Advocacy & Safety - If scuba diving had advocacy...

If scuba diving had advocacy like bicycling has advocacy...



The focus of scuba diving magazines would be... how to make our oceans safer for scuba diving.
Almost every time someone died while scuba diving, the diving community would be dominated with talk about how inherently unsafe scuba diving has become. There would be very little interest in learning what if anything the diver could have done to prevent his death.
Whenever a scuba diver ascended into a boat anchored at the surface, scuba advocates would generally blame the boat captain (and not the scuba diver for not looking where he was going).
You wouldn't need to get certified to go scuba diving.

I don't get it... are we advocating SCUBA diving now? It would be safer if SCUBA divers could be protected from trolling nets... ;)

Stay out of the shark zone!

It just occured to me that the dangers of scuba diving are comparable to the dangers of cycling, but the approach is very different.

In scuba diving, the focus is on how to be safe (get certified, always have a buddy, leave reserve air in your tank, etc. etc.)

In cycling, the focus is on whining about how dangerous cycling is.

This is an interesting analogy. Diving and cycling are both assumed to be risky hobbies by most people. I would have thought that the dangers of scuba diving are much worse than the dangers of cycling. On a bike the laws of physics work for you so your bike usually keeps upright and moving forward, and you never have to worry about running out of air to breathe. When diving, physics usually works against you, with pressure, the nature of compressed gasses, water in the lungs, rapture of the depths, etc. The equipment for diving seems much more complex and prone to failure, compared to a simple bike. And diving takes us to a mysterious realm, while we usually cycle in our own neighborhoods.

However, as Helmet Head suggested, divers are much more serious about safety. They study on land before they even take their first dive, and most continue to study and learn throughout their diving careers. They also take responsibility for their own welfare, rather than relying on strangers to make the seas safe for them. You will probably never hear a diver say something like, "It was like that shark never even saw me before he hit me."

As cyclists, we often learn everything we ever know in kindergarten, and we love to blame any mishap on cagers, poor road design or an autocentric society. Like divers, we gather to brag about our adventures and our misadventures, but we rarely think about what we can learn when things go wrong.

Stay out of the shark zone!

Or perhaps "The Propeller Zone"? ;)

Your analogy is missing the component of drivers, unless you want to talk about sharks?
I know you are fond of insistintg that as cyclists we should focus most of our energy on the things we have control over, our behavior and not the behavior of drivers. But I would argue that education of drivers on our rights and responsibilities as cyclists would help alleviate some of the run-ins and accidents that cyclists encounter. Yes, we do a good job of educating by cycling well and acting like vehicles, but we still hear stories of motorists, "teaching cyclists lessons" by running them off the road and I would further argue that even one of these stories is one too many. In what other aspect of life is the penalty for inconveniencing someone bodily harm or death? A thought provoking analogy, but still missing a very important variable.

Your analogy is missing the component of drivers, unless you want to talk about sharks?
I know you are fond of insistintg that as cyclists we should focus most of our energy on the things we have control over, our behavior and not the behavior of drivers. But I would argue that education of drivers on our rights and responsibilities as cyclists would help alleviate some of the run-ins and accidents that cyclists encounter. Yes, we do a good job of educating by cycling well and acting like vehicles, but we still hear stories of motorists, "teaching cyclists lessons" by running them off the road and I would further argue that even one of these stories is one too many. In what other aspect of life is the penalty for inconveniencing someone bodily harm or death? A thought provoking analogy, but still missing a very important variable.

I disagree. If you generalize "drivers" as any "potential hazard which is out of the diver's/cyclist's control" then I would say that drivers (two r's) definately exist and are present on any scuba dive.

But I think this is a very interesting analogy. If a diver somehow gets in trouble, they analyze what went wrong and try to fix or prepare for it so it doesn't happen again. Divers (or for that matter, anyone in a profession or hobby where risk is high - such as mountain climbing) put a LOT of effort into safety preparation. My experience is that with cycling this is not the case; risk exists but the preparation and thought about safety is often exiguous at best. It may be because cycling is thought of as a common activity and is endorsed by everyone, for everyone: What's the difference between cycling in my neighborhood and cycling on a traffic-heavy road? I know how to ride a bike - I've been doing it all my life - it'll be fine.

I'm not a proponent of bicycle registration and license endorsements (as some are), but that analogy has got me thinking - it redefines the problem.

(btw, kind of a side note - this came up in another thread: MA law puts bicycle registration in the hands of the towns and cities - the towns are allowed to adopt bicycle registration systems - as far as I know, none have)

I disagree. If you generalize "drivers" as any "potential hazard which is out of the diver's/cyclist's control" then I would say that drivers (two r's) definately exist and are present on any scuba dive.

But I think this is a very interesting analogy. If a diver somehow gets in trouble, they analyze what went wrong and try to fix or prepare for it so it doesn't happen again. Divers (or for that matter, anyone in a profession or hobby where risk is high - such as mountain climbing) put a LOT of effort into safety preparation. My experience is that with cycling this is not the case; risk exists but the preparation and thought about safety is often exiguous at best. It may be because cycling is thought of as a common activity and is endorsed by everyone, for everyone: What's the difference between cycling in my neighborhood and cycling on a traffic-heavy road? I know how to ride a bike - I've been doing it all my life - it'll be fine.

I'm not a proponent of bicycle registration and license endorsements (as some are), but that analogy has got me thinking - it redefines the problem.

(btw, kind of a side note - this came up in another thread: MA law puts bicycle registration in the hands of the towns and cities - the towns are allowed to adopt bicycle registration systems - as far as I know, none have)

But drivers (two r's) are a hazard that can be mitigated (educated) in the same way that cyclists can be educated. IMO just making sure that they understand that cyclists have the same rights and responibilities as all other vehicles. The variables that a diver faces can not be mitigated by anyone but the diver, but cyclists can advocate for better bicycling education during driver licensing, increased bicycle signage (cyclists has right to full use of lane), and removal of unsafe cycling conditions on the roadways. Divers can't advocate for shallower oceans, or nicer sharks. I still see wheeleater drain grates in my travels.

But drivers (two r's) are a hazard that can be mitigated (educated) in the same way that cyclists can be educated. IMO just making sure that they understand that cyclists have the same rights and responibilities as all other vehicles. The variables that a diver faces can not be mitigated by anyone but the diver, but cyclists can advocate for better bicycling education during driver licensing, increased bicycle signage (cyclists has right to full use of lane), and removal of unsafe cycling conditions on the roadways. Divers can't advocate for shallower oceans, or nicer sharks. I still see wheeleater drain grates in my travels.
Please notice the words I put in Bold. I agree that it would be great if motorists understood our right to the road. In fact, this is the point I most often argue with cagers in the middle of the street. However, I don't understand how this could make us safer. Imagine that every motorist understands that cyclists have a right to the road, and they even agree with this point. How does it follow that we will then be any safer? I mean you can't be saying that motorists are deliberately running us down because they don't know we have rights? Treespeed, you got some splainin to do!

Please notice the words I put in Bold. I agree that it would be great if motorists understood our right to the road. In fact, this is the point I most often argue with cagers in the middle of the street. However, I don't understand how this could make us safer. Imagine that every motorist understands that cyclists have a right to the road, and they even agree with this point. How does it follow that we will then be any safer? I mean you can't be saying that motorists are deliberately running us down because they don't know we have rights? Treespeed, you got some splainin to do!

I've had this discussion with Serge and it would seem unlikely, but it does happen. It is only a small percentage of the run-ins that any cyclist has with motorists, but it does happen. Motorists do intentionally hit cyclists, motorists also intentionally hit other motorists too. How it would make us safer is that it would lessen the few occasions when I have folks buzz me and yell at me to get on the sidewalk. I am a very experienced cyclist and I ride my own brand of self taught VC, but there are still drivers who feel they have a right to teach us a lesson for inconveniencing them for a moment. When motorists then proceed to tap or buzz a cyclist it cuts down on the room for error and increases the likelihood of a crash. It's bad enough with drunks and folks distracted by cell phones, but to also have a group of motorists who don't believe we have a right to the road makes our jobs just that much more difficult. So yes, we need to act like vehicle drivers and motorists also need to continue being informed that we have a right to do so and it seems like the only ones interested in spreading that word is cyclists. I certainly don't see how it can make us any less safe. Any time I've explained to a motorist the reason why I'm riding the way I am and they actually listen, they realize that it makes perfect sense. If I can educate someone at an interesection in a minute imagine what they could do if they started in high school drivers ed and at the DMV. I'm not talking bicycle safety classes, just the making sure that drivers know the laws as they pertain to cyclists. As I've said before on this forum, I've had run-ins with Los Angeles Police who were misinformed on the laws as they apply to cyclists. If a cop doesn't know the law, then what' the likelihood that an average motorist does? That doesn't make me feel very safe. And as a side note I've given up on paragraphs.

Cycling and SCUBA diving are very different. All or most of the dangers of SCUBA diving are static and unchangable. So SCUBA divers do their best to adapt to the environment. This means classes and special equipment and preparation.

The main threat in road cycling is the threat from cars. We like to characterize cars as objects - things which we have no control and who's behavior we cannot change. We forget that behind every car is a person just like us, who has responsibilities to maintain to continue the priviledge of driving on the road. As much as we prepare for our environment as cyclists, to leave out advocating driver education regarding cyclists is just plain dumb.

Moreover, while education of cyclists is difficult because it has to rely only on outreach, we have the perfect vehicle for educating moterists: the driver's licence. Every driver in the US today has been through the DMV in their state to take both a written test and a driving test. If even two questions are added to the written test that pertain to cyclists, every driver in the US will be exposed to material explaining the rights and responsibilities of cyclists.

There are two ways of increasing safety on the roads. We can adapt to our environment, and we can change our environment. To focus on only one or the other is to be extremely short sighted.

And as a side note I've given up on paragraphs.

No, not that... anything but that....

Wow. The posts of Roody and Velo_sleuth confirm that I'm not the only one who sees the connection.

Treespeed, I agree that "[motorists intentionally hitting cyclists] is only a small percentage of the run-ins that any cyclist has with motorists, but it does happen.", but I suggest that motorist education would be about as helpful to solving this issue as education would be for taming sharks. If people are knowingly willing to endanger the lives of others, that's not an education issue.

The main issue for me is how much, what percentage, of our emphasis should be on something that is extremely rare and practically impervious to our efforts. More on this topic as I reply to Brian...



Cycling and SCUBA diving are very different.
Of course they are, but not in the ways you are about to describe...



All or most of the dangers of SCUBA diving are static and unchangable.
With this caveat, practically speaking and for the most part, most of the dangers of traffic cycling are also "static and unchangable" (in the way that SCUBA dangers are "static and unchangable" for divers). This is the point of this thread.



So SCUBA divers do their best to adapt to the environment. This means classes and special equipment and preparation.
And traffic cyclists should also do their best to adapt to the enviroment. For cyclists this is not so much special equipment and preparation (though a bit of both), but education (either from books or classes). Also, experience can be relied on a bit more by cyclists than divers because cyclists can pick different environments with gradually increasing levels of danger, whereas divers face most of their potential dangers in almost any diving environment. Still, just as novice divers keep to shallow depths as they learn so should novice cyclists keep to streets with lighter traffic as they learn, so the analogy holds somewhat there too.



The main threat in road cycling is the threat from cars. We like to characterize cars as objects - things which we have no control and who's behavior we cannot change. We forget that behind every car is a person just like us, who has responsibilities to maintain to continue the priviledge of driving on the road.
Now this is very interesting. We agree the cars are driven by humans whose behavior we can influence. The difference is you're talking long-term behavior changes, through education, and I'm talking short-term behavior changes, through real-time communication while riding in traffic!



As much as we prepare for our environment as cyclists, to leave out advocating driver education regarding cyclists is just plain dumb.
Brian, you have a real annoying habit of misrepresenting a position, portraying as more extreme than what anyone is advocating, and then criticizing it (e.g., as being "plain dumb"). This is a strawman fallacy, and doing so is not conducive to constructive discourse.

I'm not calling for leaving out driver education regarding cyclists - I'm calling into question the amount of emphasis we -- cycling advocates-- put on the "driver/traffic problem" overall, and looking for solutions outside of ourselves, rather than putting the emphasis on searching for solutions within ourselves (like divers do).

As potential victims of drivers, we should study their behavior. But I think we could be much more effective at taking driver behavior as a given, like divers take their potential dangers as a given, and learn how to be safe in spite of that danger, rather than beating our heads against the wall trying to change that behavior. This is particularly true considering the vast majority of car-bike collisions involve little if any illegal or negligent behavior by the driver. We are spending the majority of our efforts on something that we can hardly affect, and even if we could, it would make cycling much safer anyway.

Do you know the 80/20 rule - that says that 80% of the job can often be done with 20% of the effort. It's the remaining 20% that takes 80% of the effort. The way it applies to safe traffic cycling is that the 80% of the job that can be done with 20% of the effort is education of cyclists. The other 20%, which takes 80% of the effort, is perhaps mostly motorist education.

But also consider how few units of effort we have to work with. Say it takes 10,000 units of effort to solve 100% of the "cyclist safety in traffic" problem, and we have about 1500 units to work with. Well, the motorist education part is only 20% of the problem, but it takes 8,000 units (80%) to solve it. The cyclist education takes only 2,000 units to solve, but that's 80% of the whole problem. How do you think we should distribute our efforts? How do you think we are distributing our efforts?

What I see is that the vast majority of our effort (say 1400 of our 1500 units) is going towards motorist education, but 1400 is just a drop in the buck of the 8,000 units required to solve the motorist education problem. That 1400/8,000 (17.5%) of 20% of the problem. So we're using 93% (1400/1500) of our effort to solve 3.5% (17.5% of 20%) of the total problem!

At the same time, we're only spending 100 units against cyclist education. That's about 6.5% of our effort trying to solve 80% of the problem, or it solves 5% more of the total problem. So, by distributing our efforts mostly on motorist education we're solving only about 8.5% of the total problem.

Now consider if we refocused our efforts, and put all 1500 of our available units against cyclist education. Now we're solving 75% of 80% of the problem, or 60% of the total problem! Doesn't spending an effort to solve about 60% of a problem make a lot more sense than spending the same effort so solve only about 8% of the problem?

I don't care if some of our effort goes to motorist education, I just think it should be a relatively small percentage. Most importantly, the vast majority of cycling advocacy should go to cyclist education, because that's where we get the bang for the buck! And the first step in that direction is conveying the information about how important cyclist education is, and combatting the idea that most cyclists seem to hold, that we're like sitting ducks out there no matter what we know or how we behave.

Serge,
you do have to admit though that Brian is correct in that there is already an infrastructure in place to educate drivers and it would not be such a huge leap to get a bit more info out to the driving public in High School Driver's Ed., the DMV, and private driving schools. I would argue that you have your 20/80 ratio mixed up. Where is the infrastructure for educating cyclists, especially those past school age? As Brian stated what is the difficulty in adding a few questions, a few more paragraphs of instruction, a few more road signs.

Reaching out to and educating cyclists, especially those who don't feel a need to be educated would be prohibitively expensive. Conversely most cyclists are also drivers, so what better place to reach cyclists. Yes, the cyclists have the most control over their behavior, but we need to choose the best place to educate both ends of the spectrum of road users.

Interesting analogy Serge, and it made me think of another. When an accident occurs in rock climbing, the discussion is along one of two lines. The first is the level of operator error that might have occured. The 2nd is the level of objective hazard (falling rocks, etc out of the climber's control) that the operator elected to subject himself to.

I tend to look at riding in traffic much like climbing. I personally believe it is unreasonable to expect drivers to behave in predictable manners all the time and that every time we get on the road, we expose ourselves to a certain level of objective hazard. Usually, we know roughly the level of objective hazard from past experience on that road and make a relatively informed decision to accept that level of risk.
Although drivers are humans and can make choices and are regulated by rules, they don't always follow them. To expect them to do so at all times and to fail to prepare for the incident wherein they don't follow those rules is to invite trouble upon oneself, IMO.

I personally see Serge's position as valid; we cannot ignore any posibility that an accident could have been avoided by actions of the cyclist regardless of the liability of the driver. We should look for learning oportunities in every situation. We don't learn a thing by simply blaming the driver and leaving it at that.
Troy

It might be relatively easy for society to "educate" the motorists, but what EFFECT would that "education" have in making cycling safer? I say slim to none. How do you "educate" caring about the lives of other humans? You can't. And when motorists are doing nothing wrong in most car-bike collisions, what good can motorist education do for preventing those? None. So, at best, the effect of even very effective motorist education could hardly make a dent in making traffic cycling safer. I mean, if there was nothing else we could be doing, I agree it would still be worth pursuing. But that is not at all the case.

Why should cycling advocacy spend a relatively large percentage of its precious resources trying to get the rest of society to spend a relatively small percentage of its relatively vast resources to educate motorists when all that would have slim to no effect on improving cyclist safety?

Why not intead spend those same precious cycling advocacy resources on trying to get the rest of society to spend a different relatively small portion of its relatively vast resources to educate cyclists on how to ride safely in traffic, something that could vastly improve cyclist safety?

The issue is about where cycling advocacy should be focused, and why.

I'm not calling for leaving out driver education regarding cyclists - I'm calling into question the amount of emphasis we -- cycling advocates-- put on the "driver/traffic problem" overall, and looking for solutions outside of ourselves, rather than putting the emphasis on searching for solutions within ourselves (like divers do).

As potential victims of drivers, we should study their behavior. But I think we could be much more effective at taking driver behavior as a given, like divers take their potential dangers as a given, and learn how to be safe in spite of that danger, rather than beating our heads against the wall trying to change that behavior. This is particularly true considering the vast majority of car-bike collisions involve little if any illegal or negligent behavior by the driver. We are spending the majority of our efforts on something that we can hardly affect, and even if we could, it would make cycling much safer anyway.

Do you know the 80/20 rule - that says that 80% of the job can often be done with 20% of the effort. It's the remaining 20% that takes 80% of the effort. The way it applies to safe traffic cycling is that the 80% of the job that can be done with 20% of the effort is education of cyclists. The other 20%, which takes 80% of the effort, is perhaps mostly motorist education.

But also consider how few units of effort we have to work with. Say it takes 10,000 units of effort to solve 100% of the "cyclist safety in traffic" problem, and we have about 1500 units to work with. Well, the motorist education part is only 20% of the problem, but it takes 8,000 units (80%) to solve it. The cyclist education takes only 2,000 units to solve, but that's 80% of the whole problem. How do you think we should distribute our efforts? How do you think we are distributing our efforts?

What I see is that the vast majority of our effort (say 1400 of our 1500 units) is going towards motorist education, but 1400 is just a drop in the buck of the 8,000 units required to solve the motorist education problem. That 1400/8,000 (17.5%) of 20% of the problem. So we're using 93% (1400/1500) of our effort to solve 3.5% (17.5% of 20%) of the total problem!

At the same time, we're only spending 100 units against cyclist education. That's about 6.5% of our effort trying to solve 80% of the problem, or it solves 5% more of the total problem. So, by distributing our efforts mostly on motorist education we're solving only about 8.5% of the total problem.

Now consider if we refocused our efforts, and put all 1500 of our available units against cyclist education. Now we're solving 75% of 80% of the problem, or 60% of the total problem! Doesn't spending an effort to solve about 60% of a problem make a lot more sense than spending the same effort so solve only about 8% of the problem?

I don't care if some of our effort goes to motorist education, I just think it should be a relatively small percentage. Most importantly, the vast majority of cycling advocacy should go to cyclist education, because that's where we get the bang for the buck! And the first step in that direction is conveying the information about how important cyclist education is, and combatting the idea that most cyclists seem to hold, that we're like sitting ducks out there no matter what we know or how we behave.

Okay, now we have something to work with. Your OP did not have a position, but rather it was a troll net. I'm not sure about the 80/20 rule. It's a rule of thumb and no more and has no real bearing on the topic except as a generic explaination as to how a hard problem can take much effort but make little gain. I don't know if this is directly relevent without evidence that cycling follows this generality, but okay...

You contend that a large portion of the problem is with cyclist's behaviors, and that it will take a small amount of effort and resources to fix. I respectfully disagree. A fairly sizable portion of the problem is with cyclist behaviors, but it will take a much greater amount of money and effort in the way of outreach to fix. A vast majority of cyclists do not subscribe to a forum or a group. The person you pass riding the wrong way on the road is not likely to ever set foot in the office of the League of American Bicyclists. The person riding home from the swing shift without lights will not have heard of John Forester and will balk at spending $100 for a decent lighting system we consider necessary for riding at night.

The point of my post was to illustrate that we have a perfectly acceptable distribution network for drivers of cars, but no such network for cyclists. Driver behavior is the cause of almost all of the problems you hear on this board. We hear of right hooks, left hooks, lectures by drivers on how we are not supposed to be riding in the road. We get buzzed (I guess most of us... apparently not Serge) and we get abused. This is all driver behavior and it keeps people away from cycling. All this indicates that the behavior of drivers is also a sizeable portion of the problem.

Here is how it stands as I see it:

1) The cyclists who would benefit most from a formal, mandatory cycling education program are the ones hardest to reach and hardest to persuade.

2) The cyclists who are easy to reach only need minor behavior modifications to increase their safety in traffic.

3) The environment on the road, affected mostly by the behaviors of car drivers, is hostile to a new cyclist who is toying with the idea of commuting by bicycle.

4) The behavior of drivers is easily modified in the long term by using the drivers licensing process.

5) Since both the behaviors of cyclists and drivers contribute greatly to the problem, focusing on the low hanging fruit, ie. drivers, can eliminate their contribution to the problem. This results in more people considering cycling, and it results in less bicycle-car accidents of the type that the cyclist cannot control.

6) Moreover, the proportion of the cycling population which will be easily receptive to education can easily be educated by a driver's licensing program, even if it is targeted toward drivers.

7) This has been put into practice in Oregon, and I have seen it work over the 5 years since I first started bike commuting in Beaverton. It has resulted in Oregon, and the greater Portland area in particular, becoming one of the best places for cycling in the US, despite the rain.

Now, I have nothing but anecdotal evidence of my own and others, plus some very rudamentary studies I have read to back up these observations. I suspect that you are operating from the same level of ignorance. We will have to leave it as an agreement to disagree unless you have something to back up what you say. If you do, then present it and make your argument again.

My favorite quotes from this thread so far, which has turned out to be more fruitful than I expected.



However, as Helmet Head suggested, divers are much more serious about safety. They study on land before they even take their first dive, and most continue to study and learn throughout their diving careers. They also take responsibility for their own welfare, rather than relying on strangers to make the seas safe for them. You will probably never hear a diver say something like, "It was like that shark never even saw me before he hit me."

As cyclists, we often learn everything we ever know in kindergarten, and we love to blame any mishap on cagers, poor road design or an autocentric society. Like divers, we gather to brag about our adventures and our misadventures, but we rarely think about what we can learn when things go wrong.
...
I agree that it would be great if motorists understood our right to the road. In fact, this is the point I most often argue with cagers in the middle of the street. However, I don't understand how this could make us safer. Imagine that every motorist understands that cyclists have a right to the road, and they even agree with this point. How does it follow that we will then be any safer? I mean you can't be saying that motorists are deliberately running us down because they don't know we have rights?




If a diver somehow gets in trouble, they analyze what went wrong and try to fix or prepare for it so it doesn't happen again. Divers (or for that matter, anyone in a profession or hobby where risk is high - such as mountain climbing) put a LOT of effort into safety preparation. My experience is that with cycling this is not the case; risk exists but the preparation and thought about safety is often exiguous at best.



I personally believe it is unreasonable to expect drivers to behave in predictable manners all the time and that every time we get on the road, we expose ourselves to a certain level of objective hazard. Usually, we know roughly the level of objective hazard from past experience on that road and make a relatively informed decision to accept that level of risk.
Although drivers are humans and can make choices and are regulated by rules, they don't always follow them. To expect them to do so at all times and to fail to prepare for the incident wherein they don't follow those rules is to invite trouble upon oneself, IMO.

I personally see Serge's position as valid; we cannot ignore any posibility that an accident could have been avoided by actions of the cyclist regardless of the liability of the driver. We should look for learning oportunities in every situation. We don't learn a thing by simply blaming the driver and leaving it at that.

It might be relatively easy for society to "educate" the motorists, but what EFFECT would that "education" have in making cycling safer? I say slim to none. How do you "educate" caring about the lives of other humans? You can't. And when motorists are doing nothing wrong in most car-bike collisions, what good can motorist education do for preventing those? None. So, at best, the effect of even very effective motorist education could hardly make a dent in making traffic cycling safer. I mean, if there was nothing else we could be doing, I agree it would still be worth pursuing. But that is not at all the case.

Why should cycling advocacy spend a relatively large percentage of its precious resources trying to get the rest of society to spend a relatively small percentage of its relatively vast resources to educate motorists when all that would have slim to no effect on improving cyclist safety?

Why not intead spend those same precious cycling advocacy resources on trying to get the rest of society to spend a different relatively small portion of its relatively vast resources to educate cyclists on how to ride safely in traffic, something that could vastly improve cyclist safety?

The issue is about where cycling advocacy should be focused, and why.

So where would you be educating cyclists, and how would you reach them? As we've seen there are very few cyclists who regularly read these forums and attend clubs. Why not get both at once? I'm agreeing that cyclists need to be educated, but it doesn't conversely follow that drivers don't also need to be educated. It is not simply getting motorists to care about cyclists, but simply to educate them that we have a right to the roadway. How can getting out this simple fact not be helpful. I know your a big fan of the EC book, but the CA code is what a 5 minute read? How could it not be helpful to make sure that every driver and high school student in drivers ed. be taught and tested on these facts? I definitely don't agree that such a small amount of education would have, "slim to no effect on improving cyclist safety."

That you are successful as a VC cyclist is because the drivers you encounter are familiar with the law as it applies to cyclists. I've done and do all I can every day to ride well and educate drivers through my example, the area where I can focus my energy and make a change is through further education of motorists. I've done the %90 for my safety, the only variable for me is the drivers around me.

I agree, other cyclists need to be educated, but it does nothing for my safety if a hundred other cyclists start riding VC as there are still ten-fold more cyclists riding in the gutter and sidewalk so motorists don't know what to think is correct. You know I'm not arguing that motorists are to blame, but there is room for education and a difference to be made. It is not completely out of our control or unchangeable.

Your OP did not have a position, but rather it was a troll net.
Brian, are you aware that trolling is intentionally misrepresenting one's opinion or position in order to draw out reactions in others? I hope you're not implying that you think I was trolling, here, or in any other post.

Sharing an opinion, thoughts or external material in order to illicit discourse is not trolling, or a "troll net", unless intentional misrepresentation is involved.



You contend that a large portion of the problem is with cyclist's behaviors, and that it will take a small amount of effort and resources to fix.
Sigh. Another strawman. I never said it would take a small amount of effort and resources to fix the cyclist behavior problem. I only contend that it would be much more effective, in terms of improving cyclist safety, to spend the same effort and resources on cyclist education rather than motorist education.



A fairly sizable portion of the problem is with cyclist behaviors, but it will take a much greater amount of money and effort in the way of outreach to fix.
It will take a much greater amount of money and effort to fix the sizeable portion of the problem that is with cyclist behavior than what? The amount of money and effort to fix the portion that is with motorist behavior? Do you really think you can make any significant effect on that? What percentage of cyclist fatalities do you think are even due to poor education of motorists? I would be surprised if it were more than 1%. Would you?



A vast majority of cyclists do not subscribe to a forum or a group. The person you pass riding the wrong way on the road is not likely to ever set foot in the office of the League of American Bicyclists. The person riding home from the swing shift without lights will not have heard of John Forester and will balk at spending $100 for a decent lighting system we consider necessary for riding at night.
I never said it was easy. I'm just saying that's where we should be putting our efforts. And I've said repeatedly in other threads, the first goal should be to get the concept across, in society in general, that cyclist safety is almost entirely in the hands of the cyclist. This idea needs to be popularized, rather than kept as a hidden secret of experienced cyclists. And it's not going to be popularized in society until cycling advocates stop keeping it their secret.



Driver behavior is the cause of almost all of the problems you hear on this board.
What!?!?! Almost none of the problems I read on this board are caused by driver behavior, particular driver behavior that could be improved with education.



We hear of right hooks, left hooks, lectures by drivers on how we are not supposed to be riding in the road. We get buzzed (I guess most of us... apparently not Serge) and we get abused. This is all driver behavior and it keeps people away from cycling. All this indicates that the behavior of drivers is also a sizeable portion of the problem.
Wow. Well, this is the crux of where we differ. Right hooks and left hooks are caused by driver behavior? Driver behavior that you think could be solved by motorist education? Do you really think it is or should be the responsibility of turning drivers to look for through cyclists passing them on the right as they are turning right? That left turning drivers should not only look for oncoming through traffic in the oncoming through lane, but off to the side in the right turn only lane, or the right turn only area of the oncoming road? Do you really think you could effectively teach drivers to start doing this more? Let me ask you this... why should they? They can make several thousand turns without all this overhead checking just in case for knumbskull cyclists, why would you expect them to start looking? Even the most conscientious driver is going to forget once in a while. Just like the most conscientious people forget to check back before opening their doors. You can't "educate" away this behavior. You can hardly make a dent in it. It's much, much easier for the cyclist to behave in ways that doesn't leave him vulnerable to these situations. I could go on and on, but I won't. I do hope you address my post #17.

I thought I read that despite cycling fatalities decreasing in the rest of the country in recent years, they're going up around Portland, where the mentality that motorists, not cyclists, should be responsible for cyclist safety is reportedly rampant.

Quick non-scientific poll of my coworkers in the lunch room of ten folks none knew that cyclists had a right to the lane and were allowed the full rights and responsibilities of vehicles. None of these people are the least bit angry at cyclists, but they all asked me, "why can't you all just be in bike lanes?" Serge, of all people this should upset you quite a bit.

All I know is that I get no benefit from educating other cyclists, the only benefit I get is from educating more motorists on my rights and responsibilities. I see your point about our responsibilities, I just think there is much more we can do with driver education considering the incredible ignorance on the subject of cyclists' rights.

Christ, you guys over ANALyze everything. I can understand certifing divers because there are variables and dangers that you can't learn from day to day living

I would start certifying boaters and climbers way before before I would even think about certifying cyclists. After cyclists what else would you certify. skate boards, roller skates, skiing, sledding.

Welcome to the Nanny Republic

Wow. Well, this is the crux of where we differ. Right hooks and left hooks are caused by driver behavior? Driver behavior that you think could be solved by motorist education? Do you really think it is or should be the responsibility of turning drivers to look for through cyclists passing them on the right as they are turning right? .
HH, Some right hooks are 100% the driver fault. I have never once been right hooked by a vehicle from the same lane as I use dynamic lane positioning to prevent it, but I have been right hooked twice, the second time just this morning:

I was heading down a multilane 45mph road, light ahead was red, a couple cars stopped in the right most lane. I positioned myself in the left side of lane and started slowing from my cruising speed of 25mph to stop behind the line of cars. As I was slowing a truck behind me accelerated hard, went most of the way into the lane to my left and then suddenly and unexpectedly right hooked me across my entire lane into a driveway that was about 10 yards before first car in line. The driver turned very hard and squealed tires and overshot driveway entrance and went up over curb, while I braked very hard and swerved into the lane to my left to just barely clear his rear bumper.

This was 100% driver behavior and I know nothing I could have done to prevent this agressive and dangerous behavior. But the fact I was not riding to the far right did help me avoid a collision as I imagine the driver would have still done the right hook.

The other time was a similar case of me going straight in center of lane at 28mph and a driver turned right into a side street from the lane that was to me left (i.e. the center lane of a three same lane direction road)

Al

Brian, are you aware that trolling is intentionally misrepresenting one's opinion or position in order to draw out reactions in others? I hope you're not implying that you think I was trolling, here, or in any other post.

Sharing an opinion, thoughts or external material in order to illicit discourse is not trolling, or a "troll net", unless intentional misrepresentation is involved.

Hmm... Perhaps I am mistaken. Aren't you misrepresenting the state of affairs with cycling advocacy in order to draw attention? Is there really no advocacy directed toward training cyclists? Are there really no articles in magazines about safety precautions for cyclists? Do we always not learn from the accidents that happen to some people? Do we always blame the car driver for collisions?

Maybe I misunderstood.



Sigh. Another strawman. I never said it would take a small amount of effort and resources to fix the cyclist behavior problem. I only contend that it would be much more effective, in terms of improving cyclist safety, to spend the same effort and resources on cyclist education rather than motorist education.

Perhaps I misunderstood your 80/20 analogy. Didn't you say that 80% of the problem (cyclist education) could be fixed with 20% of the resources? Small is always relative. 20% sounds small compared to 80%, doesn't it?



It will take a much greater amount of money and effort to fix the sizeable portion of the problem that is with cyclist behavior than what? The amount of money and effort to fix the portion that is with motorist behavior? Do you really think you can make any significant effect on that? What percentage of cyclist fatalities do you think are even due to poor education of motorists? I would be surprised if it were more than 1%. Would you?

Yes. Did you read my post?



I never said it was easy. I'm just saying that's where we should be putting our efforts. And I've said repeatedly in other threads, the first goal should be to get the concept across, in society in general, that cyclist safety is almost entirely in the hands of the cyclist. This idea needs to be popularized, rather than kept as a hidden secret of experienced cyclists. And it's not going to be popularized in society until cycling advocates stop keeping it their secret.

So, we come right out and say it. On a microscopic level, a single cyclist and a single car, then each has the responsibility to obey the law and each has a responsibility for their own safety. On a macroscopic level, the population of cyclists and the population of cars, laws, enforcement, and education on all sides of the coin are what keeps everyone safe.



What!?!?! Almost none of the problems I read on this board are caused by driver behavior, particular driver behavior that could be improved with education.

Wow. Well, this is the crux of where we differ. Right hooks and left hooks are caused by driver behavior? Driver behavior that you think could be solved by motorist education? Do you really think it is or should be the responsibility of turning drivers to look for through cyclists passing them on the right as they are turning right? That left turning drivers should not only look for oncoming through traffic in the oncoming through lane, but off to the side in the right turn only lane, or the right turn only area of the oncoming road? Do you really think you could effectively teach drivers to start doing this more? Let me ask you this... why should they? They can make several thousand turns without all this overhead checking just in case for knumbskull cyclists, why would you expect them to start looking? Even the most conscientious driver is going to forget once in a while. Just like the most conscientious people forget to check back before opening their doors. You can't "educate" away this behavior. You can hardly make a dent in it. It's much, much easier for the cyclist to behave in ways that doesn't leave him vulnerable to these situations. I could go on and on, but I won't. I do hope you address my post #17.


Don't confuse the inability to defend with the right not to be attacked. I think you do this a lot. I'll bet others agree.

This discussion is about hot air and nothing else. There are people working both sides of the equation. Support which ever side you think is best and be content that others are working with you on the other side.

It might be relatively easy for society to "educate" the motorists, but what EFFECT would that "education" have in making cycling safer? I say slim to none. How do you "educate" caring about the lives of other humans? You can't. And when motorists are doing nothing wrong in most car-bike collisions, what good can motorist education do for preventing those? None. So, at best, the effect of even very effective motorist education could hardly make a dent in making traffic cycling safer. I mean, if there was nothing else we could be doing, I agree it would still be worth pursuing. But that is not at all the case.


You want me to reply, so I will.

I respectfully disagree. You need to convince me that educating moterists does nothing. This runs against the grain of my experience and observation, and I see nothing solid here to make me forgo my intuition.

Scuba diving has approximately the same accident/death rate
as bowling.
An individual cannot just walk up to a dive operator
and rent equiptment and go dive without showing
proof of certification (and oftimes a log book to
back up the c-card).
There is no certification required to ride a bike,
no educational requirements or governing education
agency.
Anyone can purchase
scuba equiptment but it takes a c-card to
get the tanks filled (no air, no dive).
Anyone can purchase a bike and go ride.
Different levels and types of diving require
specialized education (i.e. cave diving, wreck diving),
and without it no reputable dive operator is going to
take a diver into those environments without proof
of specialized education.
Cycling? Neighborhood streets or highways
they are all fair game.
Hazards of diving may be static in that they
are a known quantity. but the occurance isn't.
i.e. a diver can do everything right (depth, length
of the dive, ascent rate, safety stops) and still
can get the bends (decompression sickness).
I'm a certified scuba instructor (PADI) and safety
is of utmost importance, from the first discover
scuba class up to course director (the guys who
teach instructors)class, cycling has nothing remotely
like that.

marty

Quick non-scientific poll of my coworkers in the lunch room of ten folks none knew that cyclists had a right to the lane and were allowed the full rights and responsibilities of vehicles. None of these people are the least bit angry at cyclists, but they all asked me, "why can't you all just be in bike lanes?" Serge, of all people this should upset you quite a bit.

All I know is that I get no benefit from educating other cyclists, the only benefit I get is from educating more motorists on my rights and responsibilities. I see your point about our responsibilities, I just think there is much more we can do with driver education considering the incredible ignorance on the subject of cyclists' rights.
Exactly. Unless you are a cyclist who uses the road, the vast majority of people all to often only selectively don't study and/or remember the laws pertaining to cyclist if they had to study them at one point in their life to get a drivers license. I too have done informal polls and while most know cyclist can use the road (although some insisted only if a BL was present and it must be ridden in), no one of about 15-20 people knew that legal passing clearance is 3ft.

Al

You want me to reply, so I will.

I respectfully disagree. You need to convince me that educating moterists does nothing. This runs against the grain of my experience and observation, and I see nothing solid here to make me forgo my intuition.
I also disagree with HH on this one. But I also think it should not be driver focused, but driver/cyclist focused - i.e information provided/pushed where both sets get it equally. Kind of like that .pdf that from Massachusetts someone posted a week or two ago, but more in peoples faces than a pdf on a web site, like PSA on TV/Radio


Personally, while before I started cycling a lot (i.e. daily and for transport)I did cycle on occasion and I was courteous of cyclists. But even so I learned how to better drive around cyclist after cycling a lot. For example:
1. When making a right turn after passing a cyclist with good clearance I merge to the right into the shoulder or bike lane. (Of course if cyclist is ahead of me and will safely pass intersection before I could complete turn I will wait for them before passing them)
2. I did not know >3ft was a legal requirement, although I always passed with more anyway.

This is not a driving behavior change, but I now get far more irritated with cyclist breaking the laws that put me at risk of hitting them when I am driving. Before I was love and hugs about cyclists no matter what they were doing, now I find law breaking ones a nusiance especially after some close calls with wrong way cyclists at night with no lights, or cyclists flying off curb into sidewalk from behind a bus stop. Of course I feel bad about close calls, but I also yell at the cyclist doing wrong.

Al

Quick non-scientific poll of my coworkers in the lunch room of ten folks none knew that cyclists had a right to the lane and were allowed the full rights and responsibilities of vehicles. None of these people are the least bit angry at cyclists, but they all asked me, "why can't you all just be in bike lanes?" Serge, of all people this should upset you quite a bit.
I obviously ride in traffic with people like this all the time. Guess what? They're quick learners. They may not consciously comprehend that cyclists have a right to the lane and are allowed the full rights and responsibilities of vehicle, but they behave as if I do, and that's all that matters.

I honestly don't see how motorist behavior could be substantially changed by education in a way that would make cycling in traffic any safer than it already is.

What, specifically, would you guys (Brian, Treespeed, etc.) teach these motorists, and, more importantly, please explain how you think this would would make cycling safer?

Are you advocating that we teach motorists to look out for cyclists riding where they're not supposed to be, and that it's their responsibility to not him them? I run into motorists doing that already, both cycling and driving, and, believe me, they don't make anything safer for anyone.

For example, most motorists don't seem to know that they are required to merge into a bike lane when turning right. You might think that teaching them that would be a good thing. I see, why bother? When 90% of through cyclists don't know they're supposed to merge OUT of the bike lane as they approach the intersection, what's the point of teaching motorists that they're supposed to merge in. While driving, I've merged into a bike lane (to prepare for a right turn) and had a cyclist come up from behind and yell at me to get out of the bike lane. Education of motorists solves nothing.

Yet when I'm cycling, if I pull out of the bike lane to wait at the light, turning motorists seem to instinctively know to move to my right, into the bike lane, and turn right. Presto, problem solved without "education" of motorists... beyond them just seeing proper cyclist behavior.

Anyway, my question is out there.

I also disagree with HH on this one. But I also think it should not be driver focused, but driver/cyclist focused - i.e information provided/pushed where both sets get it equally. Kind of like that .pdf that from Massachusetts someone posted a week or two ago, but more in peoples faces than a pdf on a web site, like PSA on TV/Radio


Personally, while before I started cycling a lot (i.e. daily and for transport)I did cycle on occasion and I was courteous of cyclists. But even so I learned how to better drive around cyclist after cycling a lot. For example:
1. When making a right turn after passing a cyclist with good clearance I merge to the right into the shoulder or bike lane. (Of course if cyclist is ahead of me and will safely pass intersection before I could complete turn I will wait for them before passing them)
2. I did not know >3ft was a legal requirement, although I always passed with more anyway.

This is not a driving behavior change, but I now get far more irritated with cyclist breaking the laws that put me at risk of hitting them when I am driving. Before I was love and hugs about cyclists no matter what they were doing, now I find law breaking ones a nusiance especially after some close calls with wrong way cyclists at night with no lights, or cyclists flying off curb into sidewalk from behind a bus stop. Of course I feel bad about close calls, but I also yell at the cyclist doing wrong.

Al

You have a good point. Both sides of the equation need to be treated; both the behaviors of cyclists and the behaviors of drivers.

I obviously ride in traffic with people like this all the time. Guess what? They're quick learners. ...

For example, most motorists don't seem to know that they are required to merge into a bike lane when turning right. You might think that teaching them that would be a good thing. I see, why bother? When 90% of through cyclists don't know they're supposed to merge OUT of the bike lane as they approach the intersection, what's the point of teaching motorists that they're supposed to merge in. While driving, I've merged into a bike lane (to prepare for a right turn) and had a cyclist come up from behind and yell at me to get out of the bike lane. Education of motorists solves nothing.

My response to the later example: "Guess What? They are quick learners." Cyclist who deal with the few motorist who properly merge into the bike lane will quickly learn how much better that works. ;)
Alterately they get upset with motorst and yell at them. Oh, my, quess what, that is exactly what happens when a cyclist 'take the lane' and instead of drivers being quick learners (as you say), they yell (or honk or close pass) the cyclist. HH, you are dealing with humans whether on bike or in car - either they are quick learners or they are stubborn and defensive, which is it?

Al

Brian, more misrepresentation! Are you capable of engaging in a debate without using strawmen? I'm beginning to wonder. What I'm not sure of is whether you're intentionally twisting my positions to the extreme, or whether you have a reading comprehension problem.

Is there really no advocacy directed toward training cyclists? No, and I never said there was NO advocacy directed toward training cyclists.

Are there really no articles in magazines about safety precautions for cyclists? . No. And I never said there were NO such articles.


Do we always not learn from the accidents that happen to some people? . No, not always, and I never said anything otherwise.

Do we always blame the car driver for collisions? No, not always, and I never said anything otherwise.

I'm finding it impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you.

Brian, more misrepresentation! Are you capable of engaging in a debate without using strawmen? I'm beginning to wonder. What I'm not sure of is whether you're intentionally twisting my positions to the extreme, or whether you have a reading comprehension problem.

Is there really no advocacy directed toward training cyclists? No, and I never said there was NO advocacy directed toward training cyclists.

Are there really no articles in magazines about safety precautions for cyclists? . No. And I never said there were NO such articles.


Do we always not learn from the accidents that happen to some people? . No, not always, and I never said anything otherwise.

Do we always blame the car driver for collisions? No, not always, and I never said anything otherwise.

I'm finding it impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you.

Read your OP. Or are you selectively excluding it?

HH, you are dealing with humans whether on bike or in car - either they are quick learners or they are stubborn and defensive, which is it?
Good point.

Here's the deal, humans can be quick learners, when properly motivated. When it comes to the topic of cyclist safety, cyclists are naturally more motivated than are car drivers. What is a life or death issue for a cyclist (a car-bike collision), is one of the least significant dangers a driver must face (in terms of protecting his self-interest).

So of course cyclists are naturally more motivated to make cycling safer than are motorists.

The problem is that most cyclists don't realize the most effective way they can make cycling safer is by changing their own behavior. That's why there is so much focus on facilities and motorist behavior. And I believe that cycling advocates are to blame for this, since many of them know the truth, and keep it concealed from other cyclists (mostly for innocent reasons, but never-the-less they do it). Cycling advocacy should be focused on getting cyclists to realize that the most effective way they can make cycling safer is by changing their own behavior. Only when they realize that, will they be motivated to be educated. Non-cycling motorists, on the other hand, have very littleinternal motivation to learn about cycling safety, or how they must alter their behavior to make cycling safer.

Read your OP. Or are you selectively excluding it?
I apologize. Apparently it is a reading comprehension problem; I was leaning towards believing it was intentional twisting to the extreme... How do you get from this:



If scuba diving had advocacy like bicycling has advocacy...


The focus of scuba diving magazines would be... how to make our oceans safer for scuba diving.
Every time someone died while scuba diving, everyone would talk about how inherently unsafe scuba diving has become. There would be no interest in learning what if anything the diver could have done to prevent his death.
Whenever a scuba diver ascended into a boat anchored at the surface, scuba advocates would blame the boat captain (and not the scuba diver for not looking where he was going).
You wouldn't need to get certified to go scuba diving.


To:


Is there really no advocacy directed toward training cyclists? Are there really no articles in magazines about safety precautions for cyclists? Do we always not learn from the accidents that happen to some people? Do we always blame the car driver for collisions?

What, specifically, do you see in the OP that says to you...

There is NO advocacy directed toward training cyclists.
There are NO articles in magazines about safety precautions for cyclists.
Cyclists NEVER learn from the accidents that happen to some people.
Cyclists ALWAYS blame the the car driver for collisions.

Serge,

Again, I agree with you that most drivers are pretty quick learners, and what I would want to teach them is fairly simple. I would like to teach them, in CA of course, the CA drivers code as it applies to cyclists, thats it. The few minor buzzings and verbal run-ins I have with motorists revolve around motorist ignorance of my right to the road.

I would like to teach them, in CA of course, the CA drivers code as it applies to cyclists, thats it.
And how do you propose doing this, beyond what is already being done? Have you looked at a driver's manual lately? There is a good section on bicycling that explains all this, and more. Guess what... motorists don't care. And rightly so... they, like your co-workers, have no reason to care. If they have no reason to care, they're not going to learn. That's human nature. No matter how good your education program is.

But the main point is that even if they did learn, how would cycling get substantially safer?
Most people, like your co-workers, fall into the category of not knowing and still not being inherently dangerous to cyclists. So teaching them, assuming you figure out how to get them to care and remember, no small feat, is not going to make cycling safer. So what's the point?

I obviously ride in traffic with people like this all the time. Guess what? They're quick learners. They may not consciously comprehend that cyclists have a right to the lane and are allowed the full rights and responsibilities of vehicle, but they behave as if I do, and that's all that matters.

I honestly don't see how motorist behavior could be substantially changed by education in a way that would make cycling in traffic any safer than it already is.

What, specifically, would you guys (Brian, Treespeed, etc.) teach these motorists, and, more importantly, please explain how you think this would would make cycling safer?

Are you advocating that we teach motorists to look out for cyclists riding where they're not supposed to be, and that it's their responsibility to not him them? I run into motorists doing that already, both cycling and driving, and, believe me, they don't make anything safer for anyone.

For example, most motorists don't seem to know that they are required to merge into a bike lane when turning right. You might think that teaching them that would be a good thing. I see, why bother? When 90% of through cyclists don't know they're supposed to merge OUT of the bike lane as they approach the intersection, what's the point of teaching motorists that they're supposed to merge in. While driving, I've merged into a bike lane (to prepare for a right turn) and had a cyclist come up from behind and yell at me to get out of the bike lane. Education of motorists solves nothing.

Yet when I'm cycling, if I pull out of the bike lane to wait at the light, turning motorists seem to instinctively know to move to my right, into the bike lane, and turn right. Presto, problem solved without "education" of motorists... beyond them just seeing proper cyclist behavior.

Anyway, my question is out there.

Drivers would be taught the laws pertaining to cyclist/driver interactions. All of my issues with cars come from drivers not knowing the laws and not understanding my rights and limitations. The status quo environment is frightening to a new cyclist. You and I, and most members of this board, can get by with the status quo, of course, but I am not satisfied with the status quo.

The other side of the coin: cyclist education. You are right; cyclists need to be educated to learn how to ride safely in traffic. My contention is that both sides of the coin are needed in equal proportions for effective advocacy. Cyclist education keeps new cyclists from being killed. Drivers education, and yes, road facilities, ensures there is a steady stream of new cyclists to teach.

In retrospect, Brian, I see I did use a few absolute terms in the OP like "every time", "everyone", and "NO interest". But I would think that it was obvious I did not intend anyone to interpret these terms literally, and that my intentent was to address generalities. Your conclusions, however, are still mostly unwarranted, even with a literal interpretation.

However, to be clear, I modified the OP slightly with some qualifying words to make it less absolute; this more accurately reflects my original intent.

Old list:


The focus of scuba diving magazines would be... how to make our oceans safer for scuba diving.
Every time someone died while scuba diving, everyone would talk about how inherently unsafe scuba diving has become. There would be no interest in learning what if anything the diver could have done to prevent his death.
Whenever a scuba diver ascended into a boat anchored at the surface, scuba advocates would blame the boat captain (and not the scuba diver for not looking where he was going).
You wouldn't need to get certified to go scuba diving.


New OP list:


The focus of scuba diving magazines would be... how to make our oceans safer for scuba diving.
Almost every time someone died while scuba diving, the diving community would be dominated with talk about how inherently unsafe scuba diving has become. There would be very little interest in learning what if anything the diver could have done to prevent his death.
Whenever a scuba diver ascended into a boat anchored at the surface, scuba advocates would generally blame the boat captain (and not the scuba diver for not looking where he was going).
You wouldn't need to get certified to go scuba diving.

Educating drivers has a big effect. You are really stupid, HH. Sorry to be so blunt. If educating drivers had no effect none of us would have taken driver's ed, and they wouldn't even offer driver's training for people who get tickets. Also, all the education about drunk driving would have had no effect. Further, you keep wanting to educate cyclists. Are we the only ones on earth who can learn how to operate on the road? What makes us so different?

We don't need to train vehicle drivers to care about humans. That's not the point of educating drivers. We need them to know that we have all the rights and responsibilities of other drivers so they stop their vigilantism against us. You know, the buzzing, the yelling at us to get on the sidewalk, the throwing stuff and the lectures they print in the news paper. They need to learn how to operate a vehicle safely among ALL the users of the roadways, other drivers, bicycles, pedestrians and horses.

Now, your analogy to diving. Diver's are up against a whole host of factors, almost none of them involving multitudes of other people operating huge machines in total anonymity. Most of what they try to control are how they react to the laws of physics and to their machines. Maybe they learn how to act around animals, I don't know for sure. They learn things like the effect of water on the body, depth and pressure, how scuba gear works. Those things are pretty constant and if you follow rules you can stay relatively safe.

Biking involves mixing it up out there with other operators of machines. Not all of these operators are driving with both hands on the wheel, so to speak. These are people out there with free will, not physical properties to understand.

Since this thread is already getting pretty unwieldy, I'd like to respond briefly with a few general points, rather than quote other posts:
Even if extensive driver education were implemented today, it would take several years to effect accident rates (if it ever did). I could be dead by then! That's the main reason that I think each cyclist must take responsibility for his own safety NOW, and stop expecting motorists to watch out for them.

Nevertheless, I agree that there should be a couple questions about bicycles on driver license tests. This would be relatively cheap to implement, as others have said here, but probably also of limited benefit.

School kids should be getting a lot of bike safety education in the schools. I did, many years ago, and I still remember a lot of what I learned about vehicular cycling in the second grade.

Driver ed courses should emphasize vehicular cycling, mainly to reach cyclists rather than motorists (as other posters said).

Don't downplay BikeForums as a valuable source of information for new or returning cyclists. A lot of people lurk here, including casual bike riders. Other internet sites are also good places to spread the word.

Bicycle manufacturers should take a more active role in spreading the word. New bikes should come with safety manuals. Their ads should contain useful safety tips.


But my biggest hope is still that cyclists will promote and foster a culture of safety. Really, cycling is not particularly risky as a form of transportation, and it's easy for each cyclist to make it even safer. And we don't even have to give up that gung-ho spirit of adventure that attracted many of us in the first place!

The other side of the coin: cyclist education. You are right; cyclists need to be educated to learn how to ride safely in traffic. My contention is that both sides of the coin are needed in equal proportions for effective advocacy.
I will say that cyclist education and motorist education in equal proportion would be a huge improvement over the current state, where most cyclists have no traffic cycling education, and most motorists have a substantial amount. As one example, consider what all motorists are required to read and be tested on whenever they renew:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs55thru57.htm#bike

But my issue is not over the proportions of motorist vs. bicycle education, it's over the proportion of cycling advocacy efforts and focus going towards promoting and providing motorist and bicyclist education.

Even if you're goal is to achieve equal proportions, it's not at all clear that cycling advocacy efforts should be proportioned 50/50 between the two to best achieve that goal.

And the elephant in the room is, of course, the whole facilities thing. How much advocacy effort to we put on promoting facilities and motorist education instead of cyclist education?

My position is that we can get so much bang for the buck in terms of making traffic cycling safer if cyclists were better educated, that we should be putting most of our efforts on promoting cyclist education (not to be confused with providing cyclist education).

In fact, how much effort is there right now in advocacy to PROMOTE cyclist education? Except for the rants of VCs like myself, I see very little. Classes are provided, and there are some notifications made of their availability, but I see very little PROMOTION of the concept of cyclist education itself. That's what I'm talking about. Intead, all the focus and efforts are going to facilities, promoting motorist education, facilities, and maybe providing a little cyclists education here and there. What I want to see is an effort to increase the DEMAND for cyclist education, and to do that, we need to publicize the fact that cyclists can make cycling in traffic much safer through changes in their own behavior.

Educating drivers has a big effect. You are really stupid, HH. Sorry to be so blunt. If educating drivers had no effect none of us would have taken driver's ed, and they wouldn't even offer driver's training for people who get tickets.
Are you really so stupid that you've misunderstood my posts to the point of thinking that I wrote or implied that educating drivers about driving in general has no effect?

Talk about needing education... How about starting with reading comprehension 101? Explicitly, and implicitly made clear by context, all of my comments about the lack of effectiveness in educating motorists should have been obvious to the most dim-witted observer that I was talking about educating motorists specifically about matters related to making cycling in traffic safer, and most certainly not about all of driver education.

Your other comments also indicate a general lack of comprehension about what's being said here.

Maybe we need to start writing to a 3rd grade reading level, like Time magazine, instead of thinking 6th is low enough. :rolleyes:

Are you really so stupid that you've misunderstood my posts to the point of thinking that I wrote or implied that educating drivers about driving in general has no effect?

Talk about needing education... How about starting with reading comprehension 101? Explicitly, and implicitly made clear by context, all of my comments about the lack of effectiveness in educating motorists should have been obvious to the most dim-witted observer that I was talking about educating motorists specifically about matters related to making cycling in traffic safer, and most certainly not about all of driver education.

Your other comments also indicate a general lack of comprehension about what's being said here.

Maybe we need to start writing to a 3rd grade reading level, like Time magazine, instead of thinking 6th is low enough. :rolleyes:

Are you saying that drivers can be educated about some thnigs and not others? That seems to be the case. I would maintain that drivers can be educated about matters that make things safer for cyclists, or at least their legal obligations when it comes to cyclists and for that matter pedestrians.

Of course this is NOT to say that education will take with all drivers, some are real jerks. But there are many kind and otherwise good people out there that simply never took a few seconds to think about things from the cyclists viewpoint.

How many drivers are just unaware of the danger rear view mirrors pose to a cyclist or for that matter just never thought about the fact that a 'fender bender' for a car can be a hospital trip for a cyclist.

This is NOT to say education will fix everything or even most things. But it can serve to make the decent folks aware of things they simply never thought about before.

Getting back to SCUBA diving vrs. cycling. I see one big thing in common. They both have dangers, but what people see as dangerous is often well down the list.

There is one huge difference. For cyclists getting more of us is a good thing. For SCUBA the yuppification and groth in numbers is a bad thing.

Are you really so stupid that you've misunderstood my posts to the point of thinking that I wrote or implied that educating drivers about driving in general has no effect?
Sounds like what you said:

It might be relatively easy for society to "educate" the motorists, but what EFFECT would that "education" have in making cycling safer? I say slim to none.
And yet we ARE safer because there is less drunk driving out there.


Are you saying that drivers can be educated about some thnigs and not others? That seems to be the case. I would maintain that drivers can be educated about matters that make things safer for cyclists, or at least their legal obligations when it comes to cyclists and for that matter pedestrians.
Perhaps that is what he is saying. But why should anybody believe Serge when he proclaims what it is they can and cannot learn?

Are you saying that drivers can be educated about some thnigs and not others?
I'm saying that people in general tend to learn much better those things that matter to them.
Learning which color means go and which means stop matters to a driver.
Learning to look for moron through cyclists passing you on the right as you're slowing down to turn right matters much less to a motorist.

And Al, in response to an earlier comment, I know that cyclists can be right hooked from motorists turning right from the wrong lane, but for a VC this will only happen if he's going straight from a through lane, or a right-or-through lane, and the motorist is turning right from a through-only lane. What do motorists need to be taught to know not to do that that they're not already taught? How many motorists do you think who do that don't know it's wrong? How can they not know it's wrong when they're going against a painted stripe on the road? If they're THAT dumb, can education help at all? If they already know it's wrong, what's the point of telling them again it's wrong?

Once again, I question the effectivity of educating motorists about making cycling safer. ZZZZ... (for the motorists).

"Cyclists have the same rights as me? Yeah, right. Me and my F-150 will show 'em who has what rights... ha!" -Bubba in class learning about cyclist rights. :rolleyes:

The incentive isn't their particular interest. With some actual advocacy from cyclists, the incentive to learn would be getting/keeping that license.

Are you really so stupid that you've misunderstood my posts to the point of thinking that I wrote or implied that educating drivers about driving in general has no effect?
Sounds like what you said:

It might be relatively easy for society to "educate" the motorists, but what EFFECT would that "education" have in making cycling safer? I say slim to none.

And yet we ARE safer because there is less drunk driving out there.

I'll take that as a yes.

And yet...? Like anything I said contradicted our ability to reduce drunk driving? Just to be clear, I'm writing in English; what language are you reading in?

Let me reword my statement to a 3rd grade level and see if it becomes clear for you...

It might be relatively easy for society to provide classes for motorists.
But what would we teach in these classes that would make cycling safer?
What do motorists need to know that they don't already know about cycling?
And how will knowing this, assuming they actually learn it, reduce the numbers of car-bike collisions and fatalities?
I don't think it will at all.