Master's Thesis Program

The bicycle is a

CURIOUS .................................

vehicle

.................................

Its passenger .................................

is its

.................................

ENGINE

Graduate Thesis Project

Rudy Date

Kansas State University

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Problem Statement

5

2 Intent & Issues

7

3 Objectives

8

4 Context Analysis

11

5 Literature Reviews

15

6 Precedent Studies

20

7 User ProďŹ les

31

8 Ergonomics

33

9 Materiality

45

10 Codes

49

11 Bibliography

58

“If you’re worried about falling off the bike...

... you’d never get on.”

Lance Armstrong

PROBLEM STATEMENT It is a commonly known fact that biking, in a city whose infrastructure supports it, is a viable, active, and sustainable alternate form of transportation. However, especially in cities like Copenhagen, where biking is nearly popular enough to be considered the main form of transportation, the logistical issue of providing secure bicycle parking and storage for the masses is an ongoing problem. More bicycles means it takes longer to find a parking spot. It is also generally accompanied by an increase in bicycle theft.

Additionally, it can lead to public safety hazards. For example, illegally parked bikes can infringe on a variety of civil codes. “In short, at one time or another, most bicyclists have experienced the frustration of finding no secure place to leave their bikes.”

(Federal Highway Administration, 2006)

“Your legs are not giving out.

Your head is giving up.

Keep going.”

INTENT & ISSUES One method of combating this issue is to simply reserve more land for bicycle storage and parking. Many times, however, in densely populated areas, this is not an option, due to the lack of available property. In those cases, another plausible option is to utilize a critical thinking mindset in order to redesign the parking system such that urban parking lots are more efficient, more secure, and easier to use.

Issues that need to be addressed in order to successfully achieve the original intent fall into two categories of scales. At the city-wide scale, the most relevant issues include the safety of the cyclist and the security of the bicycle. First, and foremost, the safety of the cyclist should be ensured. The bike should perform as intended, cyclists should be clearly visible to other vehicles and pedestrians, and lots should be located away from anything that might force the cyclist to be put in harms way. Additionally, regardless of the location of the lot, every bicycle should be able to be securely fastened and should eliminate the fear of theft.

On a near-environment scale, every component that is a direct interaction between man and machine should be assessed from an ergonomic standpoint. Simply being comfortable, however, is not enough. The system as a whole must not be difficult to use and, as a function of its aesthetics and design, should encourage frequent use.

Akin to the problems initially faced by its motorized relatives, bicycles are rapidly becoming a popular method of transportation, and thus require a safe, secure, and easy-to-use method for higher-density parking. The solution should make using a bike in the city a safer, more effortless experience. More specifically, it should reduce the amount of time it takes to find a place to park, increase the safety and security around the bicycle parking lot, and, lastly, increase awareness of the benefits of biking.

OBJECTIVES Manufacture a working prototype of a product that increases the efficiency of locking and unlocking a bicycle. a. b. c.

Integrate a locking mechanism into the bike that is able to interact with a variety of racks.

Utilize durable materials able to withstand constant, fluid movements from the ‘lock’ to the ‘unlock’ positions and vice versa.

Redefine the sequence of actions involved in the approach of a bike rack and in securing the bike to be more efficient.

Installation of the product should increase the density of bikes stored in a standard U-racking system.

7 Bikes

a.

b.

11 Bikes

!

Consider the average density of a standard bicycle parking lot in a high-traffic area and determine the amount on increased density to be achieved.

An increase in density should not affect the amount of time required to park or retrieve bicycle.

Use of the product should increase the safety of the cyclist. a. b.

Cyclists should be more visible to other vehicles and pedestrians, especially in low-visibility situations (darkness, fog, etc...).

Product should not interfere with any functions of the bicycle, such as pedaling, braking, or handling.

7 Bikes

11 Bikes

!

!

The aesthetics and user-friendliness of the product should promote and increase commute and recreational bicycle usage. a. b.

Consider ergonomics and comfort of a variety of users at the nearenvironment scale.

Integrate modern technology (smartphone, bluetooth, GPS) to increase public interest and user motivation.

Installation of the product should double the amount of time require to pick or break critical components of the locking mechanism, in comparison to a standard U-lock. a. b.

c.

The bicycle should be more difďŹ cult or impossible to operate after the lock is compromised.

Incorporate materials that are more secure and difďŹ cult to damage in order to deter theft or, at the very least, increase amount of time required for theft.

Provide integrated tracking device to increase security even after theft occurs.

!

CONTEXT ANALYSIS Being one of the world’s bike-friendliest cities, Copenhagen, Denmark has a very wellestablished bike culture and can offer more thorough insight into the sociological aspects of biking, both positive and negative. Additionally, various studies have been conducted by the Danish government in order understand the economic benefits of biking and how they can be further improved. Even closer to home, states like Colorado, which is consistently rated as one of the nation’s most active states, can provide a wealth of facts and figures addressing direct economic benefits of a strong biking culture and biking tourism industry. Unless otherwise noted, all of the following statistics and graphics have been pulled from the latest of versions of Copenhagen’s “Bicycle Account”, which was most recently updated in 2012. All images have been pulled from a variety of Google Images and Flickr accounts. Their respective usernames have been cited where appropriate.

SOCIOLOGICAL CONTEXT Residents of Copenhagen have a 56% It’s faster constantly expanding list of reasons 37% It’s more convenient to choose a bike when traveling to and from work or school. Unsurprisingly, the 26% It’s healthy top two reasons involve a degree of convenience and efficiency. Unlike much 29% It’s cheap of the rest of the world, biking is faster 12% Good way to start the day and more convenient in Copenhagen because its city fabric is conducive to 9% New job or relocation bike traffic. This is absolutely not by accident. Over the past three decades, 5% Environmental and climate concerns the government has actively pursued the title of ‘Greatest Biking City’.

Copenhageners’ reasons for cycling to-from work or school

By shops

26%

By stations

23%

In the city in general By work By home

29% 71% 79%

Parking is enough of a problem to warrant multiple studies devoted to finding the root of the problem and how citizens feel about it. Satisfaction with bicycle parking, in general, has nearly reached an all-time low.

Identified by the government as a red flag, parking has been the subject of much debate.

Cycling Copenhageners’ satisfaction with bicycle parking (%)

60%

80% 70%

Satisfaction with the combination of bicycle and public transport

60%

50%

50%

Satisfaction with the width of cycle tracks

40%

29%

30% 20% 1996

2012

Satisfaction with bicycle parking in general.

ECONOMIC BENEFIT Expenditures on Various Bicycle Activities in Colorado

Potential Loss of Revenue

$2,500,000.00 1 Mill

$2,000,000.00

9

$1,500,000.00

8

7

$1,000,000.00

699,000 6

$500,000.00 5

4

$0.00 Bicycle Tours

Race Fees and Membership

Expenditures

by Race Participants

Registration Fees for Charity Rides

Pledges from Charity Rides

3 276,400 2

Economic Impact of Bicycle Manufacturing and Retail Sales in Colorado

1

0

Specialty Shops Payroll

$11,000

Specialty Shops Total Revenue

The yellow indicates the total number of tourists engaged in biking in Colorado in the span of one year. The red bar indicates the number of tourists who would have altered their destination if biking were not available. Those tourists would have cost Colorado around $56 million to $75 million in revenue.

$80,000

Retail Shops Payroll

$16,000

Retail Shops Total Revenue

$200,000

Manufacturer Payroll

$18,000

Manufacturer Total Revenue

$763,000 $0

$400,000 $200,000

$800,000 $600,000

$1,000,000

SOCIO-ECONOMICS Source: “Economic Impact and Household Survey Results.” In Bicycling and Walking in Colorado. Denver, CO, 2000.

DKK 1.34 Gain to societ y per extra km traveled by bicycle in Copenhagen

670 DKK 1 car parking space 8 bicycle racks

3040 DKK

DKK 1.83

Revenue generate d from the area equivalent of one car parking space, div ided by the average turnover per shopping trip f or motorists and cyclists (DKK)

INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATES BICYCLE 16 MILLION 1 km cycle track (both sides) (DKK) BICYCLE 900 M Network of ‘cycle superhighways’ (300 km) in the capital area (DKK) CAR CAR METRO S-TOG BUS

1,800 MILLION Nordhavnsvej ( DKK) 2,000 MILLION Extension of highway between Roskilde and Fløng (DKK ) 1,000 M 1 km Metro City Ring (DKK) 1,500 MILLION Planned passing track between Holte and Bernstorffsvej (DKK) 400 MILLION Copenhagen’s annual subsidies to busses (DKK)

HEALTH BENEFITS OF CYCLING

30% Reduction of mortality for adults who cycle to and from work every day

1.7 BILLION

MASS STORAGE OPTIONS

Flickr Account: Colville-Anderson

Flickr Account: Colville-Anderson

An innovative double-decker solution found in Aalborg, DK. Bikes are hung then locked, as opposed to slid.

URBAN INTEGRATION

Integration of bike lanes across major intersections

An example of a crowded bicycle ‘superhighway’

Kindergardeners learning to bike to and from school

Bike-exclusive traffic stop light, timed for bikes, not cars

New Danish skyway, allowing greater and more convenient access to the city by bike

TYPES OF BICYCLES

Standard bicycle with a small basket at the front

Bicycle meant for carrying peope (mostly kids) with and optional, covered ap

Standard cargo tricycle

Heavy, ‘XL’ cargo bicycle

LITERATURE REVIEWS Because bicycles are not a new invention, with the earliest recorded machines representing a bicycle dating back to 1817, there is a wealth of information about every aspect of the bicycle (Pedaling History Bicycling Museum, 2009). The following pages contain reviews of four documents that address relevant information not covered elsewhere, such as the effect of the built environment on non-motorized travel, and a compilation of trafďŹ c safety statistics with an emphasis on pedalpowered vehicles (unicycles, bicycles, tricycles, etc.) These reviews attempt to exemplify a holistic viewpoint by addressing issues that do not fall under or were not fully discussed in other categories.

BICYCLE PARKING GUIDE Bicycle Parking Guidelines Review: This publication, written by the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, provides a set of guidelines to keep in mind when designing or selecting short-term bicycle parking for urban environments. It identifies secure and convenient bicycle parking as a recurring problem and recognizes that many are dissuaded from biking because parking is a frustrating experience. Parking, as an experience, is broken down into four main categories, each category at a larger scale than its predecessor.

The first category is the rack element, or that which physically supports one bicycle. The publication provides six bullet points on the requirements of a rack element and then gives several examples and details of commonly found designs. According to the guide, the rack element should achieve the following: provide support at the frame of an upright bicycle in at least two places; prevent tipping of either wheel; provide for the security of one or both of the frames; cater to all frame shapes and sizes; and allow either front-in or back-in parking, where a standard u-lock can secure the front/rear wheel and the upright frame.

The second category is the whole rack, defined as ‘one or more rack elements joined on any common base or arranged in a regular array and fastened to a common mounting surface.’ The publication delineates several key factors in a successful rack. Each individual rack element should not be able to be detached from the rack, and the rack as whole should be secured or anchored such that it cannot be stolen or otherwise vandalized. Every part of the rack should provide ‘easy, independent bike access’, whether the bikes are in line or staggered. Lastly, an empty rack should not create a tripping hazard for general pedestrians, and especially those that are visually impaired.

Next is the rack area, which is where several racks are separated by aisles. The booklet contains a small graphic that visually represents the various, recommended, minimum dimensions for a rack area. It suggests a minimum distance of 48 inches between racks, measured from tip to tip of bike tires, with each rack aisle being 72” at minimum. Circulation is also an issue at this scale, and cannot be glossed over. If the rack area is a large, high-traffic area, more than one entry and exit needs to be included. As a bonus benefit, rack areas should be sheltered from the elements, increasing user comfort when parking.

The final category is the rack area site, which takes into account the rack area and its relationships to nearby buildings, entrances, and approaches. According to the publication, the best location is ‘immediately adjacent to the entrance it serves.’ However, racks should not interfere with the flow of people. Although there are no concrete dimensions for the placement of bike racks, the guide mentions that there must be ample amount of space to accommodate for the entire transitional process of dismounting a bicycle, locking it, and entering the premises. It also recognizes that there is a limit to how far away racks can be from the entrance, in terms of both distance and time, before bikers will get put off.

In the end, the publication recaps all four categories, and encourages creativity in designing bike parking, without compromising the necessary functions.

INVERTED “U” One rack element supports two bikes.

“A” One rack element supports two bikes.

POST AND LOOP One rack element supports two bikes.

COMB One rack element is a vertical segment of the rack.

WAVE One rack element is a vertical segment of the rack.

TOAST One rack element holds one wheel of a bike.

Rack Element

30"

30"

(min) (min) A rack is one or more rack elements joined on a common base or arranged in a regular array and fastened to a common mounting surface.

72"

▼

▼

48"

▼

▼

▼

72"

▼

30" ▼

▼

▼ ▼

24"

24" ▼ ▼

All dimensions are recommended minimums.

The rack area is a bicycle parking lot where racks are separated by aisles.

Area

The rack area site is the relationship of a rack area to the building entrance and approaches.

Site

▼

Rack

NON MOTORIZED FACTOR ANALYSIS Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence From the San Francisco Bay Area Review: More and more cities across the world are encouraging their residents to consider alternative, healthier forms of transportation, such as walking or biking. Unfortunately, the motorized vehicle still dominates as a mode of transportation.

As such, there are many studies that examine the effects of the built environment on motorized travel. Even though non-motorized travel is increasingly encouraged, much less attention has been given to it. This study aims to analyze certain factors in the built environment alongside control variables in order to determine their magnitudes of influence on people’s decision to choose walking or biking over motorized travel.

Analyzing non-motorized travel, however, poses an alternate set of challenges, relative to vehicular travel. For example, trips distances are going to be much shorter when walking or biking. Additionally, there are types of roads, such as highways and freeways, where only motorized travel happens, so those cannot be included in the analysis.

For the purposes of this study, the authors focused their scope to the San Francisco Bay Area, and used the 2000 Bay Area Travel Survey as their main database. It contains ‘up to 2 days of daily activity information of 15066 randomly selected households in the 9-county San Francisco Bay Area.’ However, every trip recorded in the database was not applicable to the scope of this analysis. Therefore, the authors defined a relevant trips as one that was less than 15 minutes or 5 miles and was ‘unlikely to involve carrying significant amounts of items or goods, such as groceries.’

The following categories remained as plausible of out-of-home activities that could be achieved by non-motorized travel: socialization, dining, personal services (e.g. banking), recreation/entertainment, religious/civic activities, and convenience shopping. Additionally, only trips that began at a residence were selected. With these restrictions, the sample size was 7889 trip records.

The authors broke up the entire analysis into three main sections: a factor analysis, in which they identified 4 factors and their effect on 18 variables; a matrix for a walking-choice model; and a matrix for a biking-choice model. Both matrices predict the probability that a trip will be made by walking and biking respectively. Both models were broken intro four categories of variables - constraints/deterrents, personal/household attributes, trip characteristics, and built environment characteristics. Each category contained around five individual variables for which the mathematical analysis was performed.

The results of the initial factor analysis suggests that large city blocks and three-way intersections (cul-de-sacs, dead ends, T-junctions) were not pedestrian/bicycle friendly. On the other hand four- and five-way intersections (gridded or highly connected street patterns) were ‘positively associated with the pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly factor.’ In addition, neighborhoods that were primarily residential were much less conducive to pedestrian and bicycle friendliness than areas that contained a balance of residents, jobs, and retail/service activities within a 1-mile radius of the trip origin.

Essentially, an increase in land-use diversity generally correlated with an increase in non-motorized travel.

Both the walking-choice model matrix and the bicycle-choice model matrix suggested the same general concept, albeit at different magnitudes. What the authors call urban landscape factors, such as well-connected streets, city block sizes, and land-use diversity, had modest to little influences on the choice to walk or bike. Control factors, like topography, amount of daylight, and precipitation, had a greater impact on people.

These results begin to suggest a variety of different strategies to increase non-motorized travel, especially in and around residential neighborhoods, as that’s where it seems to be the least popular. The results can even begin to shape the strategies used. The data implies that micro-designing is less effective than finding neighborhoods with the correct demographics and designing neighborhoods as a whole to cater to that specific area.

Even the authors agree that their analysis failed to include a variety of street-scale factors that may have had an influence on the pedestrians bicyclists, due to ‘data limitations.’ In fact, the data presented should be supplemented by case studies, experiments, and comparisons on the micro level, in order to account for the possible gaps in their research.

FACTOR ANALYSIS Table 1—Factor Analysis Loadings and Summary PedestrianǦ/ BikeǦ PedestrianǦ/ BikeǦ Friendly Design Factor, Friendly Design Factor, Origin Destination Square meters per block within 1 mile, average: origin

-0.327 -0.942 -0.952

Three-way intersections, proportion of total intersections within one mile: destination Four-way intersections, proportion of total intersections within one mile: origin

0.933

Four-way intersections, proportion of total intersections within one mile: destination Five-or-more-way intersections, proportion of total intersections within one mile: origin

0.943 0.69

Five-or-more-way intersections, proportion of total intersections within one mile: destination Dead ends as proportion of total intersections within one mile: origin

LandǦUse Diversity Factor, Designation

-0.48

Square meters per block within 1 mile, average: destination Three-way intersections, proportion of total intersections within one mile: origin

LandǦUse Diversity Factor, Origin

0.677 -0.89

Dead ends as proportion of total intersections within one mile: destination

-0.873

Mixed use entropy (within 1 mile), at origin

0.826

Mixed use entropy (within 1 mile), at destination

0.828

Employed resident-to-jobs balance index (within one mile of origin)

0.871

Employed resident-to-jobs balance index (within one mile of destination)

0.802

Employed resident-to-retail or services balance index (within one mile of origin)

0.884

Employed resident-to-retail or services balance index (within one mile of destination)

0.873

“Residentialness” index, origin

-0.879

“Residentialness” index, destination

-0.773

Summery statistics: Eigenvalue

3.86

3.51

2.54

2.39

Percentage of variance

21.47

19.5

14.11

13.27

Cumulative percentage of variance captured by factors - 6 8.34%

BICYCLE CHOICE MODEL Table 3 – Bicycle-Choice Model for Predicting the Probability that a Trip will be made by Bicycle

Standard Coefficient

Error

Probability

Trip Distance (miles)

-0.291

0.084

0.001

Slope (rise over run)

-7.796

5.93

0.187

Dark (1 – yes; 0 – no) (before sunrise or after sunset)

-0.721

0.314

0.022

Low-income neigborhood (proportion of households within 1 mile of origin and destination with annual incomes less than $25,000)

-1.657

1.221

0.175

Gender (1 – male; 0 – female)

0.588

0.194

0.002

African American (1 – yes; 0 – no)

0.854

0.472

0.071

Number of vehicles in household

-0.629

0.12

0

Number of bicycles in household

0.345

0.037

0

Weekend Trip (1 – yes; 0 – no)

0.226

0.219

0.301

Recreation or entertainment purpose (1 – yes; 0 – no)

0.602

0.225

0.001

Social Purpose (1 – yes; 0 – no)

0.861

0.281

0.002

Shop Purpose ( 1- yes; 0 – no)

0.443

0.389

0.256

Employment accessibility: number of jobs (in 10,000s) within 5 miles of origin

-0.017

0.011

0.106

Retail and service density: number of retail or service jobs per net commercial acre within 1 mile of origin

0.005

0.003

0.114

Pedestrian- or bike-friendly design factor, origin

0.234

0.151

0.122

Pedestrian- or bike-friendly design factor, destination

0.193

0.113

0.088

Land-use diversity factor, origin

0.156

0.098

0.112

Land-use diversity factor, destination

0.056

0.099

0.57

0.392

0

Constraints or detterents

Personal or household attributes

Trip Characteristics

Built Environment Characteristics

Constant -3.773 Summary Statistics: Number of Cases: 7836

COMPLETE STREETS POLICY Elements of an Ideal Complete Streets Policy Review: The National Complete Streets Coalitions has produced this document delineating several key components of an ideal Complete Streets Policy for policy-makers and other members of the government to use. What was initially a program developed to increase the safety of bicyclists on the road, the policy now covers all users of the road which includes, ‘pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit passengers of all ages and abilities, as well as trucks, buses, emergency vehicles, and automobiles.’ Not only does the document cover all users, but it encourages the inclusion of all agencies involved, all of the roads involved, and every project that is planned, embodying the idea of a holistic policy.

The very first component delineated, however, involves setting a vision for ‘how and why the community wants to complete its streets.’ The Coalition recognizes that individual policies are not going to be exactly the same, and they encourage setting a vision in order to help everyone involved understand what the end goal is and how to achieve it.

After covering the ‘why’ and ‘who’ of a complete policy, the publication provides references to research to find design guidelines for a successful policy and for successful, safe roads. It cites design criteria by AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility guidelines.

The document then discusses several methods of measuring the performance of both the current status of the streets and after the policy has been put in place, in order to understand the effectiveness of the policy. According to the document, the traditional method of measuring the performance of transportation planning has been using a vehicular Level of Service (LoS), which is essentially a measure of automobile congestion. However, planning requires ‘taking a broader look at how the system is serving all users.’ To do this it encourages measuring a variety of things. Among them are the miles of on-street bicycle routes created, the amount of new linear feet of pedestrian accommodation, the changes in number of people using public transport, walking, or biking, even the number of new street trees, and more.

Lastly, the publication provides advice on how to properly implement a Complete Streets policy, after one is set in place. It identifies four key elements to successful implementation: ‘Restructure procedures to accommodate all users on every project; develop new design policies and guides; offer workshops and other training opportunities to planners and engineers; and institute better ways to measure performance and collect data on how well the streets are serving all users.’

BICYCLE TRAFFIC SAFETY Bicyclists and Other Cyclists Review: This compilation of traffic safety statistics, tailored to bicyclists and other cyclists, was published by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Although it was published in April of 2014, the data is from 2012. In order to keep the scope of the data analysis relatively narrow, they use the term pedacyclists as title for the pedestrian statistics included. Pedacyclists are defined as ‘riders of two-wheel, non-motorized vehicles, tricycles, and unicycles powered solely by pedals.’

The first section provides generic statistics for pedacyclists fatalities in traffic crashes in the years 2003 – 2012.

The table shows an increasing trend of cyclist fatalities as a percentage of total fatalities in traffic crashes. In 2012, as the most current data available, pedacyclist fatalities accounted for 2.2% of the total. The second section involves the location and time of day statistics. The majority of deaths occurred in an urban area, at a non-intersection, between the hours of 4 and 8 pm.

The next two sections deal with demographics of traffic crashes, namely age and gender, respectively. Similar to the trend in the first section, the average age of pedacyclist fatalities and non-fatal injuries increased consistently from 2003 – 2012. The average age of a fatal injury went from 36 in 2003 to 43 in 2012, while the average age of a non-fatal injury went from 27 in 2003 to 32 in 2012. As far as gender is concerned, there is clear majority of males in fatal and non-fatal traffic crashes – 88% and 80%, respectively.

The final overarching category deals with alcohol involvement of pedacyclists in a fatal traffic crashes. According to the data gathered, nearly one quarter (24%) of cyclists killed, recorded a BAC of .08 g/dL or higher. Alcohol involvement was reported in over 37% of fatal pedacyclist crashes in 2012, though the data doesn’t clarify whether the cyclist or driver was intoxicated, but simply that alcohol was involved. Regardless, these statistics are rather unnerving.

The fact sheet concludes with a table charting the following statistics for every state for the year 2012: resident population in thousands, total traffic deaths, total pedacyclist deaths, what percent that is of the total, and pedacyclist fatalities per million population. Seven states (D.C., Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming) actually had zero pedacyclist fatalities, while California and Florida had the most with 124 and 122 deaths, respectively. The most extreme statistics of each category have been highlight on the charts included in the following pages.

BICYCLE TRAFFIC SAFETY

BICYCLE TRAFFIC SAFETY

PRECEDENT STUDIES

Senza Bike Lock

GI Bike

Flipphandle Stem

A

B

C

SENZA BIKE LOCK Naturally, some locks are bike lock automatically more secure than other locks. matches the aesthetic of the However some owners of the bike. most secure locks still face problems of theft. Many times, it comes down to user error forgetting the lock at home, not locking it properly, etc...

Design Solution:

Case Study A Basic Facts: Name: Senza Bike Lock Type: Product Use: Installed in a bicycle Designer: Jaryn Miller Clientele: Urban bicyclists Phase: Conceptual Design

Problem Identification: Although biking in the city is a sustainable, healthy and fun form of transportation, there are several issues that arise. First, and foremost, the security of the bike is a huge issue. Parking the bike and leaving it unattended opens up the opportunity for it to get stolen or vandalized.

The Senza bike lock is a locking mechanism that is integrated into the handlebars of the bike.

This has multiple benefits: the lock cannot be forgotten or lost and if the lock is broken, the bicycle cannot be driven.

Additionally, there is a second lock integrated into the back wheel of the bike, securing the bike, and its individual components, in more than one location.

Features: Number lock system - no key to forget or lose Handlebars become the lock - “breaking the lock breaks the bike”

Easy, three-step process much less hassle than other Even though there are plenty conventional locks of different types of locking mechanisms and a variety of Integrated rear lock secures secure bike racks out there, both bike seat and back tire many bikes still get stolen.

Due to handlebar integration, Why?

SENZA BIKE LOCK

CASE STUDY A

GI BIKE

Case Study B Basic Facts: Name: Gi Bike Type: Electric Bicycle (Product) Use: Transportation Design Team: Toledo, Augustinoy & Sevillia Clientele: Cyclists Phase: Mass market production (unfunded Kickstarter campaign)

changed much. The base idea is the same - two wheels joined by a metal frame, powered by human effort through a system of pedals and gears, all of which is steered by handlebars.

friendly compaction and greatly decreases required storage space

The Gi bike is an all-over revamp of the basic bicycle. It includes various technologies that making biking more convenient and less of a hassle, without foregoing the joy of riding a bike.

Safety at night - Integrated front and back wheel LED’s automatically turn on at night, ensuring visibility and safety

Technology integration smart-phone integration via bluetooth, GPS, and social media connectivity keep the The world around it, however, user seamlessly connected has changed monumentally. with the bike and the world The bike should be upgraded to fit today’s day and age.

Integrated USB port - charge a smart-phone or tablet on the go Design Solution:

Security - Auto-locking mechanism recognizes and In modern society, many urban engages when the user is biker require a different set of more than 10 feet away features than the conventional bike, or even the mountain bike. Common issues include finding a parking space, Problem Identification: storing the bike, and user Many commuters across safety in the darkness. Gi bike the world choose biking addresses all of these issues as alternative form of and more. transportation. As with any form of transport, there are Features: several key components to ensuring the safety and Electric Assistance - an security of everyone involved, integrated LifePo4 battery as well as the product’s ease- can detect when the rider needs help and can last over of-use and ergonomics.

40 miles without recharging Since the inception of the modern bike, it has not Quick Fold - single-motion folding allows for rapid, user-

CASE STUDY B

GI BIKE

FLIPPHANDLE STEM handlebar unit comes into contact with the handlebars of bikes around it. While bicycle parking racks are designed to be in line with the main axis of the bike, the handlebars jut out perpendicular to that axis.

This causes a lot of interference between handlebar units of multiple bikes.

Case Study C Basic Facts: Name: Flipphandle Stem Type: Product Use: Installed in a bicycle Designer: Alejandro Lacreu Clientele: Urban bicyclists Phase: Mass market production (unfunded Kickstarter campaign)

Design Solution: The Flipphandle Stem is a replacement handlebar stem that allows the handlebars to be rotated 90 degrees.

With the push of a button, conveniently located at the top of the stem tube, the handlebars turn a quarter circle independently of the wheel or any other part of the bike.

Problem Identification:

This puts the handles in line Finding convenient and safe with the axis of the bike, bicycle parking is arguably providing numerous benefits. the most frustrating part about urban biking. Especially Features: in cities like Copenhagen, Denmark, where biking is an Handlebar stem fits threaded extremely popular mode of and threadless bicycle tubes transport, overcrowding of existing bicycle parking spots Handles turn at the push of a makes parking a huge hassle. button - super easy to use Part of the reason parking Mechanism core is made out is difficult and cumbersome, of precision manufactured, especially in lots that are high strength carbon steel nearly full, is because the

Slimmer bike profile allows for denser parking, and easy resting of bike along vertical planes (such as walls) Rotating mechanism has integrated locking mechanism greatly increasing security of a parked bike

CASE STUDY C

PRECDENT ANALYSIS Product Phase

Senza Bike Lock

Gi Bike

Flipphandle Stem

C oncept

Kickstarter

Kickstarter

$$

$$$$

$$$

Case Hardened Steel

Aluminum

Steel and Plastic

Sustainability Factor

4

3

1

Convenience Factor

4

3

4

Security

5

3

4

Size of Feature Set

2

5

1

Ergonomics

2

5

3

Longevity

5

4

3

Aesthetics

4

5

5

Portability

3

5

2

Yes

No

Yes

Price Point Material

'Retrofittable'?

This brief analysis and comparison of the three precedent sutdies offers some insight into the various levels of advantages offered. All numberical factors are based on a simple scale 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest.

USER PROFILES Type A User Location: Copenhagen, DK

Type B User Location: Manhattan, KS

Type C User Location: Manhattan, KS

Occupation: Occupation: Design Professional Student and Graduate Student

Occupation: Young Professional

Age Range: 27-35

Age Range: 18-24

Age Range: 23-27

Owns a Bike: Yes

Owns a Bike: Yes

Owns a Bike: No

Main form of transport: Bike

Main form of transport: Bike

Main form of transport: Car

Secondary forms of transport: Metro; Bus; Car

Secondary forms of transport: Walking; Carpool

Secondary forms of transport: Walk

Biggest Advantage: Infrastructure and Incentives

Biggest Advantage: Time efficient

Biggest (perceived) Advantage: Use much less gas

Biggest Disadvantage: Parking

Biggest Disadvantage: Weather

Biggest Concern: No infrastructure (safety)

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

“I couldn’t live without my bike!”

“I don’t currently own a car, so biking is so convenient!”

“I can get across town in 10 minutes with a car. That’s not possible with a bike.”

ERGONOMICS The design of any product or item that humans come into contact with cannot be considered successful without the consideration of ergonomics. Ergonomics, if applied appropriately, reduces the risk of injury (both immediate and long-term), while simultaneously increasing comfort. Designing with ergonomics in mind also helps shape the aesthetics of the product. Although every human is different, there is a range of values within which everyone falls. Generally, ergonomics take into account the 5th and the 95th percentile values for both genders. At the scale of a bicycle and its immediate environment, the ergonomics and anthropometrics of the arm, the ďŹ nger, and everything in between are most critical. The following pages contain images and data from Chapter 14 of the Human Factors Design Guide, most recently amended in 2009. The most relevant or appropriate data has been highlighted.

ANTHROPOMETRICS Chapter 14 Anthropometry and biomechanics

HFDS 2003 (amended Oct 2009)

Exhibit 14.3.2.1 (continued) Static human physical characteristics (seated) 21 Sitting Height. The vertical distance from the sitting surface to the top of the head, measured with the subject sitting. ** For Technical Operations Specialists, use # 17 in Appendix B.

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 82.2 (32.4)

Percentiles 5th 50th 85.5 91.4 (33.7) (36.0)

95th 97.2 (38.3)

99th 99.1 (39.0)

cm (in)

77.5 (30.5)

79.5 (31.3)

91.0 (35.8)

93.3 (36.7)

85.1 (33.5)

22 Shoulder (Acromiale) Height, Sitting. The vertical distance from the sitting surface to the point of the shoulder (acromion), measured with the subject sitting.

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 52.2 (20.6)

Percentiles 5th 50th 54.9 59.8 (21.6) (23.5)

95th 64.6 (25.4)

99th 66.5 (26.2)

cm (in)

49.2 (19.4)

50.9 (20.0)

60.4 (23.8)

62.3 (24.5)

55.5 (21.9)

23 Elbow-grip Length. The horizontal distance from the back of the elbow to the center of the clenched d fist. **For Technical Operations Specialists, use # 10 in Appendix B.

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 32.3 (12.7)

Percentiles 5th 50th 33.2 35.9 (13.1) (14.1)

95th 39.1 (15.4)

99th 40.3 (15.9)

cm (in)

28.9 (11.4)

30.0 (11.8)

35.8 (14.1)

37.2 (14.6)

32.8 (12.9)

24 Elbow Rest Height. The vertical distance from the sitting surface to the bottom of the tip of the elbow, measured with the subject sitting and the forearm held horizontally. **For Technical Operations Specialists, use # 19 in Appendix B.

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 16.8 (6.6)

Percentiles 5th 50th 18.4 23.2 (7.2) (9.1)

cm (in)

15.8 (6.2)

17.6 (6.9)

22.1 (8.7)

95th 27.4 (10.8)

99th 29.2 (11.5)

26.4 (10.4)

28.2 (11.1)

26 Thigh Clearance. The vertical distance from the sitting surface to the highest point of the thigh, measured with the subject sitting. **For Technical Operations Specialists, use # 21 in Appendix B.

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 14.1 (5.6)

cm (in)

13.4 (5.3)

Percentiles 5th 50th 14.9 16.8 (5.9) (6.6) 14.0 (5.5)

15.8 (6.2)

95th 19.0 (7.5)

99th 20.1 (7.9)

18.0 (7.1)

19.0 (7.5)

27 Elbow-Fingertip Length. The horizontal distance from the back of the elbow to the tip of the middle finger, with the hand extended. **For Technical Operations Specialists, use # 9 in Appendix B.

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 43.4 (17.1)

Percentiles 5th 50th 44.8 48.3 (17.6) (19.0)

95th 52.4 (20.6)

99th 54.2 (21.3)

cm (in)

39.1 (15.4)

40.6 (16.0)

48.3 (19.0)

49.8 (19.6)

Chapter 14 Anthropometry and biomechanics

44.2 (17.4)

HFDS 2003 (amended Oct 2009)

Exhibit 14.3.2.1 (continued) Static human physical characteristics (seated) 29 Vertical Reach, Sitting. The vertical distance from the sitting surface to the tip of the middle finger, measured with the subject sitting and the arm, hand, and fingers extended vertically.

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 129.3 (50.9)

Percentiles 5th 50th 133.8 143.3 (52.7) (56.4)

95th 153.2 (60.3)

99th 156.7 (61.7)

cm (in)

119.7 (47.1)

123.3 (48.5)

141.8 (55.8)

145.4 (57.2)

132.7 (52.2)

30 Abdominal Depth, Sitting. The depth of the abdomen, with the subject sitting.

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 18.6 (7.3)

Percentiles 5th 50th 19.9 23.6 (7.8) (9.3)

cm (in)

17.3 (6.8)

18.5 (7.3)

21.9 (8.6)

95th 29.1 (11.5)

99th 31.4 (12.4)

27.1 (10.7)

29.5 (11.6)

HFDS 2003 (amended Oct 2009)

Chapter 14 Anthropometry and biomechanics

Exhibit 14.3.2.1 (continued) Static human physical characteristics (standing) 33 Shoulder (Bideltoid) Breadth. The horizontal distance across the upper arms between the maximum bulges of the deltoid muscles; the arms are hanging and relaxed.

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 43.4 (17.1)

Percentiles 5th 50th 45.0 49.1 (17.7) (19.3)

cm (in)

38.0 (15.0)

39.7 (15.6)

43.1 (17.0)

95th 53.5 (21.2)

99th 55.2 (21.7)

47.2 (18.6)

49.2 (19.4)

34 Stature. The vertical distance from the floor to the top of the head. **For Technical Operations Specialists, use # 5 in Appendix B.

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 160.3 (63.1)

Percentiles 5th 50th 164.7 175.5 (64.8) (69.1)

95th 186.7 (73.5)

99th 190.9 (75.2)

cm (in)

148.3 (58.4)

152.8 (60.2)

173.7 (68.4)

178.0 (70.1)

162.7 (64.1)

35 Suprasternale Height. The vertical distance from the floor to the lowest point of the notch in the upper edge of the breast bone (suprasternale).

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 130.2 (51.3)

Percentiles 5th 50th 134.3 143.7 (52.9) (56.6)

95th 153.7 (60.5)

99th 157.5 (62.0)

cm (in)

120.7 (47.5)

124.1 (48.9)

142.5 (56.1)

146.4 (57.6)

132.9 (52.3)

36 Tragion Height, Standing. The vertical distance from the floor to the tragion, the cartilaginous notch at the front of the ear.

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 147.4 (58.0)

Percentiles 5th 50th 151.9 162.4 (59.8) (63.9)

cm (in)

136.3 (53.7)

140.7 (55.4)

150.4 (59.2)

95th 173.4 (68.3)

99th 177.5 (69.9)

161.2 (63.5)

165.4 (65.1)

HFDS 2003 (amended Oct 2009)

Chapter 14 Anthropometry and biomechanics

Exhibit 14.3.2.1 (continued) Static human physical characteristics (standing) 41 Cervicale Height. The vertical distance from the floor to the cervicale, the tip of the spine at the seventh cervical vertebra at the base of the neck.

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 137.4 (54.1)

Percentiles 5th 50th 141.8 151.8 (55.8) (59.8)

95th 162.4 (63.9)

99th 166.1 (65.4)

cm (in)

127.3 (50.1)

131.4 (51.7)

150.8 (59.4)

154.8 (60.9)

140.6 (55.4)

42 Buttock Height. The vertical distance from the floor to the maximum posterior protrusion of the buttock.

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 78.4 (30.9)

Percentiles 5th 50th 81.5 88.5 (32.1) (34.8)

95th 96.9 (38.1)

99th 100.5 (39.6)

cm (in)

73.9 (29.1)

76.7 (30.2)

91.5 (36.0)

94.9 (37.4)

83.7 (33.0)

43 Functional (Thumb-Tip) Reach. The horizontal distance from the wall to the tip of the thumb, measured with the subject’s shoulders against the wall, the arm extended forward, and the index finger touching the tip of the thumb.

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 72.0 (28.3)

Percentiles 5th 50th 73.9 80.0 (29.1) (31.5)

cm (in)

65.8 (25.9)

67.7 (26.7)

73.4 (28.9)

95th 86.7 (34.1)

99th 89.7 (35.3)

79.7 (31.4)

82.4 (32.4)

44 Functional (Thumb-Tip) Reach, Extended. Measured similarly to functional (thumb-tip) reach, except that the right shoulder is extended forward as far as possible, while the left shoulder is kept pressed firmly against the wall.

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 77.9 (30.7)

Percentiles 5th 50th 80.5 87.3 (31.7) (34.4)

cm (in)

71.2 (28.0)

73.5 (28.9)

79.6 (31.3)

95th 94.2 (37.1)

99th 97.7 (38.5)

86.2 (33.9)

89.0 (35.0)

Chapter 14 Anthropometry and biomechanics

HFDS 2003 (amended Oct 2009)

Exhibit 14.3.2.1 (continued) Static human physical characteristics (hand) 45 Hand Breadth. The breadth of the hand, measured across the ends of the metacarpal bones (metacarpal-phalangeal joints). **For Technical Operations Specialists, use # 14 in Appendix B.

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 8.1 (3.2)

Percentiles 5th 50th 8.4 9.0 (3.3) (3.5)

95th 9.8 (3.9)

99th 10.0 (3.9)

cm (in)

7.1 (2.8)

7.3 (2.9)

8.6 (3.4)

8.9 (3.5)

7.9 (3.1)

46 Hand Length. The distance from the base of the hand at the wrist crease to the tip of the middle finger. **For Technical Operations Specialists, use # 15 in Appendix B.

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 17.3 (6.8)

Percentiles 5th 50th 17.9 19.3 (7.0) (7.6)

95th 21.1 (8.3)

99th 21.9 (8.6)

cm (in)

15.9 (6.3)

16.5 (6.5)

19.7 (7.8)

20.5 (8.1)

18.0 (7.1)

47 Hand Circumference. The circumference of the hand, measured around the knuckles (metacarpal-phalangeal joints).

A

Sample Men

B

Women

cm (in)

1st 19.2 (7.6)

Percentiles 5th 50th 19.9 21.3 (7.8) (8.4)

95th 23.0 (9.1)

99th 23.7 (9.3)

cm (in)

16.7 (6.6)

17.3 (6.8)

20.0 (7.9)

20.7 (8.1)

18.6 (7.3)

ERGONOMICS OF GRIP Exhibit 14.4.4 (a) (continued) Touch, grip, and grasp functions that interact with arm reach

6JWOD HKPIGTVKR ITKR VKR ITKR 6JG VJWOD VKR QRRQUGU QPG HKPIGTVKR

6JWOD HKPIGT RCNOCT ITKR RKPEJ ITKR 6JWOD RCF QRRQUGU VJG RCNOCT RCF QH QPG HKPIGT QT VJG RCFU QH UGXGTCN HKPIGTU PGCT VJG VKRU 6JKU ITKR GXQNXGU GCUKN[ HTQO EQWRNKPI VJG VJWOD HKPIGTVKR ITKR

6JWOD HQTGHKPIGT UKFG ITKR NCVGTCN ITKR QT UKFG RKPEJ 6JWOD QRRQUGU VJG TCFKCN UKFG QH VJG HQTGHKPIGT

6JWOD VYQ HKPIGT ITKR YTKVKPI ITKR 6JWOD CPF VYQ HKPIGTU QHVGP HQTGHKPIGT CPF KPFGZ HKPIGT QRRQUG GCEJ QVJGT CV QT PGCT VJG VKRU

6JWOD HKPIGTVKRU GPENQUWTG FKUM ITKR 6JWOD RCF CPF VJG RCFU QH VJTGG QT HQWT HKPIGTU QRRQUG GCEJ QVJGT PGCT VJG VKRU

QDLGEV ITCURGF FQGU PQV VQWEJ VJG RCNO 6JKU ITKR GXQNXGU GCUKN[ HTQO VJG VJWOD VYQ HKPIGT ITKR

(KPIGT RCNO GPENQUWTG GPENQUWTG /QUV QT CNN QH VJG KPPGT UWTHCEG QH VJG JCPF KU KP EQPVCEV YKVJ VJG QDLGEV YJKNG GPENQUKPI KV

)TCUR RQYGT ITCUR 6JG VQVCN KPPGT JCPF UWTHCEG KU ITCURKPI VJG QHVGP E[NKPFTKECN JCPFNG YJKEJ TWPU RCTCNNGN VQ VJG MPWEMNGU CPF IGPGTCNN[ RTQVTWFGU QP QPG UKFG QT DQVJ UKFGU HTQO VJG JCPF

(KPIGT VQWEJ 1PG HKPIGT VQWEJGU CP QDLGEV YKVJQWV JQNFKPI KV

2CNO VQWEJ 5QOG RCTV QH VJG KPPGT UWTHCEG QH VJG JCPF VQWEJGU VJG QDLGEV YKVJQWV JQNFKPI KV

(KPIGT RCNOCT ITKR JQQM ITKR 1PG HKPIGT QT UGXGTCN HKPIGTU JQQM U QPVQ C TKFIG QT JCPFNG 6JKU V[RG QH HKPIGT CEVKQP KU WUGF KH VJWOD EQWPVGTHQTEG KU PQV PGGFGF

*CPF CPF VJWOD HKPIGT UVTGPIVJ 0 ND

*CPF ITKR 6JWOD HKPIGT 6JWOD HKPIGT .

4 ITKR RCNOGT ITKR VKRU /QOGPVCT[ JQNF

5WUVCKPGF JQNF

0QVG

. .GHV 4 4KIJV

MUSCLE STRENGTH Exhibit 14.5.2.1 Male muscle strength of the arm, hand, and thumb for control forces (5th percentile values)

#TO UVTGPIVJ 0 ND &GUKIP ETKVGTKC NGXGNU

&GITGG 2WNN GNDQY .

4 HNGZKQP

.

2WUJ

4

.

7R

4

.

&QYP

4

.

+P

4

.

1WV

4

°

°

°

°

°

0QVG . .GHV 4 4KIJV

HORIZONTAL REACH Exhibit 14.4.4 (b) Thumb and forefinger grasp boundary data for females in the 46 cm and 61 cm horizontal planes

MATERIALITY If an object is tangible, then, by definition, it is made out of something. What that ‘something’ is plays a large part in the success of the design. The materiality of an object has the potential to simultaneously affect its aesthetics, functionality, weight, structure, energy consumption, comfort, price, and much more. In the context of bicycles, locks, rack, and other products related to bicycle parking, the most obvious material category is metal, due in part to its relatively high strength to weight ratio.

Some of the most common metals bicycle parts and locks include aluminum, steel, and carbon fiber. This section analyzes and compares the five most common metals, and their advantages and disadvantages.

COMMON METALS Metal:

Metal:

Metal:

Metal:

Metal:

Titanium

Stainless Steel

Case Hardened Steel

Carbon Fiber

Aluminum

Advantages:

Advantages:

Advantages:

Advantages:

Advantages:

1. Very high strength-toweight ratio 2. Very stiff 3. Lightweight 4. Non-reactive at room temperatures

1. Excellent corrosion resistance 2. High strengthto-weight ratio 3. Difficult to cut through 4. Decent toughness 5. Easy to shape 6. Easy to recycle

1. Very difficult to cut through 2. High toughness 3. Easy to weld 4. Easy to recycle 5. Easy to shape 6. Very stiff 7. Responds well to heat treatment (casehardening)

1. Extremely lightweight 2. Extremely high strength-toweight ratio 3. Corrosion resistance 4. Best shock absorption 5. Easy to shape

1. Lightweight 2. Relatively high strength-toweight ratio 3. Easy to shape 4. Easy to recycle

Disadvantages: Disadvantages: Disadvantages: Disadvantages: Disadvantages: 1. Chemically very 1. Alloy requires reactive at high rarer metals temperatures 2. Not as easy to 2. Difficult to sort from mixed shape waste when 3. Relatively recycling difficult to recycle 4. Production uses a lot of energy

1. Very dense 2. Heavy 3. Poor thermal conductivity 4. Production uses a lot energy

1. Relatively brittle 2. Difficult to manufacture 3. Not very dense 4. Relatively easy fracture or crack

1. Difficult to weld 2. Production uses a lot of energy 3. Easy to cut through

Price: $$$$

Price: $

Price: $$$$$

Price: $

Price: $$

RELATIVE PROPERTIES Relative Strengths of Common Metals

Titanium

Stainless Steel

Specific Strength (kN*m/kg) Tensile Strength (Mpa)

Case Hardened Steel (SAE 8620)

Carbon Fiber

Aluminum

0

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Relative Densities of Common Metals

Titanium

Stainless Steel

Density (g/cm3)

Case Hardened Steel (SAE 8620)

Carbon Fiber

Aluminum

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

EXISTING CODES AND REGULATIONS

As previously mentioned, bicycles have been around for a while. Naturally, many cities have created a set of rules and regulations for bicyclists to follow, in order to assure the safety of the general populace. Some cities, however, have gone a step further and have included more detailed codes, pertinent to issues as speciďŹ c as bicycle parking. Portland, Oregon, as a city with one of the highest biking populations in the country, has a whole section in their by-laws dedicated to bicycle parking. While not necessarily perfect, their set of standards is a great place to begin to understand and evaluate parking at a city-planning scale. The most relevant information and its corresponding diagrams have been highlighted. All of the following information and images have pulled directly from Section 33.266 from the latest copy of bylaws published by the Bureau of Transportation of the city of Portland, Oregon.

GENERAL STANDARDS

GENERAL STANDARDS

SHORT TERM PARKING

LONG TERM PARKING

BIKE RACK STANDARD

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Agur, L. (2013, December 10). Carbon Fiber vs Aluminum vs Steel vs Titanium. Retrieved December 2, 2014.

2. AISI 8620 Alloy Steel. (2013, June 11). Retrieved December 2, 2014, from http://www.azom.com/article. aspx?ArticleID=6754 3. Argys, Laura M., and H. Naci Mocan. “Economic Impact and Household Survey Results.” In Bicycling and Walking in Colorado. Denver, CO, 2000.

4. “Bicyclists and Other Cyclists.” Traffic Safety Facts: 2012 Data. April 1, 2014. Accessed September 18, 2014. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812018.pdf.

5. Cervero, Robert, and Michael Duncan. “Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence From the San Francisco Bay Area.” American Journal of Public Health 93, no. 9 (2003): 1478-1483.

6. Copenhagen, City of. (2014). Copenhagen Bicycle Account. Copenhagen, Denmark: Technical and Environmental Administration Traffic Department.

7. Elements of an Ideal Complete Streets Policy. Washington D.C.: National Complete Streets Coalition, 2005.

8. Kempton, Reed. Bicycle Parking Guidelines. Washington D.C.: Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, 2002.

9. Materials Info. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2, 2014, from http://www-materials.eng.cam.ac.uk/mpsite/materialsdb/ 10. Miller, J. (n.d.). Senza Bike Lock System. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from https://www.behance.net/gallery/1232073/Senza-Bike-Lock-System 11. Parking and Loading. (2014). In Portland City Code (pp. 266.1 - 266.33). Portland, Oregon: Portland Bureau of Transportation.

12. Sorrel, C. (2011, July 11). Flipphandle Stem Turns Handlebars 90-degrees for Easy Storage. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from http://www.wired.com/2011/07/flipphandle-stem-turns-handlebars-90-degrees-foreasy-storage/ 13. Tensile Properties. (n.d.). Retrieved December 2, 2014, from http://www.vectranfiber.com/BrochureProductInformation/TensileProperties.aspx 14. Toledo, L., Augustinoy, A., & Sevillia, E. (2014, May 14). Gi Bike. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from http:// www.gibike.com/ 15. Wagner, D., Birt, J., Snyder, M., & Duncanson, J. (1996). Anthropometry and Biomechanics. In Human Factors Design Guide (pp. 791-843). Springfield, VA: U.S Department of Transportation.