Roody
01-09-06, 04:43 PM
An expert, as I think you agree, is a person who is recognized in their field of study. A person such as John Forester or John Allen, may be an expert at "vehicular cycling," but this is not the only way to get around on a bicycle. Most messengers use a different sort of technique than is commonly advocated by vehicular cyclists, relying more on space, intrinsic physics and sociology to make their movements on the road than the standard vehicular rules of the road. That they all ride in similar fashion (similar enough for a stereotype anyway) and they survive (their safety is probably at least equal to any other cyclist when taking into account "bike hours" rather than simple trips or calender time).
As I've posted many times, I'm willing to learn cycling from anybody who offers teaching. To date, I have not seen a cogent system of street cycling offered by anybody except those who could be described as vehicular cyclists. Do you know of one? If you know of any other system, promulgated by any self-described expert, I would very much appreciate a link or citation. I pride myself on my openminddness. I started a thread here some time ago asking for a description of nonvhicular cycling, and never got one. Lots of heated argument, all without content or substance, not even an attempt to describe a coherent, replicable system. It is past time for nonvehicular cyclists to either crap or get off the pot.
You might even say there are experts on "invisible" cycling and "pedestrian mode" cycling (for lack of better terminology). Whether one style is more dangerous than another is still up for debate and probably varies depending on the cyclist's goals, their environment, and their skill at evaluating traffic and at controlling their bikes. It is probably the case that a pedestrian mode is simply the best style of cycling for one not skilled at bicycle control. Vehicular cycling is probably safest when practiced by a skilled cyclist on suburban and faster urban streets. Messenger style cycling might well be safer for urban city centers and is definitely more efficient. "Invisible cycling" might well be safer at night when caught out without lights.
Sidewalk cycling itself doesn't concern me. Sudden erratic transiions from sidewalk to street concern me greatly, as I have often seen cars make panic stops to avoid these cyclists, and even more times when cagers have gracefully yielded their right of way to erratic cyclists, and have had their trips needlessly impeded as a result.
I have never watched messeners ride, but internet videos do not portray them as safe or skillful cyclists. Many messengers who have posted on BF say they ride vehicularly most of the time. I ride in the city center efficiently, quickly and safely while using vehicular techniques, so I have trouble understanding why anybody would need to do otherwise, based on my own experience and the experts whos' books I've read. Often the fault is not with vehicular cycling itself, but with a failure of many cyclists to learn enough about VC to practice it proficiently. I sometimes see evidence of that on this forum.
Yet, they survive. Part of the problem with the vehicular cycling advocacy is that the vehicular cyclists continually assert that certain types of riding styles are "dangerous" and those people who practice said riding styles should change and practice vehicular cycling. More than once I have heard the term "deadly" bandied about these forums. Yet they survive. Why would they listen to "some guy" when he tells them that their riding style, which they have been practicing for years, is mortally dangerous and should be changed. The truth is that the difference in the risk of "safe" styles of riding and "dangerous" styles of riding is not that much. Even if it there results a 50% or 75% decrease in risk by changing practices, it is a 50 or 75% decrease of a very small number, which equals a small number. Cycling can be dangerous, but not as dangerous as we sometimes make it out to be, regardless of the style of riding.
It often seems that they barely survive, and 700 a year do not survive. And we have no idea how many others are the victims of poor cyclists. Three times last summer, I was nearly hit by wrong way cyclists. That gives me a very selfish reason to want better training for cyclists. I agree that cycling is not a particularly dangerous activity, but our good safety record is too often due to the alertness and forbearance of cagers, who watch out for us better than many of us watch out for ourselves. Also, I fully expect cyclists to increase in numbers in the next decade, and accident numbers will go up too.
There is a fine line between when we should be cleaning up our own house and when we should be showing a united front. I would argue for a united front, but others can just as easily argue we should clean our own house first. I suspect that there should be a good balance between the two - we shouldn't sit by and only make efforts to change the behaviors of cyclists, and we shouldn't be completely uncritical of the image that irresponsible cyclists give cyclists as a whole
I agree that the war should be fought on two fronts. I am concerned that our bad habits give much ammunition to the "enemy"--those who would like to see street and road cycling restricted or even banned.
As I've posted many times, I'm willing to learn cycling from anybody who offers teaching. To date, I have not seen a cogent system of street cycling offered by anybody except those who could be described as vehicular cyclists. Do you know of one? If you know of any other system, promulgated by any self-described expert, I would very much appreciate a link or citation. I pride myself on my openminddness. I started a thread here some time ago asking for a description of nonvhicular cycling, and never got one. Lots of heated argument, all without content or substance, not even an attempt to describe a coherent, replicable system. It is past time for nonvehicular cyclists to either crap or get off the pot.
You might even say there are experts on "invisible" cycling and "pedestrian mode" cycling (for lack of better terminology). Whether one style is more dangerous than another is still up for debate and probably varies depending on the cyclist's goals, their environment, and their skill at evaluating traffic and at controlling their bikes. It is probably the case that a pedestrian mode is simply the best style of cycling for one not skilled at bicycle control. Vehicular cycling is probably safest when practiced by a skilled cyclist on suburban and faster urban streets. Messenger style cycling might well be safer for urban city centers and is definitely more efficient. "Invisible cycling" might well be safer at night when caught out without lights.
Sidewalk cycling itself doesn't concern me. Sudden erratic transiions from sidewalk to street concern me greatly, as I have often seen cars make panic stops to avoid these cyclists, and even more times when cagers have gracefully yielded their right of way to erratic cyclists, and have had their trips needlessly impeded as a result.
I have never watched messeners ride, but internet videos do not portray them as safe or skillful cyclists. Many messengers who have posted on BF say they ride vehicularly most of the time. I ride in the city center efficiently, quickly and safely while using vehicular techniques, so I have trouble understanding why anybody would need to do otherwise, based on my own experience and the experts whos' books I've read. Often the fault is not with vehicular cycling itself, but with a failure of many cyclists to learn enough about VC to practice it proficiently. I sometimes see evidence of that on this forum.
Yet, they survive. Part of the problem with the vehicular cycling advocacy is that the vehicular cyclists continually assert that certain types of riding styles are "dangerous" and those people who practice said riding styles should change and practice vehicular cycling. More than once I have heard the term "deadly" bandied about these forums. Yet they survive. Why would they listen to "some guy" when he tells them that their riding style, which they have been practicing for years, is mortally dangerous and should be changed. The truth is that the difference in the risk of "safe" styles of riding and "dangerous" styles of riding is not that much. Even if it there results a 50% or 75% decrease in risk by changing practices, it is a 50 or 75% decrease of a very small number, which equals a small number. Cycling can be dangerous, but not as dangerous as we sometimes make it out to be, regardless of the style of riding.
It often seems that they barely survive, and 700 a year do not survive. And we have no idea how many others are the victims of poor cyclists. Three times last summer, I was nearly hit by wrong way cyclists. That gives me a very selfish reason to want better training for cyclists. I agree that cycling is not a particularly dangerous activity, but our good safety record is too often due to the alertness and forbearance of cagers, who watch out for us better than many of us watch out for ourselves. Also, I fully expect cyclists to increase in numbers in the next decade, and accident numbers will go up too.
There is a fine line between when we should be cleaning up our own house and when we should be showing a united front. I would argue for a united front, but others can just as easily argue we should clean our own house first. I suspect that there should be a good balance between the two - we shouldn't sit by and only make efforts to change the behaviors of cyclists, and we shouldn't be completely uncritical of the image that irresponsible cyclists give cyclists as a whole
I agree that the war should be fought on two fronts. I am concerned that our bad habits give much ammunition to the "enemy"--those who would like to see street and road cycling restricted or even banned.