fairly immediate results. Further, we can see these risks, and avoid them, if traffic is light enough. Loose surface, gravel, is a risk, but one that we have merely to learn to drive with. One can ride almost as fast on gravel as on pavement. Sand, on the other hand, should be avoided. It’s like trying to stand on a floor of loose marbles. Grassy surfaces require extreme care, as there can be (are sure to be) hidden pot holes in them. There are other risks on the surface, too. Broken glass, nails, and such debris are some examples here. The fact that streets are used by others as well as ourselves can create surface hazards. Traffic paint, used to mark out pedestrian walks, stop lines, and other traffic controls, is very slippery when wet or frosty. Steel manhole covers can catch one unawares, and bridge decks are so notoriously slippery that even motorists get reminded of the risk. All these can be foreseen, and allowed for, with care and vigilance. A final surface hazard is the curb itself. No – I don’t think it’s a good idea to try and jump it, but one needs to mount it, entering a driveway. The residual bump, rarely more than a centimetre, is negligible, unless one approaches at too fine an angle, when it becomes a longitudinal crack. We plough concrete with vigour, and discomfort.

Next, I’ll discuss the personal risks. Again, these are something we can deal with. What am I talking about? Personal preparation, basically. I need to be sure my bicycle is ready – mechanically sound, brakes and gears properly adjusted, bolts and nuts all tight. Am I properly equipped for the ride? Do I have the lights I’ll need, if I’m possibly going to be out after dark (and just WHEN is that, anyway?), or the bags, racks, and trailer for the load I’m carrying? Is my clothing suitable for the ride, do I have refreshment or liquid, if I’m going any distance? Have I got emergency equipment? Does someone know where I’m going, and what my expected timing is? Let me comment on this last point. Flyers, setting off over sparsely-inhabited land, are required to file a Flight Plan or Flight Note. These outline where the pilot is going, and give details about the aircraft and its equipment, the pilot, and the number of persons on board. They give an Estimated Time of Arrival, where and when he will report, and when he should be considered over-due. It seems to me that similar information on the cyclist could be of assurance, if not assistance, as we set off on a longer tour.

Finally, let’s look at the other road users. The common fear, here, is that I will be run down from behind by another driver. This is possible. I know of a few cases where this has happened – two or three over the past 25 years in Victoria, BC. Given, however, the number of cars and cyclists on the roads, this is a very rare accident. Much more common are side-swipe accidents, where a motorist, overtaking the cyclist, comes so close that the cyclist is either knocked off, or forced to fall off his cycle. 

The cure for this accident, I’m convinced, lies with the cyclists. All too often we are encouraged to hug the curb – far closer than any driver would ever be comfortable driving.  This entails at least two difficulties. First, we have no room to manoeuvre. We are forced to assume that we have no place on the roads, and that we are secondary to all other traffic. Secondly, we are out of the direct line of sight of the drivers, and not on his radar as a hazard. Thus, when he comes to turn a corner, he will not be looking for us, and will be shocked to find us there. To escape this fate, we need to take measures to make ourselves visible. First and foremost, we need to move away from the curb, out into the traffic lane. If it’s wide enough, yes, stay to the right, and let faster traffic filter through. If, however, it’s not, then the only course is to move out into the lane, place oneself roughly where a motorbike would be. The cyclist is now in the direct line of sight of the drivers, and they have now to deal with the cyclist as a vehicle in front of them. A further advantage of this position is that one cannot get hit by a car door, suddenly opened in ones face. The “Door Prize” has hurt and killed many riders, and continues to deter others from riding. 

OK, you will say. That’s all very well for a Lance Armstrong, but what do I do? I’ll repeat: Move out of the gutter, claim your lane. Of course, courtesy (and some laws) require that a slow vehicle with traffic backing up behind it move to the side from time to time, and let others get past. This we can do. A half-block free of parked cars can be a good place to sag over, just enough, to let others past. Once they are, resume your place. 

There’s a little trick one can use, to subtly let the driver behind know you are travelling at your best gait: Keep your pedal speed as high as you comfortably can. Many cycling experts look for a cadence of 90 or so as the norm. This has two advantages. The first is the subtle signal of speed. The second is that the load on one’s knees is reduced, and riding is less stressful on the body. Given time and practice, one can find a considerable improvement in overall speed. 

So, we’ve come up to an intersection, with traffic lights. What should we do? My first response is: “What do you intend to do?” Are you turning, or going straight? If turning, which way? Are there any guides as to what lanes do what? As a rule, I’ve found that I fare best when I act as I would in my car. If there’s a right-turn lane, then, when going straight through, I need to be to the left of that lane. If I’m turning left, I need to be in a left-turn lane, or as near the centre-line as possible. In all cases, I show the appropriate signal, and stop behind the car in front. Why this last? Isn’t there room for me to get up to the head of the line? Possibly, yes, and POSSIBLY it’s safe, but I have no assurance, unless I talk to the driver on my left, that he isn’t going to decide to turn right at the last second. If he does, then I’m right in the line of fire. At least, behind the cars in front, I cannot get squeezed by them, and I can usually accelerate as fast as them, to clear the intersection ahead of the driver behind me. I’ve also sent him a signal that I intend to play the driving game by the same set of rules as he does. Result – little or no stress. Encouragement, lots of it, to accelerate smartly from the start. It’s amazing just how fast you CAN get going, when there’s a car breathing down your back! Again, I offer a hint to make this star-up easier. As you come up to the stop, down-shift to a lower gear, so that when you have to start up, you are in the right gear from the beginning. I choose about a 40” gear, with a cruise gear of 90 to 100”. It seems to work. (See my note on Gears, for explanations.) 

Doing all these things takes a certain amount of assertiveness. It IS scary out there, and your body is right. You are surrounded by danger. But all this can be gauged, and allowed for. Once you have made it on quieter streets, you can try the busier arteries, in small doses, until you are confident of your ability to cope.

The worst hazard is what I think of as the general incivility of drivers. Far too many of us are rude to each other. We will not, for the sake of a matter of a second, allow anyone to get in front of us. Unless visibly restrained, we will rush through amber lights – even after they’ve turned to red, just because the guy ahead of us went. We regard speed limits as mere guidelines, possibly even as minima, rather than maxima. Places of danger – school zones, playgrounds, crosswalks, or work zones – are regarded as placed there simply to annoy us. In short, we selfishly think that, for whatever reason, the rules that apply to everyone else do not apply to us. As motorists, we do this, far too often. I can think of a local street – four narrow lanes of traffic, without restrictions on turning, where traffic tends to travel at 70 to 80 kmh, despite being signed for 50. If I drive it and hold my speed down to less than 60 kmh, other drivers think I’m an old fogey who’s needlessly delaying traffic. This stretch, about 1 km in all, takes about a minute to drive at the limit. One cannot save enough time by speeding to get one off it faster, yet everyone roars through as if it were an open stretch of rural highway. I’ve seen drivers in too much of a hurry to wait for a traffic light to change, and the vehicles ahead of them to clear, so they can turn right. What do they do? Climb the curb, and push through on the right, or pull out to the left, and overtake. I’ve seen drivers overtake a car waiting at an intersection to turn left ON THE LEFT!!! I’m sure you can list many examples of this sort of thing. The point I’m making is that we, cyclists, are no better. We push up on the right at traffic lights. We blast through stop signs and red-lights, if it’s going to delay us for a couple of seconds. In short, we are as rude to other drivers as they are to others and ourselves. This is not good publicity. It does our cause no benefit, but reinforces the view that we have no right to be on the road at all. We must be the very best drivers on the road – the most responsible, the most courteous, and the clearest as to our intentions. Only then, can we make the plea that the streets have been stolen from us, and we should get them back. I know all the arguments in favour of riding, but, unless they are accompanied by the best behaviour, we will only be regarded as undisciplined brats, unfit to turn loose, and our arguments will fall on deaf ears.

Cyclists as Drivers

I've been a cyclist most of my life. In fact, I was introduced to this wonderful way of travelling at least part of the world in May of 1954. Since then, I've ridden for pleasure, as well as to and from school and work most of my life.

I did get my first Driver's License in the spring of 1960, almost as soon as I could. However, it was not until the winter of 1965/6 that I got my first car - and even then, I continued to ride. It was as quick as the car - particularly when I had to park the car far out in the wilds of "C" Lot - the under-grad parking at the far end of campus, while my bike could roll right up to the classroom door.

I continued to ride, when my job moved into town, in 1979, as it allowed us to buy a house, and not have to worry about the extra money to support a car that would be used for only about 2000 miles a year -to and from work.

As I rode, I pondered, and still do, what it is that has made us so heartily disliked by motorists. 

Unfortunately, I confess that the fault, at least in part, is our own. No - I'm not one of those who believe all motorists are right, and cyclists are wrong. Had I been, I should never have continued to ride as I have. Nor, to be honest, have I ever felt I've been particularly targeted by drivers wherever I am. Instead, I've felt that I've always been able to ride in and with traffic - just one of the "guys", slower, perhaps, in peak speed (OK, a lot slower, for sure!) but not that much slower in over-all performance. 

So - What do I mean, when I say the fault is - at least in part - our own? Simply this: Driving is rather like dancing -we all have our own slight variant on a set of steps, but we also have to get along with, mesh with, our neighbours - the mother rushing to get kids between impossibly close connections - school to music or dance, and so forth; the salesman hustling to get one more call in, one more order in today; the tradesman, angry with the way his job's going, and wanting just to get as far away from it as he can; the professional driver - truck, bus, or taxi, trying to go his rounds as smoothly as he can. I'll let you think up similar, or other categories that are in the traffic mix. We all are trying to go somewhere, often more than just a little late (more fool us, for over booking ourselves), and we all need the others to co-operate with us to get there as fast as we can.

We know of the drivers who put their heads down, and ignore that yellow light, hoping they can get through just this intersection without stopping and waiting, like, forever! (Yeah, it WAS red, as he hit the line. Fortunately, lights now have a short blank space, where everything's red, to let him get safely through.) Along I come on my bike. The light is just as red, but I blithely ride through (There were no cars in the way, so it was OK.   - - NOT!) So I'm surprised, when somebody objects to my behaviour? 

Red Light and Stop Sign violations are among the most visible, and annoying ones we cyclists commit, but there are others, just as irksome, and sometimes far more dangerous to ourselves. Think of riding in the dusk without lights. ("Hey, man - chill out! I can see just fine. How am I hurting you? What's your silly beef, anyway?")  We'd never dream of this, in a car - well, that may not be so certain, in this day of ADL's. I've seen a number of folk drive off at night, with only the Daytime Lights on. What we do not realise, as cyclists, is that the laws about lights on bikes are not aimed at our being able to see the road. We're credited with enough sense to turn on or install enough lighting to actually see what we need to, if we do. No - the aim is at making ourselves visible to motorists out there. They are required to avoid us. It's not kosher to hit, mow down, or blast a cyclist off the face of the earth, BUT (and it's huge) in all fairness, we have to make ourselves visible - give the other side a fighting chance to avoid us. We also have to act in a predictable way - in other words, we have to use the same sort of moves, signals, and clues that other drivers use, to warn folk of what we intend to do, if it's not just carry on straight ahead.

Add to this the cultural bias (here in North America) that the bike is, really, "just a kid's toy", and therefore not safe to have out on the real roads, and we are in a bind.

Cycling is back in fashion - and, looking at the would-be racers, the guys who think they cannot ride, even to work in ten minutes, without elaborate preparation, and expensive, dedicated clothing, it IS a matter of fashion - and I, for one, rejoice. The more of us on the road, the more comfortable other drivers will be around us, and the less harassed we'll feel. Great - but we still need to earn the respect of the drivers around us. The only way we can do that, really, is to be the best drivers out there, ourselves. 

I've practiced this, myself, with increasing rigor, all my life. It seems to work. The gentle smiles I get, as I pant over the bars at a light, the grins I get as I crest a hill, and can give them a chance to pass me, the wave-around I get, when waiting for a left turn opportunity  - all these convince me I'm on the right track. When I add in the thumbs-up from a bus driver, who helped me give someone a chance to get out of a parking lot, or the shame-faced accolade I got one day: "I was following you up the street, and I must say, you were doing everything right!", I'm certain that I'm on to something. 

Do I only cycle? No - I do drive - and flattery suggests that I do so very well - and I've no intention to quit. There are things I do that I cannot easily do with a bike - carrying sheets of plywood or drywall, for example.

However, my best cycling practice has informed my driving, and I drive, aware of the others on the road, and give them the space I'd rather I was given. 

Back to topic, though. We want to ride, and want to feel comfortable. Unfortunately, our culture says we should be able to do so without work on our part - that it is really someone else's responsibility. Unfortunately, this was never so, and will never be so. I, and I alone, as the cyclist, am personally responsible for my own safety and comfort. If I'm not comfortable, what is it I need to do to get there? Do I need more practise? Then, ride, and keep riding. Is there something I'm doing that seems to put me in harm's way? Do I regularly get hooked or pinched at corners? What do I need to do to change that? Do I need to make myself more visible? Then do so - don't wait for someone else to do it for me! How can I get other drivers to let me make that left turn? Oh, signal? Far enough in advance that they have a chance to react, and let me move? What a concept!

You can see where this line is leading - back to driver's school. We need to apply everything we know about driving in traffic in a car to cycling. I find that there is a great deal that crosses over completely. I know the car uses an outside source of power - so does the motorbike. However, there's really little difference, when one cuts to the nub, between the two - apart from the amount of physical exercise I put into my riding!