What's wrong with calling bicycling dangerous?

[Helmet Head]

This was posted to a VC advocacy list (chainguard).
Actual names are retracted (initials)


Date: Sat Apr 8, 2006 4:19 pm
Subject: What's wrong with calling bicycling dangerous?
Send Email Send Email

Hi all,

JW of Hawaii wrote:

>>I get older and bicycle more, I am more and more inclined to let people
believe bicycling is exceedingly dangerous if it keeps them off the road. As
long as the legislature and the DOT don't use that as an excuse to ban me from
the road I am increasingly viewing this as a winning strategy.<<

To which I reply:

Eventually, it'll bite you and me in the arse.

It's not true, which should be reason enough to avoid saying it. But there
are other factors.

I'll start by parsing the hypothesis. The presumption that bicycling is
exceedingly dangerous rests on a foundation of (at least) two rather sickening,
and untrue, widely held beliefs:

(1) Untrue believe #1: Bicyclists inevitably behave in a tricky way such
that motorist can't avoid colliding with them.

Most of the public doesn't visualize a properly behaving vehicular cyclist
when you mention "bicyclist." They think of a kid running red lights or
squirrelling all over the road. Sure, they might have seen you or me behaving
properly a time or two, but that is not the impression that sinks in.

Put it this way: My belief of dog behavior is such that I don't believe it
can be safe to let a dog proceed unleashed on a public road with motor traffic.
That's somewhat akin to how most people view bicyclist behavior.

(2) Untrue belief #2: When a motorist is careless and strikes the
bicyclist, that carelessness is not an individual act of negligence but rather
an act
of God.

I see this on a regular basis. "Oh, it was just an accident." "I know,
those bicyclists can be so hard to see."

This offends me greatly. When you're in the left front seat of a car (well,
for Shane in the UK it's the right front seat), the sity stern.

But it's easy to slip into the "it was just an accident and couldn't be
helped" if you believe that untrue belief #1 was in force.

Result: in those car-bike collisions where the car was at fault, the
motorist gets a free pass. Many of us have seen it happen.

Next factor: the attitude of the law.

The law comes in three components (that I can think of as I write this): Law
enforcement, legislative law and case law. In all three cases, if they
believe bicycling is dangerous, and you are assuming a high risk by doing it,
they
won't be much help when you need them.

-- Law enforcers will assume that any action you take is
antisocial/dangerous/illegal, and any car/bike collision is your fault. This is
something I have
seen often.

-- Case law, written by judges as they rely on their imperatively held
believes to assess the case in front of them, may cut against bicyclists because
it
will focus on the (allegedly high) risk we assume. In one case that
researcher S. E. found, a judge denied recovery to a bicyclist precisely
because
the cyclist was assuming risk by riding on the road. The judge didn't care
what obligations the colliding motorist failed to live up to.

-- Statutory law can go all sorts of bizarre directions. Mandatory sidepath
laws are "for your own protection."

Here's an example in the "this could happen to you" category: In the city of
Ft. Collins, Colorado, bicyclists are banned from a four-mile section of the
city's main street, College Avenue. This created a minor hullabulu when the
League of American Bicyclists (LAB) gave Ft. Collins a Bicycle Friendly Cities
award; LABreform took a dig at LAB for giving an award to a city with such a
ban; and a spokesman for the city got in touch with LABreform. So we asked the
guy from Ft. Collins: what's so bad about the street, and why did you ban
bikes? The response was of the "Of course, anyone would know it's dangerous by
looking at it" variety. They did NOT do the ban in response to any specific
accident or group of accidents, or specific accident type exacerbated by any
particular aspect of the street's design. The city guy (who was quite civil
with us, albeit misguided on issues of bicycle safety) gave us information about
road width, traffic volume, etc... and you know what? It sounds like a very
rideable street.

College Avenue is quite similar to Lehigh Street in Allentown, a street I
commuted on for over a year: four lanes, no shoulders, lots of stop lights,
driveways and a few slip ramps, 40,000 ADT. With a modicum of competence, it's
an
easy ride. My wife occasionally rides on Lehigh Street (when she has to drop
off a car for servicing and pedal on to her job), and she quite enjoys the
cycling, despite the traffic.

So, if you want to get banned from the College Avenues and Lehigh Streets of
the world, just keep saying that cycling is more dangerous than it really is.

Final factor: elitism.

We vehicular cyclists get accused of elitism, which sticks in my craw because
we are the ones who believe that any schmo can learn to ride safely, where
our paint-and-path opponents believe that we have such elite athlete skills that
most people can never learn such skills, and need to be remanded to "safe"
facilities. (This is actually kinda funny, when I think of some of the
non-athletes who are well-known vehicular cyclists: FO, FM,
JA, JT.. not a single strand of fast-twitch muscle fiber in the
bunch! It's all grey hair and pot bellies.)

Anyway, we badly need to shed the label of "elitist." Claiming that we are
the few who can withstand a dangerous environment is exactly what our opponents
want us to say.

JS

[Roody]

I can add nothing except my agreement.

(Off topic: One source for the myth of dangerous cycling is probably cyclists themselves. Some riders like to perpetuate the myth that it's dangerous because this helps them to feel like mythic heroes.)

[genec]

Well, it is "dangerous" enough to warrant the use of a helmet... of course that is because the environment of the cycling "user" is filled with seat belt equipped, air bagged, steel boxes weighing a ton or more and moving at speeds upwards of 45 MPH AND controlled by mere humans.

Contrast that against any other leisure activity and I don't think you'll find anything similar.

I know you are going to say that well we are not in competition with cars. And that is true, however even in a simple mistake, the results are akin to a David and Golith matchup. (And I cannot find that "sling" fast enough... :D )

Now is it dangerous enough to call it dangerous... No. Statistics bear that out... driving is far more dangerous by comparison.

So the "perceived danger" is one of illusion more than anything else.

[ZachS]

Well, it is "dangerous" enough to warrant the use of a helmet...


:rolleyes:

[sbhikes]

I think the writer has had a few too many bad incidents with the law and legal system. Many times law enforcement is on our side. And the court system as well. Not always, mind you, but it's not as dire as it may seem sometimes.

It is almost another myth he's perpetuating that most of law enforcement is ignorant of the law as it applies to cyclists and that the legal system always sides with the motorist.

[Helmet Head]

I think the writer has had a few too many bad incidents with the law and legal system.
Or, perhaps the cycling authority and technical expert for Adventure Cyclist Magazine has the type of knowledge and experience that forms the basis for the conclusions he has reached.

Here are some more examples of John Schubert's work:

Bicycle crashes and injuries (http://www.adventurecycling.com/resources/crashandinjuries.pdf) (pdf)

Buying a Recumbent Bike for Touring (http://www.adventurecycling.com/features/recumbent_bike.cfm)

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I can add nothing except my agreement.

(Off topic: One source for the myth of dangerous cycling is probably cyclists themselves. Some riders like to perpetuate the myth that it's dangerous because this helps them to feel like mythic heroes.)
Actually Roody, you are on topic. The reason you stated is evident, as well as those who promote the danger/death zones/ high risk stories in order to sell/promote an agenda through emotional appeals. Most often the product being promoted is a safety device to wear or a training program for the potential victims of this great danger. The pitch is the same - buy this product and your risk is greatly/significantly reduced. The substantiation for the pitch is often lacking.

[Bekologist]

what a bunch of negative fearmongering rhetoric....

why would the views of a bicyclist that thinks cycling conditions would improve by keeping more bicyclists off the road merit any serious discussion?

how about, let's talk about getting more cyclists on the roads by fighting for velotransit and "wheels on the ground" engineering controls instead of this lame, negatavistic, fearmongering rhetoric.

That's great. the editor of the AC and his wife are comfortable in traffic. is that some sort of suprise?

or is this, coupled with the lame initial premise of the original argument, be something not necessarily representative of the median and bell curve sampling of bike riders experience levels, knoweledge of safe traffic cycling, or anything realistic except that the editor of adventure cyclist might be just like the rest of us elitist traffic cyclists out there.

[Helmet Head]

We vehicular cyclists get accused of elitism, which sticks in my craw because
we are the ones who believe that any schmo can learn to ride safely, where
our paint-and-path opponents believe that we have such elite athlete skills that
most people can never learn such skills, and need to be remanded to "safe"
facilities. ...

Anyway, we badly need to shed the label of "elitist." Claiming that we are
the few who can withstand a dangerous environment is exactly what our opponents
want us to say. - JS


what a bunch of negative fearmongering rhetoric....

why would the views of a bicyclist that thinks cycling conditions would improve by keeping more bicyclists off the road merit any serious discussion?

how about, let's talk about getting more cyclists on the roads by fighting for velotransit and "wheels on the ground" engineering controls instead of this lame, negatavistic, fearmongering rhetoric.

That's great. the editor of the AC and his wife are comfortable in traffic. is that some sort of suprise?

or is this, coupled with the lame initial premise of the original argument, be something not necessarily representative of the median and bell curve sampling of bike riders experience levels, knoweledge of safe traffic cycling, or anything realistic except that the editor of adventure cyclist might be just like the rest of us elitist traffic cyclists out there.
Negative fearmongering rhetoric??? Care to provide an actual quote of something JS wrote that you believe qualifies as that?

Way to go, Beck. You keep repeating exactly what our opponents want us to say.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Negative fearmongering rhetoric??? Care to provide an actual quote of something JS wrote that you believe qualifies as that?

Way to go, Beck. You keep repeating exactly what our opponents want us to say.
Sure go back to your quoting from "JS" (HH's secret source of selective phrases) where he was promoting his agenda of a certain brand of cyclist training and making claims that it reduces cyclist risk by a fantastic 80%. Which means conversely that untrained cyclists will suffer 400% more if they don't get the promoted training. Source of JS' risk/danger reduction magic? Who else? - JS is a believer/promoter in the magic of Forester Brand Risk Analysis.

Of course the quote of interest is not JS's but the other VC/LCI promoter JW from Hawaii who is very much an elitist and representative of the VC promoters with an anti-cyclist agenda of "buy my education program and join my EC™ trained associates or you have no business on a bicycle". JS quite rightly recognizes that his fellow LCIs VC promotion scheme IS elitist and offensive.

JS does not point out that JW (the pompous Hawaii LCI elitist) is also very much in tune with other VC™ Masters' message of advocating specifically only for those cyclists who fit the profile of their associates - the high and mighty Self Proclaimed "Experienced High Mileage Road Cyclists" who believe promoting EC™ training is salvation from "dangerous cycling."

[Bekologist]

The person doing the fearmongering is you, Helmet Head for spamming this email from another discussion list in here.

My read on The technical expert? of Adventure Cyclist's personal opinion about his, and his wife's riding comfortability level in heavy traffic, may not represent the 'average' median cyclist in america.

Does anyone else think a guy associated as a proclaimed 'expert' of a long distance road cyclist touring magazine might be in a vaguely defined upper echelon of riders in the US? a member of a cycling 'elite?'

This guy from Adventure Cyclist makes cogent points; Helemt Head, you are the one doing the fearmongering by spamming an email from another list in here.

Did you make any cogent points in your original post? No, you spammed a random conversation between some idiot, elitist biker from Hawaii and musings by a member of the cycling 'elite' on populism and american biking.

I wonder what this fella from AC thinks overall, about bicycling, traffic engineering, and what accomodations cities like Fort Collins can do to make cycling conditions better, but i can't ask him. All i see is his spammed opinion off some elite cycling email list. I would be forced to try to debate points with a person not even involved in this thread, and argue them by proxy with a sophist like Helmet Head.
No thanks. Get this fella, this technichal 'expert' from Adventure Cyclist to post his own opinions in here, and then i'll debate him about his notions about elite cyclists. I can't seriously discuss cycling with a lunkhead like Helmet Head, who often confuses riding a Vespa or driving a RV with cycling. Naw, no thanks.

[ItsJustMe]

I think the OP is right on the mark.
And OK, we wear a helmet. Car drivers are wearing a ton or more of steel, air bags, traction assist computers, antilock brakes, and who knows what else. Seems to me that the car drivers must be the ones taking the risk if they need all that to be "safe".

[cyclezealot]

Everything humans do is dangerous. When I read the manuals to my various bikes , it pretty much told one of cycling's hazards. But so is driving a car. My scuba diving is dangerous. Cycling less so.
So , I gladly exchange my poison. Cycling will hopefully add to my wife ten years by getting the plaque out of my artries. Best remedy to cycling is be careful. That and safety equiptment will greatly help.
One of the reason I have not cared much for competitive racing. I think that significantly cuts down on the risks. If I can drive a car, cycling is can't be much worse.

[edzo]

ha ha ha

for me, and only me, cycling is the safest thing

safer than walking

safer than driving a car

safer than sleeping

safer than sitting on my ass

safer than running

----
but this is for me only. I can react and have reflexes and power
which suit me. I cannot say that for any other cyclist because I
don't know what is in their head. cycling is much better than
walking in any circumstance. if I fall down walking I am gonna get
hurt bad. when I fall off the bike this just isn't the case, because
I am fitter as a result of cycling, therefore more able to react
and gymnastic my way out of most dilemma. Your mileage may vary.

and now I am gonna go get killed bacause I just jinxed myself.

[kf5nd]

I have a VHF / UHF scanner at home. I turn it on during the weekends, when I'm puttering in my office or garage.

I hear call after call after call, endlessly, go out to the ambulances in my local Fire Department:

"Ambulance 8, diabetic emergency..."
"Ambulance 10, possible heart attack..."
"Ambulance 9, major motor vehicle accident, intersection of..."

People think that cycling is dangerous because in America it's unusual. Well, I have never heard yet the call go out in my jurisdiction for an ambulance response to a bicycle crash.

It's mostly something related to the obesity epidemic (heart attack, stroke, diabetic emergency), or a motor vehicle accident. You have your occasional elderly person falling, or epileptic seizure.

So as long as I keep riding a bicycle, I won't be obese, and I won't be in a motor-to-motor accident, or a solo motor accident.

So no one can ever convince me that bicycling is dangerous, at least not the way that I ride. I can't speak for others, of course. It has risks, but so does not riding (or better put, not exercising), and cars are risky, too.

[sbhikes]

Jeez, HH. I was only suggesting that while he may have a point he's too negative about law enforcement. I've had and have read about here numerous positive encounters with law enforcement officials who knew the law and sided with the cyclist.

Peter there is absolutely right. There are all kinds of dangers people take. Somehow it's more socially acceptable to die slowly from diseases of inactivity and gluttony than to risk having an accident while doing something physically healthy. If anything, people feel worse for you when you are a healthy person cut down in the prime of life. Somehow it's ok to die with clots and insulin problems having spent the last 40 years of it incapable of anything more exerting than crossing the room to get more beer and chips.

[Helmet Head]

Jeez, HH. I was only suggesting that while he may have a point he's too negative about law enforcement. I've had and have read about here numerous positive encounters with law enforcement officials who knew the law and sided with the cyclist.
When law enforcement sides with the cyclist, I believe it usually happens when there is space for the cyclist, like a bike lane, and the cyclist is in that space. Of the numerous positive encounters you've had and have read about, how many fell into this category?

I have read of far too many incidents where cyclists were acting vehicularly, and the law enforcement did not side with them. The most egregious example was when a CHP officer at the scene of a fatal collision declared the pickup driver "did nothing wrong" even though he was passing in the oncoming lane on a two lane highway when there was oncoming traffic (four cyclists, one of whom he ended up hitting and killing). To him, everyone was doing what they were supposed to be doing - the cyclists were as far right as practicable, and the motorist was passing on a roadway where it was legal to pass (dashed center line). It didn't even occur to him to charge the driver with violating 21751, even though the left side was not "free of oncoming traffic".

Passing Without Sufficient Clearance

21751. On a two-lane highway, no vehicle shall be driven to the left side of the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless the left side is clearly visible and free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit such overtaking and passing to be completely made without interfering with the safe operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21751.htm

To the "the driver did nothing wrong" CHP officer, the cyclists obviously did not constitute oncoming traffic. I believe this is how law enforcement typically views cyclists, despite legal words to the contrary:

Traffic

620. The term "traffic" includes pedestrians, ridden animals, vehicles, street cars, and other conveyances, either singly or together, while using any highway for purposes of travel..
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d01/vc620.htm

The fact that they sometimes get it right (and neither JS nor I have said anything to the contrary) does not mean that we don't have a serious problem with law enforcement not understanding and/or not respecting our rights to the road. In this case, there is insufficient interest to "connect the dots"... that 620, where traffic is defined, obviously includes cyclists, and that that makes the pickup driver's passing in the presence of oncoming cyclists a violation of 21751.

Law enforcement officers see cyclists injured and killed so often that many like this one understandably have developed a view that we're just sitting ducks out there, and every now and then we're going to get squished, and it's nobody's fault when that happens. I think addressing the issue that many officers have this view is important for cycling advocacy, and I believe this is what JS is getting at in the article I quoted in the OP. Do you not agree with this?

[sbhikes]

Somebody posted one that fell into your category just recently. They were riding along, a car was honking behind him, the officer pulled over the motorist and gave them a lecture about the cyclist's right to use the road.

Personally I have only had police lecture me when I really actually did something wrong, and conversely praise me when I really actually did something right. I have never experienced law enforcement being ignorant of the law as it applies to me as a cyclist. I even sat through traffic school and the instructor was very clear about the laws and rights for cyclists.

There's a tendency to focus on negative interactions with law enforcement but they are not all negative. I thought the original quote leaned too heavily in the direction of saying that almost always law enforcement is not on our side and/or ignorant of the law. I believe he was too strong in his negative assessment.

[Helmet Head]

There's a tendency to focus on negative interactions with law enforcement but they are not all negative. I thought the original quote leaned too heavily in the direction of saying that almost always law enforcement is not on our side and/or ignorant of the law. I believe he was too strong in his negative assessment.

This is too strong?

Law enforcers will assume that any action you take is antisocial/dangerous/illegal, and any car/bike collision is your fault. This is something I have seen often.

Despite there being counter examples, including the ones you cited, do you doubt that "law enforcers [assuming] any action you take is antisocial/dangerous/illegal, and any car/bike collision is your fault" is "something [he has] seen often"?

[genec]

The fact that they sometimes they get it right (and neither JS nor I have said anything to the contrary) does not mean that we don't have a serious problem with law enforcement not understanding and/or not respecting our rights to the road.


You know I find it absolutly amazing that you would take this "tack" and at the same time not also support the idea that motorists are also undereducated (don't understand the rights of cyclists on the road). Law enforcement is supposed to be educated specifically in the area of the laws, yet everyday common citizens know that much less, and often act upon their misbeliefs.

So while folks that are trained experienced cyclists do know and obey the laws, that does not mean they get the same treatment from the motorists they meet... who may believe they are driving "right and proper" and that cyclists have no rights to the road, or severly limited rights... in those motorist's minds. ("get on the sidewalk... ")

This gets back to my belief that motorists need more education... and I feel they are far easier to reach than cyclists... due to the simple fact that in some states motorists must return to an agency periodically for license renewal... AND potential retraining.

Does this mean that I don't believe in cyclist education... NO. But I believe that cyclists should be reached while in elementary and middle school, and readily available. I do tend to believe that the whole LCI program and that current method of cyclist education is a pretty lost cause... barely touching the active cyclist community. I also believe we should spend at least 1/2 as much time educating cyclists and future motorists as we spend on "health" classes or better yet, history.

[Hawkear]

Personally I have only had police lecture me when I really actually did something wrong, and conversely praise me when I really actually did something right. I have never experienced law enforcement being ignorant of the law as it applies to me as a cyclist. I even sat through traffic school and the instructor was very clear about the laws and rights for cyclists.Personally, I haven't had many (if at all) positive experiences with law enforcement on my bike, or in traffic school. I have had a plainclothes sheriff buzz me on my commute as I was taking the right lane on a "bike route", later telling me that I had to be as far right as possible. I have also had an officer lecture to me that the proper place to move out of the bike lane to prepare for an intersection is the limit line. I can't help but think most law enforcement hasn't bothered to learn the laws and how they apply to cyclists. They are just like other motorists who want us out of the way, and will even use extremely dangerous tactics to enforce this mentality.

[sbhikes]

It's pointless to argue with you HH. You have an agenda and believing that law enforcement isn't as bad as the description in your quote doesn't fit your agenda so there's nothing I can say.

[Helmet Head]

You know I find it absolutly amazing that you would take this "tack" and at the same time not also support the idea that motorists are also undereducated (don't understand the rights of cyclists on the road).
Civilian motorists not understanding my legal rights are practically inconsequential to me - that's why I believe educating them would have a negligible impact.

Law enforcement officers not understanding my legal rights is a much more serious matter.

Honking caused by misunderstanding is easy enough to ignore. But someone with a misunderstanding who also has a gun, a siren and the legal right to pull me over and arrest me is not so easy to ignore.

[Helmet Head]

It's pointless to argue with you HH. You have an agenda and believing that law enforcement isn't as bad as the description in your quote doesn't fit your agenda so there's nothing I can say.
No need to argue, Diane. I'm just asking a question about your experience and what you said.

Do you doubt that "law enforcers [assuming] any action you take is antisocial/dangerous/illegal, and any car/bike collision is your fault" is something JS has seen often?

The obvious follow-up questions are...

If you do doubt it, why?

If you don't doubt it, then why is what he said "too strong", since that's basically all he said on the issue?

[lsits]

Contrast that against any other leisure activity and I don't think you'll find anything similar.

Let's see: Rock climbing, white water rafting, ice hockey, skydiving, bungee jumping, just to name a few.

[genec]

Civilian motorists not understanding my legal rights are practically inconsequential to me - that's why I believe educating them would have a negligible impact.

Law enforcement officers not understanding my legal rights is a much more serious matter.

Honking caused by misunderstanding is easy enough to ignore. But someone with a misunderstanding who also has a gun, a siren and the legal right to pull me over and arrest me is not so easy to ignore.


And yet that whole rant on the radio by Rick Roberts was due to two things...
"civilian motorists not understanding my legal rights... " and the occasional cyclist running a stop light/stop sign. Rick Roberts biggest complaint was "cyclists in the middle of the road." Thus showing his sheer lack of understanding of the rules of the road...

Perhaps you should stop ignoring honking motorists and find out what their problem really is?

[Helmet Head]

I know what their problem is, Gene, and, frankly, Rick Roberts explained it quite well.

They believe cycling in traffic is inherently dangerous, they're afraid of hitting us, and one of their biggest complaints (and rightfully so) is the lack of obeying the rules of the road by most cyclists. They're wrong to stereotype all of us as a bunch of irresponsible daredevil scofflaws who get in their way, but I can understand why they feel that way. When I drive, I'm absurdly careful around most cyclists - because I don't trust them based on how they are riding - but it's not fair to put that burden on all motorists. When I treat most cyclists like vehicle drivers, they often don't know how to act.

The best I can do is ride safely, legally, visibly and predictably, so that's what I do. If most cyclists did that, I believe that that would educate motorists better than anything else.

[genec]

I know what their problem is, Gene, and, frankly, Rick Roberts explained it quite well.


They believe cycling in traffic is inherently dangerous, they're afraid of hitting us, and one of their biggest complaints (and rightfully so) is the lack of obeying the rules of the road by most cyclists. They're wrong to stereotype all of us as a bunch of irresponsible daredevil scofflaws who get in their way, but I can understand why they feel that way. When I drive, I'm absurdly careful around most cyclists - because I don't trust them based on how they are riding - but it's not fair to put that burden on all motorists. When I treat most cyclists like vehicle drivers, they often don't know how to act.

The best I can do is ride safely, legally, visibly and predictably, so that's what I do. If most cyclists did that, I believe that that would educate motorists better than anything else.


So you believe that his complaint of "cyclists in the middle of the road" is right on? You go along with his "threat" to make those cyclists a hood ornament?

Or are you simply lumping that with the complaints of cyclist red light runners while totally ignoring the fact that the city has several red light cameras to catch motorists doing exactly what Roberts et. al. are pointing accusing fingers at cyclists for doing.

[KrisPistofferson]

I don't think cycling is inherently dangerous, just potentially dangerous. Big difference. Use your head, and cover it with a helmet, and you cut out most of the risks that are within your control. Simple.

[joejack951]

As related in another thread, my experience with law enforcement in my area has been all good. One motorist has been pulled over for harassing me and every other cop I've seen has obviously had some understanding of the laws otherwise they'd probably be inclined to pull me over for using the left lane on a 45mph road (for left turns of course). I do see danger in motorists not knowing the laws as tailgating and close passing are not safe practice and can have dire consequences should the passer or passee make a mistake. I don't know the effect that education from either a formal source (DMV) or informal source (me or a cop) would have on motorists but I've got to believe it would be positive overall.

[sbhikes]

No need to argue, Diane. I'm just asking a question about your experience and what you said.

Do you doubt that "law enforcers [assuming] any action you take is antisocial/dangerous/illegal, and any car/bike collision is your fault" is something JS has seen often?

The obvious follow-up questions are...

If you do doubt it, why?

If you don't doubt it, then why is what he said "too strong", since that's basically all he said on the issue?
Why is it when many of us who hold opinions you do not agree with use our own personal anecdotes as a basis for some opinion you have a problem with that, but when other people do the same, and you agree with them, suddenly their opinion and personal anecdotes take on more weight and validity?

I don't doubt he has his opinion and has had the experiences he's had, but I have had mine and based upon my own experiences I believe his overall message which you quoted in the first post is too negative to be generally applicable to all of us. It is too negative because it is based upon his own anecdotal experiences and yet both he and you would like form a cyclist world view based upon those experiences and hold that up as a model and a belief system we should all have in common.

If you would simply like to hold this up as an opinion some guy has rather than some sort of "Word from On High" then that is fine. But you are using it to promote your Agenda which you expect all of us to have (eventually if not now). I for one will not base my cycling methodology or advocacy agenda on the personal experiences of a few crotchety old guys who have had problems with the law.

[noisebeam]

The best I can do is ride safely, legally, visibly and predictably, so that's what I do. If most cyclists did that, I believe that that would educate motorists better than anything else.
So I ride safely, legally, visibly and predictably every day and at least once a week get aggressively and intentionally close passed.

Am I educating motorists or inflaming their anti-cyclist attitudes?

Al

[Bekologist]

I just laid down 105 miles of riding today, and I got close passed at least three times, including one guy in a double dump truck that WASN'T into crossing the yellow line just to pass a lowly cyclist.



So, what's the point? HH thinks law enforcement is a bigger problem for cyclists than the driving public at large?

WHAT A JOKE!

I saw only two sherriff's squad cars, across two counties, on my entire ride, and about umpteen thousand drivers, many of whom didn't like me taking the lane, i'd imagine....several buzzed me.

I did get some pictures of a sweet velotransit lane I got to use for about a mile, in suburban shopping hell as I pulled thru Issaquah, that let me ride safely alongside traffic on congested arterials..

[slagjumper]

More than 3 times the people die per year choking on tooth picks than in bike accidents. Would you say that toothpicks are more dangerous than bicycles? I can imagine somewhere in the world right now, all the parents who are telling their kids to, "watch that tootpick in the sandwitch or your sure to choke". (http://www.uwex.edu/ces/flp/pp/pdf/choking.pdf#search='die%20choking%20toothpicks')

I think that it is not very helpful to emphasise the dangers of cycling. This thread reminds me of my grandmother-in-law's fears of going out because she watched too much local news. Falling meteoroids are very dangerous just not that likely to actually kill you.

There are some hazards cyclists should be aware of, then move on. Seems like the people who emphasise the dangers of cycling too much, often have books or services to sell.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Seems like the people who emphasise the dangers of cycling too much, often have books or services to sell.
Exactly! The elitist would-be danger monger of the OP, JW of Hawaii, is a promoter of Effective Cycling Education "services" in Hawaii.

[Helmet Head]

I think that it is not very helpful to emphasise the dangers of cycling.
Which is the point of the OP, which explains what's wrong with calling bicycling dangerous.


The elitist would-be danger monger of the OP, JW of Hawaii, is a promoter of Effective Cycling Education "services" in Hawaii.
And he was taken to task, and rightfully so, for being a danger monger, in the OP, by JS.

[RobertHurst]

Here's an example in the "this could happen to you" category: In the city of
Ft. Collins, Colorado, bicyclists are banned from a four-mile section of the
city's main street, College Avenue. This created a minor hullabulu when the
League of American Bicyclists (LAB) gave Ft. Collins a Bicycle Friendly Cities
award; LABreform took a dig at LAB for giving an award to a city with such a
ban; and a spokesman for the city got in touch with LABreform. So we asked the
guy from Ft. Collins: what's so bad about the street, and why did you ban
bikes? The response was of the "Of course, anyone would know it's dangerous by
looking at it" variety. They did NOT do the ban in response to any specific
accident or group of accidents, or specific accident type exacerbated by any
particular aspect of the street's design. The city guy (who was quite civil
with us, albeit misguided on issues of bicycle safety) gave us information about
road width, traffic volume, etc... and you know what? It sounds like a very
rideable street.



Funny how nobody who actually rides frequently in Fort Collins seems to give a second thought to the dreaded "ban" on College Avenue. Fact is, Fort Collins is a GREAT place to ride a bike. The city has bent over backwards in every respect to accomodate cyclists and to get more cyclists on the roads. The result is that the Fort is completely unlike any other town I have ever seen, and is the easiest to travel through by bike that I have ever seen. It is a damn wet dream for transportational cyclists. Contrast that to driving through this very congested little university city, which is usually a frustrating experience.

And then along comes LABReform, from their ivory towers, or out from their jihadi caves, or wherever, to make great noise about the dreaded ban on one section of College Avenue, and not a single one of them, apparently, ever having actually been to Fort Collins, let alone having tried to ride College Avenue. Of course, they are the great Know-it-Alls who are able to pass judgment from afar, sight unseen. This, people, is what's known as Arrogance. It is also what's known as, in casual parlance, talking out one's ass.

As for College Avenue, anyone who's ever spent time there would know that the ban is understandable. More importantly, anyone who's ever ridden the Fort would know that the ban is a non-issue, as perfectly wonderful cycling streets parallel College one block on either side with plenty of access to the businesses on College if you need to reach them. These are the streets you would choose anyway, even without a ban on College, unless you were perhaps retarded, lost, or some wild-eyed cycling 'advocate' driven by ideology, looking to make a point--not unlike a zombie or a cartoon rioter.

So who ya gonna believe, the guy who has actually ridden a lot in Fort Collins who says that the College Avenue thing is a complete non-issue, that Fort Collins deserves to be designated A-Number-One Bike Town, Gold Medal Trout Stream, or whatever else you can think of to praise what they've created there, or the guys for whom Fort Collins is but a figment of their overactive imagination, who claim the ban is a sign of underlying rottenness at LAB, in Fort Collins, and everywhere else? You make the call.

This whole episode with LABReform and Ft. Collins is just more evidence that LABReform is a fairly ridiculous organization with no concept of compromise or how the world works.

Robert

[chipcom]

Funny how nobody who actually rides frequently in Fort Collins seems to give a second thought to the dreaded "ban" on College Avenue. Fact is, Fort Collins is a GREAT place to ride a bike. The city has bent over backwards in every respect to accomodate cyclists and to get more cyclists on the roads. The result is that the Fort is completely unlike any other town I have ever seen, and is the easiest to travel through by bike that I have ever seen. It is a damn wet dream for transportational cyclists. Contrast that to driving through this very congested little university city, which is usually a frustrating experience.

And then along comes LABReform, from their ivory towers, or out from their jihadi caves, or wherever, to make great noise about the dreaded ban on one section of College Avenue, and not a single one of them, apparently, ever having actually been to Fort Collins, let alone having tried to ride College Avenue. Of course, they are the great Know-it-Alls who are able to pass judgment from afar, sight unseen. This, people, is what's known as Arrogance. It is also what's known as, in casual parlance, talking out one's ass.

As for College Avenue, anyone who's ever spent time there would know that the ban is understandable. More importantly, anyone who's ever ridden the Fort would know that the ban is a non-issue, as perfectly wonderful cycling streets parallel College one block on either side with plenty of access to the businesses on College if you need to reach them. These are the streets you would choose anyway, even without a ban on College, unless you were perhaps retarded, lost, or some wild-eyed cycling 'advocate' driven by ideology, looking to make a point--not unlike a zombie or a cartoon rioter.

So who ya gonna believe, the guy who has actually ridden a lot in Fort Collins who says that the College Avenue thing is a complete non-issue, that Fort Collins deserves to be designated A-Number-One Bike Town, Gold Medal Trout Stream, or whatever else you can think of to praise what they've created there, or the guys for whom Fort Collins is but a figment of their overactive imagination, who claim the ban is a sign of underlying rottenness at LAB, in Fort Collins, and everywhere else? You make the call.

This whole episode with LABReform and Ft. Collins is just more evidence that LABReform is a fairly ridiculous organization with no concept of compromise or how the world works.

Robert

I spent some time riding in Fort Collins - good post Robert. This portion caught my eye: "some wild-eyed cycling 'advocate' driven by ideology, looking to make a point--not unlike a zombie or a cartoon rioter", since we have a few of them running around in BF (everyone can decide for themselves who fits the description)

To me, this whole debate about whether cycling is dangerous is pointless and easily covered by two simple little realities:

1. Cycling in itself is NOT a dangerous activity.
2. Doing ANYTHING in traffic IS a potentially dangerous activity.

I ride in traffic regularly, have been for 4 decades, have never been seriously injured doing so, don't wear a helmet most of the time, do make myself very visible, do ride predictably, do pay attention to what is going on around me and do have fun. You tell me how dangerous I think cycling is.

But, my perception of the danger is not important...YOUR (as in you all in general, as individuals) perception and comfort level is what counts. No amount of self righteous 'education' from blowhard advocates is going to change someone's perception that cycling under some conditions is dangerous, nor is any panic mongering from the 'we know what is best for you' crowd going to convince I and others that cycling is dangerous. People get their comfort levels from their own experiences and we all should learn to respect that, rather than meddling and playing do-gooder. You want to ride on the sidewalk? Have a ball. You want to ride in the midst of 80+mph freeway traffic? Vaya con Dios, Vato. It's not my place or anyone else's to tell you that you are right, wrong, crazy, sane, smart or stupid.

[noisebeam]

As for College Avenue, anyone who's ever spent time there would know that the ban is understandable. More importantly, anyone who's ever ridden the Fort would know that the ban is a non-issue, as perfectly wonderful cycling streets parallel College one block on either side with plenty of access to the businesses on College if you need to reach them.
Putting aside the 'non-issue' due to parallel favorable routes, can you explain exactly what makes College Ave. a place where no one should ever ride a bicycle. Perhaps it is, but what unique characteristic make it so from your view?
Al

[Helmet Head]

Robert, I was going to ask the exact same thing, but Al beat me to it. What is that makes the ban "understandable" and a "non-issue"? If it's reasonable for drivers of motor vehicles to drive there, why not cyclists? Is there onstreet parking? Driveways? Alleys? Traffic lights? Are mopeds allowed or banned, and why?


or some wild-eyed cycling 'advocate' driven by ideology,
Do you mean to imply that there is something inherent wrong or undesirable with being driven by ideology?
If one is not driven by ideology, what is he driven by?
Aren't we all driven by ideology, and the only difference is whether we're aware of the ideology that is driving us, and how consistent, rational and logical it is?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Which is the point of the OP, which explains what's wrong with calling bicycling dangerous.



And he was taken to task, and rightfully so, for being a danger monger, in the OP, by JS.
"JS"? Is he the LAB-Reformer who prefers to do his danger mongering with fanciful claims of the incredibly higher risk (400%!) suffered by cyclists not trained in a formal John Forester approved techniques?

Do you mean JS replaced John Forester as the Guru of Effective Cycling™? Forester certainly has no objection to advocating that all non believers of EC™ get lost, or at least try to discourage them through any means possible to keep their "incompetent" butts off bikes. Forester, his acolytes (and LAB-Reform partners) make no bones about advocating only for those cyclists who fit the profile of their chosen associates, the relative handful of Experienced-High-Mileage-Road-Cyclists™ who believe in the Cycling Truth/Risk Management (as Interpreted/Fabricated by John Forester).

[Helmet Head]

The elitist would-be danger monger of the OP, JW of Hawaii, is a promoter of Effective Cycling Education "services" in Hawaii.

[That it is not very helpful to emphasise the dangers of cycling] is the point of the OP, which explains what's wrong with calling bicycling dangerous.

And [JW] was taken to task, and rightfully so, for being a danger monger, in the OP, by JS.

JS, do you mean the ....

Who "JS" is is irrelevant to whether the words of the OP expains what's wrong with calling bicycling dangerous, and whether JW was taken to task for being a danger monger. Either they do that, or they do not. What difference does who wrote them make to these questions?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Who "JS" is is irrelevant to whether the words of the OP expains what's wrong with calling bicycling dangerous, and whether JW was taken to task for being a danger monger. Either they do that, or they do not. What difference does who wrote them make to these questions?
One word "credibility." No, make that two words, add "honesty."

HH has already gone on record that the concept of credibility is irrelevant to his (and his comrades') ideological ranting. Just like a broken clock he may stumble on the truth; but only a fool pays any attention to anyone who doesn't give a poop about telling the truth or at least can't tell the difference between guesswork/wishful thinking and reality.

[Roody]

One word "credibility." No, make that two words, add "honesty."

HH has already gone on record that the concept of credibility is irrelevant to his (and his comrades') ideological ranting. Just like a broken clock he may stumble on the truth; but only a fool pays any attention to anyone who doesn't give a poop about telling the truth
You seem to have a lot of time to google initials for an irrelevant flame. Too bad you don't have time to research the actual issue, which is the perceived riskiness of cycling. Please try to stay on topic.

[Helmet Head]

Who "JS" is is irrelevant to whether the words of the OP explains what's wrong with calling bicycling dangerous, and whether JW was taken to task for being a danger monger. Either they do that, or they do not. What difference does who wrote them make to these questions?

One word "credibility." No, make that two words, add "honesty."

HH has already gone on record that the concept of credibility is irrelevant to his (and his comrades') ideological ranting. Just like a broken clock he may stumble on the truth; but only a fool pays any attention to anyone who doesn't give a poop about telling the truth or at least can't tell the difference between guesswork/wishful thinking and reality.
There are times when credibility and honesty matter, and there are times when they don't. We're not asking JS to raise our children. We're asking what his words mean.

Specifically, with respect to the issue of whether the words in the OP explain what's wrong with calling bicycling dangerous, and whether JW was taken to task for being a danger monger, what is the relevance of the credibility and honesty of the writer of those words? Can't you just answer these questions by reading the words for yourself? Or are you unable to comprehend and/or evaluate words unless they are known to have been generated by a source you have deemed to be "credible and honest"? Apologies in advance for putting it so bluntly, but can you read and think for yourself, or not?

[Helmet Head]

You seem to have a lot of time to google initials for an irrelevant flame. Too bad you don't have time to research the actual issue, which is the perceived riskiness of cycling. Please try to stay on topic.
He lurks on the same list where this was originally posted.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

You seem to have a lot of time to google initials for an irrelevant flame. Too bad you don't have time to research the actual issue, which is the perceived riskiness of cycling. Please try to stay on topic.
My, my, you are the forgetful one. Just several weeks ago I replied to your request about what was wrong with the trash being offered up as risk analysis on this Forum. I repeated it again several days ago in abbreviated form. No blue or red stars next to another reiteration of the phoney baloney adds any credibilty to "risk studies" that ignore event severities and exposure rates.

Roody don't tell me you are another illinformed ideological whiner who considers any deviation from the Conventional Wisdom as irrelevant. Well, I suppose it would be when an ideologue's apple cart is overturned with facts. And the facts are the entire body of risk analyses from the EC™ disciples, to include any conclusions drawn, are corrupted by fatally flawed and grossly sophmoric analytical methods and are blatantly guided by an agenda/bias to reach a predetermined conclusion with half truths, mismatched data and fabricated data.

And for the logically impaired: no credibility is gained for such reports by demanding negative proof; (i.e. a dopey response like "if you don't believe there is a heaven and hell. or the moon's core is green cheese (or any other unsubstantiated theory), prove it! Can't do it? Well that means the dopester's theories are the best available and therefore are true until proven otherwise")

[Helmet Head]

And for the logically impaired: no credibility is gained for such reports by demanding negative proof;
What is the relevance to this thread of the credibility or lack thereof of reports not referenced in this thread?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

What is the relevance to this thread of the credibility or lack thereof of reports not referenced in this thread?
Let the idealogue thrash about trying to figure it out.

[Roody]

Roody don't tell me you are another illinformed ideological whiner who considers any deviation from the Conventional Wisdom as irrelevant. Well, I suppose it would be when an ideologue's apple cart is overturned with facts. And the facts are the entire body of risk analyses from the EC™ disciples, to include any conclusions drawn, are corrupted by fatally flawed and grossly sophmoric analytical methods and are blatantly guided by an agenda/bias to reach a predetermined conclusion with half truths, mismatched data and fabricated data.



Actually I would love to have an intelligent discussion on this topic (the quality of safety data related to cycling) with you or anybody else. Maybe you could start a new thread with links (or citations--I do books too) to some of the "fatally flawed" studies you have in mind.

Give me a little time to study up and i might be able to contribute to the discussion. I took 5 terms of statistics in graduate school, although that was a long time ago....