Well, now that foresterite driven VC is collapsing like an post-collision airbag, with admittances from the rabid VCists that "ANYTHING GOES", I've started this thread to discuss what the 21st century vehicular cyclist advocacy platform should consist of.

Now, John, we are well aware of what your 20th century "I fought the inferiority and the inferiority won" advocacy platform is, so if you'd please butt out with your tired, quixotic prattle. this is intended to be a discussion between forward thinking, forward looking vehicular cyclists.

My ideas for an effective vehicular cycling advocacy platform for the 21st century include:

1)fight mandatory sidepath mandatory use laws. don't fight bike path infrastructure, fight mandatory use laws.

2) major national driver education program about bicyclists use and right to the roads.

3) 'cars yield to bikes' laws codified in state traffic code.

4)continue the work to get kids riding to schools across the country.

5)work to encourage bike racks in front of all businesses.

6)bike commuter tax breaks as part of combatting carbon emissions.

7)on road bike infrastructure where appropriate; make communities more bikeable by more people by the use of bike specific, on road infrastructure. (remember, vehicular bicyclists can ride vehicularily in bike lanes!)

8) stiffen penalties for distracted driving- fix the "broken window" syndrome of drivers breaking traffic laws with impunity. rolling stops by drivers onto superior arterials are a concern for bicyclists for example.

9)adopt a policy similar to motorcycling's ABATE- work to make stiffer penalties for bicycling/auto accidents a court case, versus little or no punishment for drivers who "didn't see" the bicyclist they hit.

10) stop the blanket damnification of bike infrastructure.


The NEW paradigm of VC: ANYTHING GOES! so these are my ideas for 21st century "VC" bike advocacy.

tax breaks/incentives for businesses to provide space/racks for bikes, showers, lockers, etc to encourage cycling to work. a program that pays cyclists a certain amount every month for cycling to work instead of driving. (some places already do this)

Something close to my heart, in terms of desires as a cyclist....

Hold local road works authorities and municipal utilities to pavment and street-repair standards wich will allow not just safe automobile but also safe bike travel.

Well, now that foresterite driven VC is collapsing like an post-collision airbag, with admittances from the rabid VCists that "ANYTHING GOES", I've started this thread to discuss what the 21st century vehicular cyclist advocacy platform should consist of.

Now, John, we are well aware of what your 20th century "I fought the inferiority and the inferiority won" advocacy platform is, so if you'd please butt out with your tired, quixotic prattle. this is intended to be a discussion between forward thinking, forward looking vehicular cyclists.

My ideas for an effective vehicular cycling advocacy platform for the 21st century include:

1)fight mandatory sidepath mandatory use laws. don't fight bike path infrastructure, fight mandatory use laws.

2) major national driver education program about bicyclists use and right to the roads.

3) 'cars yield to bikes' laws codified in state traffic code.

4)continue the work to get kids riding to schools across the country.

5)work to encourage bike racks in front of all businesses.

6)bike commuter tax breaks as part of combatting carbon emissions.

7)on road bike infrastructure where appropriate; make communities more bikeable by more people by the use of bike specific, on road infrastructure. (remember, vehicular bicyclists can ride vehicularily in bike lanes!)

8) stiffen penalties for distracted driving- fix the "broken window" syndrome of drivers breaking traffic laws with impunity. rolling stops by drivers onto superior arterials are a concern for bicyclists for example.

9)adopt a policy similar to motorcycling's ABATE- work to make stiffer penalties for bicycling/auto accidents a court case, versus little or no punishment for drivers who "didn't see" the bicyclist they hit.

10) stop the blanket damnification of bike infrastructure.


The NEW paradigm of VC: ANYTHING GOES! so these are my ideas for 21st century "VC" bike advocacy.


Some of these items contradict others, are based on contradictory views of how to use the roads. That will make it difficult to carry the good because of being contradicted by the bad.

Nation-wide motorist education about cyclists' right to use the roads. Good, but how is this reconciled with the bike-lane program?

"'[C]ars yield to bikes' laws codified in state traffic code." This conflicts with the previous item, because it contradicts cyclists' normal rights and duties as drivers of vehicles. And what do you think would be the reaction of the motoring establishment to giving cyclists rights that override the normal traffic law? Get them off the roads completely!

"[C]ontinue the work to get kids riding to schools across the country." Since this work consists nearly entirely in persuading parents that bikeways make cycling safe for untrained children, this is counterproductive to the item about cyclists' rights as drivers of vehicles.

Bike-lane promotion. Again, this contradicts the item about cyclists' rights and duties as drivers of vehicles. It matters not to already vehicular cyclists, but it militates against improving the skills of those persuaded that skills don't matter.

And, of course, stop the arguments against bike-lane stripes and sidepaths.

The promotion of facilities that are based on contradicting the rules of the road is counter to the long-term interest of cyclists in improving the skills of the cycling population and improving the social status and legal equality of cyclists.

john - your tired spiel is soooo last century.

vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in bike lanes, dude. You do.

john - your tired spiel is soooo last century.

vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in bike lanes, dude. You do.

You have never provided an explanation of why this is relevant. It is irrelevant to the discussion of the theories of traffic operation.

Some of these items contradict others, are based on contradictory views of how to use the roads. That will make it difficult to carry the good because of being contradicted by the bad.

Nation-wide motorist education about cyclists' right to use the roads. Good, but how is this reconciled with the bike-lane program?

"'[C]ars yield to bikes' laws codified in state traffic code." This conflicts with the previous item, because it contradicts cyclists' normal rights and duties as drivers of vehicles. And what do you think would be the reaction of the motoring establishment to giving cyclists rights that override the normal traffic law? Get them off the roads completely!

"[C]ontinue the work to get kids riding to schools across the country." Since this work consists nearly entirely in persuading parents that bikeways make cycling safe for untrained children, this is counterproductive to the item about cyclists' rights as drivers of vehicles.

Bike-lane promotion. Again, this contradicts the item about cyclists' rights and duties as drivers of vehicles. It matters not to already vehicular cyclists, but it militates against improving the skills of those persuaded that skills don't matter.

And, of course, stop the arguments against bike-lane stripes and sidepaths.

The promotion of facilities that are based on contradicting the rules of the road is counter to the long-term interest of cyclists in improving the skills of the cycling population and improving the social status and legal equality of cyclists.


John, if these ideas are so contridictory, why do they work in places like Germany and France (where the "flat" model of Holland geography is NOT in existance?)

Specifically I am speaking of BL, and laws that give "weight" to cyclists over motorists in the event of a collision.... much like our laws give "weight" to pedestrians with regard to ROW.

Note also that more motorist education is required to obtain a German driving license... In fact America offers one of the easiest auto license paths of the industrialized nations.

I cannot offer specific evidence to support my claims, only anecdotal, based on a member of BF here that lives part time in France and part time in Southern California. Also though the web, one can find out how difficult it is to obtain a driver's license in other countries. I do however have colleagues in China and Australia that have commented on the ease of obtaining a license here in the US.

Now regarding the reaction of motorists toward cyclists... in that I tend to agree... motorists here believe they own the road... however, as the price of fuel escalates, we may find that mood shifting in the future.

John, if these ideas are so contridictory, why do they work in places like Germany and France (where the "flat" model of Holland geography is NOT in existance?)

Specifically I am speaking of BL, and laws that give "weight" to cyclists over motorists in the event of a collision.... much like our laws give "weight" to pedestrians with regard to ROW.

Note also that more motorist education is required to obtain a German driving license... In fact America offers one of the easiest auto license paths of the industrialized nations.

I cannot offer specific evidence to support my claims, only anecdotal, based on a member of BF here that lives part time in France and part time in Southern California. Also though the web, one can find out how difficult it is to obtain a driver's license in other countries. I do however have colleagues in China and Australia that have commented on the ease of obtaining a license here in the US.

Now regarding the reaction of motorists toward cyclists... in that I tend to agree... motorists here believe they own the road... however, as the price of fuel escalates, we may find that mood shifting in the future.

These are reasonable questions, but I think that they also start with considerable bias. To start with the easy part. It is certainly much easier to obtain a motoring license in the USA than it is in many other places, particularly European nations. However, for decades, and perhaps still, the USA was among the lower casualty rate nations. I don't see evidence that motoring in this nation is significantly more dangerous than it is in other nations. Of course, car-bike collisions are a different matter than general motoring safety.

You ask: "John, if these ideas are so contridictory, why do they work in places like Germany and France (where the "flat" model of Holland geography is NOT in existance?)

Specifically I am speaking of BL, and laws that give "weight" to cyclists over motorists in the event of a collision.... much like our laws give "weight" to pedestrians with regard to ROW."

Work? What does that mean? Bikeways exist there, certainly. And the flat model of Holland is not particularly relevant to the issue of bikeways. I have read complaints about, and seen pictures of, bikeways that are far below our standards in both France and Germany. There are reports of better bikeways in two or three German cities, old university cities I think. As has been repeatedly explained, very old urban designs are not suited to motor transportation, and in areas where motor transportation is inconvenient both walking and bicycling are more competitive, since, in fact, the facilities available were designed and built, way in the past, to be suitable for such transportation. We have very few such locations in the USA.

As for the legal situations, I have not heard good reports from anywhere in north-central Europe. It appears that cyclists do not have the rights of drivers of vehicles, or that if they do that is rather theoretical because of being so limited by infrastructure. It might be that the law placing responsibility on a motorist involved in a collision with a cyclist (if that is actually what it says) is an attempt to correct this deficiency. I prefer the American system in which cyclists have the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles (except, of course, for the side-of-the-road law and the mandatory bikeway laws, where these exist), and that fault is assigned in an equal manner because both the rights and the duties are equal.

These are reasonable questions, but I think that they also start with considerable bias. To start with the easy part. It is certainly much easier to obtain a motoring license in the USA than it is in many other places, particularly European nations. However, for decades, and perhaps still, the USA was among the lower casualty rate nations. I don't see evidence that motoring in this nation is significantly more dangerous than it is in other nations. Of course, car-bike collisions are a different matter than general motoring safety.

You ask: "John, if these ideas are so contridictory, why do they work in places like Germany and France (where the "flat" model of Holland geography is NOT in existance?)

Specifically I am speaking of BL, and laws that give "weight" to cyclists over motorists in the event of a collision.... much like our laws give "weight" to pedestrians with regard to ROW."

Work? What does that mean? Bikeways exist there, certainly. And the flat model of Holland is not particularly relevant to the issue of bikeways. I have read complaints about, and seen pictures of, bikeways that are far below our standards in both France and Germany. There are reports of better bikeways in two or three German cities, old university cities I think. As has been repeatedly explained, very old urban designs are not suited to motor transportation, and in areas where motor transportation is inconvenient both walking and bicycling are more competitive, since, in fact, the facilities available were designed and built, way in the past, to be suitable for such transportation. We have very few such locations in the USA.

As for the legal situations, I have not heard good reports from anywhere in north-central Europe. It appears that cyclists do not have the rights of drivers of vehicles, or that if they do that is rather theoretical because of being so limited by infrastructure. It might be that the law placing responsibility on a motorist involved in a collision with a cyclist (if that is actually what it says) is an attempt to correct this deficiency. I prefer the American system in which cyclists have the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles (except, of course, for the side-of-the-road law and the mandatory bikeway laws, where these exist), and that fault is assigned in an equal manner because both the rights and the duties are equal.

First, thanks for the courteous reply...

I brought up Holland only as it is often presented as the "ideal" cycling environment; but as we all know, there are some geographic issues in other areas (such as the mesas in San Diego) that would make that Dutch cycling environment impossible.

As far as "Work? What does that mean?" I mean only that while the automobile is in fact generally the primary independent system of transit in the EU countries that I mentioned, cycling is in fact used quite readily in EU countries, I believe to a greater extent than here in the US.

There could of course be other factors involved... the price of fuel for instance, and the availablity of public transit (encouraging people to not own autos).

The issue of rights however is one worthy of exploration. While cyclists in the US may have nearly the same rights as motorists (citing the CA laws where "exceptions" give rights rather than the direct granting of said road rights), could it be that due to the unique nature of the bicycle as a Human Powered Vehicle (or "device") that perhaps the rights of cyclists should be re-evaluated with regard to the physical differences of the vehicles with the road is shared?

In any collision with a motor vehicle, the cyclist will not tend to "fare best." Is it possible that by assignment of responsibility to a motorist involved in a collision with a cyclist (if that is actually what it says) could rebalance the scale that physics tilts greatly against cyclists.

Are not 3 foot laws a loose attempt to try to balance that scale?

"That fault is assigned in an equal manner because both the rights and the duties are equal" may work against the cyclist who may or may not be in a position to respond to the nature of the actual causes of the accident situation. For instance, the phrases "the cyclist swerved in front of me," and "I didn't see the cyclist" are often used by motorists after accidents when a cyclist may not be able to respond at all. And due to the Motorist Superiority situation in the US, those "excuses" are often accepted by a motorist biased system. If on the other hand, the "rights" of cyclists were weighted in a manner to shift the burden of fault to the operator of more massive vehicle, perhaps motorists would make more effort to ensure that they did "see the cyclist."

Put simply another way... when an elephant and a mouse have equal rights, no doubt the mouse still doesn't have equality.

Practical?

Some are a pretty big stretch ... although I imagine that local support for some ideas varies considerably across geography. EDIT: Such support certainly varies from DC, San Francisco, Albuquerque, and NYC.

Although if one is going to push for motorist education, why would one omit cyclist education?

Practical?

Some are a pretty big stretch ... although I imagine that local support for some ideas varies considerably across geography. EDIT: Such support certainly varies from DC, San Francisco, Albuquerque, and NYC.

Although if one is going to push for motorist education, why would one omit cyclist education?

One wouldn't and shouldn't.

However, the major problem with trying to educate cyclists is that they have no "requirement" to report to any "agency" as do motorists.

If the public school system took up the case of education of all road users (as after all these are life long skills) then it would be far more practical to educate cyclists.

As it is now... you are attempting to "herd cats" to try to tell cyclists they need education.

If the public school system took up the case of education of all road users (as after all these are life long skills) then it would be far more practical to educate cyclists.
When I was in elementary school in San Diego, they gave us a week long mandatory cycling class. It taught things like not riding on the sidewalk, riding predictably, and using the crosswalks like pedestrians for difficult turns, so that kids could begin to commute to school safely. Local LEOs helped reinforce this by handing out "tickets" to kids riding their bikes on the sidewalk outside of school, and having them walk their bikes, or ride in the street.

I remember how guilty we all felt for the longest time afterwards anytime we took a sidewalk shortcut.

When I was in elementary school in San Diego, they gave us a week long mandatory cycling class. It taught things like not riding on the sidewalk, riding predictably, and using the crosswalks like pedestrians for difficult turns, so that kids could begin to commute to school safely. Local LEOs helped reinforce this by handing out "tickets" to kids riding their bikes on the sidewalk outside of school, and having them walk their bikes, or ride in the street.

I remember how guilty we all felt for the longest time afterwards anytime we took a sidewalk shortcut.

I too was taught in elementary school... in Texas how to properly ride a bike... and I commuted for much of my youth to school on a bike. Then later as a car free adult I continued the practice of commuting by bike.

But my son had no such opportunity here in San Diego County (Lemon Grove to be exact).

And the numbers of kids riding bikes to school these days, in this area, are quite small.

But my son had no such opportunity here in San Diego County (Lemon Grove to be exact).

That's unfortunate.
I think so much money could be saved by a general class early on, as opposed to later on, when habits are already engrained. I know it stuck with me much longer then a lot of driving principals I learned as an adult.

In regards to a cyclist right-of-way ...

If you mean this in a global sense, then I agree with John on this one. My experience with pedestrians on MUPs is that many feel that they can act with impunity due to ROW. Since we believe that bicycles have a right to the entire road, we should expect cyclists to behave according to the rules of the road. In my opinion, giving cyclists' a global ROW would encourage risky behavior that is probably not in the best interests of cyclists nor society in general. Moreover, I suspect that there would be a public backlash since under several scenarios I can see more people cycling but find it likely that motoring (cars) will remain king of the road for a while.

If instead, Bek means that in particular situations where transportation officials have encouraged the cyclist into a disadvantageous position for improved traffic flow--say in those areas where the bike lanes are painted purple--and that cyclists are given ROW in compensation, then I think that is more palatable.

I understand and sympathize with Genec's discussion regarding the asymmetric outcomes of an auto-cyclist collision, but if we push for a strategy more appealing to the general public--specifically, points #8 and #9-- then we address the underlying inattentiveness which increases the risk to law-abiding cycling.

However, the major problem with trying to educate cyclists is that they have no "requirement" to report to any "agency" as do motorists.

If the public school system took up the case of education of all road users (as after all these are life long skills) then it would be far more practical to educate cyclists.

As it is now... you are attempting to "herd cats" to try to tell cyclists they need education.

I don't understand the "herd cats" phrase in the context. (seriously)

Do you mean I am prescribing a one-size-fits-all solution to cyclists with different needs and behavior?

More generally I have not come to a conclusion regarding mandatory cyclist training. I do find it somewhat unfair that we require motorists to get a license to use public roads while we subscribe to cyclists having equal access to those same roads without any standards.

I understand that a motorist imposes a greater risk to the surrounding environment if they act improperly. I agree with that assessment.

But I believe that the external cost of reckless cycling is with serious consequences too. We commonly think of the physical/psychological injuries and property damage of an accident, but I suspect that public services used (accident investigation, litigation, prosecution, etc.) and the traffic interference are significant too. I speculate that a lot of these costs are dependent on whether there is a serious injury and not whether there is massive damage. So a cyclist who does something silly and gets him or herself injured/killed imposes a big cost on the rest of society.

Are these costs great enough such that we should require cycling licenses to ride on public roads? I have not decided. Then again, I have not actually sat down and calculated the costs referred to in the text above. It would be interesting to compare the cost of the average reckless motorist to the average reckless cyclist.

Almost all cyclists are drivers at one point or another, so educating motorists casts a much wider net. That does not mean we should not educate cyclists, however, since cyclists are most receptive when they are seeking the information as cyclists.

That's a good list, Bek. And I agree with adding tax breaks and other incentives to businesses to help them encourage cycling. I'm lucky to work for a green company that gets involved in all kinds of environmental things, one of which is the Team Bike Challenge that is happening all month. We got pizza and a lecture on bike safety and how to change a tire today.

Almost all cyclists are drivers at one point or another,.
All cyclists should be drivers, but folks don't usually learn the rules and laws of the road until they take a the lessons needed to obtain a motor vehicile operators liscense.

One result of this is people learn to cycle with the pedestrian mindset and even after they gain the hands on experience of the rules of the road needed for motor vehicle operation, they don't transtion that behavior to cycling.

Al

I don't understand the "herd cats" phrase in the context. (seriously)



It is a common metaphor meaning that everyone is going their own way (as cats would) and without a central leader or reason "herd" together.

What it implys is that cyclist have no license board or agency, have no need to report to any agency (such as motorists to state drivers license beaureus. So how can cyclists in general be gathered up, or even notified as to the presence or need for education. Motorists on the other hand have to report to their state agencies periodically...



Do you mean I am prescribing a one-size-fits-all solution to cyclists with different needs and behavior?

More generally I have not come to a conclusion regarding mandatory cyclist training. I do find it somewhat unfair that we require motorists to get a license to use public roads while we subscribe to cyclists having equal access to those same roads without any standards.

We don't require a license to access the roads... we do require a license and insurance to operate heavy powered equipment on public roads.

I understand that a motorist imposes a greater risk to the surrounding environment if they act improperly. I agree with that assessment.

But I believe that the external cost of reckless cycling is with serious consequences too. We commonly think of the physical/psychological injuries and property damage of an accident, but I suspect that public services used (accident investigation, litigation, prosecution, etc.) and the traffic interference are significant too. I speculate that a lot of these costs are dependent on whether there is a serious injury and not whether there is massive damage. So a cyclist who does something silly and gets him or herself injured/killed imposes a big cost on the rest of society. Some 700+ deaths a year is a drop in the bucket compared to the 45000 motorists deaths a year. I don't believe cyclists are a burden on any resource... except perhaps the white paint resource.

Are these costs great enough such that we should require cycling licenses to ride on public roads? I have not decided. Then again, I have not actually sat down and calculated the costs referred to in the text above. It would be interesting to compare the cost of the average reckless motorist to the average reckless cyclist.

Most of the costs imparted on motorists are due to having to maintain an administration to take care of the paperwork... the State DMVs for instance, cost money to maintain.

There is no comparible agency for cyclists.

That's unfortunate.
I think so much money could be saved by a general class early on, as opposed to later on, when habits are already engrained. I know it stuck with me much longer then a lot of driving principals I learned as an adult.

I fully agree.

I think as much effort should be put into teaching all aspects of driving and dealing with traffic and the ethics involved from cycling to motoring as students advance in grade as we now put into history or PE or some other similar subject.

In regards to a cyclist right-of-way ...

If you mean this in a global sense, then I agree with John on this one. My experience with pedestrians on MUPs is that many feel that they can act with impunity due to ROW. Since we believe that bicycles have a right to the entire road, we should expect cyclists to behave according to the rules of the road. In my opinion, giving cyclists' a global ROW would encourage risky behavior that is probably not in the best interests of cyclists nor society in general. Moreover, I suspect that there would be a public backlash since under several scenarios I can see more people cycling but find it likely that motoring (cars) will remain king of the road for a while.

If instead, Bek means that in particular situations where transportation officials have encouraged the cyclist into a disadvantageous position for improved traffic flow--say in those areas where the bike lanes are painted purple--and that cyclists are given ROW in compensation, then I think that is more palatable.

I understand and sympathize with Genec's discussion regarding the asymmetric outcomes of an auto-cyclist collision, but if we push for a strategy more appealing to the general public--specifically, points #8 and #9-- then we address the underlying inattentiveness which increases the risk to law-abiding cycling.

It is not an issue of ROW, but simply a weighting of the burden of fault in the case of an accident.

It simply means that motorists should take more care to avoid cyclists, but cyclists don't gain any new ROW. What I am talking about is something that puts teeth into the 3 foot laws for instance... which generally are only enforced when violated... typically at an accident situation.

The idea is to remove the carte blanche "I didn't see the cyclist" or the "he swerved in front of me" excuse that is often used... when in fact there is no way for a dead cyclist to rebut that statement.

I think 3 may be going too far... 8 and 9 are pretty close.

No matter what though, the motoring public needs to be made more "aware" than they are now...

Hi Genec,

People can access the roads, true.

But I wrote that motorists need a license to use public roads. I think that is true as well. These are the same roads that we claim that cyclists have a right to. Maybe I am unclear since I used the phrase "public roads." (Are unpaved roads in national forests public?) From the context of the discussion, I am referring to regular streets, avenues, and such.

While people use their bicycles in a lot of different ways for different purposes, the reference to cyclist education is about riding on roads and interacting with autos. More generally, if we require motorists to have licenses to drive on roads, perhaps we should require cyclists to have licenses to drive on roads. The reference is to a much smaller set of cyclists that use roads and imposing a social agreement that in order to use a public resource where there is a lot of group interaction, one should have some set of skills/knowledge which make that interaction operate in a smooth fashion.

Although I agree that if bicycle licenses are out of the question, then trying to specifically target "road" cyclists would be difficult and probably not very efficient. Regarding the comment, I was not trying to tell cyclists that they need an education ... I was pointing out that if someone is a proponent for motorists to be better educated about interacting with cyclists and cyclists themselves are big part of that interaction, then it seems appropriate that one also be a proponent of educating cyclists.

Fatalities is only one metric and I think that it is a poor one given the magnitude cycling versus auto-driving and that my argument is that there are a lot of costs outside of the direct injury/mortality to the cyclist. Some of the costs I described are probably more of a function of whether there is an accident or not. Moreover, some of the costs described are borne by individuals other than the cyclist. If cyclist behavior increases travel time of others, clogs court systems, takes the attention of public servants, and so on, that is a burden on our resources.

For example, if a cyclist fails to stop at a red light and is killed in an accident, we all lose. The police officer has to spend time administering the accident instead of doing something else more productive. The ambulance that arrives could have been attending to and transporting another individual. Any psychological trauma that the motorist suffers from killing the cyclist is a cost. Whatever traffic is slowed as a consequence of the accident is a cost. I can go on. Given that labor is often a huge portion of many productive activities, all of this human time wasted is probably significant. Furthermore, I believe these costs will be similar if a motorist is at fault versus a cyclist is at fault.

Since we already have a Department of Motor Vehicles--at least, I believe that every state has one--I don't see the administration of bicycle licenses as a huge marginal cost to the system.

Re-reading your text, it appears I put too much emphasis on ROW instead of the more general message regarding the burden of responsibility in an accident (... at least that is how I interpret your text).

Bek, what do you mean by #3? Do you suggest that cyclists should have ROW like pedestrians?

No matter what though, the motoring public needs to be made more "aware" than they are now...

No argument here.

Hi Genec,

People can access the roads, true.

But I wrote that motorists need a license to use public roads. I think that is true as well. These are the same roads that we claim that cyclists have a right to. Maybe I am unclear since I used the phrase "public roads." (Are unpaved roads in national forests public?) From the context of the discussion, I am referring to regular streets, avenues, and such.

While people use their bicycles in a lot of different ways for different purposes, the reference to cyclist education is about riding on roads and interacting with autos. More generally, if we require motorists to have licenses to drive on roads, perhaps we should require cyclists to have licenses to drive on roads.



The license is not to access the roads though... the license is to use a heavy vehicle. It is specifically not called a road license, but a driver's license... and they vary not by the type of road, but by the class of vehicle.

I know that seems like a silly semantic argument... but there are plenty of vehicles that can be used on the road without a license... bikes, scooters, mopeds for instance do no require a license for access to the road. I don't believe a horse and buggy driver needs a license. Farm equipment operators do not need licenses.

It really is the heavy fast motor vehicle that people are being trained to operate and for which a license is needed. Not access to the PUBLIC roadway.


The reference is to a much smaller set of cyclists that use roads and imposing a social agreement that in order to use a public resource where there is a lot of group interaction, one should have some set of skills/knowledge which make that interaction operate in a smooth fashion.

Although I agree that if bicycle licenses are out of the question, then trying to specifically target "road" cyclists would be difficult and probably not very efficient. Regarding the comment, I was not trying to tell cyclists that they need an education ... I was pointing out that if someone is a proponent for motorists to be better educated about interacting with cyclists and cyclists themselves are big part of that interaction, then it seems appropriate that one also be a proponent of educating cyclists.

Fatalities is only one metric and I think that it is a poor one given the magnitude cycling versus auto-driving and that my argument is that there are a lot of costs outside of the direct injury/mortality to the cyclist. Some of the costs I described are probably more of a function of whether there is an accident or not. Moreover, some of the costs described are borne by individuals other than the cyclist. If cyclist behavior increases travel time of others, clogs court systems, takes the attention of public servants, and so on, that is a burden on our resources.

For example, if a cyclist fails to stop at a red light and is killed in an accident, we all lose. The police officer has to spend time administering the accident instead of doing something else more productive. The ambulance that arrives could have been attending to and transporting another individual. Any psychological trauma that the motorist suffers from killing the cyclist is a cost. Whatever traffic is slowed as a consequence of the accident is a cost. I can go on. Given that labor is often a huge portion of many productive activities, all of this human time wasted is probably significant. Furthermore, I believe these costs will be similar if a motorist is at fault versus a cyclist is at fault.

Since we already have a Department of Motor Vehicles--at least, I believe that every state has one--I don't see the administration of bicycle licenses as a huge marginal cost to the system.



So you are suggesting that cyclists be licensed under the same system that motorists use.

Whew... I don't want to get into that... but for reasons of education alone perhaps some system is needed. We really don't have a way to qualify cyclists for the road now. This has actually been discussed at length here on BF. Of course cyclists do not like the idea.




Re-reading your text, it appears I put too much emphasis on ROW instead of the more general message regarding the burden of responsibility in an accident (... at least that is how I interpret your text).

Bek, what do you mean by #3? Do you suggest that cyclists should have ROW like pedestrians?

It is not an issue of ROW, but simply a weighting of the burden of fault in the case of an accident.

It simply means that motorists should take more care to avoid cyclists, but cyclists don't gain any new ROW. What I am talking about is something that puts teeth into the 3 foot laws for instance... which generally are only enforced when violated... typically at an accident situation.

The idea is to remove the carte blanche "I didn't see the cyclist" or the "he swerved in front of me" excuse that is often used... when in fact there is no way for a dead cyclist to rebut that statement.

I think 3 may be going too far... 8 and 9 are pretty close.

No matter what though, the motoring public needs to be made more "aware" than they are now...

However, cyclists are killed in only a very small fraction of car-bike collisions. Therefore, there are many chances for the cyclist to rebut the swerving accusation. As for the "I didn't see the cyclist" excuse, that is susceptible to strong challenges. Lightless cyclists at night, of course, are practically unable to challenge such an accusation. However, if the circumstances are such that there was a direct line of sight between motorist and cyclist at the time when the motorist could have avoided the collision, the standard legal principle of keeping a proper lookout applies. The motorist cannot get away with the excuse of not seeing the cyclist when he should, and was capable of, seeing him. However, any driver who sees another vehicle is entitled to consider that the other driver will obey the law, until the other driver shows that he is, or is about to, disobey the law. At that point, the doctrine of last clear chance to avoid the collision is relevant and might well apply.

Most members of our society operate on the basis that cyclists are incompetent and might do anything, so that a motorist who collides with a cyclist often can "get away" without being held responsible for the collision. As in "the cyclist swerved in front of me" excuse. While the strict legal theory is that cyclists should operate as drivers of vehicles, our social and highway policies are based on the public view that cyclists are, and should be considered to be, incompetent. That is what I hold against the bikeway and bicycle advocates who advocate a system that is based on this public superstition.

good grief. more mischaracterizing & perpetuating the incompetency superstition by john.

Most members of our society operate on the basis that cyclists are incompetent and might do anything, so that a motorist who collides with a cyclist often can "get away" without being held responsible for the collision. As in "the cyclist swerved in front of me" excuse. While the strict legal theory is that cyclists should operate as drivers of vehicles, our social and highway policies are based on the public view that cyclists are, and should be considered to be, incompetent. That is what I hold against the bikeway and bicycle advocates who advocate a system that is based on this public superstition.

what if maybe, just maybe, our social and highway policies are based on a view that cyclists are more vulnerable to harm on their vehicles and deserve to have facilities specially made for them, to give an additional smidge of comfort and safety?

The license is not to access the roads though... the license is to use a heavy vehicle. It is specifically not called a road license, but a driver's license... and they vary not by the type of road, but by the class of vehicle.

I know that seems like a silly semantic argument... but there are plenty of vehicles that can be used on the road without a license... bikes, scooters, mopeds for instance do no require a license for access to the road. I don't believe a horse and buggy driver needs a license. Farm equipment operators do not need licenses.

It really is the heavy fast motor vehicle that people are being trained to operate and for which a license is needed. Not access to the PUBLIC roadway.

OK. But I thought that public roadways had something to do with it too. For instance, I thought that one could qualify for certain types of motorized racing without the legal ability to drive on "normal" roads.

Anyway, I don't want to get sidetracked by my poor use of access and public.

So you are suggesting that cyclists be licensed under the same system that motorists use.

Whew... I don't want to get into that... but for reasons of education alone perhaps some system is needed. We really don't have a way to qualify cyclists for the road now. This has actually been discussed at length here on BF. Of course cyclists do not like the idea.

Well, I have not come to the conclusion that cyclists should be licensed to operate bicycles on roads; although I clearly have some sympathies towards the idea. We have already discussed what I think is would be a positive result: there would be a mechanism to target the would be "road warriors". However, mandatory licensing would also discourage many from the road--which I believe is safer and more efficient in many settings--and perhaps from cycling in general.

Moreover, I also think that any program should be simple to understand and implement.

"One must have a license to ride a bicycle" is simple, easy to understand, and relatively easy to enforce. But my perception is that most people would believe that such a policy would be overkill.

"One must have a license to ride on any road" is simple, easy to understand, but becomes more difficult to enforce since an officer would have to catch the person riding on the road. Moreover, I don't think that people would want to stop kids from riding up and down their suburban block.

"One must have a license to ride on 'major' roads" is not so simple, less than well understood, and difficult to enforce. The adjective "major" would be a nightmare. However, I gather that this is what many would want from such a program; i.e., to make sure that riders on busy roads understand how to interact with autos.

Anyway, I don't have any quick answer (although I have some ideas on how to address some of the issues above ... I have not determined the quality of these ideas). Your suggestion of incorporating bicycle education into public education is a promising one. But I gather that education resources are a bit stretched in disadvantaged areas already. I also don't know how much of a life-long skill cycling is to some people.

Back to Bek's suggestion of driver's education of bicyclist's rights and use of the road and the omission of cyclist education ...

My initial perception is that suggesting that another group needs to be educated in some dimension without suggesting some change in the part of cyclists other than a demand for cycling infrastructure sounds similar to the pedestrian hit on the Capital Crescent Trail without taking any responsibility for her own actions.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=285897&highlight=capital+crescent+trail

a short snip of the article ...

Postscript: Jamie Ratner was treated and released from the hospital that night and is feeling better every day. Upon reflection, Ratner, who is a security manager at a District law firm, is, like Mark Rubin, very concerned about safety along the Capital Crescent Trail, which runs from Georgetown to Silver Spring.

Specifically, she suggests no bike racing; speed limits for bikers; increased police patrols; emergency phone boxes; and better signs about right-of-way and passing.

She thinks that any rule forbidding headphones would be unfair, asserting that walkers and runners have an equal right to enjoy the trail. A headphone ban, she says, would be misdirected, because it should be bikers' responsibility to yield to those on foot until a bike lane is specifically designated.

what if maybe, just maybe, our social and highway policies are based on a view that cyclists are more vulnerable to harm on their vehicles and deserve to have facilities specially made for them, to give an additional smidge of comfort and safety?

At least you asked "If?" Our social and highway policies regarding bicycle transportation are based on the arrogant claim by motorists that their bikeway system would make cycling safe for the unskilled, which claim the government has been trying to demonstrate for the last thirty five years without success. The public believes the superstition, and the sense of comfort is produced by the superstition.

To add to the list:
* Bike route maps - if cars have highway maps then we should have bike route maps.
* Increased penalties and automatically at fault for speeding motorist who are involved in an accident. (How the h** is someone supposed to yield to a motorist doing twice the speed limit?)
* Mandatory state of the art bike/ped engineering training for people implementing facilities (there are only ~3 engineering schools in the country that offer such courses currently.)
* Eliminate the current think of no mater where a cyclist lateral position is in the roadway is they should/could have been somewhere else so they are at fault. (This goes for the VC forum as will as LEO’s) (Seek clarification between what is required by law and what is recommended for safety.)

We have an awesome bike route map here in Santa Barbara. If you ever come to visit, ask for it at a local bike shop. It's free and contains all kinds of routes, not just ones that are accommodated by bike lanes or other facilities. It even included the route I worked out for myself for my commute.

Bike maps: http://www.azbikeped.org/maps.htm

Check out this planning map for routes thoughout the entire state of AZ:
http://www.azbikeped.org/images/map%20side%201%20(3-03-06).pdf
It tell you lots of useful info: traffic volumes, grades, shoulder widths, narrow bridges, frontage roads, etc.

I don't understand the "herd cats" phrase in the context. (seriously)




"Herding cats" is a reference to trying to get a bunch of extreme individualists with different directions and goals into a group. How obedient are cats?;)

no comment

"Herding cats" is a reference to trying to get a bunch of extreme individualists with different directions and goals into a group. How obedient are cats?;)

Just to be clear ... I understand the metaphor. I did not think it was appropriate in the context.

Around here, we always describe leading group rides as herding cats ...

Funny thing, a few weeks ago we saw a guy that trained a mouse to lie down on a cat that was lying down on a dog.

http://picasaweb.google.com/erika.steinmetz/SantaFeCentury52007/photo#5068328335459421042

Just to be clear ... I understand the metaphor. I did not think it was appropriate in the context.



Really? Tell me then your plan on how to train cyclists? How do you notify them? How do you gather them. How do you require them to be trained in the first place?

The only reasonable systems are to either do it as part of the general education program or as part of the general driving program.

Otherwise... it is like herding cats... there is no way to notify, gather and enforce any training on cyclists currently.

Really? Tell me then your plan on how to train cyclists? How do you notify them? How do you gather them. How do you require them to be trained in the first place?

The only reasonable systems are to either do it as part of the general education program or as part of the general driving program.

Otherwise... it is like herding cats... there is no way to notify, gather and enforce any training on cyclists currently.

Considering the current state of America, it is impossible for the government (depts of motor vehicles, depts of education, etc) to require training of cyclists, and it is impossible to provide training as a required part of the general education program or as a part of the general driving program. Effective training of cyclists can only be done, in the America of today, by actual training on the road in real traffic. After all, that is what we expect of training in motoring, isn't it? Therefore, training of cyclists can only be done on a voluntary basis. However, it is entirely possible for government bodies to advocate proper training of cyclists instead of what they do now, most of which effort is the bikeway program that is based on incompetent cycling and the social attitudes appropriate for incompetent cycling. Were the traffic-concerned organizations in our society and government actively advocating proper training of cyclists, according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, I think that the picture would be far different.

john, broken record, dude.

. Were the traffic-concerned organizations in our society and government actively advocating proper training of cyclists, according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, I think that the picture would be far different.

I think so too... but on the current voluntary basis, the cyclists that need the training the most are the least likely to seek it. And in that respect it is very ineffective.

john, broken record, dude.
Exactly. Always with the same lyrics - any and all bicycling facility programs must be opposed because they are alleged stumbling blocks in the way of implementing, with government support, the only Forester-Approved Real Improvement for Cyclists: Forester Brand cycling education programs.

I think so too... but on the current voluntary basis, the cyclists that need the training the most are the least likely to seek it. And in that respect it is very ineffective.

I agree that useful, shall we say effective with a lower-case e, cyclist training programs attract only a very small proportion of the public. There are several reasons for this. The biggest, probably, is that very few in the American public are interested in bicycle transportation. They say they are in answer to survey questions, but few actually are as shown by their participation. The excuse that they offer is that they think the normal roads are too dangerous for cycling. That leads to the second large reason, that they think that bikeways make cycling safe while obviating the need for traffic-cycling skill. As long as our society and government continue proclaiming that bikeways obviate the need for traffic-cycling skill, those powerful forces operate against any program of cycling skill. As long as our society and government continue to operate on the strongly implemented policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways you can't expect anything else; cyclist training will be seen as interesting and useful only by those sufficiently strongminded to oppose the popular attitude on the basis if facts, reason, and experience.

I should not need to remind many of those participating in this discussion that you, as bicycle advocates, are strenuously advocating this policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways and are therefore a considerable portion of the opposition to useful cyclist training.

Oh, I know that some of you want to have your cake and eat it, too, in that you want to continue advocating according to the policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways while recognizing that vehicular cycling is necessary. Well, that won't work, because it will not turn around public opinion in the way that is required for social recognition that cyclists should be operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

who is claiming bike infrastructure is "obviating the need for traffic cycling skill?"

that's laughable, john.

and no one I know of in our local advocacy community is advocating "incompetant cycling"

your slander is boundless.

I should not need to remind many of those participating in this discussion that you, as bicycle advocates, are strenuously advocating this policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways and are therefore a considerable portion of the opposition to useful cyclist training.

Oh, I know that some of you want to have your cake and eat it, too, in that you want to continue advocating according to the policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways while recognizing that vehicular cycling is necessary. Well, that won't work, because it will not turn around public opinion in the way that is required for social recognition that cyclists should be operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.


Actually my view is quite different, albeit perhaps just as schizophrenic as you say. I like on road cycling facilities primarily because they, if nothing else, indicate to motorists that indeed I should be cycling on the street and no where else. Where said facilities do not exist, the expressed opinion is often that cyclists should be on the sidewalk. Frankly, if motorists fully understood our rights and how they, the motorists, should interact with cyclists, then all the extra lines on the road could just go away. But until then, the "slot car minded" American driver is best served with lines. Motorists understand "stay between the lines," and that too is a lot of "culture" to try to remove.

The excuse that they offer is that they think the normal roads are too dangerous for cycling. That leads to the second large reason, that they think that bikeways make cycling safe while obviating the need for traffic-cycling skill. As long as our society and government continue proclaiming that bikeways obviate the need for traffic-cycling skill, those powerful forces operate against any program of cycling skill. As long as our society and government continue to operate on the strongly implemented policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways you can't expect anything else; cyclist training will be seen as interesting and useful only by those sufficiently strongminded to oppose the popular attitude on the basis if facts, reason, and experience..

Dude, what are you talking about? bikeways obviate the need for cycling skill? that's not true! your whole argument falls on it's face if you don't accept this wacky theory, which I don't. you're the only one I've ever heard say this.

I should not need to remind many of those participating in this discussion that you, as bicycle advocates, are strenuously advocating this policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways and are therefore a considerable portion of the opposition to useful cyclist training..

again, nobody I know of is advocating "incompetent cycling" whatever the hell that means to you, I suspect it means "you ride in a bike lane". your ideas are all twisted into a kind of pretzel logic, formed around this mistaken idea of why bike lanes exist and what they do. until you have exorcized yourself of these demons, or modify your ideas, you're doomed to the lunatic fringe of cycling.

Oh, I know that some of you want to have your cake and eat it, too, in that you want to continue advocating according to the policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways while recognizing that vehicular cycling is necessary. Well, that won't work, because it will not turn around public opinion in the way that is required for social recognition that cyclists should be operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

see above, rinse, lather, repeat.

Dude, what are you talking about? bikeways obviate the need for cycling skill? that's not true! your whole argument falls on it's face if you don't accept this wacky theory, which I don't. you're the only one I've ever heard say this.



again, nobody I know of is advocating "incompetent cycling" whatever the hell that means to you, I suspect it means "you ride in a bike lane". your ideas are all twisted into a kind of pretzel logic, formed around this mistaken idea of why bike lanes exist and what they do. until you have exorcized yourself of these demons, or modify your ideas, you're doomed to the lunatic fringe of cycling.



see above, rinse, lather, repeat.

Don't be silly about skill. There has been a sufficient level of discussion to disclose that I consider adequate traffic-cycling skill to be shown by a 70% or better score on the traffic-cycling parts of the Cyclist Proficiency Test, which test reflects the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Let's start at the beginning. The original designers of the bikeway design standards stated that their aim was to accommodate cyclists who did not, and were not capable, of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The federal government then published research and guidance papers that divided the cycling population into those who obeyed the rules of the road (Advanced cyclists) and those who did not (Basic and Child cyclists), and stated that Basic and Child cyclists need bike lanes.

Now consider the present. Bicycle advocates advocate bikeways in the belief that bikeways attract new cyclists. Those newly attracted cyclists believe that bikeways make cycling safe for them, beginners though they are. Safe routes to school advocates advocate bikeways in the belief that bikeways make cycling safe for children.

Considering all this, nobody has to shout from the housetops that bikeways make cycling safe for beginners and children; that belief permeates society. These beginners are, practically be definition, incompetent cyclists. That's what beginners are.

The whole system is based on the pervasive belief that bikeways make cycling safe for beginners, who are, practically by definition, incompetent cyclists. The bicycle advocates who advocate bikeways don't like this unpleasant truth, as evidenced by much discussion here.

Really? Tell me then your plan on how to train cyclists? How do you notify them? How do you gather them. How do you require them to be trained in the first place?

The only reasonable systems are to either do it as part of the general education program or as part of the general driving program.

Otherwise... it is like herding cats... there is no way to notify, gather and enforce any training on cyclists currently.

Yes, really.

I think your answers are in earlier posts in conjunction with a little imagination since I gather you are familiar with getting a drivers license and why one get one if they wanted to drive a car. If you feel otherwise, then we just disagree. Or you can ask a specific question in the DMV context.

In brief, we were talking about road cycling. A much smaller set of cyclists than the general population of people who ride bicycles. I also referenced licenses for road cycling where the fixed resources of DMV would be used; I imagine a motorcycle license would not be very different from a bicycle license. Enforcement could be straightforward. If the objective is to educate road cyclists, it would certainly do the job and probably be more far effective and efficient than doing so in schools.

As I wrote earlier, I have doubts whether this is the best thing for cycle advocacy; but it would reach road cyclists who ride now instead of hoping that the education system eventually filters the information out to the appropriate individuals over time.

Anyway, whether you or I think that herding cats is appropriate description is at best tangential to the thread.

If the objective is to educate road cyclists, it would certainly do the job and probably be more far effective and efficient than doing so in schools.
And who, besides yourself and perhaps a few "education" promoters, claims to have such an "objective"? And for what positive purpose?

And who, besides yourself and perhaps a few "education" promoters, claims to have such an "objective"?

What is the point of the question?

From the thread, it appears that there are a few with such an idea. At a local advocacy group meeting, there was considerable discussion addressing League of American Bicyclist classes, confident city cycling classes, and youth outreach/education programs. From what I gather, a large portion of these programs appear to target riding on trafficked roads and seem to have the support of local advocacy community. There have also been specific recommendations to road riders at local events.

I have not taken a formal census of the issue. But the concept appears on a regular basis in different settings leading me to infer that there are people interested in changing the way individuals ride on the road through some sort of education/program.

Just to be clear, I have never taken any of these courses.

I think this answers the question. But alternative interpretations have crossed my mind.

And for what positive purpose?

I imagine these courses pass along some of the "tricks of the trade" from a consortium of experienced riders as well as some descriptive empirical evidence regarding cycling. For a particular target audience, say youth riders, one would probably include something about the physical skills of cycling. Presumably, these skills and tips would help new riders better navigate trafficked roads and make better basic decisions such as which route to take.

A good example would be suggesting that cyclists avoid riding on the right-side of a right-turn-only-lane.

While my memory is fuzzy, I recall an argument that empirical studies on the correlation of experience and safety had measurement/statistical issues such as the meaning of "experience", the actual techniques/strategies that experience cyclists used, and so on. Regardless, the studies I have seen along with my own biases and personal experience suggest that experienced riders almost certainly have learned something along the way that results in better decision making and safer riding.

What is the point of the question?
Apparently you missed it entirely. I am not questioning the value of experience in any activity, cycling or otherwise. I specifically asked about your statement about licensing and education objectives for road cyclists : "I also referenced licenses for road cycling where the fixed resources of DMV would be used; I imagine a motorcycle license would not be very different from a bicycle license."

Who has an objective for licensing road cyclists or requiring their "education" by anybody for licensing to ride a bicycle on the road? And why?

In the spirit of compromise i could get behind Bekologist's list of proposals. Streets redesigned from the ground up to better suit all users -- pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users, and (last because least) cars -- is a worthy long term goal. And genec has convinced me over the last couple years that motorist education about bikes is a good idea too. As for cyclist education, it's probably easier to concentrate on the kids rather than training adults.

However, I disagree with the proposals about rewarding people who ride bikes with tax breaks or other compensation. What is the point of this? Do you think the public will get behind the donation of their tax dollars to a few people who ride a bike to work?