I've been thinking about this a lot lately. As a cyclist, you have a choice that almost no other mode of transport gets: you can ride in traffic, but you can also ride apart from traffic. The thing is, these two ways of riding have very different rules and issues. If you choose to ride in traffic, you're on the roadway, and you better follow the rules of the road. If you choose to ride outside of traffic, you can ride on a bike path, a shoulder, a sidewalk, a bike lane, and even the edge of the roadway, and you have to be very careful when interacting with traffic because they're not expecting you.
Now, here's the thing: nobody disputes the right of cyclists to ride outside of traffic, except in special circumstances like city sidewalks. However, riding in traffic is something that a lot of people have a problem with. A lot of motorists don't realize that it's legal, or that there are two modes for cyclists, so their brains perceive an in-traffic cyclist as an out-of-traffic cyclist in the wrong place -- hence the honking and yelling. Many cyclists have an exaggerated fear of in-traffic cycling, even though in many situations it is safer than out-of-traffic cycling. Using out-of-traffic techniques in traffic is particularly dangerous. As a result, for the past 30 years or so Cycling Advocacy (capital C, capital A) has focused on promoting in-traffic cycling among cyclists, and promoting awareness of in-traffic cycling among motorists.
I wouldn't say that one is "better" than the other -- each has its place, and nothing is wrong with chosing either one. What's important is to be aware of the differences and the risks. Riding out-of-traffic has its place, but you have to be aware that at driveways, crosswalks and intersections drivers will not yield to you, even though they may be legally required to do so.
The other important point: pick one or the other. If you're riding in traffic, ride in the traffic. If you're out of traffic, stay out. Riding along the margins just confuses others and gives you the dangers of both worlds.
rando
05-23-06, 08:32 PM
me like Bek. Bek a caveman cyclist like me.
rando
05-23-06, 08:34 PM
DC also have good points. brain hurts.
mechBgon
05-23-06, 08:49 PM
If anyone wants to try some advocacy locally, you might check this program out: http://www.mycommute.org/login.php Our county is putting this on to help raise awareness that there's something out there besides the single-occupancy vehicle. I was participating and won a couple gift cards, but felt a little guilty since I commute by bike 95%+ of the time anyway, so I bowed out.
Another thing I think we could do to promote cycling in general, is to poke our transportation people in the head once in a while.
"hey, there's this stoplight that I can never trip with my bike, can you adjust it?"
"hey, there's getting to be a lot of broken glass on 4th between Maple and Washington, can you send a sweeper?"
"hey, the bike lane needs plowing, because the snow's that frozen lumpy kind, and I can't ride on it"
"hey, when's there going to be a shoulder on this twisty ascent so we can all use the road safely?"
Maybe you won't get everything you want. But they'll be reminded that there's something out there besides motor vehicles. I'm sorry if those all sound too centered on the battle-hardened commuter, rather than the population in general, it's just the ones that are coming to mind.
I tried emailing my district representative in the state legislature the other day, asking for the single-red-blinkie law to be altered to a multiple-blinkies-including-white-and-amber-ones-all-over-the-bike-are-just-fine law. LOL, that was simple...
It looks like this will be good to go. We are going to try and get the State Patrol to endorse the idea and then run it next session.
:)
Roody
05-23-06, 09:16 PM
i read in another A&S thread recently that over %99 PERCENT of bicyclists are doing it incorrectly, sgt.
its up to advocates? that are way wiser than the rest of us to save riders from themselves, obviously.
i am so with chipcom on this one, which is a populist, notion, not an elitist one ,.... Sancho Panza needs to get in here and lend some reality to Don Quixotehead and the rest of the windmill chasers in here.
wheels on the ground engineering, traffic controls and warranted roadway striping that benefits all vehicular traffic, including routed and appropriate velotransit lanes, need to be included in any advocacy platform or it is incomplete.
ALL bicycle methods and "notions" need to endorse velotransit accomodations, or it is a dishonest and incomplete cycling method.
How is it elitist to claim that you know more about a subject than someone else, provided you really do know more? Mrs. Martin, my 10th grade math teacher, wasn't elitist when she set out to teach us algebra. At least she didn't say, "Well, if you don't know algebra by now, I guess you really don't need to know it at all, so I'll just spend the year reviewing long division with you." She knew not only the subject of algebra, she also knew it was important because it would be useful throughout our lives. In fact, hoping to motivate us, she spent the first day of class explaining the benefits of learning algebra.
Well, cycling safety advocates, like bekologist, HH, noisebeam and many others, know the subject of riding a bicycle in traffic. They also know that learning the skillset needed to ride in the street can bring much utility and pleasure to a cyclist's life. If they "advocate" that sidewalk cyclists could or even should learn these skills too, then they're just doing their jobs as advocates. This is far better than saying, "Well, if you don't know how to ride in the street by now, I guess you reall don't need to know it at all, so we'll just review sidewalk riding with you."
becnal
05-23-06, 11:38 PM
I believe all advocacy is essentially local as well. I don't believe that chatting in this forum is going to have an effect in my home town, and certainly not somewhere across the country or elsewhere in the world.
I agree with you. And fortunately, it isn't the rest of the world that needs the bicycling advocacy nearly as much as the US. Bicycle advocacy certainly isn't necessary a tiny bit in Germany, France, Scandanavia, BeNeLux, Iberia, Italy etc.
I wonder what percentage of Motorist related bicycle deaths happen in the US. Any body know?
CommuterRun
05-24-06, 04:32 AM
How about we start discussing some real-world advocacy and safety issues in this forum?
Okay, sounds good to me. As a utility cyclist, real world for this area is know the law, know how to prevent lane sharing and ride in the traffic lane the because there simply isn't anywhere else on these narrow, two lane, rural roads.
Sidewalks? Don't have to worry about sidewalk riders when there are no sidewalks.
MUPs? There is one rails-to-trails path and another being planned, neither of which are, or are going to be, much of a practical route for utility cycling.
Bike lanes? They don't exist here. They have them up in Leon County, in and around Tallahassee, but I don't ride there.
Paved shoulders? There are three highways here with practically wide, paved shoulders. None of which are on any of my regular commutes.
Alternate routes? Pointless, an alternate route in this area will take you miles out of the way to your destination with no change in road or traffic conditions.
Because of these, or rather the lack of them, cycling is very good here. The vast majority of drivers in this area are very good and seem to know that the cyclist is in the road position they chose because there isn't anywhere else to be.
The vast majority of cyclists in the U.S. may prefer facilities separate from motor vehicles, but the vast majority of cyclists do little more than in the neighborhood, around the block type cycling and most of them are not on this forum.
The difference in opinions on safe cycling seem to stem from different state and local laws regarding cycling and differing local road conditions and facilities. Everybody thinks everybody else should ride their way.
I have been told I should advocate to get these things. Why would I? Personally, I have no use for sidewalks, bike lanes, MUPs or anything else that would make me special as a road user. I see these things as being wasteful and making my riding less safe by conditioning drivers to think I should be off the road.
chessie254
05-24-06, 08:50 AM
The vast majority of cyclists in the US prefer to use bike lanes, segregated facilities, MUPs and sidewalks - deal with it. Quit telling them what is wrong with they way the ride and what a perfect world it would be if all cyclists used the roadways and motorists treated us with respect and courtesy. Instead, how about discussing how a cyclist can be safe and enjoy themselves USING THE METHOD & MEANS OF CYCLING THEY PREFER?
I would assume that the majority your refering too...do not frequently visit the bike forums. Especially those riding on sidewalks. I agree that many have an agenda and might be slighly overzealos about it. Truth is that riders will do what they are comfortable with. Feeling comfortable about riding on the road, in traffic, takes some practice.
noisebeam
05-24-06, 09:12 AM
Well, instead of telling them not to ride on the sidewalk, we discuss how TO ride on the sidewalk safely. For example, by paying extreme attention to driveways, not assuming that they are visible to drivers who may cross their path, how to be courteous to pedestrians, etc.
Sure. In fact I've done this in response to someone asking if they should ride on the sidewalk:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=2428262&postcount=26
Al
LittleBigMan
05-24-06, 09:51 AM
As a utility cyclist, if you're like me, you don't exclusively use the roads. I also use paths, bike lanes, MUPS, parking lots and even a sidewalk or two to get me to where I'm going in the most efficient and safest manner. Does that make it more relevant?
Personally, it's not relevant to me. It's only relevant because I want to support other cyclists in their cycling.
In my case, I use bike facilities for about 2 out of 30 miles each day. There are no facilities that could possibly serve me as well as the road on my commute, and if you took away the 2 miles I use, I'd never miss them. But I'm sure many other good people would dearly miss them, so I'm not that selfish. But facilities have never, and doubt ever could, serve me like the road does to make the practical trips by bicycle that I so often do.
I'm sure it's different in other places, but where I live, facilities are no substitute for the road.
chipcom
05-24-06, 10:16 AM
At least in my area, cities address the bicyclists' needs by focusing on the creation of bike lanes and MUPs. So I respectfully submit that they are already addressing what the majority wants.
Very good point. I agree, governments address the needs of the majority, or at least the majority that is likely to vote for them, but here in BF, many supposed advocates not only ignore the majority, they actively try to thwart their preferences, assume they are ignorant and need education, or just plain deny they exist.
chipcom
05-24-06, 10:19 AM
Chip,
Road Cycling and VC is completely practical. It's not pie-in-the-sky.
Because in my little corner of paradise, the County:
1. does not build sidewalks
2. does not build bike paths (a stated, written policy... it's to "safeguard" cyclists)
3. distances in Texas are large... you would never get anyplace on a sidewalk, even if they existed. The nearest significant employment corridor (other than junk jobs) is 10 miles away... I work 24 miles from home. My place of worship is 16 miles from home. Well, at least Kroger's is close, less than a mile away
So, for those of us in sprawl-prone parts of America, if we're not talking VC on-road cycling, we're not talking cycling at all.
Peter
Hi Peter...I spent almost 20 years in New Mexico, Texas and Arizona. People ride on the sidewalks and debates rage about bike lanes, especially when it comes to building or resurfacing new roads.
chipcom
05-24-06, 10:21 AM
But the reality is, these riders are the majority. The ones who dont worry about skills
and technique and have no desire to. As I interprit Chips post he is asking why arent
these people exclusive enough to advocate for ? Is advocacy only for people like us
who discuss it for hours on end and ride just as long every day ? A real, universal
Advocacy program has to be based on the current realities of the majority and
include everybody even if you dont agree with the way they conduct their affairs.
I figured you'd get it. :)
chipcom
05-24-06, 10:23 AM
The story does go on doesn't it? The sky is falling sez the High Priest of Hot Air and Comrade Serge buys it all hook line and sinker. Come drink the Kool Aid from the Magic Goblet. Oh Brother!!
Welcome to marketing 101 - repeat an embellished story often enough and folks believe the spin rather than the actual events. Did you ever wonder why Serge & Co repeat the same things over and over and over and over again? There ya go.
chipcom
05-24-06, 10:38 AM
The point is, ped cycling can be done safely, but the slow speeds makes it not very effective for most trips. It does sometimes have utility at trip end points, however, and for occasional non-standard access to and from bikeways.
It seems to have much more ulility to actual utility cyclists, than to self-proclaimed advocates.
To put it in perspective. I can break down my commute into two areas:
1. Rural/suburban roads and parkways
2. Urban city streets
I see cyclists on both parts of the commute, depending upon the weather. During the fair weather I see a lot of roadies on the parkway and fitness/rec riders, along with a few commuters, on the MUP that runs next to it. In bad weather both the road and the MUP is essentially deserted.
In the urban half, I see utility cyclists, mostly women and older folks, riding simple bikes, most with with baskets, on the sidewalks. I see these folks year-round, in all weather. I'm sure these folks find plenty of utility riding the sidewalks. Do I agree with them - no. Do I respect their choice and try to help them in the context of their own riding preferences - yes. THAT is what this thread is all about. You can help people without trying to convert them.
chipcom
05-24-06, 10:45 AM
How is it elitist to claim that you know more about a subject than someone else, provided you really do know more?
There's the rub - you don't know 'more' you just know 'different' - unless of course you fit the definition below:
"Elitism is a belief or attitude that an elite— a selected group of persons whose personal abilities, specialized training or other attributes place them at the top of any field (see below)— are the people whose views on a matter are to be taken most seriously, or who are alone fit to govern. Thus elitism sees an elite as occupying a special position of authority or privilege in a group, set apart from the majority of people who do not match up with their abilities or attributes. ..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitist
LittleBigMan
05-24-06, 10:49 AM
Welcome to marketing 101 - repeat an embellished story often enough and folks believe the spin rather than the actual events. Did you ever wonder why Serge & Co repeat the same things over and over and over and over again? There ya go.
My experience has shown me that most people I meet face-to-face think cycling on the road is too dangerous, and think I'm a fool for doing it. Don't forget that it's that unfavorable majority mindset that gave rise to the strong-willed inflexibility you like to criticize in Forester and his followers.
Personally, I think there is a middle ground. Forester, though his writings chafe me, actually inspired me to realize that I could use the road to get almost anywhere it went, that I didn't have to wait 10 years for some governement agency to build a path.
To listen to bike facility advocates, I was led to believe I had to wait.
Brian Ratliff
05-24-06, 10:53 AM
My experience has shown me that most people I meet face-to-face think cycling on the road is too dangerous, and think I'm a fool for doing it. Don't forget that it's that unfavorable majority mindset that gave rise to the strong-willed inflexibility you like to criticize in Forester and his followers.
Personally, I think there is a middle ground.
Just as it takes a lot of energy to get rolling from a stop, it takes an extremist to get the advocacy ball rolling. However, in many situations (not just in cycling), once the ball is well and rolling, the extremist becomes more hinderence than help as others take over and the ball starts rolling on a sufficient but somewhat tangental path to what the extremist had in mind.
LittleBigMan
05-24-06, 11:00 AM
Just as it takes a lot of energy to get rolling from a stop, it takes an extremist to get the advocacy ball rolling. However, in many situations (not just in cycling), once the ball is well and rolling, the extremist becomes more hinderence than help as others take over and the ball starts rolling on a sufficient but somewhat tangental path to what the extremist had in mind.
Agreed.
And opponents of extremists often throw out the baby with the bathwater, opposing everything the extremist says regardless of merit.
Brian Ratliff
05-24-06, 11:16 AM
Agreed.
And opponents of extremists often throw out the baby with the bathwater, opposing everything the extremist says regardless of merit.
I am probably guilty of this, though it is human nature in an argument when faced with an extreme position, to take up a polarized position as well. An argument during a debate between extremists is not to be won or lost. Instead, it exposes the issues to less passionate people who are more reasonable.
In Oregon, because of the polarized arguements between passionate cyclists of different flavors, we have both an extensive BL network as well as full acceptance on the road in any lane and a section on cycling vehicularly in the driver's manual, not to mention a manual devoted to cycling for those who want more details. What happened was that in amongst the passionate who would tend to gridlock everything with words and argument, were the reasonable who moved the whole project along. As a result, real things have been tried; really tried. The reasonable amongst us decided to spill asphalt and paint to decide the subject instead of writing a million words.
LittleBigMan
05-24-06, 11:19 AM
The reasonable amongst us decided to spill asphalt and paint to decide the subject instead of writing a million words.
Whoa. Does that make writers the "unreasonable?"
I-Like-To-Bike
05-24-06, 11:25 AM
Don't forget that it's that unfavorable majority mindset that gave rise to the strong-willed inflexibility you like to criticize in Forester and his followers.
Strong willed inflexibility is the least of Forester's faults to criticize.
I wouldn't waste any time on that character issue.
I criticize:
1. Gross misrepresentation of the significance of Forester and cohorts' "accomplishments" for bicyclists;
2. Gross misrepresentation of data, when not fabricating data (such as the safety record of "vehicular cyclists"), to concoct distorted "risk analysis" of bicycling in order to promote his own educational materials;
3 Gross misrepresentation (actually fabricated from whole cloth) of the "effectiveness" or the likely prospects of his educational/training program in significantly reducing (or even affecting) bicycling risk for the general public.
Characters who insist on quoting Forester or his materials should be regarded as at best gullible kooks and misinformed/ignorant meddlers. Any and all blather that relies on any grossly distorted Forester analysis or recounting of "history should be strongly scrutinized for dogmatic blindness, if not dismissed out of hand. Debating with such ideologues is no better than tilting at windmills.
I-Like-To-Bike
05-24-06, 11:31 AM
Agreed.
And opponents of extremists often throw out the baby with the bathwater, opposing everything the extremist says regardless of merit.
I wouldn't trust a habitual fabricator and manipulator of data to tell the time of day correctly. I would trust even less any blather from those extremists and true believers who don't even know when the facts are being distorted to promote the fabricator's program. I don't need to read a best seller to tell me that dogma spouters can't be trusted and should be cast out of the temple.
Brian Ratliff
05-24-06, 11:39 AM
Whoa. Does that make writers the "unreasonable?"
Many times, when engaged in full blown argument, yes. Which, I believe, was your point as well. Moreover, a writer has no obligation to be reasonable. Someone who spends money to do something can ill afford not to be.
LittleBigMan
05-24-06, 11:45 AM
ILTB, that's your business.
All I know is that Forester and others have helped me to access many, many destinations by bicycle I never thought I could. I could care less if you don't like him, or think he's an "habitual fabricator and manipulator of data."
I can say that despite the way Forester's writing rub me the wrong way at times, they actually influenced me in a lasting, positive way by expanding my bicycling horizons. This is something I will always be glad about.
I can also say that I gained insight from some of your posts. I like to gain from people what I can.
Helmet Head
05-24-06, 12:34 PM
My polemic:
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. As a cyclist, you have a choice that almost no other mode of transport gets: you can ride in traffic, but you can also ride apart from traffic. The thing is, these two ways of riding have very different rules and issues. If you choose to ride in traffic, you're on the roadway, and you better follow the rules of the road. If you choose to ride outside of traffic, you can ride on a bike path, a shoulder, a sidewalk, a bike lane, and even the edge of the roadway, and you have to be very careful when interacting with traffic because they're not expecting you.
Now, here's the thing: nobody disputes the right of cyclists to ride outside of traffic, except in special circumstances like city sidewalks. However, riding in traffic is something that a lot of people have a problem with. A lot of motorists don't realize that it's legal, or that there are two modes for cyclists, so their brains perceive an in-traffic cyclist as an out-of-traffic cyclist in the wrong place -- hence the honking and yelling. Many cyclists have an exaggerated fear of in-traffic cycling, even though in many situations it is safer than out-of-traffic cycling. Using out-of-traffic techniques in traffic is particularly dangerous. As a result, for the past 30 years or so Cycling Advocacy (capital C, capital A) has focused on promoting in-traffic cycling among cyclists, and promoting awareness of in-traffic cycling among motorists.
I wouldn't say that one is "better" than the other -- each has its place, and nothing is wrong with chosing either one. What's important is to be aware of the differences and the risks. Riding out-of-traffic has its place, but you have to be aware that at driveways, crosswalks and intersections drivers will not yield to you, even though they may be legally required to do so.
The other important point: pick one or the other. If you're riding in traffic, ride in the traffic. If you're out of traffic, stay out. Riding along the margins just confuses others and gives you the dangers of both worlds.
:beer: :beer: :beer:
You really nailed it. I thought you missed one key point, but then you hit it out of the park with the last paragraph.
Whatever you did to attain the clarity of thought you achieved to write this, I hope you know what it is so you can do it again and again!
A+.
I-Like-To-Bike
05-24-06, 12:37 PM
I can also say that I gained insight from some of your posts. I like to gain from people what I can.
Rev Jones's followers followed him all the way to Guyana feeling wonderful about him and praising him to the heavens while drinking the Kool-Aid, even while the other true believers were dropping dead in front of them from the Reverend's poison.
Watch out for those whom you trust and would have you feeling good even while you line up with the other believers for a taste of the magic potion.
LittleBigMan
05-24-06, 12:48 PM
...a writer has no obligation to be reasonable. Someone who spends money to do something can ill afford not to be.
You could also say someone spending gov't funds has no obligation to be reasonable. This probably accounts for some of the insane bikeway designs I've encountered.
Brian Ratliff
05-24-06, 01:04 PM
You could also say someone spending gov't funds has no obligation to be reasonable. This probably accounts for some of the insane bikeway designs I've encountered.
Well, at least their job is on the line, and in their own way, they try. Many insane bikeway designs are partially our fault because we didn't speak up during the public comment period. What seems self evident to us might not be to someone else, or that someone else may have a totally different set of priorities than those we, as "hard core" cyclists, have.
It should go without saying that a writer, especially one on the internet, answers to nobody.
Helmet Head
05-24-06, 01:04 PM
Rev Jones's followers followed him all the way to Guyana feeling wonderful about him and praising him to the heavens while drinking the Kool-Aid, even while the other true believers were dropping dead in front of them from the Reverend's poison.
Watch out for those whom you trust and would have you feeling good even while you line up with the other believers for a taste of the magic potion.
So because one group of religious irrationalists followed a man blindly who turned out to be a homocidal maniac, any group of folks who praise the ideas of someone in a very particular area like traffic cycling are being similarly duped? :rolleyes:
LittleBigMan
05-24-06, 01:13 PM
It should go without saying that a writer, especially one on the internet, answers to nobody.
That's what makes it great.
I-Like-To-Bike
05-24-06, 02:32 PM
So because one group of religious irrationalists followed a man blindly who turned out to be a homocidal maniac, any group of folks who praise the ideas of someone in a very particular area like traffic cycling are being similarly duped? :rolleyes:
Nope. It means that the misrepresentations, sophomoric analysis and fabricated data of the High Priest for Bicycling Dupes does not gain substance or validation just because some gullible characters or ideologues are comfortable and happy with conclusions derived from such misrepresentations, lies and fabrications.
But then some Jack Donkeys think if they repeat the Mantra of the Dogma long enough it becomes the Real Deal. And the Kool-Aid turns into wine because they want to believe it and their High Priest knows all there is to know on the subject.
sbhikes
05-24-06, 03:00 PM
Another thing I think we could do to promote cycling in general, is to poke our transportation people in the head once in a while.
"hey, there's this stoplight that I can never trip with my bike, can you adjust it?"
"hey, there's getting to be a lot of broken glass on 4th between Maple and Washington, can you send a sweeper?"
"hey, the bike lane needs plowing, because the snow's that frozen lumpy kind, and I can't ride on it"
"hey, when's there going to be a shoulder on this twisty ascent so we can all use the road safely?"
See, that's what I'm talking about. Cyclists aren't given even cursory consideration in the construction and maintenance of the roadways they use. Why is this? Because nobody thinks they are important. Everybody thinks they are second-rate road users and thus less deserving of basic roadway consideration.
Roody
05-24-06, 03:02 PM
There's the rub - you don't know 'more' you just know 'different' - unless of course you fit the definition below:
"Elitism is a belief or attitude that an elite— a selected group of persons whose personal abilities, specialized training or other attributes place them at the top of any field (see below)— are the people whose views on a matter are to be taken most seriously, or who are alone fit to govern. Thus elitism sees an elite as occupying a special position of authority or privilege in a group, set apart from the majority of people who do not match up with their abilities or attributes. ..."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElitistThanks chip, I'm well aware of the definition of the word. Did you look up elite also? It has a very different meaning. It means somebody with superior knowlege or ability.
It all boils down to this. Do people routinely ride on the sidewalk because they know more about cycling than we do, or because they know less?
noisebeam
05-24-06, 03:04 PM
See, that's what I'm talking about. Cyclists aren't given even cursory consideration in the construction and maintenance of the roadways they use. Why is this? Because nobody thinks they are important. Everybody thinks they are second-rate road users and thus less deserving of basic roadway consideration.
If <5% of cyclists are utility road users & the rest are just out there for fun, why should they be high on the list of importance?
Al
sbhikes
05-24-06, 04:11 PM
If <5% of cyclists are utility road users & the rest are just out there for fun, why should they be high on the list of importance?
Al
Yes they should, especially if the city is interested in increasing bicycle usage as a part of reducing congestion. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if you design hostile roadways and then say since bicycles don't use the roadways we don't need to spend any money making them usable.
Helmet Head
05-24-06, 04:20 PM
Nope. It means that the misrepresentations, sophomoric analysis and fabricated data of the High Priest for Bicycling Dupes does not gain substance or validation just because some gullible characters or ideologues are comfortable and happy with conclusions derived from such misrepresentations, lies and fabrications.
No one I know is comfortable and happy with any conclusions per se. As far as I'm concerned it could all be a bunch of mumbo jumbo that could not prove anything definitively in theory one way or another.
What I and many others are happy and comfortable with is the empirical evidence we experience ourselves directly in our own riding. Applying Forester's vc best practices in our cycling has resulted in amazing results in terms of how much better we fare in traffic, and, in particular, in how much better we are noticed and treated by motorists on the roadway. That is the fact you keep ignoring.
Brian Ratliff
05-24-06, 04:26 PM
What I and many others are happy and comfortable with is the empirical evidence we experience ourselves directly in our own riding. ... That is the fact you keep ignoring.
As do you, when you ignore the experience of others.
BTW, did you ever contact your DOT about the road construction sign you were complaining about earlier? What did they say?
webist
05-24-06, 04:52 PM
As do you, when you ignore the experience of others.
I suppose it is also worth noting that victims of catastrophic failure while cycling seldom post again in these forums. This is not necessarily an indictment or an endorsement of VC priciples, just an observation that we may lose some of the benefit of other's experience as a result of a fatal mishap, however they were cycling.
Helmet Head
05-24-06, 05:13 PM
As do you, when you ignore the experience of others.
Excuse me? Where or when did I ever ignore the experience of anyone?
Why are you so antagonistic today?
I-Like-To-Bike
05-24-06, 07:03 PM
It all boils down to this. Do people routinely ride on the sidewalk because they know more about cycling than we do, or because they know less?
I would trust such people to KNOW far more about their specific bicycling environment and their personal preferences than any self proclaimed expert who imagines what the situation is for those individuals. No amount of quotes from a book full of fabrications or from situationally ignorant do-gooders/naive fruitcakes who imagine they know what is best and "proper" for everyone else would alter the situation.
rando
05-24-06, 08:30 PM
It all boils down to this. Do people routinely ride on the sidewalk because they know more about cycling than we do, or because they know less?[/QUOTE]
Nah, I don't think it boils down to that at all. and who's "we"?
I-Like-To-Bike
05-25-06, 03:34 AM
It all boils down to this. Do people routinely ride on the sidewalk because they know more about cycling than we do, or because they know less?"
Nah, I don't think it boils down to that at all.
and who's "we"?
In the context of Roody's message, "We" consists of situationally ignorant do-gooders and naive fruitcakes who imagine they know what is best and "proper" for everyone else, as well as devotees and acolytes of John Forester and his "educational" agenda.
These know-it-all characters who speak of "we" hold the majority of cyclists in contempt for not following the same cycling scriptures as themselves, and the best bet is to pay no attention to their windmill like hotair about bike lane hysteria, Notions, proper cycling, and/or baseless claims about the effectiveness of propriatary EC™ training programs.
Daily Commute
05-25-06, 03:37 AM
. . .
How about all of you 'advocates' out there, start advocating cycling for everyone, based on the world as it is? . . .
So, would that mean that people should stop advocating for bike lanes where they do not currently exist?
Serendipper
05-25-06, 03:40 AM
If a situation forces me to ride on the sidewalk, as much as I don't like it, I will do it. Period.
My need for safe rapid transport trumps other peoples percieved needs of right/wrong. Period.
CommuterRun
05-25-06, 03:54 AM
Yes they should, especially if the city is interested in increasing bicycle usage as a part of reducing congestion. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if you design hostile roadways and then say since bicycles don't use the roadways we don't need to spend any money making them usable.
Are you sure it's road design and not bad driving? I don't know about in your area, things may be different there and probably are, but here, I have no problem with the road design.
Sure some of these roads need to be repaved, and when they are, state law will have to be complied with and paved shoulders added. I see this as good and bad.
Good, in that drivers will be able to pass without changing lanes or slowing, since I will move to the right to allow traffic to pass, when it's safe for me to do so.
Bad, in that drivers will come to expect this from me and won't get it when I feel I need the motor vehicle lane, increasing their feelings of resentment.
Now, I have very few problems, partly because this two lane, NOL, no paved shoulder road design makes it obvious to everyone that we have to share the road, there's simply nowhere else to go, but we cannot share the lane because it's obviously too narrow.