Straw man arguments

[The Human Car]

Just to give notice that simply calling an argument a straw man without supplying the details on the “easy refutability” is in itself a straw man. Please supply details if you wish to play the straw man card, it would be appreciated. TIA

[larryfeltonj]

Just to give notice that simply calling an argument a straw man without supplying the details on the “easy refutability” is in itself a straw man. Please supply details if you wish to play the straw man card, it would be appreciated. TIA

Certainly, but straw man arguments can be built from inferences as well.

Let's say, hypothetically, that someone asks the question "Are there different levels of skill amongst vehicular cyclists?". Also hypothetically let's say that the answer the question receives from vehicular cyclists is "yes, of course". Then let's suppose that the poster of the question repeatedly treats the answer as both surprising (which it isn't) and as a great epiphany.

The inference here is that vehicular cyclists believe that learning the principles of vehicular cycling transforms the students into uniformly competent cyclists, but that this belief is somehow being hidden.

It's a straw man argument, and I'm comfortable pointing that out.

The thread about route choices is a clearly straw man argument, too.

And in addition to the straw man aspect both of them have logical leaps and gotcha moments that entertained me. Aha!!!! Vehicular cyclists sometimes choose a more mellow route!!!!!

[I-Like-To-Bike]

The inference here is that vehicular cyclists believe that learning the principles of vehicular cycling transforms the students into uniformly competent cyclists, but that this belief is somehow being hidden.

It's a straw man argument, and I'm comfortable pointing that out.

Do you also think it is just an "inference" that promoters of teaching the principles of vehicular cycling claim transformation of their students into much safer cyclists? Is the claim of 80% accident reduction, a fantastic safety benefit (if true), just an illusion created by critics skeptical of the VC training promoters' unsubstantiated speculations?

[larryfeltonj]

Do you also think it is just an "inference" that promoters of teaching the principles of vehicular cycling claim transformation of their students into much safer cyclists? Is the claim of 80% accident reduction, a fantastic safety benefit (if true), just an illusion created by critics skeptical of the VC training promoters' unsubstantiated speculations?

The sentence you've constructed is nearly unparsable. Could you translate it for me, and explain how it relates to the two threads I used as examples of straw man arguments?

[The Human Car]

Some of my request boils down to a difficulty in keeping track of the nuances of each individual’s position. In your hypothetical example if person A asks "Are there different levels of skill amongst vehicular cyclists?" and person B responds “That’s a straw man.” I’m assuming the inference is that person B believes that there is a uniformity of skill among vehicular cyclists, your implication is that person B is just saying that’s a silly argument. Hence my request to be more articulate so I can better understand person B.

One question that I would like to see answered is what are the skills that separate the more competent vehicular cyclist from the less competent vehicular cyclist?

[larryfeltonj]

Some of my request boils down to a difficulty in keeping track of the nuances of each individual’s position. In your hypothetical example if person A asks "Are there different levels of skill amongst vehicular cyclists?" and person B responds “That’s a straw man.” I’m assuming the inference is that person B believes that there is a uniformity of skill among vehicular cyclists, your implication is that person B is just saying that’s a silly argument. Hence my request to be more articulate so I can better understand person B.

One question that I would like to see answered is what are the skills that separate the more competent vehicular cyclist from the less competent vehicular cyclist?

If calling the argument straw man was the sum total of my response, you'd be correct. I'd suggest you reread the thread, and pay attention to why I called it a straw man argument.

Cycling on the roadways employs a great many skills, so there isn't any one answer to that. It's like asking a motorist "how do you drive?". But in the urban conditions in which I commute lane changing skills are important, and I'd assume there's some variation in that respect.

[Bekologist]

if larry agrees with my posts, how can he also call them straw man arguments?????

[I-Like-To-Bike]

The sentence you've constructed is nearly unparsable. Could you translate it for me, and explain how it relates to the two threads I used as examples of straw man arguments?

OK, in terms you should be able to "parse." Skeptics do not need to infer nor conjure the fact that promoters of VC training, often make all sorts of fanciful, unsubstantiated claims about the benefits bestowed on those who are trained/taught by the VC "experts." If this doesn't relate for you, I won't be surprised.

[The Human Car]

If calling the argument straw man was the sum total of my response, you'd be correct. I'd suggest you reread the thread, and pay attention to why I called it a straw man argument.
I was trying to keep things “hypothetical” as there are several people playing the straw man card. But on a personal level there are times I am following you and times I am not and when I am not following what you are saying the straw man card does not help my understanding.

[larryfeltonj]

if larry agrees with my posts, how can he also call them straw man arguments?????

You've wandered well back into Monty Python sketch territory again with this one Bekologist, and I'm starting to imagine you hovering over the comfy chair in full regalia again.

Stating over and over again that I agree with you doesn't have a whole lot of meaning when you're spouting truistic maxims:

"Vehicular cyclists can take a more mellow route".

"There are skill differences among vehicular cyclists".

The straw man argument arises from your interpretation of the significance of those maxims.

[Bekologist]

what ARE you talking about????

you agree with the truisms, but they are still straw man arguments???

...I'm off to ride around Hood Canal, have as nice time trying to muddy the waters, larry

[The Human Car]

I’m going to take a chance and step in with my own observations. VC is about how to ride safely under any road conditions and as an educational program this is good and commendable. But bicycling advocacy has concerns about providing safe and comfortable routes for cyclists or simply engineering. The intersection of these two sets of interests leaves one component a bit out in the air and that is cyclists’ comfort. Comfort may or may not be a skill that is applicable to VC but it is important to engineering, the speed a cyclists travels is not relevant to VC but it is relevant to what conditions a cyclist is comfortable cycling in so it is relevant to engineering.

Much of these discussions seem to flip-flop between a not well defined state of VC as an engineering guide and the better defined VC as education guide.

[larryfeltonj]

Much of these discussions seem to flip-flop between a not well defined state of VC as an engineering guide and the better defined VC as education guide.

Actually vehicular cycling advocates put a great deal of focus on engineering considerations, and don't ignore comfort. Follow this link posted in the "wide outside lanes" thread (http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/index.htm), then follow the links to references at the bottom of the article. I don't think you'll find that article, and the articles referenced in the footnotes, devoid of engineering discussion.

[The Human Car]

Actually vehicular cycling advocates put a great deal of focus on engineering considerations, and don't ignore comfort. Follow this link posted in the "wide outside lanes" thread (http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/passing/index.htm), then follow the links to references at the bottom of the article. I don't think you'll find that article, and the articles referenced in the footnotes, devoid of engineering discussion.
Steve’s work is good and a lot better then JF’s on the subject but who is the authority on VC here JF or Steve? The problem is not so much that there is not good engineering on the VC side of things it just that discussions about engineering degrade to discussions about education as it is easy to confuse the two when talking about VC.

For example: If someone mentions that they are more comfortable with 8 feet of space separating them from fast moving traffic someone else will chime in on how they can safely take the lane. So referencing Steve’s work only gets you “but it’s not needed” response which does not help to define the VC position well.

I’m just saying there is some frustration here on the side of the engineering folks.

[CB HI]

The Human Car,
So you now wish to join Bek and Brian R. in dictating the protocal for how everyone should post.

Interesting that they are all die hard bike lane demanders.

[The Human Car]

The Human Car,
So you now wish to join Bek and Brian R. in dictating the protocal for how evenone should post.

Interesting that they are all die hard bike lane demanders.

That's a straw man argument and you know it.

[John Forester]

Steve’s work is good and a lot better then JF’s on the subject but who is the authority on VC here JF or Steve? The problem is not so much that there is not good engineering on the VC side of things it just that discussions about engineering degrade to discussions about education as it is easy to confuse the two when talking about VC.

For example: If someone mentions that they are more comfortable with 8 feet of space separating them from fast moving traffic someone else will chime in on how they can safely take the lane. So referencing Steve’s work only gets you “but it’s not needed” response which does not help to define the VC position well.

I’m just saying there is some frustration here on the side of the engineering folks.


Steve Goodridge has put many more details into his article on wide outside lanes than I ever had done. That's commendable, but there's no significant difference in thought that I see.

As to the extent to which comfort needs to be considered, comfort is a very subjective feeling that differs from person to person and changes within one person with experience. I rather doubt that our society is willing to pay the costs of making all road users comfortable; the issues of safety and efficiency and convenience are far more important, more measurable, and more manageable.

[The Human Car]

As to the extent to which comfort needs to be considered, comfort is a very subjective feeling that differs from person to person and changes within one person with experience. I rather doubt that our society is willing to pay the costs of making all road users comfortable; the issues of safety and efficiency and convenience are far more important, more measurable, and more manageable.
This is exactly the kind of garbage I am talking about, try to emphasize engineering and you get redirected to education.

Let me try this again, if bike safety education is so much more important and doable for far less money as you seem to imply then give me the info how to educate at least one grade worth of Baltimore's elementary kids this school year. With $3million there are no real good programs available for us, no instructors available and absolutely near zilch for everything in regards to education.

Talk about the inability of making all roads comfortable for cyclists what about the inability of getting education to all cyclists? Sorry John, but engineering I can buy but education in the quantities that we need can’t be bought.

[CB HI]

The Human Car,
As you requested.
http://www.hbl.org/bikeEd_general.html
By the way, John helped HBL get the program started.
Maybe you should try to learn from him;
rather than arguing with him and calling his words garbage.

[Bockman]

The Straw Man fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man


Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."
"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

[larryfeltonj]

The Straw Man fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Examples of Straw Man


Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."
"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
Bill and Jill are arguing about cleaning out their closets:
Jill: "We should clean out the closets. They are getting a bit messy."
Bill: "Why, we just went through those closets last year. Do we have to clean them out everyday?"
Jill: "I never said anything about cleaning them out every day. You just want too keep all your junk forever, which is just ridiculous."

Or how about this example:

X admits that vehicular cyclists can and do choose routes based on comfort, therefore they aren't the supercyclists they claim to be. (with the phrase after the comma constituting the spurious inference)

[sggoodri]

The straw man argument I keep seeing repeated is as follows:

The vehicular cycling advocate's original argument is this: Vehicular cycling skill development makes cyclists more safe, confident and comfortable on a wide variety of roads than without it; roadway engineering should be conducted in a manner that is compatible with vehicular cycling including the vehicular rules of the road as well as the kinematic and dynamic aspects of bicycles as vehicles.

The distorted version (straw man) argument is this: No changes to the engineering of the roadway system or behavior of motorists regarding bicycle traffic are ever beneficial or desirable for cycling; All cyclists who know the rules of the road can be perfectly safe and comfortable cycling on all roads designed to accommodate motor vehicle traffic.

[larryfeltonj]

The straw man argument I keep seeing repeated is as follows:

The vehicular cycling advocate's original argument is this: Vehicular cycling skill development makes cyclists more safe, confident and comfortable on a wide variety of roads than without it; roadway engineering should be conducted in a manner that is compatible with vehicular cycling including the vehicular rules of the road as well as the kinematic and dynamic aspects of bicycles as vehicles.

The distorted version (straw man) argument is this: No changes to the engineering of the roadway system or behavior of motorists regarding bicycle traffic are ever beneficial or desirable for cycling; All cyclists who know the rules of the road can be perfectly safe and comfortable cycling on all roads designed to accommodate motor vehicle traffic.
.
This is a good succinct and complete summary of the repeatedly constructed straw man. Sometimes it's presented in a Straw Man Lite form, and sometimes it's in a form I'm beginning to think of as Beko-Sack-of-Sledgehammers. But it usually boils down to the distortion you've outlined above.

[sggoodri]

This is exactly the kind of garbage I am talking about, try to emphasize engineering and you get redirected to education.

Let me try this again, if bike safety education is so much more important and doable for far less money as you seem to imply then give me the info how to educate at least one grade worth of Baltimore's elementary kids this school year. With $3million there are no real good programs available for us, no instructors available and absolutely near zilch for everything in regards to education.

Talk about the inability of making all roads comfortable for cyclists what about the inability of getting education to all cyclists? Sorry John, but engineering I can buy but education in the quantities that we need can’t be bought.

There is insufficient public funding for educating all schoolchildren in vehicular cycling for the same reason that there is insufficient public funding to rebuild and police all roadways to make traffic-averse bicyclists comfortable: There is not enough public demand in the USA to make all cyclists comfortable traveling to all destinations. Other issues receive higher priority.

For example, on very busy arterial corridors with surrounding commercial development constraining the ROW width, proposals to reduce the lane count or remove on-street parking in order to provide room for striped bike lanes or wide outside lane will typically be rejected. Most of the traffic-averse cyclists who are least comfortable with cycling on such a street can be satiated by alternate routes and locations to bike (this is particularly true for children and recreational cyclists), and the motoring majority will overwhelmingly oppose any engineering change that will reduce the performance of the road for their use. When the politicians decide where to spend their money on improving cycling, they direct it to the alternate streets and linear parks rather than trying to make the most unpleasant roads better, because this decision will win them the most voter support.

The least expensive way to make access to important destinations on important roads pleasant for traffic-averse cyclists is before those places get built out. That is my focus as a cyclist advocate in a fast-growing suburban city. But the political reality is that there will always be somewhat unpleasant streets where dedicated vehicular cyclists are more comfortable than other cyclists, and there won't be much public funding for training traffic-averse cyclists to ride where they are currently uncomfortable when the money could be spent on elsewhere. Those cyclists who want to ride anywhere are stuck investing in their own skill development. In return, many Bike Ed educators try to make their classes as affordable as possible, because seeing cyclists become more excited about their travel by bike is its own reward.

[slagjumper]

The straw man argument I keep seeing repeated is as follows:

The vehicular cycling advocate's original argument is this: Vehicular cycling skill development makes cyclists more safe, confident and comfortable on a wide variety of roads than without it; roadway engineering should be conducted in a manner that is compatible with vehicular cycling including the vehicular rules of the road as well as the kinematic and dynamic aspects of bicycles as vehicles.

The distorted version (straw man) argument is this: No changes to the engineering of the roadway system or behavior of motorists regarding bicycle traffic are ever beneficial or desirable for cycling; All cyclists who know the rules of the road can be perfectly safe and comfortable cycling on all roads designed to accommodate motor vehicle traffic.

Isnt your presentation of the distorted version more like "begging the question". That is, presuming the conclusion is allready accepted as true. For example, imagine God is the most powerfull entity. That is -- there is nothing is greater than God. If god knew everything, was all good, and all powerful, but did not exist, then that could not be God, since existance is an additional, greater element. Since existance is greater than non existance God must exist.

How about something more like-
Vehicular cycling skill development makes cyclists feel more safe, confident and comfortable on a wide variety of roads than without it; therefore, no roadway engineering that is compatible with vehicular cycling need be included, since all you have to do is learn to ride better.


Problem is -- the VCer is not saying that just feeling safer makes you safer.
So I distorted the original by changing "makes cyclists more safe" to "makes cyclists feel more safe".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

[The Human Car]

The Human Car,
As you requested.
http://www.hbl.org/bikeEd_general.html

This is what we have here:
http://waba.org/bikingforkids/

In Baltimore we have 10 instructors (so far) for the program. After 5 years the program has managed to reach less then 2% of elementary school kids who comprise 43% of the State’s bike crashes. While I value and will push for more bike safety education I still maintain that it underperforms for the general population compared to engineering.

By the way, John helped HBL get the program started.
Maybe you should try to learn from him;
rather than arguing with him and calling his words garbage.

Hawaii ranks the 5th worst for the percentage of bicyclists involved in fatal crashes. Maybe you should try looking at other things to improve safety for cyclists.

[joejack951]

Hawaii ranks the 5th worst for the percentage of bicyclists involved in fatal crashes. Maybe you should try looking at other things to improve safety for cyclists.

Like full body armour and bikes with the brakes 50% locked on to keep moron tourists from crashing off the side of Haleakala?

[rando]

The straw man argument I keep seeing repeated is as follows:

The vehicular cycling advocate's original argument is this: Vehicular cycling skill development makes cyclists more safe, confident and comfortable on a wide variety of roads than without it; roadway engineering should be conducted in a manner that is compatible with vehicular cycling including the vehicular rules of the road as well as the kinematic and dynamic aspects of bicycles as vehicles..

this would be the reasonable VCers view.

The distorted version (straw man) argument is this: No changes to the engineering of the roadway system or behavior of motorists regarding bicycle traffic are ever beneficial or desirable for cycling; All cyclists who know the rules of the road can be perfectly safe and comfortable cycling on all roads designed to accommodate motor vehicle traffic.

this has actually been said more than once by certain VCers (they know who they are) so this view exists, even though you are presenting it as spurious.

you also leave out entirely (although in a very artful way) the main point of division: bike lane stripes. that's THE issue separating adaptive/vehicular and (radical) Vehicular cyclists.

one bad thing about VC is people attach all sorts of notions of their own to it and call that VC. I mean, that's nothing new. but arguing VC on the basis of the stuff someone attaches to it is crazy. yet that's what we do all the time.

[joejack951]

this has actually been said more than once by certain VCers (they know who they are) so this view exists, even though you are presenting it as spurious.

This view exists in your mind only. I've never read (or said, as I might be one of the "they") anything of the sort.

[rando]

This view exists in your mind only. I've never read (or said, as I might be one of the "they") anything of the sort.

I must be hallucinating because I've read statements very close to that one.
OK. tell me exactly with what you disagree, so I'll know.

[The Human Car]

The vehicular cycling advocate's original argument is this:
Steve it would really help my work here if you could provide a reference (web preferably) TIA.

[The Human Car]

I must be hallucinating because I've read statements very close to that one.

I think I am hallucinating as well.

[rando]

c'mon Joejack, enquiring minds want to know!

[invisiblehand]

The distorted version (straw man) argument is this: No changes to the engineering of the roadway system or behavior of motorists regarding bicycle traffic are ever beneficial or desirable for cycling; All cyclists who know the rules of the road can be perfectly safe and comfortable cycling on all roads designed to accommodate motor vehicle traffic.

this has actually been said more than once by certain VCers (they know who they are) so this view exists, even though you are presenting it as spurious.

I do not recall reading a VC post that extreme. Then again, somewhere along the thread, I begin to mentally filter certain comments. I agree with Steve that the position outlined in the beginning of the post would be exceptional. Although there are some exceptional people here ...

The important words in my view are

"No changes ... are ever ..."
"All cyclists ... perfectly safe and comfortable cycling on all ..."

you also leave out entirely (although in a very artful way) the main point of division: bike lane stripes. that's THE issue separating adaptive/vehicular and (radical) Vehicular cyclists.

I concur. Although there are several underlying reasons for the stereotypical VC stance (cyclist inferiority, safety, and so on) based on different tenets of the groups.

one bad thing about VC is people attach all sorts of notions of their own to it and call that VC. I mean, that's nothing new. but arguing VC on the basis of the stuff someone attaches to it is crazy. yet that's what we do all the time.

I concur with this too.

[joejack951]

I must be hallucinating because I've read statements very close to that one.
OK. tell me exactly with what you disagree, so I'll know.

The original statement: No changes to the engineering of the roadway system or behavior of motorists regarding bicycle traffic are ever beneficial or desirable for cycling; All cyclists who know the rules of the road can be perfectly safe and comfortable cycling on all roads designed to accommodate motor vehicle traffic.

I disagree that NO changes to the engineering of the roadway system or behavior of motorists regarding bicycle traffic are ever beneficial or desireable for cycling. Some roads I ride would be more pleasant with wider pavement, but that does not make them unrideable. I'd be comfortable on certain roads if the speed limit were lower, and enforced, but that does not I'm not safe with the speed limit as is. I'd enjoy a commute where I didn't hear at least one motorist yell at me to use the shoulder/bike lane (it really isn't a bike lane), but that doesn't mean their ignorant comments make me unsafe or make sharing the roads impossible.

I disagree that ALL cyclists who know the rules of the road can be perfectly safe and comfortable cycling on all roads designed to accommodate motor vehicle traffic. Even the most experienced, knowledgeable cyclist can make a mistake and put himself in an unsafe situation (riding off to the right with traffic present, not seeing an intersection/driveway, and getting hit by a motorist who pulled out too far for example). An inexperienced cyclist, or even just a cyclist without experience on a specific road, can make a mistake where knoweldge of the rules of the road was irrevelant (imagine pavement suddenly narrowing or parallel street car tracks). Comfort can vary from person to person and one can be safe while being uncomfortable (think of some basic phobias like heights and spiders).

[joejack951]

c'mon Joejack, enquiring minds want to know!

I was eating my lunch. Take a chill pill :rolleyes: :D

[rando]

The original statement: No changes to the engineering of the roadway system or behavior of motorists regarding bicycle traffic are ever beneficial or desirable for cycling; All cyclists who know the rules of the road can be perfectly safe and comfortable cycling on all roads designed to accommodate motor vehicle traffic.).

I disagree that NO changes to the engineering of the roadway system or behavior of motorists regarding bicycle traffic are ever beneficial or desireable for cycling. Some roads I ride would be more pleasant with wider pavement, but that does not make them unrideable. I'd be comfortable on certain roads if the speed limit were lower, and enforced, but that does not I'm not safe with the speed limit as is. I'd enjoy a commute where I didn't hear at least one motorist yell at me to use the shoulder/bike lane (it really isn't a bike lane), but that doesn't mean their ignorant comments make me unsafe or make sharing the roads impossible.

so I'm hearing that some changes (like wider pavement and lower speed limits) would be desireable but are not necessary. OK.

would you agree with this altered statement?

Some changes to the engineering of the roadway system or behavior of motorists regarding bicycle traffic are desirable for cycling but not necessary; Not all cyclists who know the rules of the road can be perfectly safe and comfortable cycling on all roads designed to accommodate motor vehicle traffic; mistakes and accidents happen.

[sggoodri]

this would be the reasonable VCers view.
this has actually been said more than once by certain VCers (they know who they are) so this view exists, even though you are presenting it as spurious.

I've seen some individuals post opinions that sound similar to this. When pressed to clarify themselves, very few of them principally oppose or think undesirable all bicyclist-sensitive facility improvements such as providing adequate pavement width for easier passing of cyclists mid-block. Such opposition tends to have roots in anti-car or environmental advocacy rather than advocacy on behalf of cyclists, and so I consider it to be outside of what mainstream advocates of vehicular cycling consider the basis of the vehicular cycling point of view.


you also leave out entirely (although in a very artful way) the main point of division: bike lane stripes. that's THE issue separating adaptive/vehicular and (radical) Vehicular cyclists.


I leave the bike lane striping debate out because it is secondary to and derivative from the basic principles of vehicular cycling advocacy, which promotes cyclists' exploitation of the science, road rules, and defensive driving concepts of vehicle operation to reach their destinations of choice with greater safety and efficiency. If a facility such as a bike lane stripe or bike path is built in a way that conflicts with these principles, then many vehicular cyclists vocally oppose it; if it is done in a manner compatible with these principles, most of the vehicular cycling advocates have little to say about it. In localities where many of the bike lane facilities were built in a way that is highly compatible with vehicular cycling concepts and methods, vehicular cycling advocates often choose to focus on design standards. In other areas, where the bike lane striping implementations are almost universally bad, vehicular cyclists may consider it more effective to oppose bike lane striping projects in general, with the preferred alternative being wide outside through lanes. I know and respect vehicular cycling advocates who find themselves in each of these situations.

Edit: The above comparison of localities with good versus bad bikeway implementations might lead one to conclude that the bad localities just need better written standards. This is only partly true; better written standards are difficult to obtain and impossible to enforce if the planners and engineers involved do not understand vehicular cycling and base their approach on an incompatible paradigm, e.g. the pedestrian-on-wheels paradigm. This is why I have chosen to focus on educating the planners and engineers in my area regarding vehicular cycling; so far any discussion of improving bike lane design in my locality has proven to be premature and non-productive.

[joejack951]

so I'm hearing that some changes (like wider pavement and lower speed limits) would be desireable but are not necessary. OK.

would you agree with this altered statement?

Some changes to the engineering of the roadway system or behavior of motorists regarding bicycle traffic are desirable for cycling but not necessary; Not all cyclists who know the rules of the road can be perfectly safe and comfortable cycling on all roads designed to accommodate motor vehicle traffic; mistakes and accidents happen.

Sure, I can agree with what is said there, so long as someone who is reading that statement has previously read what I wrote that allowed you to draw those conclusion. Otherwise, some of that statement is open to interpretation in a way that I did not intend (like any non-commital statement).

[sggoodri]

Some changes to the engineering of the roadway system or behavior of motorists regarding bicycle traffic are desirable for cycling but not necessary; Not all cyclists who know the rules of the road can be perfectly safe and comfortable cycling on all roads designed to accommodate motor vehicle traffic; mistakes and accidents happen.

Of course, what one considers "necessary" depends on one's goals and/or acceptable level of risk and comfort. How much do I require my risk level to be reduced to in order to be willing to ride? What kind of environment would I consider necessary for my child's cycling, and which of his cycling trips are necessary versus not?

If you ask me, it's a big gray area, and we chip away at it as best we can, not expecting any utopian success, but certainly making improvements where practical.

[genec]

Of course if you want to examine the truly "oversimplfied version," go with the slogan: Cyclists fare best when act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.

[larryfeltonj]

Of course if you want to examine the truly "oversimplfied version," go with the slogan: Cyclists fare best when act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.

Dropping the word "they" doesn't simplify the slogan that much :D

[Helmet Head]

I must be hallucinating because I've read statements very close to that one.

I think I am hallucinating as well.
I'm perplexed at how you guys, given how much you've obviously read from VC advocates, could still be hallucinating like this. How could you not instantly recognize the blatant distortion from what VC advocates actually contend that Steven originally inserted and JoeJack had to point out?

[rando]

I think most of the time, all we are really arguing about, when you strip all the baggage away, is bike lane stripes and riding styles....

[Helmet Head]

I think most of the time, all we are really arguing about, when you strip all the baggage away, is bike lane stripes and riding styles....
If you really think that's what the differences are, you are still hallucinating. No wonder you did not recognize the distortion in the strawman of the VC position that Steve presented.

The differences have to do with recognizing, while riding, the complications and implications of riding integrated with vehicular traffic, separated from vehicular traffic in the margins, and being physically segregated.

For example, it means you don't transition from riding in the margin (be it demarcated as a bike lane or not) to riding further left in the main traffic lane (because the road narrows and the margin disappears) without looking back first. More importantly, it means understanding why you need to look back, even though you 're staying "as far right as practicable" the entire time.

[rando]

If you really think that's what the differences are, you are still hallucinating. No wonder you did not recognize the distortion in the strawman of the VC position that Steve presented.

The differences have to do with recognizing, while riding, the complications and implications of riding integrated with vehicular traffic, separated from vehicular traffic in the margins, and being physically segregated.

For example, it means you don't transition from riding in the margin (be it demarcated as a bike lane or not) to riding further left in the main traffic lane (because the road narrows and the margin disappears) without looking back first. More importantly, it means understanding why you need to look back, even though you 're staying "as far right as practicable" the entire time.


but that's the minutae of vehicular cycling. I don't think anyone's disputing that, cabeza del casco.

[John Forester]

[QUOTE=sggoodri;5010826

By the editor:
Edit: The above comparison of localities with good versus bad bikeway implementations might lead one to conclude that the bad localities just need better written standards. This is only partly true; better written standards are difficult to obtain and impossible to enforce if the planners and engineers involved do not understand vehicular cycling and base their approach on an incompatible paradigm, e.g. the pedestrian-on-wheels paradigm. This is why I have chosen to focus on educating the planners and engineers in my area regarding vehicular cycling; so far any discussion of improving bike lane design in my locality has proven to be premature and non-productive.[/QUOTE]

There is much truth in this, but there is more to be said. Even with what we might rate as good bike-lane standards, there has to be understanding when applying them. I presume that Portland, OR, has good bike-lane standards, yet the presence of the blue bike lanes shows that even with good standards, implementing a bike lane where no bike lane should be is going to be a problem. In any reasonably sized city, there are going to be places where any bike lane design that is likely to be on the standards page is going to be really harmful.

However, the real problem with bike lanes is what Editor calls the "pedestrian-on-wheels" paradigm, but which I call the cyclist-inferiority superstition. If one gets over that, the number of locations where bike-lane stripes are desirable falls dramatically, while if one retains that, bike-lane stripes get installed in far too many places where they should not be.

[Bushman]

i'm curious as to this fascination with "straw man" ???

[The Human Car]

In any reasonably sized city, there are going to be places where any bike lane design that is likely to be on the standards page is going to be really harmful.

I agree with much of what you wrote but from my experience you can fix the really bad stuff, it is the not so bad stuff that can be a real pain and irritant.

[CB HI]

Like full body armour and bikes with the brakes 50% locked on to keep moron tourists from crashing off the side of Haleakala?
http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-06-27-maui-cycling-deaths_N.htm
Exactly, not to mention the other tourist on ill fitting rental bikes riding for the first time in 20 years.

Very few of the cyclist killed here are regular cyclist riding VC.