Advocacy & Safety - Enough chasing windmills already?

How about we start discussing some real-world advocacy and safety issues in this forum?

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?

How about all of you 'advocates' out there, start advocating cycling for everyone, based on the world as it is? Or...if you can't stomach that, at least admit that you are merely a political tool for some wacky cult or brand and only interested in prospective converts? How about some reality based advocacy and truth in advertising?

There is nothing wrong with promoting riding on the roadways following the rules of the road, but those of us who ride that way are in the minority. A&S is turning into a closed forum that promotes only a narrow view of cycling that is dominated by self proclaimed experts, wacky theories, brands and dogma. If it keeps up like this, perhaps the General Cycling forum would be a better place for normal folks to go to discuss their cycling A&S issues, leaving this forum to the zealots and their windmills.

That's not the right way to look at it... that's like telling black people in 1950 to be content in the back of the bus.

Look, in Houston last week, a powerful County Commissioner threatened to BAN bikes from MUPs, basically because of threats to walkers.

Let's see... banned from MUPS... banned from sidewalks... banned from roads...

I guess I can ride in my driveway?

How about we start discussing some real-world advocacy and safety issues in this forum?

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'm sure you've heard the term "practice what you preach". I think the saying goes both ways. Why should I advocate a style of riding/dealing with traffic that I don't use?


How about all of you 'advocates' out there, start advocating cycling for everyone, based on the world as it is?

I think the bike industry does a perfectly good job of that. Their bread & butter is to sell bikes to everyone, and they have the money to do that flavor of advocacy.


Or...if you can't stomach that, at least admit that you are merely a political tool for some wacky cult or brand and only interested in prospective converts? How about some reality based advocacy and truth in advertising?


OK, so if someone disagrees with you they must be crazy? I'm glad you're so self-assured:rolleyes:.

Bikeforums is a internet forum. Otherwise perfectly normal folks get all aggressive on internet forums. Get used to it.

A&S is turning into a closed forum that promotes only a narrow view of cycling that is dominated by self proclaimed experts, wacky theories, brands and dogma. If it keeps up like this, perhaps the General Cycling forum would be a better place for normal folks to go to discuss their cycling A&S issues, leaving this forum to the zealots and their windmills.
"Is turning"? Your observation is dated. The worm has already turned on this corpse of a forum about safety or advocacy. As you accuratley describe, it has become a platform for the self professed experts who pontificate about what is proper, as determined by "Real/True/Serious Cyclists" like themselves (AKA a narrow slice of weekend road cyclists with a Forester training bug up their rear). That, and the handful of posters who foolishly try to reason and debate with the Sophist and his fan club.

Unfortunatly, like bad pennies, these characters will try to monopolize any forum that allows them free reign to proselytize the one true path to "proper" cycling.

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?
But, for example, how can you tell a sidewalk cyclist to be safer without suggesting that he not ride on the sidewalk?


There is nothing wrong with promoting riding on the roadways following the rules of the road, but those of us who ride that way are in the minority.
Just because it may be that way now (it isn't in my area), do you think that this can't be changed? Many of us on this forum were sidewalk cyclists at one time but have learned to use the road.

That's not the right way to look at it... that's like telling black people in 1950 to be content in the back of the bus.

Look, in Houston last week, a powerful County Commissioner threatened to BAN bikes from MUPs, basically because of threats to walkers.

Let's see... banned from MUPS... banned from sidewalks... banned from roads...

I guess I can ride in my driveway?

Now there is a good example of 'real world' advocacy - taking on actual issues, rather than wishing for pie in the sky.

I'm not saying that we have to accept losing our rights to the roadway or MUP or sidewalk, I'm saying that we need to pay more attention to and address the issues that affect those in the majority, rather than just on we the minority.

But, for example, how can you tell a sidewalk cyclist to be safer without suggesting that he not ride on the sidewalk?

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.



Just because it may be that way now (it isn't in my area), do you think that this can't be changed? Many of us on this forum were sidewalk cyclists at one time but have learned to use the road.

And what was it that made you change, Brian...being berated and ignored by those of us who have always used the roads, or people being helpful to you 'as is' while also exposing you to other alternatives in a postive way, rather than as the elitist snobs we sometimes come off as?

How about we start discussing some real-world advocacy and safety issues in this forum?

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 agree with the principle of this statement. No big deal, here.

As long as I'm not required to use bike facilities, I'm happy.

I do wonder, if "the vast majority of cyclists in the US prefer to use [bike facilities]," and yet the vast majority of people in the US do not use their bikes for normal transportation, how is this relevant to me, the utility cyclist?

I'm sure you've heard the term "practice what you preach". I think the saying goes both ways. Why should I advocate a style of riding/dealing with traffic that I don't use?


Why shouldn't you? I don't see your problem in advocating safety - no matter what 'style' of riding one prefers to use, in the context of that riding style, unless you are trying to sell something. If you want converts, become a missionary, if you want to help people, just help em and save the lectures about a better way for church.

I agree with the principle of this statement. No big deal, here.

As long as I'm not required to use bike facilities, I'm happy.

I do wonder, if "the vast majority of cyclists in the US prefer to use [bike facilities]," and yet the vast majority of people in the US do not use their bikes for normal transportation, how is this relevant to me, the utility cyclist?

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?

As long as I'm not required to use bike facilities, I'm happy.
And guess who we have to thank for not (yet) being required to use bike facilities?

Do you know what got Forester started on his crusade, if you will? On his regular commute in Palo Alto in the early 70s, one day he encountered a new sign that directed all cyclists to ride on the sidewalk. Actually, it said "bike lane" (incorrectly) and the sidewalk was designated as a "bike lane". By the way, a year or so ago someone posted a sidewalk in Poway, CA (near San Diego) designated as being a bike lane.

Anyway, Forester of course ignored the sign, and one day was stopped by a cop. Forester insisted on his right to ride in the road, and the officer issued him a ticket (which is what Forester wanted, to find out what law he was allegedly violating). Turns out that Palo Alto had a local ordinance requiring cyclists to use bike lanes when they were designated, and no one at the time, including Forester or the P.A. city council was up on what exactly was a bike lane. When he looked up the law, he also found out that the same law prohibited cyclists from making vehicular-style left turns. So he found a school and started making vehicular left turns around 3pm until he got a ticket for doing that too. Then he had the two citations combined into one case and challenged them both. Though he lost, the arguments he made were later used to repeal the P.A. ordinance. As you might imagine, the experience was unsettling. At the same time (early 70s), Forester learned about a new state bike committee being formed to review state bike laws and make recommendations to the legislature. He learned that no members on the committee were cyclists. Assuring them that he was a law-abiding cyclists (by which he meant he would abide by the vehicular rules of the road and which they took to mean he would abide by any crazy law that was passed) he got on the committee, and was able to convince them to not recommend the Draconian anti-cycling laws they were considering based on data and argumetns he had that was used in England in the 30s to fight back Nazi-era German cyclist segregation there on the grounds that it made cycling less safe.

The story goes on, of course, and eventually leads to his books and education program, but I thought you and others might be interested in learning about how it all started for him: he was required by law to use bike facilities in the U.S. of A.

Chipcom's basic premise is elitist. He believes that many cyclists (presumably those who are poor or immigrants) are too stupid to learn how to ride in the streets, so we should "teach" them to ride safely on the sidewalk. Evidently they were also too stupid to learn sidewalk cycling skills at the age of 5, when most people learn them, but they have since developed the ability.

Chip, most cyclists don't know they can ride in the streets for the same reason that most cagers don't know this: Nobody ever told them.

So what about it Chip? Are you out there teaching poor folks how to ride real slow on the sidewalk, pivoting their heads at each driveway? Or do you have some other plan for imparting this valuable information?

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?
How is it that you have the capacity to learn about using roads as well as sidewalks and other facilities? Which people lack this capacity? You and I get to choose where to ride because we are aware of the options.

If you had never seen people riding on the street, or nobody had ever told you it was permissible and safe when done properly, you would never have been able to ride on the streets.

Assuring them that he was a law-abiding cyclists (by which he meant he would abide by the vehicular rules of the road and which they took to mean he would abide by any crazy law that was passed) he got on the committee, and was able to convince them to not recommend the Draconian anti-cycling laws they were considering based on data and argumetns he had that was used in England in the 30s to fight back Nazi-era German cyclist segregation there on the grounds that it made cycling less safe.

The story goes on, of course, and eventually leads to his books and education program, but I thought you and others might be interested in learning about how it all started for him: he was required by law to use bike facilities in the U.S. of A.

Those last couple of statements intended to elicit a panic reaction by any chance? Because two municipalities in California implemented ordinances requiring cyclists to use bicycle facilities that means similar laws might suddenly sweep across the country?

But, for example, how can you tell a sidewalk cyclist to be safer without suggesting that he not ride on the sidewalk?



In the long run you can't. But there is a big difference in how you say it. Instead of just saying get off the sidewalk give the details of how to be safer on the sidewalk and point out the dangers. For example

Every driveway is a place where cars may turn and hit you and they have little or no chance to see you. Pedestrians are difficult to predict and any time you pass one you need to slow down because they may turn suddenly. They do not expect a bike. Most important every time you cross a street you are going into the street with those cars you are afraid of. If you enter the street at cycling speed you are often for all intents comming out of nowhere. Unless you slow to walking speed you are much more at risk at every intersection than a cyclist that was on the road all along. In short unless it is a section of sidewalk with no driveways, no blind spots and no pedestrians you need to slow to near walking speed. Now for some cyclists that is all they want, no reason they have to leave the sidewalk.

But if they want to go faster let them come to the conclusion that at least much of the time they will be better off on the street than on the sidewalk.

Because two municipalities in California implemented ordinances requiring cyclists to use bicycle facilities that means similar laws might suddenly sweep across the country?
It wasn't two municipalities, Nick. The committee was a state committee, and CA lead the way for most other states. What resulted instead was the much more reasonable, as compared to what they were considering, was 21202 and 21208, which many states followed.

And, Nick, I'm not trying to "elicit" a panic. Just trying to make the context clear. We were a lot closer to having laws that would be very unfavorable to cyclist rights than most cyclists realizes, and it could happen again if we don't stay vigilant regarding these issues.

Chipcom's basic premise is elitist. He believes that many cyclists (presumably those who are poor or immigrants) are too stupid to learn how to ride in the streets, so we should "teach" them to ride safely on the sidewalk. Evidently they were also too stupid to learn sidewalk cycling skills at the age of 5, when most people learn them, but they have since developed the ability.

Chip, most cyclists don't know they can ride in the streets for the same reason that most cagers don't know this: Nobody ever told them.

So what about it Chip? Are you out there teaching poor folks how to ride real slow on the sidewalk, pivoting their heads at each driveway? Or do you have some other plan for imparting this valuable information?

Rood, dood, you're kidding with this drivel, right?

IMO, what is elitist is assuming that folks who don't ride on the road 'don't know any better' rather than respecting their choice and trying to understand their reasoning for doing so. That nonsense that you and HH spout about the poor, misinformed masses, really highlights why this thread needed to be started. Indeed, if I recall, we once had a thread to discuss 'advocacy for all' and you and your coven steadfastly refused to consider anyone but 'serious cyclists' as worthy of your advocacy and efforts. How white of you.

Those last couple of statements intended to elicit a panic reaction by any chance? Because two municipalities in California implemented ordinances requiring cyclists to use bicycle facilities that means similar laws might suddenly sweep across the country?

Panic and fear mongering are the tools of choice for those who wish to force their extremist views upon others.

But if they want to go faster let them come to the conclusion that at least much of the time they will be better off on the street than on the sidewalk.

Isn't that what got most of us off the sidewalk when we were kids? ;)

This forum shows advocacy to be the perverbial Gordinian knot.
The self proclaimed advocates unfortunately are the ones who
make themselves heard by being the loudest. I also believe they
are the minority. I believe a lot of the abuse suffered by normal,
happy-go-lucky, just want to get home / to work commuters and utilitarian
cyclists is due to the 'advocates' provocative nature and aggresive, self serving,
arrogant need to assault other individuals with thier beliefs. As welcome
as being surrounded by Moonies in the airport or Jahovahs witness's that refuse
to leave your vestibule. Aggresive imbeciles are going to remember the cyclist that
took the lane at 12mph longer than the one he passed in the BL or on the shoulder with
no problem.......
'Advocates' see issues in a utopian, 'as it should be' way and regular, non-confrontional
cyclists base their views on the more reality based 'way things really are' type viewpoint.
There lies the unsolveable problem. We do need advocacy but as a group we will never
come to agreement on it.

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.
Pretty had to do this without making the leap to saying that the road doesn't have many of these dangers, as long as this is done in a non-confrontational way.


And what was it that made you change, Brian...being berated and ignored by those of us who have always used the roads, or people being helpful to you 'as is' while also exposing you to other alternatives in a postive way, rather than as the elitist snobs we sometimes come off as?
+1 ... from your other replies in this thread, I see where you're going.

I believe a lot of the abuse suffered by normal,
happy-go-lucky, just want to get home / to work commuters and utilitarian
cyclists is due to the 'advocates' provocative nature and aggresive, self serving,
arrogant need to assault other individuals with thier beliefs. .... Aggresive imbeciles are going to remember the cyclist that took the lane at 12mph longer than the one he passed in the BL or on the shoulder with no problem.......

Once again you are completely off the mark in characterizing vc this way.
Most vc's I know of go out of their way to work with motorists, giving and telling clear passage when available and preventing passage when not safely available.
No responsible vc will ride in the center of the primary lane in front of faster vehicles if a clear intersectionless BL or shoulder is available.

Al

^^^^ VC is not mentioned anywhere.
I am overly annoyed by 'experts' right now....
I will try to tone it down for future missives !
My post is about advocacy...How to do it and what
will it entail ? If the average advocates views are what is
represented here they do not speak for me and I dont want them to.
This is the problem. There are two or three side each saying the other is right.
I joined a Vermont advocacy group . Im sure I will get the bums rush in
person the same as I get it in some threads here.

^^^^ VC is not mentioned anywhere.
....
I joined a Vermont advocacy group . Im sure I will get the bums rush in
person the same as I get it in some threads here.
but it [vc] was certainly implied.

You may actually find your local VT advocacy group full of hugs and agreement all singing the 'more BLs mantra' in happy unison. At least that is my experience with every advocate and advocacy group I've met here.

I find this forum gives some hope or at least some different persepective to the reality of most local advocacy which seems all about getting more bike lanes and not much about rider technique.

Al

IMO, what is elitist is assuming that folks who don't ride on the road 'don't know any better' rather than respecting their choice and trying to understand their reasoning for doing so. That nonsense that you and HH spout about the poor, misinformed masses, really highlights why this thread needed to be started. Indeed, if I recall, we once had a thread to discuss 'advocacy for all' and you and your coven steadfastly refused to consider anyone but 'serious cyclists' as worthy of your advocacy and efforts. How white of you.
Most adult sidewalk cyclists I've talked with use the sidewalk because they've underestimated the dangers of the sidewalk and overestimated the dangers of the road. On occasion, though, some cyclists use the sidewalk because they don't believe they have a right to use the road. What's wrong with acknowledging that these are factors in the choice they make as to where to ride?

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.

Sadly, the people who need to get informed about this advocacy and Safety stuff are the ones who don't read this website. Bicyclists don't kill bicyclists. Drivers do.

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


Now there is a good example of 'real world' advocacy - taking on actual issues, rather than wishing for pie in the sky.

I'm not saying that we have to accept losing our rights to the roadway or MUP or sidewalk, I'm saying that we need to pay more attention to and address the issues that affect those in the majority, rather than just on we the minority.

I find this forum gives some hope or at least some different persepective to the reality of most local advocacy which seems all about getting more bike lanes and not much about rider technique.

Al

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.

But the reality is, these riders are the majority. The ones who dont worry about skills and technique and have no desire to. .
They are the ones that need it most. Just about every group ride I go on there is always a near collision as pack in BL overtakes slowing cars who preparing for right turns... and then over post ride discussion go on and on about how more BLs are needed.

I think a good part of this thinking is the mentality/concept adopted by many new cyclists that if you are a cyclist, then you want BLs. That is, how could one be a commited cyclist and not want more BLs?

Al

Sadly, the people who need to get informed about this advocacy and Safety stuff are the ones who don't read this website. .
So far, yep I agree, if only every cyclist or potential cyclist referenced some of the safe cycling resouces widely available on the internet.

Bicyclists don't kill bicyclists. Drivers do.
Are you sure? What percentage of cyclist deaths are fully the motorist legal fault? What percentage of deaths could have been avoided if the cyclist had traversed a situation differently?

Al

And guess who we have to thank for not (yet) being required to use bike facilities?

Do you know what got Forester started on his crusade, if you will? ...
The story goes on, of course, and eventually leads to his books and education program, but I thought you and others might be interested in learning about how it all started for him: he was required by law to use bike facilities in the U.S. of A.
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!!

Just as all politics is said to be local, 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 personally believe that the best form of advocacy is to make certain that others, especially community leaders know that you are a cyclist. Be willing to be seen on the bike and in bicycling attire. Ride your bike to the 4 th of July celebration, the annual "whatever" day parades, chili cook offs, picnics. Heck show up at city council meetings wearing cycling jerseys and lycra. This is particularly effective when no cycling item is on the agenda. In other words, you just happened yo be cycling and just happened by the meeting. Ride you bike where people can see you occasionally. Be seen as a cyclist in grocery stores, hardware stores and coffee shops. Ride the bike where traffic can see you.

Sure, letters to the editor are great reminders and I encourage those. I just think nothing is a better reminder and therefore advocacy measure than being seen as a cyclist actually cycling and going about the normal events of life.

Just as all politics is said to be local, 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 personally believe that the best form of advocacy is to make certain that others, especially community leaders know that you are a cyclist. Be willing to be seen on the bike and in bicycling attire. Ride your bike to the 4 th of July celebration, the annual "whatever" day parades, chili cook offs, picnics. Heck show up at city council meetings wearing cycling jerseys and lycra. This is particularly effective when no cycling item is on the agenda. In other words, you just happened yo be cycling and just happened by the meeting. Ride you bike where people can see you occasionally. Be seen as a cyclist in grocery stores, hardware stores and coffee shops. Ride the bike where traffic can see you.

Sure, letters to the editor are great reminders and I encourage those. I just think nothing is a better reminder and therefore advocacy measure than being seen as a cyclist actually cycling and going about the normal events of life.
Yep! (but you don't have to show up at council meeting in lycra, many daily cyclists do fine without and still can give the image of 'cyclist')
As to your first comment about local advocacy and this forum. I don't think of A&S as an advocacy forum that advocates to the world/country/city/individual per se, but instead as a lab for potential advocates to share their ideas and help develop what they are advocating for and how to do it. This is why I think its healthy to have debate and disagreement here.

Al

Yep! (but you don't have to show up at council meeting in lycra, many daily cyclists do fine without and still can give the image of 'cyclist')
As to your first comment about local advocacy and this forum. I don't think of A&S as an advocacy forum that advocates to the world/country/city/individual per se, but instead as a lab for potential advocates to share their ideas and help develop what they are advocating for and how to do it. This is why I think its healthy to have debate and disagreement here.

Al

Agree.

If any of you were true utility cyclists you will have found yourself in the unfortunate position of having done something stupid, such as buying a watermelon at the store or picking up your laptop at the computer repair shop and wondering now how the hell are you going to get it home :/ Then you'd be more grateful for bike facilities, or at least more tolerant of people who like them.

I totally get Chip's point of view. When honest-to-goodness real people get on here and ask for advice, I try to give them the advice they ask for and nothing more. Too many people around here have an agenda and see advice requests as an opportunity to put forth that agenda rather than a time to simply answer the dang question being asked.

If any of you were true utility cyclists you will have found yourself in the unfortunate position of having done something stupid, such as buying a watermelon at the store or picking up your laptop at the computer repair shop and wondering now how the hell are you going to get it home :/ Then you'd be more grateful for bike facilities, or at least more tolerant of people who like them.

I totally get Chip's point of view. When honest-to-goodness real people get on here and ask for advice, I try to give them the advice they ask for and nothing more. Too many people around here have an agenda and see advice requests as an opportunity to put forth that agenda rather than a time to simply answer the dang question being asked.
I'm a bit slow, how does having a bike facility make getting a watermelon home easier? (perhaps you mean bike on bus racks?, these I support)
Or do you roll it in front of you in the BL? I'm puzzled.

Al

I was wondering what Al was wondering.

By the way, my record for groceries in my Bob trailer was 90+ lbs (yes, that's over the recommended limit). While carrying that type of utility load affects my riding and positioning, it does not make me any less vehicular, of course.

If you drop something in the bike lane it's not guaranteed to get run over immediately. Also, you can ride a lot slower and without so much attendance to whatever the heck is happening to the rear, and focus all your efforts on just getting home before your arm falls off.

I was wondering what Al was wondering.

By the way, my record for groceries in my Bob trailer was 90+ lbs (yes, that's over the recommended limit). While carrying that type of utility load affects my riding and positioning, it does not make me any less vehicular, of course.

Well, we all know that you NEVER do anything stupid like leave the trailer at home. The rest of use are not so perfect.

If you drop something in the bike lane it's not guaranteed to get run over immediately. Also, you can ride a lot slower and without so much attendance to whatever the heck is happening to the rear, and focus all your efforts on just getting home before your arm falls off.
Once again, one does not have to pay attention to ones rear when riding in a WOL, only when one chooses to ride centerish and move right for faster vehicles. But this method is not a requirement for riding in a WOL any more than it is for riding on a road stripped with a BL.
Some of the slowest at ease riding I do (10-15mph) is right biased in a WOL.

If you are having to watch your rear when riding in a WOL it is likely because the WOL is not wide enough to share side by side with a passing vehicle or you are riding to far into the lane for 'unaware' riding.

Al

Well, we all know that you NEVER do anything stupid like leave the trailer at home. The rest of use are not so perfect.
I am sure I am stupid enough to do something forgetful like this, but so far my stupidity has not gotten the better of me in this regard.
If and when this does happen I'd likely leave the item and go back later to get it (a great excuse for more riding) if the alternative was some unsafe balancing act of watermelon in arms, regardless if I was riding in BL, WOL, MUP, NOL, sidewalk or space gate.

Al

If you drop something in the bike lane it's not guaranteed to get run over immediately.
I'll keep this tip in mind next time I'm transporting watermellons under my arms.

I'll bring the pieces home to wife and say "yeah I know its a bit smashed up, but at least a car didn't run over it cause it safely landed in the BL"

(actually the last time I dropped something I was riding in a BL'd road and my rear bag blinky fell off and bounced into main traffic lane and was immediately smashed)

Al

Also, you can ride a lot slower and without so much attendance to whatever the heck is happening to the rear,
If anything, I feel I have to pay more attention to the rear when I'm in a bike lane. Whether I'm in a bike lane or not does not determine how fast or slow I can go - except that I can't go as fast the closer I am to the curb. Normally, I don't plan on dropping anything...

Rood, dood, you're kidding with this drivel, right?

IMO, what is elitist is assuming that folks who don't ride on the road 'don't know any better' rather than respecting their choice and trying to understand their reasoning for doing so. That nonsense that you and HH spout about the poor, misinformed masses, really highlights why this thread needed to be started. Indeed, if I recall, we once had a thread to discuss 'advocacy for all' and you and your coven steadfastly refused to consider anyone but 'serious cyclists' as worthy of your advocacy and efforts. How white of you.
Your memory is faulty, or else you are lying. I have never advocated taking away people's rights to ride where they please. But rights are predicated on knowledge and a free choice requires a realization of the options. It is absolutely presumptuous and arrogant to propose giving lessons to adults on how to ride on sidewalks, a "skill" possessed by most first graders.


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.
Unbelievable!



And what was it that made you change, Brian...being berated and ignored by those of us who have always used the roads, or people being helpful to you 'as is' while also exposing you to other alternatives in a postive way, rather than as the elitist snobs we sometimes come off as?

Now you cahange the plan a bit, and I see light at the end of the tunnel. Please expand on the idea of "exposing [them] to other alternatives." If they're already riding successfully on the sidewalk could we not just skip straight to this part?

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.

Unbelievable!

Actually, I wouldn't spend a lot of time on it, but I think in a cycling course it is important to mention what cycling according to the pedestrian rules entails, including how to operate safely on the sidewalk, which includes riding slowly and being extra vigilant at all intersections, including those with driveways.

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.

Serge

Actually, I wouldn't spend a lot of time on it, but I think in a cycling course it is important to mention what cycling according to the pedestrian rules entails, including how to operate safely on the sidewalk, which includes riding slowly and being extra vigilant at all intersections, including those with driveways.

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.

Serge
You missed my point.

I have observed that most utility cyclists who ride on sidewalks follow the ped "rules." So do most grade schoolers. The young and the old really don't seem to need lessons from Chip or me.

The sidewalk transgressors are usually people at an in between stage of life, like teenagers on faux BMXs, and 20-something messenger wannabes.

(I think that last sentence was great! ILTB couldn't have said it any better. :))

OK, I'm with you now.

I think I just figured out why so much of the "advocacy" on this forum drives me around the bend. It has to do with the way I grew up riding. I was brought up with the racer mentality, even if I did not race. I inhaled a steady diet of Eddy Merkx, Bernard Hinault, and was friends with some prominant racers. I still have this mentality today. It has been years since I have used the bike as a tool for getting to school or work. You see, when I ride, be it off road or on road, if it does not hurt, it is not a ride; if I am not all sweaty, it was not worth it; if I cannot curse a nasty head wind while laughing maniacally at a tail wind, it is not a ride. It is important to suffer while you ride - it builds character, muscles, and drops fat. I never ride a bike in street clothes (full bike gear all the way, and I wont use baggie mtn bike shorts - they get caught on stuff) I do not like MUP unless it is a link up between different trail systems where the real riding can begin again. I flatly refuse to ride my road bike down one. It belongs on the street (thank goodness there are no anal laws here regarding bikes and road use!!). I distain aero bars - sorry tri geeks! The next few weeks which will see me turn into a long distance commuter will be interesting! My good bike now has a rack and soon bags! (Makes me want another, an ultra light racer for my "real" rides, even though my commute will be about 60 km a day ;p)

Now this is the funny part: I love bikes, all bikes, and to a certain extent, all bike riders. Despite having what some might describe as a snobby racer mentality (do you know how much FUN it is to dust a road racer while you are on a mtn bike with knobbies spewing mud everywhere? : heh : ) I feel a close affinity to all that is cycling. In practice, I dont distain people on their commuter bikes festooned with lights and flags - they are riding. I dont distain people hacking around in bmx - they are on bikes! I dont distain people on their tri geek bikes - if they are descending in the aero bars, they are fun to rip past!!! (dig dig ;p) I quoted chipman in my siggy for a reason - he is right, we are all cyclists and need to remember that.

What I cannot stand though is someone telling me that I am doing it wrong just because it does not fit their world order. Offer me advice? no problems. Be respectful? great stuff. I invite such things by posting here in a public place. However, tell me that I am doing it wrong and be preachy and superior sounding, and you can ride that bike off a cliff. I number the years that I have been cycling in decades, and have a love of it that dates back to being a small child. I have a clue.

Lets just respect that we are all different, from different cycling contexts, and relax on each other a bit, hmmmm?

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.