Vehicular Cycling

[catatonic]

my method for left turns in a multi-lane hell:

Here is the thought process I use:

1) is ther a lesser (2-lane) road with a light at this intersection?

yes) then turn right and u-turn and wait for the light to turn green to cross.

no) go to #2

2) Is there a lesser road intersection with a light further up?

yes) is this where you do the right turn, uturn, and wait...BUT you turn left instead of stright, since this is a 2-lane road and not some 8-lane wheelfest

no) Go to 3....this does get sticky...

3) Is there a concrete island about the width of your bike's length?

yes) when it's clear on the left move to the island, and rest there with one foot on the island (helps to keep you ready to roll), then when it's clear on the right finish it.

no) ride further up, and keep going until one of these earlier tactics can be done.


#3 "yes" is rather risky, but it's far less risky than jumping over 3 lanes and hoping for the best in 45-50mph traffic...the rest is great to allieviate the amount of risk to get things done.

This process, with exception to the questionable #3, helps keep a cyclist within the vehicular cycling train of thought while dealing with the kinds of roads most of us have issues with.

[Bigmikepowell]

Interesting link bwileyr but I fear you are taking a very specific case and applying it generally. I don't beleive it works like that.

I followed back your link and read again more carefully.

Fisrtly this is a junction, not generally linear traffic.
Second it is a junction where the traffic has already been slowed down so everyone is at about the same speed. The designer has been careful to merge the road in this area to the same level as the bike lanes and the sidewalk and if you look at the photo's you can see they are still distinguished by changes in texture etc rather than the traditional white lines. The article says this blur's out the distinction, doesn't eliminate it though. I rather like this approach.

There is also a part about a roundabout painted on the road and their being no obvious priority. That's an odd thing to say as in the EU now priority at roundabouts and miniroundabouts has been unified. Give way to the left or the vehicle already in the junction. (Works the same as a US 4 way stop, except you don't have to hard stop, you just have to yield).

The article goes on to say that we won't see this any time soon in the UK. Really! Such junctions already exist. Around Clapham in Fulham and in a lot of other places in London. They distinguish the junction by raising the surface about 6 inches, usually in brick, it's like a hugh speed hump. Also they put wooden posts on the four corners as a further indicator that you are entering the junction, but the key point is this is only done when the traffic has been slowed down first. These areas tend to be, but are not exclusively in, 20miles per hour speed limit areas.

It is a previously observed effect that in many circumstances when the roads are below critical capacity, if you remove traffic signals and revert to the generalized priorities of the road, traffic tends to move faster. If you are above critical capacity it can lead to grid lock. My own personal experiences, Clapham to Elephant and Castle in 2002 when the lights where out for 1 day, Putney to Roehampton in 2003 they failed on 3 consecutive days. Wasn't much faster (but man was it better) on a bike during these times as the juncitions where literally full.

There was an experimented with this in Bristol in a more controlled way, at the end of the 70's, I can't remember exactly when, with 3 weeks of no traffic lights just the normal yield and uncontrolled pedestrian crossings and three weeks reverting to normal. The findings where that traffic moved faster and they had about 20% more cars per minutes in rush hour without the controls. The rub is they had more accidents, though the numbers where low and I worry about the statistical significance of them. Pedestrians felt less safe and it appreared that the accident rate for them was higher as well, but again I am not sure of the significance of the sample as the numbers where very low. Bicycles where not even mentioned back then as I remember. I guess the number of cyclists was way low. At the time I thought I was the only cycle commuter in London, OK there might have been a few other but nothing like today.

I beleive this study was one of the things that lead to the widespread introduction of mini roundabouts in the UK.

About removing the stop lines. Well it was tried before in the UK at about the time of the introduction of mini roundabouts at the end of the 70's. An experiment was trialed in Alysbury, they ripped out loads but not all the traffic lights and put in miniroundabouts, often doubles. To further speed up the traffic they tried removing all the stop lines and islands with the pass this side arrow on it, just marking the junctions with an miniroundabout indicator sign. They canned the experiment after about 3 weeks as the accident rate was unacceptable, they had foregotten to find ways to slow the traffic down first and people just plain missed the junction or didn't know what to do.

No where in all of this is an arguement to generally eliminate bike lanes and side walks but their is a lot of evidence that mixing traffic of widely differing speed and abilty to absorbe impacts is not a smart thing to do. In the center of towns maybe, at specific junctions if the traffice is moving slowly yes. I suspect there is also a density of foot, bike and car traffic issue in here as well.

But as a general solution to traffic management in all situations, no.

For me it all depends on risk reward. At the Sheppards Bush roundabout they where doing road works about this time last year and the roundabout, a 4 lane affair, was for some weeks without stop signs and markings, though it retained its peak time traffic light regulation. In peak hours this junciton is a breeze on a bike as the traffic is moving so slowly. I arrived out of peak time I thought lets give this a try, an in the terms of this thread what cycling in an exemplery VC manner. Less than 1/3 of the way round a car came barrelling round (in my opionion way to fast but no doubt inside the speed limit). I don't know how he missed me, i had already braced myself for a big accident, not that bacing would make any difference. Now under these conditions I use the bike lane round the outside. It's way slower, an you have to wait for gaps to cross the road but it is protected by barriers for much of the way.

So their it is, pragmatism. Give me my bike lanes in places where their is a mismatch in speed, direction or with poor visability or if they can highlight your possition in the road, ie make you safer. There is no point in VC cycling and being in the right if you are dead.

Finally, you have to accept some simple physics. You are likely to survive a collision in a car even up to about 60mph nowadays. On a bike you are likely to die in a collision with a car over 30mph. It is not practicle to limit cars to less than 30mph (as i said earlier in the threads lorries and bikes are an even worse proposition). We may have the same rights on the road but we are most certainly not equal.

Campaign for bike lanes and make sure they make sense. campaign for junctions and areas of town where you can slow cars down and build junctions where bikes cars and pedestrians are on an equal footing.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

Finally, you have to accept some simple physics. You are likely to survive a collision in a car even up to about 60mph nowadays. On a bike you are likely to die in a collision with a car over 30mph.
Mike,

Thank you for your careful analysis of this issue.

Not everyone does accept simple physics. In the past Bruce posted elsewhere a rather "interesting" interpretation about the seriousness of such accidents to the cyclist involved. Bruce may wish to amplify his views here on the physics involved in cyclist- high speed motor vehicle collisions.

[Helmet-Head]

Finally, you have to accept some simple physics. You are likely to survive a collision in a car even up to about 60mph nowadays. On a bike you are likely to die in a collision with a car over 30mph. It is not practicle to limit cars to less than 30mph (as i said earlier in the threads lorries and bikes are an even worse proposition). We may have the same rights on the road but we are most certainly not equal.

Campaign for bike lanes and make sure they make sense. campaign for junctions and areas of town where you can slow cars down and build junctions where bikes cars and pedestrians are on an equal footing.
Mike,

Your advice to "campaign for bike lanes" because "We [cyclists] may have the same rights on the road but we are most certainly not equal" is apparently based on the premise that bike lanes reduce the incidence of cyclists colliding with cars. Are you aware of any evidence or reasoning to believe it is true?

[Helmet-Head]

During extensive road construction on La Jolla Village Drive, Serge will soon have to choose between (evidently technically illegally) cutting through the UCSD campus on a pedway or taking a 50mph traffic lane on a significant upgrade. For me, the choice is a no-brainer, but I have already admitted to being chicken.
Very true.

I suspect they won't quite be going 50 during the construction. Still, I can't wait!

[Treespeed]

Mike,

Your advice to "campaign for bike lanes" because "We [cyclists] may have the same rights on the road but we are most certainly not equal" is apparently based on the premise that bike lanes reduce the incidence of cyclists colliding with cars. Are you aware of any evidence or reasoning to believe it is true?

Originally Posted by Serge *******What can I say? I believe that bike lanes are at the root of most of cyclists' woes, and VC is the solution to most of them. Do you blame me for taking the opportunity to point this out?


Serge, this statement so shows how clueless you are about what happens in other cities. Please go to Seattle and look at all the woeful cyclists on the Dexter, Eastlake, and Madison St. Bike Lanes. Those poor *******s just don't realize how bad they've got it.

You should especially visit the Burke Gilman MUT on a weekday and explain to everyone how miserable and unsafe they really are, and then come back on a weekend and tell all the families with your kids how they should really be out there negotiating on-ramps and 50mph arterials where they would be much safer.

Seriously though, despite all of your many posts you have not made any real connection between any verifiable woes and bike lanes. And it's posts like the one above that do little to make you seem like you are offering a reasoned alternative. When you state that something a lot of people use and enjoy safely on a regular basis, opinions based on experience not just emotion as you are fond of arguing, are the root of all evil in the cycling world, you come off as quite a crank.

[Treespeed]

Serge,

You argue that facilities do nothing to foster cycling popularity, but then you can't explain why cities like Portland and Seattle, which invested in facilities and education are considered cycling cities. Yes, vehicular cycling is the best way to go and cyclists are safer for the most part if they have the skils to ride in that matter.

You go from stating that facilities draw cyclists out, but then stating that because they don't learn VC they don't stick with it, or that they never leave bike lanes. Both of these statements are dead wrong. The simple fact is that no one has a bike lane that begins at their house or ends at their exact destination. But you get around this point by saying that cyclists never graduate to using arterials or every road they could possibly use. This is hogwash, most cyclists seek out the nicest and lowest density roads when choosing their routes, regardless of experience.

So yes VC training would benefit most novice cyclists, but you have again gotten all bent about your contrived intersection/bike lane problems don't seem to keep any Seattle cyclists I knew novice/experienced from having accident free rides/commutes. As SBhikes and I have stated again and again, VC and bike facilities are not incompatible.

It is my contention and experience in Seattle that facilities bring out more cyclists on facilities and on roadways connecting to facilities. Motorists get use to seeing more cyclists in and out of bike lanes and are educated as cyclist rights are enforced and good cycling behavior is enforced by cops and other cyclists. Advocacy and riding groups like the Cascade Bicycle Club emerge and then you have experienced cyclists who could teach proper cycling to novices, formally and informally.

Serge your whole argument hinges on an increase in accidents at intersections with bike lanes, something that you just haven't proven. All of your testimony is pure conjecture. The issue of merging for turns at any intersection always raises the potential for accidents of any kind, for all users. I think that you give drivers way too little credit with your assumptions that they are unaware of bike lanes and the cyclists in them. If they were unaware of the bike lane they would be driving in it, or there would be more overtaking accidents of which we all know there are very little.

Your either/or belief regarding VC & BL is frustrating to say the least Serge. And your logic, while reasoned is based on assumptions and premises that cannot be proven as fact. Some of these such as motorists drift, bike lanes always collect debris, bike lanes and intersections can never safely co-exist, and motorists are oblivious to cyclists in bike lanes are the basis of your whole anti-BL crusade. Yet you've never even been to places where bike lanes and MUT work and discount the experiences of many posters who argue their worth.

In fact your three main points from your last post are completely false Serge. One, that bike lane users never graduate to become experienced cyclists or their would be no experienced cyclists in cities like Seattle, two that bike lanes are inherently more dangerous, so we should see an increase in accidents on roadways with bike lanes. and third we should see cyclists avoiding these facilities after encountering multiple problems on roadways with bike lanes. Or are you arguing that cyclists in these cities are too stupid to protect themselves from obvious danger? The fact is that these facilities draw cyclists and motorists become more familiar with seeing cyclists throughout a city, not just in bike lanes.

[Helmet-Head]

You argue that facilities do nothing to foster cycling popularity, but then you can't explain why cities like Portland and Seattle, which invested in facilities and education are considered cycling cities.
Were they NOT "cycling cities" (who decides what is a cycling city anyway, and by what measure - the number of bike lanes per roadway mile?) before they invested in facilities and education?
What was the cycling miles per capita before the investment. And, if there was any increase, how much of that is attributed to facilities vs. education and "marketing"?


Yes, vehicular cycling is the best way to go and cyclists are safer for the most part if they have the skils to ride in that matter.
And all I'm saying is that cyclists who know this and all cycling advocacy groups should be doing a much better job in getting this message out, because for almost 30 years, no one told me!


You go from stating that facilities draw cyclists out, but then stating that because they don't learn VC they don't stick with it, or that they never leave bike lanes. Both of these statements are dead wrong.
If you want to call my statements "dead wrong", please provide exact quotes, and address those, rather than rebutting your own paraphrased misconstructions of my statements.


The simple fact is that no one has a bike lane that begins at their house or ends at their exact destination.
A fact I've never disputed.


But you get around this point by saying that cyclists never graduate to using arterials or every road they could possibly use. This is hogwash, ...
If you want to call my statements "hogwash", please provide exact quotes, and address those, rather than rebutting your own paraphrased misconstructions of my statements.


So yes VC training would benefit most novice cyclists, ...
Which is all I'm trying to get across.


...but you have again gotten all bent about your contrived intersection/bike lane problems don't seem to keep any Seattle cyclists I knew novice/experienced from having accident free rides/commutes. As SBhikes and I have stated again and again, VC and bike facilities are not incompatible.
You imply that I have said VC and bike facilities are incompatible. I have not. To the contrary, I use facilities on almost every ride I go on, and I practice VC.


It is my contention and experience in Seattle that facilities bring out more cyclists on facilities and on roadways connecting to facilities.
With all due respect, your contention and experience do not a basis make.


Motorists get use to seeing more cyclists in and out of bike lanes and are educated as cyclist rights are enforced and good cycling behavior is enforced by cops and other cyclists.
That's based on the assumptions that facilities get more cyclists "out there".


Advocacy and riding groups like the Cascade Bicycle Club emerge and then you have experienced cyclists who could teach proper cycling to novices, formally and informally.
Sounds great.


Serge your whole argument hinges on an increase in accidents at intersections with bike lanes, something that you just haven't proven.
If you're going to address what my whole arguments hinges on, please provide a quote or a link to where I at least state something that agrees with it, much less base my whole argument on it.

For the record, none of my arguments have anything to do with bike lanes increasing accidents at intersections. What I have said, is that most car-bike collisions occur at intersections, and not even most bike lane proponents claim that bike lanes help at intersections.


All of your testimony is pure conjecture.
Easy to say when your representation of "my testimony" consists solely of strawman mischaracterizations.
I don't know if you've read Jeffrey Hiles' "Listening to Bike Lanes" (it easy to find with google). If you haven't, you should. It's about as good a pro-BL argument as you're going to find, and certainly nothing mentioned on these forums I haven't already seen in there. Hiles rails against Forester and many of his views (including being against BLs), but is fair enough to give credit where credit is due. I do my best to base my arguments on only facts that both Forester and Hiles agree on. It's the fairest approach I can think of.


The issue of merging for turns at any intersection always raises the potential for accidents of any kind, for all users. I think that you give drivers way too little credit with your assumptions that they are unaware of bike lanes and the cyclists in them. If they were unaware of the bike lane they would be driving in it, or there would be more overtaking accidents of which we all know there are very little.
True, it is my OPINION that right-turning motorists don't properly merge into bike lanes mostly not because they recognize it to be a bike lane, but because they are reticent to cross a thick/solid stripe (or thick/dashed stripe), especially when the area on the other side of the stripe is too small to fully contain their vehicle. On this point, you're right, I don't have any research or data to prove it. But WHY right-turning motorists don't merge into bike lanes is not relevant to my argument - only that they (mostly) don't. The right-cross collisions that result from thru cyclists riding too far to the right and right-turning motorists being too far to the left, with their paths intersecting at a single point (the intersection), are not overtaking collisions, by the way.


Your either/or belief regarding VC & BL is frustrating to say the least Serge.
There you go with the either/or thing again. Frustrations aside, as long as my approach brings the problems of BLs to the attention of others, my job is done.


And your logic, while reasoned is based on assumptions and premises that cannot be proven as fact.
Such as?


Some of these such as motorists drift,
They don't?


bike lanes always collect debris,
I never said always. My claim is that motorist traffic tends to sweep debris aside much more than does cyclist traffic. Do you disagree? From this point it is only logical that debris that is blown into motorist lanes eventually is swept aside into bike lanes.


bike lanes and intersections can never safely co-exist
1) I've never said that.
2) "safely" is a relative term. Depending on your tolerance for risk, your statement may or may not be true.


and motorists are oblivious to cyclists in bike lanes are the basis of your whole anti-BL crusade.
Yes, for the most part I contend that motorists treat cyclists in bike lanes as if they are not there. Do you disagree?


Yet you've never even been to places where bike lanes and MUT work and discount the experiences of many posters who argue their worth.
First, it's MUPs, and I know of quite a few in San DIego that work quite well. Bike lanes on freeways are fine too (based on the better-than-nothing philosophy). I do not discount the experiences of others. I read their posts. I consider their descriptions. I look to see if they address the arguments against bike lanes.


In fact your three main points from your last post are completely false Serge.
What last post?


One, that bike lane users never graduate to become experienced cyclists...
Please provide the quote that lead you to the conclusion that one of my points is that "bike lane users never graduate to become experienced cyclists". For the record, that's not one of my points.


two that bike lanes are inherently more dangerous, so we should see an increase in accidents on roadways with bike lanes
Granted, there is not enough data to show this, but, there is not enough data to show that bike lanes make roadways safer for cycling either, yet millions are spent installing them ostensibly because they do make it safer.


third we should see cyclists avoiding these facilities after encountering multiple problems on roadways with bike lanes.
We should? These problems are subtle and insidious. Hell, I never noticed them until someone hit me over the head with them.


Or are you arguing that cyclists in these cities are too stupid to protect themselves from obvious danger?
I certainly never said it was obvious, or that anyone was stupid. The dangers of bike lanes are subtle and insidious.


The fact is that these facilities draw cyclists and motorists become more familiar with seeing cyclists throughout a city, not just in bike lanes.
And the basis for this "fact" is ???

[Bruce Rosar]

About removing the stop lines... An experiment was trialed in Alysbury ... They canned the experiment after about 3 weeks as the accident rate was unacceptable, they had foregotten to find ways to slow the traffic down first and people just plain missed the junction or didn't know what to do.

From the Naked Streets (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1105614487492&call_pageid=970599109774&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes) newspaper article
... Drachten, Holland, a city of 55,000, stripped a crowded intersection to its pavement.

Planners built a grassy roundabout in the centre of the intersection for traffic to flow around and eliminated all signage and traffic lighting. The height of the curb separating the sidewalk and the road was reduced to an inch, becoming hardly perceptible.

Since then, only one collision has been recorded at the intersection: a light fender-bender.

"The traffic flow became much more fluent, and there are fewer queues," says Hans Monderman, a leading traffic engineer who helped draw up the plan. "The behaviour is negotiated through eye contact; traffic flows smoothly, and it looks nicer. And there have been no injuries yet at all."

Four years ago, a similar approach was taken in Christiansfeld, Denmark, at a high-traffic intersection that was plagued with traffic jams and pedestrian-related accidents. Since then, the number of fatal accidents has dropped from 3 per year to zero.

Positive reports have also emerged from a district in West Palm Beach, Fla., which recently adopted a similar plan.

Give me my bike lanes ... make you safer. Steve Goodridge has written... at a given pavement width, motorists pass cyclists at closer average distance when there is a roadway stripe between these parties than when there is not. Segregating stripes make motorists more confident and less cautious. Why is that a good thing for cyclists? And in a wide curb lane the cyclist can operate as far out as he/she wants to in the lane in order to increase visibility to side street traffic, while the bike lane stripe constrains the cyclist to within four or five feet of the curb or gutter ...

We may have the same rights on the road but we are most certainly not equal.Steve Goodridge has also writtenSo why don't we demand that government provide ... education to cyclists rather than demanding striping that won't make cycling safer, and makes teaching traffic negotiation more difficult because segregation by vehicle type conflicts with the rules of the road?

[Treespeed]

Serge,

Why does it have to be MUP, the trails I'm referring to are the Burke/Gilman and Sammamish River Trail, so they would be MUT's, maybe it's a regional difference.

I'm sorry that I don't have time to reference your quotes in my rebuttal. I already spend way too much time here as it is. The one quote I am fairly comfortable paraphrasing is when you said that bike lanes are responsible for many of cyclist's woes, on the "one more point" thread. And I guess my reply to that is that I don't see a lot of woeful cyclists in bike lanes.

I've never argued against your call for increased education. After my experience this weekend I can see that it isn't only cyclists who need a little training. Of course one cannot narrow down a cities cycling appeal to a single variable such as bike lanes or education. But it can not be discounted when cyclists use facilities on a regular basis and choose roads with facilities for their commuting routes that facilities hold an appeal for many cyclists.

You said that the danger of bike lanes are insidious and you only noticed them when you were hit over the head with them. (How hard did they hit you? ;) ) Is it possible that when combined with the proper training that the benefits of bike lanes become obvious. If you only now notice the problems with bike lanes, is it possible that is what you are looking for?

I think it is a fair question to ask if your assumption is that BL's are dangerous or have no real benefits in urban traffic then why do experienced cyclists not avoid them? You say that bike lanes give an illusion of safety, but if it was an illusion then cyclists would actually be unsafe and experience more accidents in bike lanes, such as your overtaking drifting motorist scenario. Yet cyclists choose these routes because they do have a safer and more pleasant commuting experience.

[Helmet-Head]

Why does it have to be MUP, the trails I'm referring to are the Burke/Gilman and Sammamish River Trail, so they would be MUT's, maybe it's a regional difference.
Perhaps. I've just never before encountered the term, MUT, as "multi-use trail".


I'm sorry that I don't have time to reference your quotes in my rebuttal.
Me too. I think if you did, you would find that what I actually say is substantially different from what you think I said, and to which you respond.


The one quote I am fairly comfortable paraphrasing is when you said that bike lanes are responsible for many of cyclist's woes, on the "one more point" thread.
Yes, the one quote that I have retracted and thanked you for bringing it to my attention. You might want to go back and review that.


Is it possible that when combined with the proper training that the benefits of bike lanes become obvious. If you only now notice the problems with bike lanes, is it possible that is what you are looking for?
Yes, it's possible that I am still simply unware of the benefits of bike lanes. But the inability of anyone here to be able to describe what those benefits might be makes it less and less likely.


I think it is a fair question to ask if your assumption is that BL's are dangerous or have no real benefits in urban traffic then why do experienced cyclists not avoid them?
It's a fair question. I myself don't avoid BLs all the time. And before I learned VC I rarely avoided BLs. So I think I can speak to why experienced cyclists do not avoid them. Their advantage seemed "obvious" to me. I saw them as "just another lane" that "happened" to be reserved for cyclists. I never really though about it any deeper than that, and, so never realized that the "advantages" were minimal at best. At the same time, I was oblivious to all the subtle but significant problems that they cause for cyclists, much less that the problems far outweigh any advantages.


You say that bike lanes give an illusion of safety, but if it was an illusion then cyclists would actually be unsafe and experience more accidents in bike lanes, such as your overtaking drifting motorist scenario.
It's a matter of degree. Driving a 1965 Mustang is less safe than driving a 2005 Mustang (due to modern handling and safety enhancements), but that doesn't mean people are dying left and right driving 1965 Mustangs.

Cycling is generally safe, even in bike lanes. But that doesn't mean cyclists are better off with bike lanes than without.

My issue really isn't with bike lanes per se, it's really about integration versus separatism.
In the South there used to be laws separating blacks and whites with respect to water fountain use. I don't mean to trivialize the horror of racism, but to a point the analogy works. Back then the courts accepted the argument that such separatism was not violating anyone's rights, because no one was being prevented access to water. Blacks had water, and so did whites. So whose rights were being violated? For these people who accepted this view, the insidious nature of the separatism was not obvious. The problem of course was the underlying assumption that blacks and whites should be separated, and the effect it has on the thinking of people about each other, and their respective roles in society.

This is essentially my problem with bike lanes (and in particular mandatory bike lanes): the underlying assumption that cyclists and other drivers should be separated. It is the insidious nature of this underlying separatist assumption of bike lanes that is my greatest concern, and the effect it has on the thinking of cyclists and the public at large with respect to what proper cycling in traffic should be.

[hammerBlack]

Last week I completed "Road I," which teaches vehicular cycling, and I just discovered this thread, which I will read in depth over the next several weeks. I appreciate the helpful posts and I plan to read the recommended books.

What exceptions are made for riding at night? Should I make left turns on poorly-lit streets if oncoming traffic makes me wait before making the turn? I've got a good tail-light and I wear a reflective vest.

[genec]

Last week I completed "Road I," which teaches vehicular cycling, and I just discovered this thread, which I will read in depth over the next several weeks.


As a total aside, when you took "Road I" did you have to swear to never use a bike lane again?

[hammerBlack]

As a total aside, when you took "Road I" did you have to swear to never use a bike lane again?

My "Road I" class did not require me to forswear bike lanes. We were told that we must ride in the bike lane if the lane is really a bike lane (marked with signs, etc) and it's rideable. Well, I think that's what we were told. I'm not a good listener when it comes to whether I should or should not ride in bike lanes. I don't feel safe in them. "Road I" freed me to ride as far into the lane as seems safest to me.

[Bigmikepowell]

Mike,

Your advice to "campaign for bike lanes" because "We [cyclists] may have the same rights on the road but we are most certainly not equal" is apparently based on the premise that bike lanes reduce the incidence of cyclists colliding with cars. Are you aware of any evidence or reasoning to believe it is true?

Segre. Hard stats for bike lanes reducing the number of deaths and accidents to cyclist are hard to come by. I haven't seen any studies published with significant enough numbers.

The most compelling stats is the congestion charge in london where there was a surge in cycling, I foreget the exact number but something like a 30-40% increase coupled with an statistically significant drop in accidents and deaths involving cyclists. You can't attribute this to specific cycle lanes but you can definitely attribute this to a general increase in cycle lane mileages and a reduction of the ammount of traffic.

Anybody know of any others?

However there are studies of acceptance of bike lanes and cyclists perception, plus I have my own experiences. In many studies conducted by bike groups arround London and through out the UK, cyclists generally rate cycle lanes as they are more plesant to us and make the cyclists feel safer. These studies alway pole people using the cycle lanes and so would miss cyclists who don't use them.

From my own experience. Most cycle lanes reduce the close interactions I have with cars. I have been thinking about this and have

1) Having to alter course. Nothing to worry about it's part of cycling, driving and using the roads

2) Another vehicle or road user comes uncomfortably close and causes me to take emergency avoiding action

3) Physical contact with another road user

4) Physical contact that leads to me falling off or injury/Damage to another party.

I am assamed to say that all the cases of 4 have been my fault, a) on oxford street going to fast for the conditions pervailing and hitting a taxi
b) Running into the back of a car on Euston road through inattention in the wet and not allowing enough braking distance. There my confessions out of the way.

I have had 3) on a number of occations usually cars overtaking me misjudging my speed then pulling back in on me as if they have completed the overtaking manouver when they haven't 3 times, and twice when a car suddenly changed lanes and didn't notice I was in the adjacent lane.

2) way to many times to remember.

The point being I have never had a 4,3 whilst using a cycle lane and i have way less incidents of 2 when using cycle lanes compared to VC cycling.

Don't get me wrong some cycle lanes are just plain stupid and in my opionion dangerous. I wouldn't use them but these examples are few and far between. More often the cycle lane is inconvenient and can only be used safely at a slower speed than i want to cycle. But most cycle lanes are fine, US, Uk and Europe.

[Anthony King]

From my motorcycle training I know that intersections are where a cyclist is most likely to get hit-- bike lanes only make negotiating intersections more problematic.
No thanks.
Build all the bike lanes you want. I'm not using them. The old folks, kids and road debris are more than welcome to them.

[Bigmikepowell]

Guys

I think we are misusing a statistic about junctions to try to prove a point one way or another. All vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to presestrian accidents are more prevelent at intersections.

This doens't argue against bike lanes it is a simple fact that if you cross vehicles pathways you increase the chance of an accident.

Accidents can't happen if pathways don't cross.

PS you can safely be on the same pathway or cross another vehicles pathway seperated by time.


Someone in this thread makes the statement about Bike lanes not being effective at Junctions. No so. You can have bike lane junctions, ie lights just for the bikes, everything else stopped. Good examples are at Hydepark corner where it has made a huge improvement, Junction of Tottenham court road and Euston Road (even if they have screwed up the earlier entrance to this bike lane). I've never seen this in the US though I have seen plenty more examples in Holland.

[Bigmikepowell]

From the Naked Streets (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1105614487492&call_pageid=970599109774&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes) newspaper article


Steve Goodridge has written

Steve Goodridge has also written

Where on earth does he get this statistic from. Maybe I am unique cyclist but for me this is just not true. In most bike lanes (by mileage) cars, buses and Lorries give me way more room when I am cycling in a bike lane.

Re the traffic example. Not sure what your point is. A high volumn junction with the stop line removed. I don't doubt it if the traffic is moving slowly and other visual markers of the junction are given. You can have junctions where the traffic volumn is huge but the approach speed is less than 20mph. To try to design a junction like this where the approach speed is above this would be asking for an increase in accidents, particularly in the wet, at night.

[Helmet-Head]

Where on earth does he get this statistic from. Maybe I am unique cyclist but for me this is just not true. In most bike lanes (by mileage) cars, buses and Lorries give me way more room when I am cycling in a bike lane.
It's comments like this, Mike, that makes me wonder how much cycling books you've read and stuff like that. You're in England, right? Pick up a copy of John Franklin's Cyclecraft. I'm in the middle of Chapter 4 - it's excellent.

I suspect that you're simply more tolerant of motorists driving closer to you when there is a stripe separating you.

The answers to all of your questions, and to many more, can be found in the book.

[Bigmikepowell]

It's comments like this, Mike, that makes me wonder how much cycling books you've read and stuff like that. You're in England, right? Pick up a copy of John Franklin's Cyclecraft. I'm in the middle of Chapter 4 - it's excellent.

I suspect that you're simply more tolerant of motorists driving closer to you when there is a stripe separating you.

The answers to all of your questions, and to many more, can be found in the book.

Not so Serge. I have looked into this carefully and they definitely give me wider berth. Maybe it's the way cycle lanes are designed over here.

Re reading books, I've read loads but maybe not the ones you have read. I have also read rather a lot about road design in general and been part of the European prometheous road managemen project.

Did these guys come up with definitive stats on passing distances?

[Helmet-Head]

No definitive stats in Cyclecraft that I've seen, but I'm only 1/3 of the way through, and he has only so far hinted about the problems with cycle lanes.


Re reading books, I've read loads but maybe not the ones you have read.
You write as if you've never read a book on traffic cycling, not any book! So, what books on traffic cycling have you read?

By the way, Cyclecraft is a British book (on traffic cycling).

[Bigmikepowell]

No definitive stats in Cyclecraft that I've seen, but I'm only 1/3 of the way through, and he has only so far hinted about the problems with cycle lanes.



You write as if you've never read a book on traffic cycling, not any book! So, what books on traffic cycling have you read?

By the way, Cyclecraft is a British book (on traffic cycling).


I'll come back to the books in a minute.


This is not about what I have and haven't read. At the beginning of this thread you wanted to get a debate going about VC cycling. That's a good thing and I think it's happening here.

I waded in challenging the generally negative statements about the safety and utility of bike lanes and questioning the safety of some of the VC practices mentioned.

In answer to a question about what is so bad about bike lanes I have had so far the statement that cyclists become invisable to cars, and that they don't leave as much room to pass you.

This flies in the face of my experience cycling in California and UK and Europe.

I haven't seen any date to support these negative views of bike lanes.

However we have the congestion charge experience and the massive increase in bike lanes in London to suggest that introducing bike lanes can lead to a reduction in injury and death to cyclist and that's got to be a good thing. This goes hand in hand with people feeling generally more comfortable in bike lanes.

This doesn't mean VC cycling bad, bike lanes good, it just means that VC cycling good bike lanes bad can't be universally true.



Now back to the books. I haven't read any books specifically about VC cycling as you guys call it. However I have read lots of books on cycling in general, road, touring. off road.

Thanks for the reference to the book you are reading, I will try to buy it and read it over Easter.

But books arn't the only source of information on bicycling.

In the UK when I learnt to ride I was trained in cycling proficiency. As there where no bike lanes back then this was based on what I understand to be what you guys now call VC cycling methodes. This training scheme was integrated with a book called the Highway code which had all the techniques for cycling, driving and being a pedestrian on the road as well as a summary of the law pertaining to cars, bicycles and pedestrians.

Since then much has changed though the Highway code still exists. The Cycling proficiency as a national standard doesn't and there is a push to reintroduce this to all schools. I am not close to this so don't know about the details.

There is an organisation called the London Cycling Campaign, of which I am a member, the aims of which are to promote cycling in and around london, and agitate,campaign for improved cycling facilities. They publish a journal and specific reports all about cycling in London which is of course mostly on the road and in bike lanes.

There is another organisation in the UK called Sustrans http://www.sustrans.org.uk/ that promotes cycling and is responsbile for a huge increase in cycle facilites, bike lanes and the like in the UK in general. I am not a member but keep an eye on their activities. I think they are a way cool organisation.


Then way back when I was part of the prometheous project I used to subscribe to journal of road transportation whose name I now forget. This journal was just getting into concepts of a fully integrated transportation scheme, including, trains, planes, buses, cars cycling and town walking.

Then there are all the crash and road safty states and transport reports on the dft used to be dot website. http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/sectionhomepage/dft_transstats_page.hcsp


So yeh. I've read a bit about cycling on the road, but I am uncomfortable with this line of debate as it sounds like a mine is bigger than yours contest.


Serge. I think your desire to start a debate is a good thing and to introduce the concept that with better training and road craft you can travel safely on roads many people would think impossible. But don't get so insular as to put people off cycling by dissing all cycle lanes. From what I can see the evidence points to in general, cycle lanes being a positive in terms of improved safety and user satisfaction and acceptance.


PS when I get back to my home I will post some pictures of cycle lanes etc that I took this morning when commuting as it might help clarrify a few points.

[Wierd Beard]

Having just discovered this thread I would like to add my thoughts to the subject from a Scottish perspective. Unfortunately I have not had time to read all the posts in this gargantuan thread but I have a general read through - I apologise if any of my points have already been made.

I live in Glasgow and, although I have never heard of VC, it certainly seems to describe the way I cycle. I feel that this approach is the safest way for me to cycle in a city where very few people ride bikes. There are bike lanes here but they run for maybe 100 yards then stop and even where these occur they are generally used by cars as a parking area as there is no penalty to drivers for parking in such areas. So, bike lanes where they do occur are more or less useless anyway. When I have used them I do feel that they compromise my position on the road and make me more vulnerable to cars. Riding in a prominent position on the road means that motorists are hard-pushed to not see me and I have no problem making turns etc, though it has to be said that for the most part drivers here are not very tolerant of cyclists. But I have the right to be there and refuse to be forced into the gutter so they can get to work faster (even in the centre of the roads the condition is generally pretty bad - the sides of the roads are potholed nightmares).

Unfortunatley, I think the attitude to cycling here is pretty bad and as a result puts people off riding their bikes, which is never a good thing. The weather here doesn't help either. I don't know what the solution is. Maybe when we live on concrete islands surrounded by motorways people will realise that something needs to be done....

[Helmet-Head]

Serge. I think your desire to start a debate is a good thing ...
I'm not trying to start a debate. I'm here to inform.

For almost 30 years I cycled in traffic as well as I could without having a clue that there were specific techniques, skills and approaches that could make traffic cycling much more effective and fun than it already was. I can only imagine that there are others out there who are in the same or similar boat I was in a little over a year ago: a good experienced cyclist, confident and comfortable in most traffic situations, but still somehow lacking that "I really belong here" feeling among all the cars, and having that occassional traffic situation which is challenging and/or difficult to navigate.

My point is simply to inform those that may care to be informed that anyone can learn to feel like you really belong cycling among all the cars. You can learn to be confident and comfortable in any traffic situation. And reading (carefully) books like Effective Cycling and Cyclecraft, and practicing what is taught in those books, is probably the fastest way to get there, particularly if you're good at learning from reading books. Those who are more effective learning "hands on" should probably take something like the Road 1 and Road 2 courses from the LAB (bikeleague.org), or go through the Can-bike program (Canada).

The relationship of the bike/cycle lane discussion to all this is that I believe they hinder cyclists from learning to feel like they belong on the roadways among the cars, and that they foster separationist mentality that makes riding in traffic among the cars feel uncomfortable and nervous. I recognize the fact that while riding in a bike lane most cyclists feel more comfortable and less nervous. But I think that just makes them feel all the more uncomfortable and more nervous in situations where they have to leave the bike lane (because it ends, or they have to turn left, or there is a car parked in it, or whatever). It certainly doesn't help them learn to feel more comfortable riding in traffic without a bike lane.

Serge

[hammerBlack]

Do vehicular cycling advocates underestimate the dangers?

I would never advocate the use of a bicycle for someone who wants a safe, reliable mode of transportation, even if they ride in a vehicular manner. There are others reasons to advocate riding a bicycle, such as the joys of surviving despite the risks.

After the tsunami, an editorial appeared in the NY Times arguing that humans evolved to underestimate the risks to their lives. There are so many risks that if we fairly estimated all of them we would go insane. Bicycle advocates even use statistics to convince us that bicycles are safe. But the people who compile the statistics are the people who want to feel safe.

I had hoped to ride to work. I completed "Road I." But I'm not going to ride to work. I've got enough stress in my life as it is. Besides, riding on rollers is funner than riding on the street.

In my last two rides at night, a car without its headlights made me pull off the street, and I nearly got sandwiched between pedestrians on my right (one who was walking his bike), an approaching car, and a bicyclist speeding straight at me against traffic without a headlight! I survived - and that brings me tremendous joy. But there are even more tremendous joys than just surviving.

Here is an advocate with fewer delusions:

From Hurst's "The Art of Urban Cycling":

"a devoted urban cyclist with some years of experience in heavy traffic can expect a good, solid wipeout about once per year, and a more serious injury-causing wreck about once every three to five years" p. 157 1st edition

[Wierd Beard]

Do vehicular cycling advocates underestimate the dangers?

I would never advocate the use of a bicycle for someone who wants a safe, reliable mode of transportation, even if they ride in a vehicular manner. There are others reasons to advocate riding a bicycle, such as the joys of surviving despite the risks.

Bicycles are a perfectly safe means of transport. Obviously it is cars that make it dangerous but avoiding cycling on the roads for this reason will only worsen the problem. I think its good for people to operate out of their comfort zones every once in a while - that's what reminds us we're alive. The more cyclists there are on the roads, the more motorists will take heed and give us our space.

I do understand that despite this there are people who simply do not have the inclination to put themselves in a possibly dangerous situation for the greater good......

[Roughstuff]

Bicycles are a perfectly safe means of transport. Obviously it is cars that make it dangerous....

Patently ridiculous. All forms of transportation have their risks.

roughstuff

[Bigmikepowell]

I'm not trying to start a debate. I'm here to inform.


You say "For almost 30 years I cycled in traffic as well as I could without having a clue that there were specific techniques, skills and approaches that could make traffic cycling much more effective and fun than it already was. I can only imagine that there are others out there who are in the same or similar boat I was in a little over a year ago: a good experienced cyclist, confident and comfortable in most traffic situations, but still somehow lacking that "I really belong here" feeling among all the cars, and having that occassional traffic situation which is challenging and/or difficult to navigate.

My point is simply to inform those that may care to be informed that anyone can learn to feel like you really belong cycling among all the cars. You can learn to be confident and comfortable in any traffic situation. And reading (carefully) books like Effective Cycling and Cyclecraft, and practicing what is taught in those books, is probably the fastest way to get there, particularly if you're good at learning from reading books. Those who are more effective learning "hands on" should probably take something like the Road 1 and Road 2 courses from the LAB (bikeleague.org), or go through the Can-bike program (Canada).

The relationship of the bike/cycle lane discussion to all this is that I believe they hinder cyclists from learning to feel like they belong on the roadways among the cars, and that they foster separationist mentality that makes riding in traffic among the cars feel uncomfortable and nervous. I recognize the fact that while riding in a bike lane most cyclists feel more comfortable and less nervous. But I think that just makes them feel all the more uncomfortable and more nervous in situations where they have to leave the bike lane (because it ends, or they have to turn left, or there is a car parked in it, or whatever). It certainly doesn't help them learn to feel more comfortable riding in traffic without a bike lane."

Serge

You originally said in your very first post. "The intent of this post is to start a discussion on the topic of vehicular cycling (VC), what it is, how it relates to making cycling safer and traffic cycling more fun, how it forms the basis for why cyclists should opposes bike lanes, where you can learn more about it, etc."

I didn't realise this meant that you just wanted to publish your ideas to a wider audience with no push back.

Trouble is that you also say that, this makes cycling safer as a blanket statemet and then that cyclist should oppose cycle lanes in general. The evidence, as it stands doesn't support such general statements, unless I am missing some information.

I agree with you when you say learning to cycle effectively in traffic is a skill cyclist should aspire to, but some cyclists don't want to learn to this level and don't want to aquire the skills ever to feel safe riding like this. Also the more skilled of riders also need to know when a situation is becoming dangerous and to not attempt to cycle in the general flow of traffic. For reasons of safety and improving traffic flow this practice is prohibited by law in certain circumstances.


Sometimes bike lanes link up over extensive distances and in some contries, it is possible to cycle using only quite roads with little traffic and no bike lanes and in other places on busier roads with bike lanes where the junctions are controlled for the cyclist. There are also areas where there are extensive distances of completely segregated bike lanes. I don't see anything wrong with this option. Using these facilities certainly hasn't stopped me developing my road craft.

In my utopia I would love all cars and lorries banned fromt the roads so I can cycle on them knowing that, while cycling on roads with cars is already reasonably safe, cycling on roads without cars is even safer, not to mention much less poluting. Think of all those fumes we are sucking in as we barrel along at 40Kph plus. However I recognise that this is a minority view. It is also impractical right now as the transport infrastructure is incapable of supporting such a radical change. So I end up driving a car for journeys I can't undertake by a combination of bike and rail.

Above you say that cycling in bike lanes makes riders feel all the more uncomfortable when cycling in the general flow of traffic. Really, is there any evidence for this in general. I am sure we can find examples of this but I am not sure it is universally true.

Serge. I am not against the techniques you suggest, I think they can be helpful and I have been using the ones you describe for years myself in situations where I beleive it is useful and safe to do so.

[Helmet-Head]

Mike,

With all due respect there are books that go on for pages addressing points like "some cyclists don't want to learn to this level and don't want to aquire the skills ever to feel safe riding like this." (the short answer is cycle lanes don't make them safer, and, arguably, make them less safe).

Serge

[Wierd Beard]

Patently ridiculous. All forms of transportation have their risks.

roughstuff

I appologise for not making myself clearer. I am more than aware that all forms of transport have risks.

What I meant was that the relative risks are low enough that to not cycle for reasons of safety is, in my eyes, a poor excuse. If we think hard enough everything we do has an element of danger and I think that being in the warm, comfortable confines of a car to some extent makes you less aware of your surroundings and what that car is capable of doing to another human being.

I am not a car hater, I have just heard so many people use 'the risks of cycling' as an excuse not to when all it takes is a bit of mental awareness....

[noisebeam]

There is a 10mi stretch of so of freeway here (loop 101) where 19 people of died in three years. My wife drives this stretch every day and it worries me.

(Please be aware I am aware of, but not getting into the details of statistics, fatalities per mile, per hour etc.)

Al

[genec]

Mike,

With all due respect there are books that go on for pages addressing points like "some cyclists don't want to learn to this level and don't want to aquire the skills ever to feel safe riding like this." (the short answer is cycle lanes don't make them safer, and, arguably, make them less safe).

Serge

How does a bike lane make them less safe? Intersections are the problems not bike lanes.

Show data that bike lanes make cyclists less safe.

[Bigmikepowell]

Mike,

With all due respect there are books that go on for pages addressing points like "some cyclists don't want to learn to this level and don't want to aquire the skills ever to feel safe riding like this." (the short answer is cycle lanes don't make them safer, and, arguably, make them less safe).

Serge

Serge. The whole point I have been making is that there has been no data presented to prove the above point, but I have presented some data that actually says the above conclusion is wrong.

There is evidence for the fact that Bike lanes don't reduce the safty of cyclists and that cyclists in general like bike lanes. Additionally this evidence also suggests that bike lanes improve safety for cyclists.

[Roughstuff]

I appologise for not making myself clearer.... I am more than aware that all forms of transport have risks.

....

Cool. I figured that was probably what ya meant. I use a very similar argument when people talk to me about the 'dangers' of going on a world tour. You have to keep them in perspective and, if you are gonna wait for the time when there are no dangers you will wait forever.



roughstuff

[Helmet-Head]

From Hurst's "The Art of Urban Cycling":

"a devoted urban cyclist with some years of experience in heavy traffic can expect a good, solid wipeout about once per year, and a more serious injury-causing wreck about once every three to five years" p. 157 1st edition
I have not yet read, "The Art of Urban Cycling", but that is very contrary to my experience.

[Bruce Rosar]

From Hurst's "The Art of Urban Cycling":
"a devoted urban cyclist with some years of experience in heavy traffic can expect a good, solid wipeout about once per year, and a more serious injury-causing wreck about once every three to five years" p. 157 1st editionFrom BICYCLING FACTS & FIGURES (http://home.swbell.net/mpion/BIKEfacts&figs.html) Martin Pion, ConservionFig. 2. Cycling Accident Rates for different cyclist populations (http://home.swbell.net/mpion/imagesbike/experiencevsaccidents2.jpg)

If cycling on the road were inherently dangerous then the more miles a cyclist travels annually the more likely he or she should be to have an accident. The exact opposite is true...

... a cyclist belonging to the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) cycled on average 2,400 miles per year with an accident rate of 113 accidents per million miles. By contrast, a college-associated adult who cycled on average only one-quarter this distance annually had an accident rate almost 4.5 times as high. Elementary school children cycling on average only 580 miles per year had an accident rate over 6 times greater than the average LAB cyclist.
Fig. 5. Major Categories of Car-Bike Collisions: Urban (http://home.swbell.net/mpion/imagesbike/carbikeurban5.jpg)

Here we focus on the 16% of urban bicycle crash causes which typically get the most attention in the media and elsewhere: car-bike collisions...

The major crash types for car-bike collisions are crossing movements, turning movements, parallel path collisions, and swerving. In urban areas these together make up 85% of all car-bike crashes, of which crossing and turning movements combined account for no less than 75%. Parallel path collisions account for only 7% of the total...

The data is based on a comprehensive study by Cross and Fisher undertaken for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ...
Fig. 6. Parallel Path Car-Bike Collisions: Urban (http://home.swbell.net/mpion/imagesbike/Bike-crash-parallel6.jpg)

... for many years my greatest concern when cycling on the road was being hit by a car from behind.

That fear was the reason I became a vocal advocate for off-road bicycle facilities while living in England and did not abate until I took a job at McDonnell Douglas, St. Louis, in May, 1980, and met Bob Soetebier, a passionate bicycling advocate. Bob introduced me to the reality of cycling on road...

When we pick apart parallel path collisions in urban situations the data shows that, out of the 7% of all urban car-bike collisions falling into this category, less than half (3.3% of all car-bike collisions) are due to a motorist hitting a bicyclist from behind. As a percentage of all car-bike collisions, 1.4% is due to a motorist passing too closely, and 1.9% is attributed to a motorist failing to see the cyclist.

[LittleBigMan]

If cycling on the road were inherently dangerous then the more miles a cyclist travels annually the more likely he or she should be to have an accident. The exact opposite is true...

I have previously contemplated this paradox, which goes something like this: the more miles I ride, the more risk I am exposed to, right? But the more miles I ride, the more savvy I become about avoiding crashes. Which is true?

They are both true. But for those who want to go on this ride, let me paint another picture:

If I flip a coin 9 times, and it comes up "heads," what is the probability it will come up "heads" if I flip it a 10th time? If you answered, "1 out of 10," you are wrong. The answer is, "1 out of 2," the same as it is for every other flip of the coin. The error comes when we think that the last flip is the same as flipping the coin 10 times, and coming up heads every time. The last flip is the same as the first: 1 out of 2.

Now, if I flip a coin 10 times, what is the chance it will come up "heads" 10 times? The answer is 1 out of 1024, or 2 to the 10th power. (It's this kind of logic that confuses gamblers, but it's based on the laws of probability.)

For those of you who still care, if I ride my bike to work 99 times safely, what is the chance of my riding to work safely on the 100th trip? According to the previous example, wouldn't my chances on the 100th trip be exactly the same as my chances on the 99th, 98th, 97th, and so forth? (Laws of probability and all that.)

No. My chances would actually be better than on the 99th, 98th, ect. Why?

Because as a cyclist riding to work on the 100th trip, a variable has changed: I am more experienced than I was on my 1st trip. So my odds of crashing actually decrease with every trip (unpredictable factors being equal.)

The bottom line of this reasoning is that every trip on the bicycle carries a similar level of risk (barring other variables such as weather, traffic, etc.) At the same time, every trip on the bicycle increases my ability to predict and avoid dangerous situations.

Don't argue with me on this, I havn't the patience... :D

[operator]

I bet you won't be arguing that if you get into an accident.

[LittleBigMan]

I bet you won't be arguing that if you get into an accident.
I have been in an "accident." I was riding along when three young pedestrians decided to put their arms across my path. Being inexperienced, I instinctively chose to block the "clothesline" attack with one of my arms. When my arm contacted theirs, I was over the bars quicker than Jack Flash.

Next time, I won't do that. Riding in an ambulance isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Experience is a good teacher, but learning from others' experience is much better.

But to use logic, if my chances of crashing are not decreasing with every ride, they must be increasing, which means that it's more dangerous each time I ride. With those odds, anyone who keeps riding a bike is a fool.

[Helmet-Head]

Because as a cyclist riding to work on the 100th trip, a variable has changed: I am more experienced than I was on my 1st trip. So my odds of crashing actually decrease with every trip (unpredictable factors being equal.)

The bottom line of this reasoning is that every trip on the bicycle carries a similar level of risk (barring other variables such as weather, traffic, etc.) At the same time, every trip on the bicycle increases my ability to predict and avoid dangerous situations.

Don't argue with me on this, I havn't the patience... :D
Your argument is true... to a point.

Don't forget... the law of diminishing returns.

But, there are variables other than experience that also come into play.
Say you study and learn from Effective Cycling or Cyclecraft along the way, or take a Road 1 course. Your odds could markedly improve in a matter of weeks...

[LittleBigMan]

Fortunately, one's chances of avoiding a crash increase with experience. The same is true of drivers. Ask any insurance company why their rates for teenagers are so high.

[operator]

Flawed logic is as dangerous as no logic.

[LittleBigMan]

Flawed logic is as dangerous as no logic.
It all started when I fell on my head...

:D

[norton]

It all started when I fell on my head...

:D


:lol: .....Nice conversational series....

[LittleBigMan]

A cyclist once said on these forums, "the law of averages eventually catches up with cyclists, and they finally crash." While I agree that we will all probably crash several times in our lives, the "law of averages" mentioned here is nothing more than a fancy way of saying, "my luck ran out." Crashes are not caused by a mysterious factor called "luck," but by real dangers that can be studied, and hopefully, avoided.

If a cyclist has ridden thousands of times without crashing, and he's about to go for a ride, he can look at it one of two ways:

1) "My luck could run out today, because the law of averages has got to catch up with me sooner or later."

2) "My chances of crashing today are a little greater than they were yesterday, since the road is still wet from the rain last night, so I will use greater caution."

[Ladyjai]

As long as the cyclist doesn't fall into the "Old Woodworkers Trap"

that's where he/she's worked with saws, etc for 40 years without any injury... then suddenly lops off half his hand. As soon as you are no longer afraid of the saws, that's when you'll start losing body parts. Don't become overconfident, it lessens all the hard work up to that point.

exhaustion counts too...

otherwise, i agree fully :D

[Bruce Rosar]

As soon as you are no longer afraid of the saws, that's when you'll start losing body parts. Don't become overconfident, it lessens all the hard work up to that point.
On the subject of fear, from Three Friends of Stupidity (http://www.gandalf.it/stupid/stupid4.htm) by Giancarlo Livraghi
Fear, as knowledge of dangers and risks, is a form of intelligence. Of course that is not the sort of fear that can be an ally and an accomplice of stupidity.

But there are widespread types of fear that have nothing to do with a real understanding of what can be dangerous or unsafe. People can be afraid of being, of thinking, of understanding, of knowing... There is fear of shadows and fantasies, of imaginary problems.
...
Let’s look around, and look at ourselves. We shall find that unreasonable, unjustified fear is much more widespread than it may appear. And nobody is totally immune. Quite often, by running away from something that we had no reason to fear, we fall into a real trap that we hadn’t noticed.

One of the basic learnings in life is the control of fear. Knowing how to have steady nerves and a clear mind in the face of real danger. And getting rid of imaginary fears.

[Blackberry]

Flawed logic is as dangerous as no logic.

Is it either/or? I want both.

[John E]

Do vehicular cycling advocates underestimate the dangers?
Some evidently do.

I would never advocate the use of a bicycle for someone who wants a safe, reliable mode of transportation, even if they ride in a vehicular manner.
I strongly reject your use of "never" in this context. This needs to be examined logically on a case-by-case basis. Some folks should not be cyclecommuters and a few streets or intersections are not suitable for bicycling. (I know Serge doesn't buy the latter statement, but frankly I am very willing to go out of my way to avoid certain intersections.) However, for many of us, cycling for transportation is relatively safe. I still believe that the health and exercise benefits of cycling more than compensate for the small increase in risk on the road, relative to motoring.

I had hoped to ride to work. I completed "Road I." But I'm not going to ride to work. I've got enough stress in my life as it is.
I find motoring alot more stressful than cycling.


Besides, riding on rollers is funner than riding on the street. ... You have GOT to be kidding.

[kwv]

Ya, these red, "no-left-turn" arrows can make you wait a lot longer to turn left.

Almost makes me wish I could make that "two-part left turn" in my car!

:D

On some Melbourne Intersections Australia you can and they are know as hook turns.