The central theme of the Vehicular Cycling ideology seems to be J. Forester's pithy formulation: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles". We have a traffic system, the argument goes, designed for a given set of behaviors. Bicycling on the road works best when the cyclist fits into that system with minimum fuss.
The problem I see with using this idea as a prescription for cyclists' behavior is that cyclists are often not treated as "drivers of vehicles". For example, other drivers often fail to yield right of way, or they yield it inappropriately. Also, some parts of the traffic system are not safely usable for bicycles--unresponsive signal triggers is an obvious example. Many other examples have been discussed in this forum.
My point is not to catalog all the ways bicycles have trouble with the existing traffic system. My interest is in the question of whether bicyclists should aim to behave "as drivers of vehicles" when they are not treated as such. I agree that the best outcome occurs when both predicates of Forester's statement are true, but it seems to me that when the cyclists are not treated as drivers of vehicles then they are wise not to act like them, either.
Script
02-02-08, 09:39 AM
Glad to see someone else can be handed Pandora's box.
Good luck Scout!
By the way, Who is John Gault?....sorry, I meant who is John Forester?:beer:
buzzman
02-02-08, 10:31 AM
Glad to see someone else can be handed Pandora's box.
Good luck Scout!
By the way, Who is John Gault?....sorry, I meant who is John Forester?:beer:
ah, yes it always starts with such innocent curiosity doesn't it?;)
The central theme of the Vehicular Cycling ideology seems to be J. Forester's pithy formulation: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles". We have a traffic system, the argument goes, designed for a given set of behaviors. Bicycling on the road works best when the cyclist fits into that system with minimum fuss.
The problem I see with using this idea as a prescription for cyclists' behavior is that cyclists are often not treated as "drivers of vehicles". For example, other drivers often fail to yield right of way, or they yield it inappropriately. Also, some parts of the traffic system are not safely usable for bicycles--unresponsive signal triggers is an obvious example. Many other examples have been discussed in this forum.
My point is not to catalog all the ways bicycles have trouble with the existing traffic system. My interest is in the question of whether bicyclists should aim to behave "as drivers of vehicles" when they are not treated as such. I agree that the best outcome occurs when both predicates of Forester's statement are true, but it seems to me that when the cyclists are not treated as drivers of vehicles then they are wise not to act like them, either.
It is certainly true that mistreatment happens. But for a cyclist who behaves like a driver of a vehicle, the incidence of this mistreatment is relatively rare, and doesn't even come close to the point where we can say "cyclists are not treated as drivers of vehicles" in such absolute terms as you have above. I can count the number of such incidents of mistreatment per year on the fingers on my hands (on some years, I need only one hand).
Acting like a driver of a vehicle includes being prepared for inattentive motorists, whether you're driving a car, a bike or a bus. Heck, that's even true if you're walking.
The thing is, if you don't think, feel and act like a vehicle driver, then you are going to be mistreated much more often. MUCH more often. And then from that experience, it may seem perfectly reasonable to conclude that "cyclists are not treated as drivers of vehicles". Well, indeed, cyclists who do not think, feel and act like vehicle drivers are often not treated as drivers of vehicles. But cyclists who do think, feel and act like vehicle drivers are almost universally treated like drivers of vehicles, with very rare exceptions. I cannot stress that point enough.
You say you don't want "catalog all the ways bicycles have trouble with the existing traffic system", but I suggest you don't want to because then you would realize how few those ways are, particularly for cyclists who think, feel and act like vehicle drivers. You happened to note one of the few arguably significant issues that vehicular cycling advocates try to get fixed - traffic signals that don't detect cyclists - but even that is pretty minor, and certainly doesn't justify even beginning to support the notion that cyclists are not treated as drivers, so it makes no sense for them to act like drivers.
To stress the most important point again:
Indeed, cyclists who do not think, feel and act like vehicle drivers are often not treated as drivers of vehicles. But cyclists who do think, feel and act like vehicle drivers are almost universally treated like drivers of vehicles, with very rare exceptions.
Helmet Head
02-02-08, 03:04 PM
In other words, the vehicular cycling principle is: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles".
The vehicular cycling principle is NOT: "Cyclists fare well only if they are treated as drivers of vehicles without exception, and no matter how they act".
-=Łem in Pa=-
02-02-08, 03:36 PM
It is certainly true that mistreatment happens. But for a cyclist who behaves like a driver of a vehicle, the incidence of this mistreatment is relatively rare, and doesn't even come close to the point where we can say "cyclists are not treated as drivers of vehicles" in such absolute terms as you have above.
Hopefully this wont digress into unpleasantries at which point I will not partake anymore
but this may apply to your area. It certainly DOESNT apply in any way shape or form
to where I or others ride. I can even recall threads from people who are familier with
both of our areas that call you on this. Here in SF, you will be routinely assaulted on
an almost daily basis ranging from just a bothersome horn to an intentional, dangerous
crowding situation. Anyone from this area will back me up on this. Drivers here are
stupid and mean. Fortunately for you, it appears you live amoung people who havent
tricked Darwinism. We arent that lucky. Ive lived up and down the East Coast, three
different places since joining BF alone and all areas have there own predisposition.
To say the stuff you say based on your area alone is not realistic. Other people live
in violently aggressive areas, too....DC/Virgina area, Atlanta, etc. Im sure they will
have similar responses to the absolute terms you have posted.
randya
02-02-08, 04:58 PM
"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles"
the fatal flaw of this approach is that it requires the buy-in of the other 95% of the road users in their motor vehicles; yet for some reason the Foresterologists eschew motorist education as non-essential to the success of vehicular cycling.
urban_assault
02-02-08, 07:59 PM
And so it begins...
ghettocruiser
02-02-08, 08:05 PM
I've spent enough time at the wheel of a car to question whether I want to be treated as the driver of a vehicle.
It's my opinion that drivers of motor vehicles threaten and harass each other far more than they bother cyclists.
joejack951
02-02-08, 08:32 PM
the fatal flaw of this approach is that it requires the buy-in of the other 95% of the road users in their motor vehicles; yet for some reason the Foresterologists eschew motorist education as non-essential to the success of vehicular cycling.
This gets brought up from time to time and the answer is always the same: ask any vehicular cyclist and they will tell you that 99% or more of their motorist encounters are as good as they are going to get. What do you expect motorist education to really achieive?
Helmet Head
02-02-08, 10:51 PM
Hopefully this wont digress into unpleasantries at which point I will not partake anymore
but this may apply to your area. It certainly DOESNT apply in any way shape or form
to where I or others ride. I can even recall threads from people who are familier with
both of our areas that call you on this. Here in SF, you will be routinely assaulted on
an almost daily basis ranging from just a bothersome horn to an intentional, dangerous
crowding situation. Anyone from this area will back me up on this. Drivers here are
stupid and mean. Fortunately for you, it appears you live amoung people who havent
tricked Darwinism. We arent that lucky. Ive lived up and down the East Coast, three
different places since joining BF alone and all areas have there own predisposition.
To say the stuff you say based on your area alone is not realistic. Other people live
in violently aggressive areas, too....DC/Virgina area, Atlanta, etc. Im sure they will
have similar responses to the absolute terms you have posted.
Even if you encounter harassment once per day (more often than "on an almost daily basis"), that means the overwhelming majority of SF drivers treat you well. What's the problem?
Helmet Head
02-02-08, 10:59 PM
the fatal flaw of this approach is that it requires the buy-in of the other 95% of the road users in their motor vehicles; yet for some reason the Foresterologists eschew motorist education as non-essential to the success of vehicular cycling.
Not sure what you mean by buy-in, but vehicular cyclists all over the country report no additional change in motorist behavior/attitude is required in order for them to be treated well enough to use vehicular cycling with only infrequent incidents of harassment, which they already achieve.
And it's not just vehicular cyclists. A theme in Robert Hurst's book is all about accepting the situation as it is, and the way he recommends riding is not significantly different in terms of behavior that is more or less likely to inspire the kind of harassment vehicular cycling skeptics seem to fear.
Motorist education is of course essential for the success of vehicular cycling (so motorists know how to drive in accordance with the rules of the road, more or less), but not more than is already available and utilized.
And neither 100% adherence to the rules of the road by motorists, nor flawless attention on the part of motorists, is required for the success of vehicular cycling either (for the same reasons these characteristics are not required for the success of defensive driving).
Helmet Head
02-02-08, 11:05 PM
I've spent enough time at the wheel of a car to question whether I want to be treated as the driver of a vehicle.
It's my opinion that drivers of motor vehicles threaten and harass each other far more than they bother cyclists.
There are friends and family members who are more prone to harassment and crashes than are others. When you are a passenger in their car it quickly becomes obvious why.
The biggest factor, by far, in determining how you are treated, or the likelihood you will be in a crash, is your behavior. This is just as true if you're driving a car, motorcycle, bicycle or bus. I can't even imagine what factor might come in second place, but I know it would be a distant, distant second. This is a point that defensive driving, Hurst's Urban Cycling, and Forester's vehicular cycling all have in common.
Helmet Head
02-02-08, 11:09 PM
This gets brought up from time to time and the answer is always the same: ask any vehicular cyclist and they will tell you that 99% or more of their motorist encounters are as good as they are going to get. What do you expect motorist education to really achieve?
Good luck. The only one I've ever gotten to answer this question is Gene, and his answer was quite vague.
-=Łem in Pa=-
02-03-08, 04:36 AM
Even if you encounter harassment once per day (more often than "on an almost daily basis"), that means the overwhelming majority of SF drivers treat you well. What's the problem?
That is riding somewhat passively, in the bike lanes.
You couldnt take a lane here and of the high population
of bike riders, Ive never seen it done.
I suppose one could try based on the knowledge that there
have been a few people who have survived long falls out
of airplanes but Im not going to be the one to try it.
There is a difference between not hitting, and treating well.
SF drivers most assuredly do not treat you well. Vermont
drivers treat you well.
genec
02-03-08, 06:18 AM
I've spent enough time at the wheel of a car to question whether I want to be treated as the driver of a vehicle.
It's my opinion that drivers of motor vehicles threaten and harass each other far more than they bother cyclists.
Really? So while driving, you have had things thrown at you from other cars???
invisiblehand
02-03-08, 07:45 AM
What do you expect motorist education to really achieive?
To begin, while I think that the vast majority of drivers are civilized with respect to cyclists, I doubt that the 99.9% is accurate. Moreover, I don't know why vehicular cyclists -- whoever they are -- would be the authority on the figure.
I believe that there is a misconception regarding rights to the road and appropriate lane positioning. If a person of authority -- or organization for that matter -- made it clear what they are, my guess is that bad behavior that originates from the sense of driver entitlement would decrease significantly. More generally, it would probably improve the casual cyclist-motorist relationship since a part of the argument would be resolved.
EDIT: Mind you, I don't think that motorist education would be a panacea, nor do I think that it need be a huge affair. A few questions -- ??potential questions?? -- on driver exams would probably do.
iltb-2
02-03-08, 07:53 AM
The central theme of the Vehicular Cycling ideology seems to be J. Forester's pithy formulation: "Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles".
"Pithy" is one way to describe the bottom line theme of Forester ideology. More accurately is a trite cliché; an unmeasurable platitude with no defined metrics for "faring best". In what way do believers in Vehicular Cycling ideology "fare best"?
Forester's conclusions of "fare best" rests on his own Smoke and Mirrors Analysis of a chimerical population of cyclists allegedly "likely" to be practicing unspecified vehicular cycling techniques more than other cyclists, by some unknown, unmeasured degree.
invisiblehand
02-03-08, 07:59 AM
There is a difference between not hitting, and treating well.
What is it?
SF drivers most assuredly do not treat you well. Vermont drivers treat you well.
I don't know what your answer is to the above; but I ride in San Francisco occasionally. What is wrong with the drivers there? Maybe the key word here is "well".
I make no claims regarding my being a global rider with the ability to compare urban environments to make universal assessments. However, I am just comparing lots of riding in DC with my travel to NYC, San Francisco/Oakland, and Albuquerque (relatively tiny to the other areas) to the club rides in rural areas. I don't recall anything nefarious about Bay area drivers relative to other areas. Then again, if you think that most drivers fail to treat you well, then the statement makes sense.
That begets the question, "What do you mean by treat 'well'?"
iltb-2
02-03-08, 08:10 AM
What is it?
...
That begets the question, "What do you mean by treat 'well'?"
Which of course begets "What do any of the VC Proselytizers mean by "cyclists fare best"? And how do they know it?
Helmet Head
02-03-08, 08:37 AM
That is riding somewhat passively, in the bike lanes.
You couldnt take a lane here and of the high population
of bike riders, Ive never seen it done.
I suppose one could try based on the knowledge that there
have been a few people who have survived long falls out
of airplanes but Im not going to be the one to try it.
There is a difference between not hitting, and treating well.
Thank you for admitting that you've never tried, and never seen anyone try, that which you so vociferously denounce.
By the way, no one is suggesting taking the lane when a bike lane is present, the space it demarcates happens to be the safe and reasonable place to be for the circumstances, and faster same direction traffic is present. If I took the main traffic lane in such a circumstance, I too would expect some increased harassment. It's posts like this that cause me to believe most of you vc contrarians don't understand what you're opposing.
SF drivers most assuredly do not treat you well. Vermont
drivers treat you well.
Considering you run into a SF driver that does not treat you well less often than once per day, isn't that broad generalization a tad absurd?
Helmet Head
02-03-08, 08:46 AM
What is it?
I don't know what your answer is to the above; but I ride in San Francisco occasionally. What is wrong with the drivers there? Maybe the key word here is "well".
I make no claims regarding my being a global rider with the ability to compare urban environments to make universal assessments. However, I am just comparing lots of riding in DC with my travel to NYC, San Francisco/Oakland, and Albuquerque (relatively tiny to the other areas) to the club rides in rural areas. I don't recall anything nefarious about Bay area drivers relative to other areas. Then again, if you think that most drivers fail to treat you well, then the statement makes sense.
That begets the question, "What do you mean by treat 'well'?"
San Francisco? I've been assuming Lem means South Florida when he writes "SF".
-=Łem in Pa=-
02-03-08, 08:51 AM
Oh boy......Every time I lower myself to partake of the absurd hypothesizing,
provincial generalizations and over-the-top petty semantics I regret it.
:rolleyes:
The important question here is, when will I ever learn ?
Helmet Head
02-03-08, 09:04 AM
To begin, while I think that the vast majority of drivers are civilized with respect to cyclists, I doubt that the 99.9% is accurate. Moreover, I don't know why vehicular cyclists -- whoever they are -- would be the authority on the figure.
I believe that there is a misconception regarding rights to the road and appropriate lane positioning. If a person of authority -- or organization for that matter -- made it clear what they are, my guess is that bad behavior that originates from the sense of driver entitlement would decrease significantly. More generally, it would probably improve the casual cyclist-motorist relationship since a part of the argument would be resolved.
EDIT: Mind you, I don't think that motorist education would be a panacea, nor do I think that it need be a huge affair. A few questions -- ??potential questions?? -- on driver exams would probably do.
Let's say you're right, and that some kind of motorist education would have these results: bad behavior that originates from the sense of driver entitlement would decrease significantly.
For a cyclist like me, the total amount of motorist "bad behavior" that I encounter and affects me that originates for any reason whatsoever is so rare that my behavior is virtually unaffected by it. So eliminating motorist bad behavior altogether would have little effect. And reducing an essentially insignificant problem by some small percentage (the percentage of all bad behavior that "originates from the sense of driver entitlement") would be even less significant. So I would be honked at 0 times per year instead of 6 times. Big deal.
Okay, so that's me. What about other cyclists you say? Fine. If you look at cyclist fatalities, at least half originate from bad behavior on the part of the cyclist. And that's using a conservative assessment of cyclist "bad behavior", and does not include all behavior that I would include being "bad" (such as going straight from the right side of the lane into an intersection without due diligence, passing a slowing motorist on the right, etc.). But, let's say for the sake of argument that in half of car-bike cyclist fatalilties "bad behavior" on the part of the motorist is the major factor. Of those, what percentage do you believe the bad behavior "originates from the sense of driver entitlement"? Frankly, I would be surprised if it was 5%, and would not be surprised if it was less than 1%. But even if it's 10% (double the most I think it could possibly be, that's 10% of half). Assuming about 800 cyclists are killed per year, that means, at most, we would save about 40 cyclist lives per year. You say, that's great, 40 lives are worth saving, no matter the cost. But imagine if we spent all that focus and energy within the cycling community, and a fraction of those millions, on bringing about change in cyclist behavior instead... we could save not just up to 80 lives per year, but hundreds of lives per year, and countless more injuries. This is why I'm an advocate of best practices in traffic cycling.
ghettocruiser
02-03-08, 10:14 AM
The biggest factor, by far, in determining how you are treated, or the likelihood you will be in a crash, is your behavior. This is just as true if you're driving a car, motorcycle, bicycle or bus. I can't even imagine what factor might come in second place, but I know it would be a distant, distant second. This is a point that defensive driving, Hurst's Urban Cycling, and Forester's vehicular cycling all have in common.
Correct.
How does that relate to my post that you quoted?
ghettocruiser
02-03-08, 10:16 AM
Really? So while driving, you have had things thrown at you from other cars???
Yes?
Well, it was hard to tell if I was the intended target or not.
To be honest, I can't think of anything thrown at me from a car while riding at all.
genec
02-03-08, 10:37 AM
Let's say you're right, and that some kind of motorist education would have these results: bad behavior that originates from the sense of driver entitlement would decrease significantly.
For a cyclist like me, the total amount of motorist "bad behavior" that I encounter and affects me that originates for any reason whatsoever is so rare that my behavior is virtually unaffected by it. So eliminating motorist bad behavior altogether would have little effect. And reducing an essentially insignificant problem by some small percentage (the percentage of all bad behavior that "originates from the sense of driver entitlement") would be even less significant. So I would be honked at 0 times per year instead of 6 times. Big deal.
Okay, so that's me. What about other cyclists you say? Fine. If you look at cyclist fatalities, at least half originate from bad behavior on the part of the cyclist. And that's using a conservative assessment of cyclist "bad behavior", and does not include all behavior that I would include being "bad" (such as going straight from the right side of the lane into an intersection without due diligence, passing a slowing motorist on the right, etc.). But, let's say for the sake of argument that in half of car-bike cyclist fatalilties "bad behavior" on the part of the motorist is the major factor. Of those, what percentage do you believe the bad behavior "originates from the sense of driver entitlement"? Frankly, I would be surprised if it was 5%, and would not be surprised if it was less than 1%. But even if it's 10% (double the most I think it could possibly be, that's 10% of half). Assuming about 800 cyclists are killed per year, that means, at most, we would save about 40 cyclist lives per year. You say, that's great, 40 lives are worth saving, no matter the cost. But imagine if we spent all that focus and energy within the cycling community, and a fraction of those millions, on bringing about change in cyclist behavior instead... we could save not just up to 80 lives per year, but hundreds of lives per year, and countless more injuries. This is why I'm an advocate of best practices in traffic cycling.
What you are missing in your reaction piece above is that by better educating motorists, cyclists are not the sole beneficiaries.
Consider that fewer motorists will be killed, as well as fewer pedestrians. Making better drivers is not about saving cyclists. It is about making better drivers, period.
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with making better cyclists either. At the very least I would applaud any public effort that gets cyclists riding on the proper side of the road.
Helmet Head
02-03-08, 10:45 AM
What you are missing in your reaction piece above is that by better educating motorists, cyclists are not the sole beneficiaries.
Gene, I was addressing the claim that driver education would significantly decrease "bad behavior that originates from the sense of driver entitlement". Perhaps I misunderstood, but I interpreted that to mean the "entitlement" that drivers feel they have relative to cyclists, and the "bad behavior" that originates from that. Cyclists would be the sole beneficiaries of that, by definition.
Consider that fewer motorists will be killed, as well as fewer pedestrians. Making better drivers is not about saving cyclists. It is about making better drivers, period.
Now you're talking about something else again, much more general, and assuming that increased driver education can achieve what you imagine it can: "making better drivers, period". A dubious presumption, I think.
genec
02-03-08, 11:54 AM
Gene, I was addressing the claim that driver education would significantly decrease "bad behavior that originates from the sense of driver entitlement". Perhaps I misunderstood, but I interpreted that to mean the "entitlement" that drivers feel they have relative to cyclists, and the "bad behavior" that originates from that. Cyclists would be the sole beneficiaries of that, by definition.
Now you're talking about something else again, much more general, and assuming that increased driver education can achieve what you imagine it can: "making better drivers, period". A dubious presumption, I think.
Yet oddly, countries such as Germany, where it is harder to get a drivers' license, have better drivers, higher speed roads, and better treatment toward cyclists.
Now of course your response will indicate that the laws are different... and while that is true, perhaps that also is something that should be done here.
Oh and with regard to that entitlement issue... I believe that motorists occasional poor behavior with each other also stems from that same entitlement issue... so this is not about cyclists alone, but about improving motorist behavior in general... which even insurance companies and certain states (which have toughened their driver's license testing) apparently also believe.
Helmet Head
02-03-08, 12:23 PM
Yet oddly, countries such as Germany, where it is harder to get a drivers' license, have better drivers, higher speed roads, and better treatment toward cyclists.
To the extent that countries like Germany actually have better drivers, I agree that's probably because of the greater difficulty associated with getting a license. But that still ignores that bad-driving-that-could-be-eliminated-by-better-education is a relatively insignficant factor in terms of bike-car crash causes (and, therefore, the fact that improving driving could not have a very significant effect in reducing bike-car crashes). The supposed better treatment of cyclists in Germany is probably due to cultural factors rather than legal or educational. Try to ride a bike on a street with a sidepath in Germany and see how well you're treated. Likewise, the treatment of cyclists is quite good in the bike capital of the USA, Davis, CA, which has the same laws as the rest of the state. And this was true even before the first bike lane stripe was painted there in the late 60s, so that's not the reason. It's the culture, and high use of bikes in the culture, that is the main factor in determining how well cyclists are treated.
Oh and with regard to that entitlement issue... I believe that motorists occasional poor behavior with each other also stems from that same entitlement issue... so this is not about cyclists alone, but about improving motorist behavior in general... which even insurance companies and certain states (which have toughened their driver's license testing) apparently also believe.
That would be a different entitlement issue from the one I was talking about, which was specifically drivers' entitlements over those of cyclists.
Helmet Head
02-03-08, 12:28 PM
Correct.
How does that relate to my post that you quoted?
You wrote:
I've spent enough time at the wheel of a car to question whether I want to be treated as the driver of a vehicle.
It's my opinion that drivers of motor vehicles threaten and harass each other far more than they bother cyclists.
This seemed to imply that there is a high level of inevitability in terms of harassment, and that there was little that could be done about it. That's why I wrote:
There are friends and family members who are more prone to harassment and crashes than are others. When you are a passenger in their car it quickly becomes obvious why.
The biggest factor, by far, in determining how you are treated, or the likelihood you will be in a crash, is your behavior. This is just as true if you're driving a car, motorcycle, bicycle or bus. I can't even imagine what factor might come in second place, but I know it would be a distant, distant second. This is a point that defensive driving, Hurst's Urban Cycling, and Forester's vehicular cycling all have in common.
genec
02-03-08, 01:12 PM
To the extent that countries like Germany actually have better drivers, I agree that's probably because of the greater difficulty associated with getting a license. But that still ignores that bad-driving-that-could-be-eliminated-by-better-education is a relatively insignficant factor in terms of bike-car crash causes (and, therefore, the fact that improving driving could not have a very significant effect in reducing bike-car crashes). The supposed better treatment of cyclists in Germany is probably due to cultural factors rather than legal or educational. Try to ride a bike on a street with a sidepath in Germany and see how well you're treated. Likewise, the treatment of cyclists is quite good in the bike capital of the USA, Davis, CA, which has the same laws as the rest of the state. And this was true even before the first bike lane stripe was painted there in the late 60s, so that's not the reason. It's the culture, and high use of bikes in the culture, that is the main factor in determining how well cyclists are treated.
And how might we improve the lot of cyclists here in this country such that we too have a high use of bikes in the culture?
Simply telling cyclists that they have the same rights of motorists and then pushing the cyclists out onto 45/50MPH arterials just doesn't seem to be working.
Could it be that folks are in so much fear of "other drivers" that they have both taken up supposedly "safer" vehicles such as SUVs (which statistically are NOT safer) and pushed for mandatory helmet laws, wherein in fact these are just bandaids to a larger problem... that of poorly trained motorists operating in a poor manner. This certainly is the general public impression (that continues to sell SUVs)... and with that impression, no amount of cyclist training is going to change our culture.
Helmet Head
02-03-08, 02:03 PM
And how might we improve the lot of cyclists here in this country such that we too have a high use of bikes in the culture?
Change zoning laws to allow for much higher density populations.
Get rid of free parking, add tolls to all/most roads... stop building roads with general funds... i.e., making motoring less convenient and so inexpensive, especially for short trips.
Simply telling cyclists that they have the same rights of motorists and then pushing the cyclists out onto 45/50MPH arterials just doesn't seem to be working.
It does work with those who pay attention and think. Obviously, it does not work with the obstinate. Because of them, the changes I listed above would be required in order to "have a high use of bikes in the culture".
Could it be that folks are in so much fear of "other drivers" that they have both taken up supposedly "safer" vehicles such as SUVs (which statistically are NOT safer) and pushed for mandatory helmet laws, wherein in fact these are just bandaids to a larger problem... that of poorly trained motorists operating in a poor manner.
Those are all overreactions to the false perception that "other drivers" are so dangerous such extreme measures are warranted.
This certainly is the general public impression (that continues to sell SUVs)... and with that impression, no amount of cyclist training is going to change our culture.
I agree that's the impression. I disagree that impression is based on an accurate and reasonable perception of reality, if that's what you're arguing.
Until you change that impression, no one who thinks they need to be surrounded by a 6,000 lbs SUV to be safe "out there" is going to ride his bike in or near any of that traffic, and certainly knowing that some motorists had some extra education is not going to change that irrational impression.
iltb-2
02-03-08, 02:10 PM
Try to ride a bike on a street with a sidepath in Germany and see how well you're treated.
Don't recall ever seeing a sidepath in Germany parallel and in close proximity to a street in my 10 years there. Have you?
I never had a problem with anybody in those 10 years with either riding in the street or on sidepaths that went through the woods and fields. I fared pretty damn well cycling in Germany. What's the extent of your bike riding experience in Germany?
Helmet Head
02-03-08, 02:31 PM
Don't recall ever seeing a sidepath in Germany parallel and in close proximity to a street in my 10 years there. Have you?
I never had a problem with anybody in those 10 years with either riding in the street or on sidepaths that went through the woods and fields. I fared pretty damn well cycling in Germany. What's the extent of your bike riding experience in Germany?
As you know, my bike riding experience in Germany is very limited. But there were plenty of sidepaths (glorified sidewalks) along major arterials in the suburb of Munich where we were visiting family. On any sidestreet through the residential areas with speed limits of 20 kph vehicular cycling was the norm. But on the 60+ kph roads... no bikes on the road. Same thing around Lake Constance.
iltb-2
02-03-08, 02:55 PM
As you know, my bike riding experience in Germany is very limited. But there were plenty of sidepaths (glorified sidewalks) along major arterials in the suburb of Munich where we were visiting family. On any sidestreet through the residential areas with speed limits of 20 kph vehicular cycling was the norm. But on the 60+ kph roads... no bikes on the road. Same thing around Lake Constance.
Well I dunno. I rode my bicycle on the road on the German side of Lake Constance (Bodensee) from Konstanz through Fredrichhafen (even visited Eurobike 2001) to Lindau for a very enjoyable day trip. I had no problem on the road, did you?
But on the 60+ kph roads... no bikes on the road So? Maybe the Germans you encountered are into biking for pleasure, not demonstrating their "vehicular status" for no particular good reason, and chose a more enjoyable route when available.
What happened to You when YOU cycled on those "60+ kph roads..."?
genec
02-03-08, 03:02 PM
I agree that's the impression. I disagree that impression is based on an accurate and reasonable perception of reality, if that's what you're arguing.
Until you change that impression, no one who thinks they need to be surrounded by a 6,000 lbs SUV to be safe "out there" is going to ride his bike in or near any of that traffic, and certainly knowing that some motorists had some extra education is not going to change that irrational impression.
Uh, I never said it was reality... just a perception... and indeed a bit of education for "some motorists" won't be enough...
Just as a bit of education for cyclists "won't be enough..."
But trying to convince cyclists that the world is "flat" if you have the "right" attitude, use the "right" stare, "trust but verify" (through tinted windows and sunglasses) and portray the "right" body language is just as foolish an exercise too... BTW I can't help but wonder how you plan on teaching "the stare," "the body language," and "the attitude" in your classes.
Helmet Head
02-03-08, 03:18 PM
Well I dunno. I rode my bicycle on the road on the German side of Lake Constance (Bodensee) from Konstanz through Fredrichhafen (even visited Eurobike 2001) to Lindau for a very enjoyable day trip. I had no problem on the road, did you?
But on the 60+ kph roads... no bikes on the road So? Maybe the Germans you encountered are into biking for pleasure, not demonstrating their "vehicular status" for no particular good reason, and chose a more enjoyable route when available.
What happened to You when YOU cycled on those "60+ kph roads..."?
Let's just say Germans have a much stronger sense of what is appropriate behavior, and what is not, and they let me know in no uncertain terms that riding in the street on a bike was not acceptable. This was in Friedrichshafen.
-=Łem in Pa=-
02-03-08, 03:20 PM
Uh, I never said it was reality... just a perception... and indeed a bit of education for "some motorists" won't be enough...
Just as a bit of education for cyclists "won't be enough..."
But trying to convince cyclists that the world is "flat" if you have the "right" attitude, use the "right" stare, "trust but verify" (through tinted windows and sunglasses) and portray the "right" body language is just as foolish an exercise too... BTW I can't help but wonder how you plan on teaching "the stare," "the body language," and "the attitude" in your classes.
:roflmao:
HH's single Commandment of VC Dogmatics is too funny....."All cyclists ride wrong".
Really...sometimes I think he is playing the ultimate joke on us by posting this stuff here.
He is intelligent enuff to make it seem that the stuff he proposes just cant be real.
Helmet Head
02-03-08, 03:21 PM
But trying to convince cyclists that the world is "flat" if you have the "right" attitude, use the "right" stare, "trust but verify" (through tinted windows and sunglasses) and portray the "right" body language is just as foolish an exercise too... BTW I can't help but wonder how you plan on teaching "the stare," "the body language," and "the attitude" in your classes.
No need to teach these things explicitly, Gene. It comes naturally once you understand your rights, pay proper attention to traffic around you, and adopt the right attitude (assuming you have the basic cycling skills already). Al that is virtually automatic once you accept, deep down, that you have the same right to the road as does any driver, and that is true regardless of what they think and do.
-=Łem in Pa=-
02-03-08, 03:22 PM
Let's just say Germans have a much stronger sense of what is appropriate behavior, and what is not, and they let me know in no uncertain terms that riding in the street on a bike was not acceptable. This was in Friedrichshafen.
So, if this could happen in Germany, why do you think it doesnt happen here ?
Re: Your responses to any of my posts about lane sharing.
Helmet Head
02-03-08, 03:51 PM
So, if this could happen in Germany, why do you think it doesnt happen here ?
Re: Your responses to any of my posts about lane sharing.
First, I never said it can't happen here.
Second, we don't have very many sidepaths.
Third, where we do have sidepaths, we generally don't have laws that require their use (and prohibit bicycle use of the road).
Helmet Head
02-03-08, 03:53 PM
:roflmao:
HH's single Commandment of VC Dogmatics is too funny....."All cyclists ride wrong".
Really...sometimes I think he is playing the ultimate joke on us by posting this stuff here.
He is intelligent enuff to make it seem that the stuff he proposes just cant be real.
If you want to disagree with something I said, and maybe even ridicule it, I can understand that.
But deriding something I never said -- "All cyclists ride wrong" -- what is the point of that?
Anyway, do you disagree with my contention that most cyclists ride as if their #1 job is to stay out of the way of cars, period?
-=Łem in Pa=-
02-03-08, 04:39 PM
No, I dont disagree with that at all.
I disagree with the "One size fits all" philosophy that you
project. People should ride the way they feel comfortable and
safest in the environments they ride in. Me for instance, I
am fine with the philosophy of taking a lane. I personally
dont do it often because my "B" type personality prefers
non-confrontational riding style. I dont like being told that is
wrong just because our priorities differ sightly. Personally,
I would love to see bicyclists attain the type of notoriety 1% MC
gangs did in the 60's. I think our spineless pacivity (me included)
is an effort in futility as far as getting motorists to respect us.
I would like it if car drivers would be mortified when they close
passed or did something else stupid to us.
But, Im too old and tired to lead that revolution :)
joejack951
02-03-08, 04:51 PM
I personally dont do it often because my "B" type personality prefers non-confrontational riding style.
Something tells me your problems riding a bicycle in traffic are much more related to your perception that taking a lane is "confrontational" than they are to the drivers in your area.
-=Łem in Pa=-
02-03-08, 04:54 PM
As usual, something tells you wrongly. I ride in/around some of the
worst traffic in the country every day. I can ride traffic.
I do what I can to mitigate the unpleasantness of it.
I too ride in a non-confrontational way, have very few issues with drivers, but use and misuse many vehicular cycling principles.
When the road or lane is narrow I take the lane.
When the road or lane is wide enough to allow safe sharing, I ride far right and watch for right hooks.
When a two-lane road is narrow with heavy high speed traffic I try to avoid it.
When I have taken the lane, I do not filter forward.
When I have shared a lane, I will carefully filter forward.
When there is a dedicated bike path or MUP I will use it unless the road is more attractive.
When both road and path are not good for riding, I will, albeit rarely, use the sidewalk.
When riding on a sidewalk I slow way way down.
When riding at night I use a light front and rear.
When riding I am invisible.
In my opinion, awareness of vehicular cycling combined with good sense and local knowledge makes for fine riding.
-=Łem in Pa=-
02-03-08, 05:15 PM
I too ride in a non-confrontational way, have very few issues with drivers, but use and misuse many vehicular cycling principles.
When the road or lane is narrow I take the lane.
When the road or lane is wide enough to allow safe sharing, I ride far right and watch for right hooks.
When a two-lane road is narrow with heavy high speed traffic I try to avoid it.
When I have taken the lane, I do not filter forward.
When I have shared a lane, I will carefully filter forward.
When there is a dedicated bike path or MUP I will use it unless the road is more attractive.
When both road and path are not good for riding, I will, albeit rarely, use the sidewalk.
When riding on a sidewalk I slow way way down.
When riding at night I use a light front and rear.
When riding I am invisible.
In my opinion, awareness of vehicular cycling combined with good sense and local knowledge makes for fine riding.
This is my riding style to a "T"
:beer:
Passive VC ? :roflmao:
CommuterRun
02-03-08, 06:12 PM
Cyclists fare best when they act in a predictable manner as a vehicle. This eliminates burdening the motorist with uncertainty and having to guess the cyclists intentions, which causes resentment.
"Fare best" does not mean the cyclist will never have to deal with bullies and cowards. They can be found while engaging in any activity.
ghettocruiser
02-03-08, 06:13 PM
This seemed to imply that there is a high level of inevitability in terms of harassment, and that there was little that could be done about it.
Okay, I see that you have bundled two seemingly unrelated ideas together. What does being harassed by other road users have to do with getting in a lot of accidents?
When riding, I get almost all of my honking and yelling when I take a centrist lane position on a NOL, for instance, (sorry Joe, four of the last four incidents) a location that a lot of cyclists, yourself included, use to minimize accidents.
In a car, most aggression seems to result from "delaying" other motorists by obeying the speed limit or stopping at red lights. Although this leads to occasional honking from behind, I don't think it is a major cause of collisions.
My observations suggest the road users who do the most screaming and threatening themselves are more likely to be the accident-prone type, and I think insurance and police statistics reinforce this.