Should cities plan for elite trained bike riders or members of the general public?

[genec]

I wasn't aware drivers are required to take hours of training; in this state you show up for a road and classroom test, and if you pass, you get a license. NO hours of training required at all.
I understand that is the case in several states. In CA you can get a license at 18 without training; but at 16, you have to have drivers' ed. Personally, I think a year long class about driving, ethics, and proper road use is about right... after a prerequisite class in middle school dealing with bicycle use and physical fitness. It is amazing that school is only reading 'riting, and 'rithmatic... road use (a life time activity) should also be part of the curriculum.


Genec, have you read about the debacle . some bike advocates, disappointed in the low level of LCI training and instructors in their area, churned out a half dozen new LCI 'instructors' out of of raw cloth?

some of them admitted - AFTER obtaining their LCI instructor certification - they wouldn't be comfortable riding higher speed roads solo. Apparently even the LCI 'instructor' certification isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
No, have not heard. And there is a vast difference between "comfort" and being able to do it... there are lots of high speed roads in the area that I "can" ride, but chose not to. The LCI I took classes from was a pretty good instructor, but I can see how there could be a high level of variance.


autocentric road design (among other factors) has led to low cyclist participation in this country. Should we design community road infrastructure for 'trained' elite bike riders, or members of the general public?

I certainly think, in a democracy like ours, the greater good prevails versus the vocal, elitist and obstructionist demands of the few.

I tend to agree... I do think however that a certain minimum skill set is required, just as one has to at least understand to look both ways to cross a street.

But I am strongly of the opinion that some of these skills should be taught in schools at the elementary level.

I am also of the opinion that for some areas/types of roads, there should be alternative means for cyclists... due to highly autocentric designs.

[Bekologist]

That one fully separate path is obviously along a major street or freeway which was already below grade. It is probably a great "trunk line" but the side branches are going to have to be normal city streets. So while that particular route will add to the convenience of cyclists who happen to be going in that direction, everyone who uses it will still have to contend with ordinary traffic conditions at the beginning and end of their trip, just like cars drivers do before and after they use their freeways.

bicyclists would not have to contend with 'ordinary' traffic conditions if the streets were better designed to accomodate bicyclists at end of path networks. there's nothing that necessitates side branches being 'normal' city streets', 'normal streets' at end of path networks can be redesigned.

Indeed, this is a goal of bike master plans around the country - increasing useability of path networks by integrating smooth transitions to an on street bike network. (which includes a mix of bike laned streets, sharrows, wide lanes and completely unmodified streetscapes)

Obstructionists claim futility and status quo;
Populist notions predicate 'better bikeability is possible.'

[noisebeam]

What is the difference between a facility that requires training to use safely vs. one that does not?

I find I need the exact same (easy to learn) skills and draw on my same experiences whether riding on a road with bicycle specific facilities or one without.

Al

[Bekologist]

regards roads while biking al......

high speed roads, narrow lanes, high speed divides and merges, curves limiting sight lines.....
versus traffic calmed roads, wide lanes, clean shoulders or bike lanes, improved intersection accomodations to maximize sightlines, etc.

it's the elitist POV 'every lane is a bike lane, no need for accomodating design' versus the populist POV 'if an eight year old cannot ride in it safely it is not a bike lane'.

[noisebeam]

regards roads while biking al......

high speed roads, narrow lanes, high speed divides and merges, curves limiting sight lines.....
versus traffic calmed roads, wide lanes, clean shoulders or bike lanes, improved intersection accomodations to maximize sightlines, etc.

it's the elitist POV 'every lane is a bike lane, no need for accomodating design' versus the populist POV 'if an eight year old cannot ride in it safely it is not a bike lane'.

High speed roads to me are not purely facility design. Speed can be reduced without changing any hardware, although hardware can help (traffic calming design*). But I don't see this as bicycle specific - it benefits all road users. I agree that high speed merges can be reduced - again to the benefit of all road users. Both of these are good points.

My point however was mainly that the key things that one gains with training or experience is situational awareness from all directions, methods to make left turns safely, methods to merge to avoid debris, avoiding right hooks, avoiding door zones, identification of potential hazards - all of which are needed to an equal degree (arguably even more with some facilities) than on roads with no bicycle specific facilities. Cyclists, independent on what road types they ride on, need to know how to:
-Signal intents, left right, slow, stop.
-Be able to look behind them and cycle comfortably in straight line
-Signal desire to merge into a traffic flow
-Identify fixed and moving potential hazards

*(as an aside on traffic calmed roads, often the calming impacts cyclists as well, now having to deal with bulb-outs, bumps, cobblestones, road wiggles, etc.)

So in summary, yes, certain road designs (wide lanes, lower speeds, good sight lines, clean unobstructed/ unobstacled pavement) better accommodate cyclists (and all road users), but they do not reduce the need or type of experience and/or training to use these roads safely.

Al

[Bekologist]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

residential 'local' road designed with motorists secondary (as per current MUTCD directives) versus 50MPH high speed arterial with narrow curb lanes?

totally different demands on experience level required on latter road.

[genec]

High speed roads to me are not purely facility design. Speed can be reduced without changing any hardware, although hardware can help (traffic calming design*). But I don't see this as bicycle specific - it benefits all road users. I agree that high speed merges can be reduced - again to the benefit of all road users. Both of these are good points.



Neither one of your points will be welcomed by the majority road users... auto drivers. The more a road resembles their "ideal," the open freeway, the happier most motorists will be. Consider what a freeway really does. It provides separation, a controlled environment, few stops or intersections, and well ordered lanes... all of which allow for high speeds.

Now as an aside, where or what is the equivalent for cyclists?

[noisebeam]

Neither one of your points will be welcomed by the majority road users... auto drivers. The more a road resembles their "ideal," the open freeway, the happier most motorists will be. Consider what a freeway really does. It provides separation, a controlled environment, few stops or intersections, and well ordered lanes... all of which allow for high speeds.


These are the very points/characteristics that Bek and yourself are wanting - lower speed roads and less freeway like design. I note I agree with them and am told 'wont' be welcomed' ?

Al

[noisebeam]

totally different demands on experience level required on latter road.
I find that to be far more perception. I of course also ride on such secondary roads and when doing so draw heavily on the same experience/skills I listed above. Sure it can 'feel' safer, but when a hazard is encountered it can be as potentially injurious/deadly on a residential street.

Al

[genec]

That one fully separate path is obviously along a major street or freeway which was already below grade. It is probably a great "trunk line" but the side branches are going to have to be normal city streets. So while that particular route will add to the convenience of cyclists who happen to be going in that direction, everyone who uses it will still have to contend with ordinary traffic conditions at the beginning and end of their trip, just like cars drivers do before and after they use their freeways.

Yup, just like auto freeways. I am not touting such as a replacement for city streets, but to encourage faster and safer commuting. A bike freeway system just like auto drivers have. Such a system is safer as it reduces the number of intersections where accidents may happen, and by having fewer intersections, one can ride faster, by avoiding unneeded stops (designed for auto traffic) and preserve inertia.

And FYI the bike path was designed with the freeway as the freeway replaced the surface street that was there, thus cutting off an existing route for cyclists. However, such paths can be built to parallel freeways all over the country... and since cyclists are going to typically need to go to the same locations as motorists... paralleling freeways is a good way to begin.

[genec]

These are the very points/characteristics that Bek and yourself are wanting - lower speed roads and less freeway like design. I note I agree with them and am told 'wont' be welcomed' ?

Al

Not sure I understood what you were saying there. My comment is that while we want traffic calming... motorists do not.

[noisebeam]

Not sure I understood what you were saying there. My comment is that while we want traffic calming... motorists do not.
If the desire is for the 'general cycling public' to be able to use any road and it it said that traffic speeds should be reduced to support this, this means reducing speeds on all higher speed roads.

Anyway some motorists (including me) do support traffic calming. I read letters to editor all the time about speeds being too high, too many speeders, etc. Lower speeds benefit all road users - in most cases reduced speeds on urban/suburban roads will result in reduced motorist fatalities. Almost all pedestrians want slower traffic as well. Many motorists are pedestrians at some point and a some cyclists too.
Reducing speeds to make road safer is not only for cyclists.

Al

[genec]

If the desire is for the 'general cycling public' to be able to use any road and it it said that traffic speeds should be reduced to support this, this means reducing speeds on all higher speed roads.

Anyway some motorists (including me) do support traffic calming. I read letters to editor all the time about speeds being too high, too many speeders, etc. Lower speeds benefit all road users - in most cases reduced speeds on urban/suburban roads will result in reduced motorist fatalities. Almost all pedestrians want slower traffic as well. Many motorists are pedestrians at some point and a some cyclists too.
Reducing speeds to make road safer is not only for cyclists.

Al

While I fully agree... one has to wonder... given the prevalence for high speed driving generally well over the speed limit.

[noisebeam]

While I fully agree... one has to wonder... given the prevalence for high speed driving generally well over the speed limit.

A related aside: Here is an example of reduced speeds (thru photo enforcement) on a freeway has actually benefited all drivers by increasing average speed due to reduced accidents.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/14/20080514necameras0514.html

Here is a blog written by a motorist about the need for reduced speeding and reduced dangerous driving:
http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/TPK/23132

(yes I know... read the responses, but most have their position guided by reduced government involvement principles)

It's not only cycling advocacy.

Al

[Bekologist]

al, i suspect you are also familiar with road diets increasing motorist flowthru while also providing well implemented bike lanes? reducing 4 lane arterials to two lanes with dedicated bike lanes and a dedicated turn lane actually improves traffic flow thru.

an antiaccomodationalist cyclist like yourself would have no problems riding either road, but a road on a road diet will see more bicycling traffic. we have a road in Seattle that went on a road diet and there's nearly 10 percent bike modal share along it now that the diet has occured.

[noisebeam]

al, i suspect you are also familiar with road diets increasing motorist flowthru while also providing well implemented bike lanes? reducing 4 lane arterials to two lanes with dedicated bike lanes and a dedicated turn lane actually improves traffic flow thru.

Most every arterial where I live already have a shared center turn lane that is marked as dedicated LTO at intersections. There is no room to diet the road unless a full lane is removed. That can not and will not happen as these roads are already over capacity.

So after the diet the road may be more comfortable to cycle on but, without the same experience or training that helps make the pre-diet road more comfortable or safer, not necessarily safer.

Why would you call me elite? I've only been cycling as an adult ~4yrs and it only took less than half a year of experience to be comfortable on any road with no training.

edit: you called me elite in your first posting, then edited your post and changed it to 'anti-accomidationalist' - that again is a mis characterization. I support wide outside lanes, lower speeds and am neutral (not anti!) for extra wide and maintained bike lanes on long stretches of intersection less high speed roads...

Al

[patc]

what is one of the biggest barriers to greater cyclist participation in america?

Mindset.

[cudak888]

<rant>

You can argue all you want about physical planning - the entirety of this thread's direction overlooks the fact that most Americans ride a bicycle with the same mindset as someone meandering through a park, regardless of surroundings, like so:

http://www.freewheeling.ca/tours/images/austriap2v3.jpg

This may not be the ideal photo to indicate the general setting where this happens, but the riders' actions are a great example. One is walking directly into the path of two oncoming cyclists, another has stopped ahead in the narrowest part of the lane to examine something above, and the two oncoming cyclists are about to weave into each other, neither cyclist directly observing the road ahead.

My point is that you cannot have effective "cycling transportation" if the users of the system do not treat the system as competent cyclists, and it is quite generally apparent that by attracting hoards of casual bicyclists to new systems, one will end up creating an environment reminiscent of Critical Mass - with less order to it.

</rant>

-Kurt

P.S.: The stubbornness of most Americans to use steerhorn handlebars on cruisers/ballooners/'80s MTB-hybrids does not help the situation one bit. Yes, stubbornness, believe it or not. I have flipped a number of cruisers at different times - all of which I retrofit with North Road handlebars - and nearly always get nagged by buyers about the fact that the North Roads aren't big, wide, and deliciously unwieldy (even with good fit, buyers will complain about the improved handling).

[randya]

<rant>

You can argue all you want about physical planning - the entirety of this thread's direction overlooks the fact that most Americans ride a bicycle with the same mindset as someone meandering through a park, regardless of surroundings, like so:

http://www.freewheeling.ca/tours/images/austriap2v3.jpg

This may not be the ideal photo to indicate the general setting where this happens, but the riders' actions are a great example. One is walking directly into the path of two oncoming cyclists, another has stopped ahead in the narrowest part of the lane to examine something above, and the two oncoming cyclists are about to weave into each other, neither cyclist directly observing the road ahead.

My point is that you cannot have effective "cycling transportation" if the users of the system do not treat the system as competent cyclists, and it is quite generally apparent that by attracting hoards of casual bicyclists to new systems, one will end up creating an environment reminiscent of Critical Mass - with less order to it.

</rant>

-Kurt

P.S.: The stubbornness of most Americans to use steerhorn handlebars on cruisers/ballooners/'80s MTB-hybrids does not help the situation one bit. Yes, stubbornness, believe it or not. I have flipped a number of cruisers at different times - all of which I retrofit with North Road handlebars - and nearly always get nagged by buyers about the fact that the North Roads aren't big, wide, and deliciously unwieldy (even with good fit, buyers will complain about the improved handling).

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[invisiblehand]

For the most part, people do think of a person taking Road 1 & Road 2 as an "elite". Most people who ride a bike have never even heard of it. Where I live, there is only one LCI even holding classes. I ride my bike every day for transportation, I do not own a car, and I am not physically capable of taking that class the way it is taught here. It requires a degree of athleticism I do not possess and I most likely never will. There's no way I would ride places where people are driving 60 on a 45 mph road. If that is where I lived, I'm not sure I would be riding a bike. I have to ride on a 2 mile stretch of road like that in the suburbs twice a month from the light rail station to my employer's home office. Were it not for the bike lane, I wouldn't do it. I have no desire to be riding 15 mph in a lane where everyone else is going 60.

I'm not trying to be critical of SCUBA diving. I am sure it is a wonderful pastime. A bike, however, is used as a utilitarian tool to get from one place to another. While I know some people are professional divers and others are professional racing cyclists, I'm not sure I understand the comparison between a simple form of transportation to a mainly recreational activity like SCUBA diving.

Perhaps. I guess that I have met quite a few people that fail the "elite" qualifier in many ways yet ride VC. Although, the typical application of the VC strategy is selective; i.e., person rides "VC" on roads but as certain environmental factors change, they switch to something else . Why is another story. My guess is that it has something to do with their own perceptions of risk and their preferences. That is, even if one thinks that riding in the middle of the road is safe, there are people who rather not.

The comparison to SCUBA reflects my perception of what is needed to execute the strategy. IMO, I don't think that a particularly high standard of athleticism is needed to execute a VC strategy. Although I would say that there is a minimum standard. And ~20 hours of training seems like a small amount relative to other learned skills related to safety such as SCUBA.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that the original question referred to "elite trained cyclists." To my reading, this sounds like their training makes them elite. If you think that someone attaining master diver status is elite, then the small amount of training for cycling -- say road 1 + road 2 -- seems fail that standard.

[invisiblehand]

elite in regards this thread is elitism, not ability or skillsets.

"elite" and "elitist" have different meanings. in this forum all we have is language to communicate.

What makes VC elitist?

[cudak888]

"elite" and "elitist" have different meanings. in this forum all we have is language to communicate.

What makes VC elitist?

Proper term should have been "experienced" rather then "elite."

-Kurt

[genec]

Proper term should have been "experienced" rather then "elite."

-Kurt



1 asingular or plural in construction : the choice part : cream <the elite of the entertainment world> bsingular or plural in construction : the best of a class <superachievers who dominate the computer elite — Marilyn Chase> csingular or plural in construction : the socially superior part of society <how the elite live — A P World> <how the French-speaking elite…was changing — Economist> d: a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence <members of the ruling elite> <the intellectual elites of the country> e: a member of such an elite —usually used in plural <the elites …, pursuing their studies in Europe — Robert Wernick>

That "experience" within a larger class makes you "elite."

[John E]

I should be able to walk or ride a bike from Point A to Point B without having to contend with a high-speed multilane free merge or diverge.

We have freeways for fast travel in motor vehicles. The new ones should be designed with parallel bicycle paths, such as Gene's example along Highway 56 in San Diego.

With an aging population, we also need to have a fully interconnected grid of 35mph and slower streets, which can be used legally by drivers of NEVs. To me, this implies that the speed limits on some of our prime arterials should be reduced.

[Bekologist]

The general consensus among a self styled elite of "trained cyclists" that holds elitist attitudes regards cyclist training versus infrastructure, and the specious mantras of 'every lane is a bike lane' 'more cyclist training' versus building a decidedly more facilities rich environment is what I was contrasting in the original post.

[mandovoodoo]

Seems to me there are too many roads to build special facilities along them all. At some point, cyclists and motorists mix on roads not worth spending special money on. Perhaps having roads more comprehensively designed to allow a safe mix in cities would lead to more competent behavior on current roads. That would be nice. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

That's something to put into the mix. Even experienced club cyclists very often act stupid out in the countryside. Wrong side of the road, stopping in the roadway, stopping in the roadway generally but especially stopping in a gaggle at stop signs leaving little room for cars turning in. If club riders behave this way, then I would expect relatively inexperienced riders (recreational and transportational) to behave badly.

I can't get around the need to get more smarts about the situation into road users generally. As well as making non-motorized traffic safer. I suspect a multi-pronged approach will develop.

I like the separate bicycle freeway concept. I just don't think it will happen in very many places. But we do have rights of way along roads. My wife and I were cruising along Alcoa Highway between Knoxville & Maryville yesterday. I'd ride on the shoulder through much of it, but there are spots that aren't at all friendly. And lots of road debris. Yet I know people commute by bike along it. Better to put in one bicycle freeway or fix the hot spots on a dozen road routes? I don't know. Tough questions.

[cudak888]

That "experience" within a larger class makes you "elite."

So a good and experienced motorist would be considered "elite?"

In fact, that may be not so far from the truth, but you're going to piss off a number of folks who do not care to know that the term "elite" does not necessarily carry the connotation of "elitist."

-Kurt

[invisiblehand]

The general consensus among a self styled elite of "trained cyclists" that holds elitist attitudes regards cyclist training versus infrastructure, and the specious mantras of 'every lane is a bike lane' 'more cyclist training' versus building a decidedly more facilities rich environment is what I was contrasting in the original post.

My emphasis in this font.

What makes those attitudes elitist?

I recall that the standard mantra is that most everyone can learn the skills and effectively cycle with a VC strategy. Now -- as the conversation with Donna demonstrates -- whether that is true or not is another story.** However, to all appearances, the doctrine is sincere; i.e., they really believe it.

** I should point out whether it is optimal or not is also debatable.

[Bekologist]

WHAT makes those atitudes 'elitist'? Perhaps a question for another thread.

this is a question of integration versus accomodationalism, how best to plan for the community of existing bicyclists, and if communities should consider the accodationalist model of planning for bikes in communities or the 'every lane is a bike lane' elite.

what drove this to be characterized as 'elite' in the original post is perhaps, a slip of language that best be excused as sloppy framing.

if its a question of if everyone learn the techniques how to ride a bike in traffic- there's NO QUESTION you can't do that, nor will that get grandma to ride the 50MPH ring road to Walmart! seriously...

[genec]

WHAT makes those atitudes 'elitist'? Perhaps a question for another thread.


There is a difference between elite and elitist.

Elite is simply having a set of skills that is unique in a larger base. Considering the number of people that ride bikes, and the few that can say, ride a wheelie, those that can ride a wheelie are elite.

To spout off about that feat or exclude others who do not have that skill is "elitist." To exclude others based on certain traits is "elitist."

[Torrilin]

I wasn't aware drivers are required to take hours of training; in this state you show up for a road and classroom test, and if you pass, you get a liscense. NO hours of training required at all.

It varies by state. In PA, the in-vehicle hours requirement went in about 10 years ago. This is not long enough to make any kind of difference, since PA has a large elderly population and a low birth rate. Most young people move to other states by age 25. WI has an in-vehicle hours requirement as well, and it went in at about the same time as PA's. I think WI's demographics are a bit more favorable for seeing results.

Since these kinds of licensing requirements are not uniform, it will take many decades to see if they've produced genuine improvement in drivers. My younger sister got her license under the new rules, so by the time she's in her 50s, we should have solid data :P. My partner's sister is the same age, and has never gotten her license due to the stricter requirements. My partner and I are old enough that we got our licenses under the old rules.

[noisebeam]

, nor will that get grandma to ride the 50MPH ring road to Walmart! seriously...

I've cycled with (at least) four different women who are over 60 (although only two were grandmas) on 50mph roads with no bicycle specific accommodations. All four of them took up cycling between 20-40yrs of age so had experience. All four seemed more comfortable in fast traffic vs. some of the 20yrs old I've cycled with who just took up cycling. My own grandmother cycled regularly until ~75 of age on mostly non accommodated roads.
Just as I would not expect a grandma to start motoring on 50mph roads with no past motoring experience I wouldn't expect grandma to start cycling on 50mph road with no past cycling experience.

Al

[noisebeam]

When I first started commuting 4yrs ago I didn't know much about cycling in traffic and had nearly no experience in doing so - other than some smaller group rides as a teenager in rural settings. Actually all I knew was that I could legally use any part of the road if required and got several warnings (from non-cyclists) that if I cycled on the sidewalk and was hit by a car it would be 100% my fault (not actually true, but that was what these two folks told me). Those warnings stuck with me hard for some reason.

I starting getting comfortable on a bike before commuting, riding in my neighborhood, venturing out here and there for errands. I did that for 2-3mo and decided I was ready to cycle to work. My biggest fear was left turns, both getting into the LT lane as well as being able to go quickly when there was a gap in traffic. I picked a route that avoided as many left turns as possible. This route had more stretches of arterial mostly with no bike lane. That didn't bother me. (Keep in mind this was before I found BF or even knew what VC was) At that time I was cycling at ~15mph and had a 2mi stretch with NOL - I didn't particularly like it, but it was the only choice vs. the sidewalk I'd been warned against. I lined up with traffic just because I wasn't comfortable filtering in such a narrow space as I hadn't developed confidence in my skills to do so.

Shortly after I wanted to seek out more information on cycling in traffic, being safe, etc. and found BF and some on line guides to cycling in traffic. I absorbed a lot and gained confidence in parallel to my skills and fitness improving. The main help was in learning to negotiate merges for lane changes and left turns. At this point I'd been cycling ~9mo (3mo in hood, 6mo for commute)

So overall the learning curve to be very comfortable in a wide range of traffic conditions (of the kind found locally) was under a year. I had no special training for skills and no special physical training (just my 17mi RT commute)

Yes I gained confidence/skills thru experience, but I wouldn't say it was any special experience or something unattainable for the general public. I still can't play basketball and have more years of experience there. I also wouldn't call the elementary school kids I see on my commute home playing b-ball better than I ever could elite basket ball players.

I think the most important aspect was my strong desire to be as safe as possible and the proactive seeking out of information that would help with that. Also I think what helped was not having any special facilities that forced me to learn how to cycle in those conditions - had I only ever encountered bike lanes, paths and bridges so I could avoid merges for left turns I would never have had the reason to learn to cycle with instead of outside of other traffic.

I am still learning and driven to improve, the process does not stop, especially when it affects my life/limb.

Al

[invisiblehand]

if its a question of if everyone learn the techniques how to ride a bike in traffic- there's NO QUESTION you can't do that, nor will that get grandma to ride the 50MPH ring road to Walmart! seriously...

In short -- and writing roughly -- I think that the statement is right. That is, in a practical sense if one wants utility/transportation cycling to be more universal, then some accommodation is necessary. But I think that a lot of places lack the resources and political will to do so. And even if you get the resources, it appears that effectively directing those resources is quite difficult.

[genec]

So a good and experienced motorist would be considered "elite?"

In fact, that may be not so far from the truth, but you're going to piss off a number of folks who do not care to know that the term "elite" does not necessarily carry the connotation of "elitist."

-Kurt

Yeah... dictionaries are amazing things, eh?

And let's add good, experienced and well trained to your elite motorist consideration... just for good measure. ;)

[genec]

When I first started commuting 4yrs ago I didn't know much about cycling in traffic and had nearly no experience in doing so - other than some smaller group rides as a teenager in rural settings. Actually all I knew was that I could legally use any part of the road if required and got several warnings (from non-cyclists) that if I cycled on the sidewalk and was hit by a car it would be 100% my fault (not actually true, but that was what these two folks told me). Those warnings stuck with me hard for some reason.

I starting getting comfortable on a bike before commuting, riding in my neighborhood, venturing out here and there for errands. I did that for 2-3mo and decided I was ready to cycle to work. My biggest fear was left turns, both getting into the LT lane as well as being able to go quickly when there was a gap in traffic. I picked a route that avoided as many left turns as possible. This route had more stretches of arterial mostly with no bike lane. That didn't bother me. (Keep in mind this was before I found BF or even knew what VC was) At that time I was cycling at ~15mph and had a 2mi stretch with NOL - I didn't particularly like it, but it was the only choice vs. the sidewalk I'd been warned against. I lined up with traffic just because I wasn't comfortable filtering in such a narrow space as I hadn't developed confidence in my skills to do so.

Shortly after I wanted to seek out more information on cycling in traffic, being safe, etc. and found BF and some on line guides to cycling in traffic. I absorbed a lot and gained confidence in parallel to my skills and fitness improving. The main help was in learning to negotiate merges for lane changes and left turns. At this point I'd been cycling ~9mo (3mo in hood, 6mo for commute)

So overall the learning curve to be very comfortable in a wide range of traffic conditions (of the kind found locally) was under a year. I had no special training for skills and no special physical training (just my 17mi RT commute)

Yes I gained confidence/skills thru experience, but I wouldn't say it was any special experience or something unattainable for the general public. I still can't play basketball and have more years of experience there. I also wouldn't call the elementary school kids I see on my commute home playing b-ball better than I ever could elite basket ball players.

I think the most important aspect was my strong desire to be as safe as possible and the proactive seeking out of information that would help with that. Also I think what helped was not having any special facilities that forced me to learn how to cycle in those conditions - had I only ever encountered bike lanes, paths and bridges so I could avoid merges for left turns I would never have had the reason to learn to cycle with instead of outside of other traffic.

I am still learning and driven to improve, the process does not stop, especially when it affects my life/limb.

Al

I had no idea you were so "inexperienced" Al. Interesting. The other thing that you have to look at is personal comfort with being in traffic... some folks just have a hard time dealing with the noise and close passing situations. So indeed, while someone can go from being a novice to a regular cyclist in very little time, they may not be able to overcome their internal fear feelings of being out there in traffic... just as some folks will not fly or will not swim. (my wife, for instance, can swim and can SCUBA dive, but refuses to swim any distance in which she cannot "see the bottom")

I also feel that people are fearful of being out in traffic as they know internally how much on the edge they are with driving... and may make the assumption that other drivers are similar... and it may scare them to consider cycling among a bunch of drivers like themselves.

Unlike you, I have been cycling for a long long time... and I have lost and gained confidence over and over again... a simple accident can do that... you lose "trust" where you had it before. Close calls with motorists "kill that trust" now and then. Indeed, I simply fall back on "riding in the hood" when that happens.... and eventually make my way "back onto the horse."

[noisebeam]

I had no idea you were so "inexperienced" Al.
...

Unlike you, I have been cycling for a long long time... and I have lost and gained confidence over and over again... a simple accident can do that... you lose "trust" where you had it before. Close calls with motorists "kill that trust" now and then. Indeed, I simply fall back on "riding in the hood" when that happens.... and eventually make my way "back onto the horse."
Yeah, it is both a liability in not having great duration in experience, but also a benefit as I can remember clearly what it is like to just start out.
As to trust - Since I started using a mirror I've never put total blind trust in any other driver. I also know I can/will/have make/made mistakes and other drivers will too.
By far the most trusting I do with the least confirmation is going thru intersections with drivers waiting to make left turns. These concern me the most no matter what vehicle I drive. 2nd to that is drivers on my right entering the roadway I am on.
I too have had ups and downs in my experience but know I haven't hit the max on either end.
Al

[invisiblehand]

I also feel that people are fearful of being out in traffic as they know internally how much on the edge they are with driving... and may make the assumption that other drivers are similar... and it may scare them to consider cycling among a bunch of drivers like themselves.

:roflmao2:

Oh ... that is quite good Gene.

[cudak888]

Yeah... dictionaries are amazing things, eh?

And let's add good, experienced and well trained to your elite motorist consideration... just for good measure. ;)

Fine - avoid the point if you want to persist being a snob. I see no reason why you cannot make a similar (abeit, B.S.) comparison between any other road user if one applies the "elite" or "general public" definition to cyclists.

Remember that when a misunderstanding of terminology results in a nation-wide political drive for "wrong-way bicycle sidewalks" throughout the United States...for the safety of the general public. :rolleyes:

-Kurt

P.S.: You are thinking of a thesaurus.

[genec]

:roflmao2:

Oh ... that is quite good Gene.

the baby seems to be laughing as much as the smilie.

[genec]

Fine - avoid the point if you want to persist being a snob. I see no reason why you cannot make a similar (abeit, B.S.) comparison between any other road user if one applies the "elite" or "general public" definition to cyclists.
Perhaps one can, but take a look at the differences between the lycra-clad helmet wearing road speedster verses the "general public" just riding to work fred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_%28bicycling%29).

That sort of dichotomy doesn't really exist among the driving set... that I can tell. (Although I could be wrong... those Boxster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_Boxster) drivers are just too few and far between.


Remember that when a misunderstanding of terminology results in a nation-wide political drive for "wrong-way bicycle sidewalks" throughout the United States...for the safety of the general public".

-Kurt

P.S.: You are thinking of a thesaurus.

No actually the dictionary... I looked up the meanings of elite and elitist. They are quite different. (uh, was that elitist?)

[noisebeam]

Perhaps one can, but take a look at the differences between the lycra-clad helmet wearing road speedster verses the "general public" just riding to work fred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_%28bicycling%29).

That sort of dichotomy doesn't really exist among the driving set... that I can tell. (Although I could be wrong... those Boxster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_Boxster) drivers are just too few and far between.

I think there is a direct parallel between bicycle and car driver types. Just as one can cycle commute on just about any type of bike/outfit, so can one motor commute with the same full range of motor vehicle and driver gear. In both cases some/many? choose fashion over function and don't mind or are not aware of the (often minor) compromises for doing so.

Al

[joejack951]

I had no idea you were so "inexperienced" Al. Interesting.

Just for the record, my cycling experience is about the same as Al's. I started cycling consistently about 4 years ago to gain back some fitness and lose some weight. I cycled at off-peak hours on mostly quiet roads for about a year before deciding that I wanted to commute to work by bike. I found A&S plus a bunch of other information while searching for ways to deal with narrow, busy backroads like the kind that I take to work. Because of my year of cycling, fitness for the commute was not an issue for me at all.

As to being an elite cyclist, I've been dropped by a young kid (I'm far from old myself) on a full suspension off-brand MTB going uphill on my way home from work. Granted I was tired and carrying some extra weight but you get my point hopefully.

[genec]

I think there is a direct parallel between bicycle and car driver types. Just as one can cycle commute on just about any type of bike/outfit, so can one motor commute with the same full range of motor vehicle and driver gear. In both cases some/many? choose fashion over function and don't mind or are not aware of the (often minor) compromises for doing so.

Al

But, in reference to the question of the OP... are the roads designed for a wide range of motorists, or for the well trained elite?

And yeah as far as clothing, that can be real misleading... on any day for instance I may wear full kit and ride my fast road bike, and that evening I may cruise down to the store on my fat tire bike wearing while wearing old shorts and a T shirt.

It is somewhat funny though seeing how elitist some cyclists can be. I tend to wave at any cyclist... but I find that I only get waves or nods back from roadies when I am dressed "properly."

[invisiblehand]

the baby seems to be laughing as much as the smilie.

Hah! Quite interesting ...

[Darrenmc]

I hate the term "elite" used to describe people who know how to signal, take a proper lane position when mixing with low speed car traffic, shoulder check, etc. It's not that hard, and it's not that hard to learn. If you can drive a car and are in reasonable physical condition you can be an "elite" cyclist. Some of the tougher VC maneuvers like left turns in heavy traffic can be done pedestrian style if that's where your comfort level is.

"Elite" means spandex clad competitive road racers in my opinion.

I use a bicycle for transportation. I am not excited about sharing bicycle facilities with wobbly and unpredictable toddlers (just as I'd hate to allow 8 year olds to drive cars) ... I'd rather ride with the cars than with the toddlers.

I'm in favour of bike lanes too (even if it's just a stripe of paint, motorists tend to pay attention to paint), but we shouldn't pretend that bike lanes make for idiot-proof cycling. (that's the argument against bike lanes, they say "hey, come on the bike lane, you don't need to know what you are doing!" Wrong. You DO still need to know what you are doing).

[I-Like-To-Bike]

...they say "hey, come on the bike lane, you don't need to know what you are doing!" Wrong. You DO still need to know what you are doing).

Can you provide any reference to whom "they" might be? And in addition how 'bout a reference to where "they" have said "hey, come on the bike lane, you don't need to know what you are doing!"

[genec]

I hate the term "elite" used to describe people who know how to signal, take a proper lane position when mixing with low speed car traffic, shoulder check, etc. It's not that hard, and it's not that hard to learn. If you can drive a car and are in reasonable physical condition you can be an "elite" cyclist. Some of the tougher VC maneuvers like left turns in heavy traffic can be done pedestrian style if that's where your comfort level is.

"Elite" means spandex clad competitive road racers in my opinion.



Yup, in your opinion...

In reality, "elite" simply means those minor few that that are distinct from the rest of the over all group that do some things a bit better... those very items you outlined in your first paragraph... "know how to signal, take a proper lane position when mixing with low speed car traffic, shoulder check, etc." Funny how there really are so few of them compared to the general cycling population, eh?

[gcottay]

In design of public space, should communities consider design for 'trained' street cyclists or members of the general public?

In design of public space, communities should consider design for both 'trained' street cyclists and members of the general public. Those of us who ride on the streets, though, do need education and training.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Those of us who ride on the streets, though, do need education and training.

We do? From whom?