Phil Liggett - fear monger?

[Helmet Head]

Did anyone tape last night's Versus coverage of the Tour of California?

Fairly early, Phil Liggett made an observation about the peloton riding along highway 1, which of course was closed for the race. I don't have the exact quote, but he said something like it being a beautiful place to ride, but to not do it normally when the highway is open because it's too narrow. Isn't this the primary if not only cycling north/south route in the region?

Now even Phil is promoting the notion that cyclists don't belong on roads with lanes too narrow to be safely shared. Ugh.

[Bekologist]

I don't know, how is it for cycling by 'average' recreationalists, mr head?

maybe his intent was to keep riders safe....anyone worth their salt in the biking arena understands some roads are safer than others, and some are downright unfriendly for cycling.

[N_C]

Will there be coverage on tonight? Never mind I found out it will be.

[CrosseyedCrickt]

Commentators are not known for their intelligence.
He *possible* could have been aiming his comments more towards people new to road cycling, or cycling in general... knowing that seasoned cyclists would ignore his comments in the first place.
I didn't see/hear it, I'm just making an assumption.

[Helmet Head]

Commentators are not known for their intelligence.
He *possible* could have been aiming his comments more towards people new to road cycling, or cycling in general... knowing that seasoned cyclists would ignore his comments in the first place.
I didn't see/hear it, I'm just making an assumption. This is not an area where "unseasoned cyclists" would even consider cycling - too far from anywhere. Any riding here implies a relatively long ride, plus hills... he could only have been talking about "seasoned" cyclists.

Besides, highway 1, up and down the entire coast, is pretty much the same as it was in the section they were showing when Phil made the comment, and is some of the most outstanding cycling in the world, and should be highly recommended. Hearing him discourage cyclists from riding there, implying it's not a reasonable thing to do, was disheartening.

Did anyone else hear it or notice it?

[Bekologist]

phil liggett- safety advocate. seasoned bike rider himself, i believe? ;)

[jim-bob]

Phil Liggett - fear monger?

You're absolutely correct. Phil Liggett is an enemy of cyclists everywhere, and I welcome the day when your tribunal brings him to justice.

[Blue Order]

Did anyone tape last night's Versus coverage of the Tour of California?

Fairly early, Phil Liggett made an observation about the peloton riding along highway 1, which of course was closed for the race. I don't have the exact quote, but he said something like it being a beautiful place to ride, but to not do it normally when the highway is open because it's too narrow. Isn't this the primary if not only cycling north/south route in the region?

Now even Phil is promoting the notion that cyclists don't belong on roads with lanes too narrow to be safely shared. Ugh.Highway 1 is just what it sounds like-- a highway. As in high speeds. There's no such thing as lane "sharing" or "taking the lane." You either have a shoulder to ride on, or you don't.

[CrosseyedCrickt]

This is not an area where "unseasoned cyclists" would even consider cycling - too far from anywhere. Any riding here implies a relatively long ride, plus hills... he could only have been talking about "seasoned" cyclists.

Besides, highway 1, up and down the entire coast, is pretty much the same as it was in the section they were showing when Phil made the comment, and is some of the most outstanding cycling in the world, and should be highly recommended. Hearing him discourage cyclists from riding there, implying it's not a reasonable thing to do, was disheartening.

Did anyone else hear it or notice it?

Well, then, like my fist statement, commentators are not known for their intelligence, doesn't matter what their previous career was.
Maybe the TV station had him say it as some sort of off handed PSA, or maybe he really thinks that. Never the less, I dn't really see it as discouraging. I hear 1000 times a day of how bad smoking is, that's never caused me to want to quit.
Maybe if we had his verbatim statement this would be easier to discuss. As it is, you're the only person to post who has heard it, and it's human nature to misinterpet and mishear things when their mind s fixed on something visually.

I don't see this statement though as trying to insist fear in anyone (fear mongering)

[Cromulent]

I heard it, and Phil's comments surprised me a bit, since he rides all over the world. But that was the PCH, wasn't it? That road looks like it's pretty steep and twisty with lots of blind curves (not that I've been on it, that's what it looked like on my TV). And it didn't look like there was a safe shoulder to ride on. I don't ride on shoulders regularly, but on a double-striped, one lane (each way) highway with lots of blind curves, I would be on the shoulder. At least going up hill. Without traffic it looked like a lot of fun.

Anyone from that area regularly ride on that road?

[Dogbait]

I think it's unfair to characterize Phil Liggett as a fear monger based on that one comment. That stretch of Highway 1 (Mt. Tamalpais to Bodega Bay) is narrow, twisty, hilly, windy and heavily traveled. There are few places to safely pass another vehicle and a significant number or the motorists are unfamiliar with the road and are distracted by the scenery. Riding there would require more than the usual amount of caution. I would choose another route, if possible.

[dobber]

Did anyone tape last night's Versus coverage of the Tour of California?

Fairly early, Phil Liggett made an observation about the peloton riding along highway 1, which of course was closed for the race. I don't have the exact quote, but he said something like it being a beautiful place to ride, but to not do it normally when the highway is open because it's too narrow. Isn't this the primary if not only cycling north/south route in the region?

Now even Phil is promoting the notion that cyclists don't belong on roads with lanes too narrow to be safely shared. Ugh.


Digging deep for something to whine about, aren't we?

[genec]

I don't know, how is it for cycling by 'average' recreationalists, mr head?

maybe his intent was to keep riders safe....anyone worth their salt in the biking arena understands some roads are safer than others, and some are downright unfriendly for cycling.

It is the only road for cyclists to take to get to North County cities... And cities along the California coast. Motorists can chose to use freeway 5 which parallels 1/101... cyclists have no such choice.

Perhaps the motorists should simply obey the law and drive the speed limit and learn to share the road. Cyclists can... why can't motorists?

[Helmet Head]

Highway 1 is just what it sounds like-- a highway. As in high speeds. There's no such thing as lane "sharing" or "taking the lane." You either have a shoulder to ride on, or you don't.Many sections of highway 1 between Stinson Beach and Bodega Bay - the route followed by the tour yesterday - are posted at 35 or 45 mph, certainly not more than 55, and then only on long straightaways. This is not a freeway! This is premiere cycling terrain!

[genec]

Highway 1 is just what it sounds like-- a highway. As in high speeds. There's no such thing as lane "sharing" or "taking the lane." You either have a shoulder to ride on, or you don't.

In some cases you do not. I have ridden the length of that road from San Francisco to San Diego, and shared it with large RVs... in some places "sharing" means taking the lane and not allowing a pass until it is safe. There are narrow bridges on that road too.

By contrast however, the same road extends all the way up into Oregon, and changes dramatically as it crosses the CA/OR border... where in Oregon, it always has a shoulder and a bike lane, and regular signs marking the bike lane. That is not the case in CA.

[I am The Edge]

Did anyone tape last night's Versus coverage of the Tour of California?

Fairly early, Phil Liggett made an observation about the peloton riding along highway 1, which of course was closed for the race. I don't have the exact quote, but he said something like it being a beautiful place to ride, but to not do it normally when the highway is open because it's too narrow. Isn't this the primary if not only cycling north/south route in the region?

Now even Phil is promoting the notion that cyclists don't belong on roads with lanes too narrow to be safely shared. Ugh.

you are completely off-base on phil. :rolleyes:

he wasn't talking about highway 1 but the road they turned right onto.....AND he was right there isn't a shoulder on that road. yes, we have a right to the road just like any other vehicle but the road is very narrow.

maybe you shouldn't be on a such witch hunt. :rolleyes:

[genec]

I think it's unfair to characterize Phil Liggett as a fear monger based on that one comment. That stretch of Highway 1 (Mt. Tamalpais to Bodega Bay) is narrow, twisty, hilly, windy and heavily traveled. There are few places to safely pass another vehicle and a significant number or the motorists are unfamiliar with the road and are distracted by the scenery. Riding there would require more than the usual amount of caution. I would choose another route, if possible.

There is no other route.

[Blue Order]

There is no other route.That doesn't mean it's a safe route.

EDIT: What I mean is, if it's the only north-south route, AND it doesn't safely accommodate both bikes and cars, then safe accommodation of both should be a priority for CalTrans. Steely-eyed alpha dog stare downs aren't what I mean by "safe accommodation."

[genec]

That doesn't mean it's a safe route.

EDIT: What I mean is, if it's the only north-south route, AND it doesn't safely accommodate both bikes and cars, then safe accommodation of both should be a priority for CalTrans. Steely-eyed alpha dog stare downs aren't what I mean by "safe accommodation."

Well there we agree. CalTrans should do what Oregon does just north of the border... but then CalTrans would have to recognize that cyclists are valid users of the road. Like that is ever going to happen... sigh... :rolleyes:

[Helmet Head]

you are completely off-base on phil. :rolleyes: Hey, don't get the wrong idea. I'm a Phil fan.

he wasn't talking about highway 1 but the road they turned right onto.....AND he was right there isn't a shoulder on that road. yes, we have a right to the road just like any other vehicle but the road is very narrow. Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sufficiently familar with the area/route to recognize where they turned off PCH and detoured along some rural side road. But, it looked very bikable.

maybe you shouldn't be on a such witch hunt. :rolleyes: Well, a witch hunt implies I'm after certain people. I'm not. I will admit that I'm on a notion hunt - the notion that cyclists should or must stay out of the way of same direction motor traffic. And whenever I hear that notion being reinforced, it does catch my ear. And when it's on national TV during coverage of a cycling event, it really irks me.

How can we expect cycling-ignorant motorists to treat us respectfully on roads like that when guys like Phil Liggett are telling everyone we don't belong on roads like that?

Edit: Is it any wonder that cycling-ignorant motorists treat us disrespectfully, as if we're doing something wrong for just being in the road, when guys like Phil Liggett are basically saying we're doing something wrong for just choosing to ride there?

Doesn't this bother anyone else?

[Blue Order]

How can we expect cycling-ignorant motorists to treat us respectfully on roads like that when guys like Phil Liggett are telling everyone we don't belong on roads like that?I think from the standpoint of liability, the sponsors are hoping somebody doesn't go out and get killed by a car imitating the Tour riders. So they say "Don't try this at home, kids."

[Bekologist]

you think a lot of cycling ignorant motorists were tuned into the tour de california do ya now ;) mr head ?

I surmise Phil Ligget was cautioning all those not yet steely eyed lane grabbers that this road is not bicycle friendly, to the "I think I'm a pro-class bike racer" wannabees, and his comments aroused someones' ire to the extent of posting his disaproval by a vehicular dogmatists.

[Helmet Head]

That doesn't mean it's a safe route.

EDIT: What I mean is, if it's the only north-south route, AND it doesn't safely accommodate both bikes and cars, then safe accommodation of both should be a priority for CalTrans. Steely-eyed alpha dog stare downs aren't what I mean by "safe accommodation."
I've ridden on PCH from Carmel, through Big Sur and quite a ways south. I've also driven there many times. Many sections are narrow with no shoulder. On one road trip, I talked to a CHP officer about cycling there. He couldn't say enough about how safe he felt it was for bicyclists there.

Cyclists don't need a shoulder in order to be safely accomodated. They are safely accomodated without a shoulder. Is a shoulder preferable? Sure, of course. But it is not required for cycling to be safe, and its absence is not grounds for telling cyclists to not ride there.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

And whenever I hear that notion being reinforced, it does catch my ear. And when it's on national TV during coverage of a cycling event, it really irks me.

How can we expect cycling-ignorant motorists to treat us respectfully on roads like that when guys like Phil Liggett are telling everyone we don't belong on roads like that?
...
Doesn't this bother anyone else?
Relax! Phil Liggett is talking to almost nobody but dyed in the wool bicycle racing fans on a network that the regulars (hunters and fisherman and other outdoor sportsmen) abandon when cycling is featured.

Like a tree falling in the forest, no "cycling-ignorant motorists" heard him.

[Blue Order]

They are safely accomodated without a shoulder.Oh really? How's that?

[Helmet Head]

I think from the standpoint of liability, the sponsors are hoping somebody doesn't go out and get killed by a car imitating the Tour riders. So they say "Don't try this at home, kids."
Thousands of cyclists travel that route safely every year. You'd have to be a local to know the particular section where Phil made the comment wasn't actually on PCH. The streets of Santa Rosa they traveled on later that day (I was there, by the way), are MUCH more dangerous to cyclists than the intersectionless rural roads they were on earlier.

My point is that as cycling advocates we should all be disappointed, if not outraged, by Phil's comment portraying cycling on a road as being unsafe or inappropriate just because it is narrow and does not have a shoulder.

OK, I've said enough in this thread for now.

[N_C]

Did anyone tape last night's Versus coverage of the Tour of California?

Fairly early, Phil Liggett made an observation about the peloton riding along highway 1, which of course was closed for the race. I don't have the exact quote, but he said something like it being a beautiful place to ride, but to not do it normally when the highway is open because it's too narrow. Isn't this the primary if not only cycling north/south route in the region?

Now even Phil is promoting the notion that cyclists don't belong on roads with lanes too narrow to be safely shared. Ugh.

Granted I did not see the coverage of the TOC, but I do not think Phill was spreading fear that Hwy 1 is dangerous to ride on. Maybe he was just offering his opinion on it. Maybe he rode it before it was closed for the race & is basing his opinion on that experience. What is wrong with that? Even though a commentator like Phil Ligget makes a comment like that it would not stop me from riding on Hwy 1. I would ride on it & form my own opinion & offer it to those who are interested.

I think your accusation that Phil is a fear monger is unfounded & blown out of proportion. Here's an idea find his email address & ask him directly about his comment & find out what he has to say about it. Then report back to us before jumping to anymore unfounded & unproven conclusions.

[Blue Order]

My point is that as cycling advocates we should all be disappointed, if not outraged, by Phil's comment portraying cycling on a road as being unsafe or inappropriate just because it is narrow and does not have a shoulder.

OK, I've said enough in this thread for now.:roflmao:

You certainly have.

[joejack951]

Oh really? How's that?

The lanes are wide enough and the pavement is smooth enough for a cyclist to ride on. According to HH, the speed limit also reflects the changing sightlines (I haven't been on that road so I don't know if this is true or not). Regardless, cyclists do not need a shoulder to be able to ride safely on a road. And a shoulder does not necessarily make a road safe.

[Cyclaholic]

At least he hasn't signet up as a spokesman a pro-automobille anti-cycling lobby group like that Forester guy.

[Helmet Head]

[cyclists] are safely accomodated without a shoulder.
Oh really? How's that? Ok, since Blue Order asked this before I said I was done, i will answer this one question.

CA CVC 21200 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21200.htm) states that Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle.

Thousands of cyclists safely travel up and down California's PCH every year, with countless miles of narrow/shoulderless sections like the one depicted during the coverage when Phil made his comment.

The road itself, the vehicular lane, is safe and legal accomodation for bicyclists. If anything, the shoulder in this context is accomodation for motorists, so they have a place to pull over in case of emergency, and so drivers of slow moving vehicles, including cyclists, can use it to allow faster traffic to pass. But that benefits the faster traffic primarily, not the cyclists.

Edit: In particular, this highway (PCH) and the adjacent narrow rural roads are awesome for cycling (these are the ones Levi Leipheimer raves about when he talks about why he loves living in the area), and I hate to see Phil give anyone -- both cyclists and motorists -- the wrong impression.

Now I'm done.

[Bekologist]

I gather some 'bicyclists' think high speed roads with narrow lanes, lack of shoulders, lots of twists and turns, blind corners, limited sight lines and motoriasts distracted by scenery are acceptable and safe to ride on. maybe even "fun!"

And then there are the realists.

[Blue Order]

The lanes are wide enough and the pavement is smooth enough for a cyclist to ride on. According to HH, the speed limit also reflects the changing sightlines (I haven't been on that road so I don't know if this is true or not). Regardless, cyclists do not need a shoulder to be able to ride safely on a road. And a shoulder does not necessarily make a road safe.It's not a "road." It's a highway. A winding, (relatively) high speed highway.

[Blue Order]

Ok, since Blue Order asked this before I said I was done, i will answer this one question.

CA CVC 21200 (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21200.htm) states that Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle.

Thousands of cyclists safely travel up and down California's PCH every year, with countless miles of narrow/shoulderless sections like the one depicted during the coverage when Phil made his comment.

The road itself, the vehicular lane, is safe and legal accomodation for bicyclists. If anything, the shoulder in this context is accomodation for motorists, so they have a place to pull over in case of emergency, and so drivers of slow moving vehicles, including cyclists, can use it to allow faster traffic to pass. But that benefits the faster traffic primarily, not the cyclists.Legal? Yes. Safe accommodation? :roflmao:

Do they let you wear the high priest robes at the VC meetings yet?

[joejack951]

It's not a "road." It's a highway. A winding, (relatively) high speed highway.

All roads are considered highways. Technically, I should have said "highway" only because the term highway encompasses the roadway (travel lanes) and shoulder. Most people understand that when I say "road" I'm referring to the paved portion of space that people use to get places.

[Blue Order]

All roads are considered highways. Technically, I should have said "highway" only because the term highway encompasses the roadway (travel lanes) and shoulder. Most people understand that when I say "road" I'm referring to the paved portion of space that people use to get places."Highway" is a legal "term of art."

Highway 1 is a different kind of highway-- not the legal term, but a highway, featuring (relatively) high speed travel.

[rando]

You're absolutely correct. Phil Liggett is an enemy of cyclists everywhere, and I welcome the day when your tribunal brings him to justice.

:mad:

behead him!

[N_C]

I think I figured something out. Some of you will probably say "it's about damn time!" I figured out when the A&S get's kind of slow and boring HH posts a thread to stir things up, make things more exciting & cause a debate & maybe even a flame war, etc.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I think I figured something out. Some of you will probably say "it's about damn time!"
It's about damn time!

[Keith99]

I heard it, and Phil's comments surprised me a bit, since he rides all over the world. But that was the PCH, wasn't it? That road looks like it's pretty steep and twisty with lots of blind curves (not that I've been on it, that's what it looked like on my TV). And it didn't look like there was a safe shoulder to ride on. I don't ride on shoulders regularly, but on a double-striped, one lane (each way) highway with lots of blind curves, I would be on the shoulder. At least going up hill. Without traffic it looked like a lot of fun.

Anyone from that area regularly ride on that road?

Large sections of 1 in the North have no shoulder.

I would also point out that some sections are no longer a reasonable route for 'normal' traffic. No one would drive them to get from heat to there (unless local). That means any cars are apt to be there enjoying the view. Not a good combination.

[joejack951]

"Highway" is a legal "term of art."

Highway 1 is a different kind of highway-- not the legal term, but a highway, featuring (relatively) high speed travel.

So basically you believe that without a shoulder, a highway with high speed travel is inherently unsafe for cycling. Do you ever ride on these types of roads yourself?

[Dogbait]

There is no other route.

Hence...

I would choose another route, if possible.

[Brian Ratliff]

So basically you believe that without a shoulder, a highway with high speed travel is inherently unsafe for cycling. Do you ever ride on these types of roads yourself?

I have. Have you?

During rush hour, rural highways are certainly not the safest roads to travel by bicycle - unfortunately, if I ride from my house to work, they are my only option. Unsafe? Well, that is in the eye of the beholder. Safety is always relative. FWIW, they are dangerous for cars as well.

[genec]

The lanes are wide enough and the pavement is smooth enough for a cyclist to ride on. According to HH, the speed limit also reflects the changing sightlines (I haven't been on that road so I don't know if this is true or not). Regardless, cyclists do not need a shoulder to be able to ride safely on a road. And a shoulder does not necessarily make a road safe.

No, in fact the speed limits are quite unreal on some sections of hiway 1. Posted at 55MPH in places where only fools would (and do) drive that fast.

As hiway 1 enters towns, the speed limits do decrease. I just drove that route (and biked parts of it) last summer from Portland to Bodega Bay.

[genec]

Did anyone tape last night's Versus coverage of the Tour of California?

Fairly early, Phil Liggett made an observation about the peloton riding along highway 1, which of course was closed for the race. I don't have the exact quote, but he said something like it being a beautiful place to ride, but to not do it normally when the highway is open because it's too narrow. Isn't this the primary if not only cycling north/south route in the region?

Now even Phil is promoting the notion that cyclists don't belong on roads with lanes too narrow to be safely shared. Ugh.

Hey HH, on a postive note... bear in mind that probably the only people watching the ToC were cyclists... so while Phil made an offhand dumb remark, he was only perpetuating "the notion" to "the choir."

Frankly that doesn't bother me nearly as much as talk show radio idiots bashing cyclists on "drive time" radio.

[Blue Order]

So basically you believe that without a shoulder, a highway with high speed travel is inherently unsafe for cycling. Do you ever ride on these types of roads yourself?If they're inherently unsafe, why would I?

[Helmet Head]

Hey HH, on a postive note... bear in mind that probably the only people watching the ToC were cyclists... so while Phil made an offhand dumb remark, he was only perpetuating "the notion" to "the choir."

Frankly that doesn't bother me nearly as much as talk show radio idiots bashing cyclists on "drive time" radio. (one more exception, hopefully for obvious reasons)

I know plenty of cycling fans who watch the coverage, including friends, family members and coworkers, who are drivers but not cyclists.

Edit: anyway, cyclists are the first ones to have to realize the notion is wrong and it's prevalence needs to be reversed. We are a long way from that, and notion-promoting comments like Phil's, and tolerance for them within the cycling advocacy community, as expressed in this thread, only makes it worse.

Edit 2: We can't expect motorists to "get it" if even cyclists don't get it. We can't expect "regular" cyclists to get it if even cycling advocates don't get it. We have to start with cycling advocates, the center of our circle, and then work outwards. That's why I'm as active on this issue as I am, here, in this cycling advocacy forum.

[joejack951]

I have. Have you?

During rush hour, rural highways are certainly not the safest roads to travel by bicycle - unfortunately, if I ride from my house to work, they are my only option. Unsafe? Well, that is in the eye of the beholder. Safety is always relative. FWIW, they are dangerous for cars as well.

Yes, I quite often ride on roads marked at 45mph and above. 55mph has been the max I've been on only because none of the roads where I've been biking have been through such wide open areas that a 65mph speed limit is reasonable. Due to a road closure, my commute is now entirely 4-6 lane arterials (excluding my neighborhood and the 0.2 miles on the road leading to my workplace) marked with 45-50mph speed limits. A shoulder does exist in some spots but it's mostly still covered with snow and what's exposed is covered in gravel and heavily intersected. I'm using the traffic lane quite often a result. During the past week since I started using this route, I have received better treatment on these roads in terms of passing distance and manuevers around me than I did on the 25mph roads my normal commute was on (where people were often going just as fast as they do on the arterials). My commute happens during the normal morning rush hour if that matters.

The only disadvantage that I see about a 2 lane rural highway with heavy traffic (assuming it's in both directions) is that you'd be more likely to have to pull over to allow backed up traffic to pass than if there's a passing lane (when there's a passing lane, I don't move over unless I can keep moving whereas I'll pull over and stop when there is no passing lane if traffic has backed up behind me).

[joejack951]

If they're inherently unsafe, why would I?

It is your belief so you had to come up with it somehow. Perhaps you tried once but had issues. Or perhaps you are imagining what could go wrong and never actually trying it. Or perhaps you're just sticking with the common notion that cyclists do not belong on and are inherently unsafe on highways without shoulders.

[N_C]

I doubt Phil was advocating any kind of anti-cyclist sentiment or even trying to promote that. It sounds like he was filling time by making commentary to what he observed by either what he saw or maybe experienced.

It also sounds like you took it way to personally, dude. You need to relaxe a little, when it comes to this stuff. Don't take everything that you perceive as anti-cycling/cyclist, pro-BL's, anti-riding on roadways as personal. What is the weather like in San Diego right now? If it is nice enough why not go for a ride to chill out? Why do you take this stuff so personal, anyway? You keep stressing out over this stuff you're going to have an ulcer, if you don't already. You seem like the kind of person who is so uptight about VC that if you swallowed a piece of coal you'd crap a diamond.

Did you email him yet to get clarification on what he meant by it?