Then vs Now: Risk Assessment In The 21st Century

Troy Meyeraan (L) and myself circa 1995- No helmets required!

The comments section often spurs new posts and this past week that happened again. This post was spawned off of the last "Trans Iowa Stories" post in which I described my dismay at seeing the latest technology of that day where people could track others by smart phone. 

A frequent commenter to this blog, "DT", asked me about my reticence to allow for GPS tracking during Trans Iowa versus my over-arching care for the riders and their safety. DT also correctly stated that now things cannot be as they once were, and this in regard to advancing technology, but I responded to his comment that it was more than just that. 

This post today was also inspired by a story in "Forbes" by author and cycling advocate, Carlton Reid about how one cargo bike delivery company banned helmet wearing for its employees. This, obviously, sparked much critical debate and even Mr. Reid himself was accused of not being a very safe fellow. 

On Risks Overall: I thought that the entire assumption implicit in the idea that a simple plastic and polystyrene hat could ward off all life threatening injuries for cyclists to be a bit of poor thinking on the part of many of us. It has to do with risks, what is real versus supposed risk, and our technology today and how that has changed our mindsets as humans in the 21st Century. So, instead of riffing on helmet usage and letting the response to DT be veiled from sight in the comments section, I thought I'd elucidate my take on this risk/technology/cultural nexus as it affects cycling. 

So, to kick off this post, I wanted to quote from my answer in the comments to DT. Here I am speaking in terms of Trans Iowa, but I think you can draw references to other events and rides as well. Here is the quote:

" On risk: In the pre-2000's, having groups of people doing touring, races in remote places, and well.....just training- was not a "track-able" thing, right? We didn't have any way of communicating our distresses/emergencies at all unless we could find a rural residence. Risk assessment was a TOTALLY different animal back then. You wouldn't have thought twice about putting on an event like Trans Iowa from that aspect, but would I have worried less or cared less about riders? Probably not.

Fast forward to the 20-teens. Now you are held to a different standard BECAUSE of technology. Had something went awry- let's say we didn't find Charlie Farrow during Trans Iowa v8 when he was temporarily 'lost' - Well, what do you think everyone sitting in their homes, all warm and cozy, would have judged in that case? "Guilty! Why didn't you use tracking technology!" It wouldn't have mattered a whit to anyone being self-righteous behind a keyboard that Charlie eschews technology and wasn't carrying a cell phone because he was willing to accept that risk. "

(L-R) At T.I.v8: Matt Maxwell, A. Andonopoulous, GT, Charlie Farrow. (Image by S. Fuller)

The big difference between 'now' and 'then' is how that we as cyclists, and I'd argue as the human race in Western Culture, assess risk is completely on a different scale. Then- and I describe "Then" as being pre-2000 - we would not have thought twice about not having many of the things we deem indispensable for our safety/convenience now days.  First and foremost of these "things" is the internet/connectedness we get with smart phone technologies and wireless communications. 

I often joke with my wife that if I forget my smart phone on a bicycle ride I am just having a "1980's Day". She doesn't see the humor in that. Why? Because she is afraid that if something should happen to me, she wouldn't be made aware of it immediately, and therefore would not have some sort of 'control' over what happened next. Maybe she could effect some better outcome depending on what might happen, but think about that- What could she really do but worry? 

I'm not saying she couldn't do anything, (call an ambulance, muster the authorities) , but if I was functional to some degree after a mishap, I'm probably going to be okay, and if I am killed or unconscious, what good is a cell phone at that point?  These are good things to consider, and, of course, there are thousands of reasons for and against these ideas, but the over-arching thought process we have is that if you carry your smart phone you'll be okay. It's like some sort of guarantee or 'insurance', when it is not. What are the chances that you'd ever need a smart phone to mitigate an emergency on a ride?  Yes- there is a chance you'd need it, but more often than not? You're fine, really. 

Wear one, or don't. The choice should be yours to make.

On Helmets: Similarly to the technology conundrum is helmet use. I won't tell you to not wear one. I won't tell you that you must wear one. I will share with you a story about a few guys and why they decided not to wear helmets on a week long bicycle ride in 1994.

Back in those days I was part of a trio of young men that had decided to ride a self-contained tour from Iowa to Canada in a week via Wisconsin and the UP of Michigan. One of the pre-tour debates we had was whether or not to bring a helmet. 

Now, of the three of us, two were licensed racers and I had recently had an experience which made me a believer in helmet use. So, we weren't coming from preconceived notions where helmets weren't used at all or regularly. We all used helmets a lot. So, when we decided, unanimously and quickly, not to use helmets on this tour, what was our rational? 

We all agreed that we would bring a helmet to use through bigger cities, mostly out of reasoning that we would escape any ridicule from others. Then, for anything else outside of a city we were not wearing helmets because we agreed that a helmet would not prevent serious injury or death if we were struck by a car or truck traveling at highway speeds. So why make ourselves more uncomfortable than necessary? I did the same thing on a ten day tour to the Black Hills the following year with two other guys. We assumed a risk. We were, (obviously) fine.

On Technology: In events, the technologies we carry around or bolt onto our bicycles, (and in some cases now are a part of our bicycles), open up all sorts of issues for those who would direct the activities for an event. Most events are simply not just a 'race'. There are factors which, when race directors implement them  correctly, make events more than races. However; in an effort to 'push the easy button', riders can, and sometimes do, use technology to cheat. There are a myriad of ways to use technology to cut corners. Sometimes it is intentional, other times it is by happenstance.
 

Tales of cheating at ultra-gravel events are not unheard of

Tales of such deeds have been whispered amongst gravel riders for years.  Whether truth or legend, I cannot say, but many have technology as being central to their telling. Course cutting, meetings of support folk with riders where it was against the rules, and more are parts of many gravel event's lore, especially the longer distance ones. 

The truth or fictional status of these tales is not my point, however, but what I wanted to point out is that most, if not all of these issues in these tales would not have happened pre-2000. 

Again from my comments to DT:

 "It (technology) is the reason I say that Trans Iowa was really a pre-2000's event stuck in the post-modern world. You cannot do an event like that anymore, just as you say when you mention 'the genie'. There are events that try to be similar, and you even have Iowa Wind and Rock trying to keep the flag flying, but there just isn't any way it could be the same as it was back in the 2000's. No ding on IWAR here, but it is what it is now. "

The 'genie' is a reference to how now that technology is out there, you really cannot do things anymore like they once were done. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? If you are risk averse, you might answer that it is a good thing. But there is no denying that the experience is nothing like it was pre-2000's and which faded away as the 2000's progressed. 
 
 Taking risks at a higher level isn't for everyone, but I would argue that we- as a race - have lost something in the exchange for comfort/safety which we had before we accepted technology. It goes a LOT further and a LOT deeper than just how things affect the tiny world of cycling, but many times, in cycling it isn't the cyclists who are complaining about taking risks. 

Risk assessment was a big part of my life. (Image by G. Keslin of the T.I.v14 start)

Take for instance that "Trans Iowa Stories" post I referenced above where technology on a man's phone in which he had tracking on a rider in the event dismayed me: 

"That is part of the reason I was dismayed at the beacon I saw that afternoon on that man's cell phone. It was people like him that were the issue. NOT the riders. It was all the people judging Trans Iowa from behind a keyboard that would never, in a hundred years, ever attempt such a challenge."

 In the end, this is a topic that could be debated at length for hours, maybe even days. But what I wanted to point out here is not that you should or should not do anything- Wear a helmet, use technology, use and carry a cell phone on every ride. The chances that technology or a helmet might save you trouble is worth it. But don't think it will erase all risks, and don't think that because you've reduced your risks that you are experiencing life at its fullest. There must be balance, and sometimes - yes- you've gotta take the big risks to get the rewards. 

And sometimes, probably every time, you'll pay for taking those risks. Are you willing to accept that responsibility? Are you willing to affect others with the possible negative or positive outcomes of your risk taking?

Big questions, and I don't pretend to have any easy answers for you. That's something you'll have to wrestle with yourself. How you answer those questions will have a big impact on your life - and other's lives - going forward.