Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Cyclists fare best?

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?

Yeah. You never said 'all' cyclists do it wrong, only 'most'. 'Most' being everyone but you, of course.

Yeah, big difference :rolleyes: You even do it in the next sentence.

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?

I disagree with any of the oh so frequent assertions you make about 'most cyclists', Serge. Especially when you only do it to try and convince us what a special rider you are. Get over yourself.

What are you basing your comments on?

He probably read it in a book.

And so it begins...

who keeps letting him out of the bottle???:eek:


http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s176/kencheeseman/genie.jpg

who keeps letting him out of the bottle???:eek:


http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s176/kencheeseman/genie.jpg

I know what one of my wishes would be.

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.

Oh... It's a matter of faith. Riiiiight. Welcome to the church of VC.

And how do you expect to extend that faith to the flock... especially in the face of oncoming 45MPH SUVs... :rolleyes:

Somehow I can just imagine you pounding on your well worn edition of Effective Cycling while ranting to your Road 1 Class about how they need to accept deep down... bla bla bla... while the sound of passing traffic is barely audible in the background.

Which of course begets "What do any of the VC Proselytizers mean by "cyclists fare best"? And how do they know it?

That is an excellent point.

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.

Perhaps. Then again, we have not determined whether your being unaffected by bad behavior is the best practice.

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.

The statistics you quote regarding cyclist fatalities is often thought to be biased; i.e., dead people are unable to defend themselves in addition to any law enforcement bias.

"No matter the cost?" Who are you talking to bud? ;)

Since you brought up cost you failed to consider what the cost -- and effectiveness -- of advocating best practices. Even if I believed your estimates, the cost-benefit of a little "motorist education" -- in this case, simply clarify cyclists/driver road entitlements -- could still proved far more worthwhile than a campaign to educate cyclists.

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 ?

Well, that is the point of a conversation ... right? To pass along and clarify ideas?

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.

That is close enough for me.

Although I disagree with the last sentence in this font. When people think that they are unjustly being denied their rights, they often suffer. Moreover, an irritated person is more likely to react rashly endangering themselves (and others) ... at least that is what I believe and is taught in some driving classes.

This is my riding style to a "T"

:beer:

Passive VC ? :roflmao:

Sounds reasonable. And you sound more than comfortable with it. I am surprised you describe yourself as a sidewalk samurai.

Perhaps. Then again, we have not determined whether your being unaffected by bad behavior is the best practice.
Being unaffected by bad behavior is not a practice, so it can't be a best practice.

The best practices are based on the assumption that bad behavior in motorists happens, so ride accordingly, regardless of how likely you are to encounter it. That is, if the amount of bad behavior I encountered went down by even a factor of 10, my behavior would not be affected (well, except for the times when I actually encountered the bad behavior, of course). I would still be just as ready for it.

For example, say I encounter 10 instances of almost being right hooked per year (it's not that high, but this is an example). Say, thanks to Gene's $200 billion motorist improvement education program, that went down by a factor of 10, to 1 encounter per year. I wouldn't change what I was doing. I would still look back as I approached any intersection, adjusting my speed and/or lateral position in order to make sure I wouldn't be right-hooked, etc. That's what I mean by being unaffected by bad behavior. If I encounter it less often, I'm not going to change what I'm doing.

By the way, if I start encountering bad behavior more often, I will look at my bad behavior to see what I can do to encounter it less often again.


The statistics you quote regarding cyclist fatalities is often thought to be biased; i.e., dead people are unable to defend themselves in addition to any law enforcement bias.
Yeah, well, they're consistent with the behavior I see cyclists engage in.


"No matter the cost?" Who are you talking to bud? ;)

Since you brought up cost you failed to consider what the cost -- and effectiveness -- of advocating best practices. Even if I believed your estimates, the cost-benefit of a little "motorist education" -- in this case, simply clarify cyclists/driver road entitlements -- could still prove far more worthwhile than a campaign to educate cyclists.
I doubt it. We'll have to agree to disagree on that, at least for now.

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.

...fantasy maths snipped...

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.

It's only you that's arguing about an education campaign that would target only cyclist's safety. What is really needed is a proper driver education program that will reduce the TOTAL ROAD TOLL, which, considering the 40,000+ dead on your roads EVERY YEAR, has gotta be worth the 'cost'. Reducing the total road toll will, by it's very definition, also reduce cyclist deaths.

Of course, there is also a need for some decent cyling education, for exactly the same reason, and there's no reason the same agency couldn't provide it, if it's money you're worried about :rolleyes:. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing. My biggest concern for cyclist's safety in that regard would be if it was you and your ilk doing the educating.

By the way, if I start encountering bad behavior more often, I will look at my bad behavior to see what I can do to encounter it less often again.

I'm wondering when you're going to start appying that philosophy to these forums as well.

Ah, the worthless, vacuous wittcisms of the ideologically dishonest......"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles".

what does 'best' mean? most safe? Actually, bicyclists DON'T fare 'best' when acting and being treated as drivers of vehicles. Accident stats show bicyclists are safer on seperate paths or roads with bike lanes than on roads without bike lanes. hmm...


Since 'vc' has been diluted in this forum to include curbhugging in narrow lanes, running stop signs, using sidewalk shortcuts, messenger style riding, splitting unsafe lanes and other moves of dubious vehicularity, vc shows it is ideologically bankrupt.

the 'faring best?' worthless. That slogan was coined by a curbhugger, dontchya know?

along the lines of "A picnic is most nice when the weather cooperates and the company is pleasant."

Being unaffected by bad behavior is not a practice ...

Sure it is. If bad behavior changes how people drive you might want to change your strategy. You choose to remain unaffected or ignore it; that is, you choose to NOT change your strategy. Mind you, it could be the best strategy.

It is too bad that we don't have better data on the subject. Because it is clear that the risk assessment of forum members is quite different. At the moment, it would even be difficult to simulate strategies since we have so little information on the necessary parameters.

Regarding educating cyclists, I think that you are underestimating the cost and overestimating effectiveness of education. Getting the less-enthusiastic-cyclist to adopt a take-the-lane strategy is not easy. Moreover, teaching is generally human capital intensive which almost always makes it expensive and less apt for any economies of scale.

Accident stats show bicyclists are safer on seperate paths or roads with bike lanes than on roads without bike lanes. hmm...

You will have to do better than simply mentioning that such studies exist since you also know that other studies come to a contrary conclusion.

What makes the studies demonstrating "bicyclists are safer on seperate paths or roads with bike lanes than on roads without bike lanes" so strong relative to other studies?

You will have to do better than simply mentioning that such studies exist since you also know that other studies come to a contrary conclusion.

What makes the studies demonstrating "bicyclists are safer on seperate paths or roads with bike lanes than on roads without bike lanes" so strong relative to other studies?

The statement quoted from Bekologist, which you, invisible hand, are questioning, doesn't consider the real issue, which is the extent to which bike lanes reduce or increase car-bike collisions. If those who plan bike lanes either select those roads which are more likely to have low collision rates, or if they make other changes than painting the bike-lane stripe, the comparison is worthless. So far as I know, no study done in America meets the criteria of testing very similar roads without other confounding factors. The studies emanating from Europe, such as the recent one from Copenhagen, appear to have tried to eliminate the effect of such confounding factors, and they show increases in collisions as the result of installing bike lanes.

The issue regarding bicycle paths is a bit different. Obviously, when on a path, the car-bike collision issue doesn't arise. The issue concerns the change in car-bike collision rate for whole trips, part of each trip being made on a bike path. All that we know about this subject is that many of the intersections between bike paths and roadways present difficult traffic situations of types that cause collisions.

vacuous ideologue. worthless pedantry.

"A picnic is nice when the weather cooperates and the company is pleasant."

invisible hand, the stats are out for all to see and are secondary to the real meat of this discussion:

the hypocritical yet totally worthless vc notions of 'faring best' as 'vehicles' is worthless, vacuous sloganeering. john himself doesn't act like a vehicle when the traffic is fast and the lane is narrow. john standing as an exemplary inditment of the hypocritical slogan's foundation.

So far as I know, no study done in America meets the criteria of testing very similar roads without other confounding factors. The studies emanating from Europe, such as the recent one from Copenhagen, appear to have tried to eliminate the effect of such confounding factors, and they show increases in collisions as the result of installing bike lanes.

That is my assessment and understanding too John. Although Bek might have a different interpretation and reasons for his statement. Moreover, it would not be surprising if there was research that is new to me.

The issue regarding bicycle paths is a bit different. Obviously, when on a path, the car-bike collision issue doesn't arise. The issue concerns the change in car-bike collision rate for whole trips, part of each trip being made on a bike path. All that we know about this subject is that many of the intersections between bike paths and roadways present difficult traffic situations of types that cause collisions.

invisible hand, the stats are out for all to see and are secondary to the real meat of this discussion:

Why not show us these stats and convince us of their value?

Regarding educating cyclists, I think that you are underestimating the cost and overestimating effectiveness of education. Getting the less-enthusiastic-cyclist to adopt a take-the-lane strategy is not easy. Moreover, teaching is generally human capital intensive which almost always makes it expensive and less apt for any economies of scale.
I agree that getting the less-enthusiastic-cyclist to adopt a take-the-lane strategy is not easy, but accomplishing that is much more about attitude adjustment than acquiring knowledge. I also think it's much more about time than money, since it's really about changing the zeitgeist in the cycling community.

I believe that there is a critical mass within the cyclist community that needs to "get it", and once that happens the sheeple will follow. I'm not sure what the size of that critical mass is, but I know we have not yet achieved it, and I suspect it's substantially less than 50%.

The thing is, we just have to keep working on increasing the number of cyclists who "get it", and who then turn around to help others "get it". This is accomplished on multiple fronts, including with bike clubs, bike education, newsletters, books, magazine articles, and forums like this.

We have the truth and time on our side. Best of all, how long it takes doesn't matter, as long as we have enough support to not lose the rights that we have. That's because in the mean time, we can just keep on riding in accordance with those rights - not much affected by how the others are not getting it, yet.

It's only you that's arguing about an education campaign that would target only cyclist's safety. What is really needed is a proper driver education program that will reduce the TOTAL ROAD TOLL, which, considering the 40,000+ dead on your roads EVERY YEAR, has gotta be worth the 'cost'. Reducing the total road toll will, by it's very definition, also reduce cyclist deaths.

Of course, there is also a need for some decent cyling education, for exactly the same reason, and there's no reason the same agency couldn't provide it, if it's money you're worried about :rolleyes:. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing. My biggest concern for cyclist's safety in that regard would be if it was you and your ilk doing the educating.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to improved driver education for motorists.

What I'm opposed to is having the bulk of the limited education-related focus, attention and resources that the cycling community has going towards whining about the need for more motorist education rather than towards promoting and providing cyclist education. The former (whining about drivers and their need for education) accomplishes nothing in terms of improving cyclist safety; the latter, promoting and providing cyclist education (classes, books, articles, forums, clubs, conversations) has almost infinite promise in terms of improving cyclist safety.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to improved driver education for motorists.

What I'm opposed to is having the bulk of the limited education-related focus, attention and resources that the cycling community has going towards whining about the need for more motorist education rather than towards promoting and providing cyclist education.

But as yet no education advocate proposal has mentioned how they can reach those that need the education the most... those cyclists that you cite as being in dire need of education; those cyclists are the least likely to seek education.

At least cyclists associated with clubs and LBSs and secondary education may be exposed to the opportunity for voluntary cyclist education, but the group most likely to be sidewalk riders and night ninja riders and wrong way riders are not likely to be associated with clubs or LBSs.

So unless cyclist education is mandated at the public school level, it is highly unlikely that "everyone" will get that education. The only other system is one in which cyclists are licensed and mandated to take education.

On the other hand, most cyclists do possess a driver's license... so improving the driver education to encompass cyclists and cyclists rights (as more than a mere mention) would tend to improve the overall education of all road users.

There will still be a very small group that will fall out of this education too... and for them and others that are already licensed drivers, PSAs and other public declarations of road safety and education could be implemented... including arrows in BL and police enforcement.

But the bottom line is the current system of LAB voluntary education will never reach a critical mass as so many new cyclists are made each year by birth alone... well enough to overcome the tiny group of "educated" cyclists.

Using "facilities" to provide education is also another far reaching method... signs and arrows (which are quite common for motorists) can help lead cyclists to do the right thing.

The other issue you fail to realize is that by improving the education of licensed road users, you improve the environment for everyone across the board... so that you as a cyclist also have a lower chance of being killed while you are driving. And by combining cycling education at the motorist level, you leverage the small funding for cyclist education into a larger pool of education monies.

You need to look at this as not a cyclist issue, but as a whole systemic issue... for all road users.

... those cyclists are the least likely to seek education.

Following HH's comment, changing an attitude is going to be really difficult in a mandated class with unmotivated students. I do think that if you present the idea from an authority figure that more people will consider the strategy. But I speculate that vast majority of the less-enthusiastic (my vocabulary is shrinking today ... baby on the brain) will never seriously execute the strategy without several other attitude changes -- namely those of drivers and law-enforcement. More generally, I just don't think that the payoff from trying has much value to most cyclists.

But as yet no education advocate proposal has mentioned how they can reach those that need the education the most... those cyclists that you cite as being in dire need of education; those cyclists are the least likely to seek education.
What part of "classes, books, articles, forums, clubs, conversations" do you not understand? As I've explained to you for years, this takes time, and we can't reach those who need it the most until we reach those who reach those who need it the most, and convince them. Donald Trump may get all excited about the penthouse apartment that will be on the top floor of some 100 story skyscraper, and for him that may be the reason the whole building is being build, but he still has to wait until the other 99 stories are in place.

Reaching those that need the education the most is the penthouse suite of what we're trying to accomplish. But if you rush this thing and try to accomplish that first, everything we're doing will collapse. Patience, and for goodness sakes, stop resisting already. Help me get invisiblehand, Allister, Bek and everyone else to agree that this is what we need to. Until folks like that get on board, it's not going to happen. And folks like them are not going to get on board until folks like you get on board. What are you waiting for?


At least cyclists associated with clubs and LBSs and secondary education may be exposed to the opportunity for voluntary cyclist education, but the group most likely to be sidewalk riders and night ninja riders and wrong way riders are not likely to be associated with clubs or LBSs.

So unless cyclist education is mandated at the public school level, it is highly unlikely that "everyone" will get that education. The only other system is one in which cyclists are licensed and mandated to take education.
But we can't even get cyclist education at the public school level until we have consensus within the active cycling community that that's what we need to do, and we're not there yet. First things first, Gene.


On the other hand, most cyclists do possess a driver's license... so improving the driver education to encompass cyclists and cyclists rights (as more than a mere mention) would tend to improve the overall education of all road users.
Maybe. But here again, until we get consensus within the community about what the benefit of getting cyclists to understand this stuff, and people from you to stop asking silly questions like you did yesterday (challenging my assertion that riding further left is safer when there is no same-direction traffic for reasons of improved conspicuity and sight lines on the grounds that you are then more likely to be rear-ended), we're not going to get there. Help me build the first floor, then we can work on the 2nd, 3rd, and so on. We're laying the foundation and you're complaining about not seeing how we're going to get to the penthouse on the 100th floor.


There will still be a very small group that will fall out of this education too... and for them and others that are already licensed drivers, PSAs and other public declarations of road safety and education could be implemented... including arrows in BL and police enforcement.

And here again you're talking about 20th floor stuff. The first 10 floors is all about getting the cycling community behind the idea of the benefit of cyclist education. Help me get that done first, instead of sitting around whining about how bad the drivers are. That accomplishes nothing.


But the bottom line is the current system of LAB voluntary education will never reach a critical mass as so many new cyclists are made each year by birth alone... well enough to overcome the tiny group of "educated" cyclists.

No one is talking about relying solely on the LAB system. Besides, again, while it's fine to have a few classes now, and that's part of getting to the 10th floor, only after the first 10 floors are built do I see this part really getting into gear. Judge it's effectively then, not now.


Using "facilities" to provide education is also another far reaching method... signs and arrows (which are quite common for motorists) can help lead cyclists to do the right thing.

But the track record for them is that they teach more the wrong thing. Even bike lanes to the left of right only lanes teach cyclists that they should not line up with other traffic at lights, but gather separately off to the side. Sharrows tend to be interpreted as the one and only place cyclists should be riding.


The other issue you fail to realize is that by improving the education of licensed road users, you improve the environment for everyone across the board... so that you as a cyclist also have a lower chance of being killed while you are driving. And by combining cycling education at the motorist level, you leverage the small funding for cyclist education into a larger pool of education monies.

You need to look at this as not a cyclist issue, but as a whole systemic issue... for all road users.
Amazing. You just quoted me saying, "Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to improved driver education for motorists." Yet here you are, getting me wrong.

What makes you think I fail to realize this? What part of
What I'm opposed to is having the bulk of the limited education-related focus, attention and resources that the cycling community has going towards whining about the need for more motorist education rather than towards promoting and providing cyclist education. The former (whining about drivers and their need for education) accomplishes nothing in terms of improving cyclist safety; the latter, promoting and providing cyclist education (classes, books, articles, forums, clubs, conversations) has almost infinite promise in terms of improving cyclist safety.did you not understand?

How much promoting of the needs for and benefits of cyclist education have you done lately?

Following HH's comment, changing an attitude is going to be really difficult in a mandated class with unmotivated students. I do think that if you present the idea from an authority figure that more people will consider the strategy. But I speculate that vast majority of the less-enthusiastic (my vocabulary is shrinking today ... baby on the brain) will never seriously execute the strategy without several other attitude changes -- namely those of drivers and law-enforcement. More generally, I just don't think that the payoff from trying has much value to most cyclists.

Exactly why this has to be done at the "Penthouse level" vice the basement level that HH mentions in his post just above.

Something this large will not work at the lower level HH envisions... it must be done at the top and pushed down.

Originally posted by invisible hand:
"Regarding educating cyclists, I think that you are underestimating the cost and overestimating effectiveness of education. Getting the less-enthusiastic-cyclist to adopt a take-the-lane strategy is not easy. Moreover, teaching is generally human capital intensive which almost always makes it expensive and less apt for any economies of scale."



I agree that getting the less-enthusiastic-cyclist to adopt a take-the-lane strategy is not easy, but accomplishing that is much more about attitude adjustment than acquiring knowledge. I also think it's much more about time than money, since it's really about changing the zeitgeist in the cycling community.

I believe that there is a critical mass within the cyclist community that needs to "get it", and once that happens the sheeple will follow. I'm not sure what the size of that critical mass is, but I know we have not yet achieved it, and I suspect it's substantially less than 50%.

The thing is, we just have to keep working on increasing the number of cyclists who "get it", and who then turn around to help others "get it". This is accomplished on multiple fronts, including with bike clubs, bike education, newsletters, books, magazine articles, and forums like this.

We have the truth and time on our side. Best of all, how long it takes doesn't matter, as long as we have enough support to not lose the rights that we have. That's because in the mean time, we can just keep on riding in accordance with those rights - not much affected by how the others are not getting it, yet.

I think that there are additional factors to be considered. Instruction in proper traffic cycling, to bring the class of students up to passing the bicycle driving test, has required about 1 instructor hour per student. For young children, this increased to 2 assistant-instructor hours per student. I suspect that this is more than is required for safe swimming classes, but is less than, say, skiing classes. However, I suspect that many reading this list are considering the expense of mass instruction for all children. That is socially impossible; it didn't continue very long when tried in one middle school of the bicycle-friendly city of Palo Alto (and the pressures on the schools have increased markedly since then). The only possible system, for modern America, is one that teaches those who are interested in learning better cycling.

It is certainly possible to have a society in which cyclists are expected to obey the rules of the road, and actually do so. The England in which I was raised was such. And, so far as I know, at that time there was no specific instruction of cyclists. Not only the cycling community believed in vehicular cycling; the rest of society also did. Cyclists were told to act like everybody else, and, largely, they learned by doing. Unfortunately, such has not been the case for quite a long time, and it will never be the case in America.

In America, up to the 1970s, the active cycling community practiced vehicular cycling without any system of formal instruction. Some cyclists were Europeans, or Americans who had cycled in Europe, who brought with them the vehicular cycling tradition; some were Americans who learned it on their own, through experience; these two groups informally spread vehicular cycling skills and attitude throughout the club cycling community. This is the situation that HH describes as exceeding the critical mass, and describes the dissemination process as: "This is accomplished on multiple fronts, including with bike clubs, bike education, newsletters, books, magazine articles, and forums like this."

One might think that this process will work equally well today; I conclude that it cannot, that it will require far more effort because the opposition is so much stronger and well entrenched. Up to the 1970s, vehicular cyclists faced practically no opposition. The basic traffic laws were on their side, except for the restrictions to using the full width of the roadway, which were rarely enforced against vehicular cyclists. While society believed that children should cycle in the childish-cycling and cyclist-inferiority way, and taught them that, nobody bothered to object to those who obeyed the rules of the road. This is not the condition today.

When society, meaning the motoring establishment that controls highway affairs, got bothered in 1970 about growing bicycle traffic, they clamped down by imposing the bikeway system that was the physical and legal embodiment of the childish-cycling and cyclist-inferiority social superstition. As one would expect, we now have a bureaucracy whose professional careers are devoted to expanding that bikeway system, and who publish reports attempting, unsuccessfully, to defend its discriminatory effects. Not only that, but this anti-cyclist, motorist-favoring bikeway system is advocated by people whom the public believes to be cyclists acting for cyclists. Actually, these people are anti-motorists ferociously advocating bikeways because they believe (without any real grounds) that bikeways reduce motoring by increasing bicycling.

So vehicular cyclists now face determined opposition from two sides, or maybe three. The motoring establishment wants bikeways to control bicycle traffic; the bikeway bureaucracy, paid by the motorists but supported by the bicycle advocates, want to keep and expand their jobs; the bicycle advocates want bikeways as a weapon against motoring. That's real tough opposition, and vehicular cyclists need all their abilities to simply protect their right to obey the rules of the road rather than the childish-cycling superstition that is built into bikeways.

And now the England where you were raised has fewer cyclists per capita that regularly share the road... (Less than America's 2%) so your "system" failed there.

Where as someplace like Denmark has about a 25% rider share and they do educate the children in public schools... in fact they have unique cycling playgrounds.

It certainly looks as though you "vehicular cyclists" are trying to do things the hard way.

Following HH's comment, changing an attitude is going to be really difficult in a mandated class with unmotivated students. I do think that if you present the idea from an authority figure that more people will consider the strategy. But I speculate that vast majority of the less-enthusiastic (my vocabulary is shrinking today ... baby on the brain) will never seriously execute the strategy without several other attitude changes -- namely those of drivers and law-enforcement. More generally, I just don't think that the payoff from trying has much value to most cyclists.

Exactly why this has to be done at the "Penthouse level" vice the basement level that HH mentions in his post just above.

Something this large will not work at the lower level HH envisions... it must be done at the top and pushed down.
Gene, I agree this can and must be done at the penthouse level. My point is you can't do anything at the penthouse level - the 100th floor - until you've built the 99th floor, and, of course, all the floors below it. And building those lower floors includes getting the existing community of experienced cyclists to understand and appreciate the value of learning the principles, techniques and best practices in terms of making a cyclist safer. You have to do that first, and we still have a long way to go, as is made quite evident by some of the experienced cyclists posting to this thread.

Invisiblehand, I agree change is very difficult to bring about in a mandated class with unmotivated students. That is essentially what Gene seems to be pushing for in terms of educating motorists, and even cyclists.

...getting the existing community of experienced cyclists to understand and appreciate the value of learning the principles, techniques and best practices in terms of making a cyclist safer.

Maybe you should specify what that "value" is beyond mouthing the meaningless vague bromide "faring best".

Same goes for the unsubstantiated claim of making cyclists "safer" by educating them in your preferred propriatary program of "principles, techniques and best practices."

And now the England where you were raised has fewer cyclists per capita that regularly share the road... (Less than America's 2%) so your "system" failed there.

Where as someplace like Denmark has about a 25% rider share and they do educate the children in public schools... in fact they have unique cycling playgrounds.

It certainly looks as though you "vehicular cyclists" are trying to do things the hard way.

You fail to consider the difference in social and urban conditions between the two. The Danes used to boast that their royal family could be seen cycling around Copenhagen; the idea that the British royal family would be seen cycling around London is incredible. And there are all the other differences that have been discussed ad infinitum within your reading; you should not ignore facts that you don't like.

As for whether or not vehicular cycling has failed, that depends on your definition of failure. Have you not noticed that the prime bikeway advocates on this list ride in the vehicular manner because they have found that it is the best way? In such an acrimonious group as this, I consider this to be logical proof.

You argue as if the Danish training were unexpected. Don't be so silly. When something like 50% of the adult population ride bicycles, and almost any of them might ride on any given day, it makes sense to have mass education in bicycling. Bicycling in the socially approved manner is not only a necessary social and living skill, it is also necessary to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists. Notice that I wrote "socially approved manner"; you can bet your bottom dollar that the Danes don't teach vehicular cycling; they teach childish-cycling on bikeways, because that is the official manner.

That is what we vehicular cyclists are fighting here, because the childish-cycling, cyclist-inferiority system that has been taught for decades has never worked in America, and there is no reason to suspect that, when implemented in the form of bikeways, it does work. It does not make cycling safe, and it has not reduced motoring; all it does is make motorists more comfortable, and those who think like motorists.

ah, what grand delusions. john, I've told you before, spouting fallacies 1000 times does not make them true.

Evidence seen in cities AROUND THE WORLD, john, provide irrefutable proof bike infrastructure and planning for bikes with bike specific infrastructure increases bicycling, bicyclists and bicyclists' safety.

Gene, I agree this can and must be done at the penthouse level. My point is you can't do anything at the penthouse level - the 100th floor - until you've built the 99th floor, and, of course, all the floors below it. And building those lower floors includes getting the existing community of experienced cyclists to understand and appreciate the value of learning the principles, techniques and best practices in terms of making a cyclist safer. You have to do that first, and we still have a long way to go, as is made quite evident by some of the experienced cyclists posting to this thread.

Invisiblehand, I agree change is very difficult to bring about in a mandated class with unmotivated students. That is essentially what Gene seems to be pushing for in terms of educating motorists, and even cyclists.

Apparently you are not reading what I have said.

Right now every school ever made does not rely on the students to create the curriculum; the curriculum is made up by the teachers and administrators... those in the "lofty offices," to use your penthouse metaphor.

As far as the motivation for students... Students readily attend classes for Driver's licenses... they are very motivated. Just modify a bit the lesson plans to ensure that cyclist safety and rights are clearly spelled out.

On the other hand... you have provided no system to teach cycling... either voluntarily, or mandatory, to the masses that need it. You somehow imagine that a core of trained cyclists will somehow pass on their lessons, to people that indeed fit the "unmotivated" group you outline above.

You fail to consider the difference in social and urban conditions between the two. The Danes used to boast that their royal family could be seen cycling around Copenhagen; the idea that the British royal family would be seen cycling around London is incredible. And there are all the other differences that have been discussed ad infinitum within your reading; you should not ignore facts that you don't like.

As for whether or not vehicular cycling has failed, that depends on your definition of failure. Have you not noticed that the prime bikeway advocates on this list ride in the vehicular manner because they have found that it is the best way? In such an acrimonious group as this, I consider this to be logical proof.
Yes, and I ride in that manner too... as it is the only way to cope with a society of motorists that feel they own the road... and at times I find it quite objectionable to be treated in the manner that I am by motorists that feel they own the road.

Perhaps you should try riding a bike in a country where cyclists are actually considered equal to other users of the road.



You argue as if the Danish training were unexpected. Don't be so silly. When something like 50% of the adult population ride bicycles, and almost any of them might ride on any given day, it makes sense to have mass education in bicycling. Bicycling in the socially approved manner is not only a necessary social and living skill, it is also necessary to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists. Notice that I wrote "socially approved manner"; you can bet your bottom dollar that the Danes don't teach vehicular cycling; they teach childish-cycling on bikeways, because that is the official manner.

That is what we vehicular cyclists are fighting here, because the childish-cycling, cyclist-inferiority system that has been taught for decades has never worked in America, and there is no reason to suspect that, when implemented in the form of bikeways, it does work. It does not make cycling safe, and it has not reduced motoring; all it does is make motorists more comfortable, and those who think like motorists.

And yet the Danes have far more rider share than even your old country which apparently did exactly what you said... with the resultant of loss of ridershare...

No where can you show that vehicular cycling alone will lead to increased rider share... ie MORE CYCLISTS on the road... which, time and time, has been touted as the best way to get more acceptance of cyclists.

Vehicular Cycling alone is perceived by the general public as foolhardy at best and dangerous at worst, with the result of fewer people riding bikes for transportation.

Vehicular Cycling alone is a downward spiral... when it alone is used, then only an elite few will ride bike.

When facilities and education are used, there is an upward growth in the number of cyclists.

I know you will deny this... (you always do, and always will), but there is no record of vehicular cycling alone increasing rider share anywhere.

Apparently you are not reading what I have said.
Welcome to my world.


Right now every school ever made does not rely on the students to create the curriculum; the curriculum is made up by the teachers and administrators... those in the "lofty offices," to use your penthouse metaphor.

As far as the motivation for students... Students readily attend classes for Driver's licenses... they are very motivated. Just modify a bit the lesson plans to ensure that cyclist safety and rights are clearly spelled out.

On the other hand... you have provided no system to teach cycling... either voluntarily, or mandatory, to the masses that need it. You somehow imagine that a core of trained cyclists will somehow pass on their lessons, to people that indeed fit the "unmotivated" group you outline above.
Why should I provide some other system? I'm fine with using the existing education system. What I'm saying is that we're never going to use that system to teach traffic cycling until we have at least semi-consensus in the cycling community with folks like you on the value of doing so. How are we going to get the powers that be to accept that it's valuable to teach riding "further left" when an experienced rider like you, Bek, Allister, ILTB, IH, etc., still can't accept it, or at least can't stop chiding me for pointing it out when it applies?

Gene, you may apply your words,
Apparently you are not reading what I have said.

to yourself with respect to your discussion with John. This is classic.



And now the England where you were raised has fewer cyclists per capita that regularly share the road... (Less than America's 2%) so your "system" failed there.

Where as someplace like Denmark has about a 25% rider share and they do educate the children in public schools... in fact they have unique cycling playgrounds.

You fail to consider the difference in social and urban conditions between the two.

<snip discussion about the difference in social and urban conditions between the two which explains the differences in rider share between the two>

And yet the Danes have far more rider share than even your old country which apparently did exactly what you said... with the resultant of loss of ridershare...

And yet???

You fail to consider the difference in social and urban conditions between the two.

Do you not understand what this means?
Do you not understand that the social and urban conditions are independent of anything that Forester said?

And yet the camel rider share in Anchorage is much lower than that of Riyadh. :rolleyes:

Welcome to my world.


Why should I provide some other system? I'm fine with using the existing education system. What I'm saying is that we're never going to use that system to teach traffic cycling until we have at least semi-consensus in the cycling community with folks like you on the value of doing so. How are we going to get the powers that be to accept that it's valuable to teach riding "further left" when an experienced rider like you, Bek, Allister, IH, etc., still can't accept it, or at least can't stop chiding me for pointing it out when it applies?

Because riding "further left" is not acceptable in a society where motorists feel they own the road.

The only way to change that is to train motorists to believe that cyclists have the same rights to the road they do.

Otherwise you have cyclists like me, that do ride further left, constantly complaining about the push back from motorists. And you have motorists constantly bickering about "those cyclists... they don't pay taxes etc, and they want to use the whole damn road... "

Train every motorist from the beginning that the road is not theirs and must be shared with others... This is best done in Driver's Ed. At the same time potential cyclists (most cyclists also drive) are instructed to follow the laws. This all has to be emphasized... not plastered on two pages near the back of the driver's handbook.

Gene, you may apply your words,


to yourself with respect to your discussion with John. This is classic.


And yet???

You fail to consider the difference in social and urban conditions between the two.

And yet Portland seems to be doing it just fine... I did not fail to consider his constant rant because in reality it is false.

If John was right... where are all the cyclists in his beloved England?

Go ahead, show me one place were vehicular cycling alone has increased rider share.

Time and time again it has been acknowledged that increasing the number of cyclists will increase their acceptance... yet nowhere has vehicular cycling increased rider share. Vehicular cycling alone is defeatist... and a downward spiral.

What I'm saying is that we're never going to use that system to teach traffic cycling until we have at least semi-consensus in the cycling community with folks like you on the value of doing so. How are we going to get the powers that be to accept that it's valuable to teach riding "further left" when an experienced rider like you, Bek, Allister, ILTB, IH, etc., still can't accept it, or at least can't stop chiding me for pointing it out when it applies?Because riding "further left" is not acceptable in a society where motorists feel they own the road.
Okay, let me put it this way:

How are we going to get the powers that be to accept that it's valuable to teach that riding "further left" is acceptable even in a society where motorists feel they own the road when an experienced rider like you still doesn't get it?

You make my point.


The only way to change that is to train motorists to believe that cyclists have the same rights to the road they do.

No, we have to convince cyclists like you that motorists believing they own the road does not preclude you or anyone else from riding further left (when it's safe, reasonable and appropriate to do so).


Otherwise you have cyclists like me, that do ride further left, constantly complaining about the push back from motorists.

No. We have to teach cyclists like you that riding further left when it's safe, reasonable and appropriate being acceptable even in a society where motorists feel they own the road does not mean it's acceptable to do so whenever you feel like doing it for no apparent reason whatsoever, and when doing so will unnecessarily hold up motorists.


And you have motorists constantly bickering about "those cyclists... they don't pay taxes etc, and they want to use the whole damn road... "

We cannot get the powers to accept that it's valuable to teach that riding "further left" in the absence of faster same direction traffic is acceptable even in a society where motorists are constantly bickering about "those cyclists... they don't pay taxes etc, and they want to use the whole damn road... ", as long as experienced cyclists like you still don't get it.


Train every motorist from the beginning that the road is not theirs and must be shared with others... This is best done in Driver's Ed. At the same time potential cyclists (most cyclists also drive) are instructed to follow the laws. This all has to be emphasized... not plastered on two pages near the back of the driver's handbook.
You're trying to solve a problem that is relatively insignificant to cyclist safety and effectiveness - driver attitude and behavior - and ignoring a huge problem that is relatively VERY significant to cyclist safety and effectiveness - cyclist attitude and behavior.

actually, head, you are WRONG. To get more motorist respect for bicyclists you need to educate the MOTORISTS.

And just teaching bicyclists to ride further left is not a "solution"- what about when vehicular cyclists hug the curb on a high speed road???

VC is ideologically bankrupt.

And yet Portland seems to be doing it just fine... I did not fail to consider his constant rant because in reality it is false.

If John was right... where are all the cyclists in his beloved England?
:rolleyes: Unbelievable.

You fail to consider the difference in social and urban conditions between the two.

If you didn't "fail to consider the difference in social and urban conditions" of England, then you wouldn't be asking "where are all the cyclists in his beloved England". What part of this do you not understand?


The Danes used to boast that their royal family could be seen cycling around Copenhagen; the idea that the British royal family would be seen cycling around London is incredible. And there are all the other differences that have been discussed ad infinitum within your reading; you should not ignore facts that you don't like.

Do you not get that AT THE TIME "Danes used to boast about their royal family [that] could be seen cycling around Copenhagen", while AT THE SAME TIME to see the "British royal family [to] be seen cycling around London [would be] incredible", that segregated cycling facilities played no part in the differences? Do you not see that this is a result of the "difference in social and urban conditions between the two" that you fail to consider?


Go ahead, show me one place were vehicular cycling alone has increased rider share.

That's like saying, show me one place where dribbling has increased basketball share.


Time and time again it has been acknowledged that increasing the number of cyclists will increase their acceptance...
No one is disputing that.


yet nowhere has vehicular cycling increased rider share. Vehicular cycling alone is defeatist... and a downward spiral.
What's the alternative, Gene?

You are confusing the general decline in interest in transportational cycling with a decline in vehicular cycling.

writing it in big type doesn't correct YOUR erronous analysis of bicycling conditions in Europe vs. the USA.

actually, head, you are WRONG. To get more motorist respect for bicyclists you need to educate the MOTORISTS.

And just teaching bicyclists to ride further left is not a "solution"- what about when vehicular cyclists hug the curb on a high speed road???

VC is ideologically bankrupt.
Sorry, Bek, life is WAY too short to get respect for bicyclists by waiting until motorists are educated any more than they already are. I don't have that many centuries to live.

In the mean time, I get far more respect than I need to cycle safely, effectively and enjoyably on the roads simply by using vehicular cycling. You should try it.

writing it in big type doesn't ...
I was just making sure Gene would see it, because he kept writing as if he didn't.

But now I'm thinking he saw it, but didn't understand what it meant, or what its implications were.

hardeharhar, helmet head. you should try actually being a dedicated bicycle commuter sometime. I already ride "VC" and probably take the lane more than you do- certainly more days a year than you, parttimer.

You fail to consider the difference in social and urban conditions between the two. The Danes used to boast that their royal family could be seen cycling around Copenhagen; the idea that the British royal family would be seen cycling around London is incredible.
Well that certainly should settle the issue! Makes as much sense :eek:and has as much relevance:rolleyes: to the issue at hand as any other nutcase argument from the VC Meister.

Sorry, Bek, life is WAY too short to get respect for bicyclists by waiting until motorists are educated any more than they already are.

Yeah, with a mere 40,000 deaths on the road, there can't possibly be any room for imprivement there.

Yeah, with a mere 40,000 deaths on the road, there can't possibly be any room for imprivement there.
Seriously, I think most of the low hanging fruit was gotten with stricter enforcement and harsher penalties for drunk driving, as well as seat belts and air bags.

I can't even imagine the cost and effort that would be required to reduce that 40,000 to 35,000; it's probably practically impossible. But even if it could happen, it wouldn't alter how I ride by one iota. I honestly don't think it would make cycling any safer for cyclists by any significant degree, since so few car-bike crashes are caused by motorist behavior that could and would be eliminated by such a program.

If the water in a swimming pool represents all the crashes that lead to death and injury to cyclists, then you're trying to empty it (reduce those crashes) with a million dollar 24k gold teaspoon studded with 5k diamonds (going with motorist education) when all you have to do is suck on a $20 garden hose and watch gravity and vacuum do all the work (cycling education).

Okay, let me put it this way:

How are we going to get the powers that be to accept that it's valuable to teach that riding "further left" is acceptable even in a society where motorists feel they own the road when an experienced rider like you still doesn't get it?

You make my point.

No, we have to convince cyclists like you that motorists believing they own the road does not preclude you or anyone else from riding further left (when it's safe, reasonable and appropriate to do so).

No. We have to teach cyclists like you that riding further left when it's safe, reasonable and appropriate being acceptable even in a society where motorists feel they own the road does not mean it's acceptable to do so whenever you feel like doing it for no apparent reason whatsoever, and when doing so will unnecessarily hold up motorists.

We cannot get the powers to accept that it's valuable to teach that riding "further left" in the absence of faster same direction traffic is acceptable even in a society where motorists are constantly bickering about "those cyclists... they don't pay taxes etc, and they want to use the whole damn road... ", as long as experienced cyclists like you still don't get it.

You're trying to solve a problem that is relatively insignificant to cyclist safety and effectiveness - driver attitude and behavior - and ignoring a huge problem that is relatively VERY significant to cyclist safety and effectiveness - cyclist attitude and behavior.

Naah... all wrong... I do ride that way and I am one of the few... and I get harassed for it... and everyone that tries it is also pushed back by motorists... (except you.... because you simply ignore it... while staring at your mirror in constant worry).

"Cyclist attitude and behavior..." right, take the magic pill and ignore the 600 lb gorilla in the room... or rather the 6000 lb SUV. Amen, it's all in faith brother... yeah verily I tell you all you have to do is believe. Amen, brother. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile... those that have not had the koolaid can clearly see that dancing with 600 lb gorillas is a fools game.

Like I said, show me the success story... show me one place that has increased ridershare while using only vehicular cycling.