champagne anarchist | armchair activist

Belkin quits. How loyal are sponsors of cycling teams?

Last year, Belkin became the title sponsor of the former Rabobank cycling team, but today it announced that it will end its sponsorship by the end of the year. Various commentators have expressed concern over the lack of continuity in sponsoring. Which raises the question: is it normal for a sponsor to quit after such a short period? And is this becoming worse?

Some sponsors leave after one or two years, while others remain loyal for ten years or more (Française des Jeux, Lampre, Lotto, Quick Step).

The graph above shows the sponsor turnover of UCI Pro Tour teams (the share of sponsors that would quit the subsequent year). Turnover is about 25%, which suggests that a normal sponsorship duration should be about four years. So Belkin’s loyalty is not impressive by those standards.

While the sponsorship duration fluctuates, there doesn’t appear to be a trend of sponsors becoming more or less loyal.


I retrieved sponsor names from team names of UCI Pro Tour teams listed by Cycling News. Due to variations in spelling (Française des Jeux, FDJ,, the data needed some cleaning up. If you want to check them: here’s a list of sponsors and the years in which I think they were active.


Cyclists should have priority here


Some crossings make you wonder: isn’t it weird that cyclists don’t have priority here. This occurs in Amsterdam, but more often in the country. There are different variants, but often there’s a bend in the cycle path just before a crossing. The cycle path is no longer part of the main road and cyclists are confronted with give way road markings. You have to give way to everybody: motorists coming from behind who turn right, oncoming traffic turning left and traffic from the right.

Often, you have to give way to rather secondary roads. For example, the exit to a tiny car park along the Oostvaardersdijk in Almere (photo above). Or the entrance of a government building at the Amsterdamseweg in Velsen-Zuid, where motorists who get priority subsequently have to stop at a gate anyway.

As a cyclist, you end up with a tricky crossing. You have to pay attention to traffic from behind, oncoming traffic and traffic from the right. The sense of insecurity mixes with indignation at the fact that apparently, people have specifically diverted the cycle path just to rob cyclists of their priority. Why are they doing this?

I put this question – in somewhat more neutral terms – to a number of road maintenance authorities, with illustrations from Velsen-Zuid, Watergang, Monnickendam, Weesp, Almere and Muiden. Their answers reveal that there are two reasons for bending cycle paths. First, this creates a space for motorists coming from the right where they can wait before entering or crossing the main road (this is a reason for bending the cycle path, but in itself not a reason to rob cyclists of their priority). Second, it’s about bicycle safety. In the words of the spokesperson of the Province of Noord-Holland:

For reasons of bicycle safety, we at the province often choose not to let cyclists have priority, especially outside the built-up area. It’s the same thing as with roundabouts: you may have priority as a cyclist, but whether you’ll be given priority is a different matter. And with roundabouts, it’s been shown that cyclists who have priority are more often involved in accidents, simply because they’re not given priority.

It’s good to know that the safety of cyclists is high on the agenda. But bending the cycle path and robbing cyclists of their priority – I’m not convinced that’s the right solution. In fact, it’s a bit twisted to reward motorists for not paying attention to cyclists who have priority. There have to be better ways to make them pay attention to cyclists and to slow them down.

As I said, such situations occur mainly in the country. You can point to situations in Amsterdam where cyclists should have priority, but mostly these don’t concern cycle paths along main roads that have been bended. However, there is a slightly similar situation opposite the entrance of the Westerpark.

The original Dutch version of this article appeared in the OEK (pdf). More examples here.

Rise in Dutch cycling accidents, but Strava probably not to blame

The number of wielrenners (cyclists on racing bikes) treated at Dutch emergency departments has doubled since 2010, according to a study published today. Among a range of possible explanations the authors mention the popularity of apps like Strava:

The increasing popularity of smartphone apps like Strava, which let you keep track of cycling records for certain tracks and compare them with others, can lead to dangerous situations.

Like I said, this is just one of many possible explanations discussed in the report and the authors are by no means suggesting that Strava is a key factor causing cycling accidents. That said, the idea that Strava may have played a role doesn’t seem to be a priori absurd.

Strava was launched in 2009, but when did it become popular in the Netherlands? I couldn’t find any direct data on this, but Google trends is a plausible indicator.

The Google data are pretty clear: interest in Strava didn’t take off until February 2012 in the Netherlands (interestingly, the search volume index is highest in Limburg and Gelderland, which are also the main regions with hills in the Netherlands). As an extra check, I looked at messages at the forum pages (you need to login in order to be able to search the forum) containing the search term ‘strava’. There were 10 messages prior to 1 February 2012 and 1,843 after that date, which seems to confirm the Google pattern.

By contrast, the number of wielrenners at emergency departments saw its biggest increase between 2010 and 2011. The number was stable at about 2,000 prior to 2011, but rose to 3,700 in 2011 and 4,200 in 2012. So it seems Strava was largely unknown in the Netherlands at the time when the largest increase in cycling accidents happened.

The reason for the study was a media storm last year about supposed irresponsible behaviour of wielrenners towards ‘normal’ cyclists. Car lobby club ANWB even suggested wielrenners should stay at home on sunny days.

In a survey among wielrenners, 45% said wielrenners do not sufficiently adjust their speed and 51% said wielrenners often ride in (too) wide groups. An analysis of 2,849 injury-causing accidents involving two cyclists revealed that in 24 cases a ‘normal’ cyclist got injured as a result of a collision with a wielrenner. So while many wielrenners agree that (some) wielrenners behave irresponsibly, this doesn’t seem to be a major cause of injuries among other cyclists.

Wielrenners themselves have about 2.2 injuries per 100,000 hours of activity. This is much lower than the number for all sports combined (7.1). However, 23% of wielrenners who go to the emergency department have to be treated in hospital, compared to 6% for all sports. So in terms of serious injuries, wielrennen doesn’t seem to be much safer or unsafer than other sports.

While it’s difficult to pinpoint the exact cause of the rise in accidents involving wielrenners, the authors of the report suggest the capacity of cycle paths is no longer sufficient given the rising number of cyclists, including a rise in cycling among people above 55. One of their recommendations is to create more ‘cycling highways’ for fast cyclists.


Protect your privacy with an online doppelgänger

Apple has obtained a patent for a rather intruiguing idea: protect your privacy by spreading personal data that are partly correct, but partly incorrect.

The idea to have a cloning service create a doppelgänger with, for example, your birth data and hair colour, but with other interests - say basket weaving. This service would make search queries and click on results, click on ads, fill out surveys, chat, send emails and place orders, all in your name. A smart cloning service could fool companies like Google and Facebook and contaminate the profiles they keep of you to the point of making them useless.

The inventor, Stephen Carter, explains in the patent filing why we need such a doppelgänger generator:

Users are growing uncomfortable with the amount of information marketers possess today about them and many feel it is an invasion of their privacy even if the marketing is currently considered to be lawful […] The electronic age has given rise to what is now known as thousands of ‘Little Brothers’, who perform internet surveillance by collecting information to form electronic profiles about a user not through human eyes or through the lens of a camera but through data collection.

But wait - isn’t that a description of what Apple does? It has already been speculated that Apple hasn’t acquired the patent to launch a product to frustrate trackers, but to prevent others from launching such a product. Or perhaps Apple wants to sabotage the business model of Google and Facebook, while continuing tracking people through their iPhones. In any case, Apple seems to think it’s possible that Carter’s idea might work.

Meanwhile, tech site the Register wonders about the practical aspects of the invention:

All we know for sure is that it’s going to be quite weird when basket-weaving kits that your anti-surveillance cloneware has ordered on eBay start arriving at your house.

Via Webwereld


Can Twitter predict the new Dutch trade union president

Number of tweets in which candidates are mentioned

According to an American study, you can predict the outcome of elections by simply counting how often the names of the candidates are mentioned on Twitter. Members of the Dutch union confederation FNV are currently voting for their new president (it has been claimed this is the first time in the world union members get to directly elect their confederation president). Would it be possible to predict who will be the new FNV president using Twitter?

Since last Friday, I’ve been collecting the tweets containing the term ‘FNV’; so far, there are over 2,500. In those tweets, the incumbent Ton Heerts is mentioned 204 times, whereas his challenger Corrie van Brenk is mentioned 146 times. In short, if Twitter is a good predictor (which of course is a matter for debate), the contest is tighter than one might have expected.

The graph above shows the results for the days for which complete data is available. On Saturday, Van Brenk got some attention because something she had said had been fact checked (and found to be correct). On Sunday, Heerts was mentioned because he appeared on a TV show hosted by Eva Jinek. On 1 May, it was officially announced who the candidates are and they had a debate.

Update - Updated to include 13 May, the final voting day. In sum, Van Brenk was mentioned 497 times and Heerts 631. It has since been announced that Heerts has won the election (of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the method is sound; in order to make such claims one would need to evaluate a fair amount of predictions).
Influences reflected in the graph include: Factcheck confirms Van Brenk statement (27 April); Heerts in Eva Jinek TV show (28 April); candidates officially announced (1 May); debate in Buitenhof TV show (5 May); problems at tax authorities that Van Brenk’s Abvakabo FNV had warned about (6 May); Van Brenk interview at (9 May); Van Brenk in radio show (10 May); Heerts at presentation of initiative to train technical staff (13 May); EenVandaag TV show poll predicts Heerts will win (13 May).
The graph may not be visible in older versions of Internet Explorer.


I collected tweets using the Twitter Streaming API (the ‘firehose’), in the way described here. I prepared the data using Python and analysed it using R (find the code on Github). The graph was created with D3.js.
I looked into how influential twitterers are (how many followers, how often listed) and into their backgrounds (e.g., do they mention ‘fnv’ in their profile). The most important finding is that twitterers who mention Van Brenk, more often mention ‘abva’ or ‘akf’ in their profile - not surprising since Van Brenk is currently president of Abvakabo FNV, the public sector union affiliated to the FNV.
The American study on Twitter as a predictor of election outcomes was done by DiGrazia c.s. and can be found here. Some remarks on their study:

  • Yes, twitterers are only a small part of the population and no, they’re not representative of the entire population. Likely, Twitter is dominated by a small, active incrowd. It’s also correct that tweets mentioning a candidate need not endorse them; they may as well be critical. Despite all this, DiGrazia c.s. found that mentions on Twitter consistently predict election outcomes. Perhaps they are an indicator of something else - e.g. media attention or how actively people are campaigning for a candidate.
  • Of course, this method doesn’t provide any certainty on who will win. It’s possible for a candidate to get almost 100% of the tweet share and still lose (at least, that’s what the scatterplots of DiGrazia c.s. suggest).
  • It’s unclear to what extent the conclusions of the American study can be generalised to other situations. It’s therefore a bit of a gamble to use this method to predict who will be the next president of the FNV.