Advocacy & Safety - Which Cycling Politics: Doom or Possibility?

http://mighkwilson.com/2009/10/which-cycling-politics-doom-or-possibility

"The real questions are, “What collective story do cyclists want to live by?” and “What kind of story will get us to where we want to be?” A story of limits and tragedy, or a story of personal growth and freedom?"

http://mighkwilson.com/2009/10/which-cycling-politics-doom-or-possibility

It's interesting (but not perfect).


A little perspective would be nice. According to the Florida Department of Health (http://www.doh.state.fl.us/demo/BrainSC/AdvCouncil/Committees/StatsandTrends5-18-05.zip), three times as many pedestrians, three times as many motorcyclists, and ten times as many automobile passengers suffer brain injuries as bicyclists do each year.
I suspect that many more than "three times" the number of pedestrians and many more than "ten times" the number of automobile passengers than cyclists. If that is true, then the risk of brain injury is higher (maybe, eve much higher) when cycling.


Because cycling is not very risky. The average bicyclist – and this includes all those ones who ride in a less-than-competent manner – will travel about 4 million hours before experiencing a fatal crash. (That is equal to 456 years of non-stop cycling.) Competent cyclists will travel at least five times farther before a fatal crash. But we focus way too much on these rare crashes, instead of on the hundreds of millions of miles cyclists travel every year without incident. (Motorists by comparison travel about 2 million hours before experiencing a fatal crash. Yes, their risk is twice that of bicyclists.)
Who knows how these fatality rates where calculated! I suspect that the fatality-risk in bicycling is a good bit higher because these "statistics" might be the number of fatalities per total US population. (If so, this would exaggerate the risk of automobile crashes relative to bicycle crashes.)

Anyway, it appears that driving is not very risky either.

Bicycle advocates appear to be arguing, at the same time, that cycling isn't risky and that it is risky (ie, that special laws are needed to make it less risky).

Who knows how these fatality rates where calculated! I suspect that the fatality-risk in bicycling is a good bit higher because these "statistics" might be the number of fatalities per total US population. (If so, this would exaggerate the risk of automobile crashes relative to bicycle crashes.)

The author cited his source in the comments, in response to someone else asking the same thing:

The 4 million hours number comes from a study done by Failure Analysis, Inc. in the ’90s. They compared a variety of activities, including auto travel, motorcycle, bicycling, and commercial air travel on a fatalities per millions hours of exposure. It was not done for a bicycling org, so if there’s any bias it’s from poor data, but the late Ken Kifer did an analysis of the FAI numbers and thought they were reasonable. FAI used 0.26 fatalities per million hours; I made it more understandable by converting it to one fatality per 4 million hours.

Someone on another mailing list I'm on made an insightful (and inciteful?) comment regarding the "two stories" Mighk proposes, and programs of the League of American Bicyclists (http://www.bikeleague.org/):


That's the problem at LAB in a nutshell:

The BFC program sells Story 1.
The LCI program sells Story 2.

BFC = Bicycle Friendly Communities
LCI = League Cycling Instructor

http://mighkwilson.com/2009/10/which-cycling-politics-doom-or-possibility



Excellent article! The criticism of helmet wearing and the 'need' for bike lanes is instructive in pointing out the former discourages cycling by giving cycling an inaccurately unsafe image; the latter by actually making cycling less safe.

One criticism I'll make is that even though the author demonstrates how bike lanes make cycling less safe, he wrongly repeats the error that bike lanes increase separation. At least two studies demonstrate the unanticipated result that bike lanes actually decrease separation between bikes and motorists.

The data verifies my own experience of riding on 40 to 50 mph roads that have bike lanes on some stretches, and no lanes where the road narrows. Dispite the narrowing of the road, cars routinely pass me at greater distances where there is no bike lane stripe than where there is one.

I think this article exposes the absurdity that's at the core of most cycling advocacy: Riding a bike is not only dangerous, it's essentially a serious activity that really isn't much fun. IOW, people cycle because it's "good for my health" or "good for society" or "good for the environment", not because it's enjoyable.

I have to admit that I'm guilty of this self-righteous priggery myself sometimes, but after reading this article, I'll try harder to push the joy of cycling.

The author cited his source in the comments, in response to someone else asking the same thing:

The 4 million hours number comes from a study done by Failure Analysis, Inc. in the ’90s. They compared a variety of activities, including auto travel, motorcycle, bicycling, and commercial air travel on a fatalities per millions hours of exposure. It was not done for a bicycling org, so if there’s any bias it’s from poor data, but the late Ken Kifer did an analysis of the FAI numbers and thought they were reasonable. FAI used 0.26 fatalities per million hours; I made it more understandable by converting it to one fatality per 4 million hours.

There is no corroboration that I'm aware of that any such 'study' was ever performed. What there was was a sidebar to an article about car fires in Design News magazine with a bunch of numbers listed, with no supporting data or citations whatsoever. If there was a study performed, there is no indication of how it was performed, and no raw data available, so no possible way to check the work. Just ask yourself a few simple questions about this so-called study: Does it pertain to bicyclists all over the world or bicyclists in the US? Does it include children in the data? Mmm, what year is that 'data' from anyway? Or is it from a number of years? Etc. There is no info available to answer even the most basic questions. IOW, it is not really data at all, just some numbers in a vacuum that may well have been cooked up by an overworked editor at Design News magazine for all we know, and really quite useless for anyone on a real truthfinding mission about the danger of bicycling.

There is no corroboration that I'm aware of that any such 'study' was ever performed.

Another glaring statistical sore thumb/fabrication/made-up-of-whole-cloth-claim cited is "Competent cyclists will travel at least five times farther before a fatal crash." The likely source/"study" for this amazing claim is John Forester's infamous "study" designed to "prove" the effectiveness of his cycling program. That meta-analysis of a hodgepodge of cherry picked data sources is nothing more than an incredibly sloppy comparison of wildly different cycling populations (with no consistency in study measurements,) extreme in its WAG extrapolations, vague definitions and fabrications.

If that "source" is not the basis of this claim about the mystical safety record of an undefined population of "competent cyclists", then perhaps it was the author's imagination instead.

Excellent article!
One criticism I'll make is that even though the author demonstrates how bike lanes make cycling less safe, he wrongly repeats the error that bike lanes increase separation.

Actually I wrote: "While many experienced cyclists feel bike lanes provide some improved passing separation..." [emphasis added]

Here's Ken Kifer's assessment of the Failure Analysis Inc. numbers (about halfway down the page)
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

About a quarter of cyclist fatalities involve intoxicated cyclists; at least as many involve unlit cyclists at night (and of course there's some overlap there). Then there's all the other cyclist-caused fatals: red light running, etc. So the risk for the competent cyclist is reduced by well more than half. In Florida only about 5% of fatals involved a law-abiding, daytime roadway cyclist.

Even if the FAI estimates are inflated 10-fold over reality, I think one death per 400,000 hours is still really good odds -- 45 years of non-stop cycling. Arguing over whether auto travel or bicycle travel is less fatal is pointless to me.

And in case anybody's wondering, I am not anti-helmet. I just think we place way too much focus on them. I've been wearing bike helmets since the first Bell Biker hit the market, and have tested the effectiveness of my own helmet at a mountain bike event.

Here's Ken Kifer's assessment of the Failure Analysis Inc. numbers (about halfway down the page)
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm

Silliness. How can anyone analyze numbers in a complete vacuum, without making stuff up? How can we assess this chart without any inkling of whether or not children are included, if it pertains to international or domestic, what year or years or decades the numbers are from, how the data was collected, etc? It's totally useless without such basic information, except as a curiosity. Sorry folks. Nice chart though.


About a quarter of cyclist fatalities involve intoxicated cyclists; at least as many involve unlit cyclists at night (and of course there's some overlap there). Then there's all the other cyclist-caused fatals: red light running, etc. So the risk for the competent cyclist is reduced by well more than half. In Florida only about 5% of fatals involved a law-abiding, daytime roadway cyclist.

Where are you getting your numbers about Florida?

The big picture is that about half of car-bike collisions in the US these days involve kids, drunks or crazies and about half involve a law-abiding adult rider. When the kids are removed the cyclist victim is more likely to have been riding lawfully than not at the time of the collision. That also translates into some tens of thousands of law-abiding cyclists rammed into and run over every year in this country, most of whom I'm sure considered themselves 'competent.' Another way to look at it -- considering the obvious trend of red-light and stop-sign running and general lawlessness among adult cyclists, it would seem that these riders are just as likely if not more likely to be involved in a collision while respecting the law than while breaking it. There is no epidemic of light-runners getting hit like there is of lawful riders hit by left-turning motorists, for instance. Lawfulness and absentmindedness have proven to be a very dangerous combination.

Note that I am not arguing we should all go out and break the law. I'm just saying that it's clear that lawful and predictable riding is not, by itself, a very effective collision-bane. Riders in traffic need a level of awareness far and above that required to ride lawfully down the street.



Even if the FAI estimates are inflated 10-fold over reality, I think one death per 400,000 hours is still really good odds -- 45 years of non-stop cycling. Arguing over whether auto travel or bicycle travel is less fatal is pointless to me.

Agreed, the risk of dying while riding or driving is miniscule. The risk of injury while riding, not miniscule. Those hoping to trumpet the safety of bicycling will not want to examine the injury statistics or bring them up.

A much better, more positive approach to vehicular cycling than John Forester brings to the table

big thumbs up!

:thumb:

still, I think the motorist education component is a noticeable omission...

The author points out that competent cyclists are at 5 times less risk than average cyclists. If this can be well demonstrated the cycling community as a whole would do well to:
1. Adjust advertised risk figures for competent cyclists only. People who are actually researching risk are going to quickly become competent.
2. Focus on quick, free, and readily available training. One afternoon a month sort of things that anyone can get in on for free at their local bike shop. The sort of thing that teaches you the minimum bits about riding, and riding in traffic to give users confidence and get them from average and close to competent. I'm also assuming he's right that it's *easy* to learn to be a competent cyclist.

One criticism I'll make is that even though the author demonstrates how bike lanes make cycling less safe, he wrongly repeats the error that bike lanes increase separation. At least two studies demonstrate the unanticipated result that bike lanes actually decrease separation between bikes and motorists.

The data verifies my own experience of riding on 40 to 50 mph roads that have bike lanes on some stretches, and no lanes where the road narrows. Dispite the narrowing of the road, cars routinely pass me at greater distances where there is no bike lane stripe than where there is one.

you really are a one-trick pony, eh?

:rolleyes:

The author points out that competent cyclists are at 5 times less risk than average cyclists. If this can be well demonstrated...
[SNIP]

I'm also assuming he's right that it's *easy* to learn to be a competent cyclist.

Very big assumptions indeed. In addition we will all have to assume our own definition of a "competent cyclist," since none is provided, and we will have to "assume" what "learning" it presumably takes to become one of this very special group.

I've been collecting data on, reading on, and analyzing the risks of cycling for about 15 years, and quite frankly, I'm done. I'm not interested in following anybody down that cul de sac and going round and round any more. Like hitting one's own head repeatedly with a hammer, it feels wonderful when you finally stop.

From now on I'm all about helping people to ride, from wherever they are on the cycling proficiency ladder.

A much better, more positive approach to vehicular cycling than John Forester brings to the table

big thumbs up!

:thumb:
still, I think the motorist education component is a noticeable omission...

You are too generous to this warmed over dish of Foresterisms. Like Forester, and almost all of the rest of that group that parrot his theories on cycling behavior and safety, the author of the cited article focuses on "crashes" not the results and pooh-poohs overtaking accidents as inconsequential:
"The problem with this strategy is that bike lanes can only affect about six to eight percent of crashes between motorists and cyclists; the ones involving overtaking motorists."

Surprisingly one of his VC comrades. Khalil Spencer, posted a response to that article that was not a zombie like repetition of the Forester brand "fear of of the rear" mantra.

Kudos to Khalil. Most VC zealots take it as an article of faith that cyclists are unduly concerned (Phobias! Superstition! Taboos!) about overtaking traffic without ever questioning the rationale or truth of their own claims about relative risk.

I've been collecting data on, reading on, and analyzing the risks of cycling for about 15 years, and quite frankly, I'm done. I'm not interested in following anybody down that cul de sac and going round and round any more. Like hitting one's own head repeatedly with a hammer, it feels wonderful when you finally stop.

From now on I'm all about helping people to ride, from wherever they are on the cycling proficiency ladder.

Any chance you'd care to mention what a competent cyclist is. I have a good idea in my head, but it's better to have a definition. In defining that I believe you'll define the necessary learning: It will be what a competent cyclist does and knows that an average cyclist doesn't.

I'm also interested to know if you have suggestions on how one finds, or gets these sort of things started, in his area. I've long thought about trying to get minor educational programs going at an LBS. It provides advertising for me (the LBS telling new bike purchasers about it). However, not being LAB certified (and not wanting to put people through their ridiculously long classes -- also unable to get the local LAB people to respond to an e-mail) I'm unsure of the legal side of this. I imagine the bike shop would have the same question.

You are too generous to this warmed over dish of Foresterisms. Like Forester, and almost all of the rest of that group that parrot his theories on cycling behavior and safety, the author of the cited article focuses on "crashes" not the results and pooh-poohs overtaking accidents as inconsequential:
"The problem with this strategy is that bike lanes can only affect about six to eight percent of crashes between motorists and cyclists; the ones involving overtaking motorists."

Surprisingly one of his VC comrades. Khalil Spencer, posted a response to that article that was not a zombie like repetition of the Forester brand "fear of of the rear" mantra.

Kudos to Khalil. Most VC zealots take it as an article of faith that cyclists are unduly concerned (Phobias! Superstition! Taboos!) about overtaking traffic without ever questioning the rationale or truth of their own claims about relative risk.

yes, I saw the comment from Khalil and agree that, while overtaking crashes may be small in number/percentage, they are often the most devastating in consequences.

I guess what I was most impressed with was that the author avoided all the negative, condescending rhetoric that John and his sycophants often use.

I've been collecting data on, reading on, and analyzing the risks of cycling for about 15 years, and quite frankly, I'm done. I'm not interested in following anybody down that cul de sac and going round and round any more. Like hitting one's own head repeatedly with a hammer, it feels wonderful when you finally stop.

From now on I'm all about helping people to ride, from wherever they are on the cycling proficiency ladder.

That's very noble of you, and you deserve praise for your efforts to help cyclists improve their proficiency even if there is no evidence that it has any effect on reducing their already low cycling risk.

Who knows? You may even make your trainees safer or enjoy their bicycling more.

http://mighkwilson.com/2009/10/which-cycling-politics-doom-or-possibility

"The real questions are, “What collective story do cyclists want to live by?” and “What kind of story will get us to where we want to be?” A story of limits and tragedy, or a story of personal growth and freedom?"

You are quite right, the stories are written to be in sharp contrast to each other; the choice is easy as it was meant to be.

Story one is an almost completely negatively drawn caricature of a VC bogey man, -the so-called incompetent cyclist with the added unlikely negative feature of promoting MHL laws.

Story two is written in praise of the Noble Bicycle Driver confident in the shining armor of Vehicular Cycling Knowledge.

Tough choice, eh? :rolleyes:

You are quite right, the stories are written to be in sharp contrast to each other; the choice is easy as it was meant to be.

Story one is an almost completely negatively drawn caricature of a VC bogey man, -the so-called incompetent cyclist with the added unlikely negative feature of promoting MHL laws.

Story two is written in praise of the Noble Bicycle Driver confident in the shining armor of Vehicular Cycling Knowledge.

Tough choice, eh? :rolleyes:

point taken.

it's a bit deceiving because it's not written in the classic John Forester style.

point taken.

it's a bit deceiving because it's not written in the classic John Forester style.

True, the author (and OP) doesn't come out and directly insult the reader with pompous declarations of made up facts and expert guesswork, but rather, chooses to use a fallacious argument of False Dichotomy (AKA Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation) in his two "stories" of doom or possibility in order to lead readers to the correct choice.

True, the author (and OP) doesn't come out and directly insult the reader with pompous declarations of made up facts and expert guesswork, but rather, chooses to use a fallacious argument of False Dichotomy (AKA Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation) in his two "stories" of doom or possibility in order to lead readers to the correct choice.

Actually he specifically points out that those aren't the only two stories but uses them as contrasts and points to which side he likes better. Hardly false dichotomy. He shows which points of each story make it good or bad at bringing in new cyclists.



It’s not that one story is “right” and the other is “wrong.” Or that these are the “only stories.” The real questions are, “What collective story do cyclists want to live by?” and “What kind of story will get us to where we want to be?” A story of limits and tragedy, or a story of personal growth and freedom?




Our culture’s beliefs about bicycling are heading towards this: Bicycling is…

A. Very risky, and requires head protection and physical separation from auto traffic in order to be made safe, and

B. Is done by a minority who believes they deserve special justice, even though they often violate the law.

The efforts of many advocacy groups are strengthening this belief. Not only by pushing bikeways, helmets and special laws, but by prominently featuring bicyclist deaths in their communications: covering the stories in newsletters; putting up “ghost bikes;” holding “Rides of Silence.”

True, the author (and OP) doesn't come out and directly insult the reader with pompous declarations of made up facts and expert guesswork, but rather, chooses to use a fallacious argument of False Dichotomy (AKA Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation) in his two "stories" of doom or possibility in order to lead readers to the correct choice.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, since the piece is an essay of political persuasion rather than a scientific article. (And of course there's also nothing wrong with your pointing out what you view as distortions--with probably the same level of inaccuracy and subjectivity that the author had.)

Not that there's anything wrong with that, since the piece is an essay of political persuasion rather than a scientific article. (And of course there's also nothing wrong with your pointing out what you view as distortions--with probably the same level of inaccuracy and subjectivity that the author had.)

Really? What inaccuracy on my part on this thread?

Another glaring statistical sore thumb/fabrication/made-up-of-whole-cloth-claim cited is "Competent cyclists will travel at least five times farther before a fatal crash." The likely source/"study" for this amazing claim is John Forester's infamous "study" designed to "prove" the effectiveness of his cycling program.

Do you mean this -

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Qz4kAulpimgC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=ctc+accident+rate&source=bl&ots=uzQUsNlggU&sig=WtEl96siiRkAWbhUv1JYOMfxuFM&hl=en&ei=z_3ISun6E8KL4QamrsjHAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

?

Story one is an almost completely negatively drawn caricature of a VC bogey man, -the so-called incompetent cyclist ....

As opposed to the ("so called ?)" incompetent motorist?

It's easy to predict you would think the multitudes of incompetent motorists magically become competent operators of vehicles when the hop on bicycles.

Really? What inaccuracy on my part on this thread?

Wise of you to limit your query to this thread. :)

Do you mean this -

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Qz4kAulpimgC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=ctc+accident+rate&source=bl&ots=uzQUsNlggU&sig=WtEl96siiRkAWbhUv1JYOMfxuFM&hl=en&ei=z_3ISun6E8KL4QamrsjHAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

?

That's it in all its Foresteronian Glory. The comparison of 8 year olds with college boys with middle age enthusiasts and all the assumptions and leaps of faith that lead to the conclusions that the techniques taught in his proprietary training material are somehow responsible for any alleged differences in the results. All without any of the actual surveys ever polling or gathering any data at all about cycling technique from any of the cyclists. There are so many so many glaring fatal errors in this grossly biased meta analysis that only a gullible rube or logic impaired individual would be persuaded by such statistical and analytical silliness.

Really? What inaccuracy on my part on this thread?

You might be right that you didn't make any inaccurate statements in this thread. You did use emotionally loaded terms and ad hominem attacks, as can be seen in your phrases that I've highlighted below. As logical arguments, these are as fallacious as what you accused the author of.


You are too generous to this warmed over dish of Foresterisms. Like Forester, and almost all of the rest of that group that parrot his theories on cycling behavior and safety, the author of the cited article focuses on "crashes" not the results and pooh-poohs overtaking accidents as inconsequential:
"The problem with this strategy is that bike lanes can only affect about six to eight percent of crashes between motorists and cyclists; the ones involving overtaking motorists."

Surprisingly one of his VC comrades. Khalil Spencer, posted a response to that article that was not a zombie like repetition of the Forester brand "fear of of the rear" mantra.

Kudos to Khalil. Most VC zealots take it as an article of faith that cyclists are unduly concerned (Phobias! Superstition! Taboos!) about overtaking traffic without ever questioning the rationale or truth of their own claims about relative risk.

Very big assumptions indeed. In addition we will all have to assume our own definition of a "competent cyclist," since none is provided, and we will have to "assume" what "learning" it presumably takes to become one of this very special group.Isn't it obvious? A competent cyclist is one who has at least five times less risk than the average cyclist!

Isn't it obvious? A competent cyclist is one who has at least five times less risk than the average cyclist!
Or a VC cyclist is every cyclist until they are involved in an accident; then they are an incompetent cyclist.

I've seen the VC zealots claim every time a cyclist is involved in a cycling accident that it would not have happened, if only the cyclist had been practicing proper VC techniques. If the cyclist was hit HERE, the good VC would have been THERE, and vice versa.

With such a convenient Monday Morning Quarterback technique of accident reconstruction/ idiotic speculation it is a wonder that ANY Vehicular Cyclists are EVER involved in an accident.

You did use emotionally loaded terms and ad hominem attacks, as can be seen in your phrases that I've highlighted below. As logical arguments, these are as fallacious as what you accused the author of.

Ad hominem attacks? You better look up the meaning. My colorful, but accurate description of the issues are fallacious on this issue? You are stretching, good buddy.

The author cited his source in the comments, in response to someone else asking the same thing:


Someone on another mailing list I'm on made an insightful (and inciteful?) comment regarding the "two stories" Mighk proposes, and programs of the League of American Bicyclists (http://www.bikeleague.org/):



BFC = Bicycle Friendly Communities
LCI = League Cycling Instructor

The big question is who is who in this? I can go both ways with both groups.

Taking a first look at this piece, I noticed a quick couple of interesting logical fallacies right off.

The piece first starts with:


On what do most bicycle advocates focus? Bike lanes, new laws, and helmets.

Right away it goes into this discussion on perspective...


Let’s start with helmets. A little perspective would be nice. According to the Florida Department of Health, three times as many pedestrians, three times as many motorcyclists, and ten times as many automobile passengers suffer brain injuries as bicyclists do each year. Florida bicyclists suffer between 80 and 90 brain injuries per year. We account for about six percent of traffic-related brain injuries, and three percent of all brain injuries. European nations have very low helmet use, but much lower bicycle fatality rates than the USA and especially Florida. But we act as if bicycling were the primary cause of brain injuries and berate people for not wearing helmets.

Of course it totally misses the fact that the very European countries where people "don't tend to wear helmets" have very nice bike facilities such as the very bike lanes and paths that the article goes on to dismiss.

The article then goes on to talk about laws:


New laws. “We’re special. We deserve special protection.” Some advocacy groups have either managed to or attempted to pass laws to increase penalties for motorists who kill or seriously injure “vulnerable users” such as bicyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists. Well “why?” one might ask. Is the rationale for such a law, “We deserve special justice because we’re at such high risk?” Once again the underlying message is, “Bicycling (and walking and motorcycling) is risky.” While the laws usually cover all “vulnerable users,” it is bicyclists who take the prominent role in pushing them.

Again missing the fact that there are different laws altogether in the aforementioned European countries... motorists ARE held to a different standard. In this news article about a GPS map flaw (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510495,00.html), it is pointed out that in the end the motorist has to attend court "for driving without due care and attention," for getting themselves stuck at the edge of a cliff while using a GPS. Does such a charge even exist in America? Read the link... the driver did not harm or kill anyone. Yet in America, when cyclist is killed, unless alcohol is involved, often there are no charges against the motorist at all. "Due care and attention..." what a concept.

And here is the classic "Bike Lanes are not needed" argument...


Bicycle lanes are sold as an essential safety strategy. The problem with this strategy is that bike lanes can only affect about six to eight percent of crashes between motorists and cyclists; the ones involving overtaking motorists. But since that is exactly the type of crash non-cyclists and novice cyclists fear most, we have a problem. It’s just paint. While many experienced cyclists feel bike lanes provide some improved passing separation, many non-cyclists reason that motorists can obviously just drive right over them.

Never mind that lane stripes divide every other lane, where motorists tend to move at relatively the same speed.

I also found this little tidbit about European bikeways interesting due to the contradictions found in the article...

Recall that in the first paragraphs this statement was made:

European nations have very low helmet use, but much lower bicycle fatality rates than the USA and especially Florida.

But they want you to consider the danger of bikeways with this contradictory statement:
Never mind that the data from Europe shows those facilities have higher crash rates than shared roadways...

Sigh... I donno, exactly what does the article want us to believe about cycling in Europe verses America??? :rolleyes:

Ultimately the article ends with this "story" for a conclusion:


“We are citizens who often drive bicycles. We are confident road users who pose very little danger to others, and only rarely are we seriously hurt ourselves. We are highly competent and predictable. We work to make our public roads safer for everyone, especially pedestrians and children. We are healthy and positive because we get regular moderate exercise; we engage positively with our community, instead of being walled-off behind steel and glass. We believe anyone can quickly learn to bike competently and confidently on our roads, and offer a variety of fun and effective ways for people to do so. Many of us wear helmets because they are cheap insurance to protect against the rare head injury, but we don’t get too worked up if others don’t wear them. We encourage federal, state and local governments to treat us as vehicle drivers with the same rights and responsibilities as all other drivers, and not as second-class citizens who are “in the way.” Please come join us!”

Yet the fact is that this fantasy story has never resulted in anything more than a scant sliver of the population taking to cycling.

Oh well. Read yourself... come to your own conclusions. :innocent:

The big question is who is who in this? I can go both ways with both groups.

I was going to explain the author's affiliation, but maybe it's better to not have the convenient labels that tell us how to think. It's sort of like my upcoming city elections, which are nonpartisan. Not knowing the candidates' party ties, you're forced to actually look at where they stand on all the individual issues.

Personally, even though I disagree with the author's partisan ideology overall, I like his point about most bike advocacy being too negative and whiney.

Taking a first look at this piece, I noticed a quick couple of interesting logical fallacies right off.

The piece first starts with: "On what do most bicycle advocates focus? Bike lanes, new laws, and helmets."

I suspect that few bicycle advocates focus on helmets. Helmet advocates and club cyclists focus on helmet wear.

I doubt that there is much emphasis on helmet advocacy from the so-called "incompetent" cyclists (i.e. those who would never describe themselves as "Drivers" of bicycles, and are not wrapped up in the latest club activities nor LBS offerings.) It seems that the sin of helmet zealotry was applied to the "story one" strawman by the essat writer just to make that demon that much more unacceptable.

I was going to explain the author's affiliation, but maybe it's better to not have the convenient labels that tell us how to think. It's sort of like my upcoming city elections, which are nonpartisan. Not knowing the candidates' party ties, you're forced to actually look at where they stand on all the individual issues.

Personally, even though I disagree with the author's partisan ideology overall, I like his point about most bike advocacy being too negative and whiney.

I also agree with the author's point about too much negative and whiney bicycling advocacy/ranting.

The author's affiliation is obvious once he brought up the issue of the mystical safety record (80% less crashes!) of "competent cyclists"/ Bicycle "Drivers."

I wonder how much of that negative and whiney "advocacy" comes from non-cyclists. For instance how many legislators that worked on laws that mandate helmets have actually ridden a bicycle beyond their own quiet streets.

How many AASHTO engineers have ever actually used the bike lanes they specify... and how about the politicians that stand in front of some new highly publicized bike facility have ever later tried that same facility they so heartedly endorsed?

Personally, even though I disagree with the author's partisan ideology overall, I like his point about most bike advocacy being too negative and whiney.

:thumb:

I suspect that few bicycle advocates focus on helmets. Helmet advocates and club cyclists focus on helmet wear.

I doubt that there is much emphasis on helmet advocacy from the so-called "incompetent" cyclists (i.e. those who would never describe themselves as "Drivers" of bicycles, and are not wrapped up in the latest club activities nor LBS offerings.) It seems that the sin of helmet zealotry was applied to the "story one" strawman by the essat writer just to make that demon that much more unacceptable.

Interesting point one of the groups I am in contact with is very pro-bike lane yet anti-helmet. If it is all about "safety" then it is a bit contradictory.

And in case anybody's wondering, I am not anti-helmet. I just think we place way too much focus on them. I've been wearing bike helmets since the first Bell Biker hit the market, and have tested the effectiveness of my own helmet at a mountain bike event.
Ouch!
Was this testing intentional?

roughstuff

From the link ...


Because cycling is not very risky. The average bicyclist – and this includes all those ones who ride in a less-than-competent manner – will travel about 4 million hours before experiencing a fatal crash. (That is equal to 456 years of non-stop cycling.) Competent cyclists will travel at least five times farther before a fatal crash. But we focus way too much on these rare crashes, instead of on the hundreds of millions of miles cyclists travel every year without incident.

I don't know how accurate these numbers are (don't care), but it does illustrate the fact that more bikes (and cars) are in use everyday and thus, more bike/car incidents are probable. It would be better to aknowledge this fact every time an accident/road rage incident/etc. happens than to immediately bring up helmet laws and other legislation.

As for increased bicycling infrastructure, it is inevitable; take the good with the bad, imho.

Interesting point one of the groups I am in contact with is very pro-bike lane yet anti-helmet. If it is all about "safety" then it is a bit contradictory.

The "bike lanes are all about safety" mantra is another bogus Forester truism stated so often that it has become VC gospel. Comfort and stress reduction, as well as smother traffic flow for all users of the streets are goals at least as important as considerations of "safety".

The "bike lanes are all about safety" mantra is another bogus Forester truism stated so often that it has become VC gospel. Comfort and stress reduction, as well as smother traffic flow for all users of the streets are goals at least as important as considerations of "safety".

But why would one seek comfort, stress reduction and smother traffic flow if one was not afraid of same direction traffic? :rolleyes: It's all tied up on one neat little "logical" package. We must subject all cyclists to aversion therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_practice_of_behavior_analysis#Punishment_and_Aversion_Therapies) and insist in blocking the flow of traffic especially mid-block when there is no need for safety.

I've often argued that if bicycle advocates want to encourage cycling, they could learn a thing or two from the tourism and restaurant industries. Publicly celebrate the good, and fix the bad behind the scenes.

Imagine if the tourism industry distributed color coded "tourism suitability maps" for visitors, with red and purple areas highlighting the high-crime and low-rent districts, or if the restaurant industry handed out color coded maps based on health inspection ratings. The reader would immediately develop a negative impression. In contrast, these industries highlight the popular and highly rated places, and promote safety at a much lower profile.

I'm a novice wine drinker. I recently attended an educational/entertainment "wine dinner" at a local Italian restaurant that greatly expanded my understanding and appreciation of the different grapes and the pairing of wine with food. It was a great experience that left me wanting to do it again, and to try it on my own - and not just the "safe" pairings, but choices based on better knowledge. I like comparing the wine instructor's approach to ways that cycling advocates, including LCIs like myself, could help novices enjoy cycling more.

Several years ago I designed a "Historic Downtown Cary" ride that included some historic sights and food destinations along the way. I've also noticed the popularity of other rides that included social and destination components. The route choice and how ride leaders treat the novices are big factors in how enjoyably the activity will be experienced. Successful encouragement is about promoting enjoyment and possibility.

In terms of maps, I've encouraged Cary and Raleigh to continue their "attractions" based bike maps for the public instead of switching to "suitability" maps that have been proposed. The "attractions" maps treat recommended routes as "scenic," "enjoyable," "pleasant" routes instead of "safe" routes, which would imply that most others are unsafe. I've suggested that engineers and planners keep a separate engineering/planning map for identifying problem areas that they need to work on, making more "strategic" corridors "pleasant" and vice-versa.

Some bicycle advocates get worked up over hating cars. It's happened to me. But I think we need to set that issue aside when encouraging bicycling, and focus on what it is that we love about bikes.

^^I'd say step one is muzzling JF himself, there is so much negativity in the language he uses it's truly appalling. My guess is that the 'bike advocates' learned it from him.

:eek:

^^I'd say step one is muzzling JF himself, there is so much negativity in the language he uses it's truly appalling. My guess is that the 'bike advocates' learned it from him.

:eek:

I'm not one for muzzling anybody. All have a right to state an opinion. However, I do see the current OP and author of the article (mighk) as a more positive voice for street riding. There is a lot of good in the LCI approach to cycling, if you set aside their too often strident and elitist approach to bike politics.

And I'll say the same for you and your side. There's a lot of good in your approach to cycling. But too often the proponents of cycling infrastructure resort to a condescending approach that is also anti-car.

For the good of cycling, I'd love to see both sides stress the positive aspects of cycling, and also try to see the value of the other side's approach. In this regard, I think that mighk can be a role model for us all.

I'm not one for muzzling anybody. All have a right to state an opinion. However, I do see the current OP and author of the article (mighk) as a more positive voice for street riding. There is a lot of good in the LCI approach to cycling, if you set aside their too often strident and elitist approach to bike politics.

And I'll say the same for you and your side. There's a lot of good in your approach to cycling. But too often the proponents of cycling infrastructure resort to a condescending approach that is also anti-car.

For the good of cycling, I'd love to see both sides stress the positive aspects of cycling, and also try to see the value of the other side's approach. In this regard, I think that mighk can be a role model for us all.

maybe 'muzzle' is the wrong word; but still, it doesn't really change my point about all the negativity in his diatribes against 'incompetent cyclists' and bike specific infrastructure.

and it appears you've also mistaken me for an infrastructure proponent. Most of the bike specific infrastructure I see is appalling poorly designed and executed and I'm against that, as well.

Your last paragraph is closer to the heart of the matter, there was some discussion of 'adaptive cycling' here a while ago, but it got subsumed once again in the pro/anti VC/facilities debate.