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

[genec]

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

True true true... I was speaking of the need for training, and how few realize that they might need a bit of something. The sad reality is, as you point out, that so few know better, and fewer still seek any form of "enlightenment."

Personally I would at least include Hurst's book (very readable, and no VC baggage) with every new bike sold. As it is, you usually get a thin pamphlet (just bought a new bike myself) that says something along the lines of "Don't right at night, keep to the right."

[I-Like-To-Bike]

True true true... I was speaking of the need for training, and how few realize that they might need a bit of something. The sad reality is, as you point out, that so few know better, and fewer still seek any form of "enlightenment."

Ya mean reality as you see it, where the unenlightened multitudes need training from the self appointed few who claim they "know better"; the enlightened few like yourself who don't need no stinkin' proof of the usefulness or effectiveness of their "know better" knowledge/training program.

[cooker]

There is no right way or wrong way when it comes to cycling...

Really? When I come around a curve in the road and I'm riding on the righthand side of the road, and a cyclist coming in the opposite direction almost rams me and to avoid him I have to swerve out into the lane with no time to shoulder check and I'm worried that an overtaking car might clip me, I can tell you with absolute confidence, and I suspect you may concur with this assertion, that that other cyclist is going the WRONG WAY.

Or the other day when I stopped at a four way stop, and had to put my foot down and stare at the ground waiting for a motorist coming from my right who had started forward from her stop sign and then hesitated because she saw me and assumed I would run the stop sign, and just as she's finally starting forward again, another cyclist comes from behind me and runs the stop sign at full speed while grooving to her headphones, and seems oblivious that she almost grazed the cars bumper...I think you can see where this is going.

[cooker]

Ya mean reality as you see it, where the unenlightened multitudes need training from the self appointed few who claim they "know better"; the enlightened few like yourself who don't need no stinkin' proof of the usefulness or effectiveness of their "know better" knowledge/training program.

I have a hard time understanding where you are coming from. People learn from other people, and much of it is organized learning. We have schools - we don't expect kids to learn to read by themselves and then use that skill to educate themselves to the professional level. We have swimming classes, and life guards. We don't assume kids will wade in, and learn safely on their own how to manage in water. We have drivers' education. Weapons training. Music lessons. Yoga classes. Sure, a few exceptional people become self-taught guitar geniuses or whatever (by "self-taught" I mean they take control of how they learn from other people) but for most activities which are risky, or carry responsibility, or require a high level of skill, there are organized classes, and established expertise.


I can see you disagreeing with some of the tenets of organized cycling education, (and clearly disliking some of the educators) but I can't understand how you can reject the entire concept that there are good and bad ways of cycling in the road, and that it would help a lot of people if they didn't have to figure them out for themselves but instead had access to someone who could help them learn to do it safely. Do you ride the same way you did in grade three, or have you learned some things that make you safer? Why wouldn't you pass that knowledge and experience on, rather than assuming the unwashed masses don't need your stinking expertise?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I have a hard time understanding where you are coming from.

I can see you disagreeing with some of the tenets of organized cycling education, (and clearly disliking some of the educators) but I can't understand how you can reject the entire concept that there are good and bad ways of cycling in the road, and that it would help a lot of people if they didn't have to figure them out for themselves but instead had access to someone who could help them learn to do it safely.
Rejecting "the entire concept that there are good and bad ways of cycling in the road" is your construct not my words, meaning nor intent.

I reject the built-in assumptions, wishful thinking and/or bald face lies of the promoters of organized/formal "education/training," that the students of their courses have [demonstrated any significant change in their cycling behavior afterwards; especially rejecting the claims/fabrications about a measurable improvement in their safety record. And it is presumably that alleged "safety improvement" that is the principal selling point for the alleged "need" for the unenlightened to be coerced into the participation in the training programs.

Secondarily, I reject the assumption that exposure to "enlightened cycling" in a classroom will transform or convert cyclists from alleged "bad cyclists" to permanently enlightened cyclists always doing the "right" thing, like the instructors say they do.

[genec]

Ya mean reality as you see it, where the unenlightened multitudes need training from the self appointed few who claim they "know better"; the enlightened few like yourself who don't need no stinkin' proof of the usefulness or effectiveness of their "know better" knowledge/training program.

I got all the "stinkin' proof" I needed by watching students progress through the class... The first day they are grinding gears and looking for sidewalk, the next they are making left turns on high speed multilaned streeets.

You want more. I suggest you simply attend a class and see for yourself. You won't do that, and at the same time deny that the classes have any effect. I think you have your head in the sand.

[genec]

Rejecting "the entire concept that there are good and bad ways of cycling in the road" is your construct not my words, meaning nor intent.

I reject the built-in assumptions, wishful thinking and/or bald face lies of the promoters of organized/formal "education/training," that the students of their courses have [demonstrated any significant change in their cycling behavior afterwards; especially rejecting the claims/fabrications about a measurable improvement in their safety record. And it is presumably that alleged "safety improvement" that is the principal selling point for the alleged "need" for the unenlightened to be coerced into the participation in the training programs.

Secondarily, I reject the assumption that exposure to "enlightened cycling" in a classroom will transform or convert cyclists from alleged "bad cyclists" to permanently enlightened cyclists always doing the "right" thing, like the instructors say they do.

Safety is one of the reasons touted for cycling training... learning basic skills like quick stops and quick turns can get a cyclist out of situations they may face out on the roads. Do you feel that those are skills that one can do without?

The training goes beyond classroom... (yet another poor assumption on your part) to actual on road riding and ride skills demonstrations, practice and testing.

Does it make a cyclist safer... I don't know. It does teach a cyclist how to safely ride a bike in the street, verses wrong way, or no signals, or cowering in the gutter or riding on the sidewalk. The training does teach how to stop quickly, verses just relying on the rear brakes as many newbies do. The training also effectively teaches quick turns. Reducing the number of wrong way cyclists makes it safer for me to ride the roads... so that IS a noted improvement.

Now I have no vested interest in this... I am NOT an LCI and have no plans to become one. I am not a believer in what Forester touts (especially with his mindset of "well motorists will just obey the laws..." :rolleyes:).

I do like well designed bike lanes and traffic calming... and well designed paths.

My only motivation in touting training is it raises confidence of the cyclist, and it gets cyclists doing things consistently predictable so that when I share the road with them, whether on bike or in a car, we both know what to expect. I know what I have seen. That alone is enough motivation for me.

[genec]

Oh bottom line, referring back to the OP's original question. I think we should design cities for cyclists that have enough knowledge to know which way to ride, how to look for other traffic, how to signal, and how to merge and change lanes and make left turns.

I don't think we should design streets (cities) for high speed motor traffic to rule the roads, nor wrong way cyclists or jaywalking pedestrians. I think there should be a certain amount of minimal training involved... so we are at least on the same page. That training can come from anywhere... Parents can teach kids how to properly cross a street... and how to cycle in traffic. But if the parents don't know... then there should be some form of training available. I have no problem with this training being part of the regular school curriculum... from the basics of how to cross a street, to the mechanics of how to quick stop a bike, to how to change a flat on a car, and merge onto a freeway. I feel that the lack of proper training has lead us to the situation we face today... a decidedly unfriendly environment in cities for any form of traffic: be it foot, bike, or car.

Does this training make those trained (cyclists) "elite?" Yes, by the dictionary definition it does... as such training is rare among the larger group of cyclists in general. But I would love to see this not be an "elite" situation, but one that is common place.

[cooker]

Rejecting "the entire concept that there are good and bad ways of cycling in the road" is your construct not my words, meaning nor intent.

I reject the built-in assumptions, wishful thinking and/or bald face lies of the promoters of organized/formal "education/training," that the students of their courses have [demonstrated any significant change in their cycling behavior afterwards; especially rejecting the claims/fabrications about a measurable improvement in their safety record. And it is presumably that alleged "safety improvement" that is the principal selling point for the alleged "need" for the unenlightened to be coerced into the participation in the training programs.

Secondarily, I reject the assumption that exposure to "enlightened cycling" in a classroom will transform or convert cyclists from alleged "bad cyclists" to permanently enlightened cyclists always doing the "right" thing, like the instructors say they do.

I get what you reject...it starts with John Forester and spreads outward from there. Anything smacking of elitism or authoritarianism or hierachism or condescension or smugness.

Fine. What I don't get is what you accept. Do you accept that there are some ill-informed, dangerous cyclists out there, who are a hazard to themselves and others, and could benefit from some pointers, and if so, any ideas on how to help them?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

I get what you reject...it starts with John Forester and spreads outward from there. Anything smacking of elitism or authoritarianism or hierachism or condescension or smugness.

Fine. What I don't get is what you accept. Do you accept that there are some ill-informed, dangerous cyclists out there, who are a hazard to themselves and others, and could benefit from some pointers, and if so, any ideas on how to help them?

I accept that there are some ill-informed or less than skillfull cyclists out there. How "dangerous" their ill information or lower "skills" is to themselves, or anyone else, is a matter of conjecture. Also subject to conjecture is the alleged benefits provided by the current crop of training courses/programs to the "ill informed."

My only suggestion at this time is to completely erase the slate of any proposal to mandate cycling training for the public before any credible objective and goals are established; and before any course has ever shown any evidence of meeting or even addressing those objectives or goals.

[genec]

And yet... http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=428755

[Bekologist]

all this talk of raising the bar for cyclists is a far cry from realistic. especially as more and more riders enter the fray of commuting, errands on bikes in the US.


I was asking, from an engineering and social standpoint, if considerations of public infrastructure be weighted towards the masses, or towards the 'elite' cyclists that feel no bike specific street infrastructure is necessary.

[genec]

all this talk of raising the bar for cyclists is a far cry from realistic. especially as more and more riders enter the fray of commuting, errands on bikes in the US.


I was asking, from an engineering and social standpoint, if considerations of public infrastructure be weighted towards the masses, or towards the 'elite' cyclists that feel no bike specific street infrastructure is necessary.

I am suggesting that the masses had better know the basics... we expect that from other road users... (although apparently we don't expect much)

[JeffS]

My only suggestion at this time is to completely erase the slate of any proposal to mandate cycling training for the public before any credible objective and goals are established; and before any course has ever shown any evidence of meeting or even addressing those objectives or goals.

Out of curiosity, how do you propose we quantify the effectiveness of such training?

Having such a stance seems to favor having no training at all. That's fine with me, as I'm not interested in any regulation meant to protect a person from only themself, and don't see cyclists as a sizable danger to others.

The difference is, I'll just say it whereas you choose to argue for evidence of effectiveness, knowing that none exists.

----

For once I'd like to see you just come out and state your position.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Out of curiosity, how do you propose we quantify the effectiveness of such training?

Having such a stance seems to favor having no training at all. That's fine with me, as I'm not interested in any regulation meant to protect a person from only themself, and don't see cyclists as a sizable danger to others.

The difference is, I'll just say it whereas you choose to argue for evidence of effectiveness, knowing that none exists.

----

For once I'd like to see you just come out and state your position.

I did state my position, but apparantly you prefer to put your own spin on what I "know" or "choose" to do in comparison to your superior approach.

No promotion of mandatory cycling training programs based on conjured effectiveness in meeting non stated safety objectives or some other alleged need of the cycling public. The objectives need to be determined worthwhile by representatives of the public, not the "training" promoters.

If and when some future educator/promoter has a credible training program that demonstrates a capability to produce positive results other than verbal smoke and mirrors and fabricated quantitative predictions of safety improvements, then perhaps government or social agencies should seriously listen to the pitch. In the meantime Fuggedaboutit!

[genec]

I did state my position, but apparantly you prefer to put your own spin on what I "know" or "choose" to do in comparison to your superior approach.

No promotion of mandatory cycling training programs based on conjured effectiveness in meeting non stated safety objectives or some other alleged need of the cycling public. The objectives need to be determined worthwhile by representatives of the public, not the "training" promoters.

If and when some future educator/promoter has a credible training program that demonstrates a capability to produce positive results other than verbal smoke and mirrors and fabricated quantitative predictions of safety improvements, then perhaps government or social agencies should seriously listen to the pitch. In the meantime Fuggedaboutit!

Oh right... "the public" feels that driving tests we have now are too hard... that same public also rides bikes against the flow of traffic... and makes left turns from right lanes. Sometimes the public needs to be lead to the trough and shown how to drink. :rolleyes:

Talk about "verbal smoke and mirrors."

[JeffS]

I did state my position, but apparantly you prefer to put your own spin on what I "know" or "choose" to do in comparison to your superior approach.

Yes, I guess you did in the last post, which was just after I stopped reading. For the seven pages prior to that you were busy condemning the self-appointed, elite, etc.

My primary question was, and is still, how you propose to quantify effectiveness. You're insistent that it must be done, but you can't quantify results without a widespread program in place to begin with.

I must say I'm a little surprised to see you defer to the govt. for this. I'd have bet money you were a libertarian, even if you wouldn't call it by that name.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Yes, I guess you did in the last post, which was just after I stopped reading. For the seven pages prior to that you were busy condemning the self-appointed, elite, etc.

My primary question was, and is still, how you propose to quantify effectiveness. You're insistent that it must be done, but you can't quantify results without a widespread program in place to begin with.

I must say I'm a little surprised to see you defer to the govt. for this. I'd have bet money you were a libertarian, even if you wouldn't call it by that name.

You certainly have a good imagination making up constructs and them assigning them to me as hidden thoughts and unspoken statements.
I defer nothing to anybody on this issue.
Those who claim that their training programs are "effective" have the burden of substantiating their claims, not the skeptics of an incredible sales pitch with no tangible results.

Don't fool yourself about who is reaching for government blessing; the bicycle training promoters are unable to get the public to take their courses/training for free; the pitch is for government agencies such as education or transportation to buy into the program and to create a demand for the oversupply of the product of eager would-be trainers.

[invisiblehand]

all this talk of raising the bar for cyclists is a far cry from realistic. especially as more and more riders enter the fray of commuting, errands on bikes in the US.

Considering what people take as training for driving cars, this is probably true. That is, most people are not going to take a class voluntarily. For instance, I doubt that many people would take drivers ed if no license was necessary for operating an auto.

[invisiblehand]

Those who claim that their training programs are "effective" have the burden of substantiating their claims, not the skeptics of an incredible sales pitch with no tangible results.

Don't fool yourself about who is reaching for government blessing; the bicycle training promoters are unable to get the public to take their courses/training for free; the pitch is for government agencies such as education or transportation to buy into the program and to create a demand for the oversupply of the product of eager would-be trainers.

I agree that there is little hardcore scientific proof that any specific program -- at least that I am aware of -- reduces risk. Moreover, proselytizing such training while claiming strong scientific proof and belittling others of different opinions is disingenuous to say the least. Although, in my experience, there are plenty of bicycle training promotors that don't pontificate nor claim a scientific pedestal.

However, I recall that we both agree that experience does matter with respect to -- dare I use the word? -- effective cycling. Here, I use the adjective to mean transportation with an acceptable risk to the rider. So it seems that there are strategies and experiences -- which of course are based on what each person finds acceptable; but while individuals can vary quite a bit, I still get a sense that there are population averages/trends -- that we can pass along to riders with less experience to their benefit. I think that most people can take such a class/read such a book, absorb it, consider the arguments, and then make assessments about what they believe and are comfortable using.

[Bekologist]

....

I posed the question of public space design and physical accommodations for bicyclists.

Design for the extreme minority that feels no bike specific infrastructure is desired, or design for all americans that ride or might choose to use a bike for, oh, for those 40% of trips in the USA under 2 miles or less.

should communities listen to the 'loud-n-proud' VO (vehicular obstructionists) that proudly and erronously proclaim in planning meetings "every lane is a bike lane", or should communities design for grandmas and kids, moms and stockbrockers, disabled and differently abled cyclists when considering design of rights of way?

complaining about the validity or failures of a very marginalized training program unlikely to boost ridership in america is not really relevant to public space design, except to recognize those that boast about effective training are often also infrastructure obstructionists.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

....

I posed the question of public space design and physical accommodations for bicyclists.

[SNIP]

complaining about the validity or failures of a very marginalized training program unlikely to boost ridership in america is not really relevant to public space design, except to recognize those that boast about effective training are often also infrastructure obstructionists.

You also associated "trained" with "elite" bike riders in your OP title question.:rolleyes: Not everyone is willing to accept your assumption at face value.

Next time phrase your question more carefully if you do not wish anyone to discuss bike rider training and its ability/effectiveness to create or enable "elite" cyclists in your thread.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

However, I recall that we both agree that experience does matter with respect to -- dare I use the word? -- effective cycling. Here, I use the adjective to mean transportation with an acceptable risk to the rider. So it seems that there are strategies and experiences -- which of course are based on what each person finds acceptable; but while individuals can vary quite a bit, I still get a sense that there are population averages/trends -- that we can pass along to riders with less experience to their benefit. I think that most people can take such a class/read such a book, absorb it, consider the arguments, and then make assessments about what they believe and are comfortable using.

I agree that books or pamphlets describing individual strategies and experiences that have been beneficial/acceptable to the writer may be useful, even educational, for those who wish to learn from the experiences of others.

I have not read Hurst's book, but from the descriptions of it on this Forum it may be an example of such a book. Are there other books that don't fall into the trap of using wildly dumb "scientific" analysis to exaggerate and inflate the "effectiveness" of extrapolating their cycling experience into the one true way for all cyclists in all scenarios?

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Although, in my experience, there are plenty of bicycle training promotors that don't pontificate nor claim a scientific pedestal.
Obviously Bicycle Forums does not showcase modest bicycle training promoters; the Pontificators (of scientific or wishful thinking persuasion) dominate the "training is needed" soapbox.

[mandovoodoo]

"I posed the question of public space design and physical accommodations for bicyclists."

Yes. A good area to investigate.

"Design for the extreme minority that feels no bike specific infrastructure is desired,"

This minority seems to include the vast majority of the planning entities for small towns. I don't know that this is an extreme minority. Probably a minority, but not necessarily extreme. I haven't experienced good bike specific infrastructure. Marginal at best. Good, functioning, well designed, useful I would think all but your extreme minority would like. Poorly designed, dangerous, confusing, and mandatory I suspect a majority would soon despise.

"or design for all americans that ride or might choose to use a bike for, oh, for those 40% of trips in the USA under 2 miles or less."

All Americans. I don't know that designing for smaller kids is feasible. Unless accompanied. This is a great goal. Make it easy. I can't see how a separate infrastructure can be afforded in space or construction costs. But many threads point to improvements in roadway marking that make a difference.

An odd concern I have is that we will have too many fair weather cyclists. We'll probably not have roads clogged with cyclists in January, but I can see that the number of Spring & Fall utility cyclists could pretty soon overwhelm the ability of our roads to comfortably accommodate them and cars, too. And overwhelm the low-capacity specialty bike facilities constructed. Typical MUP on a weekend, only all commuters trying to get to work. This is where design and education need to look. To roads with a few commercial vehicles, small cars, lots of motorcycles & scooters, and lots of bicycles. Need to have room for recumbent trikes, too. I think they'll become popular, with a cover to keep sun & rain off.

Personally, I'd like elevated bikeways with limited access, sealed in, with a 20 mph tailwind, each direction about 15 ft wide. Suburbs to city center with secure parking. Now you're talking cycle infrastructure! Build me one up I81 and I'll go to DC at 40 mph.

But yes, infrastructure along major fast roads. Markings and accommodations along other traveled roads. Warning and reminder signs along country roads. Education designed to teach people how to use these.

"should communities listen to the 'loud-n-proud' VO (vehicular obstructionists) that proudly and erronously proclaim in planning meetings "every lane is a bike lane","

Listen and take under advisement. If you change all the lanes to accommodate the vehicle mix, then every lane is a bike lane. Like around here. No specialty infrastructure, so it's all mine. Dangerous as it is!

"or should communities design for grandmas and kids, moms and stockbrockers, disabled and differently abled cyclists when considering design of rights of way?"

Yeah, sure. They should design for folks of well below average intelligence. Make markings and signs intelligible. Ticket the distracted. Pull licenses of the impaired. Educate. Make the transportation system transparent. I can see having a WOL transitioning with signs to a road and a separate bike flyover bypassing nasty places. Whatever.

I suspect the VC folks who object have experienced being shuffled into junk cycle facilities. I remember my brief stint with advocacy. In spite of the law and common sense, the area we were working on got 2 way bike lanes on one side of the road and parking on the other. Disaster. That type of facility makes me suspicious of the "help" public authorities are willing to give in design.

"complaining about the validity or failures of a very marginalized training program unlikely to boost ridership in america is not really relevant to public space design, except to recognize those that boast about effective training are often also infrastructure obstructionists."

In a general sense, I see "training" as the key to infrastructure design. Roads here in the US are designed for people who drive on the right and recognize signs and signals. That's the result of training. Without training, there's just chaos. I suspect the best training per $$$ would be constant, short, 1 point at a time, 15 second TV spots. Most people can't find the remote in 15 seconds.

[invisiblehand]

Obviously Bicycle Forums does not showcase modest bicycle training promoters; the Pontificators (of scientific or wishful thinking persuasion) dominate the "training is needed" soapbox.

:lol:

Very true.

Language in the forum is quite important.

EDIT:

In reference to your other post, I meant to also say that language in any written form is important. I have skimmed through a handful of full-blown books on cycling. I did read Effective Cycling given all of the publicity it got on the forum. Anyway, I think many authors fail to give the full blown caveats and context for the research out there -- I have not had the opportunity to read Robert's book. Although I can't tell whether this is due to the need for brevity and/or a focus on communicating the core message, or a real belief that the descriptive statistics comprises scientific proof of their personal theory/strategy. Judging from my own personal experiences, often people are uninterested descriptions of uncertainty and "seemingly unimportant" caveats. My guess is that these pressures exist when writing a book.

But I almost always point people to a pamphlet, tell them to use their head, and offer to take them for a spin.

[Bekologist]

...glad to see I can post a thread that generates such controversy about semantics and wordplay :rolleyes: in advocacy and safety.

[genec]

You also associated "trained" with "elite" bike riders in your OP title question.:rolleyes: Not everyone is willing to accept your assumption at face value.

Next time phrase your question more carefully if you do not wish anyone to discuss bike rider training and its ability/effectiveness to create or enable "elite" cyclists in your thread.

If you simply compare your experience, your regular commuting, and your desire to bike to that of the average American who owns a bike, and might jump on it at any time due to this recent gas price situation, you come off as both trained and elite. To dismiss either term or the reality of this situation is demonstrating a certain "elitist" attitude on your part.

[invisiblehand]

To dismiss either term or the reality of this situation is demonstrating a certain "elitist" attitude on your part.

... or it could demonstrate the exact opposite. Safe cycling is not so difficult such that everyone that wants to do it can. Thinking otherwise could be considered elitist.

[JeffS]

... or it could demonstrate the exact opposite. Safe cycling is not so difficult such that everyone that wants to do it can. Thinking otherwise could be considered elitist.

Driving a car safely is not so difficult for some either. There's obviously a large percentage of the population who cannot do so, even after having training - and often decades of experience.

[invisiblehand]

Driving a car safely is not so difficult for some either. There's obviously a large percentage of the population who cannot do so, even after having training - and often decades of experience.

Well, I think that desire is an important component. And what "training" means is also important. My personal observation is that most people give very little conscious thought to safe driving. So I would say that most give it little effort. If you believe insurance companies have a direct interest in observing qualities that determine "safe" drivers -- those that cost less -- then those that take education classes appear to be lower risk relative to the population.

[cudak888]

Just a random thought: If folks can supposedly learn to ride a bike without any definite assistance, how come the CSPC mandates that the left brake lever on new bikes sold specifically control the front lever - in order to make sure that newbies don't endo themselves?

-Kurt

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Driving a car safely is not so difficult for some either. There's obviously a large percentage of the population who cannot do so, even after having training - and often decades of experience.

Which just goes to show that exposure to "training" is not necessarily some kind of magic bullet that will rid motorists/cyclists of all (or any) carelessness, improper technique, or bad attitudes.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Just a random thought: If folks can supposedly learn to ride a bike without any definite assistance, how come the CSPC mandates that the right brake lever on new bikes sold specifically control the front lever - in order to make sure that newbies don't endo themselves?

"right brake lever on new bikes sold specifically control the front lever"
I presume that is a typo. If you meant front brake must be controlled by right hand brake lever I think you have it reversed, or you are describing the German ( and maybe other countries) placement of controls. Come on back when you have it figured out. But either way I think the answer is the same - you are assigning a reason to CPSC that fits your agenda, not necessarily the CPSC's, which may have been to standardize the pattern already being used by most US distributors when the rules were written.

[genec]

... or it could demonstrate the exact opposite. Safe cycling is not so difficult such that everyone that wants to do it can. Thinking otherwise could be considered elitist.

And yet we see unsafe cycling often exhibited, and certain analysis* indicates that half of the cyclists killed of the 700 or so killed annually were by their own actions.

*(some studies show that motorists are responsible for half of the cycling fatalities, whereas cyclists are responsible for the rest... other studies implicate far more cyclists.)

And indeed the skills are not that difficult to either perform or acquire. But from where/whom are said skills acquired? Parents that may not know better themselves? Local police (it has been demonstrated that police may not know any better)? The school of hard knocks (works quite well, if you don't become a statistic)? That is the issue at hand.

So do cities plan for people that may not have a clue, (members of "the general public") or the minority (and by definition, "elite"), those folks that have experience and perhaps training, and understand and operate in a "similar way?" (had to be careful of that "similar way" usage, as I can't use the words "vehicular" or "predictable" or "legal" or "rules of the road" as all these terms carry negative connotations here in A&S.)

[genec]

Which just goes to show that exposure to "training" is not necessarily some kind of magic bullet that will rid motorists/cyclists of all (or any) carelessness, improper technique, or bad attitudes.

No, training is not a magic bullet... it is simply a way to distribute knowledge quickly so that we start on the right foot... however, there is no way to guarantee that the training will be followed or remembered... at least without enforcement and refresher training. (not to say that either should not be done for driving... for instance ;) )

[I-Like-To-Bike]

No, training is not a magic bullet... it is simply a way to distribute knowledge quickly so that we start on the right foot... however, there is no way to guarantee that the training will be followed or remembered... at least without enforcement and refresher training. (not to say that either should not be done for driving... for instance ;) )

You seem to be under the assumption that drivers and cyclists operate the way they do because of lack of knowledge of the rules. Do you also assume that speeders, drunk drivers, red light runners,reckless drivers, etc. are unaware of the rules about their conduct?

[genec]

You seem to be under the assumption that drivers and cyclists operate the way they do because of lack of knowledge of the rules. Do you also assume that speeders, drunk drivers, red light runners,reckless drivers, etc. are unaware of the rules about their conduct?

Nope, and I clearly said that training was not a magic bullet... I also stated that no training is guaranteed to be followed unless enforced and refreshed. I said nothing about speeders, drunk drivers, etc being unaware of the rules of their conduct... that is an assumption you jumped to.

But clearly they are aware of the rules of their conduct because at one point they received information about said rules. (motorists are tested and have to at least pass a basic written test, which may cover the rules mentioned above)

Can you say the same thing about every cyclist/potential cyclist out there? Gets back to "getting out the knowledge..." which you seem to want to deny... unless there is some magic way to prove people need knowledge of which they are unaware.

You want to put the cart before the horse; you insist on having some proof that people do better (are safer) with training, but you aren't willing to let people be trained... so by your "rules," no one can prove that training makes a difference.

Clearly some cyclists do act in the manner they act due to their lack of knowledge about "the rules." (this is easily demonstrated by asking cyclists, or looking at some threads that show up from time to time asking about how to do something)

[cudak888]

"right brake lever on new bikes sold specifically control the front lever"
I presume that is a typo.

Yes, a typo (fixed). Gets to be second nature to think of the right lever as the front brake.

You are assigning a reason to CPSC that fits your agenda, not necessarily the CPSC's, which may have been to standardize the pattern already being used by most US distributors when the rules were written.

CPSC aside, the pattern comes to question. Why was it introduced? Same reason I outline, and I dare say you will not find many people other then yourself that will contradict the left + front = prevent newbies from endoing theory.

-Kurt

[invisiblehand]

And indeed the skills are not that difficult to either perform or acquire. But from where/whom are said skills acquired? Parents that may not know better themselves? Local police (it has been demonstrated that police may not know any better)? The school of hard knocks (works quite well, if you don't become a statistic)? That is the issue at hand.

So do cities plan for people that may not have a clue, (members of "the general public") or the minority (and by definition, "elite"), those folks that have experience and perhaps training, and understand and operate in a "similar way?" (had to be careful of that "similar way" usage, as I can't use the words "vehicular" or "predictable" or "legal" or "rules of the road" as all these terms carry negative connotations here in A&S.)

I think that people that want to learn will find a way without much difficulty. For instance, a colleague wanted advice on how to teach their kid how to cycle. While I did not have an answer, I pointed them to a few sources and voila.

I think that most adults can take one of those pamphlets and figure things out in a satisfactory fashion.

I don't think that municipalities can design roads/facilities/whatever for the clueless. I think that better designed roads/facilities will make cyclists safer regardless of their strategy. Well ... perhaps there are some perverse strategies that would lead to perverse results. Anyway, who a city should target depends on a few things such that it deserves something better than a blanket answer. However, I doubt that the conditions are right for a policy based on changing beliefs/education will change the proportions of trips/commutes/miles/people engaging in utility/transportation cycling.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

CPSC aside, the pattern comes to question. Why was it introduced? Same reason I outline, and I dare say you will not find many people other then yourself that will contradict the left + front = prevent newbies from endoing theory.
Fine, nobody you know contradicts your theory about why a certain pattern/standard was introduced for controlling the front hand brake. Any similar theory on the reason why womens clothes have the button/button hole pattern the opposite from the pattern for men's clothes; but in Europe it is sometimes reversed?

[Bekologist]

..... Anyway, who a city should target depends on a few things such that it deserves something better than a blanket answer. However, I doubt that the conditions are right for a policy based on changing beliefs/education will change the proportions of trips/commutes/miles/people engaging in utility/transportation cycling.


I disagree. WHO? ALL.

A city should target all the citizenry.

WHEN? NOW.

Conditions ARE ripe for changing transportation modal share. Time is now for increasing mass transit, bikeability, and walkability of communities. time for a policy change. Gas is not going to go back to a dollar a gallon. Global climate change is not going away. food is not getting cheaper.

America is spinning into a recession. perhaps the bike boom of the seventies was fueled by similar factors..... the 'new' environmentalism, the recession, the price of gas.....

similar factors may have shaped the bike boom then. using my powers of epistemology, we are already seeing similar economic/environmental forces at play now. The changes are already being solidified into policy changes that are increasing bike modal share in cities around the world. listen to the mayors of Paris, New York, Chicago, London, Bogota, Seattle....

[genec]

I think that people that want to learn will find a way without much difficulty. For instance, a colleague wanted advice on how to teach their kid how to cycle. While I did not have an answer, I pointed them to a few sources and voila.

I think that most adults can take one of those pamphlets and figure things out in a satisfactory fashion.

In both cases above you are supporting my claim by stating that indeed people do need some form of education...



I don't think that municipalities can design roads/facilities/whatever for the clueless. I think that better designed roads/facilities will make cyclists safer regardless of their strategy. Well ... perhaps there are some perverse strategies that would lead to perverse results. Anyway, who a city should target depends on a few things such that it deserves something better than a blanket answer. However, I doubt that the conditions are right for a policy based on changing beliefs/education will change the proportions of trips/commutes/miles/people engaging in utility/transportation cycling.

On this we disagree... I think that promoting cycling and education aimed at proper road use and the sharing of the roads can lead to a better environment out there for cyclists, and thus encourage cycling. How many times has one heard "it's too dangerous out there" and "if motorists only knew... " Both simple evidence that if the general public was better informed about cyclists' rights and the proper use of the road, there would likely be a better cycling environment.

[cudak888]

Any similar theory on the reason why womens clothes have the button/button hole pattern the opposite from the pattern for men's clothes; but in Europe it is sometimes reversed?

Yes. DB suits look better OUR way :p

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/2232/kissofdeathve3.jpg

-Kurt

[cooker]

*(some studies show that motorists are responsible for half of the cycling fatalities, whereas cyclists are responsible for the rest... other studies implicate far more cyclists.)

It's a somewhat arbitrary distinction. If a cyclist and a car both run a stopsign and collide, whose fault is it?

As a cyclist, or driver, for that matter, you're safest if you both avoid making your own mistakes and anticipate other people's mistakes.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Yes. DB suits look better OUR way :p

That must be it! Dress for success, though this example is better for celebrating Mother's Day vice Father's Day.

If only the Kiss of Death could be delivered so effectively (figuratively) to the schemes of the Safety Nannys.

[invisiblehand]

I disagree. WHO? ALL.

A city should target all the citizenry.

WHEN? NOW.

Using your powers of epistemology, how do you determine whether more resources should be directed to a new hospital/homeless shelter/school versus more facilities such that grandma feels comfortable utility cycling?

[invisiblehand]

In both cases above you are supporting my claim by stating that indeed people do need some form of education...



On this we disagree... I think that promoting cycling and education aimed at proper road use and the sharing of the roads can lead to a better environment out there for cyclists, and thus encourage cycling. How many times has one heard "it's too dangerous out there" and "if motorists only knew... " Both simple evidence that if the general public was better informed about cyclists' rights and the proper use of the road, there would likely be a better cycling environment.

People will learn more about cycling safely until they feel safe cycling. I think most people would agree that when they first put their butt on a saddle that they should learn more. But whether they need formal help learning it is another issue.

My bad for not being clear on the second point. I don't think that a politically feasible education-based program can increase utility/transportation cycling to say a 30% share in urban areas. I certainly believe that it can have some effect; but I think that it would have to be in conjunction with legislative and executive (law enforcement) action along with some improvement in engineering standards to have a sizable effect whereby cycling increases ... say tenfold. And this would only be in areas particularly conducive to utility cycling.

[invisiblehand]

Fine, nobody you know contradicts your theory about why a certain pattern/standard was introduced for controlling the front hand brake. Any similar theory on the reason why womens clothes have the button/button hole pattern the opposite from the pattern for men's clothes; but in Europe it is sometimes reversed?

The pattern is reversed in some European countries?

Well, the question isn't as popular as 99-cent pricing, but there is probably some graduate student working on an economic explanation why men's and women's buttons are on opposite sides. I am familiar with the historic explanation of women being dressed by others ...

Where do you find these great photos?

[JeffS]

You seem to be under the assumption that drivers and cyclists operate the way they do because of lack of knowledge of the rules. Do you also assume that speeders, drunk drivers, red light runners,reckless drivers, etc. are unaware of the rules about their conduct?


Lawbreakers are not the sole danger on the road and proper training involves much more than simply learning a rulebook.

Situational awareness, instinctual reactions and vehicle handling skills cannot be legislated.

It's somewhat irrelevant though without a desire to hold people to a higher standard.