One of the biggest obstacles to making cycling more popular, perhaps the biggest obstacle, is the widespread myth that cycling in traffic is inherently dangerous - that it simply cannot be safe to ride in traffic. So a big part of cycling advocacy should be aimed at correcting that myth, not reinforcing it. Insisting that more motorist education is required before cycling in traffic can be safe, and that segregated cycling facilities are required in order to make cyclists safe, are arguments that reinforce this myth, rather than correct it. Such arguments are anti-cycling advocacy.


The application of basic physics tells us that your argument above is false. Mixing 3000-6000+ lb vehicles moving at speeds well above 20MPH with cyclists at roughly 200lbs is not a good combination. It is inherently dangerous, just as working in a steel mill is inherently dangerous.

The only reason traffic works is because of rules, and those obeying the rules.

If the rules are not well understood, then problems will arise.

The application of basic physics tells us that your argument above is false. Mixing 3000-6000+ lb vehicles moving at speeds well above 20MPH with cyclists at roughly 200lbs is not a good combination. It is inherently dangerous, just as working in a steel mill is inherently dangerous.

The only reason traffic works is because of rules, and those obeying the rules.

If the rules are not well understood, then problems will arise.
You say my argument is false. But my argument is that your argument above is anti-cycling advocacy, that your argument discourages cycling.. Now, you tell me how promoting the "inherent" danger of riding among 3000-6000+ lb vehicles moving at speeds well above 20MPH as being unavoidable, which is what your argument is doing, is encouraging people to take up cycling, rather than discouraging them. You can't, because there is NOTHING encouraging about cycling in what you argue, and only information that is presented in a way that is discouraging about cycling. My argument is false? Hardly.

To argue the above and call yourself an advocate of cycling is preposterous.

It's not meant to be discouraging. You need to respect the environment you operate in. Like surfers respect the ocean, skiers respect the steep, and racers respect the speed. To not acknowledge the dangers puts one in the fluffy bunny mindset that all will fine if I ride this way. Dude, it's a lie, b/c all of us can be wiped out in a blink, from something so far beyond your control as to be laughable, like a mirror clipping you in the back of the head at 60. So I still don't see how telling people it's not dangerous is beneficial. The first close pass or bad interaction they get will totally freak them out if they've been brainwashed into thinking everything is hunky dorry. Professional snowboarders die on mountains here, but yet it's a widely acceptable, accessible winter sport, and an instructor will tell you must be aware of the dangers and respect the environment.

Yes many, the VAST majority will ride a lifetime just fine, and every year, my city alone loses 4-10 cyclists.
To not be telling people it's not dangerous, rather than it can be potentially dangerous but here's something you can do to minimize the chances of it becoming so, IMHO borders on criminal.

That's a silly question since no one has argued against more motorist education.

See if you can follow this:

The argument I've made is against the alleged need for more motorist education in order to allow for safe, efficient, comfortable and enjoyable cycling in traffic. There is no such need, since safe, efficient, comfortable and enjoyable cycling in traffic is already possible today. Can being in traffic be made even safer with more motorist education? Perhaps. But that's beside the point, which is making it more safe is not required to make it reasonably safe, because it already is reasonably safe.

One of the biggest obstacles to making cycling more popular, perhaps the biggest obstacle, is the widespread myth that cycling in traffic is inherently dangerous - that it simply cannot be safe to ride in traffic. So a big part of cycling advocacy should be aimed at correcting that myth, not reinforcing it. Insisting that more motorist education is required before cycling in traffic can be safe, and that segregated cycling facilities are required in order to make cyclists safe, are arguments that reinforce this myth, rather than correct it. Such arguments are anti-cycling advocacy.

But that's not arguing against more motorist education. That's arguing against the lobbying for more motorist education (or segregated cycling facilities), especially by bicycling advocates, on the explicit or implicit grounds that improvements in motorist behavior and attitudes (or segregated cycling facilities) are required to make cycling reasonably safe.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

You say my argument is false. But my argument is that your argument above is anti-cycling advocacy, that your argument discourages cycling.. Now, you tell me how promoting the "inherent" danger of riding among 3000-6000+ lb vehicles moving at speeds well above 20MPH as being unavoidable, which is what your argument is doing, is encouraging people to take up cycling, rather than discouraging them. You can't, because there is NOTHING encouraging about cycling in what you argue, and only information that is presented in a way that is discouraging about cycling. My argument is false? Hardly.

To argue the above and call yourself an advocate of cycling is preposterous.

I am only addressing the truth which you have apparently chosen to ignore. You cannot deny physics... which you apparently ARE doing.

The environment IS inherently dangerous, just like a steel mill is inherently dangerous, but like the steel mill, proper controls render the result relatively safe... when was the last time you heard of a steel mill disaster?

Looking at bicycling around the world, bicyclists as a class of citizens and users of public transportation cooridors "fare best" when they DON'T buy into the engineering prejudices perpetuated by hypocritical, confused 'vehicular fools' led by an admitted carbugger.

fixed it for you

;)

Making folks aware of the potential dangers we all acknowledge exist can hardly be considered anti-cycling.

It's not meant to be discouraging.
I know. But my argument is that the effect Gene's argument, regardless of the intent, is to discourage people from taking up cycling, and certainly does not encourage it.


You need to respect the environment you operate in. Like surfers respect the ocean, skiers respect the steep, and racers respect the speed. To not acknowledge the dangers puts one in the fluffy bunny mindset that all will fine if I ride this way. Dude, it's a lie, b/c all of us can be wiped out in a blink, from something so far beyond your control as to be laughable, like a mirror clipping you in the back of the head at 60. So I still don't see how telling people it's not dangerous is beneficial. The first close pass or bad interaction they get will totally freak them out if they've been brainwashed into thinking everything is hunky dorry. Professional snowboarders die on mountains here, but yet it's a widely acceptable, accessible winter sport, and an instructor will tell you must be aware of the dangers and respect the environment.

I have no trouble acknowledging the dangers inherent in traffic cycling, especially in the context of what you can and should do to mitigate those dangers (best practices). Of course there are dangers. My objection is to calling something "cycling advocacy" that is based on the implicit message that the cycling environment is currently too dangerous, that best practices alone do not and cannot mitigate the dangers sufficiently to make it a reasonably safe activity. That is not cycling advocacy; it is anti-cycling advocacy (not to mention it is false as compared to the dangers of many other normal human activities considered to be reasonably safe).


Yes many, the VAST majority will ride a lifetime just fine, and every year, my city alone loses 4-10 cyclists.
To not be telling people it's not dangerous, rather than it can be potentially dangerous but here's something you can do to minimize the chances of it becoming so, IMHO borders on criminal.
Again, TJ, our conversations would be much more interesting if you responded to something I was actually saying, rather than something that I'm not. The main point common to the thousands of posts I've made here can be summarized as: "cycling in traffic can be potentially dangerous, but these dangers can be mitigated with knowledge, skills and best practices such that cycling in traffic is reasonably safe".

The message implied by Gene's argument above is the opposite of that: that these dangers are so bad that they cannot be sufficiently mitigated by cyclist behavior enough to make cycling safe - the environment itself must be changed to make cycling reasonably safe." That's not cycling advocacy, it's anti-cycling advocacy. And it's wrong.

The application of basic physics tells us that your argument above is false. Mixing 3000-6000+ lb vehicles moving at speeds well above 20MPH with cyclists at roughly 200lbs is not a good combination. It is inherently dangerous, just as working in a steel mill is inherently dangerous.

The only reason traffic works is because of rules, and those obeying the rules.

If the rules are not well understood, then problems will arise.

What you seem to ignore is that, even if cyclists and pedestrians did not exist, the road system would still operate by " Mixing 3000-6000+ lb vehicles moving at speeds well above 20MPH with [people] at roughly 200lbs is not a good combination." As you say, "If the rules are not well understood, then problems will arise."

This discussion is precisely about that problem. The rules of the road for drivers of vehicles operate well enough to make road travel reasonably safe and reasonably efficient. However, American society has the view that motorists don't want cyclists to obey the rules [Stay out of our way or we will crush you!], while bicycle advocates fear to obey the rules [We must have special protection or they will crush us!]. Both of these problems were initially created by motorists' self-serving discrimination against a politically impotent group, child cyclists, but now they have been physically implemented by bikeways that affect all cyclists. Bicycle advocates should be arguing for the right, implemented by the skill, to operate according to the rules of the road, rather than by advocating systems that contradict the rules of the road and lead to the confusion that creates otherwise avoidable dangers.

I am only addressing the truth which you have apparently chosen to ignore. You cannot deny physics... which you apparently ARE doing.
Gene, I am not denying the inherent dangers in the environment of traffic cycling. I'm denying that the only way to make cycling reasonably safe is to eliminate those dangers in the environment (motorist training, facilities), which is the implication of your argument.

Sure improved motorist education might make the environment a little bit safer. Of course having more bike paths would be nice. But none of this is necessary, needed or required in order to make cycling safe, efficient, comfortable or enjoyable - and any argument that implies that it is, such as yours does, is not advocating cycling, but is anti-cycling (in terms of encouraging more people to take up cycling, as opposed to discouraging them).


The environment IS inherently dangerous, just like a steel mill is inherently dangerous, but like the steel mill, proper controls render the result relatively safe... when was the last time you heard of a steel mill disaster?
The environment being inherently dangerous does not mean it is not possible to be reasonably safe in that environment without changing the environment. That's the point of steel mill disasters being unheard of these days, which can be attributed to the best practices utilized in that industry (and many others) today. That's also the point of learning and employing best practices in traffic cycling.

Making folks aware of the potential dangers we all acknowledge exist can hardly be considered anti-cycling.
:beer:

Thank you. You're catching on.

However: Implying that because of those potential dangers it is not possible to be reasonably safe on a bicycle can be considered anti-cycling, because it is.

Is Genec saying it's too dangerous? As for cycling in traffic being reasonably safe, well it certainly becomes debatable when risk assessment is upto the individual now isn't it? Just the chance that one could be killed by an inattentive driver while riding to work is enough in our safety heightened/paranoid times. Or, in Toronto's case the typical spring killing of cyclists' by dump trucks passing/right hooking cyclists.

It only takes a couple of those stories on the 6 O'clock news to ruin the expansion of cycling in our city for the year. Maybe, just maybe if the "wanting to cycle" folks saw active action on trying to make sure motorists were being targeted in an education blitz/PSA's/billboards etc regarding the roads and all it's users', they mightn't be so afraid. Perception is reality in the general public's eye.

I wouldn't go so far as to say reasonably safe, seems like a broad term, when death is potentially right behind you putting on makeup in the rear view mirror. If I go down in the lane, there is a good chance I'm going to get run over. Now it might be a vary rare occurrence where I would go down but it doesn't negate the danger. The danger is ALWAYS there. Weither or not the horrible happens is upto many factors, not just how the rider rides. The rider is just one component of a system.

The message implied by Gene's argument above is the opposite of that: that these dangers are so bad that they cannot be sufficiently mitigated by cyclist behavior enough to make cycling safe - the environment itself must be changed to make cycling reasonably safe." That's not cycling advocacy, it's anti-cycling advocacy. And it's wrong.

Is that truly his message? From what I understand Gene actually has cycled quite a bit, and has a great safety record to boot. I would say he must be sufficiently mitigating the dangers of riding in traffic with his behavior and attitude. This is advocating by example. Just because someone thinks motorists could/should be doing a better job doesn't mean they are an anti-cycling advocate. I just don't see riders that behave and believe like Gene as a problem that needs to be fixed.

Thank God someone has better words than I do. I get so flustered in here.

:beer:

Thank you. You're catching on.

However: Implying that because of those potential dangers it is not possible to be reasonably safe on a bicycle can be considered anti-cycling, because it is.

Jumping to conclusions???

I said in both statements that the environment is inherently dangerous, but that danger is mitigated by rules.

Forester has stated in the past (and on this thread) that vehicular cycling works because of traffic rules.

Mixing up the reality of inherent dangers verses the statistics of doing a particular activity is apples and oranges.

Are you going to convince your students that moving cars are not inherently dangerous? Good luck. Your credibility will plummet dramatically at that point.

Is Genec saying it's too dangerous?
He's not saying it's too dangerous explicitly, but his argument clearly implies it:

Mixing 3000-6000+ lb vehicles moving at speeds well above 20MPH with cyclists at roughly 200lbs is not a good combination. It is inherently dangerous, just as working in a steel mill is inherently dangerous.

The only reason traffic works is because of rules, and those obeying the rules.

If the rules are not well understood, then problems will arise.

Gene says, "The only reason traffic works is because of rules, and those obeying the rules."
But we know that not everyone obeys the rules all of the time.
Therefore (according to Gene's argument), traffic does not work.

Gene says, "If the rules are not well understood, then problems will arise.".
Gene has also argued, countless times, that the rules are not well understood by drivers. Therefore "problems will arise". Note that there is no wiggle room here for mitigating these problems by the cyclist - they are, per his argument, inevitable. So the implication is: "problems will arise for you, the cyclist, regardless of what you do."

And, of course, there is the blanket assertion: "It is inherently dangerous". In other words, you, the cyclist, are a sitting duck out there, vulnerable to being mowed down at any time by "3000-6000+ lb vehicles moving at speeds well above 20MPH", and there is nothing you can do about that. After all, "it is not a good combination", so it must be a bad combination.

So, do you feel encouraged by his argument to go out there now? Of course not. This is blatant anti-cycling advocacy.

I don't mean to pick on Gene. This is the implied message of any so-called bike advocate promoting the "need" for motorist education and/or segregated facilities. That's false and anti-cycling advocacy.



As for cycling in traffic being reasonably safe, well it certainly becomes debatable when risk assessment is upto the individual now isn't it? Just the chance that one could be killed by an inattentive driver while riding to work is enough in our safety heightened/paranoid times. Or, in Toronto's case the typical spring killing of cyclists' by dump trucks passing/right hooking cyclists.

It only takes a couple of those stories on the 6 O'clock news to ruin the expansion of cycling in our city for the year. Maybe, just maybe if the "wanting to cycle" folks saw active action on trying to make sure motorists were being targeted in an education blitz/PSA's/billboards etc regarding the roads and all it's users', they mightn't be so afraid. Perception is reality in the general public's eye.
Now you're paying attention. Good.

I agree that the perception out there right now is that cycling is inherently dangerous, and that the cyclist is putting his life in the hands of total and complete unpredictable strangers behind the wheels of multi-ton killing-machines if he dares to go out there. But the solution is to change that perception, not feed it.

Look, drivers of big trucks have blind spots, and they don't expect to be passed on the right as they are turning right from the right lane. They don't expect anyone to be there. This is a world-wide problem. The solution is not to change the behavior of truck drivers because, realistically, that's just not going to happen. And feeding into the false perception that that is where the problem is, and so that is what needs to be solved, is never going to change anything. The perception will remain, and the collisions will continue, and the perception will remain. There is no way out of that loop. And it's anti-cycling.

The only way out is to change the perception. Get people to realize the role of the cyclist in each and every one of these tragedies, and how the cyclist has total and complete control to avoid it. I am here to tell you I am never ever going to get right hooked by a big truck. I just won't let that happen to me. And if I can do it, anyone can. That's the message that we need to get out there, not that truck drivers have to change before it will ever be reasonably safe to ride a bicycle in the streets - that's absurd, and it is just not going to happen.

Consider what happens when people hear about others being mugged at 3am in questionable neighborhoods. It's sad, but we have come to understand that you shouldn't walk around alone in certain areas in the middle of the night. That's why we have the line, "let me walk you to your car, and you drive me to mine". That doesn't mean that walking is dangerous, or walking at night is dangerous, or walking in that area is dangerous, or even walking there at night is dangerous as long as you are not alone. It means that walking alone at night in that area is dangerous. It's the combination of factors that make it dangerous, the danger is not inherent to the activity.

So that's what we have to get across. It's not that bicycling is dangerous. It's not that big trucks are dangerous. It's not even that bicycling past big trucks is dangerous. What's dangerous is bicycling to the right of big trucks, and stopping to the right of big trucks, at places where they can and might be turned right. It's the combination of factors that make it dangerous, the danger is not inherent to the activity.

Gene's argument, and the argument of any so-called "bike advocate" promoting the "need" (Randya's word) for better motorist education and segregated facilities makes it sound like ALL bicycling in any kind of traffic is simply too dangerous, period, and will remain so until the environment changes.

Is that truly his message? From what I understand Gene actually has cycled quite a bit, and has a great safety record to boot. I would say he must be sufficiently mitigating the dangers of riding in traffic with his behavior and attitude. This is advocating by example. Just because someone thinks motorists could/should be doing a better job doesn't mean they are an anti-cycling advocate. I just don't see riders that behave and believe like Gene as a problem that needs to be fixed.

Disclaimer here... while I have cycled quite a bit, I have also experienced three bike/car collisions... so my safety record is hardly spotless.

Two of the collisions involved motorists violating my ROW after they left stop signs; one was a minor right hook.

My point is that Helmet Head seems to be dancing around that even a minor collision between a cyclist and motorist, based on simple Newtonian physics, can be detrimental to the cyclist... and denial of that truth is ludicrous.

Whether it happens or not, statistically, is another issue.

Apparently Helmet Head is trying to deny the laws of physics and refuses to acknowledge them... and plans on telling his students the same thing.

Any one that has played billiards knows very well what happens when two objects collide.

If the environment was not inherently dangerous, why are so many laws and rules written to govern it?

Is that truly his message? From what I understand Gene actually has cycled quite a bit, and has a great safety record to boot. I would say he must be sufficiently mitigating the dangers of riding in traffic with his behavior and attitude. This is advocating by example. Just because someone thinks motorists could/should be doing a better job doesn't mean they are an anti-cycling advocate. I just don't see riders that behave and believe like Gene as a problem that needs to be fixed.
I agree that the message Gene sends while cycling is a good and positive one for bicycling advocacy.

I am talking about the message implied in the arguments he puts forward, and statements he makes, on this forum (and elsewhere). It is anti-cycling.

Jumping to conclusions???

I said in both statements that the environment is inherently dangerous, but that danger is mitigated by rules.

Forester has stated in the past (and on this thread) that vehicular cycling works because of traffic rules.

Mixing up the reality of inherent dangers verses the statistics of doing a particular activity is apples and oranges.

Are you going to convince your students that moving cars are not inherently dangerous? Good luck. Your credibility will plummet dramatically at that point.
No I'm not jumping to conclusions.
I'm recognizing the implications of your argument; apparently you do not.
I explained this in #266 in the first half of my reply to TJ.

Disclaimer here... while I have cycled quite a bit, I have also experienced three bike/car collisions... so my safety record is hardly spotless.

Two of the collisions involved motorists violating my ROW after they left stop signs; one was a minor right hook.

My point is that Helmet Head seems to be dancing around that even a minor collision between a cyclist and motorist, based on simple Newtonian physics, can be detrimental to the cyclist... and denial of that truth is ludicrous.
I have not saying anything that even hints at denying the fact that even a minor collision between a cyclist and motorist, based on simple Newtonian physics, can be detrimental to the cyclist.

Where do you get this stuff? So much time is wasted here by total and complete misrepresentation of what I'm saying.



Whether it happens or not, statistically, is another issue.

Apparently Helmet Head is trying to deny the laws of physics and refuses to acknowledge them... and plans on telling his students the same thing.

:rolleyes:

What part of "Gene, I am not denying the inherent dangers in the environment of traffic cycling. I'm denying that the only way to make cycling reasonably safe is to eliminate those dangers in the environment (motorist training, facilities), which is the implication of your argument." do you not understand?




Any one that has played billiards knows very well what happens when two objects collide.

If the environment was not inherently dangerous, why are so many laws and rules written to govern it?
I mean, I explicitly state that the environment IS inherently dangerous, and here you are asserting that I've argued the opposite. Communication is not possible like this.

I know. But my argument is that the effect Gene's argument, regardless of the intent, is to discourage people from taking up cycling, and certainly does not encourage it.

I have no trouble acknowledging the dangers inherent in traffic cycling, especially in the context of what you can and should do to mitigate those dangers (best practices). Of course there are dangers. My objection is to calling something "cycling advocacy" that is based on the implicit message that the cycling environment is currently too dangerous, that best practices alone do not and cannot mitigate the dangers sufficiently to make it a reasonably safe activity. That is not cycling advocacy; it is anti-cycling advocacy (not to mention it is false as compared to the dangers of many other normal human activities considered to be reasonably safe).

Again, TJ, our conversations would be much more interesting if you responded to something I was actually saying, rather than something that I'm not. The main point common to the thousands of posts I've made here can be summarized as: "cycling in traffic can be potentially dangerous, but these dangers can be mitigated with knowledge, skills and best practices such that cycling in traffic is reasonably safe".

The message implied by Gene's argument above is the opposite of that: that these dangers are so bad that they cannot be sufficiently mitigated by cyclist behavior enough to make cycling safe - the environment itself must be changed to make cycling reasonably safe." That's not cycling advocacy, it's anti-cycling advocacy. And it's wrong.

The idea is not to spend a lot of time talking up the negatives with the public, but rather, to spend time with them working effectively for positive change.

and your first paragraph is a strawman, it's been clearly stated by JF himself numerous times here that his objectives do not include encouraging more people to bicycle.

I said in both statements that the environment is inherently dangerous, but that danger is mitigated by rules.

But the implication of what you argue is that because motorists often do not follow the rules, that danger is NOT mitigated.

Your arguments and statements leave the impression that the only way to mitigate those dangers sufficiently to make cycling reasonably safe is for motorists to obey the rules significantly better than they currently are... that the level of compliance with rule-following by motorists is currently not good enough to make cycling reasonably safe; that the current amount of non-compliance is "unacceptable" (not to mention "annoying" and "irritating"). Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what I understand you to be saying.

In other words, (again, correct me if I'm wrong) I don't ever recall you saying anything that ultimately amounts to meaning that motorists currently follow the rules well enough for it to be reasonably safe to be a bicyclist out there, as long as you pay attention, and follow the rules and best practices yourself. That's my argument, and every time I make it, you disagree.

The idea is not to spend a lot of time talking up the negatives with the public, but rather, to spend time with them working effectively for positive change.
Again, that may be the idea, but the effect is to imply that the environment must change before cycling in traffic can be reasonably safe; that right now it cannot be.

I'm all for positive change, but not when lobbying for it sends the wrong message; an anti-cycling message.


and your first paragraph is a strawman, it's been clearly stated by JF himself numerous times here that his objectives do not include encouraging more people to bicycle.
What does Forester's position have to do with my argument being a strawman? It made no reference to him or his positions in the paragraph (or the entire post or even discussion here) that you are contending is a strawman.

I know that encouraging more people to take up cycling is not one of Forester's objectives. But it is one of mine. I am a bicycling advocate, and active in that area. I want to encourage more people to take up bicycling, and that's why it irks me so much to see so much coming out of the cycling community that implicitly and explicitly conveys the message that it is simply too dangerous out there to be on a bicycle. It's ridiculous.

Besides, Gene does want to encourage more people to take up cycling, and he's the one making arguments and statements that are discouraging.

"Gene says, "The only reason traffic works is because of rules, and those obeying the rules."
But we know that not everyone obeys the rules all of the time.
Therefore (according to HH's leap in debate logic), traffic does not work."

That's a leap, waaaay too many factors in a traffic system to be that b/w.

"Gene says, "The only reason traffic works is because of rules, and those obeying the rules."
But we know that not everyone obeys the rules all of the time.
Therefore (according to HH's leap in debate logic), traffic does not work."

That's a leap, waaaay too many factors in a traffic system to be that b/w.
Well, if you paid attention to what Gene is saying, you'd understand that that is what he's saying.
He says we rely on motorists to obey the rules, but since they (often) don't obey the rules, relying on them to do so doesn't work. The implication is that we're sitting ducks, and that this is unacceptable, and must change, before cycling can be reasonably safe.

I've invited him above to correct me if I'm misunderstanding, and of course he is always free to do that with or without an explicit invitation.

But the implication of what you argue is that because motorists often do not follow the rules, that danger is NOT mitigated.

Your arguments and statements leave the impression that the only way to mitigate those dangers sufficiently to make cycling reasonably safe is for motorists to obey the rules significantly better than they currently are... that the level of compliance with rule-following by motorists is currently not good enough to make cycling reasonably safe; that the current amount of non-compliance is "unacceptable" (not to mention "annoying" and "irritating"). Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what I understand you to be saying.

In other words, (again, correct me if I'm wrong) I don't ever recall you saying anything that ultimately amounts to meaning that motorists currently follow the rules well enough for it to be reasonably safe to be a bicyclist out there, as long as you pay attention, and follow the rules and best practices yourself. That's my argument, and every time I make it, you disagree.

I love your caveat there... "as long as you pay attention...;" you also state that you take the effort to ensure that you are safe... Why? What effort is required if it is an inherently safe environment. You also indicate "best practices," of which I have no disagreement... as long as all involved are utilizing "best practices."

Perhaps we are dancing on the head of a semantic pin here, but the reality is that driving is an inherently dangerous activity, which oddly enough you finally acknowledge: I mean, I explicitly state that the environment IS inherently dangerous, and here you are asserting that I've argued the opposite. But others can judge whether you denied it or not by their reading.

I simply stated that mixing cars and bikes together is an inherently dangerous activity, that is mitigated by rules. You went on a rampage to get me to deny that... and I cannot as it is the truth.

Now as to your further claims/comments/gestures/commentary... Do I believe that cycling in traffic is dangerous enough that some changes need to be made... Yes, in a certain sense I do... Cycling around on low speed streets with little traffic is not a dangerous activity... mixing it up with high speed dense traffic involves more danger (and thus more skill), but there is an asymptote too, under certain conditions, motor traffic can be too dangerous for a cyclist to be safe.

I also firmly believe that motorists generally do not use "best practices," but instead chose "minimal practices" to just get by... AND this is the basis for my arguments here... not the physics aspect, but just the basic "best practices" aspect... which when not followed by all, requires that the cyclist take extraordinary steps to protect themselves.

But the implication of what you argue is that because motorists often do not follow the rules, that danger is NOT mitigated.



At times that is exactly the problem. If a motorist does not follow the rules... what do YOU do?

Gene, can we agree that it is dangerous to not pay attention when you're driving or cycling in traffic, or are you going to disagree with me on that too?

Can you comprehend that just because a given environment is inherently dangerous (which I do not and have not denied with regard to the traffic environment), does not mean that the environment must change in order for it to be safe to travel through that environment?

At times that is exactly the problem. If a motorist does not follow the rules... what do YOU do?
Pay attention and follow best practices, of course. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. Where have you been?

Randya stated: "and your first paragraph is a strawman, it's been clearly stated by JF himself numerous times here that his objectives do not include encouraging more people to bicycle."



Again, that may be the idea, but the effect is to imply that the environment must change before cycling in traffic can be reasonably safe; that right now it cannot be.

I'm all for positive change, but not when lobbying for it sends the wrong message; an anti-cycling message.


What does Forester's position have to do with my argument being a strawman? It made no reference to him or his positions in the paragraph (or the entire post or even discussion here) that you are contending is a strawman.

I know that encouraging more people to take up cycling is not one of Forester's objectives. But it is one of mine. I am a bicycling advocate, and active in that area. I want to encourage more people to take up bicycling, and that's why it irks me so much to see so much coming out of the cycling community that implicitly and explicitly conveys the message that it is simply too dangerous out there to be on a bicycle. It's ridiculous.

Besides, Gene does want to encourage more people to take up cycling, and he's the one making arguments and statements that are discouraging.

That's not an accurate statement of my position. I have never stated that I do not have the objective of encouraging people to cycle, for any purpose that they choose. Cycling, properly done, is a good activity and more people should do it.

What I will not do is to entice ignorant people into cycling with the lies that bikeways make cycling safe without learning how to ride in the vehicular manner. I do not hold that motoring is so evil as to justify the lying propaganda that entices people into cycling in a dangerous manner, in the way that most bicycle advocates do.

Not only do I maintain that such activity is immoral, but I also consider that it is useless because it will not produce the transportationally significant reduction in motoring that the anti-motoring bicycle advocates desire.

I desire that those people who choose to cycle will cycle according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and, furthermore, that society will accept that as proper. The number of those who choose to cycle properly, whatever that is, is acceptable to me.

That's not an accurate statement of my position. I have never stated that I do not have the objective of encouraging people to cycle, for any purpose that they choose. Cycling, properly done, is a good activity and more people should do it.

What I will not do is to entice ignorant people into cycling with the lies that bikeways make cycling safe without learning how to ride in the vehicular manner. I do not hold that motoring is so evil as to justify the lying propaganda that entices people into cycling in a dangerous manner, in the way that most bicycle advocates do.

Not only do I maintain that such activity is immoral, but I also consider that it is useless because it will not produce the transportationally significant reduction in motoring that the anti-motoring bicycle advocates desire.

I desire that those people who choose to cycle will cycle according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and, furthermore, that society will accept that as proper. The number of those who choose to cycle properly, whatever that is, is acceptable to me.

so where do you stand on motorist education, John?

some snipped

Now as to your further claims/comments/gestures/commentary... Do I believe that cycling in traffic is dangerous enough that some changes need to be made... Yes, in a certain sense I do... Cycling around on low speed streets with little traffic is not a dangerous activity... mixing it up with high speed dense traffic involves more danger (and thus more skill), but there is an asymptote too, under certain conditions, motor traffic can be too dangerous for a cyclist to be safe.

I also firmly believe that motorists generally do not use "best practices," but instead chose "minimal practices" to just get by... AND this is the basis for my arguments here... not the physics aspect, but just the basic "best practices" aspect... which when not followed by all, requires that the cyclist take extraordinary steps to protect themselves.

The skills required to operate regarding same-direction motor traffic do not vary with the speed of that traffic. They are the same skills, the cyclist just has to look for a longer distance.

It doesn't matter much that motorists do not use "best practices". The normal operation of traffic is such that cyclists who follow the rules and are observant can cycle in reasonable safety. There are many of us who have done so for decades. It appears to be a reasonable conclusion that the amount of whining emitted by cyclists is in proportion to their dislike of traffic, rather than evidence of significant operational defects.

so where do you stand on motorist education, John?

Training of motorists to properly operate the traffic system is absolutely necessary, for two reasons. First, the motor vehicle has the potential of causing great injuries and damage. Second, if the drivers don't operate properly, the traffic system gets extremely inefficient. These are obvious.

I suspect that the meaning of your statement, considering your usual attitude, concerns the education (not training) of motorists with respect to cyclists. Well, of course motorists should be taught that cyclists are drivers of vehicles and should be treated as such. That did not occur because motorists didn't want vehicular cyclists on the roads, and now it is more strongly being prevented by the bicycle advocacy movement whose anti-motoring agenda advocates the exact opposite, that cyclists need special protection because they can't operate as drivers of vehicles.

At times that is exactly the problem. If a motorist does not follow the rules... what do YOU do?

By learning to cycle according to the rules of operation, the vehicular cyclist learns what should be expected. Because he knows what should be expected, he is much more able and much quicker to detect when an unexpected occurrence has started. Then both the vehicular cycling habits and previously practiced avoidance maneuvers enable him to have a pretty good chance of avoiding a collision. Such kinds of skills enable competent cyclists to have a much lower collision (and other crash types also) rate than typical cyclists.

He's not saying it's too dangerous explicitly, but his argument clearly implies it:

...I am talking about the message implied in the arguments he puts forward, and statements he makes, on this forum (and elsewhere)...

No I'm not jumping to conclusions.
I'm recognizing the implications of your argument; apparently you do not.


But the implication of what you argue is...

Your arguments and statements leave the impression...Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what I understand you to be saying.

In other words, (again, correct me if I'm wrong)

Ahhhh, Ye Olde Forester Straw Man Argument Ploy. :rolleyes: Reply to your own "interpretation" of the "implications" of what someone else "implied", after spinning what was actually written. In other words: You never tire of the sophistry do you?

Start out with cancellation of the Mt. Hood Freeway and the other one to the west.

The urban growth boundary.

Enormous sums of government money spent on the light rail system.

Lots more government money and forgone government income spent on "transit-oriented development" projects that wouldn't exist except for the governmental subsidies, and which have had a dubious economic history, to say the least.

The pronouncements by the transit agency that it has to have congestion in order to attract riders.

Reduction in capacity of downtown streets.

Then there are the intended side effect of these policies: higher housing costs, greater densification, and greater congestion.

All of these items are not only anti-motoring but have been publicly announced as having that purpose. And, being such, they make bicycle transportation more competitive with motoring. And, notice, I have made no mention, so far, of bikeways, which are not a necessary part of the anti-motoring forces.

People in Portland decide to ride bikes in greater numbers, but not because motoring is particularly inconvenient there. It is just as easy or easier to drive in Portland than it is to drive in cities of similar size, and 'motoring' is still the mode of choice, by far. So if they are trying to make motoring difficult in Portland they are doing a pretty horrible job. If they really wanted to do some damage they could simply raise the bridges at peak hours. That would surely do it.

Consider this: due to the city's devotion to light rail, walkable communities, bicycle infrastructure, and all that jive, they are going to be able to pack a lot more people, and a lot more commerce, into a small space than would otherwise be possible in a city devoted only to the motoring paradigm.

One thing that I've noticed about Portland -- not only are there a lot more cyclists per capita there, but the cycle-commuters are also the most law-abiding, light-sitting, conservative and proper riders I've ever seen anywhere.

Robert

The Industrialized Cyclist (www.industrializedcyclist.com)

Ahhhh, Ye Olde Forester Straw Man Argument Ploy. :rolleyes: Reply to your own "interpretation" of the "implications" of what someone else "implied", after spinning what was actually written. In other words: You never tire of the sophistry do you?
Gene has confirmed that I did not misunderstand or misrepresent his argument.

Your attempt to paint my genuine attempts at fruitful communication to be strawman arguing and sophistry is sophistry in itself.

How can anyone argue against more motorist education, regardless of what bike infrastructure is or isn't provided? Even if you're gonna ride 'militant VC', the motorists still need to have a clue in the first place.

Well, it depends on what you mean by motorist education ... there seem to be a few ideas floating around here. Moreover, it depends on how much bang for the effort -- effort is costly -- you will get.

I think that it is fair to say that most drivers have a decent grasp on the basic rules of the road. They are probably unfamiliar with how the rules apply to cyclists. If you are behaving like another vehicle, however, they should understand how to interact with you even if they are unhappy about it.

I love your caveat there... "as long as you pay attention...;" you also state that you take the effort to ensure that you are safe... Why? What effort is required if it is an inherently safe environment. You also indicate "best practices," of which I have no disagreement... as long as all involved are utilizing "best practices."

Perhaps we are dancing on the head of a semantic pin here, but the reality is that driving is an inherently dangerous activity, which oddly enough you finally acknowledge: But others can judge whether you denied it or not by their reading.

I simply stated that mixing cars and bikes together is an inherently dangerous activity, that is mitigated by rules. You went on a rampage to get me to deny that... and I cannot as it is the truth.

Now as to your further claims/comments/gestures/commentary... Do I believe that cycling in traffic is dangerous enough that some changes need to be made... Yes, in a certain sense I do... Cycling around on low speed streets with little traffic is not a dangerous activity... mixing it up with high speed dense traffic involves more danger (and thus more skill), but there is an asymptote too, under certain conditions, motor traffic can be too dangerous for a cyclist to be safe.

I also firmly believe that motorists generally do not use "best practices," but instead chose "minimal practices" to just get by... AND this is the basis for my arguments here... not the physics aspect, but just the basic "best practices" aspect... which when not followed by all, requires that the cyclist take extraordinary steps to protect themselves.
Again, we agree (despite your repeated claims about my position to the contrary) that the traffic environment is inherently dangerous to the cyclist.

Our difference is on whether cycling in the traffic environment is inherently dangerous, or whether the dangers inherent in the environment can be sufficiently mitigated through cyclist behavior alone such that cycling through the inherently dangerous environment becomes reasonably and acceptably safe.

Your position, if I understand it correctly (again, please correct me if I get something wrong), is that danger mitigation through cyclist behavior alone is not sufficient to make cycling through the inherently dangerous traffic environment reasonably and acceptably safe; that cycling through the inherently dangerous traffic environment remains unacceptably safe regardless of how safely the cyclist behaves (or it requires the cyclist to resort to "extraordinary steps" to be acceptably safe), and the only way to make cycling through it reasonably and acceptably safe is to change the environment itself (by causing motorist behavior to be safer, and/or with infrastructure changes).

My position is that though reducing dangers in the traffic environment should of course be encouraged, danger mitigation through cyclist behavior alone is sufficient to make cycling through the inherently dangerous traffic environment reasonably safe; that cycling through the inherently dangerous traffic environment is acceptably safe if the cyclist follows the rules, pays attention, and adheres to traffic cycling safe best practices (and resorting to "extraordinary steps" is not required to accomplish this). I also contend that your position -- the only way to make cycling through the inherently dangerous traffic environment reasonably and acceptably safe is to change the environment itself -- is anti-cycling advocacy (because it discourages people from taking up cycling in the environment whose inherent dangers you allege can only be sufficiently mitigated to make cycling through it reasonably and acceptably safe by changing the environment itself).

Gene, is this a fair assessment of where we are? If not, please make any corrections as you feel are appropriate.

Edit: I look forward to your reply, but take your time. I'll be gone a few days.

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.

To reply to Scout's original comments (and no, I have not read the intervening 11 pages):

I think that most motorists are unsure how they are supposed to treat bicyclists, but in my experience, most at least have some vague feeling that cyclists should be following the rules and acting predictably. We do know that seeing cyclists engaging in behavior perceived as risky to themselves and other road users does get motorists' dander up. In my opinion, that's a good case for following the rules. (And yes, I know, sometimes they have an unfortunate misunderstanding of the rules, such as "has to stay out of my way" or "has to stay in bike lane", which does argue for motorist education.)

I also believe in the sense of freedom and independence afforded by both Forester's and Hurst's insistence that you the cyclist have the most control over what happens to you. No victimhood. I love how Hurst puts it (paraphrasing from memory): "Don't leave your fate to the planners, the police, the pedestrians, or the paramedics. Certainly don't leave your fate to the drivers."

As you can see, the theoretical application can be argued ad infinitum, and often is on these forums. All I can say really is that I believe Forester's statement to be largely true, and have found that it works well for me. If others have a different experience, I don't know why without knowing them and how and where they ride, which I don't. So I'd rather not spend too much time arguing with them about it. I can only tell you what I know, and now I have.

The skills required to operate regarding same-direction motor traffic do not vary with the speed of that traffic. They are the same skills, the cyclist just has to look for a longer distance.

It doesn't matter much that motorists do not use "best practices". The normal operation of traffic is such that cyclists who follow the rules and are observant can cycle in reasonable safety. There are many of us who have done so for decades. It appears to be a reasonable conclusion that the amount of whining emitted by cyclists is in proportion to their dislike of traffic, rather than evidence of significant operational defects.

Not necessarily the dislike of traffic as much as the issues of dealing with heavy traffic that is not treating us cyclists as equals on the road.

The law gives us relative equality, but society (empowered by the automotive industry) takes that equality away.

Bike Forum folks (especially flamers who don't know how to be civil cyclists): I'd appreciate you directing your attention to the right of my blog (just as you might when riding in traffic), as my humble blog is meant to gather and give information about Dooring of cyclists by cars/trucks/minivans... and to be personable at the same time. Thanks.

As to those who would impugn my credibility... flame on. Just don't fall on me. And when your next carbon fiber red-painted flaming fork goes under a bigger vehicle with you following closely behind, I hope someone can report your case with "credibility" rather than incredulity.

Again, we agree (despite your repeated claims about my position to the contrary) that the traffic environment is inherently dangerous to the cyclist.

Our difference is on whether cycling in the traffic environment is inherently dangerous, or whether the dangers inherent in the environment can be sufficiently mitigated through cyclist behavior alone such that cycling through the inherently dangerous environment becomes reasonably and acceptably safe.

Your position, if I understand it correctly (again, please correct me if I get something wrong), is that danger mitigation through cyclist behavior alone is not sufficient to make cycling through the inherently dangerous traffic environment reasonably and acceptably safe; that cycling through the inherently dangerous traffic environment remains unacceptably safe regardless of how safely the cyclist behaves (or it requires the cyclist to resort to "extraordinary steps" to be acceptably safe), and the only way to make cycling through it reasonably and acceptably safe is to change the environment itself (by causing motorist behavior to be safer, and/or with infrastructure changes).

My position is that though reducing dangers in the traffic environment should of course be encouraged, danger mitigation through cyclist behavior alone is sufficient to make cycling through the inherently dangerous traffic environment reasonably safe; that cycling through the inherently dangerous traffic environment is acceptably safe if the cyclist follows the rules, pays attention, and adheres to traffic cycling safe best practices (and resorting to "extraordinary steps" is not required to accomplish this). I also contend that your position -- the only way to make cycling through the inherently dangerous traffic environment reasonably and acceptably safe is to change the environment itself -- is anti-cycling advocacy (because it discourages people from taking up cycling in the environment whose inherent dangers you allege can only be sufficiently mitigated to make cycling through it reasonably and acceptably safe by changing the environment itself).

Gene, is this a fair assessment of where we are? If not, please make any corrections as you feel are appropriate.

Edit: I look forward to your reply, but take your time. I'll be gone a few days.

It is a fairly reasonable assessment of where we are... and I am willing to drop details to look at the overall picture at large.

I'll go with your contentions (at this point) and put this forward... if cycling were "acceptably safe" then why is there not more uptake of it? Frankly people (who themselves are usually motorists) see the motoring environment as unsafe (hence the huge uptake of SUVs based on their false safety) and therefore do not see cycling in traffic as safe at all.

Now while anyone can learn the basic mechanical skills to ride a bike in traffic, the actual full skill set (often alluded to by you as a complex series of other skills, attitudes, and even appearance) is not easily learned, coupled with the physical requirements and the need to be attentive above and beyond the needs required to drive a car. This means that the likelihood of any major uptake of cycling in our society is not likely, no matter how many restrictions to the auto are put into place, or how high the fuel price is.

Further, your commitment to the imbalance of responsibilities assigned to motorist verses cyclist is a mind numbing hindrance to a newbie cyclist. The reality is that we all have equal responsibility to prevent harm to one another when sharing the same rules and environment.

I further contend that a cyclist cannot just "follow the rules, pay attention, and adhere to traffic cycling safe best practices," but must also be prepared to evade and overcome the lapses, and even intentional abuse, of motorists who by definition have more responsibility due to the size and power of the vehicles they command. (this is backed up by license and insurance requirements for those motorists).

If I honestly felt all I had to do was "follow the rules, pay attention, and adhere to traffic cycling safe best practices," then I would agree with you... but in reality, I have found that it takes more than that to be a safe cyclist... this has been shown to me time and time again by motorists who willfully do not follow the rules, pay attention, and adhere to traffic best practices, and threaten me by their actions intentional or otherwise... which I have skillfully managed to mitigate (so far), but said actions should not have occurred in the first place.

To reply to Scout's original comments (and no, I have not read the intervening 11 pages):
...
I was trying to bring up the question of whether cyclists should act like vehicles even when they are not treated as such. As far as I can tell, the past eleven pages have been arguments for and against the following positions:

The question is moot because cyclists who act like vehicles are treated like vehicles.
The question would be moot if only automobile drivers were properly educated.
The question is meaningless because nobody ever said what it means to "fare best".


I believe yours is the first post to really address the question I had in mind.

I think that it is fair to say that most drivers have a decent grasp on the basic rules of the road. They are probably unfamiliar with how the rules apply to cyclists. If you are behaving like another vehicle, however, they should understand how to interact with you even if they are unhappy about it.

I think you're making a lot of unfounded assumptions

I think you're making a lot of unfounded assumptions

like what?

...The question is meaningless because nobody ever said what it means to "fare best

I believe yours is the first post to really address the question I had in mind.

Given that you posted the question with a meaningless title and a question based on that trite phrase that nobody, including yourself has defined, are you surprised at the lack of meaningful answers?

Not necessarily the dislike of traffic as much as the issues of dealing with heavy traffic that is not treating us cyclists as equals on the road.

The law gives us relative equality, but society (empowered by the automotive industry) takes that equality away.

Not quite. The law gives while simultaneously taking away. Gives us the rights as drivers of vehicles, and then prohibits us from using them properly. That needs rectification. But, so what? Just get used to it. I have cycled under American conditions for 67 years now, and I don't bother about the treatment that I receive on the road. Most is OK, a little is obnoxious, and a minute fraction is somewhat dangerous.

Not only should the law be corrected to remove the prohibition [rarely enforced] against obeying the rules of the roads, but, even more, the bikeway programs and designs that exaggerate that discrimination should be removed, to be replaced by road designs that treat cyclists as drivers of vehicles.

like what?

Like this:

"I think that it is fair to say that most drivers have a decent grasp on the basic rules of the road."

"If you are behaving like another vehicle, however, they should understand how to interact with you even if they are unhappy about it."

Not quite. The law gives while simultaneously taking away. Gives us the rights as drivers of vehicles, and then prohibits us from using them properly. That needs rectification. But, so what? Just get used to it. I have cycled under American conditions for 67 years now, and I don't bother about the treatment that I receive on the road. Most is OK, a little is obnoxious, and a minute fraction is somewhat dangerous.

Not only should the law be corrected to remove the prohibition [rarely enforced] against obeying the rules of the roads, but, even more, the bikeway programs and designs that exaggerate that discrimination should be removed, to be replaced by road designs that treat cyclists as drivers of vehicles.

John... I have to laugh... I am indeed "used to it;" we've been through this before, I am a very experienced cyclist, and frankly I can deal with anything out there, even though I only have half the riding time you do. ;)

BUT that simply puts me into the league of elitist cyclists to which you and others belong, while the current situation shuts the door to those that are less skilled (unlike driving, which apparently nearly anyone can do). In our society, the "childish" apparently drive.

And yes, my comment "not quite" RE the laws... that was why I used the term "relative" equality... no, we are not quite equal...; there are conditions... and yes, these should be changed.

So my hue and cry basically come down to this... anyone should be able to easily bike... as readily as anyone can drive about... without encountering "situations that are a little obnoxious, or a minute fraction [that] are somewhat dangerous... " (thanks for acknowledging that perhaps things are not as "rosy" as some may portray)

And last, we are in somewhat agreement on this: If the current road designs (where needed) can be replaced by road designs that treat cyclists as drivers of vehicles, indeed, the bikeway programs and designs that exaggerate that discrimination should be removed. I worded it a bit differently, so it may not conform to your exact wishes, but the sentiment is there.