I-Like-To-Bike

Sounds like good advice if a new rider wants to make riding a bicycling into some sort of rocket science, or at least as complicated (and as much fun) as flying like an albatross-wannabe.

If that sort of apprenticeship is what it took for Roody to reach his present state of comfortable cycling; no further comment is necessary.

Skipper

I had a dream, too. In my dream, bicycle facilities (bike lanes) were available everywhere there were roads for other vehicles. These lanes were in like another dimension or something. No cars or trucks or farm tractors or pedestrians. Just bicycles. There were on ramps and off ramps all over the place so you could get where you needed to go with relative ease. It was like paradise. There were a few rules to follow and everyone followed them. Everyone was happy.

Then all kinds of self-centered, disrespectful, more entitled types started showing up on the bike lanes that didn't want to or didn't think they had to follow the rules. It seemed as though they were making up their own rules. It didn't take long and what started out as a dream soon became a chaotic nightmare. Atleast it was just bicycles.

Serendipper 

Some of you people are either extremely paranoid, or chronic weed smokers.

I have ridden in various terrain/cityscapes/situations for the past 25 years, some as chaotic as a messenger's fixed Halloween Critical Mass, without ever seeing the kind of pandemonium you predict.

Where did some of you come up with such fanciful, terrific notions of bicycle anarchy?

Maybe you should ride more. I find cycling to put my mind at ease....

Brian Ratliff

Odd, this advice. We sit and talk about cycling and the associated skills, but it is not really that complicated, provided that you also know the general goals of riding in an urban environment and the basic rules of the road. One thing I've always noticed is that this stuff about technique is complicated if you talk about it, but if you are actually doing it, it is not really that difficult. It is like throwing a ball or swimming; actually describing the mechanics requires a bunch of complicated language and long explanations, but doing it is not that difficult, after the person is made aware of what to be aware of. We cannot lose sight of this fact.

Sometimes people who are good at something, or think they are, like to make what they do appear harder than it really is. I think there is a bit of this tendency running around this forum.

crazybikerchick

Your way make work for you, but it may give you a bad reputation amongst other road users that can't see your system, and will just assume the worst about you. When I'm walking (no bike) and I'm waiting for the light to change, and it does, and I see a cyclist coming from the other direction, I have no idea whether or not the cyclist will stop or try and mow me down in the crosswalk. Since enough cyclists around here don't stop for reds. FWIW I try to signal stops wherever possible for the benefit of a pedestrian to know that I do plan to stop for them How do you expect the car that you are trying to negotiate a lane change with to respect the fact you want in the lane when he's just seen you get to where you are on the roadway from the sidewalk and crosswalk?

Even though you haven't encountered any problems with your system (luckily since riding on the sidewalk often puts you in a position where cars don't think to look before turning) you may have made lots of pedestrians jumpy by passing them on the sidewalk at speed, or by riding at them in the crosswalk.

Would you like cars to treat stoplights as stop signs?

Yes a bicycle is not a car and that makes it much easier and safer to do a lot of things that cars can't. A lot of traffic law is written with the car in mind and is not particularly necessary for a bicycle - having a narrow footprint and a lower speed.

I do break the odd traffic law (riding down residential one way streets the wrong way, but only the same kind of ones I would walk down the middle of the road as well) but try to follow the rules as much as I can so that I can encourage respect of cyclists. Stopping at the red light doesn't cost much time, and provides a nice little break at the same time. Lots of otherwise nice people I know think cyclists are idiots and mostly because they see the ones like you who think they are half and half, and it is really annoying the cyclist-hatred is pervasive. The hatred that gets honked at and aggressive driving and yelling out the window, to someone that is following all the rules, because you happen to be a convenient cyclist to pick on.

Helmet Head

If it's not so hard, then why do the vast majority of cyclists make the most basic mistakes all the time?

Actually, I agree, in the end, it really isn't all that hard. What's hard is losing the albatross that prevents most people from even trying to be part of traffic.

Serendipper 

Cool. I ride for transportation, not reputation.

No argument with you here. No, I wouldn't want cars to break traffic laws, as they weigh several tons.
But, as for bikes, yes you are right. A bicycle is not a car. You argue against yourself quite effectively, no need for me to jump in.

You sure those 'nice' people are referring to me (someone they have never seen before in their life) or you when they see you careening down a one-way the wrong way?

Your user name is quite appropro, BTW. Kudos for living up to it in every way possible.

tippy

The code doesn't say a bicycle is a car ... it says the person operating the bicycle (on a roadway) is subject to the same rights and responsiblities of a driver of a vehicle ...

I don't think it's matter of what we are (vehicle or pedestrian). I think it's a matter of what pathway (roadway or sidewalk or trail) that we operate on that determines the laws that we are required to comply with. On the roadway, we are to comply with vehicular traffic laws; on the sidewalk, we comply with pedestrian traffic laws ... regardless of what we want to call ourselves.

Good Luck,
d.tipton

sbhikes

Because what you consider to be among the "most basic mistakes" are quite often not really mistakes at all.

Roody

I did not mean to imply that cycling according to the rules is difficult. It really isn't, especially if you have experience as a driver.

What is tricky is learning enough about cycling in traffic to "throw away the rule book" and begin espousing your idiosyncratic cycling methods. It seems obvous that some posters here are not experienced vehicular cyclists. Nevertheless, they seem to think that they know more about cycling than the experts, who almost unanimously advocate VC. Before preaching some strange hybrid of vehicular and pedestrian cycling, or devising any other personalized "system" of riding in traffic, you owe it to yourself and to other road users to first learn the right way.

Roody

I saw this after I posted my previous message. It's what I was trying to say, only I was much less coherent and concise.

Roody

Off Topic: Crazybikerchick disagreed with you in a respectful manner. You saw fit to respond rudely. Is it your belief that centaurs and other mythological creatures don't have to follow the rules of civilization, whether cycling on the streets or surfing on the internet?

I-Like-To-Bike

Yeah, sure thing Roody.
The right way = Your way.

Expert = Anyone able to "educate" Roody.

Too silly; and not worth wasting anymore electrons on such blarney.

Brian Ratliff

I still disagree. While there are some things to learn about vehicular cycling, there are people out there who survive just fine using different "styles" of cycling. The "experts" you speak of are all self described. Perhaps this is by necessity, but it is still a self described title. That the "experts" with which you agree with their self description are all advocating vehicular cycling is no suprise, given your opinions on the subject. Perhaps you feel you owe some of these people credit for having their ideas get you out on your bike 3 years ago, but not everyone feels this debt.

For instance, messengers, some of whom have survived on the city streets for 50-60 hours a week all year for several years might legimately call themselves "experts," though it is unlikely that you would agree with their self assessment, given their "style" of cycling.

Perhaps coming up with a formal (and politically independent) school of study regarding vehicular traffic and including cyclist interactions should be a goal of cycling advocacy. This would clear up the need for self described experts and would inject some much needed "hard" data into our debates.

Roody

Experts are people who have used principles of observation and analysis to develop a replicable system of rules. There are experts on this forum, in fact you, Brian, are probably one of them. (I am not, nor do I claim to be. Maybe some day....)

All experts are "self-described" to some extent. Newton did not have a degree in physics, nor did Einstein. Both were "self-described" experts. They became full-fledged experts when others read their books and agreed with their ideas. The books published by experts in cyling safety, agreed to by the many people who read these books, basically agree that bicycles should be driven on the roadway in a vehicular manner. Do you know of anybody who has thought this matter through, who is an expert, who believes that there is any other way to ride? While there are many disagreements on details, the basic assumptions of all experts support a vehicular cycling style.

The "style" I see most cyclists use around here is definitely not vehicular. It is a mish-mash of dangerous practices including wrong-way, sudden erratic turns and swerves, a total reliance on other road users to avoid them, rather than any attempt to ride defensively. This "style" obviously puts the riders at greater risk, along with anybody else, including other cyclists, who is unlucky enough to be on the road with them.

I don't see how anybody can condone this kind of riding, or rightly describe it as a "system." People obviously do not have an innate or instinctive ability to handle a vehicle in traffic. We require training, education and experience. Cagers get some training, and they still screw up from time to time. Cyclists get no training, and the only reason they do not get hit more often, in my opinion, is because cagers have learned (through education and experience) to give us a wide berth.

Messengers and other experienced or intelligent cyclists may eventually develop a "system" that works for them so far. Does it also work for other road users? Do these nonvehicular tricks sometimes (or often) annoy and aggravate motorists? Other cyclists? Pedestrians? Is there any possibility that the main reason that cagers are hostile to us is because so many of us are just poor cyclists who never bothered to learn the rudiments of our craft, and show no consideration for other users. How long will it be before they crack down on this behavior with restrictions that will affect us all? Why is this not the primary area of concern for cycling advocates?

noisebeam

I support joggers running in road facing traffic and traffic is light to moderate.
Just go around them staying on the pavement like everyone else does. Frankly its the least of my concerns.
Cyclist who blow stop signs bug me, not when they do it in front of me, but across my path. About once every 6mo I need to pull a rapid evasive maneuver to avoid hitting a cyclist runing a red or blowing a stop.
As to impeding traffic, if I didn't I couldn't even get more than 1/2block from my house. Its a neccessity.
Al

Helmet Head

I just want to complement Roody and Brian for this particular discussion. I hope you continue...

Helmet Head

Ok, Diane, please explain this.

You assert that what I see as basic mistakes are not really mistakes at all.

Can you give any examples of cycling behavior that I would call a "basic mistake" and you would say is not really a mistake at all?

sbhikes

From https://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.p...1&postcount=80
The first cyclist was in the bike lane. It is not a mistake to ride a bike in the bike lane even at 20 miles an hour.

The second cyclist crossed the street safely. It is not a mistake to cross the street with pedestrians.

You call the way people ride "mistakes" when it doesn't fit your model even when what they have done is safe and legal. You believe everyone who didn't take your precious class or study your precious books is in error, virtual ticking timebombs of cycling ineptitude. You are too judgmental.

I think some of what you say you do is a little crazy, but I don't think you make mistakes the way you ride.

noisebeam

In regard to mistakes. I, over time from my own experience and from advice from the forum, find ways to improve my safety. But I wouldn't call the past ways mistakes.
I also find that I may make an error (perhaps due to judgement or perhaps due too paying attention to something else) that creates a situation. For example when riding in a narrow lane I may drift a bit too right of center, which encourages an unsafe pass. The driver made the mistakes, but more thought/care on my part could have helped prevent it.
Another change in riding I made was I used to have this problem right turn from a RTOL where other cars making a right didn't fully use the lane if I was in it making a right from its center and instead turned right from overlaping the right and thru lane line. Now I make a right turn from the left side of the RTOL and never have this problem any more. The previous was not a mistake (in fact its the vehicular way to do the turn) but I've learned a better postion.
Al

-=(8)=-

I have to agree with Brians assessments.
I have been riding for 41 years. I am my own expert.
I appreciate other peoples opinions but they dont know whats
better for me than I do.
If you go to jogging forums, you see the same concerns, not only
about cars, but how bicycles are the 'bad guys' too.....Im sure if you
went to an OTR Truckers forum you'd read about cars hogging the left
lane on the expressway as being 'bad guys'. We are in an angry society that
is in hurry-up mode all the time. It is only getting worse. If you are smaller
and slower and have the audacity to hold someone up for 3 seconds or irritate
them in any way by the way you dress or whatever, you are an enemy of
forward motion. Bicyclists are enemies of forward motion quite often for
various reasons. Of course 98% of these reasons are selfish and unreasonable
but thats just the way it is. Its not going to change except to get worse.
You can expend lots of energy and spend hours pondering / theorising and
formulating ways to try to get in the good graces of people who just dont like
you and never will, or you can ...just ride ! Im going to do the latter.
As long as I am comfortable in the fact that I am not bothering or impeding
anyone, car or ped, Im going to keep using the same non-expert, flawed system
that has worked for me and made my 41 years of cycling safe and enjoyable
overall.

Brian Ratliff

An expert, as I think you agree, is a person who is recognized in their field of study. A person such as John Forester or John Allen, may be an expert at "vehicular cycling," but this is not the only way to get around on a bicycle. Most messengers use a different sort of technique than is commonly advocated by vehicular cyclists, relying more on space, intrinsic physics and sociology to make their movements on the road than the standard vehicular rules of the road. That they all ride in similar fashion (similar enough for a stereotype anyway) and they survive (their safety is probably at least equal to any other cyclist when taking into account "bike hours" rather than simple trips or calender time).

You might even say there are experts on "invisible" cycling and "pedestrian mode" cycling (for lack of better terminology). Whether one style is more dangerous than another is still up for debate and probably varies depending on the cyclist's goals, their environment, and their skill at evaluating traffic and at controlling their bikes. It is probably the case that a pedestrian mode is simply the best style of cycling for one not skilled at bicycle control. Vehicular cycling is probably safest when practiced by a skilled cyclist on suburban and faster urban streets. Messenger style cycling might well be safer for urban city centers and is definitely more efficient. "Invisible cycling" might well be safer at night when caught out without lights.

Yet, they survive. Part of the problem with the vehicular cycling advocacy is that the vehicular cyclists continually assert that certain types of riding styles are "dangerous" and those people who practice said riding styles should change and practice vehicular cycling. More than once I have heard the term "deadly" bandied about these forums. Yet they survive. Why would they listen to "some guy" when he tells them that their riding style, which they have been practicing for years, is mortally dangerous and should be changed. The truth is that the difference in the risk of "safe" styles of riding and "dangerous" styles of riding is not that much. Even if it there results a 50% or 75% decrease in risk by changing practices, it is a 50 or 75% decrease of a very small number, which equals a small number. Cycling can be dangerous, but not as dangerous as we sometimes make it out to be, regardless of the style of riding.

There is a fine line between when we should be cleaning up our own house and when we should be showing a united front. I would argue for a united front, but others can just as easily argue we should clean our own house first. I suspect that there should be a good balance between the two - we shouldn't sit by and only make efforts to change the behaviors of cyclists, and we shouldn't be completely uncritical of the image that irresponsible cyclists give cyclists as a whole.

Serendipper 

First of all, Lem~in~Pa, excellent, eloquent post. As always.

Off Topic: Roody, your response to my debate with crazybikerchick, in which you display your uncanny supernatural ability to determine the etiquette of pixels is astounding. Reminds me of another mythological figure, I believe his name was Zeus.

It never fails to underwhelm me when a person attacks me, instead of my argument. What part of my argument did you disagree with Roody? As far as being 'rude', I did not curse, call her out of her name, or use any ammunition against her argument besides her own words. It is a part of civilized society called effective debating skills. I didn't exactly tie her up, and brand her with a scarlet letter, did I? It isn't pretty to see someone have their ass* handed to them, but it is sometimes neccesary, when the debate heats up and talking points are directed to the OP, rather than the bike-riding populace in general. Now, that is rude.

I would choose which battles to fight and who to defend, if I were you. Otherwise, you appear to be a reasonably intelligent, mild-mannered fellow. No offence taken, none given.

*ass is not used as a vulgarity or curseword in this context, but merely a symbol of levity, and part of an everyday, useful idiomatic phrase as commonly used in the U.S.

Helmet Head

I never stated nor even implied that either of those behaviors was a mistake. They were both provided in the context of a discussion abou how, to me, communication/treatment between cyclists/motorists seemed different to me in SB than in SD.

Helmet Head

Yes, finding the most appropriate/effective lane position in various situations transcends the topic of "vehicular" cycling. Motorcyclists have similar issues. In a way, the problem is more comlex for cyclists, because we have the "slow vehicle" issue to contend with, on top of the "narrow" characteristic that makes lane positioning be an issue in the first place.

This is the concept I tried to convey with Dynamic Lateral Lane Positioning.

But the first step is still to lose the "primarily, keep out of the way of cars" albatross that is hindering most cyclists from even experimenting with creative lane positioning.

Creative Lane Positioning. Hmm. Maybe that's a better name? CLP...