Advocacy & Safety - LAB tiring of cycling instructors fringe take on facilities

from an instructor section of the League of American Bicyclists Liscensed cycling instructor lit.

seems they need to correct a disturbing trend in some of the LCI's take on bike facilities.

some of the posters to bike forums are LCIs; perhaps their take on bike infrastructure is representative of the fringe platform the LAB is tiring of.


"However, bike lanes are a practical, proven and useful tool for the traffic
engineer and planner: to teach or pretend otherwise is to risk irrelevance, and
is inconsistent with the League's Smart Cycling program."

does everybody get that????

to teach or pretend that bike lanes are not a proven , practical and useful tool for the engineer and traffic planner is to risk irrelevance and is inconsistent with the League of American Bicyclists educational materials.

Such a brief quote with context supplied by supposition is of little educational value.

apparantly, so is ignoring the validity of bicycling infrastructure.

I have to do some more digging. my interest in becomming an LCI to combat that type of marginalizing facilities nonsense seen from a lot of LCIs that post here is more appealing by the day.

The quote says that bike lanes useful for traffic engineers and planners; doesn't really say if they're useful for bicyclists.

After riding in bicycle infrastructure that's built to "minimum specs", I not surprised at all that a number of LCIs are on the outer fringe.

These ideas were conceived in the early 70's--most bike lanes were somewhere between useless and dangerous at the time. They have improved substantially. With the growth of cycling and of the LAB as a lobbying organization, the feared banning of bicycles from various roads usually gets stopped before it can happen. What wasn't addressed--because it didn't exist at the time--was a set of problems consisting of autocentric zoning and development running wild plus electronic distractions lobotomizing drivers plus wimpy law enforcement. There are stances that might sound "extreme" now that are in fact perfectly rational such as changes to zoning and urban planning, changing the legal status of drivers, and other ideas.

Such a brief quote with context supplied by supposition is of little educational value.

For more education see http://www.bikeleague.org/members/instructor/pdfs/smart_cycling_bike_lanes.pdf

After riding in bicycle infrastructure that's built to "minimum specs", I not surprised at all that a number of LCIs are on the outer fringe.

or are those LCIs on the fringe due to a strident belief in the ramblings of John Forester?


While I agree that some BL are just terrible, and that minimum specs are often pretty darn slim... could the vast objections by LCIs have other roots?

Why shouldn't LCIs lead the charge in cities for better than minimum specs?

For more education see http://www.bikeleague.org/members/instructor/pdfs/smart_cycling_bike_lanes.pdf

I like the part about the legal and practical responsibility for avoiding doorings is on the motorist or passenger opening the door. Yeah, like it's going to hurt them more than it will me. :roflmao2:

I like the part about the legal and practical responsibility for avoiding doorings is on the motorist or passenger opening the door. Yeah, like it's going to hurt them more than it will me. :roflmao2:

Remember when a door opens in your way, aim for the soft spot. ;)

Remember when a door opens in your way, aim for the soft spot. ;)

The bad part about is that the really big soft ones always kick the door open with their foot, making for a poor target. :lol:

from an instructor section of the League of American Bicyclists Liscensed cycling instructor lit.

seems they need to correct a disturbing trend in some of the LCI's take on bike facilities.

some of the posters to bike forums are LCIs; perhaps their take on bike infrastructure is representative of the fringe platform the LAB is tiring of.



does everybody get that????

to teach or pretend that bike lanes are not a proven , practical and useful tool for the engineer and traffic planner is to risk irrelevance and is inconsistent with the League of American Bicyclists educational materials.

Since when did you care what LAB says?

So basically this document says that yes many bike lanes have their flaws and can often encourage cyclists to ride in a position with greater danger, but not to worry since motorists should be trained to look out for cyclists. Nice.

The position paper is a bit of a straw man, I think. Look at the first section about what bicycle lanes can accomplish:
• Encourage bicycle use
• Improve cyclist and motorist lane discipline and predictability
• Encourage safer riding behavior

Are not all these also accomplished by education/training of all vehicle operators (both motorists & cyclists)? And was that not the whole aim of the LAB education program?

Not to rehash all the debate over bike lanes, but I believe there are places where bike lanes are suitable & places where they are not suitable, if not outright dangerous.

But a bike lane gives city planners a definite thing to point at & say “See, we accommodate cyclists!” WOLs, my own preference, are not highly visible to many road users. Heck, most non-cyclists may not even recognize a WOL, unless it was pointed out to them. However, a WOL can be easily done away with, unlike a bike lane. My own city added a center turning lane to several 4 lane streets without moving the curbs. They just peeled up the old paint & laid down new lanes. This had the effect of turning these streets from a cyclist-friendly to dang near hostile, considering the 45 – 55 mph speed limits. Not for the uninitiated. But no ‘cycling accommodations’ were removed to add the turn lane.

The LAB is rapidly approaching a cusp, a time to make a real decision on where to stand. On one hand, they ask for cyclists to be considered as road users. On the other hand, they are asking for segregated cycling facilities. Are they politicians or real wheelmen?

I'm both a LAB LCI & a driving instructor (Smith Systems). My past work duties have included vehicle accident investigation & leading a regional cadre of driving instructors. We realized an 80% reduction in vehicular accident rates with advanced driver education. I am the past chairman of the local Metro Planning Organization Bicycle Committee.

And yet, I see no clear path on bike lanes.

I'm both a LAB LCI & a driving instructor (Smith Systems). My past work duties have included vehicle accident investigation & leading a regional cadre of driving instructors. We realized an 80% reduction in vehicular accident rates with advanced driver education. I am the past chairman of the local Metro Planning Organization Bicycle Committee.



Any realizations about improvement in bicycling "accident rates" (however they are measured) after advanced cyclist education?

.....

I'm both a LAB LCI & a driving instructor (Smith Systems). My past work duties have included vehicle accident investigation & leading a regional cadre of driving instructors. We realized an 80% reduction in vehicular accident rates with advanced driver education. I am the past chairman of the local Metro Planning Organization Bicycle Committee.

And yet, I see no clear path on bike lanes.


When they take the advanced driver course, do they get some kind of certificate? Do they get reductions on their car insurance premiums, etc? It would be nice if this were the case; similar to the motorcycle safety courses in many states.


By 'vehicular accident rates' do ya mean all accidents or accidents that involved only bikes?

Overall an encouraging and useful post.


roughstuff

I like the part about the legal and practical responsibility for avoiding doorings is on the motorist or passenger opening the door.
??

If it's not the door opener's responsibility, whose is it?

Note they aren't saying that cyclists should ride in the door zone.


Cyclists should always have the right to leave the bike lane if their safety is threatened due to surface conditions, obstructions, and dangers such as opening car doors. This has always been, and remains, a core principle of the League.


Yeah, like it's going to hurt them more than it will me.

They agree with you!


Riding a bike or driving too close to parked cars always creates the risk of a car door opening in your path. The impact of this on a cyclist is clearly more serious
than for the drivers of motor vehicles. There is a concern that bike lanes striped against parked cars will put cyclists in the door zone and therefore into greater danger.

Any realizations about improvement in bicycling "accident rates" (however they are measured) after advanced cyclist education?

For adults, there is no firm data that I am aware of. It seems no ones asks at the ER if the cyclist was trained.

However, in 1993 the Hawaii Bicycle League documented that their BikeEd Hawaii Program (for 4th graders) evaluation indicated that children who participated in bicycle education dramatically improved their riding behavior:
Right side riding improved by 7%
Helmet usage among children increased by 13%
Sidewalk riding decreased by 47%
Crashes decreased by 77%

Some decent numbers, I think.

When they take the advanced driver course, do they get some kind of certificate? Do they get reductions on their car insurance premiums, etc? It would be nice if this were the case; similar to the motorcycle safety courses in many states.


By 'vehicular accident rates' do ya mean all accidents or accidents that involved only bikes?

Overall an encouraging and useful post.


roughstuff

We always took pains to get a certificate to the students. Many auto insurance companies do give premium reductions for driver safety training, such as Smith Systems. Plus, my employer is self-insured, so the accident rate reduction had a very visible effect on our bottom line.

Vehicular accident rate is just that: all vehicles, large & small, internal combustion power or human power. Of course, the rate reduction rate I cited was for company motor vehicles. But if an employee gets injured off-duty on any type of vehicle, is not his employer impacted as well? At least, that is our thoughts, which is why my employer tries to make the driver training available to all employees, their family & friends. I did a series of company-sponsored driver safety seminars to which an employee could bring anyone he wanted. One guy brought his son's high school football team. That was way cool.

For adults, there is no firm data that I am aware of. It seems no ones asks at the ER if the cyclist was trained.

However, in 1993 the Hawaii Bicycle League documented that their BikeEd Hawaii Program (for 4th graders) evaluation indicated that children who participated in bicycle education dramatically improved their riding behavior:
Right side riding improved by 7%
Helmet usage among children increased by 13%
Sidewalk riding decreased by 47%
Crashes decreased by 77%

Some decent numbers, I think.

Yes, a 77% "crash" decrease is a decent number. Its relevance to cycling safety is dependent on how, whom, and what the Hawaii Bicycle League actually measured, as well as for how long this "crash" reduction was observed. Is there any reference for how that "decent number" was determined?

??

If it's not the door opener's responsibility, whose is it?


For me, to put the responsibility against doorings into the hands of the motorist/passenger is too dangerous an option for me to give them. The "minimum" 12ft from the curb, that most BLs with parking along side have, really doesn't have enough room to pass parked cars safely so that a cyclist can use the BL properly. Don't you worry, I won't need LAB's blessing to leave the bike lane to avoid doorings, especially if I'm traveling at two car lengths or more a second.

More than once have I been informed by motorists, on local forums, to use the BL properly, and that I won't "get a prize" for riding outside or on the BL line furthest from the curb.

Again, I'm not surprised to hear that a number of LCIs are not completely in line with LAB.

I won't need LAB's blessing to leave the bike to avoid doorings

how does this work, levitation?

;)

how does this work, levitation?

;)

levitation via typo. :p

love this quote from the LAB:


Bike lanes are travel lanes for the exclusive and preferential use of bicyclists:
they are not inequitable, and they do not “segregate” bicyclists (unless a physical
separation is used).

sgoodri, did you get that from the League?

seems the league has become concerned about the way some of the LCI's are spinning their lame take on bikeways planning.

Roody,

I 'm interested in becoming a league instructor to do some local advocacy and educational rides thru a couple of clubs i belong to, and to help quash the bull I see some of the LCI's pimp out in here about bikeways planning.

For more education see http://www.bikeleague.org/members/instructor/pdfs/smart_cycling_bike_lanes.pdf

Thanks. That was an excellent cite. I found this particularly helpful:

"In limited circumstances, bike lanes may inhibit the ability of skilled cyclists to
achieve their peak efficiency and speeds. This is similar to the effect of most
traffic control devices on the mobility of the fastest and most skilled users of any
mode. However, bike lanes also make cycling much more accessible to many
more people and that benefit far outweighs the relatively minor costs incurred by
a limited number of highly skilled and traffic tolerant cyclists."

Although I generally have a preference for sharrows, this gave me food for reflection.

i like that quote as well.


"In limited circumstances, bike lanes may inhibit the ability of skilled cyclists to
achieve their peak efficiency and speeds. This is similar to the effect of most
traffic control devices on the mobility of the fastest and most skilled users of any
mode. However, bike lanes also make cycling much more accessible to many
more people and that benefit far outweighs the relatively minor costs incurred by
a limited number of highly skilled and traffic tolerant cyclists."

Yes, a 77% "crash" decrease is a decent number. Its relevance to cycling safety is dependent on how, whom, and what the Hawaii Bicycle League actually measured, as well as for how long this "crash" reduction was observed. Is there any reference for how that "decent number" was determined?

Dude, you would argue the existence of the sun, if it did not fit your paradigm.

The crash decrease was based on ER numbers & the effect continued for as long as the education program continued.

Further 'debate' with you on this would be a waste of electrons.
:twitchy:

Heaven forbid that a cycling instructor should point out the downside of poorly designed bike lanes. Protecting the sensibilities of the paint 'n' path crowd is much more important than helping cyclists survive in the real world.

Dude, you would argue the existence of the sun, if it did not fit your paradigm.

The crash decrease was based on ER numbers & the effect continued for as long as the education program continued.

Further 'debate' with you on this would be a waste of electrons.
:twitchy:

I always get :twitchy: when alleged "safety" numbers are batted about that rely solely on counts of undefined "crashes".
The :twitchy: meter gets activated on surveys of 4th grader crashes which don't differentiate between beginners falling off their first bike and those who may have been run over in the street.

:twitchy: meter gets pegged when the same survey boasts about decreased numbers for sidewalk cycling for 4th Graders as a result of the "training". Perhaps Hawaiian 4th graders are a different breed and are ready to be encouraged to ride in traffic like their VC instructors, but I doubt it.

Perhaps the 4th graders are trading in sidewalk bumps and bruises for the results of accidents with motor vehicles in traffic. Who knows? The facts are nowhere to be found in the raw "decent" numbers, and the proponents and supporters of the program do not seem interested in providing any real details about how they derived the "decent numbers" that support their own program and self interest.

We always took pains to get a certificate to the students. Many auto insurance companies do give premium reductions for driver safety training, such as Smith Systems. Plus, my employer is self-insured, so the accident rate reduction had a very visible effect on our bottom line.

Vehicular accident rate is just that: all vehicles, large & small, internal combustion power or human power. Of course, the rate reduction rate I cited was for company motor vehicles. But if an employee gets injured off-duty on any type of vehicle, is not his employer impacted as well? At least, that is our thoughts, which is why my employer tries to make the driver training available to all employees, their family & friends. I did a series of company-sponsored driver safety seminars to which an employee could bring anyone he wanted. One guy brought his son's high school football team. That was way cool.


Ok. I pretty much assumed that was the case. To me, improvements in road safety at any and all levels help cyclists, whether or not they are targeted at us specifically. The best way to alter behavior by drivers of vehicles, and bicycle riders, is to provide a real, visible, and frequent reinforcement system for good behavior and penalties for bad behavior. This is not easy on our modern day wizzways, but I think technology is improving rapidly in this area with monitors at traffic lights, intelligent sensors for vehicles, etc.

roughstuff

I am sure the League has policy on law enforcement of motor vehicle drivers and bicyclists and the 'reinforcement' system

but this thread illustrates a rebuke from the League to league cycling instructors that disparage bike facilities and bikeways planning.

There's more than a few LCIs that post their marginalizing blather about bikelanes in A&S.


There is no evidence to suggest properly designed bike lanes are more dangerous for cyclists, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that, in fact, bicycle lanes:

 encourage bicycle use
 improve cyclist and motorist lane discipline and predictability, and
 encourage safer riding behavior (by discouraging wrong way and sidewalk
riding).

Again, I'm not surprised to hear that a number of LCIs are not completely in line with LAB.

Which is interesting as it is the LAB that creates LCIs and grants them the LCI status.

http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/instructors.php

The LAB also provides the course material and course outline.

I would think that anyone not teaching to the LAB standards might actually have liability issues.

Conclusion:

Bike lanes are here to stay. They are one of the tools available to communities to
promote cycling and cyclist safety and they are being used more extensively
every year. Of course, most streets – local roads – don’t typically need bike
lanes for safe bicycle and motor vehicle use. Major arterial streets may need
something more substantial than a simple paint stripe. However, bike lanes are a
practical, proven and useful tool for the traffic engineer and planner: to teach or
pretend otherwise is to risk irrelevance, and is inconsistent with the League’s
Smart Cycling program. Streets with bike lanes aren’t the same as streets
without bike lanes – there are different issues to share with students in each
instance, but one is not inherently better or worse than the other.

The presence of bike lanes – and the League’s support for their appropriate use
and application – is consistent with the Smart Cycling program and principles that
underpin it. Bicyclists in bike lanes can and should have the same basic rights
and responsibilities as the operators of motor vehicle operators, and there are
some specific rules and regulations that will apply as they uniquely relate to the
operation of a bicycle in particular situations.

In limited circumstances, bike lanes may inhibit the ability of skilled cyclists to
achieve their peak efficiency and speeds. This is similar to the effect of most
traffic control devices on the mobility of the fastest and most skilled users of any
mode. However, bike lanes also make cycling much more accessible to many
more people and that benefit far outweighs the relatively minor costs incurred by
a limited number of highly skilled and traffic tolerant cyclists.

Thanks. That was an excellent cite. I found this particularly helpful:

"In limited circumstances, bike lanes may inhibit the ability of skilled cyclists to
achieve their peak efficiency and speeds. This is similar to the effect of most
traffic control devices on the mobility of the fastest and most skilled users of any
mode. However, bike lanes also make cycling much more accessible to many
more people and that benefit far outweighs the relatively minor costs incurred by
a limited number of highly skilled and traffic tolerant cyclists."

Although I generally have a preference for sharrows, this gave me food for reflection.

The bolded part is what I think folks need to think about... where and why is it always assumed that cyclists get to go at "peak speed" all the time?

Various discussions on BF tend to berate bike paths as cyclists can't ride at "peak speed" on some paths. Granted, I fully acknowledge that some bike paths and bike lanes are so poorly designed as to be beyond belief... but then I have also seen highways poorly designed too... It is always the responsibility of the vehicle operator to operate the vehicle safely. (far too many motorists however feel that "at" or above speed limit is "safe" and the NHTSA site lists excessive speed as the cause of 1/3 of deaths out there)

If cyclists really are "responsible vehicle operators," then judgment for safe and proper speed needs to be exercised by cyclists while on MUPs and Bike Lanes, as well as anywhere else that a cyclist would ride.

the tag to that statement is what 'highly skilled and traffic tolerant' cyclists need to think about as well, Gene.

'However, bike lanes also make cycling much more accessible to many
more people and that benefit far outweighs the relatively minor costs incurred by
a limited number of highly skilled and traffic tolerant cyclists."

the benefits of bikelanes far outweigh the relatively minor costs...

but the more new, hybrid roadscaping I ride the more impressed I am by the designs i see. more and more bikelanes in Seattle are now riding very vehicularily, intuitively and smoothly, educate motorists and bicyclists both about roadway cycling behaviors and help encourage more cycling along transportation cooridors.

but the more new, hybrid roadscaping I ride the more impressed I am by the designs i see. more and more bikelanes in Seattle are now riding very vehicularily, intuitively and smoothly, educate motorists and bicyclists both about roadway cycling behaviors and help encourage more cycling along transportation cooridors.

Bek, can you post some pics on these BLs. I'm curious to see what they look like.

"In limited circumstances, bike lanes may inhibit the ability of skilled cyclists to
achieve their peak efficiency and speeds. This is similar to the effect of most
traffic control devices on the mobility of the fastest and most skilled users of any
mode. However, bike lanes also make cycling much more accessible to many
more people and that benefit far outweighs the relatively minor costs incurred by
a limited number of highly skilled and traffic tolerant cyclists."

A few comments on this misguided statement

1. The complaint about bike lanes is not that they inhibit peak efficiency in some circumstances. It is that if their guidance is followed they reduce the safety for all types of cyclists, skilled or not. All types of cyclists, skilled or not, who chose to both follow the bike lane guidance while mitigating some of the increased risks following the lanes can incur must reduce speed and efficiency. It does not just affect skilled cyclists.

2. To genec's point: I have no issue with not being able to achieve peak speed at times if that is required to increase my safety. What I do have an issue with is (a) having my peak speed reduced by infrastructure that was supposedly added for my safety instead of reducing peak speed because it it warranted for conditions outside of that added infrastructure. (b) That my peak speed is reduced but the peak speed for drivers of other vehicles also going from point A to B is not reduced to an equal level. For example why should I have to reduce say from 25 to 15mph because I am driving a bicycle, but motorists going to and from the same place, even on same road, can continue to travel at 45mph?

For me, to put the responsibility against doorings into the hands of the motorist/passenger is too dangerous an option for me to give them.
It is completely reasonable not to rely on drivers. It is also completely reasonable to make drivers responsible. There is no contradiction here.


The "minimum" 12ft from the curb, that most BLs with parking along side have, really doesn't have enough room to pass parked cars safely so that a cyclist can use the BL properly. Don't you worry, I won't need LAB's blessing to leave the bike lane to avoid doorings, especially if I'm traveling at two car lengths or more a second.
They aren't giving any "blessings". They are simply agreeing with you (on this).


More than once have I been informed by motorists, on local forums, to use the BL properly, and that I won't "get a prize" for riding outside or on the BL line furthest from the curb.
Many motorists are confused by a lot of things.



So basically this document says that yes many bike lanes have their flaws and can often encourage cyclists to ride in a position with greater danger, but not to worry since motorists should be trained to look out for cyclists. Nice.
No, the document doesn't say that. Seems kind of obvious that motorists should be expected to look out for cyclists (bike lanes or not).

For adults, there is no firm data that I am aware of. It seems no ones asks at the ER if the cyclist was trained.

However, in 1993 the Hawaii Bicycle League documented that their BikeEd Hawaii Program (for 4th graders) evaluation indicated that children who participated in bicycle education dramatically improved their riding behavior:
Right side riding improved by 7%
Helmet usage among children increased by 13%
Sidewalk riding decreased by 47%
Crashes decreased by 77%

Some decent numbers, I think.

That is interesting.


The crash decrease was based on ER numbers & the effect continued for as long as the education program continued.

I don't follow the running feuds on Bikeforums but the questions ILTB raises are standard fare for a lot of disciplines. That is, what are the specific definitions of those metrics, what are the reasonable interpretations of the figures, and what relevance to do they have for people out of sample?

I did a quick search; but could not locate the findings you quote in the top. I found this that states there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion regarding safety improvements associated with bicycle rodeos (http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/BicycleRodeo.htm).

I'm interested in the following:

(1) How were 4th graders cycling behavior -- and the changes -- observed for those in the study and the control group? Was it self-reported? Was it actually observed while riding to school? Were the results long lasting; i.e, was a survey done during 5th grade?

(2) How did the ER reports identify 4th graders? How did the ER reports identify 4th graders in the study versus the control group?

(3) My interpretation of this page (http://www.hbl.org/?q=node/18) is that the entire 4th grade of each school is given the rodeo. Is it the case that a school official elects to teach the program to the entire 4th grade or is it the case that a school official chooses to offer the program and 4th graders elect to participate or not?

(4) How do the ER statistics differentiate between road and mtb crashes?

i like that quote as well.

You might find this interesting.

http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/listening_hiles.pdf

Which I found out about from:

http://www.howwedrive.com/


or are those LCIs on the fringe due to a strident belief in the ramblings of John Forester?
Yes (see first link).

No, the document doesn't say that.

It does read that way for the majority of intersections (low to moderate volume with no RTOL)"

"There is a clear and general principle that vehicles turning or changing
lanes have the responsibility to make sure they can make the turn safely
and not cross the path of another roadway user – we must expect
motorists to follow this principle when crossing a bike lane to make a turn
just as when they cross a sidewalk, crosswalk and/or shoulder. If a
motorist hits a bicyclist (or if another cyclist hits a cyclist when turning) it
suggests they have failed to take this basic precaution."

It also reads that way for bike lanes in door zones, except for the cases where the cyclist doesn't use the bike lane (which the whole paper is saying shouldn't be the primary guidance "to teach or pretend otherwise is to risk irrelevance") or the (rare) cases where the bike lane is well away from the door zone.

Sure it doesn't say that "not to worry" exactly, but that is the only take away if one generally follows the logic of the paper as there was no suggestion that the cyclist should be primarily in control of the potentially unsafe conditions at intersections and for door zones there is no suggestion that bike lanes in door zones not be used as the primary and only method to ensure one will not be doored, that and only that is the cyclist taking full responsibility. Not taking full responsibility is a 'not to worry' as other drivers will be doing some of that attitude.

It does read that way for the majority of intersections (low to moderate volume with no RTOL)"

"There is a clear and general principle that vehicles turning or changing
lanes have the responsibility to make sure they can make the turn safely
and not cross the path of another roadway user – we must expect
motorists to follow this principle when crossing a bike lane to make a turn
just as when they cross a sidewalk, crosswalk and/or shoulder. If a
motorist hits a bicyclist (or if another cyclist hits a cyclist when turning) it
suggests they have failed to take this basic precaution."

It also reads that way for bike lanes in door zones, except for the cases where the cyclist doesn't use the bike lane (which the whole paper is saying shouldn't be the primary guidance "to teach or
pretend otherwise is to risk irrelevance") or the (rare) cases where the bike lane well away from the door zone.

Sure it doesn't say that exactly, but that is the only take away if one generally follows the logic of the paper.

From the document:


Cyclists should always have the right to leave the bike lane if their safety is threatened due to surface conditions, obstructions, and dangers such as opening car doors. This has always been, and remains, a core principle of the League.

There are two basic actors in this play: the bicyclist and the motorist. Each has independent responsibilites for their own actions, since they only have control over themselves. Both actors have a requirement to act in a way that keeps people safe and both have an obligation not to rely on the actions of other to keep themselves safe.

If a thing is said regarding the responsibilities of one actor, that doesn't mean the other actor is absolved from responsibility themselves.

A "smart" cyclist should realize that leaving the bicycle lane might be the best course of action. A smart motorist should relealize that all cyclists might not be smart and that they (the motorists) always have a responsibility to look out when turning. There is no contradiction here.

If a bicycle lane exists, motorists should certainly be required to expect bicyclists in it, regardless of whether or not the bike lane is a bad one!

==============



Sure it doesn't say that "not to worry" exactly, but that is the only take away if one generally follows the logic of the paper as there was no suggestion that the cyclist should be primarily in control of the potentially unsafe conditions at intersections and for door zones there is no suggestion that bike lanes in door zones not be used as the primary and only method to ensure one will not be doored, that and only that is the cyclist taking full responsibility. Not taking full responsibility is a 'not to worry' as other drivers will be doing some of that attitude.
It would "say that" only if you read parts of the document and had no idea of what the LAB is about!

That is interesting.



I don't follow the running feuds on Bikeforums but the questions ILTB raises are standard fare for a lot of disciplines. That is, what are the specific definitions of those metrics, what are the reasonable interpretations of the figures, and what relevance to do they have for people out of sample?

I did a quick search; but could not locate the findings you quote in the top. I found this that states there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion regarding safety improvements associated with bicycle rodeos (http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/BicycleRodeo.htm).

I'm interested in the following:

(1) How were 4th graders cycling behavior -- and the changes -- observed for those in the study and the control group? Was it self-reported? Was it actually observed while riding to school? Were the results long lasting; i.e, was a survey done during 5th grade?

(2) How did the ER reports identify 4th graders? How did the ER reports identify 4th graders in the study versus the control group?

(3) My interpretation of this page (http://www.hbl.org/?q=node/18) is that the entire 4th grade of each school is given the rodeo. Is it the case that a school official elects to teach the program to the entire 4th grade or is it the case that a school official chooses to offer the program and 4th graders elect to participate or not?

(4) How do the ER statistics differentiate between road and mtb crashes?

I'm disappointed that I cannot find the support for the study I cited. Got the results, but not the methodology, so does it really count, is it valid?

The local school system here has (whenever they have the funding) a similar program. A LCI comes in and takes over the 6th grade PE class for 2 weeks. At all public schools in the area.

No systemic study has been made here, which is a shame. But, anecdotally, I note safer riding among the age groups that have had the class.

Now if we could just get that out to the adults around here......

I'm disappointed that I cannot find the support for the study I cited. Got the results, but not the methodology, so does it really count, is it valid?

The local school system here has (whenever they have the funding) a similar program. A LCI comes in and takes over the 6th grade PE class for 2 weeks. At all public schools in the area.

No systemic study has been made here, which is a shame. But, anecdotally, I note safer riding among the age groups that have had the class.

Now if we could just get that out to the adults around here......

Could be a valid study. But we just can't tell. Maybe CBHI will see the post and be able to help us.

Could be a valid study. But we just can't tell.

Exactly. Could be valid or could be nothing at all. Might be decent numbers or indecent. Who knows? - given the lack of info/documentation about the methodology used by the organization evaluating the effectiveness of their own program.

And of course there is even less info on how these "numbers" might relate to the effectiveness of cycling instructors on influencing adult students' safety record.

I'm interested in the following:

(1) How were 4th graders cycling behavior -- and the changes -- observed for those in the study and the control group? Was it self-reported? Was it actually observed while riding to school? Were the results long lasting; i.e, was a survey done during 5th grade?

(2) How did the ER reports identify 4th graders? How did the ER reports identify 4th graders in the study versus the control group?

(3) My interpretation of this page (http://www.hbl.org/?q=node/18) is that the entire 4th grade of each school is given the rodeo. Is it the case that a school official elects to teach the program to the entire 4th grade or is it the case that a school official chooses to offer the program and 4th graders elect to participate or not?

(4) How do the ER statistics differentiate between road and mtb crashes?

All good questions/follow ups to mine. Your second question assumes that there was a control group; I'd be surprised if any safety study cited/conducted by VC advocates ever used a control group.

Perhaps Da Tinker will decide to answer in a civil manner.

"In limited circumstances, bike lanes may inhibit the ability of skilled cyclists to
achieve their peak efficiency and speeds. This is similar to the effect of most
traffic control devices on the mobility of the fastest and most skilled users of any
mode. However, bike lanes also make cycling much more accessible to many
more people and that benefit far outweighs the relatively minor costs incurred by
a limited number of highly skilled and traffic tolerant cyclists."

A few comments on this misguided statement

1. The complaint about bike lanes is not that they inhibit peak efficiency in some circumstances. It is that if their guidance is followed they reduce the safety for all types of cyclists, skilled or not. All types of cyclists, skilled or not, who chose to both follow the bike lane guidance while mitigating some of the increased risks following the lanes can incur must reduce speed and efficiency. It does not just affect skilled cyclists.

2. To genec's point: I have no issue with not being able to achieve peak speed at times if that is required to increase my safety. What I do have an issue with is (a) having my peak speed reduced by infrastructure that was supposedly added for my safety instead of reducing peak speed because it it warranted for conditions outside of that added infrastructure. (b) That my peak speed is reduced but the peak speed for drivers of other vehicles also going from point A to B is not reduced to an equal level. For example why should I have to reduce say from 25 to 15mph because I am driving a bicycle, but motorists going to and from the same place, even on same road, can continue to travel at 45mph?


But how fast could those motorists go along that road if there were no speed limits??? Aren't motorists often limited to some speed well below what they could drive?

But how fast could those motorists go along that road if there were no speed limits??? Aren't motorists often limited to some speed well below what they could drive?

I am willing to abide by all posted speed limits that are applicable to other drivers.

And I do, and do so happily, follow posted speed limits when I otherwise could travel faster whether on bicycle or in motor vehicle.

I am willing to abide by all posted speed limits that are applicable to other drivers.

And I do, and do so happily, follow posted speed limits when I otherwise could travel faster whether on bicycle or in motor vehicle.

Uh, I specifically mentioned MUPs... so if there is a posted speed on an MUP... you have no problem with that?

On a street, I agree that your speed should not exceed the limits already posted. I also mentioned bike lanes... and if said bike lanes are part of the street, then the street speed should be the limit.

Uh, I specifically mentioned MUPs... so if there is a posted speed on an MUP... you have no problem with that?

On a street, I agree that your speed should not exceed the limits already posted. I also mentioned bike lanes... and if said bike lanes are part of the street, then the street speed should be the limit.

You mentioned both. If a MUP has posted speed limits no problem as long as I am still permitted to travel on the equivalent route that motorized vehicles are. Ideally that equivalent route also considers that bicycles will and can travel on it. (no parallel cracks, sensors that detect bicycles, wide outside lanes where needed, etc.)

A properly designed bike lane should not require a cyclist to travel below their peak possible speed if that peak possible speed is both below the posted limit for the road the bike lane is on and is equal or below the speed of traffic at the time and place.