Dchiefransom
03-06-05, 01:37 PM
Thanks. I bookmarked John Allen's site.
View Full Version : Vehicular Cycling
patc
03-06-05, 02:17 PM
As I said above, in narrow lanes, cars sweep debris out of the way and into the place a bike lane would go.
And since I see no such debris here, I don't see it as a reason to avoid bike lanes (here). Are American cities really that filthy?
Also, cars can use it during the 99% of the time bikes aren't in it.
True, but many of the places where I am used to seeing bike lanes, they are travelled more than enough to justify their 1.5m or 2m or roadway!
It doesn't do cyclists any good to restict them to 4'-6' when they can have 10'.
It doesn't do them any harm either. Meanwhile if the traffic is heavy enough on that road, a bike lane may in fact be an efficient use of the space. Locally it also ties into the city's policy: 30% of travel is to be made by means other than private motor vehicle by the year 2020. That means if a corridor sees heavy traffic solutions such as bike lanes and bus lanes will get considered, but extra generic lanes are a last resort.
Finally, using traffic lanes encourages cyclists to avoid curb hugging (especially at intersections) and encourages cars to move a full lane to the left to pass, again giving the cyclists more room.
I understand what you are trying to say, but I have seen cyclists hug the curb even in the absence of bike lanes- some always do it when in the right lane. I doubt that type of cyclist would do any different if a narrow lane was present. That is a matter for education - one that seems to be taken seriously locally, just about everything I have seen published by the city and province emphasise that bikes should ride about 1m from the curb, and not hug the curb, when not taking the lane.
It also encourages cyclists to turn left from the left lane instead of from the bike lane.
Again that is a matter for education. Again that is mentioned in the literature here.
[QUOTE=Daily Commute]I see lots of opposing viewpoints. And everyone seems pretty free to criticize arguments with which they disagree.
That is the nature of debate. I now see why you support narrow lanes, although I still don't. On the other hand, I don't support sharing the lane either- I find too few drivers give bikes enough clearance, and to me being two vehicles abreast is NOT proper vehicular behaviour. Bike lanes and taking the lane (narrow or otherwise) to me is safe and proper vehicular behaviour - vehicles lines up behind each other, not BESIDE each other in the same lane.
Thanks for explaining your view.
And since I see no such debris here, I don't see it as a reason to avoid bike lanes (here). Are American cities really that filthy?
Also, cars can use it during the 99% of the time bikes aren't in it.
True, but many of the places where I am used to seeing bike lanes, they are travelled more than enough to justify their 1.5m or 2m or roadway!
It doesn't do cyclists any good to restict them to 4'-6' when they can have 10'.
It doesn't do them any harm either. Meanwhile if the traffic is heavy enough on that road, a bike lane may in fact be an efficient use of the space. Locally it also ties into the city's policy: 30% of travel is to be made by means other than private motor vehicle by the year 2020. That means if a corridor sees heavy traffic solutions such as bike lanes and bus lanes will get considered, but extra generic lanes are a last resort.
Finally, using traffic lanes encourages cyclists to avoid curb hugging (especially at intersections) and encourages cars to move a full lane to the left to pass, again giving the cyclists more room.
I understand what you are trying to say, but I have seen cyclists hug the curb even in the absence of bike lanes- some always do it when in the right lane. I doubt that type of cyclist would do any different if a narrow lane was present. That is a matter for education - one that seems to be taken seriously locally, just about everything I have seen published by the city and province emphasise that bikes should ride about 1m from the curb, and not hug the curb, when not taking the lane.
It also encourages cyclists to turn left from the left lane instead of from the bike lane.
Again that is a matter for education. Again that is mentioned in the literature here.
[QUOTE=Daily Commute]I see lots of opposing viewpoints. And everyone seems pretty free to criticize arguments with which they disagree.
That is the nature of debate. I now see why you support narrow lanes, although I still don't. On the other hand, I don't support sharing the lane either- I find too few drivers give bikes enough clearance, and to me being two vehicles abreast is NOT proper vehicular behaviour. Bike lanes and taking the lane (narrow or otherwise) to me is safe and proper vehicular behaviour - vehicles lines up behind each other, not BESIDE each other in the same lane.
Thanks for explaining your view.
patc
03-06-05, 02:22 PM
Contrary to belief here, I believe a bike that rides approximately 20 mph in a neighborhood where traffic moves in the thirties to forties is being inconsiderate if occupying an entire lane.
Not only inconsiderate, but it may be a safty hazzard and may be illegal as well. For example, the Ontario Highway Traffic Act states that a vehicle may NOT travel significantly lower than the average speed of traffic on that lane. That is the one time a cyclist here may not take the lane- if you can't keep up with traffic you have to pull to the right (unless it would be unsafe to do so).
Not only inconsiderate, but it may be a safty hazzard and may be illegal as well. For example, the Ontario Highway Traffic Act states that a vehicle may NOT travel significantly lower than the average speed of traffic on that lane. That is the one time a cyclist here may not take the lane- if you can't keep up with traffic you have to pull to the right (unless it would be unsafe to do so).
Daily Commute
03-06-05, 02:59 PM
Not only inconsiderate, but it may be a safty hazzard and may be illegal as well. For example, the Ontario Highway Traffic Act states that a vehicle may NOT travel significantly lower than the average speed of traffic on that lane. That is the one time a cyclist here may not take the lane- if you can't keep up with traffic you have to pull to the right (unless it would be unsafe to do so).
According to Street Smarts (which many local governments, including my state, have published), cyclists should use the entire lane when the right lane is not big enough for a car and a bike to move side-by-side safely. That makes perfect sense--if you can't share a lane safely, you shouldn't share it. Sometimes I slow down cars. Sometimes they slow me down. That's the way traffic works.
According to Street Smarts (which many local governments, including my state, have published), cyclists should use the entire lane when the right lane is not big enough for a car and a bike to move side-by-side safely. That makes perfect sense--if you can't share a lane safely, you shouldn't share it. Sometimes I slow down cars. Sometimes they slow me down. That's the way traffic works.
Bruce Rosar
03-06-05, 03:28 PM
... if the traffic is heavy enough on that road, a bike lane may in fact be an efficient use of the space. Narrow travel lanes can provide the efficiency without the discrimination.
... being two vehicles abreast is NOT proper vehicular behaviour. Bike lanes and taking the lane (narrow or otherwise) to me is safe and proper vehicular behaviour - vehicles lines up behind each other, not BESIDE each other in the same lane.Certainly no one should ever be pressured to share a marked lane when they don't want to. I'm real glad I live in a state where there's no law that I must ride to the right within a marked lane.
On the other hand, vehicles (such as bicycles and motor cycles) have been voluntarily sharing marked lanes since before the Rules of the Road were codified. For example, when the 1,000 or so cyclists on the annual Cycle North Carolina (http://www.ncsports.org/cncevent1.php) ride leave the campground each morning, we're typically three (sometimes even more!) abreast within the marked lane. And yes, we do have to exercise greater than normal care at "squeeze points" (like narrow bridges), turns, merges, diverges and diagonal railroad crossings. But voluntarily traveling abreast within a marked lane can be worth the greater risk. The government should not infringe on the right of a citizen to make their own decision about sharing a marked lane with others.
... being two vehicles abreast is NOT proper vehicular behaviour. Bike lanes and taking the lane (narrow or otherwise) to me is safe and proper vehicular behaviour - vehicles lines up behind each other, not BESIDE each other in the same lane.Certainly no one should ever be pressured to share a marked lane when they don't want to. I'm real glad I live in a state where there's no law that I must ride to the right within a marked lane.
On the other hand, vehicles (such as bicycles and motor cycles) have been voluntarily sharing marked lanes since before the Rules of the Road were codified. For example, when the 1,000 or so cyclists on the annual Cycle North Carolina (http://www.ncsports.org/cncevent1.php) ride leave the campground each morning, we're typically three (sometimes even more!) abreast within the marked lane. And yes, we do have to exercise greater than normal care at "squeeze points" (like narrow bridges), turns, merges, diverges and diagonal railroad crossings. But voluntarily traveling abreast within a marked lane can be worth the greater risk. The government should not infringe on the right of a citizen to make their own decision about sharing a marked lane with others.
patc
03-06-05, 03:40 PM
According to Street Smarts (which many local governments, including my state, have published), cyclists should use the entire lane when the right lane is not big enough for a car and a bike to move side-by-side safely. That makes perfect sense--if you can't share a lane safely, you shouldn't share it. Sometimes I slow down cars. Sometimes they slow me down. That's the way traffic works.
As I said, paraphrasing from our traffic code, " [this] is the one time a cyclist here may not take the lane- if you can't keep up with traffic you have to pull to the right (unless it would be unsafe to do so)."
As I said, paraphrasing from our traffic code, " [this] is the one time a cyclist here may not take the lane- if you can't keep up with traffic you have to pull to the right (unless it would be unsafe to do so)."
patc
03-06-05, 03:51 PM
Narrow travel lanes can provide the efficiency without the discrimination.
Bike lanes are not "discrimination", that is a very thoughtless use of the word. I won't say "no offense" because there is no way to say this without being offensive- get a life.
But voluntarily traveling abreast within a marked lane can be worth the greater risk. The government should not infringe on the right of a citizen to make their own decision about sharing a marked lane with others.
In Ontario is is legal for bikes to travel two (or more) abreast, although individual municipalities may enact by-laws against it if they wish. I don't particularly feel one way or another about it, I just don't really see it as "vehicular" in the context of modern roads. I also don't see it as a "right", and I doubt any human rights code in the world includes it as such. You either have a very odd way with words, or have lived a very sheltered life.
Bike lanes are not "discrimination", that is a very thoughtless use of the word. I won't say "no offense" because there is no way to say this without being offensive- get a life.
But voluntarily traveling abreast within a marked lane can be worth the greater risk. The government should not infringe on the right of a citizen to make their own decision about sharing a marked lane with others.
In Ontario is is legal for bikes to travel two (or more) abreast, although individual municipalities may enact by-laws against it if they wish. I don't particularly feel one way or another about it, I just don't really see it as "vehicular" in the context of modern roads. I also don't see it as a "right", and I doubt any human rights code in the world includes it as such. You either have a very odd way with words, or have lived a very sheltered life.
Roody
03-06-05, 05:20 PM
Why don't you poll a few drivers who don't ride bikes, preferrably in an urban area, and ask them if they would ever yield to a bike, give a bike the right of way at a stop, and so on?
There is no amount of colloquial [sic] evidence or anything like it that will convince me that you can act like a car on a bike and be treated like one by a driver. A driver only needs to get a bug up his ass to run you over and you're done. While you're laying on the ground with your mangled frame, be sure to preach Vehicular Cycling theory to him.What evidence do you have that motorists want to ram into bicycles? Have you conducted the poll mentioned in your first paragraph? If you did, OF COURSE the overwhelming majority of drivers would deny that they want to hit bikes. The entire weight of civilization--laws, tort theory, civil liability, morality and ethics--is against hitting other vehicles with your vehicle. Please believe me: NOBODY wants to hit you when you are riding your bike. NOBODY even wants to be negligent enough to accidentally hit you, provided you are properly visible and obeying the laws of the road. If you are so frightened that you cannot accept these basic facts, by all means ride on the sidewalk.
There is no amount of colloquial [sic] evidence or anything like it that will convince me that you can act like a car on a bike and be treated like one by a driver. A driver only needs to get a bug up his ass to run you over and you're done. While you're laying on the ground with your mangled frame, be sure to preach Vehicular Cycling theory to him.What evidence do you have that motorists want to ram into bicycles? Have you conducted the poll mentioned in your first paragraph? If you did, OF COURSE the overwhelming majority of drivers would deny that they want to hit bikes. The entire weight of civilization--laws, tort theory, civil liability, morality and ethics--is against hitting other vehicles with your vehicle. Please believe me: NOBODY wants to hit you when you are riding your bike. NOBODY even wants to be negligent enough to accidentally hit you, provided you are properly visible and obeying the laws of the road. If you are so frightened that you cannot accept these basic facts, by all means ride on the sidewalk.
vincenzosi
03-06-05, 06:04 PM
If you are so frightened that you cannot accept these basic facts, by all means ride on the sidewalk.
Dude, just calm the heck down. Jeeze. The truth is most motorists don't think cyclists have a right to the road. I didn't literally mean they're aiming for you; smart people know when something is tongue-in-cheek.
Smart people also know that [sic] is used to note that something is spelled wrong, which colloquial is not. Try a dictionary next time you want to be a rampaging lunatic.
Dude, just calm the heck down. Jeeze. The truth is most motorists don't think cyclists have a right to the road. I didn't literally mean they're aiming for you; smart people know when something is tongue-in-cheek.
Smart people also know that [sic] is used to note that something is spelled wrong, which colloquial is not. Try a dictionary next time you want to be a rampaging lunatic.
Dchiefransom
03-06-05, 06:43 PM
I'm only 51, and if I had a nickel for every time someone said "that's what I have insurance for", and meant it, then I'd retire now and buy myself an island to live on. You could all come and vacation there for free. There are a lot of people out there that just don't care enough to pay attention. Fortunately, they've all missed me so far. I tried riding with my fingers crossed, but it was hard to shift ;) . When they start giving drivers that don't pay attention 30 days hoeing weeds on the county farm, then maybe they'll start paying attention. Until then, about all we can do is ride defensively.
I-Like-To-Bike
03-06-05, 06:59 PM
OF COURSE the overwhelming majority of drivers would deny that they want to hit bikes. The entire weight of civilization--laws, tort theory, civil liability, morality and ethics--is against hitting other vehicles with your vehicle. Please believe me: NOBODY wants to hit you when you are riding your bike. NOBODY even wants to be negligent enough to accidentally hit you, provided you are properly visible and obeying the laws of the road. If you are so frightened that you cannot accept these basic facts, by all means ride on the sidewalk.
NOBODY is looking to deliberately have an accident or a collision with ANYTHING, or to deliberately hit ANYBODY. But guess what, Oh-So-Smart Guy -accidents do happen everyday, everywhere, all over this country, for all sorts of reasons, to all sorts of vehicles; many involve vehicles that are properly visible AND being driven IAW the laws of the road. Consider THAT basic fact next time before spouting off platitudes and insults.
What is it about Vehicular Cycling that makes some of its ardent proselytizers such arrogant SOBs?
NOBODY is looking to deliberately have an accident or a collision with ANYTHING, or to deliberately hit ANYBODY. But guess what, Oh-So-Smart Guy -accidents do happen everyday, everywhere, all over this country, for all sorts of reasons, to all sorts of vehicles; many involve vehicles that are properly visible AND being driven IAW the laws of the road. Consider THAT basic fact next time before spouting off platitudes and insults.
What is it about Vehicular Cycling that makes some of its ardent proselytizers such arrogant SOBs?
vincenzosi
03-06-05, 07:47 PM
Until then, about all we can do is ride defensively.
Which I think is a whole lot more effective than pretending you're on equal footing with vehicles that weigh 100 times what you do.
Which I think is a whole lot more effective than pretending you're on equal footing with vehicles that weigh 100 times what you do.
closetbiker
03-06-05, 10:03 PM
But guess what, Oh-So-Smart Guy -accidents do happen everyday, everywhere, all over this country, for all sorts of reasons, to all sorts of vehicles; many involve vehicles that are properly visible AND being driven IAW the laws of the road. Consider THAT basic fact next time before spouting off platitudes and insults.
from
http://www.floridabicycle.org/freedomfromfear.html
* I collect a good deal of information about cycling crashes. It’s part of my job as a bike coordinator. Regrettably, what most people get to see are just raw numbers and media reports...
For example: in Orange, Seminole and Osceola Counties there were 644 bicyclists-versus-motorist crashes in 1994; 11 resulted in death. Scary thought, huh? But how many of those involved a cyclist driving on the right side of the roadway (not on the sidewalk) during daylight hours and obeying the signs, signals and rules of the road? Only 74, and of those not one was a fatality. Of those 11 deaths, 8 occurred at night, and 5 involved cyclists hit from behind. (How often do you see a cyclist out at night without lights?) The other 3 daytime deaths involved kids who failed to yield (ages 10, 15 and 16). These are the proportions of crash types you’ll see in most Florida cities.
Of those 74 crashes, 24 involved an overtaking motorist, and that’s the type of crash people fear most. That’s 24 daytime, non-fatal, motorist-overtaking crashes for an entire year for an area with more than 1.1 million licensed motorists (not including tourists). That means only one motorist out of 46,000 (0.002%) in our area in 1994 was so incompetent as to hit a bicyclist from behind in broad daylight. Only 13 resulted in significant injuries and only 4 in incapacitating injuries. Only 2 of the 24 motorists claimed they "did not see" the cyclist.
So what’s happening? A very small number of motorists are unsafely and unsuccessfully passing cyclists and the ensuing crashes are sideswipes that result in mostly minor injuries. Fortunately there is a way that you can reduce the tendency for motorists to pass unsafely. None of these overtaking crashes occurred on roads with wide curb lanes, bike lanes or paved shoulders. They happened on narrow lanes. And the law says that when the lane is narrow you are allowed to leave the right-most side and ride toward the middle.
"What of the other 50 crashes?" you ask. They resulted in 27 significant injuries; 4 incapacitating. They mostly involved motorists who failed to yield at intersections and driveways, and neither bike lanes, sidewalks nor paths offer protection from such crashes. Indeed, on sidewalks and sidewalk-style bikeways you will be more susceptible to such crashes, not less. On the roadway you’ll be more visible. The same defensive driving skills you use as a motorist will normally keep you out of such crashes.
And what of those scary media reports of cycling deaths? The old newspaper adage goes: "’Dog Bites Man?’… that’s not news. ‘Man Bites Dog,’ now that’s news." The commonplace goes unreported; the unusual gets the coverage. Furthermore, we like to have our beliefs reinforced and media producers share the belief that bicycling is dangerous. No one likes being told their beliefs are wrong. *
So I guess accidents do happen everyday, but nearly so much or so serious to VC cyclists as some would think.
from
http://www.floridabicycle.org/freedomfromfear.html
* I collect a good deal of information about cycling crashes. It’s part of my job as a bike coordinator. Regrettably, what most people get to see are just raw numbers and media reports...
For example: in Orange, Seminole and Osceola Counties there were 644 bicyclists-versus-motorist crashes in 1994; 11 resulted in death. Scary thought, huh? But how many of those involved a cyclist driving on the right side of the roadway (not on the sidewalk) during daylight hours and obeying the signs, signals and rules of the road? Only 74, and of those not one was a fatality. Of those 11 deaths, 8 occurred at night, and 5 involved cyclists hit from behind. (How often do you see a cyclist out at night without lights?) The other 3 daytime deaths involved kids who failed to yield (ages 10, 15 and 16). These are the proportions of crash types you’ll see in most Florida cities.
Of those 74 crashes, 24 involved an overtaking motorist, and that’s the type of crash people fear most. That’s 24 daytime, non-fatal, motorist-overtaking crashes for an entire year for an area with more than 1.1 million licensed motorists (not including tourists). That means only one motorist out of 46,000 (0.002%) in our area in 1994 was so incompetent as to hit a bicyclist from behind in broad daylight. Only 13 resulted in significant injuries and only 4 in incapacitating injuries. Only 2 of the 24 motorists claimed they "did not see" the cyclist.
So what’s happening? A very small number of motorists are unsafely and unsuccessfully passing cyclists and the ensuing crashes are sideswipes that result in mostly minor injuries. Fortunately there is a way that you can reduce the tendency for motorists to pass unsafely. None of these overtaking crashes occurred on roads with wide curb lanes, bike lanes or paved shoulders. They happened on narrow lanes. And the law says that when the lane is narrow you are allowed to leave the right-most side and ride toward the middle.
"What of the other 50 crashes?" you ask. They resulted in 27 significant injuries; 4 incapacitating. They mostly involved motorists who failed to yield at intersections and driveways, and neither bike lanes, sidewalks nor paths offer protection from such crashes. Indeed, on sidewalks and sidewalk-style bikeways you will be more susceptible to such crashes, not less. On the roadway you’ll be more visible. The same defensive driving skills you use as a motorist will normally keep you out of such crashes.
And what of those scary media reports of cycling deaths? The old newspaper adage goes: "’Dog Bites Man?’… that’s not news. ‘Man Bites Dog,’ now that’s news." The commonplace goes unreported; the unusual gets the coverage. Furthermore, we like to have our beliefs reinforced and media producers share the belief that bicycling is dangerous. No one likes being told their beliefs are wrong. *
So I guess accidents do happen everyday, but nearly so much or so serious to VC cyclists as some would think.
Bruce Rosar
03-06-05, 10:48 PM
http://www.floridabicycle.org/freedomfromfear.html
Mighk Wilson's "Freedom from Fear" is indeed an interesting article. Here's another: Real or Just a Taboo? (http://www.trirats.org/docs/taboo.pdf)
The subtitle of this one page article, which appeared in a Florida magazine, is Bicycles and traffic do mix...when everyone plays by the rules. and here's the lead in:
Scientist-philosopher Ivan Illich wrote, "The taboo on wheelbarrows in America before Cortez is no more puzzling than the taboo on bicycles in modern traffic." The Aztecs believed wheels were only for the gods; Floridians believe bicycling in traffic is inherently dangerous. Neither belief is based on science or fact.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines a taboo as "a ban or an inhibition resulting from social custom or emotional aversion." Taboos are reinforced by the culture in which they exist with real or implied threats, and Florida's bicycle taboo is reinforced in at least five ways.
Note: this article has been scanned and found to be safe for those who believe that the phrase Ve****lar C****ng is taboo ;)
Mighk Wilson's "Freedom from Fear" is indeed an interesting article. Here's another: Real or Just a Taboo? (http://www.trirats.org/docs/taboo.pdf)
The subtitle of this one page article, which appeared in a Florida magazine, is Bicycles and traffic do mix...when everyone plays by the rules. and here's the lead in:
Scientist-philosopher Ivan Illich wrote, "The taboo on wheelbarrows in America before Cortez is no more puzzling than the taboo on bicycles in modern traffic." The Aztecs believed wheels were only for the gods; Floridians believe bicycling in traffic is inherently dangerous. Neither belief is based on science or fact.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines a taboo as "a ban or an inhibition resulting from social custom or emotional aversion." Taboos are reinforced by the culture in which they exist with real or implied threats, and Florida's bicycle taboo is reinforced in at least five ways.
Note: this article has been scanned and found to be safe for those who believe that the phrase Ve****lar C****ng is taboo ;)
Bruce Rosar
03-06-05, 11:32 PM
If you are so frightened that you cannot accept these basic facts, by all means ride on the sidewalk. Except in my town (Cary, NC). We discussed the accident statistics for car-bike collisions on sidewalks with town staff. While there's no concern from staff about citizens walking their bikes, they now publically discourage citizens (of any age) from operating pedal vehicles on sidewalks.
norton
03-07-05, 04:44 AM
Mighk Wilson's "Freedom from Fear" is indeed an interesting article. Here's another: Real or Just a Taboo? (http://www.trirats.org/docs/taboo.pdf)
The subtitle of this one page article, which appeared in a Florida magazine, is and here's the lead in:
Note: this article has been scanned and found to be safe for those who believe that the phrase Ve****lar C****ng is taboo ;)
:roflmao: .....Thanks!.....bwileyr, ClosetBiker(must be a walk-in), Mighk(!) Wilson, et al..... :)
The subtitle of this one page article, which appeared in a Florida magazine, is and here's the lead in:
Note: this article has been scanned and found to be safe for those who believe that the phrase Ve****lar C****ng is taboo ;)
:roflmao: .....Thanks!.....bwileyr, ClosetBiker(must be a walk-in), Mighk(!) Wilson, et al..... :)
Daily Commute
03-07-05, 05:03 AM
As I said, paraphrasing from our traffic code, " [this] is the one time a cyclist here may not take the lane- if you can't keep up with traffic you have to pull to the right (unless it would be unsafe to do so)."
And since it's unsafe to hug the curb when a car and a bike can't share the lane, it's OK to use the full lane. I also said that I preferred roads with multiple narrow lanes. That gives cars tha ability to safely pass me. If cars can't pass immediately, something will open up in a few seconds.
NOBODY is looking to deliberately have an accident or a collision with ANYTHING, or to deliberately hit ANYBODY. But guess what, Oh-So-Smart Guy -accidents do happen everyday, everywhere, all over this country, for all sorts of reasons, to all sorts of vehicles; many involve vehicles that are properly visible AND being driven IAW the laws of the road. Consider THAT basic fact next time before spouting off platitudes and insults.
What is it about Vehicular Cycling that makes some of its ardent proselytizers such arrogant SOBs?
Perhaps you should take a look at your own rhetoric before criticizing how others argue.
As to the substance of your argument, the key to avoid accidents is to stay visible. You are less visible in a bike lane or hugging the curb than when you are in a traffic lane.
And since I see no such debris here, I don't see it as a reason to avoid bike lanes (here). Are American cities really that filthy?
Mine is, especially during the winter, when snowplows push all the snow to the edges, where the water melts leaving everything that had been in the traffic lanes to sit right where the city wants to put a bike lane or where the curb-huggers say I should ride. It's especially bad on the parts of the road where parking is allowed during non-rush times. There, right lane is filthy, but the second-to-the-right lane is clean.
And since it's unsafe to hug the curb when a car and a bike can't share the lane, it's OK to use the full lane. I also said that I preferred roads with multiple narrow lanes. That gives cars tha ability to safely pass me. If cars can't pass immediately, something will open up in a few seconds.
NOBODY is looking to deliberately have an accident or a collision with ANYTHING, or to deliberately hit ANYBODY. But guess what, Oh-So-Smart Guy -accidents do happen everyday, everywhere, all over this country, for all sorts of reasons, to all sorts of vehicles; many involve vehicles that are properly visible AND being driven IAW the laws of the road. Consider THAT basic fact next time before spouting off platitudes and insults.
What is it about Vehicular Cycling that makes some of its ardent proselytizers such arrogant SOBs?
Perhaps you should take a look at your own rhetoric before criticizing how others argue.
As to the substance of your argument, the key to avoid accidents is to stay visible. You are less visible in a bike lane or hugging the curb than when you are in a traffic lane.
And since I see no such debris here, I don't see it as a reason to avoid bike lanes (here). Are American cities really that filthy?
Mine is, especially during the winter, when snowplows push all the snow to the edges, where the water melts leaving everything that had been in the traffic lanes to sit right where the city wants to put a bike lane or where the curb-huggers say I should ride. It's especially bad on the parts of the road where parking is allowed during non-rush times. There, right lane is filthy, but the second-to-the-right lane is clean.
patc
03-07-05, 08:00 AM
Mine is, especially during the winter, when snowplows push all the snow to the edges, where the water melts leaving everything that had been in the traffic lanes to sit right where the city wants to put a bike lane or where the curb-huggers say I should ride. It's especially bad on the parts of the road where parking is allowed during non-rush times. There, right lane is filthy, but the second-to-the-right lane is clean.
We get ice and gravel buildup on the curb edge of the road in winter, but it seems to be at worst only the last foot or so since most of our snow is removed, not pushed aside. (I didn't ride much this winter, I'll have a more accurate idea next winter). Plenty of clean room left for a bike. In summer its extremely unusual for me to see anyting bigger than a pebble, and all but the few inches closest to the curb are as clean in the bike lane as in the other lanes. Plus the bike lane usually has fewer potholes and repair scars. I have seen the occasional drainage grate that wasn't level with the pavement, but a call to city hall usually gets that fixed soon enough if you report it as a safety issue.
A few of the rural roads around here, on the other hand, are terrible. I was actually gratefull at one point when a road became an unpaved gravel road, it was a much smoother ride that the so-called pavement.
Out of curiousity, is your city considered a tourist destination? Might be one reason Ottawa is kept so clean.
We get ice and gravel buildup on the curb edge of the road in winter, but it seems to be at worst only the last foot or so since most of our snow is removed, not pushed aside. (I didn't ride much this winter, I'll have a more accurate idea next winter). Plenty of clean room left for a bike. In summer its extremely unusual for me to see anyting bigger than a pebble, and all but the few inches closest to the curb are as clean in the bike lane as in the other lanes. Plus the bike lane usually has fewer potholes and repair scars. I have seen the occasional drainage grate that wasn't level with the pavement, but a call to city hall usually gets that fixed soon enough if you report it as a safety issue.
A few of the rural roads around here, on the other hand, are terrible. I was actually gratefull at one point when a road became an unpaved gravel road, it was a much smoother ride that the so-called pavement.
Out of curiousity, is your city considered a tourist destination? Might be one reason Ottawa is kept so clean.
I-Like-To-Bike
03-07-05, 09:04 AM
As to the substance of your argument, the key to avoid accidents is to stay visible. You are less visible in a bike lane or hugging the curb than when you are in a traffic lane.
Good idea -stick to substance not rhetoric.
Roody pointed out that motorists don't deliberately cause accidents as if understanding that "basic fact" is significant. The bottom line of my response is: So what! Motorists have accidents all the time with each other, with many, if not all of them, driving "vehicularly" in plain sight of each other. Motor vehicle operators manage to hit trees, bridge abatements and drive off into rivers – all of them in plain sight and behaving VERY predictably. So please drop the shaky construct that cyclists cycling "predictably" in plain sight are somehow immune from unpredictable or careless drivers
Your "key" is empty rhetoric; just like the recent "stuff" posted about "phobias", "discrimination, "taboos" or how few accidents happen to "vehicular cyclists."
Substantiate your belief that cycling "visibly" in the middle of a traffic lane, especially high speed traffic, is less risky than bike lanes. If you choose to toss out raw statistical data as "basic facts" about risk, don't forget to include exposure data, as well as BOTH probability and severity measurement/rationales.
You might also describe why you state that bicycle lanes may be desirable when highway speeds are over 55, but are unsafe/undesirable if the speed limit on the same road is 45 or 50mph. What rationale are you using to make the distinction? Why should anyone else make this distinction?
If you choose to make a substantive claim about the overall safety record of "vehicular cyclists", please provide a credible source. Who measured it, what data was collected, where, when; and most importantly using what set of defined characteristics/metrics to especifically identify "vehicular cyclists." What exhibited/observed cycling techniques qualified one population to be described as vehicular cyclists vis-à-vis a similar population that was considered non-vehicular cyclists.
Please no guesses or conjuring about the alleged safety record of cyclist groups who may be "likely vehicular cyclists" with no definition of vehicular cyclists or measured data about the likelihood of their presence in a cycling population.
Let's stick to substance, and if it doesn't exist, let's not substitute speculation.
Good idea -stick to substance not rhetoric.
Roody pointed out that motorists don't deliberately cause accidents as if understanding that "basic fact" is significant. The bottom line of my response is: So what! Motorists have accidents all the time with each other, with many, if not all of them, driving "vehicularly" in plain sight of each other. Motor vehicle operators manage to hit trees, bridge abatements and drive off into rivers – all of them in plain sight and behaving VERY predictably. So please drop the shaky construct that cyclists cycling "predictably" in plain sight are somehow immune from unpredictable or careless drivers
Your "key" is empty rhetoric; just like the recent "stuff" posted about "phobias", "discrimination, "taboos" or how few accidents happen to "vehicular cyclists."
Substantiate your belief that cycling "visibly" in the middle of a traffic lane, especially high speed traffic, is less risky than bike lanes. If you choose to toss out raw statistical data as "basic facts" about risk, don't forget to include exposure data, as well as BOTH probability and severity measurement/rationales.
You might also describe why you state that bicycle lanes may be desirable when highway speeds are over 55, but are unsafe/undesirable if the speed limit on the same road is 45 or 50mph. What rationale are you using to make the distinction? Why should anyone else make this distinction?
If you choose to make a substantive claim about the overall safety record of "vehicular cyclists", please provide a credible source. Who measured it, what data was collected, where, when; and most importantly using what set of defined characteristics/metrics to especifically identify "vehicular cyclists." What exhibited/observed cycling techniques qualified one population to be described as vehicular cyclists vis-à-vis a similar population that was considered non-vehicular cyclists.
Please no guesses or conjuring about the alleged safety record of cyclist groups who may be "likely vehicular cyclists" with no definition of vehicular cyclists or measured data about the likelihood of their presence in a cycling population.
Let's stick to substance, and if it doesn't exist, let's not substitute speculation.
Daily Commute
03-07-05, 09:26 AM
. . . You might also describe why you state that bicycle lanes may be desirable when highway speeds are over 55, but are unsafe/undesirable if the speed limit on the same road is 45 or 50mph. What rationale are you using to make the distinction? Why should anyone else make this distinction?
It will take some time to respond to the statistical arguments (start here (http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm)), but the key distinction is not speed (although that's important), but lack of intersections. Bike lanes are at their strongest when uninterupted. Traffic just goes along a parallel course. Bike lanes are at their weakest at intersections, where cars must travel through bike lanes from all sorts of odd directions.
As to speed, the descriptions I've seen (and experience) shows that, with a little thought and training, cyclists can navigate fairly easily with traffic speeds up to 35 mph. 35-45 mph seems to be the consensus breaking point. The key to VC is that training and education can help cyclists navigate tougher traffic. Does that mean we can navigate the Dan Ryan? Of course not. But it's amazing how much control you can take.
This is largely the reason so many of us believe so strongly in VC. Nearly every VC'er has started without the training. We can see the difference in control and speed between our pre- and post-VC rides. Fortunately, the VC'ers aren't trying to force others to ride our way. If you want to hug the curb, no law should stop you. If you want to have a bike lane, fine, as long as the law allows us to ride with traffic.
As to visiblity, where to you spend the most time looking when you drive? Straight ahead. Which is why we are safer straight ahead of drivers.
Edit: The challenge should also be reversed:
If you choose to make a substantive claim about the overall (negative) safety record of "vehicular cyclists", please provide a credible source. Who measured it, what data was collected, where, when; and most importantly using what set of defined characteristics/metrics to especifically identify "vehicular cyclists." What exhibited/observed cycling techniques qualified one population to be described as vehicular cyclists vis-à-vis a similar population that was considered non-vehicular cyclists.
Please no guesses or conjuring about the alleged safety record of cyclist groups who may be "likely vehicular cyclists" with no definition of vehicular cyclists or measured data about the likelihood of their presence in a cycling population.
Let's stick to substance, and if it doesn't exist, let's not substitute speculation.
It will take some time to respond to the statistical arguments (start here (http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/Cross01.htm)), but the key distinction is not speed (although that's important), but lack of intersections. Bike lanes are at their strongest when uninterupted. Traffic just goes along a parallel course. Bike lanes are at their weakest at intersections, where cars must travel through bike lanes from all sorts of odd directions.
As to speed, the descriptions I've seen (and experience) shows that, with a little thought and training, cyclists can navigate fairly easily with traffic speeds up to 35 mph. 35-45 mph seems to be the consensus breaking point. The key to VC is that training and education can help cyclists navigate tougher traffic. Does that mean we can navigate the Dan Ryan? Of course not. But it's amazing how much control you can take.
This is largely the reason so many of us believe so strongly in VC. Nearly every VC'er has started without the training. We can see the difference in control and speed between our pre- and post-VC rides. Fortunately, the VC'ers aren't trying to force others to ride our way. If you want to hug the curb, no law should stop you. If you want to have a bike lane, fine, as long as the law allows us to ride with traffic.
As to visiblity, where to you spend the most time looking when you drive? Straight ahead. Which is why we are safer straight ahead of drivers.
Edit: The challenge should also be reversed:
If you choose to make a substantive claim about the overall (negative) safety record of "vehicular cyclists", please provide a credible source. Who measured it, what data was collected, where, when; and most importantly using what set of defined characteristics/metrics to especifically identify "vehicular cyclists." What exhibited/observed cycling techniques qualified one population to be described as vehicular cyclists vis-à-vis a similar population that was considered non-vehicular cyclists.
Please no guesses or conjuring about the alleged safety record of cyclist groups who may be "likely vehicular cyclists" with no definition of vehicular cyclists or measured data about the likelihood of their presence in a cycling population.
Let's stick to substance, and if it doesn't exist, let's not substitute speculation.
Treespeed
03-07-05, 11:35 AM
Good idea -stick to substance not rhetoric.
Roody pointed out that motorists don't deliberately cause accidents as if understanding that "basic fact" is significant. The bottom line of my response is: So what! Motorists have accidents all the time with each other, with many, if not all of them, driving "vehicularly" in plain sight of each other. Motor vehicle operators manage to hit trees, bridge abatements and drive off into rivers – all of them in plain sight and behaving VERY predictably. So please drop the shaky construct that cyclists cycling "predictably" in plain sight are somehow immune from unpredictable or careless drivers
Your "key" is empty rhetoric; just like the recent "stuff" posted about "phobias", "discrimination, "taboos" or how few accidents happen to "vehicular cyclists."
Substantiate your belief that cycling "visibly" in the middle of a traffic lane, especially high speed traffic, is less risky than bike lanes. If you choose to toss out raw statistical data as "basic facts" about risk, don't forget to include exposure data, as well as BOTH probability and severity measurement/rationales.
You might also describe why you state that bicycle lanes may be desirable when highway speeds are over 55, but are unsafe/undesirable if the speed limit on the same road is 45 or 50mph. What rationale are you using to make the distinction? Why should anyone else make this distinction?
If you choose to make a substantive claim about the overall safety record of "vehicular cyclists", please provide a credible source. Who measured it, what data was collected, where, when; and most importantly using what set of defined characteristics/metrics to especifically identify "vehicular cyclists." What exhibited/observed cycling techniques qualified one population to be described as vehicular cyclists vis-à-vis a similar population that was considered non-vehicular cyclists.
Please no guesses or conjuring about the alleged safety record of cyclist groups who may be "likely vehicular cyclists" with no definition of vehicular cyclists or measured data about the likelihood of their presence in a cycling population.
Let's stick to substance, and if it doesn't exist, let's not substitute speculation.
Great Post!
I love your point about cars hitting stationary objects and your demand for real data, not just rhetoric.
Roody pointed out that motorists don't deliberately cause accidents as if understanding that "basic fact" is significant. The bottom line of my response is: So what! Motorists have accidents all the time with each other, with many, if not all of them, driving "vehicularly" in plain sight of each other. Motor vehicle operators manage to hit trees, bridge abatements and drive off into rivers – all of them in plain sight and behaving VERY predictably. So please drop the shaky construct that cyclists cycling "predictably" in plain sight are somehow immune from unpredictable or careless drivers
Your "key" is empty rhetoric; just like the recent "stuff" posted about "phobias", "discrimination, "taboos" or how few accidents happen to "vehicular cyclists."
Substantiate your belief that cycling "visibly" in the middle of a traffic lane, especially high speed traffic, is less risky than bike lanes. If you choose to toss out raw statistical data as "basic facts" about risk, don't forget to include exposure data, as well as BOTH probability and severity measurement/rationales.
You might also describe why you state that bicycle lanes may be desirable when highway speeds are over 55, but are unsafe/undesirable if the speed limit on the same road is 45 or 50mph. What rationale are you using to make the distinction? Why should anyone else make this distinction?
If you choose to make a substantive claim about the overall safety record of "vehicular cyclists", please provide a credible source. Who measured it, what data was collected, where, when; and most importantly using what set of defined characteristics/metrics to especifically identify "vehicular cyclists." What exhibited/observed cycling techniques qualified one population to be described as vehicular cyclists vis-à-vis a similar population that was considered non-vehicular cyclists.
Please no guesses or conjuring about the alleged safety record of cyclist groups who may be "likely vehicular cyclists" with no definition of vehicular cyclists or measured data about the likelihood of their presence in a cycling population.
Let's stick to substance, and if it doesn't exist, let's not substitute speculation.
Great Post!
I love your point about cars hitting stationary objects and your demand for real data, not just rhetoric.
closetbiker
03-07-05, 12:00 PM
Great Post!
I love your point about cars hitting stationary objects and your demand for real data, not just rhetoric.
I thought my post (#63) gave real data on what happens.
I love your point about cars hitting stationary objects and your demand for real data, not just rhetoric.
I thought my post (#63) gave real data on what happens.
Helmet-Head
03-07-05, 12:12 PM
Vehicular cycling only works when the traffic you're trying to be vehicular with recognizes you as a vehicle.
That notion is contrary to my experience. I find that whether traffic recognizes a cyclist as a driver of a vehicle depends completely on the behavior of the cyclist. I have never behaved vehicularly and not been treated vehicularly.
I prefer a more defensive posture.
In other words, a non-vehicular posture? I have never been treated vehicularly when I was not acting vehicularly.
Being aggressive and acting "vehicular" isn't going to matter when you have a two ton SUV bearing down on you.
First of all, I don't know any vehicular cyclists who advocate "aggressive" behavior. Being "assertive" is not the same as being "aggressive", and the difference is significant.
Secondly, acting vehicularly or not makes a huge difference in all kinds of traffic conditions, including when "you have a two ton SUV bearing down on you." If you're acting vehicularly, you have established your right-of-way in the lane (exactly how you do this varies based on many factors and conditions, including: width of the lane, speed and volume of traffic, speed and destination of cyclists, road condition, weather, lighting, etc. etc.), and the driver of the passing SUV will almost always slow down and adjust his lane position accordingly.
If you're riding non-vehicularly, that means you've probably yielded the right-of-way in the traffic lane to the SUV driver, perhaps by riding in a BL, on a shoulder (to the right of the fog line), or hugging the right edge of the lane, and the driver is very likely to pass you as if you are not there.
How you ride, vehicularly or non-vehicularly, matters.
That notion is contrary to my experience. I find that whether traffic recognizes a cyclist as a driver of a vehicle depends completely on the behavior of the cyclist. I have never behaved vehicularly and not been treated vehicularly.
I prefer a more defensive posture.
In other words, a non-vehicular posture? I have never been treated vehicularly when I was not acting vehicularly.
Being aggressive and acting "vehicular" isn't going to matter when you have a two ton SUV bearing down on you.
First of all, I don't know any vehicular cyclists who advocate "aggressive" behavior. Being "assertive" is not the same as being "aggressive", and the difference is significant.
Secondly, acting vehicularly or not makes a huge difference in all kinds of traffic conditions, including when "you have a two ton SUV bearing down on you." If you're acting vehicularly, you have established your right-of-way in the lane (exactly how you do this varies based on many factors and conditions, including: width of the lane, speed and volume of traffic, speed and destination of cyclists, road condition, weather, lighting, etc. etc.), and the driver of the passing SUV will almost always slow down and adjust his lane position accordingly.
If you're riding non-vehicularly, that means you've probably yielded the right-of-way in the traffic lane to the SUV driver, perhaps by riding in a BL, on a shoulder (to the right of the fog line), or hugging the right edge of the lane, and the driver is very likely to pass you as if you are not there.
How you ride, vehicularly or non-vehicularly, matters.
Da Tinker
03-07-05, 12:12 PM
Serge, you do start interesting threads! You sound like a LCI, but are not in the LAB database.
This discusssion seems to prove out both Allen's & Forester's theories on learning to ride in traffic. Both contend that there are basically three ways:
Go ride, live, and learn. This can take years and thousands of miles.
Befriend a grizzled veteran at the local bike club & ride with him, do what he does, and listen to his answers to your questions. May take a year or so.
Take a cycling class. I can have ridiing in traffic, safely, and with confidence in two weekends. Or two days.
Allen notes in his writings that the cyclist accident rate, in terms of accidents per year per cyclist, drops sharply in cycists that ride a thousand miles or more per year. This supports the earlier posts that it is casual cyclists, uneducated cyclists who make up the bulk of the accident numbers. Or people forced out of their cages by DUI convictions, which is very common around here, and the source of the last two fatal bike-car accidents in my area.
Sure, to the experienced rider Forester, Allen, et al sound like common sense. But common sense is neither. It is usually the result of training, observation, experience and education, but so rooted in one's basic behaviors & perceptions as to be unquestionable by the individual. 'Common sense' for one is higher education for another.
I learned VC by the first two methods, taking the LAB Road 1 course only a few weeks before training for my League Cycling Instructor certification. It changed very little about the way I ride, save for increasing my knowledge of traffic laws regarding cyclists. But I had come by the knowledge in Road 1 by the long, hard path. The books & classes just shorten the learning process.
Trust me, I'm a LCI.
This discusssion seems to prove out both Allen's & Forester's theories on learning to ride in traffic. Both contend that there are basically three ways:
Go ride, live, and learn. This can take years and thousands of miles.
Befriend a grizzled veteran at the local bike club & ride with him, do what he does, and listen to his answers to your questions. May take a year or so.
Take a cycling class. I can have ridiing in traffic, safely, and with confidence in two weekends. Or two days.
Allen notes in his writings that the cyclist accident rate, in terms of accidents per year per cyclist, drops sharply in cycists that ride a thousand miles or more per year. This supports the earlier posts that it is casual cyclists, uneducated cyclists who make up the bulk of the accident numbers. Or people forced out of their cages by DUI convictions, which is very common around here, and the source of the last two fatal bike-car accidents in my area.
Sure, to the experienced rider Forester, Allen, et al sound like common sense. But common sense is neither. It is usually the result of training, observation, experience and education, but so rooted in one's basic behaviors & perceptions as to be unquestionable by the individual. 'Common sense' for one is higher education for another.
I learned VC by the first two methods, taking the LAB Road 1 course only a few weeks before training for my League Cycling Instructor certification. It changed very little about the way I ride, save for increasing my knowledge of traffic laws regarding cyclists. But I had come by the knowledge in Road 1 by the long, hard path. The books & classes just shorten the learning process.
Trust me, I'm a LCI.
I-Like-To-Bike
03-07-05, 12:13 PM
The challenge should also be reversed:
If you choose to make a substantive claim about the overall (negative) safety record of "vehicular cyclists
I make no claims of any kind about the negative or positive aspects of an alleged safety record of "vehicular cyclists." I claim that there is a complete absence of ANY credible data on the subject. Only rhetoric based on WAGs and wishful thinking appear to be available.
I doubt if any study or collection of data exists that ever seriously identified (by operating characteristics) a population of vehicular cyclists. Equally unmeasured are the alleged "fare best" status and safety record of this mystery population, as well as no existing credible comparison with any remotely related cycling population.
I try not to make claims without a shred of credible evidence.
If you choose to make a substantive claim about the overall (negative) safety record of "vehicular cyclists
I make no claims of any kind about the negative or positive aspects of an alleged safety record of "vehicular cyclists." I claim that there is a complete absence of ANY credible data on the subject. Only rhetoric based on WAGs and wishful thinking appear to be available.
I doubt if any study or collection of data exists that ever seriously identified (by operating characteristics) a population of vehicular cyclists. Equally unmeasured are the alleged "fare best" status and safety record of this mystery population, as well as no existing credible comparison with any remotely related cycling population.
I try not to make claims without a shred of credible evidence.
I-Like-To-Bike
03-07-05, 12:15 PM
I thought my post (#63) gave real data on what happens.
You thoght wrong. You make claims about vehicular cyclists's safet record with no data.
You thoght wrong. You make claims about vehicular cyclists's safet record with no data.
Daily Commute
03-07-05, 12:16 PM
I make no claims of any kind about the negative or positive aspects of an alleged safety record of "vehicular cyclists." I claim that there is a complete absence of ANY credible data on the subject. Only rhetoric based on WAGs and wishful thinking appear to be available.
I doubt if any study or collection of data exists that ever seriously identified (by operating characteristics) a population of vehicular cyclists. Equally unmeasured are the alleged "fare best" status and safety record of this mystery population, as well as no existing credible comparison with any remotely related cycling population.
I try not to make claims without a shred of credible evidence.
I just want to be clear. You have no evidence that VC theories are wrong. So, as far as you know, they are at least as valid as any other. Is that correct?
As to VC evidence, I already provided one study. At least two other posts in this thread have cited to research. What's wrong with them? (I haven't checked, so we may be referring to the same studies.)
Finally, when it comes to building bike lanes, I think the burden is on the bike lane proponents to prove that bike lanes are safer than riding vehicularly. Cyclists have done just fine cycling on the road with cars for a century. The burden should be on those who want to change that.
I doubt if any study or collection of data exists that ever seriously identified (by operating characteristics) a population of vehicular cyclists. Equally unmeasured are the alleged "fare best" status and safety record of this mystery population, as well as no existing credible comparison with any remotely related cycling population.
I try not to make claims without a shred of credible evidence.
I just want to be clear. You have no evidence that VC theories are wrong. So, as far as you know, they are at least as valid as any other. Is that correct?
As to VC evidence, I already provided one study. At least two other posts in this thread have cited to research. What's wrong with them? (I haven't checked, so we may be referring to the same studies.)
Finally, when it comes to building bike lanes, I think the burden is on the bike lane proponents to prove that bike lanes are safer than riding vehicularly. Cyclists have done just fine cycling on the road with cars for a century. The burden should be on those who want to change that.
Helmet-Head
03-07-05, 12:17 PM
I try not to make claims without a shred of credible evidence.
Except for all the exceptions, like when you imply that substantive claims have been made about the overall safety record of "vehicular cyclists". I know of no such claims, but that doesn't stop you from knocking unnamed others for making such claims.
It's easy to knock down a claim no one has ever made, Stanley.
Except for all the exceptions, like when you imply that substantive claims have been made about the overall safety record of "vehicular cyclists". I know of no such claims, but that doesn't stop you from knocking unnamed others for making such claims.
It's easy to knock down a claim no one has ever made, Stanley.
I-Like-To-Bike
03-07-05, 12:32 PM
Except for all the exceptions, like when you imply that substantive claims have been made about the overall safety record of "vehicular cyclists". I know of no such claims, but that doesn't stop you from knocking unnamed others for making such claims.
It's easy to knock down a claim no one has ever made.
Good!
Let's hear no more than about the value of vehicular cycling education in reducing vaguely defined "crash rates."
Let's hear no more about 80% reduction in risk for vehicular cyclists in comparison to other cyclists.
Let me know when those claims are removed from the VC good books. Let me know when your LCI comrades drop those claims and say they haven't a clue if their efforts are having any effect at all on students' safety records.
It's easy to knock down a claim no one has ever made.
Good!
Let's hear no more than about the value of vehicular cycling education in reducing vaguely defined "crash rates."
Let's hear no more about 80% reduction in risk for vehicular cyclists in comparison to other cyclists.
Let me know when those claims are removed from the VC good books. Let me know when your LCI comrades drop those claims and say they haven't a clue if their efforts are having any effect at all on students' safety records.
Helmet-Head
03-07-05, 01:38 PM
Let's hear no more than about the value of vehicular cycling education in reducing vaguely defined "crash rates."
Where have you ever heard "substantive claims" about the value of vehicular cycling education in reducing vaguely defined "crash rates."?
Let's hear no more about 80% reduction in risk for vehicular cyclists in comparison to other cyclists.
Where have you ever heard "substantive claims" about 80% reduction in risk for vehicular cyclists in comparison to other cyclists?
Let me know when those claims are removed from the VC good books.
Done. Was that fast enough?
Let me know when your LCI comrades drop those claims and say they haven't a clue if their efforts are having any effect at all on students' safety records.
Not only have they dropped them, they never made them.
Where have you ever heard "substantive claims" about the value of vehicular cycling education in reducing vaguely defined "crash rates."?
Let's hear no more about 80% reduction in risk for vehicular cyclists in comparison to other cyclists.
Where have you ever heard "substantive claims" about 80% reduction in risk for vehicular cyclists in comparison to other cyclists?
Let me know when those claims are removed from the VC good books.
Done. Was that fast enough?
Let me know when your LCI comrades drop those claims and say they haven't a clue if their efforts are having any effect at all on students' safety records.
Not only have they dropped them, they never made them.
I-Like-To-Bike
03-07-05, 02:04 PM
Where have you ever heard "substantive claims" about the value of vehicular cycling education in reducing vaguely defined "crash rates."?
Where have you ever heard "substantive claims" about 80% reduction in risk for vehicular cyclists in comparison to other cyclists?
Done. Was that fast enough?
Not only have they dropped them, they never made them.
Messrs. Daily Commuter, Da Tinker and Closet Biker:
Any comment?
Where have you ever heard "substantive claims" about 80% reduction in risk for vehicular cyclists in comparison to other cyclists?
Done. Was that fast enough?
Not only have they dropped them, they never made them.
Messrs. Daily Commuter, Da Tinker and Closet Biker:
Any comment?
closetbiker
03-07-05, 02:12 PM
You thoght wrong. You make claims about vehicular cyclists's safet record with no data.
Really? A bike coordinator from Florida states in 644 bicyclists-versus-motorist crashes, 570 happened to cyclists using non-VC behavior is no data?
Really? A bike coordinator from Florida states in 644 bicyclists-versus-motorist crashes, 570 happened to cyclists using non-VC behavior is no data?
Daily Commute
03-07-05, 02:26 PM
Messrs. Daily Commuter, Da Tinker and Closet Biker:
Any comment?
I'm not familiar with the exact figures, that's why I stayed out of the argument. Where did you get them?
Now what about my statement:
I just want to be clear. You have no evidence that VC theories are wrong. So, as far as you know, they are at least as valid as any other. Is that correct?
As to VC evidence, I already provided one study. At least two other posts in this thread have cited to research. What's wrong with them? (I haven't checked, so we may be referring to the same studies.)
Finally, when it comes to building bike lanes, I think the burden is on the bike lane proponents to prove that bike lanes are safer than riding vehicularly. Cyclists have done just fine cycling on the road with cars for a century. The burden should be on those who want to change that.
Any comment?
I'm not familiar with the exact figures, that's why I stayed out of the argument. Where did you get them?
Now what about my statement:
I just want to be clear. You have no evidence that VC theories are wrong. So, as far as you know, they are at least as valid as any other. Is that correct?
As to VC evidence, I already provided one study. At least two other posts in this thread have cited to research. What's wrong with them? (I haven't checked, so we may be referring to the same studies.)
Finally, when it comes to building bike lanes, I think the burden is on the bike lane proponents to prove that bike lanes are safer than riding vehicularly. Cyclists have done just fine cycling on the road with cars for a century. The burden should be on those who want to change that.
Dchiefransom
03-07-05, 02:40 PM
Really? A bike coordinator from Florida states in 644 bicyclists-versus-motorist crashes, 570 happened to cyclists using non-VC behavior is no data?
I went back and read that link, and you're giving that article a fairly "liberal" reading. Nowhere in that article does it mention Vehicular Cycling, or it's methods. IN fact, the real reference given is to riding on sidewalks and sidewalk type bike paths. It does not say anything about bike lanes on the actual road, and we don't have the author here to explain whether he meant that or not.
I went back and read that link, and you're giving that article a fairly "liberal" reading. Nowhere in that article does it mention Vehicular Cycling, or it's methods. IN fact, the real reference given is to riding on sidewalks and sidewalk type bike paths. It does not say anything about bike lanes on the actual road, and we don't have the author here to explain whether he meant that or not.
Da Tinker
03-07-05, 02:50 PM
I doubt if any study or collection of data exists that ever seriously identified (by operating characteristics) a population of vehicular cyclists. Equally unmeasured are the alleged "fare best" status and safety record of this mystery population, as well as no existing credible comparison with any remotely related cycling population.
Agreed, we are trying to prove a negative. When nothing happens, it's kinda hard to document. Not to mention the problem that accidents involving cyclists are under reported by most jurisdictions.
However, the public schools in this area have implemented a program to teach the LAB Kids II course in all public schools at the 6th grade level, as part of the PE curriculum.
The head of the state bikeing program has told us, that while motorists/cyclists accidnets are on the rise in the rest of the state, they have dropped in this area since the inception of the program! I want that data!
Agreed, we are trying to prove a negative. When nothing happens, it's kinda hard to document. Not to mention the problem that accidents involving cyclists are under reported by most jurisdictions.
However, the public schools in this area have implemented a program to teach the LAB Kids II course in all public schools at the 6th grade level, as part of the PE curriculum.
The head of the state bikeing program has told us, that while motorists/cyclists accidnets are on the rise in the rest of the state, they have dropped in this area since the inception of the program! I want that data!
I-Like-To-Bike
03-07-05, 02:51 PM
I'm not familiar with the exact figures, that's why I stayed out of the argument. Where did you get them?
Now what about my statement:
John Allen's Street Smarts and Forester's web and the quantitative safety claims (80% less accidents for vehicular cyclists) found in numerous postings from people who gratuitously include their LCI/ECI number in their signature. The numerical claims for risk reduction usually (always) trace back to one source John Forester's faulty meta analysis.
Really? A bike coordinator from Florida states in 644 bicyclists-versus-motorist crashes, 570 happened to cyclists using non-VC behavior is no data?
What percentage of the cyclists in the accident areas were identified as vehicular cyclists? What percentage of the cyclists in the accident areas exposed themselves to being injured by automobiles in a "vehicular manner" i.e. taking lanes rather than cycling on a bike lane, shoulder, or as far right as practicable, or negotiating to make left turns across multilane traffic heavy traffic.
Without data on the percentage of cycling is done in a so-called vehicular manner, by an unknown percentage of cyclists alleged to be vehicular cyclists (itself an undefined term) your data indicates ZERO about the safety record of so-called vehicular cyclists.
The Cross Fisher reports and the unpublished Fisher report cited by Daily Commuter also lack the same necessary exposure data and are just as useless for drawing conclusions about the safety records of a mystery population of vehicular cyclists of unknown size.
These reports could be used just as logically to argue for safe cycling in the middle of the left hand lanes of Interstate Highways at midnight due to the absence of any reported accidents. Without exposure data, any conclusions drawn about vehicular cyclists from limited raw data is just that – limited and raw.
Now what about my statement:
John Allen's Street Smarts and Forester's web and the quantitative safety claims (80% less accidents for vehicular cyclists) found in numerous postings from people who gratuitously include their LCI/ECI number in their signature. The numerical claims for risk reduction usually (always) trace back to one source John Forester's faulty meta analysis.
Really? A bike coordinator from Florida states in 644 bicyclists-versus-motorist crashes, 570 happened to cyclists using non-VC behavior is no data?
What percentage of the cyclists in the accident areas were identified as vehicular cyclists? What percentage of the cyclists in the accident areas exposed themselves to being injured by automobiles in a "vehicular manner" i.e. taking lanes rather than cycling on a bike lane, shoulder, or as far right as practicable, or negotiating to make left turns across multilane traffic heavy traffic.
Without data on the percentage of cycling is done in a so-called vehicular manner, by an unknown percentage of cyclists alleged to be vehicular cyclists (itself an undefined term) your data indicates ZERO about the safety record of so-called vehicular cyclists.
The Cross Fisher reports and the unpublished Fisher report cited by Daily Commuter also lack the same necessary exposure data and are just as useless for drawing conclusions about the safety records of a mystery population of vehicular cyclists of unknown size.
These reports could be used just as logically to argue for safe cycling in the middle of the left hand lanes of Interstate Highways at midnight due to the absence of any reported accidents. Without exposure data, any conclusions drawn about vehicular cyclists from limited raw data is just that – limited and raw.
Daily Commute
03-07-05, 02:52 PM
Agreed, we are trying to prove a negative. When nothing happens, it's kinda hard to document. Not to mention the problem that accidents involving cyclists are under reported by most jurisdictions.
However, the public schools in this area have implemented a program to teach the LAB Kids II course in all public schools at the 6th grade level, as part of the PE curriculum.
The head of the state bikeing program has told us, that while motorists/cyclists accidnets are on the rise in the rest of the state, they have dropped in this area since the inception of the program! I want that data!
The LAB courses are VC-lite. They are based on VC principles, but the instruction and testing is less rigorous than the standard VC courses.
John Allen's Street Smarts and Forester's web and the quantitative safety claims (80% less accidents for vehicular cyclists) found in numerous postings from people who gratuitously include their LCI/ECI number in their signature. The numerical claims for risk reduction usually (always) trace back to one source John Forester's faulty meta analysis.
It will be few days before I can dig up the texts and look at it. Now what about my question:
I just want to be clear. You have no evidence that VC theories are wrong. So, as far as you know, they are at least as valid as any other. Is that correct?
As to VC evidence, I already provided one study. At least two other posts in this thread have cited to research. What's wrong with them? (I haven't checked, so we may be referring to the same studies.)
Finally, when it comes to building bike lanes, I think the burden is on the bike lane proponents to prove that bike lanes are safer than riding vehicularly. Cyclists have done just fine cycling on the road with cars for a century. The burden should be on those who want to change that.
However, the public schools in this area have implemented a program to teach the LAB Kids II course in all public schools at the 6th grade level, as part of the PE curriculum.
The head of the state bikeing program has told us, that while motorists/cyclists accidnets are on the rise in the rest of the state, they have dropped in this area since the inception of the program! I want that data!
The LAB courses are VC-lite. They are based on VC principles, but the instruction and testing is less rigorous than the standard VC courses.
John Allen's Street Smarts and Forester's web and the quantitative safety claims (80% less accidents for vehicular cyclists) found in numerous postings from people who gratuitously include their LCI/ECI number in their signature. The numerical claims for risk reduction usually (always) trace back to one source John Forester's faulty meta analysis.
It will be few days before I can dig up the texts and look at it. Now what about my question:
I just want to be clear. You have no evidence that VC theories are wrong. So, as far as you know, they are at least as valid as any other. Is that correct?
As to VC evidence, I already provided one study. At least two other posts in this thread have cited to research. What's wrong with them? (I haven't checked, so we may be referring to the same studies.)
Finally, when it comes to building bike lanes, I think the burden is on the bike lane proponents to prove that bike lanes are safer than riding vehicularly. Cyclists have done just fine cycling on the road with cars for a century. The burden should be on those who want to change that.
closetbiker
03-07-05, 02:55 PM
I went back and read that link, and you're giving that article a fairly "liberal" reading. Nowhere in that article does it mention Vehicular Cycling, or it's methods. IN fact, the real reference given is to riding on sidewalks and sidewalk type bike paths. It does not say anything about bike lanes on the actual road, and we don't have the author here to explain whether he meant that or not.
I'm not going to be too specific here because if you get too specific, there will always be someone who will discount something because of an equally specific counter point that could be used to discredit a specific point.
I don't think it's out of line to sugest VC principals lend themselves to safe riding with traffic or that the majority of accidents that occured in those specific examples were the result of not following VC principles.
If I remember right VC principles are: 1) riding on the right side of the road, 2) slower traffic stays to the right, 3) yeild to cross traffic - minor streets yeild to major streets, 4) yeild to same direction traffic before you move into the lane & 5) proper lane placement of the bicycle
Am I wrong here? Don't most of the accidents occur with riding on the wrong side of the road, not yeilding correctly, not having lights on at night? Not being visable or predictable?
Were these accidents listed the results of non-VC behavior?
I'm not going to be too specific here because if you get too specific, there will always be someone who will discount something because of an equally specific counter point that could be used to discredit a specific point.
I don't think it's out of line to sugest VC principals lend themselves to safe riding with traffic or that the majority of accidents that occured in those specific examples were the result of not following VC principles.
If I remember right VC principles are: 1) riding on the right side of the road, 2) slower traffic stays to the right, 3) yeild to cross traffic - minor streets yeild to major streets, 4) yeild to same direction traffic before you move into the lane & 5) proper lane placement of the bicycle
Am I wrong here? Don't most of the accidents occur with riding on the wrong side of the road, not yeilding correctly, not having lights on at night? Not being visable or predictable?
Were these accidents listed the results of non-VC behavior?
I-Like-To-Bike
03-07-05, 03:01 PM
Agreed, we are trying to prove a negative. When nothing happens, it's kinda hard to document.
I take it that you assume that all cyclists are vehicular cyclists; unless or until involved in an accident; then they are no longer considered a vehicular cyclist for safety record purposes.
I take it that you assume that all cyclists are vehicular cyclists; unless or until involved in an accident; then they are no longer considered a vehicular cyclist for safety record purposes.
Da Tinker
03-07-05, 03:08 PM
[QUOTE=Daily Commute]The LAB courses are VC-lite. They are based on VC principles, but the instruction and testing is less rigorous than the standard VC courses.
True, but there is a group within the LAB that is advocating a return to solid VC priciples. Many LCI's are amoung this group, including myself, and the gentleman who teaches in the schools. The route I use for Road I includes every traffic situation in Effective Cycling, save for on & off ramps, on roads up to five lanes, and speed limits up to 45 mph. Very little 'lite' in my class.
Well, maybe the post ride beer.
True, but there is a group within the LAB that is advocating a return to solid VC priciples. Many LCI's are amoung this group, including myself, and the gentleman who teaches in the schools. The route I use for Road I includes every traffic situation in Effective Cycling, save for on & off ramps, on roads up to five lanes, and speed limits up to 45 mph. Very little 'lite' in my class.
Well, maybe the post ride beer.
I-Like-To-Bike
03-07-05, 03:13 PM
Now what about my question:
I just want to be clear. You have no evidence that VC theories are wrong. So, as far as you know, they are at least as valid as any other. Is that correct?
As to VC evidence, I already provided one study. At least two other posts in this thread have cited to research. What's wrong with them? (I haven't checked, so we may be referring to the same studies.)
Finally, when it comes to building bike lanes...
I also have no evidence that the moon's core is or/is not made out of green cheese; hence I make no claim and would scoff at those who speculate one way or the other for the purpose of their own agenda.
I already answered your question about what's wrong with your cited Cross study (found only on the Forester site) and described the critical problem in trying to conjur a vehicular cyclists' safety record without exposure data.
Positions on building bike lanes is irrelevant to substantiating/debunking quantitative safety claims made about the risk reduction derived from EC/VC/LCI training courses or the safety record of so-called vehicular cyclists.
I just want to be clear. You have no evidence that VC theories are wrong. So, as far as you know, they are at least as valid as any other. Is that correct?
As to VC evidence, I already provided one study. At least two other posts in this thread have cited to research. What's wrong with them? (I haven't checked, so we may be referring to the same studies.)
Finally, when it comes to building bike lanes...
I also have no evidence that the moon's core is or/is not made out of green cheese; hence I make no claim and would scoff at those who speculate one way or the other for the purpose of their own agenda.
I already answered your question about what's wrong with your cited Cross study (found only on the Forester site) and described the critical problem in trying to conjur a vehicular cyclists' safety record without exposure data.
Positions on building bike lanes is irrelevant to substantiating/debunking quantitative safety claims made about the risk reduction derived from EC/VC/LCI training courses or the safety record of so-called vehicular cyclists.
Da Tinker
03-07-05, 03:14 PM
I take it that you assume that all cyclists are vehicular cyclists; unless or until involved in an accident; then they are no longer considered a vehicular cyclist for safety record purposes.
Not hardly. But a cyclists riding on the sidewalk, riding the wrong way up a street, or after dark without lights is not a vehicular cyclists. VC's are not supermen, we make mistakes, too. One of my riding partners was doing everything right, by the book, but he still ripped the mirror off a pickup with his shoulder. And the pickup didn't even slow down. No broken bones or road rash, though.
Not hardly. But a cyclists riding on the sidewalk, riding the wrong way up a street, or after dark without lights is not a vehicular cyclists. VC's are not supermen, we make mistakes, too. One of my riding partners was doing everything right, by the book, but he still ripped the mirror off a pickup with his shoulder. And the pickup didn't even slow down. No broken bones or road rash, though.
Dchiefransom
03-07-05, 03:25 PM
I'm not going to be too specific here because if you get too specific, there will always be someone who will discount something because of an equally specific counter point that could be used to discredit a specific point.
I don't think it's out of line to sugest VC principals lend themselves to safe riding with traffic or that the majority of accidents that occured in those specific examples were the result of not following VC principles.
If I remember right VC principles are: 1) riding on the right side of the road, 2) slower traffic stays to the right, 3) yeild to cross traffic - minor streets yeild to major streets, 4) yeild to same direction traffic before you move into the lane & 5) proper lane placement of the bicycle
Am I wrong here? Don't most of the accidents occur with riding on the wrong side of the road, not yeilding correctly, not having lights on at night? Not being visable or predictable?
Were these accidents listed the results of non-VC behavior?
What he said was that of the overtaking accidents, neither sidewalks, bike paths, or bike lanes would have prevented them. This does not mean that riding in a "VC" manner would had had any effect either. He did not mention it. A person riding in the middle of the lane might have had the same accident, there's no way to tell.
All of the other accidents, just like in the John Allen link I bookmarked to read(other poster link), took place at intersections. The argument being given many times on here is that we are more likely to be seen if we are out into the lane, rather than 3-4 feet out from the curb, but there's also no evidence for that. Although it may sound good when put forth in an argument, my personal experience says otherwise. I now have one of those neon yellow jackets, and a vest, and I've been missed many times while moved far out from the curb coming up to an intersection. One of the problems with comparing, especially in my area, is that they have very few intersections that don't have an "island", where right turning cars go between the island and the curb to turn right. These exist even at intersections without a marked right turn lane. The right lanes on these roads are very wide, so this positioning of a cyclist in heavy traffic could affect why we're not seen. Even though we're way out from the curb, we're still to the right of traffic.
It HAS been said on here that some ride right out into the lane when there's no traffic, but move to the right when cars come. This move, at least to me, is against the rule of being predictable. At least to me, it's the same as a cyclist that rides next to the curb and comes out into the lane to go around a parked car. As a driver, I hate it when cyclists do this in front of me. Even if I can pull into a lane to the left to go by, I'm still nervous that there could be a problem. I think it's safer for both to either wait behind a cyclist taking the lane, or change lanes and go around. "HOLD THAT LINE".
I don't think it's out of line to sugest VC principals lend themselves to safe riding with traffic or that the majority of accidents that occured in those specific examples were the result of not following VC principles.
If I remember right VC principles are: 1) riding on the right side of the road, 2) slower traffic stays to the right, 3) yeild to cross traffic - minor streets yeild to major streets, 4) yeild to same direction traffic before you move into the lane & 5) proper lane placement of the bicycle
Am I wrong here? Don't most of the accidents occur with riding on the wrong side of the road, not yeilding correctly, not having lights on at night? Not being visable or predictable?
Were these accidents listed the results of non-VC behavior?
What he said was that of the overtaking accidents, neither sidewalks, bike paths, or bike lanes would have prevented them. This does not mean that riding in a "VC" manner would had had any effect either. He did not mention it. A person riding in the middle of the lane might have had the same accident, there's no way to tell.
All of the other accidents, just like in the John Allen link I bookmarked to read(other poster link), took place at intersections. The argument being given many times on here is that we are more likely to be seen if we are out into the lane, rather than 3-4 feet out from the curb, but there's also no evidence for that. Although it may sound good when put forth in an argument, my personal experience says otherwise. I now have one of those neon yellow jackets, and a vest, and I've been missed many times while moved far out from the curb coming up to an intersection. One of the problems with comparing, especially in my area, is that they have very few intersections that don't have an "island", where right turning cars go between the island and the curb to turn right. These exist even at intersections without a marked right turn lane. The right lanes on these roads are very wide, so this positioning of a cyclist in heavy traffic could affect why we're not seen. Even though we're way out from the curb, we're still to the right of traffic.
It HAS been said on here that some ride right out into the lane when there's no traffic, but move to the right when cars come. This move, at least to me, is against the rule of being predictable. At least to me, it's the same as a cyclist that rides next to the curb and comes out into the lane to go around a parked car. As a driver, I hate it when cyclists do this in front of me. Even if I can pull into a lane to the left to go by, I'm still nervous that there could be a problem. I think it's safer for both to either wait behind a cyclist taking the lane, or change lanes and go around. "HOLD THAT LINE".
I-Like-To-Bike
03-07-05, 03:39 PM
Not hardly. But a cyclists riding on the sidewalk, riding the wrong way up a street, or after dark without lights is not a vehicular cyclists. VC's are not supermen, we make mistakes, too.
How many stop sign "yields" disqualifies a cyclist from being considered vehicular for safety record purposes? How many/what percentage of sidewalk/bike lane/far-to-the-right miles disqualify the cyclist from consideration for the VC safety record badge? None I assume unless an accident does occur.
Oh, and what do lights, or absence of them have to do with being considered a vehicular cyclist? How amber reflectors instead of lights.? How aboutabout mirrors, helmets, "proper cadence" maintained equipment, etc. etc.
Which of course gets down to the unanswered question of whom is being considered a vehicular cyclist, and under which circumstances, when conjuring a safety record for them?
How many stop sign "yields" disqualifies a cyclist from being considered vehicular for safety record purposes? How many/what percentage of sidewalk/bike lane/far-to-the-right miles disqualify the cyclist from consideration for the VC safety record badge? None I assume unless an accident does occur.
Oh, and what do lights, or absence of them have to do with being considered a vehicular cyclist? How amber reflectors instead of lights.? How aboutabout mirrors, helmets, "proper cadence" maintained equipment, etc. etc.
Which of course gets down to the unanswered question of whom is being considered a vehicular cyclist, and under which circumstances, when conjuring a safety record for them?
closetbiker
03-07-05, 04:30 PM
How many stop sign "yields" disqualifies a cyclist from being considered vehicular for safety record purposes? How many/what percentage of sidewalk/bike lane/far-to-the-right miles disqualify the cyclist from consideration for the VC safety record badge? None I assume unless an accident does occur.
Oh, and what do lights, or absence of them have to do with being considered a vehicular cyclist? How amber reflectors instead of lights.? How aboutabout mirrors, helmets, "proper cadence" maintained equipment, etc. etc.
Which of course gets down to the unanswered question of whom is being considered a vehicular cyclist, and under which circumstances, when conjuring a safety record for them?
It just seems to me that to ride my bike as I drive my car is the best way to be safe. I don't care if you call it VC or not, behaving like all other traffic behaves, ensures a safer ride.
Oh, and what do lights, or absence of them have to do with being considered a vehicular cyclist? How amber reflectors instead of lights.? How aboutabout mirrors, helmets, "proper cadence" maintained equipment, etc. etc.
Which of course gets down to the unanswered question of whom is being considered a vehicular cyclist, and under which circumstances, when conjuring a safety record for them?
It just seems to me that to ride my bike as I drive my car is the best way to be safe. I don't care if you call it VC or not, behaving like all other traffic behaves, ensures a safer ride.
Daily Commute
03-07-05, 04:41 PM
I also have no evidence that the moon's core is or/is not made out of green cheese; hence I make no claim and would scoff at those who speculate one way or the other for the purpose of their own agenda.
I already answered your question about what's wrong with your cited Cross study (found only on the Forester site) and described the critical problem in trying to conjur a vehicular cyclists' safety record without exposure data.
Positions on building bike lanes is irrelevant to substantiating/debunking quantitative safety claims made about the risk reduction derived from EC/VC/LCI training courses or the safety record of so-called vehicular cyclists.
But, "What's your alternative?" is always a fair question.
And no, I'm not evading your question. Your question requires more thought than the quick give-and-take I have time for during the week.
I already answered your question about what's wrong with your cited Cross study (found only on the Forester site) and described the critical problem in trying to conjur a vehicular cyclists' safety record without exposure data.
Positions on building bike lanes is irrelevant to substantiating/debunking quantitative safety claims made about the risk reduction derived from EC/VC/LCI training courses or the safety record of so-called vehicular cyclists.
But, "What's your alternative?" is always a fair question.
And no, I'm not evading your question. Your question requires more thought than the quick give-and-take I have time for during the week.
I-Like-To-Bike
03-07-05, 05:36 PM
It just seems to me that to ride my bike as I drive my car is the best way to be safe.
Fair enough, if you are happier and feel safer that way, wonderful. Just do it.
I don't care if you call it VC or not, behaving like all other traffic behaves, ensures a safer ride.
However your faith in your belief "ensures" nothing for any other cyclist's safety.
Fair enough, if you are happier and feel safer that way, wonderful. Just do it.
I don't care if you call it VC or not, behaving like all other traffic behaves, ensures a safer ride.
However your faith in your belief "ensures" nothing for any other cyclist's safety.
Helmet-Head
03-07-05, 07:24 PM
If the intersection is controlled by a traffic signal, simply do a two-part left turn. First, continue straight ahead, stopping a bit short of the far curb. If there is a right-turn-only lane, stop BEFORE you reach it. While standing, rotate your bike 90 degrees to point in your new intended direction, then complete the turn when you get the green light in this direction. It's simple, it's safe, and I know Serge hates the whole concept, but I use it frequently and unapologetically.
I wouldn't go so far as to say I hate the whole concept, but it does bug me.
I have a similar option on my commute going up Torrey Pines Road. Most cyclists continue like they are going to go up La Jolla Parkway, but then stop and do your "trick" after they cross Hidden Valley Rd. I, on the other hand, before even getting to La Jolla Shores Rd, merge out of the bike lane into the right lane and then into the left lane. After crossing LJ Shores (usually after a light cycle where I wait in line) I proceed straight and then into the left turn lane to continue up TP Rd. The folks on Hidden Valley Rd usually go first, so I can see how the cyclists impede the motorists behind them. Sure, I might impede the motorists queued up behind me, but at least I'm only holding up those who got there after me ("first come first served"), while the cyclists who do the "trick" are holding up motorists that they cut in front of. I find that to be rude. Besides, the head start they get makes it fun for me to try to catch them on the climb.
But, the main reason it bugs me is it is yet another example of cyclists using the roadway like "outsiders", rather than as full fledged bonafide road users with the same rights and responsibilities of drivers of vehicles. Why is that important, you ask?
I think it's behavior that doesn't win us any respect, and probably contributes to the disrespect that many people have for cyclists and cycling.
I wouldn't go so far as to say I hate the whole concept, but it does bug me.
I have a similar option on my commute going up Torrey Pines Road. Most cyclists continue like they are going to go up La Jolla Parkway, but then stop and do your "trick" after they cross Hidden Valley Rd. I, on the other hand, before even getting to La Jolla Shores Rd, merge out of the bike lane into the right lane and then into the left lane. After crossing LJ Shores (usually after a light cycle where I wait in line) I proceed straight and then into the left turn lane to continue up TP Rd. The folks on Hidden Valley Rd usually go first, so I can see how the cyclists impede the motorists behind them. Sure, I might impede the motorists queued up behind me, but at least I'm only holding up those who got there after me ("first come first served"), while the cyclists who do the "trick" are holding up motorists that they cut in front of. I find that to be rude. Besides, the head start they get makes it fun for me to try to catch them on the climb.
But, the main reason it bugs me is it is yet another example of cyclists using the roadway like "outsiders", rather than as full fledged bonafide road users with the same rights and responsibilities of drivers of vehicles. Why is that important, you ask?
I think it's behavior that doesn't win us any respect, and probably contributes to the disrespect that many people have for cyclists and cycling.
Treespeed
03-07-05, 07:57 PM
I wouldn't go so far as to say I hate the whole concept, but it does bug me.
I think it's behavior that doesn't win us any respect, and probably contributes to the disrespect that many people have for cyclists and cycling.
Yes, but Serge you are just choosing which motorists to impede. This trick works much better in intersections that don't have a signaled left-turn lane, very common in Los Angeles. Why risk negotiating a left hand turn with two lanes of 45mph traffic when you can negotiate that you are going straight with one motorist? You talk about respect, but nothing pisses off a motorist more than missing a light because a cyclist was holding them up in the left-hand turn lane.
We need to be respected as fellow users, but we are not equal. I don't know any cyclists with a 100hp motor.
I think it's behavior that doesn't win us any respect, and probably contributes to the disrespect that many people have for cyclists and cycling.
Yes, but Serge you are just choosing which motorists to impede. This trick works much better in intersections that don't have a signaled left-turn lane, very common in Los Angeles. Why risk negotiating a left hand turn with two lanes of 45mph traffic when you can negotiate that you are going straight with one motorist? You talk about respect, but nothing pisses off a motorist more than missing a light because a cyclist was holding them up in the left-hand turn lane.
We need to be respected as fellow users, but we are not equal. I don't know any cyclists with a 100hp motor.
I-Like-To-Bike
03-07-05, 07:59 PM
But, "What's your alternative?" is always a fair question.
My educational alternative is to start from scratch developing a core set of practical instructions and guidance for youth and other non-licensed people to understand some of the typical hazards to be ecountered in the typical and useful places to bicycle. Include various types of traffic situations as well as facilities and off road paths. Leave out the shaky statistics, isolated aberrations in law enforcement and/or wacky law interpretations. Definitly leave out anti-bike lane hysteria.
DROP all Forester inspired rhetoric and specious pedantry (See any of Serge's postings for the former, Bruce Rosar's postings for examples of the later). Lose the gibberish concerning cyclist phobias, inferiority complexes, wacky legal interpretations, motorists/enviromental threats to "Real" cyclists, unsubstantiated safety claims and distorted risk analysis. Any new and even more loony unsubstantiated theories (i.e. extrapolations from an individual's unique "experience") should be given the same consideration; extract anything useful and verifiable; discard the rest.
That is for starts.
The other harder task is modify the bad attitude so many motorists display in the presence of bicyclists. I am certainly open to suggestions - "Just cycle in the VC manner and the motorists will fall into line" is not a credible solution.
My educational alternative is to start from scratch developing a core set of practical instructions and guidance for youth and other non-licensed people to understand some of the typical hazards to be ecountered in the typical and useful places to bicycle. Include various types of traffic situations as well as facilities and off road paths. Leave out the shaky statistics, isolated aberrations in law enforcement and/or wacky law interpretations. Definitly leave out anti-bike lane hysteria.
DROP all Forester inspired rhetoric and specious pedantry (See any of Serge's postings for the former, Bruce Rosar's postings for examples of the later). Lose the gibberish concerning cyclist phobias, inferiority complexes, wacky legal interpretations, motorists/enviromental threats to "Real" cyclists, unsubstantiated safety claims and distorted risk analysis. Any new and even more loony unsubstantiated theories (i.e. extrapolations from an individual's unique "experience") should be given the same consideration; extract anything useful and verifiable; discard the rest.
That is for starts.
The other harder task is modify the bad attitude so many motorists display in the presence of bicyclists. I am certainly open to suggestions - "Just cycle in the VC manner and the motorists will fall into line" is not a credible solution.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.