Advocacy & Safety - Another misinformed editorial

Laika, I'm not making an argument based on perceived intent. He stated quite clearly that his primary concern was the inconvenience that hitting someone would cause him. Since its his primary concern, he is motivated to avoid it.

Exactly. And because of his selfishness, he wants to avoid hitting others, because doing so would cause him the inconvenience he wishes to avoid. Hence, he's motivated to avoid hitting people. Why do you care if the root of his motivation is selfishness or altruism, as long as he is motivated to avoid it?


Because, in his selfishness he is deflecting the safety concerns off of the driver (who knows he or she is driving in a denselt populated area) and onto pedestrians and cyclists.


Blame-the-victim implies there is a victim. I think his concern is for avoiding future hits.


His concern is making excuses for bad driving habits. Can't avoid pedestrians when making turns? Slow down? Take better care int he turn? Naaaah! Its those pedestrians' fault for standing on the edge of the curb.


Jeez, this sounds familiar. I get criticized for playing the blame-the-victim game too, when all I'm trying to do is bring attention to underlying causes in order to reduce the incidence of these events. That's all he's trying to do too. I feel like emailing him and letting him know there is at least one cyclist out there who understands what he's saying. Note how you have to misrepresent him, "Stay off the sidewalk!", in order to express your criticism. He never said or implied that peds should stay off the sidewalk. All he said was that standing at the curb at a corner is not safe. Take a step back while you're waiting for the walk signal. That's all. It's good advice (more on why below).


The day pedestrians have to feel unsafe standing on the curb is the day we've done something very, very wrong.


Thank you Keith, for pointing out what is the only reasonable explanation for the expressed outrage that I am aware of. How dare you critize poor defenseless cyclists in the face of having to deal with jerk motorists in their 2 ton caged death machines!


Nice strawman. Beat it up much?


How long has it been since you've driven?


Six years.


http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22100.htm

That's CA, but I'm sure AZ has similar law. Do you understand the basis for requiring drivers to drive as close as practicable to the curb when turning right?


Maybe its my East Coast Urban mentality, but a driver who tries to come as close to the curb as possible (to the point of possibly striking pedestrians on the curb) will end up hitting the cars in the parking lane.

Maybe its just that bit of VC I've learned, that the word "practical" doesn't mean you have to scrape the edge of the curb or the gutter, particularly when there is anything you should npot bring your car close to, such as a lane of parked cars or (ta-da) a pedestrian.

Any driver who cannot avoid a pedestrian standing near the curb on the roadway, or on the curb, SHOULD.NOT.BE.DRIVING. Anyone who drives in such a manner as to strike pedestrians in an area where there is high pedestrian density has NO EXCUSE.


By the way:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm

While not saying so explicitly, I think standing on the curb with your body partially into the roadway where it could be hit while a driver is turning right legally and correctly as close as practicable to the curb constitutes entering the roadway, practically, if not legally. And this is precisely the behavior he's addressing... Pedestrians standing right on the curb at turns should take a step back.

Or pehaps, drivers could look where they are going and slow the flip down a bit. You are exusing felonies with misdimeanors, again.

Near enough to strike pedestrians who are on the curb? I think that is not what that law intends.
I suggest you think some more. Someone standing on a sidewalk corner should not affect how a motorist takes that corner. If they do, they're standing too close, by definition.

The "I don't drive any more" anti-motoring sentiment in the cycling community is more pervasive than I realized. Once again, Forester makes the call.

They almost work... motorists are still not acknowledging cyclists in the BL. They fail to yeild right of way when turning and merging, they fail to check the BL for traffic, and they still speed up and attempt to "outrun" bikes... thus becoming part of the equation for right hooks.

I was specifically speaking about my experience in Ottawa. I do not see any of the above problems consistently displayed by car drivers here. (I do see some consistent problems when sharing lanes, though.)

And this is precisely the behavior he's addressing... Pedestrians standing right on the curb at turns should take a step back.
This is true, but AZ is a legal right turn on red state, so I often find myself when walking trying to negotiate (i.e. get right turning vehicle drivers to notice me) when crossing the street when they have a green and I a walk signal. This often requires eye contact, and the horror, leaning into the street a bit close to the curb. Often times in the ASU area you must wait for a car or two to turn before someone actually stops and lets you cross. I often try and assert my pedestrian rights to cross by stepping into x-walk, but this horrifies my wife who thinks I'll get hit.

Think about it, except where are left only turn signals, in all cases where drivers can turn right pedestrians also may be legally leaving corner of curb to either cross parallel to traffic that has a green or across the street that has red, in both cases drivers very often ignore peds.

Here is an example of how un-pedistrian focused drivers are: I watched a guy in a wheel chair a few weeks ago cross on walk signal, he got half way across the intersection in x-walk (traveling against traffic) and no right turner stopped so I watched as he turned around because the walk signal turned orange flashing, then red.

Al

The day pedestrians have to feel unsafe standing on the curb is the day we've done something very, very wrong.
I have never felt safe standing on the curb where motorists are turning right, and never will. For good reason. Like motorists don't already have enough to worry about. Why make ourselves a potential hazard by standing near the curb when we could take a step back and let them not worry about us?

Call it a strawman if you wish, but I think your anti-motoring sentiment is so strong you can't be objective on issues like this any more.

And yes, "as close as practicable" does not necessarily mean right up against the curb, but it can be. Of course if there is a parked there, as close as practicable is not against the curb. But if there is no parked car, it can be very close, close enough to tag an idiot pedestrian standing on the curb with their ***** hanging out into the roadway. While a motorist should check for this, if he has a green light, and he's looking to his left to make sure no one is running the red, even a fairly diligent driver could miss this. It's how right hooks happen too.

I'm done here.

I'm done here.
Not until you address that fact that at most intersections pedestrians may legally cross and need to enter the cross walk. How can this be done unless one stands close to the curb?

Also note many intersections here have a very gentle cut away curve which enable driver to make 25mph+ turns, which they do after slowing down from 50mph.

Al

Al - good points. I took him to mean that he was talking about peds who were waiting at the corner for their signal to turn green, not those who already had the ROW to proceed.

Ah, this is where I got the impression... from the first editorial:


It's amazing how many people not only stand on the edge of the curb, but stand in the actual street, be it in the gutter or a bike lane, waiting for a light to change green so they can cross.
Those who are waiting for a light to change green so they can cross have no business standing on the corner curb while motorists are turning right.

Now can I be done?

Al - good points. I took him to mean that he was talking about peds who were waiting at the corner for their signal to turn green, not those who already had the ROW to proceed.
Take a look at some of the intersections in question (Rural and Apache, McAllister and Apache) see how broad the corners are. Note that a ped waiting to cross going either direction will be at the apex of the curb and there is only one ramp that leads to both directions of sidewalk:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=asu,+arizona&ll=33.414553,-111.928915&spn=0.005020,0.007318&t=k&hl=en

Zoom in max and click on 'hybrid' to see streets in question.

Al

I looked, and don't see any reason for waiting peds to wait on the curb at these intersections. Why can't they move back a step or two from the curb?

I have never felt safe standing on the curb where motorists are turning right, and never will, and never will. For good reason. Like motorists don't already have enough to worry about. Why make ourselves a potential hazard by standing near the curb when we could take a step back and let them not worry about us?


And you don't see this as a fault of driving habits? Motorists driving anywhere near pedestrians sure as f*** better be concerning themselves with pedestrians.

If I were to step back from the curb on most of the campuses I walk on, I would likely back into several people. Must be nice and neat and clean in your world.

I looked, and don't see any reason for waiting peds to wait on the curb at these intersections. Why can't they move back a step or two from the curb?

If I am on the curb, why should I have to move anywhere at all?

I looked, and don't see any reason for waiting peds to wait on the curb at these intersections. Why can't they move back a step or two from the curb?
I agree if one it waiting for the cross signal. But lets me realistic here, many folks in this area struggle with turning cars even when they have the right to cross. I know, I've walk around here quite a bit. How is a driver to know which is which (yes pedistrian positioning should communicate this) My point is that the author is talking about peds on corner and how they are so easy to hit, just assuming they are not trying to cross legally - but this is for the convienience of the editorial, in practice if one sees a bunch of peds on corner near edge, one should slow way down and be prepared to stop.

Al

Maybe we're using different definition's of "curb". I'm thinking of the 6 inch wide chunk of cement that forms the edge wall for the gutter, and separates the roadway from the sidewalk. Why would you be on the curb instead of the sidewalk?


If I am on the curb, why should I have to move anywhere at all?
You don't have to. But I would think you would want to, so motorists driving by won't hit you with their cars.

Frankly, Al, I hadn't thought about pedestrians who actually had the ROW. And I really don't think he's talking about them either. I don't know, but I don't think it's that hard to tell the difference. Their whole body language is relaxed when standing waiting for a green, and more "ready to go" when they have the ROW. You can also tell based on which way they are facing, and which way they are looking, and correlate that with which way is green at the time.

I agree that sometimes peds have a hard time even when they have the ROW. And if it had been a better article, it would have addressed that issue as well. But I don't think omitting that issue, or anything else in the article, warrants the level of outrage expressed in many of these posts.

Maybe we're using different definition's of "curb". I'm thinking of the 6 inch wide chunk of cement that forms the edge wall for the gutter, and separates the roadway from the sidewalk. Why would you be on the curb instead of the sidewalk?

Well, I think of being on the curb as being elevated about 6" above the road surface at the edge of the sidewalk. I refer to standing in the cement bottom edge of the curb as standing in the gutter.

Al

Laika, I'm not making an argument based on perceived intent. He stated quite clearly that his primary concern was the inconvenience that hitting someone would cause him. Since its his primary concern, he is motivated to avoid it.


"He's trying to gets peds and cyclists to understand why it's particularly important for them to be safe."

That's not in the text.

Maybe we're using different definition's of "curb". I'm thinking of the 6 inch wide chunk of cement that forms the edge wall for the gutter, and separates the roadway from the sidewalk. Why would you be on the curb instead of the sidewalk?


The curb is part of the sidewalk. The fact that there is a seperation groove in it to prevent expansion/contraction crackage does not make it part of the street.


You don't have to. But I would think you would want to, so motorists driving by won't hit you with their cars.

Maybe a better idea would be that the drivers should learn to respect basic safety and learn to drive properly, particularly in areas where pedestrians may be present.

I've stood on many a curb, and I have never even come closed to being buzzed by a car. Why would you want to start enabling poor drivers who would do such a thing?

But bringing that to his attention, in a polite and helpful way, was all that was called for.

In this context, isn't polite largely a matter of tone? :p

As I said above, the guy comes off as a tool, based on even the most literal reading of the article. In terms of civility or "tone" he has sown the wind with his two columns.

Frankly, Al, I hadn't thought about pedestrians who actually had the ROW.
The bottom line is that there is 100% possibility that a pedestrian standing at the corner of an intersection may have the right of way - at all times the cross walk signal will be 'green/white' for one of the two directions.

Al

For the record, Galen has convinced me that calling him on condoning the hit-and-run at the beginning of the first editorial is appropriate. But bringing that to his attention, in a polite and helpful way, was all that was called for. There are plenty of otherwise reasonable people, including he, the woman, and myself, who do not realize what she did was technically hit-and-run.

As to why there is so much outrage, I still don't get it.


This past Wednesday around 8 o'clock, a shrill screech broke the morning silence. It's the kind of sound a car makes when drivers are day dreaming one moment and regain consciousness the next, whereupon they slam on their brakes to avoid certain catastrophe. This time it was too little too late.

The all-too-familiar squeal was followed by the sound of a crumpled bicycle slamming to the ground. Then came the quiet thud of the bicyclist as he smashed onto the pavement (after a brief moment of impromptu flight courtesy of the driver's front bumper). You could tell it hurt when he hit.

Still, the fellow on the ground was lucky. His helmet-free head missed the asphalt. He sat up, stood up and wobbled to the curb where he sat back down. His bike was bent and so was he. The driver did what she could to help, which was next to nothing. After consoling the injured man (an Arizona State University student), she handed him a slip of paper, presumably containing her name and telephone number, and drove away.

Here is why the outrage. He sympathizes with the driver. I had almost the exact thing happen to me. I was on a one way road keeping up with traffic. A driver pulled out of a parallel parking spot and sent me tumbling over her hood. She gave me her name and phone number. No paramedics or anything like that, though I should have insisted she stay until the police came.

The name and phone number is worthless. It is just enough information to make you think that you can do something with. It turns out there is nothing. I called the number. She seemed concilitory at the time of the accident, but on the phone, she was defensive, telling me it was my fault for being on the road. She wouldn't give me her insurance information. I called the police. They couldn't do anything because there was no one at the scene and the damage was limited to around $200 or so. I had her name, but they couldn't reveil her insurance information. So I investigated small claims court.

Short ending: A cell phone number is not something that can be tracked to an address. Cellular phone companies will not give out that information. Without an address, no small claims court, since the papers cannot be served. End of story and I now have a blue bike, instead of a white one.

So the outrage: This writer felt sympathy for a driver who hit a cyclist, perhaps injuring him and damaging his bike. He felt sympathy for this driver who fled the scene and left nothing but a worthless name and phone number. He felt sympathy for drivers who have to be "inconvenienced" to deal with a collision they caused. He felt all this and did not feel sympathy for the cyclist, who had the proverbial Very Bad Day through no fault of his own.

Expect outrage when someone publicly expresses sympathy for a person who in no way deserves it.

Al, Regardless, if a pedestrian knows he's waiting for a green, he shouldn't be on the curb, and that's all the editorial really says. Whether a motorist can tell if a given ped standing on the curb should be there or not is a related but separate issue. But my main point is that nothing he said warrants the outrage expressed here.

Laika - your point in the last post (#220) is well taken. I admit I'm just assuming that's what he's trying to do. I find when I assume good intentions I usually get it right. I suppose I could write him and ask.

Al, Regardless, if a pedestrian knows he's waiting for a green, he shouldn't be on the curb, and that's all the editorial really says. Whether a motorist can tell if a given ped standing on the curb should be there or not is a related but separate issue. But my main point is that nothing he said warrants the outrage expressed here.

It depends on your definition of curb I guess.
Did you know that in most intersections in this area there is one ramp that slopes toward on the diagonal of the intersection with the perpendicular x-walks connected at the apex of the curved edge of the roadway? Where does the curb start and the roadway end?
In this image the grey/blue sidewalk is elevated about 6" above the road surface, the ramp leads down from the sidewalk to the road surface.

http://www.optionnz.com/users/afs/p5/xwalk.jpg

Al

...Regardless, if a pedestrian knows he's waiting for a green, he shouldn't be on the curb, and that's all the editorial really says. Whether a motorist can tell if a given ped standing on the curb should be there or not is a related but separate issue. But my main point is that nothing he said warrants the outrage expressed here.

The counterpoint, is that if the moterist sees there is a pedestrian waiting on the curb, he shouldn't cut the corner so sharply. And what if he doesn't see? Well the burden is on the driver to see; meaning the driver is still at fault.

Who's right? The law gives the right of the pedestrian to wait on the curb. Rule of the jungle favors the driver. So who's right? If the rules of the road favor the jungle rather than the law, then enforcement of the law is the problem, not the behavior of the mice.

Brian - assuming the details of your experience applies in this case is unwarranted, and having them fuel your outrage has nothing to do with what was written in this editorial. I sympathize with the driver too (not in your case). Even though the stop signs "favored" the cyclist, that doesn't mean the motorist ran her stop. She could have just as easily stopped, looked both ways and proceeded, happening to not see the cyclist who was in all probability riding to the right of where she was looking for cross-traffic, and to the left of where she was looking for ped traffic. We don't know, but given where most cyclists ride, that's the likelihood. In the absence of obvious wrong-doing, why not give her the benefit of the doubt and sympathize?

Why withhold benefit of the doubt, assume guilt, and express outrage instead?

Why withhold benefit of the doubt, assume guilt, and express outrage instead?

You're on a cycling forum. It's only polite... :rolleyes:

You asked the reason for the outrage. I gave you the reasons (even if it is emotional rather than rational). Don't ask questions you don't want answered.

Even though the stop signs "favored" the cyclist, that doesn't mean the motorist ran her stop. She could have just as easily stopped, looked both ways and proceeded, happening to not see the cyclist who was in all probability riding to the right of where she was looking for cross-traffic, and to the left of where she was looking for ped traffic. We don't know, but given where most cyclists ride, that's the likelihood....

...In the absence of obvious wrong-doing, why not give her the benefit of the doubt and sympathize?



Assuming the bicyclist was in the main street and the driver was stopped at a stop sign at a minor intersection, she had the responsibility to see the cyclist, wherever the cyclist has the legal right to ride. Simply not seeing the cyclist is an admission of "obvious wrong-doing" through neglegence.

Examples of fault through neglegence:
I was a lifeguard at one time of my life. If I was on duty, it was my responsibility to see everything. If I did not see something and someone was injured, I, personally, could be sued for neglegence. I also had a classmate in college who is a quadrapaligic due to a "soft tackle" football game which went ary under the supervision of a Boy Scout troop. He successfully sued the Boy Scouts of America for neglegence.

Neglegence is a very real concept and must count for something if our cooperative road system is to work at all. Perhaps it is not technically useful to talk about driver neglegence on a cycling forum, but discussions of neglegence leads into discussions on how to avoid neglegent behavior, which leads to cyclist education. You patently avoid discussions of driver neglegence, so you never get past step one of the education process, which is: getting your audience to listen.

Holding her responsible for seeing the cyclist is one thing.
Whether one is outraged by someone who sympathizes with her despite her not acting fully responsible is another.

When someone who does not want to hit someone else, does, unintentionally, why is it not okay to sympathize with them, regardless of whose fault it is? More to the point, why is it so not okay that outrage is called for against someone who does express sympathy with a person in this situation?

If you guys think that the emotional reaction of outrage to these editorials is good for cycling advocacy, I'm afraid you're mistaken, and you're just reinforcing whatever stereotypes are out there of cyclists as being silly, irresponsible and immature.

Brian - assuming the details of your experience applies in this case is unwarranted, and having them fuel your outrage has nothing to do with what was written in this editorial. I sympathize with the driver too (not in your case). Even though the stop signs "favored" the cyclist, that doesn't mean the motorist ran her stop. She could have just as easily stopped, looked both ways and proceeded, happening to not see the cyclist who was in all probability riding to the right of where she was looking for cross-traffic, and to the left of where she was looking for ped traffic. We don't know, but given where most cyclists ride, that's the likelihood. In the absence of obvious wrong-doing, why not give her the benefit of the doubt and sympathize?

Why withhold benefit of the doubt, assume guilt, and express outrage instead?


Wait a minute... you deny his assumptions and/or anecdote and then turn around and supply your own as valid... nothing like a little quick misdirection, eh?

So, what's the best chain lube available?

Wait a minute... you deny his assumptions and/or anecdote and then turn around and supply your own as valid... nothing like a little quick misdirection, eh?
I explained that Gene, it's the difference between assuming the worst and giving someone the benefit of the doubt.

Prolink... of course. ;)

Prolink... of course. ;)
No, Absolutely The Best

Al

Don't you see what he's doing? He's trying to gets peds and cyclists to understand why it's particularly important for them to be safe.

And not drivers? Might make right? Why is the driver not lecturing other drivers on how to deal with the peds and cyclists on these streets; instead chosing to lecture peds and cyclists on how to stay out of his way? What this writer is doing is similar to the guy who got out of his car at an intersection and lectured me to take a different route. It's not for my safety, it's for his convenience.


Don't put me in a position to defend every word of his editorial. It's not perfect. But I don't see what the big issue is.

You really put yourself in this position. Arguments tend to polarize, this is why you need to pick your arguments carefully. If you really want a solution to a problem, set up a debate, let the sides polarize, then find the solution down the middle.

No, Absolutely The Best

Al

"Absolutely the Best?" Is that a chain lube?

"Absolutely the Best?" Is that a chain lube?
Yep, made and sold in AZ only I believe.

It does work great - vastly better than Pedros Ice Wax which I what I had experience with before.

Al

OK, Brian, I agree the article could be balanced better - with more lecturing for the motorists. But I don't see that this lack of balance, nor anything else, warrants the outrage expressed here. That has been my only point from the beginning, and that's all I'm going to defend.

OK, Brian, I agree the article could be balanced better - with more lecturing for the motorists. But I don't see that this lack of balance, nor anything else, warrants the outrage expressed here. That has been my only point from the beginning, and that's all I'm going to defend.

But the very thing you are ignoring is the very thing that sets up cyclists et. al. The tone of the editorial. The tone was intentional. Just as shading is intentional in art or the position of hands or other "symbols" that become part of any work.

To ignore the tone of a piece is to miss the intent of the author... which in this case is condesending to cyclists.

OK, Brian, I agree the article could be balanced better - with more lecturing for the motorists. But I don't see that this lack of balance, nor anything else, warrants the outrage expressed here. That has been my only point from the beginning, and that's all I'm going to defend.
I basically agree, but instead think there should be more lecturing about the shared responsibility of making roadway/sidewalk/x-walk pedstrian/cycle/motor vehicle use safer and include some constructive tips for all user types, instead it was comment on the bad behaviors of some (but between the lines sounded like most) cyclist/peds and not much about bad vehicle driver behavior, with the feeling/tone from the editorials that it is the peds/cyclist causing all the problems and the poor car drivers must suffer because of it.

Al

To ignore the tone of a piece is to miss the intent of the author... which in this case is condesending to cyclists.
Maybe to some cyclists it seemed condescending... but not to this one.
And that's the thing. What specifically did you feel was condescdending about it? That he felt the need to "lecture" irresponsible cyclists but not so much irresponsible motorists? I thought he made it pretty clear that irresponsible motorists were part of the problem too.

And if that were issue, I would expect to see that stated in the posts here, including the copies of messages sent to him. Something like, "you know, implied in your approach is what could be interpreted as a condescending attitude towards cyclists. The reason I say this is because ..." But I haven't seen anything like that here. Instead it's a bunch of emotional outrage for ill-specified reasons.

with the feeling/tone from the editorials that it is the peds/cyclist causing all the problems and the poor car drivers must suffer because of it.
Which gets back to the key difference in opinion I have with you and many other members of this forum. That is, it is my understanding that in the majority of car-bike collisions it is the cyclist that is at fault.

In other words, if you could wave a wand to eliminate all blatant errors made by cyclists, the incidence of bike-car collisions would fall by some huge margin, certainly more than half.

But if you waved another wand which magicially eliminated all blatant errors made by motorists, the incidence of car-bike collisions would hardly be affected at all.

Say two waves of the cyclist-blatant-error-eliminating wand eliminated 60% of all bike-car collisions, so each single wave eliminated 30%, and the motorist-blatant-error-eliminating wand eliminated 8% of all bike-car collisions, so each single wave eliminated 4%.

Now say you have only sufficient energy (resources) for two wand waves. Do you wave the cyclist wand once and the motorist wand once (the balanced approach), or do you wave the cyclist wand twice and not bother with the motorist wand, or do you wave the motorist wand twice and not bother with the cyclist wand?

What I see in the cycling community is mostly calls for waving the motorist wand and ignoring the cyclist wand. There are folks like you here who say both should be waved. But there are very few of us that seem to understand waving the motorist wand is a relative waste of time and resources, if doing so takes away from waving the cyclist wand (which I believe it does), which is much more effective at reducing car-bike collisions.

My reasoning for wanting both ends of the candle burned is because there is no such thing as an isolated magic wand. In other words, cyclists and drivers interact, and changing the behavior of one can change the behavior of the other. Waving one magic wand will automatically wave some other. Like the monkey paw story.

Example: If drivers were accepting of our presence on the road, there will be more cyclists willing to take up vehicular cycling techniques. In the current environment, even if you offered a class on vehicular cycling, you will achieve a very small following. Cyclists simply will not sign up en mass until the roads are less intimidating. To take the other extreme, if only laws and driver ed were worked on, then the streets may be less intimidating, but as Serge pointed out, it would still be dangerous for cyclists.

When there is a system as complex as the psychology of driver/cyclist interaction, all variables of the system must be worked on simultaeously. You cannot just isolate one factor in the system and work only on it.

So, two extremes: the magic wand of VC education will elimate cyclist fatalities, but do nothing to increase the population of cyclists. The magic wand of driver ed (along with the cleanup of legalities) will not make much of a dent in cyclist fatalities, but will work to increase the number of cyclists on the road. Both of these effects are important for cycling advocacy. Less cycling fatalities is intrinsically good. The presence of more cyclists on the road is also intrinsically good.

As I maintain, the solution to a dichotomy is right down the middle.

Which gets back to the key difference in opinion I have with you and many other members of this forum. That is, it is my understanding that in the majority of car-bike collisions it is the cyclist that is at fault.

In other words, if you could wave a wand to eliminate all blatant errors made by cyclists, the incidence of bike-car collisions would fall by some huge margin, certainly more than half.

But if you waved another wand which magicially eliminated all blatant errors made by motorists, the incidence of car-bike collisions would hardly be affected at all.

Say two waves of the cyclist-blatant-error-eliminating wand eliminated 60% of all bike-car collisions, so each single wave eliminated 30%, and the motorist-blatant-error-eliminating wand eliminated 8% of all bike-car collisions, so each single wave eliminated 4%.

Now say you have only sufficient energy (resources) for two wand waves. Do you wave the cyclist wand once and the motorist wand once (the balanced approach), or do you wave the cyclist wand twice and not bother with the motorist wand, or do you wave the motorist wand twice and not bother with the cyclist wand?

What I see in the cycling community is mostly calls for waving the motorist wand and ignoring the cyclist wand. There are folks like you here who say both should be waved. But there are very few of us that seem to understand waving the motorist wand is a relative waste of time and resources, if doing so takes away from waving the cyclist wand (which I believe it does), which is much more effective at reducing car-bike collisions.

In your area maybe. But as i mentioned previously your experiance is not that of most or even that of many.

Here in my area the majority of the time the vast majority in fact it is the motorists fault. Drivers here will go out of their way to come as close to hittign you as they can with out actually hitting you. Obviously while they try these little stunts they will often fail and hit the cyclists. During one organised ride in my general area this year one motorist caused no less than 6 cyclists to ither go down or nearly go down. His act was diliberate and he was at fault. He was arested and charged as i found out later with assult.

Car v bike colisions here are more often than not found by court of law to infact be the motorists fault.
During one festival this year i was talking to a couple cops on bikes this year alone they have had no less than 50 reports (between the 2 of them) of car caused bike wrecks ranging from the cyclist simply being forced to go off the road to one near fatility. Now remember this was just between 2 officers (who were partners in the same car or in this case bike). In the areas in question in all but about 16 cases there were trafic light cameras that cought the motorists driving in a unsafe and illegal manner. The officers showed me a couple of the camera images it showed the cyclist takeign the lane before a stop light aprox 70 feet from the intersection inone case and the car tareing by him fast enoguh to trigger the camera. Camera sensitivity on that one light was 40 mph speed limit of 35 in the area. His actual speed was 48 mph. Not only did the driver in this case pass way to close he also cut over way to soon and clipped the riders front wheel with his rear fender. Acording to witnesses after the rider went down the driver got out grabbed him off the ground and punched him 4 or 5 times in the face and gut. The driver was cussing the cyclist for the dameg the cyclist did to his car.

This is just one example out of the 50 reports these to cops handled that the driver of the car was found to be at fault. They said they had another 10 or so reports that turned out to be the riders fault at least to some limited degree.

In your area maybe. But as i mentioned previously your experiance is not that of most or even that of many.
It's not just in my area, nova, it's whereever vehicular cyclists live, have lived, and have visited. For some reason, vehicular cyclists report that their approach to cycling works just as effectively no matter which city, town , state or country they are in. A few months ago someone was singing the "Oh, you've never cycled on such and such street and Houston", that's why you write the way you do, until a vehicular cyclist from Houston showed up and said riding there was no problem at all.


Here in my area the majority of the time the vast majority in fact it is the motorists fault.
I'd be very interested in reading that study. Gotta link?

I don't doubt that there are a few isolated cases of road rage, but I have a hard time believing (this does not mean I'm dismissing your claim out of hand) that road rage is the cause in a majority of the bike car collisions in any area, which is what you seem to be claiming. For Barberton, OH?

Brian, you present a well-reasoned and compelling argument, as usual, but I disagree with two key elements: the magic wand of VC education will ... do nothing to increase the population of cyclists. and, the magic wand of driver ed (along with the cleanup of legalities) ... will work to increase the number of cyclists on the road.

To the contrary, I think nothing would increase cycling popularity more than VC ed, and I think driver ed would do little or nothing to increase cycling popularity.

While people unwilling to cycle in traffic believe the reason is bad driving, I don't believe that is actually the case. I don't care how good the motorists are at driving and dealing with cyclists, these cyclists are still going to be scared to mix with traffic. Driver ed does nothing to address the root cause of keeping these folks off their bikes - a lack of confidence that they are safe. The best way I've ever encountered to build that confidence is VC ed. So VC ed should be quite effective at increasing cycling popularity, much more so than driver ed in any case.

It's not just in my area, nova, it's whereever vehicular cyclists live, have lived, and have visited. For some reason, vehicular cyclists report that their approach to cycling works just as effectively no matter which city, town , state or country they are in. A few months ago someone was singing the "Oh, you've never cycled on such and such street and Houston", that's why you write the way you do, until a vehicular cyclist from Houston showed up and said riding there was no problem at all.



I'd be very interested in reading that study. Gotta link?

I don't doubt that there are a few isolated cases of road rage, but I have a hard time believing (this does not mean I'm dismissing your claim out of hand) that road rage is the cause in a majority of the bike car collisions in any area, which is what you seem to be claiming. For Barberton, OH?

Youll just never understand what its realy like. My advice take 2 months and do a bike tour of the us.And no no links. There was no study this was from 2 cops with personal experiance.
VC for the most part is a great idea but thats all it is it simply does not work. If it did work wed not have daily posts about near misses or people being hit and or killed by cars. I do every thing by the book i do every thing as safe as i possibly can yet i still have a fair number of near misses during the week. I can take the lane right down the middle or to the left or right of my lanes center line (aka the oil strip) and still i have cars tare by me way to close and cut me off. As i stated before this is primarily on one single road in my general area in my personal experiance. But its also happening daily on many other roads daily as well. Then theres areas where you cold block trafic for 20 minutes and never have a driver cuss you (such as center road or the roads in and around canal fulton). The effect of VC has is vastly diffrent from one area to another area. This is a fact that you can not seem to understand. I relize im in one of the bad areas where road rage is the rule of thumb but i also relize that its wide spread and i relize that in some areas you can go days week and even a month or more with out a single close call.

Thts the point im trying to get you to understand.

It would be very very good if vc worked every where the same id be one very happy cyclists. Thankfully the number of idiot drivers (i call them squeezers soem call them cagers) are a bit of the minority. I had 3 drivers stuck behind me to both my and their anoyance. All because the trafic was fairly heavy today on my way to silver creek. I glanced back and seen 2 ot the three grin and shrug their shoulders. I squeezed as far to the right as i could slowed motioned them to pass me slowly. I could have simply extended my elbow and bumped all 3 of them as they creeped on by. This would have been deadly hd they been at speed but the lead driver under stood what my intention for him was and he kept his speed slow untill the other 2 were by me.
I slowed and they slowed to a crawl. We all under stood what each of us intended and this lead to it being very safe to pass at a very cloose distance. But you see the problem is that for every 10 drivers that will make these consesions(sp?) there are 2 or 3 who will simply tare by you and endanger your life some will litterly bump your rear wheel in hopes that you will go down etc.

VC is great when it works but it does not always work.

Nova, please identify the location where you have the most trouble.

Funny you mention the 2-month tour. I've thought of doing that, visiting all the trouble spots mentioned here all over the U.S. I'd love to meet all of you and ride with you. If only I could afford it.

Thanks.

[snip]Car v bike colisions here are more often than not found by court of law to infact be the motorists fault.
During one festival this year i was talking to a couple cops on bikes this year alone they have had no less than 50 reports (between the 2 of them) of car caused bike wrecks ranging from the cyclist simply being forced to go off the road to one near fatility. Now remember this was just between 2 officers (who were partners in the same car or in this case bike). In the areas in question in all but about 16 cases there were trafic light cameras that cought the motorists driving in a unsafe and illegal manner. The officers showed me a couple of the camera images it showed the cyclist takeign the lane before a stop light aprox 70 feet from the intersection inone case and the car tareing by him fast enoguh to trigger the camera. Camera sensitivity on that one light was 40 mph speed limit of 35 in the area. His actual speed was 48 mph. Not only did the driver in this case pass way to close he also cut over way to soon and clipped the riders front wheel with his rear fender. Acording to witnesses after the rider went down the driver got out grabbed him off the ground and punched him 4 or 5 times in the face and gut. The driver was cussing the cyclist for the dameg the cyclist did to his car.

[snip]

Having worked with both red light cameras and speed cameras, too many details of your story sound a bit on the sketchy side.

Nova, please identify the location where you have the most trouble.

Funny you mention the 2-month tour. I've thought of doing that, visiting all the trouble spots mentioned here all over the U.S. I'd love to meet all of you and ride with you. If only I could afford it.

Thanks.

well in my general area its about 90% on jhonson road heading from wooster road on up to hametown. In general from hame town to medina line is prety tame. Theres other areas to im sure but i dont ride them enough to notice.
As for a 2 month tour im gona do it one of these days if i ever get a decent enough job some place where i can infact take the time off. Money side of things would be prety easy for me. I dont have alot of habbits i dont drink or go out and party or movies every week etc.

Now next year some time im planing a nice tour of the metro parks here in summit county and probably stark parks metro parks. Smaller tour but will still possibly be a camping tour.