Advocacy & Safety - What is it about traffic cycling that makes everyone an expert?

If you want to build a house, who do you learn from?
If you want to rock climb, do you ask someone with experience, or someone who has never done it?
If you want to learn SCUBA diving, do you take a course from a certified instructor, or do you plunge in and see how it goes?
If planners seek to improve conditions for driving, do they design the changes with an untrained driver in mind?

What is it about traffic cycling that makes everyone think they're an expert?

Why does a 40 year old guy driving his pickup home who has not ridden a bike since he was 10 think he knows where bikes "belong" on the road?

Why do traffic engineers seek to make riding on roads "comfortable" for untrained cyclists who don't know what they're doing?

What's wrong with designing "facilities" for those who are untrained? As an answer, I find the following George Orwell quote to be apropos. Though he's writing about languages, I think it's true in general:

"But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely." - George Orwell

http://www.k-1.com/Orwell/index.cgi/work/essays/language.html

So untrained cyclist discomfort in traffic is a cause, and the effect is the creation and support of bike lanes. Few argue with that.

But, an effect can become a cause..., and, so bike lanes become a cause, reinforcing the original cause (untrained cyclist discomfort in traffic), and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely.

Discomfort in traffic -> bike lanes -> more discomfort in traffic -> more bike lanes -> even more discomfort -> even more bike lanes -> yet more intensified discomfort ...

You end up with a nation of people who are disabled from riding in traffic by their own internal feelings. Is that the direction you want to go?

If you want to build a house, who do you learn from?
If you want to rock climb, do you ask someone with experience, or someone who has never done it?
If you want to learn SCUBA diving, do you take a course from a certified instructor, or do you plunge in and see how it goes?
If planners seek to improve conditions for driving, do they design the changes with an untrained driver in mind?Uh, I learned how to ride when my parents taught me how to ride. And I learned how to negotiate a vehicle through traffic in high school driver's ed. And I learned how to ride a bike in traffic by doing it, and by reading.

Do I need to take a course now? :lol:

If planners seek to improve conditions for driving, do they design the changes with an untrained driver in mind?

I don't think they take the well trained driver in mind... honestly, I really do think that road designers want roads to "guide" motorists; through the use of islands, lane lines and signs. They are hardly appealing to well trained motorists.

Just heard a piece on NPR about states recognizing the shortcomings of their driver training programs... and how Mass. has decided to implement a new driver program similar to the system now in California... a more difficult test and a longer provisional period that prohibits non family members from riding with the provisional motorist. (Helps keep the unskilled from "teaching" the new driver some new bad habits). The NPR report went on to discuss several states are working to also "tighten up" their programs in an effort to create better motorists.

There was a statistic given... I thought I heard something like a 38% decrease in accidents through the use of better training, more difficult tests, and longer provisional driver period.

So there is some recognition that better drivers can be made.

Just heard a piece on NPR about states recognizing the shortcomings of their driver training programs... and how Mass. has decided to implement a new driver program similar to the system now in California... a more difficult test and a longer provisional period that prohibits non family members from riding with the provisional motorist. (Helps keep the unskilled from "teaching" the new driver some new bad habits). The NPR report went on to discuss several states are working to also "tighten up" their programs in an effort to create better motorists.

There was a statistic given... I thought I heard something like a 38% decrease in accidents through the use of better training, more difficult tests, and longer provisional driver period.

So there is some recognition that better drivers can be made.

Interesting...

1) A more difficult test is a good thing. It has worked well in Ontario where we have had a graduated license system in place for over 10 years. One of the best features of our program is a mandatory 0% BAC for anyone with a G1 or G2 license. I know that it can help entrench the idea that alcohol and driving do not mix. But how does the Mass. program deal with the poor driving habits being passed on from family members? I think it is a step in the right direction (removing "peer" presure and ensuring that people that drive with the novice in theory have an interest in the safely of the new driver) but I do not think that it is an assurance that poor habits will not be taught. But short of very good professional trainers being the only driver that a novice drives with, and ensuring that for 16years the novice had their eyes shut, what will work?

2) Better drivers definately can be made. For sure. Absolutely. All it takes is a willingness to learn and apply what is learned.

The fact that I taught myself how to code in several computer programming languages seems to me to indicate I'm smart enough to learn how to ride a bicycle without some so-called "expert" standing in front of me giving me a lecture.

The fact that I taught myself how to code in several computer programming languages seems to me to indicate I'm smart enough to learn how to ride a bicycle without some so-called "expert" standing in front of me giving me a lecture.

The biggest benefit for experienced cyclists and drivers taking a class is that they might see something they missed through trial and error, and might see the use of a new approach to an old skill which might save them from some grief that they have fortunately not experienced (for example, in driving, being rear ended.)

I taught myself several programming languages and how to ride a bike effectively in traffic too.
But in each case the process in involved reading and learning from books.

Imagine the course the world-- or at least this forum-- would have taken if you had been more discriminating in your choice of reading materials...

The biggest benefit for experienced cyclists and drivers taking a class is that they might see something they missed through trial and error, and might see the use of a new approach to an old skill which might save them from some grief that they have fortunately not experienced (for example, in driving, being rear ended.)

Well, in addition to hanging out here, I also subscribe to the bicycle coalition email list, attend their meetings once a quarter, get their newsletter, and ride with a local club. I think that is sufficient.

HH - this is an interesting question to ponder, but utterly in the realm of philosophy. When is experience sufficient, and when does society need to undertake training? That is the question. The statement: "But an effect can become a cause..." line of reasoning can be applied to anything, including cyclist training. In this case, the reinforcing loop is that the effect of cyclist training is that there are fewer cyclists, making cycling more difficult and more dangerous for those left, and so requiring more training to accomplish, and so on. Absent real data, there is no way of correlating the Orwell quote to reality. Applying philosophy to real life is called politics, and that's what we are all doing on this forum: politiking.

All you can ultimately do is try things and become experienced. Society becomes experienced through the many people trying many different things. If Portland didn't try bike lanes and other things it tries, then nobody would know the effects. If California and North Carolina didn't try the other route, there'd be no information about those paths.

It's the same for people. People try things, and they work or don't. Traffic cycling is not so dangerous that mistakes are immediately fatal. If they were, then all of us here would be dead by now, since we all make amateur mistakes on our way to being experienced. HH, you are thinking of writing a book. A book is a collection of words; if experience and trial and error didn't count, then you'd might as well drop the whole thing. But experience and trial and error do count, so the gross generalities found in books works to increase a cyclist's knowledge and skill.

I read the Wikipedia definition of trolling, as it came up recently. It occurs to me that we, on this forum, should admit that, as the OP suggests, none of us are experts at this subject. Since expert status is bequethed by peers, not self proclaimed, I think this is true by definition. Therefore, none of us here is able to monopolize the knowledge found in this forum. I'm worried that people who come here for advice get turned away from all the "point-counterpoint" roundabout arguments found in this forum. We tend not to argue in good faith around here; we call each other names, and use what turns out to be trolling tactics, to try to force someone to concede a point. In the end, what gets lost is clear advice from each member about how to ride. In the end, it doesn't matter that some advice is better than others; if you want that, you go find a real expert. Here, a person looking for advice should know that they will get a smorgasboard of information; pick and choose as you please and run with what works best. Keep and open mind and you might just learn something.

FWIW, there is only one member, who doesn't currently include the line in his signature, who labeled himself an "expert." Everyone else only claims to be experienced.

If you want to build a house, who do you learn from?
If you want to rock climb, do you ask someone with experience, or someone who has never done it?
If you want to learn SCUBA diving, do you take a course from a certified instructor, or do you plunge in and see how it goes?
If I want to build a house I learn as I go. Some times doing it my way is half the fun.
If I want to learn to Scuba Dive I take a class. Sometimes Im a chicken.
If I want to climb a rock, I just climb it. If its to big, I find a smaller one.

I am not a expert traffic cyclist.
I am an expert at keeping my but alive.

We could teach people the basics of riding with classes.
Or they could learn in their own.
Some people need more help than others.



You end up with a nation of people who are disabled from riding in traffic by their own internal feelings. Is that the direction you want to go?

No sarcasm here.
I dont get it, I dont see the conection.

Are sure it isnt
Discomfort in traffic -> bike lanes -> less discomfort in traffic -> more bike lanes -> even less discomfort -> even more bike lanes -> yet more intensified comfort ...

I figure that 40+ years riding, 30+ years commuting and having <Moderator removed to prevent Murphy from applying some smackdown> motor vehicle accidents is all the credentials one should need to match wits with self-proclaimed experts and their wacky theories. I only know of a few people who try to pass themselves off as experts...usually to bolster their political or business goals...the rest of us just ride bicycles, trade stories, tips and tricks, make fun of wacky theories and consider survival as the only credential we need to do so.

You want comfort? Get a recumbent.

You want comfort? Get a recumbent.Imagine if HH was a recumbent rider. Every thread would take this direction... :lol:

Imagine if HH was a recumbent rider. Every thread would take this direction... :lol:

HH would fit a bent with hydraulics, so he could 'pop up' for visibility!

The biggest benefit for experienced cyclists and drivers taking a class is that they might see something they missed through trial and error, and might see the use of a new approach to an old skill which might save them from some grief that they have fortunately not experienced (for example, in driving, being rear ended.)
Or they might hear a rash of poop from an expert like HH. Or some other Forester acolyte quoting the EC mantra of fabricated/manipulated safety statistics associated with wacko psychological mumbo jumbo about cyclists' motivations and evil conspiracies thwarting the desires of the Real Cyclists through insidious Evil Bike lanes.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm, drive through, please
http://www.panthorstudios.com/images/bandb/bandb2sm.gif

HH would fit a bent with hydraulics, so he could 'pop up' for visibility!Maybe we could rig it-- when he wasn't looking-- into an ejection seat. :D

Or they might hear a rash of poop from an expert like HH. Or some other Forester acolyte quoting the EC mantra of fabricated/manipulated safety statistics associated with wacko psychological mumbo jumbo about cyclists' motivations and evil conspiracies thwarting the desires of the Real Cyclists through insidious Evil Bike lanes.

Correct. But so what? Only a silly person or the truly gullible believes everything they hear. I would think that someone of some intelligence might take a class in something that interested them and maybe make up their own mind? Maybe I am naive in crediting people with having brains.

Well, in addition to hanging out here, I also subscribe to the bicycle coalition email list, attend their meetings once a quarter, get their newsletter, and ride with a local club. I think that is sufficient.

I never said you needed a course. I simply stated that they can be of benefit. Read my last post to ILTB.

We have LCIs in the bicycle coalition here and they advocate for better bike lanes and facilities just like everybody else. The warped view of what a cycling "expert" is around here is pretty amazing.

what makes YOU think you're an expert, head? you're always telling people to ride way too far to the left, and making them ride all swervy, and then move into a safe position, even when that lane position is safe already.

...the effect of cyclist training is that there are fewer cyclists, ...
Huh?


... making cycling more difficult and more dangerous for those left, and so requiring more training to accomplish, and so on.
How does training some people make something more difficult for others?


If Portland didn't try bike lanes and other things it tries, then nobody would know the effects.
Like no one else hasn't tried bike lanes and other things?
Davis has been trying longer than anyone else in the country, since the late 1960s. They're the only ones rated a platinum BFC. Yet the number of cyclists per capita is down since the mid 1960s.

Are there records of per capita cycling in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and now in Portland?

I did not read all the dribble from the OP simply put if you put in safe guards for the untrained almost no matter what some of the untrained will circumvent the system and be worse off. Or some one will screw over the untrained so bad that the untrained will never want to come back

I totally disagree.

Traffic engineers who design bike lanes do not need to know how to ride a bike (in the same way that engineers who design airport runways do not need to know how to fly an Airbus or a Boeing 747, and engineers who design the space shuttle are not astronauts themselves).

There are many factors to make bike lanes work and be part of the traffic system, including attitude of the law makers, the law enforcement agencies and society in general towards cycling as a viable means of transportation.

If bike lanes are well designed, has the same legal status of other reserved lanes (such as bus lanes, transit lanes, etc.), are well maintained and traffic and parking laws strictly enforced, than bike lanes are a good thing to all users of the road. If cyclists use it more often, the police, politicians and other drivers will pay more attention to its importance. On the other hand, if there is a bike lane and cyclists are not using it, than as a driver behind two tons of steel, why should I have to repsect it as another traffic lane?? You are not using it anyway, why not allow people to park their cars on it??

If bike lanes are just decorations on the road, a election gimmick for politicians, the police treats cyclist as second citizens on the road, and the community treats bicycle as a toy, well, bike lanes are a waste of taxpayers's money.

Bike lane or no bike lane, cyclists (as well as motorists) will get involved in accidents, some may get killed. But it is NOT the bike lanes themselves that are at fault. Blame on: cellular phones, CD players, MP3 players, other electronic toys, fatigue, day dreaming, impatience, liquor, map, even coffee and donuts, which often draw the attention of motorist away from the road causing accidents, even deadly head on collisions in a two lane highway ---- and that is always shown up on local news every week. If a motorist is changing a CD or dialling his phone while he is driving and pays no attention to the traffic, it is possible you will get hit, bike lane or no bike lane. If he hits you, he is lucky, but if he hits a big truck head on, he is dead meat --- and we just had one deadly head on collision outside Ottawa last week end on Highway 7.

Are sure it isnt
Discomfort in traffic -> bike lanes -> less discomfort in traffic -> more bike lanes -> even less discomfort -> even more bike lanes -> yet more intensified comfort ...
If it is, then it's not consistent with Orwell's point:

"But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely."

The original cause is discomfort. If the effect (bike lane) becomes a cause per Orwell, then it reinforces the original cause (discomfort), not the opposite of it.

But it is NOT the bike lanes themselves that are at fault.
It's not the direct fault of the bike lanes, but, considering how they are an effect of the original cause (discomfort), they actually reinforce the original cause, and, in that sense, I do blame them.


Blame on: cellular phones, CD players, MP3 players, other electronic toys, fatigue, day dreaming, impatience, liquor, map, even coffee and donuts, which often draw the attention of motorist away from the road causing accidents, even deadly head on collisions in a two lane highway ---- and that is always shown up on local news every week. If a motorist is changing a CD or dialling his phone while he is driving and pays no attention to the traffic, it is possible you will get hit, bike lane or no bike lane. If he hits you, he is lucky, but if he hits a big truck head on, he is dead meat --- and we just had one deadly head on collision outside Ottawa last week end on Highway 7.
I, for one, expect motorist to be distracted, and ride accordingly. For the record, if I get hit by someone who is distracted because of a cell phone or something, I will consider it my fault that I got hit, that I relied on some driver to be paying attention without first verifying that he actually was.

At any given time, there are very few drivers (usually zero) who have to be paying attention for me to be safe.

how did an pontificating opinion about traffic cycling and expertise turn into a diatribe against bike lanes ONCE AGAIN? WHO skewed the talk about experts and bicycling into a dishonest diatribe against velotransit yet again?

it isn't bike lanes that are evil, helmet head. the inability to understand signs, rules and roadway striping is simple ignorance, and is correctable by education and classes.

i'd call your unwillingness to learn the proper way to utilize and maximize velotransit accomodations as a bit stubborn , but maybe a bike educator can help you work thru that resistance you are feeling.

if you are having some troubles understanding roadway stripes and signage, and having difficultly understanding the new ways roads are being designed, I'm sure they offer classes on bicycling in your area.

come on out, give it a try....you might find riding a bike properly a lot more fun and a lot less work than your current biking style.

you could learn a few things from the 'experts'.....

I recently taught two "invisible riders" about vehicular cycling. These guys rode mostly on the sidewalk, but would ride in the streets when no other traffic was present. They quickly caught on to the intellectual principles of VC--which are, let's face it, almost identical to the principles of driving a car. But what they had difficulty understanding was the concept of sharing the road, of actively engaging and interacting with motor traffic. "If you get in front of the cars, they'll kill you." This was all they knew about traffic cycling, and all they needed to know.

So it took them a long time to unlearn their fear of trespassing in the car's space and being punished for it. "This is making me nervous," one of them said as we rode well to the left of the door zone on a well traveled street. His buddy was behind us on the sidewalk, and didn't join us until he had witnessed that we were still alive after a dozen cars safely passed us.

And of course my invisible riders believed that they were already experts in traffic cycling. For them, and for the majority of cyclists in North America, all you need to know about traffic cycling is "Don't get in front of the cars or they'll kill you." Traffic engineers believe this, and so do many cycling advocates. "Put them on side paths and on bike lanes.... for God's sake keep them from getting in front of the cars or they'll be killed."

Why does everybody consider himself an expert? Part of the problem might be that, in North America, the majority of cyclists are children. If little kids can do it, it must be pretty simple. (Of course little kids don't ride in traffic.)

It's not the direct fault of the bike lanes, but, considering how they are an effect of the original cause (discomfort), they actually reinforce the original cause, and, in that sense, I do blame them.




May be that is the case in your city. But in my City, bike lanes are not "out of the way" traffic lanes. Like any other traffic lane, cars, buses, trucks, etc. do cross into bike lanes and you as cyclist must be beware of it. The reverse is also true - you as cyclist can cross into regular lanes as neccessary.

An example is buses, who have the right to pull into a bike lane to load and unload passengers, even if your bike lane is a solid line -- and they are 25 ton vehicles that pull across your lane, say, every 15 minutes at bus stops. When they pull out of a bus stop, all other vehicles must yield the right of way (beginning 2004 in Ontario). Another example is when you wish to make a left turn, you cross into the regular traffic lane and pull into the reserved left turn bike lane (usually between the regular left turn lane and the straight through lane) and wait for the traffic left turn signal light. Quite often, there are signal lights specifically for cyclists (I like the "no straight through except bicycles" traffic lights in Ottawa when I am cycling ---- but I hate them when I am driving. Well, human nature!!).

Because of the road design, from the driver's point of view, while I expect cyclists to be on the bike lane IN THE RIGHT DIECTION (My God), I also expect to find cylists outside the bike lane. Moreover, bike lanes are not necessay located on my right side. It can be on my left side (if I made a right turn on the right turn lane), or it can be part of my lane (as the one on Rideau Street in downtown Ottawa).

Riding in a bike lane does not actually increase the "comfort" level as what people may think. I myself learn pretty fast that while bike lanes are reserved for cyclists, it is not isolated from other traffic. You still have to interact and communicate with other vehicles, bike lane or no bike lane. (Bike paths, on the other hand, are designed to be totally isolated from other traffic ---- sometimes too isolated that makes you uncomfortable, see note below). So, bike lanes are not to be blamed for accidents -- human errors, both cyclists and motorists, disobeying traffic laws, are to be blamed. NO cyclists are killed in bike lanes in Ottawa so far.

NOTE: deaths on bike lanes and or bike paths in Ottawa were due to other criminal activities, not related to traffic.

it isn't bike lanes that are evil, helmet head. the inability to understand signs, rules and roadway striping is simple ignorance, and is correctable by education and classes.

i'd call your unwillingness to learn the proper way to utilize and maximize velotransit accomodations as a bit stubborn , but maybe a bike educator can help you work thru that resistance you are feeling.

if you are having some troubles understanding roadway stripes and signage, and having difficultly understanding the new ways roads are being designed, I'm sure they offer classes on bicycling in your area.

come on out, give it a try....you might find riding a bike properly a lot more fun and a lot less work than your current biking style.

you could learn a few things from the 'experts'.....


Best post of the thread!
:beer:

There are more laughs per word in this forum than in most stand-up comedy acts. Just the title of this thread, in light of the thread starter, gave me a couple of days of chuckles.


We have LCIs in the bicycle coalition here and they advocate for better bike lanes and facilities just like everybody else. The warped view of what a cycling "expert" is around here is pretty amazing.

Yea, I don't think what happens in this forum is representative of much of anything. I'd even go so far as to admit the possiblity that there might be an "expert" or two who might have an ounce of common sense (although I'm pretty skeptical of self-proclaimed experts).


If you want to build a house, who do you learn from?I learn from a guy who's read Effective House Building and has built a garden shed.


Discomfort in traffic -> bike lanes -> more discomfort in traffic -> more bike lanes -> even more discomfort -> even more bike lanes -> yet more intensified discomfort ...You must have gotten your degrees in psychology and social science from the same school that John Forester got his. What makes engineers think they're experts on psychology and social science?

If people are right about the dangers of where I ride, and when I ride there, I should have been dead a long time ago.

I'm as free as a breeze
And I ride where I please
Saddle tramp, Saddle tramp

Discomfort in traffic -> bike lanes -> more discomfort in traffic -> more bike lanes -> even more discomfort -> even more bike lanes -> yet more intensified discomfort ...

You end up with a nation of people who are disabled from riding in traffic by their own internal feelings. Is that the direction you want to go?

You end up with a nice network of bike lanes, which is nice.

And no, I'm not uncomfortable riding in traffic.

HH - why don't you ask that question yourself? Why do YOU think you are an expert when all your posts proven otherwise? :roflmao:

Uh, I learned how to ride when my parents taught me how to ride. And I learned how to negotiate a vehicle through traffic in high school driver's ed. And I learned how to ride a bike in traffic by doing it, and by reading.

Do I need to take a course now? :lol:

You already took the course. If you have survived so far, you must have got a passing grade.

I usually don’t follow these threads that have political base.
Just not my cupatea.

I probably should have kept my trap shut in the “Bike lane study” thread.
But I guess I was bored, or just cant resist my Trolling urges.

But I thought I would try to follow this thread, just to see if I could learn something.

But I gotta say I am confused.

Are we Talking about, bike lanes.
Or are we talking about city planning.
Or are we talking about cycling credentials.
Or are we talking about philosophy.

And on the off chance that I am a lot dumber than I think, were not talking about Scuba diving, right?

Or is this like at a family dinner table where every one is talking about a different subject, and thinks everyone else is paying attention?


Now I am going to take a stab at what I think this thread is about.

Should city planning be done by cyclists?
That depends, not only on his Scuba Diving skills but also on his actual City Planning credentials.

Should city planning be done by a group of people who are trying to accommodate every one, this also depends.

when do the gorillas get let loose in here to muddy up the house building?

when do the gorillas get let loose in here to muddy up the house building?
i am not at all worried about that, I never do see them damn gorillas anyway.

i'm pretty sure city planning should not be done by scuba divers - unless of course there are some new kind of road accomodations i haven't yet heard of. perhaps canal based? with gorillas as gondoleers, of course, because you can't teach gorillas how to scuba dive. - or so i've been told.

Duh you guys. City planning should be done by city planners and bicyclists should serve only as consultants. It helps if you have city planners who also ride bicycles, but that only makes them double-consultants.

I think we should abolish calculators. We used to do math with paper and pencil. Now we're all dependent on calculators. Discomfort with math -> abacus -> more discomfort with math -> calculators -> even more discomfort with math -> scientific calculators -> yet more intensified discomfort -> super-computers ...

Duh you guys. City planning should be done by city planners and bicyclists should serve only as consultants. It helps if you have city planners who also ride bicycles, but that only makes them double-consultants.

I think we should abolish calculators. We used to do math with paper and pencil. Now we're all dependent on calculators. Discomfort with math -> abacus -> more discomfort with math -> calculators -> even more discomfort with math -> scientific calculators -> yet more intensified discomfort -> super-computers ...

No more math
:roflmao:

isn't this thread about scuba diving? I've got a friend with an oranguantan that needs swimming lessons.


Velo facilities are designed for bicyclists of all skill levels. 'design for unskilled bicyclists' is a false argument.

I bet sydney and Ken Keiffer are reading this thread together right now.

I wonder how many times sydney has said "barnyard waste" ? ;):)

I bet sydney and Ken Keiffer are reading this thread together right now.

I wonder how many times sydney has said "barnyard waste" ? ;):)

Well, even barn yard waste can be used.
Fertilizer is important for good healthy growth.:)

If it is, then it's not consistent with Orwell's point:

"But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely."

The original cause is discomfort. If the effect (bike lane) becomes a cause per Orwell, then it reinforces the original cause (discomfort), not the opposite of it.

HH you have far too much time on your hands.
Trying to shoehorn your bizarre safety theories into an Orwellian theorem of social development.

Go ride or something.

I recently taught two "invisible riders" about vehicular cycling. These guys rode mostly on the sidewalk, but would ride in the streets when no other traffic was present. They quickly caught on to the intellectual principles of VC--which are, let's face it, almost identical to the principles of driving a car. But what they had difficulty understanding was the concept of sharing the road, of actively engaging and interacting with motor traffic. "If you get in front of the cars, they'll kill you." This was all they knew about traffic cycling, and all they needed to know.

So it took them a long time to unlearn their fear of trespassing in the car's space and being punished for it. "This is making me nervous," one of them said as we rode well to the left of the door zone on a well traveled street. His buddy was behind us on the sidewalk, and didn't join us until he had witnessed that we were still alive after a dozen cars safely passed us.

And of course my invisible riders believed that they were already experts in traffic cycling. For them, and for the majority of cyclists in North America, all you need to know about traffic cycling is "Don't get in front of the cars or they'll kill you." Traffic engineers believe this, and so do many cycling advocates. "Put them on side paths and on bike lanes.... for God's sake keep them from getting in front of the cars or they'll be killed."
For those of you who could not understand what I was trying to say in the OP because of my sloppy writing, forget about it, and just think about what Roody has written here. That's my point.

I can only add that the widespread belief that Roody mentions, "Don't get in front of the cars or they'll kill you.", is the cause of bike lanes, and, in turn bike lanes the effect become the cause of reinforcing this notion. After all, if the widespread notion is not true, then what is the purpose of bike lanes?

neither the cause, the purpose or the effect of bike lanes. none of what you are arguing has merit.

Have you brushed up on how to use a well-accomodated roadway lately, helmet head?