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

[Darrenmc]

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?

Elite does not merely mean "having a rare degree of skill", it also carries a strong connotation that such skills would be difficult to achieve, or that such skills are rare *by definition*. The reason for the confusion is that usually difficulty and rarity go together, but they do not need to.

I reject terming basic VC-skills as "elite", because they are not inherently rare or difficult skills. Only a few people can be "elite" racers by definition, but many millions of people could learn to ride VC. If there were many millions of "elite" cyclists, they wouldn't really be "elite" anymore, would they? The question "should we target facilities at 'elite' VC-cyclists only?" implies that VC-cyclists will always and forever by a small minority, and this is not necessarily the case.

I took a cycling course which got me to an OK VC-standard...and it was way easier than learning to drive a car. Millions of people drive cars.

edit: I don't want to nitpick, because the OP raises a good question. What assumptions should we make when we design bicycle facilities? But again, the use of the word "elite" would be objected to as "leading the witness" in a courtroom.... as soon as you say VC is elite then obviously it seems to make no sense to even THINK about encouraging VC or assuming VC-type skills in the facility users.

[Darrenmc]

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!"

Why is it that every single bike lane advocate says that bike lanes "encourage cycling" among people who would not otherwise ride on roads? Because such new riders think their lack of ability to deal with traffic (the factor that keeps them off the roads) is not a problem in a bike lane.

[genec]

Elite does not merely mean "having a rare degree of skill", it also carries a strong connotation that such skills would be difficult to achieve, or that such skills are rare *by definition*. The reason for the confusion is that usually difficulty and rarity go together, but they do not need to.

I reject terming basic VC-skills as "elite", because they are not inherently rare or difficult skills. Only a few people can be "elite" racers by definition, but many millions of people could learn to ride VC. If there were many millions of "elite" cyclists, they wouldn't really be "elite" anymore, would they? The question "should we target facilities at 'elite' VC-cyclists only?" implies that VC-cyclists will always and forever by a small minority, and this is not necessarily the case.

I took a cycling course which got me to an OK VC-standard...and it was way easier than learning to drive a car. Millions of people drive cars.

edit: I don't want to nitpick, because the OP raises a good question. What assumptions should we make when we design bicycle facilities? But again, the use of the word "elite" would be objected to as "leading the witness" in a courtroom.... as soon as you say VC is elite then obviously it seems to make no sense to even THINK about encouraging VC or assuming VC-type skills in the facility users.

The big difference is between will and could. Anybody could learn the right skills and use them... few have and will. Thus "elite" still fits.... sadly. Anyone with the right skills can ride on the streets as they are now... however the majority of bicycle owners won't... thus again, "elite" still fits.

The same can be said for defensive and higher order driving skills... as it is, we plan our cities for the lowest common denominator when it comes to driving skills, (just about anyone can get a license) why shouldn't the same "standard" apply for cycling?

[Feathers]

just design for both levels of cyclist. differences in hardware, strength, skill, age, ability, and intelligence will sort everything else.

[cudak888]

just design for both levels of cyclist. differences in hardware, strength, skill, age, ability, and intelligence will sort everything else.

Do you realize what type of signage you would have if you applied that broad logic? Particularly the "intelligence" aspect of it?

http://www.jaysmarine.com/bikelanes.jpg

-Kurt

[I-Like-To-Bike]

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!"

Why is it that every single bike lane advocate says that bike lanes "encourage cycling" among people who would not otherwise ride on roads? Because such new riders think their lack of ability to deal with traffic (the factor that keeps them off the roads) is not a problem in a bike lane.

So am I correct in assuming that "they say" means Darrenmc says. Did you use clairvoyant powers to determine what "such new riders" are thinking as well?

[genec]

Do you realize what type of signage you would have if you applied that logic, particularly the "intelligence" aspect of it?

-Kurt


That's funny, but based on some road signs I have seen lately... apparently that IS what is needed for some motorists.

[Darrenmc]

The big difference is between will and could. Anybody could learn the right skills and use them... few have and will. Thus "elite" still fits.... sadly. Anyone with the right skills can ride on the streets as they are now... however the majority of bicycle owners won't... thus again, "elite" still fits.

Well... the "majority of bicycle owners" don't use their bicycles for transportation at all, so "bicycle facilities" are irrelevant to them... just give them a MUP in a park and they are happy. They won't take a course. A more interesting question: could more people who are already interested in using a bike for transport be persuaded to learn more? They might be. I was riding in traffic for years (badly) before I even knew that you COULD take a course... I just assumed that you got on a bike, got out there, did what everybody else did, and tried not to get run over.

I would bet that the kind of people who would be attracted to a bike lane might also be attracted to learning safer riding practices.... if they knew that there even was such a thing! How about a few public service billboards? If we put a tenth the effort into promoting cyclist education that we did into promoting helmet use, perhaps we'd get somewhere? The "elite" would no longer be "elite".

Again, I reject the notion that most people who are already riding in traffic are too lazy to learn the basics of doing it properly.

[Darrenmc]

So am I correct in assuming that "they say" means Darrenmc says. Did you use clairvoyant powers to determine what "such new riders" are thinking as well?

I have no interest in fencing with you. Do you have a point?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I have no interest in fencing with you. Do you have a point?

Don't pretend a personal opinion and/or dream about what others think or said is substantiated because the guesswork is prefaced with a fuzzy phrase like "They say" or "they think."

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Again, I reject the notion that most people who are already riding in traffic are too lazy to learn the basics of doing it properly.

I reject the notion that laziness is the reason why people who are already riding in traffic are not interested in the sales pitch of those anxious to teach the basics of (allegedly) doing it properly.

[mandovoodoo]

The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that simply marked, clear, complete roads are the most reasonable solution to a complex mix of traffic. Add to that a continuous series of public service briefings on TV. All channels. Just one point in 15 seconds 100 times a day. "Bikes are vehicles, treat them with respect." "Cyclists ride on the right, here's why." "Watch for the 'right hook'." Just raises awareness and gets the rules widely known. And distributes basic knowledge of road tactics. Include scooter and motorcycle safety in there. Have a 15 spot on why squids die. Keep them short & funny. That would work.

That and issuing cyclists light automatic weapons.

[genec]

Well... the "majority of bicycle owners" don't use their bicycles for transportation at all, so "bicycle facilities" are irrelevant to them... just give them a MUP in a park and they are happy. They won't take a course. A more interesting question: could more people who are already interested in using a bike for transport be persuaded to learn more? They might be. I was riding in traffic for years (badly) before I even knew that you COULD take a course... I just assumed that you got on a bike, got out there, did what everybody else did, and tried not to get run over.

I would bet that the kind of people who would be attracted to a bike lane might also be attracted to learning safer riding practices.... if they knew that there even was such a thing! How about a few public service billboards? If we put a tenth the effort into promoting cyclist education that we did into promoting helmet use, perhaps we'd get somewhere? The "elite" would no longer be "elite".

Again, I reject the notion that most people who are already riding in traffic are too lazy to learn the basics of doing it properly.

Let me start from the bottom... I agree that most people riding in traffic are NOT too lazy to learn more then the basics. Then let me say you also pointed out why most people that already have an interest in cycling don't learn more... they too don't know where to get that education, just like you. Road cycling or commuting is not taught at any regular school that I am aware of. I understand that it IS taught in certain countries in Europe, in school, and I believe there may be some places such as Hawaii where some schools teach it... but for the most part, bike training is not taught in public schools... So one has to seek it. But where do you look, where do you start... especially if you aren't that familiar with cycling advocacy or any of the local organizations. I don't know of any active promotional programs (Perhaps Portland??). I do know that locally bike shops don't even know this (I know, I go from shop to shop asking).

Now the reality is there are programs... but they rely on a "tupperware party" kind of word of mouth and teaching at someone's house... and they are not widely promoted. The advocacy group in my area gives the classes for free... but if you didn't know they existed, you'd never find out about the classes. This is my biggest gripe about cycling education... the lack of promotion, and the disconnect between shops and advocacy. Look, you had a hard time finding a class... think about those park riders you mentioned at the top of your reply... what if they decided to "go a bit further," and ride to work one day... but before that, they wanted some clarification about how to do it. You'd be hard pressed to get such info. Even the books on cycling from Franklin, Hurst, and Forester are generally not found in bike shops nor even book stores... so again... where does one go?

Yeah the desire may be there, but the classes and trainers are not exactly standing on the corner.

Anybody could learn to be a better commuter... but it just isn't happening... and a big part of the problem is that cycling advocacy is not promoting education... of either motorists or cyclists. You have to go out and seek it. And shops don't help either. At least in the SCUBA community, if you want to learn how to dive, you just walk into a SCUBA shop and ask... they'll be more then glad to teach you. The same doesn't apply in the cycling community.

Thus... sadly, those that do know the rules, the best practices and practice those skills regularly, are indeed "elite." But it shouldn't be that way. That's just the way it is.

Now for reference... the LAB has classes...
http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/index.php

And my local area has an advocacy group that gives classes to interested cyclists...
http://www.sdcbc.org/

Is there anything available in your area? How is it promoted? Even searching the net is not very effective... unless I knew about my local group, there would be no quick way to find out they offer free education. (the info is there... after going down some false web paths... )

Oh and the last part... "well marked roadways and all," and that they should be fine for everyone... yeah, almost... Many roads however are designed with cars in mind... so they are too fast or allow for blind spots or have freeway like corners and exits... they are not ideal for cyclists. Those roads do take experience to ride, thus they are not for everybody.

[rando]

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).

FAIL! :roflmao2:

funny, I don't hear these "voices" calling to me from the bike lane. lemme guess, you just discovered "Effective Cycling".

[rando]

I was riding in traffic for years (badly) before I even knew that you COULD take a course... I just assumed that you got on a bike, got out there, did what everybody else did, and tried not to get run over.

yep, that's pretty much it. if you know the rules of the road, you know how to ride. you'd hate the way I ride. it would make you do this> :twitchy:




Again, I reject the notion that most people who are already riding in traffic are too lazy to learn the basics of doing it properly.

I'm not lazy. but I have no interest in attending "class" to "Learn" how to do it "properly"... what are you, the commuting police? please stop.

[genec]

I'm not lazy. but I have no interest in attending "class" to "Learn" how to do it "properly"... what are you, the commuting police? please stop.

What sort of things do you "do properly" that did not require some form of training?

Do you drive? How did you learn?

Do you ski or dive? How did you learn?

Do you read and write? How did you learn?

BTW I am not the commuting police... but I find it interesting that people just assume they know all about riding a bike in traffic just because they can make the bike go forward.

How did you learn how to ride a bike?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

What sort of things do you "do properly" that did not require some form of training?

[Snip]
How did you learn how to ride a bike?
I do bicycling properly and nobody trained me. I got on a bicycle with training wheels and rode it until I didn't need training wheels, along time ago. Rode to school by the third grade in Philadelphia traffic and have been ridind ever since. It ain't rocket science.

I don't need, nor want any pushy/zealous training promoters hassling me nor my bicycling comrades with the product of their bicycling epiphany.

[genec]

I do bicycling properly and nobody trained me. I got on a bicycle with training wheels and rode it until I didn't need training wheels, along time ago. Rode to school by the third grade in Philadelphia traffic and have been ridind ever since. It ain't rocket science.

I don't need, nor want any pushy/zealous training promoters hassling me nor my bicycling comrades with the product of their bicycling epiphany.

So no parent or neighbor gave you a few pointers... no relative helped you remove the training wheels, no teacher told you to look both ways...

Those were also different times... when neighbors did look out for each other and SUVs didn't rule the roads. But still I find it somewhat difficult to believe you did not receive some sort of guidance from someone.

Now perhaps one needn't go to some fancy training program. But it would be nice if something was offered readily for those that would like a bit of a head start on the road to hard knocks.

Don't get me mixed up with the VC "acolytes," but at the same time, having seen folks that could not pull themselves up by their own bootstraps (or shift their way out of a wet paper bag), I do feel there is a need for some form of basic cycling education... more then just "this is how you balance it... " And more then just pushing someone in a straight line into traffic.

Sometimes one only need be pushed off the board into the deep end... sometimes it takes more.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

So no parent or neighbor gave you a few pointers... no relative helped you remove the training wheels, no teacher told you to look both ways...
Nope, neither of my parents ever rode a bike in their lives. My mother never drove a car either. Nope even a six year old can use a pair of pliers.

Millions of people learn all they need to learn about bicycling without the benefit of a certified instructor training them the approved methods used by the trained elite. It ain't rocket science.

[rando]

well, yeah, my Father showed me how to stay upright on a bike. I already knew the rules of the road, and how to signal. I guess I picked those up somewhere when I was young. When I started commuting, I also got a lot of tips from websites like this one. But I never had any formal "training" in riding a bicycle. I don't believe it's necessary.

[genec]

Nope, neither of my parents ever rode a bike in their lives. My mother never drove a car either. Nope even a six year old can use a pair of pliers.

Millions of people learn all they need to learn about bicycling without the benefit of a certified instructor training them the approved methods used by the trained elite. It ain't rocket science.

You're right, it isn't rocket science. And millions do learn, somewhat on their own. (and I bet someone teaches them... certified or not) But there millions more that are still riding sidewalks, still humping around in the wrong gear, still don't know jack about using arm signals for turning, or how to change a flat... etc.

What do you suggest for those folks that can't or don't learn it on their own, or worse, don't know that what they are doing may be dangerous? Osmosis?

Look I am not all that keen on "the approved method" either... but until at least bike shops offer some basics.... the only other source some folks have is a well meaning friend... or a "certified instructor," otherwise they have nothing, and in some cases, it shows.

Not everyone is the self starter you appear to be. Believe me... I've seen folks that were really simpletons when it came to what I too assumed were "obvious things" regarding cycling. (and those folks were licensed drivers... and probably voters too... go figure.) ;)

[chipcom]

You're right, it isn't rocket science. And millions do learn, somewhat on their own. (and I bet someone teaches them... certified or not) But there millions more that are still riding sidewalks, still humping around in the wrong gear, still don't know jack about using arm signals for turning, or how to change a flat... etc.

What do you suggest for those folks that can't or don't learn it on their own, or worse, don't know that what they are doing may be dangerous?

There is no right way or wrong way when it comes to cycling...whatever works for someone else is fine with me and if they survive, it obviously works for them. The folks that can't or don't learn it on their own either don't cycle or don't survive...oh well, as the helmet nannies like to say, Darwin at work.

Indeed, I don't ride according to the rulebook of the false prophets because I don't wear a helmet and lord forbid I even listen to music...yet other than ILTB, there ain't a lot of people in these forums who have been riding as long in traffic as I have...and with minimal accidents to boot! Does that mean ILTB and I are some kind of super-duper uber-cyclist freaks of nature? Not hardly...if we can do it, anyone can do it.

IMO, the only people who preach from the rulebook of the false prophets for the 'one true way' are insecure control freaks that wish to inflict their limitations on everyone else so they can feel adequate.

[zeytoun]

I was too lazy to read each and every post before sharing my over-inflated viewpoint ;-)

When my wife and I were in Italy in February, we noticed how the infrastructure was more conducive to both types of riders.

Towns were centralized, and car drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists alike seemed to understand that the roads (old, narrow) were for sharing. No one (cyclists or cars) bombed down city streets expecting people to move. They saved their fast driving for in between towns.

Elite cyclists wouldn't train in the city, they would train by riding from one city to the next.

If we just forced zoning to be on a less car-centric scale and magnitude of sprawl, this would be more possible, and I think the our public spaces would feel a lot less isolating and intimidating.

[genec]

Indeed, I don't ride according to the rulebook of the false prophets because I don't wear a helmet and lord forbid I even listen to music...yet other than ILTB, there ain't a lot of people in these forums who have been riding as long in traffic as I have...and with minimal accidents to boot! Does that mean ILTB and I are some kind of super-duper uber-cyclist freaks of nature? Not hardly...if we can do it, anyone can do it.


One might think that way... until you'd seen the folks I saw that did show up for a Road 1 class. Look, we take it for granted... the "mysteries" of shifting don't elude me or you or ILTB. We're cyclists. (hell, I can "field strip" and overhaul any of my bikes with ease... even Helmet Head was not so mechanically inclined.)

The folks I observed were not cyclists... they knew only that if you push the pedals, the bike thingy goes forward. I know you and ILTB are probably laughing at this, but those folks exist. Really. I remember one woman mentioned riding on sidewalks... but she wanted to ride the three miles to work, but there weren't any sidewalks... so she didn't know what to do. Two of the people didn't understand "shifting gears." One guy complained that "his legs went too fast." These were not brain damaged people. They just didn't get it and they wanted to. So are you of the opinion that such folks should just be left on their own... or should they be helped in some manner to ride bikes?

Everyone learned... even "the sidewalk woman..." she learned how to make left turns in 45MH traffic across three lanes. I'd say that's a hell of an improvement for her.

Having been a SCUBA instructor for years... I'm telling you that there are all kinds of folks in this world... and you just have to have a touch of empathy to understand where some of these folks are coming from.


IMO, the only people who preach from the rulebook of the false prophets for the 'one true way' are insecure control freaks that wish to inflict their limitations on everyone else so they can feel adequate.

Now here we somewhat agree... I honestly wish there was some other program for teaching cycling that didn't come with the "one true way" baggage. I know that locally the LCI that taught these classes did not promote the "one true way." He was about as neutral as they come... however, since there is some latitude in the the material of the classes, no doubt, some LCIs are "preaching the word."

[Darrenmc]

I do bicycling properly and nobody trained me. I got on a bicycle with training wheels and rode it until I didn't need training wheels, along time ago. Rode to school by the third grade in Philadelphia traffic and have been ridind ever since. It ain't rocket science.

Well, it isn't rocket science, no, (which was exactly my point by the way) but judging by the number of people I see zooming along in Toronto, 2 feet away from the parked cars (this is how the vast majority of people in Toronto ride), a little training might go a long way. (a guy just got his skull and spine crushed on Eglinton Ave getting doored and then falling in front of a cube van, but no big deal because after all, cycling isn't rocket science, right? :eek:)

Or are you suggesting that cruising along in the door zone is actually safer than taking a lane? Consider two accident types: type A (getting doored) and type B (getting hit from behind). If you never ride in the door zone you will never get doored, period. However, if this involves taking a lane you may be increasing your chances of getting hit from behind...... or are you? It may be that the "hit from behind" is more likely due to a close pass (invited by riding too far to the right) then it is by getting hit squarely from behind because you're taking the lane. (I welcome correction if anyone is aware of any relevant studies that show otherwise).

So, if it's safer to take a lane than ride in the door zone, and if most people don't KNOW this, then a little training might be in order, eh?


@genec: yes, I agree with you that the notion that there are such things as "best practices" and learning them might not be a bad idea is not well publicized, and that to a newbie a multi-lane left turn looks about as accessible as winning the Tour de France. The city of Toronto is actually pretty good in that regard, they publish a free 'bike map' with the various bike lanes and suggested routes, but they ALSO have a nice little sidebar with suggested riding practices that is basically a VC chart, plus contact into to take courses, etc. And as you point out, it's NOT that hard. Sidewalk woman made it... maybe many others could too. My point is that it COULD be well publicized quite easily.... compared to the difficulties of rousing the funding and political will to spend multi-millions on segregated cycling infrastructre (which actually isn't all that safe most of the time anyway), promoting VC is cheap cheap cheap!

I don't want to be some kind of nazi or fanatic, but the reality, as I see it, is that it's going to be a LONG time before fully segregated facilities exist that take cyclists everywhere they want to go with nary a discouraging automobile to be heard. "long time" as in probably never. So cyclists have some choices to make:
1. Learn to ride in traffic properly, because even the bike lane will not protect them from the need to do so.
2. DON'T learn to ride in traffic properly but do it anyway, and thereby increase your chances of doing a Jackson Pollack all over a cube van with your innards.
3. Don't ride.

I'm not saying "don't invest" in cycling friendly infrastructure (which, in fact, might also be motorist friendly infrastructre at the same time). Sure, do it. (in that regard I find the hardcore anti bike lane stance of VC selfish and unhelpful, they should limit their opposition to bad bike lanes instead of all bike lanes). But a far, far more cost effective course of action (which can be pursued in conjunction with infrastructure) is cyclist education. There is no way to "educate" a motorist to deal with a cyclist who is untrained and just making it up as he/she goes along, because such a cyclist is essentially behaving randomly, and is therefore impossible to interact with safely IMHO. They might be on the sidewalk (either direction), they might be coming from the left, or the right, or behind, or straight ahead... who knows? The level of competence and predictability of the typical automobile driver is 100x that of the typical cyclist in my experience (for the simple reason that they have fewer options)..... cyclist education is an easy low hanging fruit to improve cyclist safety.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Well, it isn't rocket science, no, (which was exactly my point by the way) but judging by the number of people I see zooming along in Toronto, 2 feet away from the parked cars (this is how the vast majority of people in Toronto ride), a little training might go a long way.

It isn't Rocket Science and it isn't wacky logic neither. Your argument is worthy of a little parsing.

Or are you suggesting that cruising along in the door zone is actually safer than taking a lane?

I didn't suggest anything about door zones

Consider two accident types: type A (getting doored) and type B (getting hit from behind). If you never ride in the door zone you will never get doored, period.
True

However, if this involves taking a lane you may be increasing your chances of getting hit from behind...... or are you? It may be that the "hit from behind" is more likely due to a close pass (invited by riding too far to the right) then it is by getting hit squarely from behind because you're taking the lane. (I welcome correction if anyone is aware of any relevant studies that show otherwise).

You offer nothing to "correct" about comparative risk of the two accident scenarios. No facts, no studies, no conclusions, no nothing but a few ifs, buts, and maybes.

So, if it's safer to take a lane than ride in the door zone, and if most people don't KNOW this, then a little training might be in order, eh?
If people KNOW what? That some sort of backassward logical argument demonstrates the evidence of "best practices" or a successful bicycle safety training program?

[genec]

It isn't Rocket Science and it isn't wacky logic neither. Your argument is worthy of a little parsing.



I didn't suggest anything about door zones


True



You offer nothing to "correct" about comparative risk of the two accident scenarios. No facts, no studies, no conclusions, no nothing but a few ifs, buts, and maybes.


Boy really looking to tear this up with some sort of argument aren't you?

Really the only thing I found wrong was the reference to "VC style" training... and primarily that is because of the baggage that the VC crowd bring... but then Darrenmc mentioned that too.



If people KNOW what? That some sort of backassward logical argument demonstrates the evidence of "best practices" or a successful bicycle safety training program?

How about if you just take it on face value... that people may or may not know that they can take a lane if they have the need. Believe it or not, not everyone knows that... including a lot of motorists. And if someone is just getting back on a bike, or trying one for the first time... indeed they may have the same misconceptions of most motorists... and not be aware of basic cyclists' rights.

Did you happen to teach cyclists' rights to yourself too? Probably built a computer with spare parts, then invented the internet, went on line, discovered search engines, then found out about state laws, and lo... there it was. :rolleyes:

Have a nice day.

[Bekologist]

to paraphrase the original post.....

do we build up cyclist infrastructure for the general public, or listen to elitist cyclists that feel 'every lane is a bike lane?'

these 'elite' would still use well implemented cyclist infrastructure, BTW.


perhaps I should have asked, plan for the majority and the public, or plan by listening to the extreme cycling minority?

plan for the masses or the outliers...

obstructionism or accomodationalism?

[Darrenmc]

Boy really looking to tear this up with some sort of argument aren't you?


I concede that ILTB raises a valid point, however. (and in fact you raised this very same point in another thread).

VC advocates claim that taking the lane cuts the chance of being doored to zero (unarguably true, no studies required: if you're not in the DZ you won't get doored). They also claim that being visible in the lane either also decreases hits from behind (by discouraging close passes), or at least, doesn't INCREASE hits from behind enough to offset the other safety benefits of VC.

OK, seems believable... but is there any actual evidence for this? I've read the Toronto bike crash study... the section on hits from behind did not discuss exactly WHERE in the lane the cyclist was when they got hit. Were they cowering against the curb, inviting the fatal close pass? Where they riding VC style down the middle of the lane only to get a hood ornament right in the spandex?? And how do those proportions relate to the proportion of VC vs non-VC cyclists?

This is an open question (as far as I know, anyway). I had assumed, from Forester's bluster, that this was a settled question. ILTB asks me to prove it. I discover that I'm not aware of the studies that would let me prove this.

[Darrenmc]

to paraphrase the original post.....

do we build up cyclist infrastructure for the general public, or listen to elitist cyclists that feel 'every lane is a bike lane?'

these 'elite' would still use well implemented cyclist infrastructure, BTW.

perhaps I should have asked, plan for the majority and the public, or plan by listening to the extreme cycling minority?

plan for the masses or the outliers...
obstructionism or accomodationalism?

If I understand the debate correctly:

On one hand, the "VC" side would claim that
1. Everyone can learn to cycle VC, the skills are not difficult, therefore VC is not "elitist" (ie the "masses" can get to where "the outliers" are very easily) and
2. cycling VC is as safe as any bike path you could imagine.
3. Infrastructure that makes the "general public" (ie non-VC trained cyclists) comfortable enough to cycle is likely to have one of two characteristics:
a) pander to the public's fear of overtaking car traffic (the most "obvious" danger), while *discounting* (if not actually making worse) the less obvious dangers of dooring, intersection conflict, etc, and therefore actually being MORE dangerous than VC (so much so that it is almost criminally irresponsible to build it and invite the noobs to ride it)
b) absurdly expensive and politically infeasable.
Conclusion: training cyclists to be VC is FAR cheaper and/or safer than building infrastructure to cater to the non-VC (whose non-VCness is a temporary, but easily remedied, condition)


On the other hand, the "not VC" side would point out that:
1. Just because you've taken a VC-style course and have learned that you can "take the lane" does not mean you will find it a comfortable or enjoyable experience to hop on a multi-lane 50mph road with a NOL. For one thing, you WILL get honked/yelled at from time to time even if you know what you are doing (a regular here has some pretty edgy youtube vids of his Arizona commute), and a lot of people just aren't into that (they get enough hassle in the rest of their lives), nor are they interested in being the Rosa Parks of the cycling world, bravely striking a blow for cyclists everywhere. People also have loved ones and responsibilities and don't relish the feeling they are taking their lives into their hands, a feeling that is very easily generated in a high-speed NOL even amongst the experienced.
1a. VC *is* elitist because even if the skills are easily explained, the necessary assertive mindset is not easily cultivated.
2. it is very important to increase cycling participation, and handing everyone a copy of Effective Cycling is not going to get that done (see 1). VCers are seen by most as eccentrics, daredevils, and rebels, and that's not how most people see themselves. If you want them to ride you have to "give them permission" by building some infrasturucture for them.... even if this infrasture introduces some new dangers that are not there if you do it the VC way.

Does that sum it up or am I off base?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

OK, seems believable... but is there any actual evidence for this? I've read the Toronto bike crash study... the section on hits from behind did not discuss exactly WHERE in the lane the cyclist was when they got hit. Were they cowering against the curb, inviting the fatal close pass? Where they riding VC style down the middle of the lane only to get a hood ornament right in the spandex?? And how do those proportions relate to the proportion of VC vs non-VC cyclists?

This is an open question (as far as I know, anyway). I had assumed, from Forester's bluster, that this was a settled question. ILTB asks me to prove it. I discover that I'm not aware of the studies that would let me prove this.

You get it now, Genec doesn't.

Just because Forester makes a claim about safety effectiveness of this or that VC technique, or his training courses, or some bike lane horror, doesn't make it so. Makes no difference on its validity if Forester's acolytes take his boasts and bluster about safety at face value and have repeated it like a mantra for the last 30 years. The jacked up conclusions from the "training" promoters camp about the effectiveness of "elite" (i.e. VC) training on risk reduction are just so much hot air.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

If I understand the debate correctly:

On one hand, the "VC" side would claim that
1. Everyone can learn to cycle VC, the skills are not difficult, therefore VC is not "elitist" (ie the "masses" can get to where "the outliers" are very easily) and
2. cycling VC is as safe as any bike path you could imagine.
3. Infrastructure that makes the "general public" (ie non-VC trained cyclists) comfortable enough to cycle is likely to have one of two characteristics:
a) pander to the public's fear of overtaking car traffic (the most "obvious" danger), while *discounting* (if not actually making worse) the less obvious dangers of dooring, intersection conflict, etc, and therefore actually being MORE dangerous than VC (so much so that it is almost criminally irresponsible to build it and invite the noobs to ride it)
b) absurdly expensive and politically infeasable.
Conclusion: training cyclists to be VC is FAR cheaper and/or safer than building infrastructure to cater to the non-VC (whose non-VCness is a temporary, but easily remedied, condition)


On the other hand, the "not VC" side would point out that:
1. Just because you've taken a VC-style course and have learned that you can "take the lane" does not mean you will find it a comfortable or enjoyable experience to hop on a multi-lane 50mph road with a NOL. For one thing, you WILL get honked/yelled at from time to time even if you know what you are doing (a regular here has some pretty edgy youtube vids of his Arizona commute), and a lot of people just aren't into that (they get enough hassle in the rest of their lives), nor are they interested in being the Rosa Parks of the cycling world, bravely striking a blow for cyclists everywhere. People also have loved ones and responsibilities and don't relish the feeling they are taking their lives into their hands, a feeling that is very easily generated in a high-speed NOL even amongst the experienced.
1a. VC *is* elitist because even if the skills are easily explained, the necessary assertive mindset is not easily cultivated.
2. it is very important to increase cycling participation, and handing everyone a copy of Effective Cycling is not going to get that done (see 1). VCers are seen by most as eccentrics, daredevils, and rebels, and that's not how most people see themselves. If you want them to ride you have to "give them permission" by building some infrasturucture for them.... even if this infrasture introduces some new dangers that are not there if you do it the VC way.

Does that sum it up or am I off base?

You have done well. Your other recent post touched on another related problem; the unsubstantiated, Forester fabricated, quantitative claims from the VC camp about risk reduction (80% reduction!) for the cycling populations who have taken VC training or allegedly are practitioners of the VC craft.

There are more issues but I'm off to work now.

[genec]

I concede that ILTB raises a valid point, however. (and in fact you raised this very same point in another thread).

VC advocates claim that taking the lane cuts the chance of being doored to zero (unarguably true, no studies required: if you're not in the DZ you won't get doored). They also claim that being visible in the lane either also decreases hits from behind (by discouraging close passes), or at least, doesn't INCREASE hits from behind enough to offset the other safety benefits of VC.

OK, seems believable... but is there any actual evidence for this? I've read the Toronto bike crash study... the section on hits from behind did not discuss exactly WHERE in the lane the cyclist was when they got hit. Were they cowering against the curb, inviting the fatal close pass? Where they riding VC style down the middle of the lane only to get a hood ornament right in the spandex?? And how do those proportions relate to the proportion of VC vs non-VC cyclists?

This is an open question (as far as I know, anyway). I had assumed, from Forester's bluster, that this was a settled question. ILTB asks me to prove it. I discover that I'm not aware of the studies that would let me prove this.

On this I too have argued in the past as the large number of auto collisions are rear end collisions... If motorists have a hard time judging their distance from another motor vehicle, then it seems they would have just as difficult time judging their approach to a cyclist also.

But I think that ILTB is really taking a stance against VC training as "endorsed" by John Forester and his band of merry men. And again I acknowledge that there is considerable baggage brought to the table by the Forester bunch.

However I still contend that there is a large segment of the potential cycling population (or newbie cyclists) that does not fully understand their rights and responsibilities when it comes to their use of the road... and these folks do indeed need some form of guidance on the best practices when sharing the road.

ILTB may argue that any competent adult should be able to pick "cycling skills" up on their own... I contend (witnessed) that this is not true, and some folks do need guidance, or hands on training. And this is where ILTB "doesn't get it."

[genec]

You get it now, Genec doesn't.

Just because Forester makes a claim about safety effectiveness of this or that VC technique, or his training courses, or some bike lane horror, doesn't make it so. Makes no difference on its validity if Forester's acolytes take his boasts and bluster about safety at face value and have repeated it like a mantra for the last 30 years. The jacked up conclusions from the "training" promoters camp about the effectiveness of "elite" (i.e. VC) training on risk reduction are just so much hot air.

While I agree that Forester's claims may be full of hot air. I disagree that proper training doesn't reduce risk. If some form of training did not help one to acquire the skills needed for a particular task, that evidence would have been shown long ago.

I still contend that some cyclists need training. The LAB style of training is the only thing I am aware of that is available to cyclists.

[cooker]

Millions of people learn all they need to learn about bicycling without the benefit of a certified instructor training them the approved methods used by the trained elite. It ain't rocket science.


Did you ever see a cyclist riding in dangerous manner?

[cudak888]

Did you ever see a cyclist riding in dangerous manner?

6/8/08: Saw a cyclist on the cell phone. Riding on the edge to the point that he ended up in the dirt and into the grass.
6/1/08: Son and father weaving 5 feet to the left or right of their approximate centerline. Both broke into a series of foul oaths when safely passed with an audible "On Your Left" warning. The complaints were specifically about the comment "on your left."
5/31/08: Leisure cyclist at two-way stop ignores their stop sign and cuts in front of me.
5/31/08: Road cyclist with young daughter nearly blow 4-way stop sign, weren't expecting me, even though I stopped myself.
5/11/08: Nearly got creamed by a wrong-way cyclist at an intersection - she came from the three-o'clock position on the grass, and darted out across the road in front of me (forward of the intersection) to get on the sidewalk (on my left) paralleling the road I was riding on.
April '08: Two leisure (hybrid) cyclists, one in full team kit, cuts me off on the same intersection that I was cut off on on 5/31.
April '08: Commuter cyclist blows stop sign, sprinting, 20+ mph. He wasn't expecting any traffic to his right, and was not spooked by my presence until he had already crossed the intersection.
March '08: Saw two leisure cyclists precariously trying to keep themselves upright on the dirt edge when allowing two-way traffic to squeeze through by inches.

Yes, I ride mainly on the weekends.

There are more from this year, but I can't recall them all.

Various stupidity from the general public from last year:

*Father and son wrong-way riding and not looking ahead nearly cause me a head-on when they mirror my defensive swerves to the left and back to the right in an attempt to avoid them. (from that time on, I learned to you hold your line against these folks and force them to get out of the way).
*Fellow driving a Dyno stretch cruiser the wrong way comes nose-to-nose with me after crossing an intersection, refuses to pass on my left.
*At least 6 occasions wherein leisure cyclists take, or rather, "weave" the lane with complete ignorance as to the traffic behind them, and cause a dangerous passing situation for anyone behind them
*One case of a wrong-way cyclist coming around a partially blind curve on a 3-foot-wide bike lane


All I have to do is take an hour-long ride every day, and I guarantee you that I'll have at least one new incident of cycling stupidity to add to this list.

-Kurt

[genec]

Various stupidity from the general public.


-Kurt

And what might you recommend to counteract this stupidity?

Do you think bike lanes are the answer? Or bike specific paths, or some basic bike training, or bike police?

[cudak888]

And what might you recommend to counteract this stupidity?

No bike lanes, no bike-specific paths. The problem is not the infrastructure, it is the goofball rider who choses to ride with the mindset of the bicycle as some form of a leisure toy.

That said, a basic non-mandatory cycle training and awareness campaign would do good for all, provided it is structured as not to alienate VC'ers, anti-helmet advocates or those in favor of stop sign = yield sign, etc. Package it up in pretty paper as part of some government-sponsored eco-conscious campaign to get more people on bikes as alternate transportation.

Something to the extent of short, serious (i.e., no bright, quick-paced, bike path-type commercials voiced by a squeaky cheerleader), 20 or 30-second commercials advocating a single issue such as safe signaling and lane changing, don't ride at night without a light, cycling against traffic is illegal, don't weave when riding (plug the campaign-sponsored courses), and 3-foot law + cyclists have the right of the road-themed commercials directed towards motorists.

Hell, if they can do it for D.A.R.E.-type drug-combating groups, and they can dig up Mario Andretti to say "check your tires", they can just as well to promote cycling and cycling safety.

One other thing: Have local law enforcement agencies issue warnings and a flyer - and perhaps tickets - to those who ride wrong-way for no less then 1/2 mile. The 1/2 mile rule would be to make absolutely certain that one cites the guilty parties - prevents over-zealous law enforcement officers from ticketing those who may be passing large or unsteady road obstacles.

-Kurt

[genec]

No bike lanes, no bike-specific paths. The problem is not the infrastructure, it is the goofball rider who choses to ride with the mindset of the bicycle as some form of a leisure toy.

That said, a basic non-mandatory cycle training and awareness campaign would do good for all, provided it is structured as not to alienate VC'ers, anti-helmet advocates or those in favor of stop sign = yield sign, etc. Package it up in pretty paper as part of some government-sponsored eco-conscious campaign to get more people on bikes as alternate transportation.

Something to the extent of short, serious (i.e., no bright, quick-paced, bike path-type commercials voiced by a squeaky cheerleader), 20 or 30-second commercials advocating a single issue such as safe signaling and lane changing, don't ride at night without a light, cycling against traffic is illegal, don't weave when riding (plug the campaign-sponsored courses), and 3-foot law + cyclists have the right of the road-themed commercials directed towards motorists.

Hell, if they can do it for D.A.R.E.-type drug-combating groups, and they can dig up Mario Andretti to say "check your tires", they can just as well to promote cycling and cycling safety.

One other thing: Have local law enforcement agencies issue warnings and a flyer - and perhaps tickets - to those who ride wrong-way for no less then 1/2 mile. The 1/2 mile rule would be to make absolutely certain that one cites the guilty parties - prevents over-zealous law enforcement officers from ticketing those who may be passing large or unsteady road obstacles.

-Kurt

I like it... but again it comes down to some form of "training." Personally I'd go so far as to make this mandatory, and put it in both elementary school and high school. Since "road use" is a life long activity, it seems to me that it is just as important as the other "3Rs."

[cudak888]

I like it... but again it comes down to some form of "training." Personally I'd go so far as to make this mandatory, and put it in both elementary school and high school. Since "road use" is a life long activity, it seems to me that it is just as important as the other "3Rs."

Mandatory anything cannot be enforced without licensing of some kind, and I'm sure the entire A&S forum would raid the residence of whoever suggests licensing of any kind (and rightfully so, IMO).

That said, you can put it in schools, yes, but doing so would fail to achieve two purposes:

#1: The kids will either not take it seriously, and/or forget it by the time they get a car (gas prices won't mean anything to a teen with a newfound car, until he begins to feel the punch in his own wallet). By that time, they'll just get on the bike and do what they please.

#2: Such a program would not particularly target the more immediate problem of scofflaw adult cyclists. Mind you, every single one of those incidents I mention involved an adult who was the primary cause at fault, save for the fellow with the cell phone on 6/8, who was 18-20 or so. Only time I can ever think of a child causing a problem was when some 10-year-old kids yelled at me to get the hell off the road (just like Ma & Pa taught them).

-Kurt

[genec]

You get it now, Genec doesn't.



try this thread on for size... I wonder how many more are like him...

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=426859

[genec]

Mandatory anything cannot be enforced without licensing of some kind, and I'm sure the entire A&S forum would raid the residence of whoever suggests licensing of any kind (and rightfully so, IMO).

That said, you can put it in schools, yes, but doing so would fail to achieve two purposes:

#1: The kids will either not take it seriously, and/or forget it by the time they get a car (gas prices won't mean anything to a teen with a newfound car, until he begins to feel the punch in his own wallet). By that time, they'll just get on the bike and do what they please.

#2: Such a program would not particularly target the more immediate problem of scofflaw adult cyclists. Mind you, every single one of those incidents I mention involved an adult who was the primary cause at fault, save for the fellow with the cell phone on 6/8, who was 18-20 or so. Only time I can ever think of a child causing a problem was when some 10-year-old kids yelled at me to get the hell off the road (just like Ma & Pa taught them).

-Kurt

#1 The kids will take is seriously enough if it is a prerequisite to being able to drive.

#2 The adult situation would be prevented if they learned about proper road use in school... by allowing adults to get to the point where they should know and yet don't, we've created our current system... of scofflaw adults. And folks like the OP in the following thread: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=426859

ILTB says "it ain't rocket science." Neither is sex... yet, we teach that in public schools.

[noisebeam]

try this thread on for size... I wonder how many more are like him...

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=426859

Very few unfortunately.

[cudak888]

#1 The kids will take is seriously enough if it is a prerequisite to being able to drive.

Good point, but I'd have my doubts as to the ability to making cycling training a mandatory requirement towards motoring. Paves the way for cycling licensing, registration, taxation, etc. - have to keep the possible negative consequences in mind

#2 The adult situation would be prevented if they learned about proper road use in school... by allowing adults to get to the point where they should know and yet don't, we've created our current system... of scofflaw adults. And folks like the OP in the following thread: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=426859

ILTB says "it ain't rocket science." Neither is sex... yet, we teach that in public schools.

Indeed, the school-taught knowledge would catch on after a generation or two, but one must keep in mind that until that generation hits their 50's, scofflaw cyclists will remain.

-Kurt

[I-Like-To-Bike]

ILTB may argue that any competent adult should be able to pick "cycling skills" up on their own... I contend (witnessed) that this is not true, and some folks do need guidance, or hands on training. And this is where ILTB "doesn't get it."

What I get is that those promoting training or providing "guidance" in "cycling skills" have yet to demonstrate any measurable beneficial effect of the training (significant or otherwise) on the population of trained students by any metric; be it risk reduction, "improved" (or even changed) bicycling technique, technique, increased bicycling mileage, increased satisfaction, etc.

[cudak888]

What I get is that those promoting training or providing "guidance" in "cycling skills" have yet to demonstrate any measurable beneficial effect of the training (significant or otherwise) on the population of trained students by any metric; be it risk reduction, "improved" (or even changed) bicycling technique, technique, increased bicycling mileage, increased satisfaction, etc.

I assume then, that you checked up on said students to see what their progress was, and found zilch?

-Kurt

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I assume then, that you checked up on said students to see what their progress was, and found zilch?

-Kurt

Read what I wrote again. The promoters have not shown any evidence that their product has any measurable effect or that any of their claims of reducing risk have ever been substantiated in any way.

Then you might want to study a little about basic principles of logic, and the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof; you can start here:
http://www.geocities.com/xenu_rules/misc-burden-of-proof.html
or
http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-distract-shiftburden.htm

[genec]

Very few unfortunately.

Have you ever been to a road 1 course? They exist. I am not suggesting that you take such a course, but that you check out who shows up and what their questions are... I don't think they are as "few" as you think.

[genec]

What I get is that those promoting training or providing "guidance" in "cycling skills" have yet to demonstrate any measurable beneficial effect of the training (significant or otherwise) on the population of trained students by any metric; be it risk reduction, "improved" (or even changed) bicycling technique, technique, increased bicycling mileage, increased satisfaction, etc.

Do you demand the same from skiing classes or SCUBA classes, or Mommy classes, or is the evidence of someone riding a bike in a more sure manner enough?

The observation of someone changing gears properly is enough for me... they obviously learned something. Being able to properly stop a bike with both brakes is enough for me... what more do you need?

These are observable skills. Forget the scientific metric stuff... how about demonstrated skills. I have seen those. I am willing to bet you have not seen the before and after of the classes. Try to detach yourself from your own baggage of your anti Forester rhetoric and just go and observe for yourself.

[noisebeam]

I don't think they are as "few" as you think.

No, I meant very few who seek out information on cycling legally (and/or safely) like the person who's question you linked. Many folks in A&S fit this category and that is a very small sub-set of cyclists.
If everyone did, then this discussion on how to reach and 'train' cyclists would not be needed.
Al