Vehicular Cycling (VC) - When HH & JF make their claims about cycling...

I am one of those who considers that simple capitalism requires some regulation for the public good.

Perhaps, but you don't take it out on the employees. You take it out on the employer. The employee is just doing his job; doing what he is paid to do.

Perhaps, but you don't take it out on the employees. You take it out on the employer. The employee is just doing his job; doing what he is paid to do.
So don't prosecute the hit man, just those who hire him?
Funny how vice tends to go after the prostitutes and not the johns.

Funny how vice tends to go after the prostitutes and not the johns.
And they're completely missing the real bad guys.... the pimps!

In particular: is there any evidence that an experienced messenger is more or less safe per mile or hour of bicycling than is a typical experienced vehicular cyclist?
Before you start guessing about how messengers or anybody's cycling safety record compares with a typical experienced vehicular cyclist, you need to define a "typical experienced vehicular cyclist" (what characteristics that can be identified makes a cyclist typical, experienced, and/or vehicular) , then find some. Then measure/identify the "safety record" of this chimeric population of typical experienced vehicular cyclists. Might be useful to determine what sort of metrics defines a safety record too; something with a little more intellectual meat than a "crash rate."

Of course, there is the social acceptability factor as well. Hurst advocates knowing so much about the rules by which traffic operates that one can figure out how to disobey them to one's advantage with little risk. That level of skill is a far cry from that of most drivers, and is attained by constant immersion in traffic as a business proposition. It is also correct that drivers of emergency vehicles are allowed to disobey the rules, and they are given the training to be able to do so with small increase in public danger. However, Hurst is similar to any advocate of unlawful behavior who argues that it's acceptable as long as you don't get prosecuted. The rules of the road have been designed for all to use in a way that justifies the distribution of responsibilities in a reasonably fair and safe way. Hurst is taking advantage of everyone else. He may say that he just sneaks between cars in a way that delays none of them. All I can say is that when I have been in areas permeated by bike messengers, as a pedestrian I have been threatened by being run down by them, in a most unpleasant way. And, as a cyclist, I hate to see the display of real violations of the rules of the road, because of the harm that does to all the rest of us. There are two kinds of unlawful cycling: one kind is the result of typical ignorance, the other kind is blatant, in your face, unlawful operation. Both are undesirable.


The sad thing is that while you are admonishing cyclists to stick to the "rules of the road," the majority users of the road hardly do that themselves, and typically "cheat" whenever the situation suits them. This hardly makes for an ideal "fair and safe" environment.

Even some advocates on BF have admitted driving at well over the speed limit on some roads, when it suits them.

BTW I noticed that your view of responsibility is based on your idealized view of "the road," as it should be, and not as it actually exists: "The rules of the road have been designed for all to use in a way that justifies the distribution of responsibilities in a reasonably fair and safe way."

Until motorists actually learn to look for cyclists, then that distribution of responsibility will remain skewed to the cyclists' shoulders.

Before you start guessing about how messengers or anybody's cycling safety record compares with a typical experienced vehicular cyclist, you need to define a "typical experienced vehicular cyclist" (what characteristics that can be identified makes a cyclist typical, experienced, and/or vehicular) , then find some. Then measure/identify the "safety record" of this chimeric population of typical experienced vehicular cyclists. Might be useful to determine what sort of metrics defines a safety record too; something with a little more intellectual meat than a "crash rate."

As indicated by the survey on Ken Kifers web page... Typical experienced cyclists tend not to be strictly vehicular:



Q. 16: When asked about their personal traffic rules,
156 said they follow the same rules as motorists but riding on shoulders or in a bike lane whenever possible.
49 said they follow the same rules as motorists, staying within the traffic lanes at all times.
16 said they generally ride in the same direction as the motor vehicles but sometimes in the opposite direction.
8 said they make up their own rules as they go and do whatever seems convenient.
2 said they ride on the sidewalk whenever possible.
None said they ride in the opposite direction from the motor vehicles.
None said they ride only on bike paths or bike lanes because roads are too dangerous.


from http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm

The Moritz numbers for LAB members were quite a bit better than what Kaplan found for LAB members 20 years earlier. I wonder if there were far fewer older, seasoned riders among the survey respondents in '76, than in '96.
Moritz average respondent was a 48-year-old. 80% were male.

Kaplan's respondents' mean age was 37.7 years; 88% were male.

Are there any Bureau of Labor Statistics on the the dangerousness of being a bicycle messenger? I was only able to find economic statistics on bicycle messengers. The outlook is not good.

Perhaps, but you don't take it out on the employees. You take it out on the employer. The employee is just doing his job; doing what he is paid to do.

In this case the 'employer' includes the entire machine of government, federal, state, and local, from top to bottom. The same agencies that one might expect to 'crack down' on messengers in fact rely on bicycle messengers to get their work done.

Everybody uses bike messengers, whether they realize it or not.

Robert

Of course, there is the social acceptability factor as well. Hurst advocates knowing so much about the rules by which traffic operates that one can figure out how to disobey them to one's advantage with little risk. That level of skill is a far cry from that of most drivers, and is attained by constant immersion in traffic as a business proposition. It is also correct that drivers of emergency vehicles are allowed to disobey the rules, and they are given the training to be able to do so with small increase in public danger. However, Hurst is similar to any advocate of unlawful behavior who argues that it's acceptable as long as you don't get prosecuted. The rules of the road have been designed for all to use in a way that justifies the distribution of responsibilities in a reasonably fair and safe way. Hurst is taking advantage of everyone else. He may say that he just sneaks between cars in a way that delays none of them. All I can say is that when I have been in areas permeated by bike messengers, as a pedestrian I have been threatened by being run down by them, in a most unpleasant way. And, as a cyclist, I hate to see the display of real violations of the rules of the road, because of the harm that does to all the rest of us. There are two kinds of unlawful cycling: one kind is the result of typical ignorance, the other kind is blatant, in your face, unlawful operation. Both are undesirable.

Lots of interesting issues here, but no real attempt to address the question at hand.

Robert

In this case the 'employer' includes the entire machine of government, federal, state, and local, from top to bottom. The same agencies that one might expect to 'crack down' on messengers in fact rely on bicycle messengers to get their work done.

Everybody uses bike messengers, whether they realize it or not.

Robert

Good point. I guess the internet is taking care of some of this. Kind of brutal to the income potential for bike messengers though...

Of course, there is the social acceptability factor as well. Hurst advocates knowing so much about the rules by which traffic operates that one can figure out how to disobey them to one's advantage with little risk. That level of skill is a far cry from that of most drivers, and is attained by constant immersion in traffic as a business proposition. It is also correct that drivers of emergency vehicles are allowed to disobey the rules, and they are given the training to be able to do so with small increase in public danger. However, Hurst is similar to any advocate of unlawful behavior who argues that it's acceptable as long as you don't get prosecuted. The rules of the road have been designed for all to use in a way that justifies the distribution of responsibilities in a reasonably fair and safe way. Hurst is taking advantage of everyone else. He may say that he just sneaks between cars in a way that delays none of them. All I can say is that when I have been in areas permeated by bike messengers, as a pedestrian I have been threatened by being run down by them, in a most unpleasant way. And, as a cyclist, I hate to see the display of real violations of the rules of the road, because of the harm that does to all the rest of us. There are two kinds of unlawful cycling: one kind is the result of typical ignorance, the other kind is blatant, in your face, unlawful operation. Both are undesirable.

I should make clear that I do not 'advocate' unlawful behavior. Pointing out that stellar safety records may not be tied to stellar rule-following is not the same as suggesting people should break the law.

Messengers do indeed operate in a way that is divorced from the traffic laws. But this is something much bigger than the messengers themselves. The reality is that unlawful riding is an intermittent requirement to complete some deliveries under some conditions. It's a job requirement, simple as that. If any single messenger decides to ride in a completely lawful fashion, they would be late with important deliveries, they would get fired and simply replaced with someone who is willing to the job. You may decide to go on hating the players as well as the game, but criticizing messengers is a bit like pissing up a rope, because messengers there are and messengers there will be.

Messengers are asked to complete these tasks because the Office-world (public and private) rediscovered, a few decades back, the special capabilities of bike delivery in urban centers. They figured out that a bicyclist could move a package across the downtown area and get a signature faster than their mail guy could walk two blocks and before they could get their car out of the parking garage. An entire industry grew up out of this rediscovery of the superiority of cycling. The messengers who perform these tasks have proven over decades that they can handle the extra freedom and responsibility that comes with the work -- there is no special epidemic of injuries or accidents tied to the messenger business; attempts to regulate or 'crack down' on messengers are rare and tend to die quietly. As messengers proved themselves, the job gained legitimacy from law enforcement and justice personnel at all levels. As it stands today, our entire system of justice confidently relies on bike messengers -- the wheels of justice you might say. A typical messenger day might include stops at the top law firms in the city, all the local and federal courts, the police station, the office of the city attorney and district attorney, the FBI, office of the state and federal attorney general, the Dept. of Justice, the governor and the mayor and on down the line. As a veteran messenger I was on first-name basis with police officers and US marshalls who watched me carve traffic every day.

These cyclists who terrorized you as a pedestrian -- how do you know they were messengers? I ask because recently there has been an explosion in the population of people who look like messengers and use messenger bags, even putting their cell phones on the strap, etc., but who are not messengers. The look-alikes, in fact, now vastly outnumber the actual messengers, whose population has been dwindling. There are about half as many working messengers in N. America today as there were ten-fifteen years ago, but there are loads more people who look like messengers. I regard this as somewhat of a problem for messengers, but there's not much the messengers can do about it, just like there's not much that the messenger-haters can do about the messengers. You might think messengers give all cyclists a bad name; many messengers feel that these hipster cyclists are giving them a bad name. Messengers carry insurance, are accountable to their dispatchers, employers, high-powered clients, fellow messengers, and fellow city-dwellers, whose space they must share on a daily basis. The best messengers complete a workday without stealing a single citizen's right-of-way. The posenger flashes through town, not accountable to anyone or anything.

I could continue with the wall of words, but I need to get up to some trails on my day off.

Robert

The best messengers complete a workday without stealing a single citizen's right-of-way.
Wow. The best messnegers might complete a whole day without stealing anyone's ROW. That's remarkable. Or should I say, that's remarkable?

Indeed, but whether a given approach is socially undesirable is not relevant to the question at hand: how safe is it compared to VC? In particular: is there any evidence that an experienced messenger is more or less safe per mile or hour of bicycling than is a typical experienced vehicular cyclist?

I can tell you with good confidence that a long-time messenger will typically fare much better than the average respondent to Moritz's survey, even while performing messenger work in congested urban areas. That's some anecdotal evidence for you.

There was a study out of Harvard about Boston messengers which found two things: They had one of the highest rates of lost-work injury of any industry, iirc second only to meatpacking; and (plugging in reasonable assumptions about average miles-per-day for Boston messengers, as none were given in the study) the accident/injury rate of the entire population of Boston messengers, including all the hapless, ridiculous rookies, was in the same ballpark as the Moritz rate for the highly experienced LAB member. That should tell you something about the veteran messengers.

VC-ists should be thankful there isn't more evidence than that.

Robert

The sad thing is that while you are admonishing cyclists to stick to the "rules of the road," the majority users of the road hardly do that themselves, and typically "cheat" whenever the situation suits them. This hardly makes for an ideal "fair and safe" environment.

Even some advocates on BF have admitted driving at well over the speed limit on some roads, when it suits them.

BTW I noticed that your view of responsibility is based on your idealized view of "the road," as it should be, and not as it actually exists: "The rules of the road have been designed for all to use in a way that justifies the distribution of responsibilities in a reasonably fair and safe way."

Until motorists actually learn to look for cyclists, then that distribution of responsibility will remain skewed to the cyclists' shoulders.
You might as well be talking to a brick wall...

Wow. The best messnegers might complete a whole day without stealing anyone's ROW. That's remarkable. Or should I say, that's remarkable?
You're never an insulting SOB, are you?!?!?!

What an ass!

:rolleyes:

You're never an insulting SOB, are you?!?!?!

What an ass!

:rolleyes:
Don't be chastised for insulting the fellow. Jack Donkey is a good and descriptive moniker, and downright cute, too.:)

http://overthetop.beloblog.com/archives/heehaw.jpg

I can tell you with good confidence that a long-time messenger will typically fare much better than the average respondent to Moritz's survey, even while performing messenger work in congested urban areas. That's some anecdotal evidence for you.

There was a study out of Harvard about Boston messengers which found two things: They had one of the highest rates of lost-work injury of any industry, iirc second only to meatpacking; and (plugging in reasonable assumptions about average miles-per-day for Boston messengers, as none were given in the study) the accident/injury rate of the entire population of Boston messengers, including all the hapless, ridiculous rookies, was in the same ballpark as the Moritz rate for the highly experienced LAB member. That should tell you something about the veteran messengers.

VC-ists should be thankful there isn't more evidence than that.

Robert
I've been thinking about this. I know you consider yourself to be "defensive", but isn't messenger-style cycling to vehicular cycling what taxi-driver-style driving is to defensive driving?

I imagine the best NYC taxi drivers are probably very vigilant and "defensive" in the way that the best messengers are, but yet do not practice "defensive driving" in the way that defensive driving is taught, just like messengers don't practice vehicular cycling in the way that it is taught.

It may also be true that these same "best" taxi drivers have excellent safety records, despite their scofflaw behavior. If it were true, would you consider that to be compelling anecdotal evidence supporting the notion being vigilant is more important than defensive driving practices in terms of being safe while driving?

I've been thinking about this. I know you consider yourself to be "defensive", but isn't messenger-style cycling to vehicular cycling what taxi-driver-style driving is to defensive driving?

To be absolutely clear, I am not advising people to ride like messengers. Unless of course they are messengers, in which case, get 'er done.

That said I don't see your analogy.


I imagine the best NYC taxi drivers are probably very vigilant and "defensive" in the way that the best messengers are, but yet do not practice "defensive driving" in the way that defensive driving is taught, just like messengers don't practice vehicular cycling in the way that it is taught.

I guess I just don't understand what you're getting at. I don't find VC-ism to be analagous to defensive driving at all, which should be clear by now.

And being a messenger is not analagous to taxi driving. Messengers have much more opportunity and freedom and a whole world of techniques to draw on that are separate from the vehicular rules. Messengers use the entire city surface; the taxis are stuck in the tar pits along with everyone else, stymied by the egregious size of their Crown Vics.

It should also be noted that messengers use vehicular cycling techniques, in addition to others, all day long. Rookie messengers probably do more vehicular cycling in their first few years on the job than most VC-mongers will do in their entire lives. I don't know if this is crucial information, just thought I'd throw that in there.


It may also be true that these same "best" taxi drivers have excellent safety records, despite their scofflaw behavior. If it were true, would you consider that to be compelling anecdotal evidence supporting the notion being vigilant is more important than defensive driving practices in terms of being safe while driving?

Sorry HH, I might have blown a key synapse or two over a long weekend of mtn. biking, but I don't understand the question. Being vigilant is the el supremo numero uno 'defensive driving practice' -- why do you separate them here? Wait! Don't answer that.

The thing which keeps veteran messengers safe is the same thing that would keep any cyclist safe.

Robert

Being vigilant is the el supremo numero uno 'defensive driving practice' -- why do you separate them here? Wait! Don't answer that.
Robert, to recap HHs position before he does:

He says vigilance is paying close and continuous attention, and as such is very different from paying attention.

Paying attention is el supremo numero uno of defensive driving - or any other system of rules.

One must pay attention in order to generally follow the rules of the road.

Generally following the rules allows one to pay close and continuous attention.

Close and continuous attention allows one to consistently follow the rules.

These are 4 completely separate variables (paying attention, paying close and continuous attention, following the rules, and following the rules consistently), and they definitely take place in this order of causation.

To illustrate:
one must have a chicken egg to arrive at a chicken.

Once that chicken has hatched, that chicken can help in the creation of an uber-chicken egg.

That uber-chicken egg can now hatch into an uber-chicken.

Robert, to recap HHs position before he does:

He says vigilance is paying close and continuous attention, and as such is very different from paying attention.

Paying attention is el supremo numero uno of defensive driving - or any other system of rules.

One must pay attention in order to generally follow the rules of the road.

Generally following the rules allows one to pay close and continuous attention.

Close and continuous attention allows one to consistently follow the rules.

These are 4 completely separate variables (paying attention, paying close and continuous attention, following the rules, and following the rules consistently), and they definitely take place in this order of causation.

To illustrate:
one must have a chicken egg to arrive at a chicken.

Once that chicken has hatched, that chicken can help in the creation of an uber-chicken egg.

That uber-chicken egg can now hatch into an uber-chicken.

Oh. I got it now. Uber-chicken. Thanks.

Sometimes thinking in terms of uber-chickens helps us understand some of the more difficult ideas of traffic cycling.

http://www.aardman.com/chickenrun/cast/rocky_img/rocky_02.gif

Add NYC taxi drivers to the list of groups HH has insulted. Maybe we should just ban HH to P&R, since he seems to have an insulting comment for just about every demographic. :lol: