How can vehicular cyclists reach people?

[LittleBigMan]

I started riding my bike on the sidewalk as a kid. It made sense, since all I cared about was learning to balance the darn thing. It never occurred to me to venture out into the street, at first.

But after I learned to ride my bike, I decided to ride to school. I headed up the sidewalk, only to hear people yelling, "Get off the sidewalk!"

I was embarrassed to learn that sidewalks were only for pedestrians. I changed my ways. As a youngster of only 12, I rode my bike with older friends from Rockville, Md. to downtown Washington, DC. on more than one occasion. This was before bike lanes and bike paths, in about 1971.

I later moved to Brisbane, Australia, then to Atlanta, Georgia. I drove everywhere, but still rode the bike in the strangest of places: the street. Then I hung the bike in the garage for 15 years.

When I got back on the bike in my mid-30's, I rode on the sidewalk, again, for some strange reason. But too many close-calls gave me the head-up: what happened to riding in the street? Well, I rode in 25-mph. lanes and bike paths for a while, until I heard about a "revolutionary principle"--the idea that there is a network of bike facilities that is perfect for getting anywhere I want to go, the streets we already have.

It stuck with me. But it might not have stuck if I hadn't ridden in the street years ago.

How can vehicular cycling advocates reach out to sidewalk riders and bike-facility users?

Can "pure logic" always prevail against emotional arguments? Can fear be dispelled by reason?

In my experience, and in the experience of professionals who deal with "phobias" (which is the term often used to describe the irrational fear of cycling in motor traffic,) you cannot reason someone out of their phobia. The only way to overcome a person's phobia is by exposing that person to their fears a little bit at a time. They have to face their fears, bit-by-bit. Pure and simple.

Talk alone won't convince a phobic.

Just a few thoughts on the subject.

[patc]

How can vehicular cycling advocates reach out to sidewalk riders and bike-facility users? .... Can "pure logic" always prevail against emotional arguments?

Despite the impression some may have from my posts, I have learned a great deal from the VC discussion here. I can tell you a few things that turn me off from nearly every VC proponent I find, here and elsewhere:

1) Don't preach. A VC proponent is not a god, does not have all the answers, and isn't doing the his/her cause any good with a know-it-all attitude.

2) Realise that not all cyclists have the same experience level, skill, and desires.

3) Realise that not all cities/location are the same.

4) Realise that pathways, bike-lanes, and VC are not mutually exclusive.

5) Use reasoned arguments, not empty rants. Logic starts with facts, not opinions.

6) Realise that safety, while important, is not the only goal.


So far its my impression that VC proponents include some of the most close-minded and inflexible people I have ever had the displeasure of talking with. Given that I regularly debate religion and politics, that's saying a lot.

[Dchiefransom]

How can vehicular cycling advocates reach out to sidewalk riders and bike-facility users?

Can "pure logic" always prevail against emotional arguments? Can fear be dispelled by reason?

In my experience, and in the experience of professionals who deal with "phobias" (which is the term often used to describe the irrational fear of cycling in motor traffic,) you cannot reason someone out of their phobia. The only way to overcome a person's phobia is by exposing that person to their fears a little bit at a time. They have to face their fears, bit-by-bit. Pure and simple.

Talk alone won't convince a phobic.

Just a few thoughts on the subject.


Phobias?? Is that like an irrational fear of an inanimate object, like a firearm? What would those "experts" say about people that religiously believe in something without proof, and would foist it on others? Note my use of the word religiously, because this belief is exactly like religion. There is no actual proof, only "experience", false "logic", and supposed "common sense", just like in religions.
We need to have a real debate where there is actual proof on both sides, like the one between Creationists and those that believe in Evolution.

[enigmagic]

We need to have a real debate where there is actual proof on both sides, like the one between Creationists and those that believe in Evolution.

Oh, like that one? I'm fairly certain that that debate has little or no "proof" on one side of that argument, ergo why it has not been kicked to the wayside. Vehicular cycling is not like arguing religion, people defend it with non-canonical arguments, all points are intersubjectively verifiable, etc.

[Bruce Rosar]

How can vehicular cycling advocates reach out to sidewalk riders and bike-facility users? FYI: David Smith has been quite a bit of work over the past few years to
Build a strong cycling culture to support cyclists achieving their full potential. Collect and develop the best cycling methods for accessing our greatest cycling resource - our streets.
Develop efficient training materials and techniques for student achievement.
Generate public awareness of cyclists abilities and acceptance of their rights and responsibilities.

He calls his approach Looking Sharp! (http://homepage.mac.com/bicycle_driver/Personal13.html) Visual Language Vehicle Driving for Bicyclists and Motorists.

[operator]

I for one am getting real tired of VC getting rammed in our throats in every post. It has its merits, but come on, it ain't the end all, be all of cycling doctrine.

[Bruce Rosar]

I for one am getting real tired of VC getting rammed in our throats in every post.Hey, I found a great article that doesn't contain the phrase Ve*****ar Cy***ng! This article was originally published in the October 2004 issue of Cascade Courier (the membership newsletter of the Cascade Bicycle Club of Seattle).
Bicycling: A Paradigm Shift
by David Smith, www.bicycledriver.com

Bicycling in traffic can be more fun than driving a car when you learn simple social skills for the traffic environment. The bicycle is a narrow vehicle allowing sharing lanes of suitable width. The cyclist can take different positions within a lane while the cyclist's body is visible to other drivers. The visual effects of looking, positioning, signaling and pedaling can be enhanced with simple training, so intentions become far more transparent. With sharing and communication, cyclists have a superior ability to cooperate with other traffic. These simple social skills for the traffic environment allow cyclists to take the position "drivers" following the rules of the road use for their destination, and where "drivers" focus their attention, so cyclists are more reliably seen and understood when they are seen.

Cyclists can learn to access just about all our streets and traffic while feeling as confident about bicycle driving as we feel about car driving. With good training, beginning traffic cyclists can learn these skills in a few hours.

Unfortunately, only a very few cyclists have the training and quality of experience to "drive" a bicycle so competently and confidently. The common, even universal attitude is that motorized traffic makes cycling unpleasant and even dangerous. The pace and discipline of motorized traffic makes untrained cyclists feel unwelcome on our streets and doubt that cyclists can follow traffic rules as motorists do. This leaves almost all cyclists looking not for training, but for space away from traffic, even when riding on streets with cars. Looking for their own space, cyclists miss simple, easily learned methods of communication and cooperation with traffic.

In our modern society, doctors go to medical school. Lawyers go to law school. Airplane pilots go to flight school. Motorists take drivers training and get a driver's license before driving in traffic on their own. In our culture, it is only bicyclists who are denied training and are expected to learn on their own if they are to learn at all. In so many areas of our life we recognize the necessity of education and training and we demand it as a necessity for civil life.

Peoples we once discriminated against were denied education. In response, the right to good education has been one of their key demands. If we can imagine the consequences of a society that denied training to doctors, lawyers, pilots and motorists, so that they trained themselves as bicyclists train themselves today, then we might begin to understand the implications for bicyclists.

Bicyclists once dominated our streets only to loose to the competition from motorized vehicles. Some motorists competed with cyclists by promoting a negative view of cycling on our streets, claiming that motorized vehicles make bicycling unpleasant and even dangerous for cyclists. This view took root after decades when only children rode bicycles, and therefore the cycle of knowledge was broken between adults accomplished in traffic cycling and children who needed to learn.

Today, this motoring culture with its sour, negative attitude about cycling in traffic dominates our society's perceptions of bicycling. The consequences for bicycling are devastating, discouraging cyclists from learning traffic skills while we focus instead on finding our own space away from traffic, and unfortunately, away from many popular roads with important and useful destinations.

Recently, I discussed this opportunity, and my work on it with Chuck Ayers, director of Cascade. We agreed that cycling skills have great potential for improving bicycling and its safety. The difficult part is persuading cyclists to make the commitment to sign up for "bicycle driving classes". Classes for bike maintenance, and riding faster and farther fill, but Chuck noted that bicycle driving classes fail for lack of students. The problem, Chuck agreed, is marketing and selling training for bicycle driving skills.

I have videotaped typical cyclists, and then had my example taped for comparison. I also developed a positive view of cycling in traffic that I feel is consistent with the good cycling skills I have learned. When I present a positive view of cycling along with video to show the skills, the response has been far more favorable than I had imagined. A positive view of cycling encourages cyclists to learn, improves the ability of motorists to understand and accept cycling while improving the willingness of many to consider bicycling for transportation.

[Dchiefransom]

Hey, I found a great article that doesn't contain the phrase Ve*****ar Cy***ng! This article was originally published in the October 2004 issue of Cascade Courier (the membership newsletter of the Cascade Bicycle Club of Seattle).
Not a bad article at all. None of the "dogma" is included. It seems to address "familiarity" with riding on the street.
I wonder what would happen if able bodied people were told to show up at the "DMV" for their driver's test, and to also bring a bicycle?????

[Bruce Rosar]

I wonder what would happen if able bodied people were told to show up at the "DMV" for their driver's test, and to also bring a bicycle?????Well, I did show up on my bike the last time I renewed my motor vehicle license (my cycling jersey shows up nicely in the picture) but that was voluntary and didn't involve a road test.

As you may know, the only road vehicles for which a driver has to have a license to travel on the public roads are those which are so heavy and powerful as to pose an extraordinary danger to the person or property of others. Pedal vehicles, and your typical moped, just don't pose that level of danger to others. Consequently, no state requires the driver of a pedal vehicle to have a license or to take the drivers' test :)

[Dchiefransom]

I should do that also, but the DMV seems to look at good driving records at no need for a test. I haven't taken a written test since 1996, here in California.
What I meant was that people showing up for their driving test would need to demonstrate proper driving in a car, and also how to properly ride a bicycle on the streets. People would have to know how both vehicles should negotiate our roadways. If someone doesn't know what a bicycle is supposed to do on the road, how can we trust them with a 3,000+ pound vehicle?

[Bruce Rosar]

What I meant was that people showing up for their driving test would need to demonstrate proper driving in a car, and also how to properly ride a bicycle on the streets. People would have to know how both vehicles should negotiate our roadways. If someone doesn't know what a bicycle is supposed to do on the road, how can we trust them with a 3,000+ pound vehicle?FYI: late last year in the bicyclingadvocacy@yahoogroups.com list, the following idea came up about a bicycle driver/operator certification program
An added incentive would be to grant motoring learner's permit 6 months earlier to a certified bicycle operator than otherwise.
To which I respondedAn additional suggestion is to toughen up Motor Vehicle driver testing to the point where the experience gained by operating a Pedal Vehicle in traffic for years is believed to improve the chances of obtaining a MV permit/license.

Bruce "certified PVOI" Rosar

[nick burns]

Hey, I found a great article that doesn't contain the phrase Ve*****ar Cy***ng! This article was originally published in the October 2004 issue of Cascade Courier (the membership newsletter of the Cascade Bicycle Club of Seattle).

"Bicycling: A Paradigm Shift
by David Smith, www.bicycledriver.com"

Not a bad article. I still scratch my head though when I hear people talk about education for cycling in traffic. It just doesn't seem so complicated that cyclists won't figure it out for themselves pretty quickly. I sure don't remember having any problems picking it up. I guess everyone's different though.

I would have given this guy one piece of advice though- drop the "paradigm" from the title. Waaay overused, along the lines of "having said that" or "that being said".

[patc]

What I meant was that people showing up for their driving test would need to demonstrate proper driving in a car, and also how to properly ride a bicycle on the streets. People would have to know how both vehicles should negotiate our roadways. If someone doesn't know what a bicycle is supposed to do on the road, how can we trust them with a 3,000+ pound vehicle?

Out of curiousity, are any bike-related questions part of your driver's test? It is included in the Ontario test, but not as much as I would like. While the province's driver's handbook makes it clear that bikes are vehicles, can take the lane, etc. the info isn't emphasised as much as I think it should, and too often bikes are combined with motorcycles and mopeds.

Incidently, you do need a license to drive mopeds in Ontario, bikes are the only common vehicle not requiring them.

[genec]

Out of curiousity, are any bike-related questions part of your driver's test? It is included in the Ontario test, but not as much as I would like. While the province's driver's handbook makes it clear that bikes are vehicles, can take the lane, etc. the info isn't emphasised as much as I think it should, and too often bikes are combined with motorcycles and mopeds.

Incidently, you do need a license to drive mopeds in Ontario, bikes are the only common vehicle not requiring them.

Nothing on the test, but there are two scant pages of bike info in the driver's handbook in CA. Of course the booklet is about 60 pages long... and no doubt the folks standing in line are just skimming it.

[Treespeed]

In my experience, and in the experience of professionals who deal with "phobias" (which is the term often used to describe the irrational fear of cycling in motor traffic,) you cannot reason someone out of their phobia. The only way to overcome a person's phobia is by exposing that person to their fears a little bit at a time. They have to face their fears, bit-by-bit. Pure and simple.

Talk alone won't convince a phobic.

Just a few thoughts on the subject.

Your first step in reaching other cyclists would be to stop with the Ad hominem attacks on cyclists who disagree with your point of view. Just because someone supports bike lanes it doesn't folow that they have a phobia of traffic.

A little less preaching would go a long way.

[Bruce Rosar]

Just because someone supports bike lanes it doesn't folow that they have a phobia of traffic.Darn right. There are plenty of people who simply are not yet aware that better options exist. Others just want segregated facilities in order to keep cyclists out of the way of better classes of traffic. Some have jobs involving the planning and building of the new facilities, or are in a position to profit if the new public facilities cause a short term increase in the sales of bikes and/or bike services. The phobia about cycling with motor vehicles is, however, useful to all of those who hope to profit from such facilities, principally as a means of increasing political support for their own agendas.

Some clues about the interweaving of private business with bicycle politics can be found on the National Bicycle Dealers Association's site (http://nbda.com/site/page.cfm?PageID=34)
"The federal government has...budgeted significant transportation money for construction of...facilities...friendly to bicycles...
Making a more bicycle-friendly America is one of the industry's key initiatives...

"League of American Bicyclists (http://www.bikeleague.org/) ... Consumer ... organization, includes advocacy" (the President is a retailer of bikes and bike services)

"Bikes Belong Coalition (http://www.bikesbelong.org/) ... Works to support...construction of bicycle-friendly facilities" (the LAB President is also the BBC Treasurer)
In other words
the League organizes bike "consumers"
BBC & LAB advocate for facilities friendly to bike consumption in the short term
the government spends our money on those facilities
the bike industry expects to profit from those initiatives and funds/directs/influences those advocacy organizations

[JohnBrooking]

So far its my impression that VC proponents include some of the most close-minded and inflexible people I have ever had the displeasure of talking with. Given that I regularly debate religion and politics, that's saying a lot.
I think sometimes one gets that impression from people who are passionate about something because, by definition, the ones who talk the loudest and longest about it are the ones who are predisposed to talk loud and long about something to begin with. More a personality thing than a reflection on the subject itself. I think there are plenty of VC proponents who are not as "out there" evangelistically as some, but of course you don't hear from them, because they're not the ones talking about it.

It's kind of a reverse "shoot-the-messenger" thing. Just 'cause you feel like shooting the messenger does not mean the message is bad! :)

[JohnBrooking]

How can vehicular cycling advocates reach out to sidewalk riders and bike-facility users?
Some may recall that I thought a lot about this in January, on this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=82315). To summarize, a wrong-way cyclist had been killed in an intersection around here, and I felt really bad about it. The fact that he was riding that way in the place that he was (a busy downtown intersection) seemed to indicate to me that he must have thought it was the right way to ride, when in fact it is just the opposite, and that's tragic.

I said in that thread that the problem with cycling education courses is that the cyclist has to be motivated to take them. This guy who was killed riding the wrong way lived most of the time at the YMCA, and took day-to-day manual labor jobs to support himself and send child support to his kids in another state, to whom he was devoted. I don't think taking classes to make himself a better cyclist was anywhere near the top of his list.

So what will reach people? How about ads on billboards and city buses, with catchy slogans like "Bike with traffic, not against it" and (of course) "Share the Road". How about more bumper stickers, distributed not just through LBS' and clubs, but at big-box stores where bikes are sold (if they will do it)? How about posters tacked up on bulletin boards in grocery stores? How about bookmarks or refrigerator magnets handed out where people congregate? My point is to reach beyond the community of people who join cycling clubs and hang out on cycling related Internet forums, to the cycling layperson, or their friends and relatives, with messages placed in general public areas.

I haven't acted on any of this (yet), but I still think it's something to consider.

[Bruce Rosar]

I said in that thread that the problem with cycling education courses is that the cyclist has to be motivated to take them...

So what will reach people? You mentioned several good techniques, but there's another factor that will tend to (IMHO) greatly decrease the effectives of such an education campaign. There's a Florida magazine about that other factor: Real or Just a Taboo? (http://www.trirats.org/docs/taboo.pdf) 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.

[norton]

Darn right. There are plenty of people who simply are not yet aware that better options exist. Others just want segregated facilities in order to keep cyclists out of the way of better classes of traffic. Some have jobs involving the planning and building of the new facilities, or are in a position to profit if the new public facilities cause a short term increase in the sales of bikes and/or bike services. The phobia about cycling with motor vehicles is, however, useful to all of those who hope to profit from such facilities, principally as a means of increasing political support for their own agendas.

Some clues about the interweaving of private business with bicycle politics can be found on the National Bicycle Dealers Association's site (http://nbda.com/site/page.cfm?PageID=34)
In other words
the League organizes bike "consumers"
BBC & LAB advocate for facilities friendly to bike consumption in the short term
the government spends our money on those facilities
the bike industry expects to profit from those initiatives and funds/directs/influences those advocacy organizations


Uh-oh....Why does this remind me of "The Military-Industrial Complex"- Pres Dwight Eisenhower... :o

[patc]

I think sometimes one gets that impression from people who are passionate about something because, by definition, the ones who talk the loudest and longest about it are the ones who are predisposed to talk loud and long about something to begin with. More a personality thing than a reflection on the subject itself. I think there are plenty of VC proponents who are not as "out there" evangelistically as some, but of course you don't hear from them, because they're not the ones talking about it.

You're right, of course. As an opinionated and passionate person myself, I've been on both ends of that particular problem. One things I have learned the hard way: be very careful about dismissing the opinions of others. I'm not saying it should never be done, there are times when "DUMB!" seems the only honest responce. But I really feel that most of the time an opposing opinion derseves more than a dismissal.

Looking though these VC vs. bike lane debates its easy to see why VCers are hated by so many cyclists. Since I joined these debates - at first innocently as a newbie, later out of genuine interest, I have seen time and time again comments like:

- you just like bike lanes because you're a newbie
- once you learn that better options exist, you'll think differently
- I've had no problems with VC, so your problems must be imaginary

There are some very reasonable people here (Treespeed comes to mind), and there are others who pat you on the head, tell you that you'll understand when you're all grown up, and that meanwhile you should just blindly agree with them. I admit that I let them get under my skin. Maybe in another ten years or so I will have learned to ignore them just as I ignore most other dogmatists (and I hope I *never* learn their patronizing attitude!). Unfortunately this same sort of person tends to dominate lobby groups, and all too often ruins things for those who want something different - not always more or less "right", but just different.

Ok, end of rant.

[closetbiker]

In my experience, and in the experience of professionals who deal with "phobias" (which is the term often used to describe the irrational fear of cycling in motor traffic,) you cannot reason someone out of their phobia. The only way to overcome a person's phobia is by exposing that person to their fears a little bit at a time. They have to face their fears, bit-by-bit. Pure and simple.

I too rode my bike when I was a kid and returned as an adult (at 25) to riding my bike to work. I rode on the erong side of the street and on sidewalks, but what stopped me from doing this and started me riding VC was when I was riding on the erong side of the street, being narrowly missed being hit by right turning vehicles who didn't see me because they were looking for traffic where it was supposed to be and when I was sidewalk riding, just being missed by cars coming out of their driveways not expecting anything on the sidewalk. So you could say I was scared into riding in the street like a car because to not do so was dangerous.

[Mars]

You're right, of course. As an opinionated and passionate person myself, I've been on both ends of that particular problem. One things I have learned the hard way: be very careful about dismissing the opinions of others. ....
...There are some very reasonable people here (Treespeed comes to mind), and there are others who pat you on the head, tell you that you'll understand when you're all grown up, and that meanwhile you should just blindly agree with them.

But...
This thread started with Littlebigman looking for ideas of how to convince people who are doing obviously dangerous things, like riding against traffic or on the sidewalk, to ride in a manner that has been empirically demonstrated to be safer. I'm sure that they are riding that way because they think that it is the best for them and their situation. Often, I believe, their decison to ride as they do is based on fears. Wouldn't you be violating your above code of conduct to try and help them? Or would you rather let them learn by "experience"? Hoping that their experience is not their last....

Someone used the creationist/evolution debate as a metaphor and I think that it is apt here. One side has reason and evidence, the other personal beliefs/experiences. To be persuasive, it is important to be civil and winning. On the other hand, people often dislike someone who is saying something they disagree with. I have seen many examples of people personally attacking a poster who said nothing offensive but disagreed with the pervailing opinions.

Regarding the original topic, I don't know how to approach a cyclist riding in an unsafe way. the ones who I do see riding in these manners are often children or folks looking down on their luck on really old and crappy bikes. Not trying to be prejudical, just a statement of fact. I am uncomfortable, as a man in this day and age, approaching a child on the public streets about anything. As for the others, my bike and accessories probably cost more than all their worldly possessions. How can I talk bike safety with them without appearing to be paternalistic?

[Mars]

After posting the above, I started thinking more about talking to children regarding bike practices. I imagine the following scenario:

Me: "Hi. You know, you shouldn't be riding on this side of the street. It's safer to ride on the same side as the cars travel."

Child (eyes widening in terror - a STRANGE MAN is talking to them!): "MOM!"

Mother (charging from her front step): "You leave my child alone or I'll call the police!"

Me:"I was just trying to explain..."

Mother: "I want you to stay away from my children!"

Neighbour: "Should I call the police?"

Me: Riding away, quickly, face purple with embarrassment.

Mother: "PERVERT!!"

This has never happened, but I can sure imagine it! :(

[webist]

I guess we'll need to put cartoon characters on bikes. :)

[noisebeam]

I would think motorists would want cyclists to use VC as it makes it more likely for them not to get into an accident with a cyclist and makes driving around them less stressful as they can better predict what a cyclist will do. I mention this as if the question is how to reach, perhaps getting non cyclists aware will help spread concept.

Al

[Helmet-Head]

I don't know how you get around sounding elitist, condescending, dismissive, patronizing, etc. etc., if you are arguing a position with which others disagree and who don't want to hear your position. This is especially difficult when your position is based on experience, education, logic, reason, and research, while those who don't want to hear your position don't even know why they believe what they believe, much less are able to explain it.

There I go, sounding elitist, condescending, dismissive, and patronizing again, I'm sure.

[nick burns]

This is especially difficult when your position is based on experience, education, logic, reason, and research, while those who don't want to hear your position don't even know why they believe what they believe, much less are able to explain it.

Careful with the use of the term research. To my knowledge there has been no true scientific research done on the matter. If there has been, please enlighten me.

[vincenzosi]

This is especially difficult when your position is based on experience, education, logic, reason, and research, while those who don't want to hear your position don't even know why they believe what they believe, much less are able to explain it.

And hence the reason you come off sounding like an elitist jerk. You know better than everyone, and your position is based on scientifically verifiable fact, while everyone else is a bunch of uneducated unenlightened plebes who just don't understand things the way you do.

Of course you don't know how to get around it. You're knee deep in it.

[noisebeam]

I don't know how you get around sounding elitist, condescending, dismissive, patronizing, etc. etc., if you are arguing a position with which others disagree and who don't want to hear your position. This is especially difficult when your position is based on experience, education, logic, reason, and research, while those who don't want to hear your position don't even know why they believe what they believe, much less are able to explain it.

There I go, sounding elitist, condescending, dismissive, and patronizing again, I'm sure.
There are ways to get around it - addressing the issue, not the person. making an effort to understand, wihtout having to agree with others positions. not making demands on others. not playing logic games to make people feel like they are stuck in a corner, and much more. As I've said before, Serge, I agree with your points and logic 99.9% of the time, but also think you come across as the kind of person I don't like to talk to a good portion of the time as well. Sometimes the worst enemy of a position can be the person presenting it. That said, keep it up, I can easily overlook the messenger and I find it unfortunate that others get sucked into debating the messenger because of who they are vs. the 'message'

Al

[Helmet-Head]

In general, with very exceptions (except maybe I-Like-To-Bike, with whom I have a history, and who violates this "rule" more than anyone else), I think I do pretty well at addressing the issue, and not the person. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[vincenzosi]

I for one don't think so. I think you try to, but in the end you fall into calling anyone who disagrees with you uneducated or at least insinuating such. You can only be called stupid so many times before you just start ignoring people.

[Helmet-Head]

but in the end you fall into calling anyone who disagrees with you uneducated or at least insinuating such.
Examples?

[vincenzosi]

How about #27 on this very thread, for example? You needn't look very far.

[Helmet-Head]

In post #27, I was talking in very general terms. I was referring to the position of scientists in evolution vs. creationism discussions as much as to anything else.

If you or anyone else chooses to take offense to something so general, you only make my point.

[vincenzosi]

If you or anyone else chooses to take offense to something so general, you only make my point.

And you continue to make mine.

Thanks for playing! Buh bye...

[patc]

But...
This thread started with Littlebigman looking for ideas of how to convince people who are doing obviously dangerous things

Actually the statement that stands out to me from post#1 is, "How can vehicular cycling advocates reach out to sidewalk riders and bike-facility users? ". In other words it is not addressed to all cyclist - only VCers, and it implies that VC proponents somehow need to "reach out" to bike-facility users. It doesn't particularly ask if such reaching out is desired or needed for safety reasons.


Regarding the original topic, I don't know how to approach a cyclist riding in an unsafe way. ..... How can I talk bike safety with them without appearing to be paternalistic?


I think it could be broken down into three disctinct situations:

(1) A person does something that is overwhelmingly considered unsafe, and which may be against local laws. eg. cycling at night with no light or reflectors.

(2) A person does something which may be unsafe based on your perception and philosophies about safety. eg. VC, bike lanes, side-walk riding, etc.

(3) A person's action directly puts you at risk.


I'll ignore #3, since the situation is both different and more of an "at the moment thing".

In the case of situation #1, I think it can be justified to speak to the person or the child's parents. You should only do this if absolutely sure there is clear danger. I have done this myself- its rarely well received, but at least I can sleep knowing that if the person gets hurt I did my part to warn them. Sometimes I have been wrong about what I saw as unsafe too, and was corrected.

Now the hard part, the heart of the matter here, #2. In a discussion forum such as this, by all means explain your views and why you feel your way is safer/better - just remember that others may feel differently. In an everyday context, though, shut up. I'll say that again - SHUT UP. It is none of my or anyone else's business what a third part choses to do if it does not immediately and directly threaten my (or your) safety.

There are many ways to get your message out if you feel certain practices are safer, or if you wish to warm certain people against unsafe practices. Set up a web site. Join an advocacy group that agrees with you. Get a paper to interview you. Write letters to the editor. Give lectures. etc... Don't ever lose sight of the fact that YOUR beleifs are only your own, and may not apply to all others, in all places, at all times. We all have the righ to decide for ourselves what we feel is safe, and what we prefer to do, we we all have individual limitations.

I am sure many VCers feel they are in category #1. Unfortunately those who do often ruin things for the rest of us who want bike lanes, pathways, and other special faccilities in addition to roads. For some people (like me) riding behind a car is sometimes medically impossible (inhaling direct exhaust can trigger bronchial spasms). So the person telling me he wants the bike lane removed is, in fact, telling me I won't be able to use that road on some days. My sensitivity to fumes and chemicals is extremely mild, but some people have significant reasons to use bike lanes- for example limited mobility making them slow and less maneuverable. Being inflexible about any viewpoint, VC or other, means you lose sight that nor everyone is like you.

There are very, very, very few absolutes in life... if you think you have discovered some obsolute truth, you are quite probably wrong.

[Treespeed]

After posting the above, I started thinking more about talking to children regarding bike practices. I imagine the following scenario:

Me: "Hi. You know, you shouldn't be riding on this side of the street. It's safer to ride on the same side as the cars travel."

Child (eyes widening in terror - a STRANGE MAN is talking to them!): "MOM!"

Mother (charging from her front step): "You leave my child alone or I'll call the police!"

Me:"I was just trying to explain..."

Mother: "I want you to stay away from my children!"

Neighbour: "Should I call the police?"

Me: Riding away, quickly, face purple with embarrassment.

Mother: "PERVERT!!"

This has never happened, but I can sure imagine it! :(

I get the same response, but more indignant from the college students riding on the wrong side of the street near my work.

Me: "Hey you're on the wrong side of the road."

Them: "F*** Off!"

That's as productive as it's ever been.

[Treespeed]

I don't know how you get around sounding elitist, condescending, dismissive, patronizing, etc. etc., if you are arguing a position with which others disagree and who don't want to hear your position. This is especially difficult when your position is based on experience, education, logic, reason, and research, while those who don't want to hear your position don't even know why they believe what they believe, much less are able to explain it.

There I go, sounding elitist, condescending, dismissive, and patronizing again, I'm sure.

Which again begs the question of your experience Serge. How long have you been commuting/cycling in heavy urban traffic and of that time how long have you been utilizing VC?

And many of us have expressed to you the reasoning behind our beliefs, our years of experience, studies that support our logical and reasoned beliefs. Despite your very high opinion of yourself you don't have a monopoly on explaining yourself, just a deficiency in listening to the contrary opinions of other cyclists.

[noisebeam]

(2) A person does something which may be unsafe based on your perception and philosophies about safety. eg. VC, bike lanes, side-walk riding, etc.

Now the hard part, the heart of the matter here, #2. In a discussion forum such as this, by all means explain your views and why you feel your way is safer/better - just remember that others may feel differently. In an everyday context, though, shut up. I'll say that again - SHUT UP. It is none of my or anyone else's business what a third part choses to do if it does not immediately and directly threaten my (or your) safety.

I am sure many VCers feel they are in category #1. Unfortunately those who do often ruin things for the rest of us who want bike lanes, pathways, and other special faccilities in addition to roads. For some people (like me) riding behind a car is sometimes medically impossible (inhaling direct exhaust can trigger bronchial spasms). So the person telling me he wants the bike lane removed is, in fact, telling me I won't be able to use that road on some days. My sensitivity to fumes and chemicals is extremely mild, but some people have significant reasons to use bike lanes- for example limited mobility making them slow and less maneuverable. Being inflexible about any viewpoint, VC or other, means you lose sight that nor everyone is like you.

There are very, very, very few absolutes in life... if you think you have discovered some obsolute truth, you are quite probably wrong.
Did you ever consider that folks not riding VC or with the important VC principles make it more dangerous for me. When they are not VC they are less predicable and just as car driver find themselves in near-collision cases with non VC cyclists, I as a cyclist have encountered near collisions with non VC cyclists - i.e. left turn from BL, right turing cars stopping suddenly in front of me for cyclist going straight from curb side BL, cyclist on sidewalk when I need to enter side street. I want the cyclists around me to be predictable. I understand you may be a predicable rider, so I am not refering to you but to the many cyclists I encounter who are not breaking any laws (i.e. wrong way riding, lights, sidewalk riding, etc.) but are putting me at more danger.

Did you ever consider the addition of BLs on many types of streets make those streets more hazardous for me whether or not I use the BL? BLs either force me to be ignored by car drivers in a debris filled lane or result in a narrower shared lane.

As to fumes - I understand sensitivity, but do you seriously find less fumes in BL vs. behind car. Many cars have the exhaust pipe on right side of car dumping exhaust right into BL.

Al

[Daily Commute]

. . . Unfortunately those who do often ruin things for the rest of us who want bike lanes, pathways, and other special faccilities in addition to roads. For some people (like me) riding behind a car is sometimes medically impossible (inhaling direct exhaust can trigger bronchial spasms). So the person telling me he wants the bike lane removed is, in fact, telling me I won't be able to use that road on some days. My sensitivity to fumes and chemicals is extremely mild, but some people have significant reasons to use bike lanes- for example limited mobility making them slow and less maneuverable. Being inflexible about any viewpoint, VC or other, means you lose sight that nor everyone is like you. . . .
You oppose being forced out of bike lanes. Would you agree that VC and other cyclists should not be forced to use bike lanes? I may have missed a post, but I did a quick search and did not see your answer in the mandatory bike lane thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=90006&page=14&pp=25).

I think that's the common ground: Pro-bike-lane people and bike-lane skeptics could agree to argue only for a combination of bike lanes and laws that give cyclists the clear right to ride as if the bike lanes weren't there. I tried this with the local group here that favors bike lanes. The idea got no support. They were completely unwilling to consider compromise.

A clear law is needed because cops and judges could still interpret the as-far-right-as practicable language to require bike lane use even in the absense of a mandatory use law.

[Helmet-Head]

How long have you been commuting/cycling in heavy urban traffic and of that time how long have you been utilizing VC?
I've been riding bikes on roads for over 30 years.
I used to commute to jr high school in the 70s, but that was small town neighborhood stuff.
In college in the 80s I commuted a few years - about 5 miles each way.
I've been commuting regularly again for about 4 years, about 6 miles each way. Part of that commute is fairly heavy urban traffic, including a freeway crossing, 6 lanes of 50+ mph traffic (no bike lanes), etc.
Before I learned what VC was and how to do it, if I had about it here I would have decreed myself a vehicular cyclist, because, in general, I obeyed the rules of the road.
I really learned VC about a year ago, by studying EC and practicing it. I verified my own learning of it by taking a Road 1 course a couple of months ago. Had I taken that class a year earlier (before I learned VC on my own) I would have gotten much more out of it...


you don't have a monopoly on explaining yourself, just a deficiency in listening to the contrary opinions of other cyclists.
What specific contrary opinion(s) to you think I have a deficiency in listening to, and what makes you think this?

[patc]

Did you ever consider that folks not riding VC or with the important VC principles make it more dangerous for me. ....

Yes. Did you ever consider that in some cases, VC advocates and their lobby efforts may put some cyclists at increased risk?

My personal belief is that, whenever two or more people are sharing a space, conflict will exist. That conflict can be in rights, freedom, safety, etc. While I am all for advocacy, education, and spreading one's ideals in a general sense, when it comes to one-on-one situations my policy is that imposing my views is only acceptable when immediate and direct threat/issues occur.


Did you ever consider the addition of BLs on many types of streets make those streets more hazardous for me whether or not I use the BL? BLs either force me to be ignored by car drivers in a debris filled lane or result in a narrower shared lane.


I have considered that, but I am not convinced that need be the case for all bike lanes in a generic sense (obviously bad designs can occur anywhere, for any type of lane). For example a bike lane need not result in a narrower shared lane, instead it can be added to an existing roadway without affecting existing lanes.


As to fumes - I understand sensitivity, but do you seriously find less fumes in BL vs. behind car. Many cars have the exhaust pipe on right side of car dumping exhaust right into BL.

Yes, I seriously do find it more of an issue based on my position. Worst case is taking the lane, better case is a bike lane (or very wide curb lane) putting me a good 4-6 feet beside the cars. I suspect the very mildness of my reaction is the reason for the difference- I seldom get a face-full of exhaust if I am far to the side of traffic. Closer to it or behind a car is an issue. While its a mild problem (not like my reaction to perfumes!) it has given me a lot of appreciation for those completely unable to ride unless they use pathways and, if they must, a bike lane for short trips.


I want to address the issue of riding vehicularly. Yes, to the best of my ability I ride "as a vehicle". I do consider my bike to be a vehicle, and generally act as predictably as I can. (I still have some problems negotiating heavier traffic, but that will come with time. ). However I take exception to two principles of the "VC lobby". First I do not think that all vehicles and all drivers are the same, and I do not think that it is realistic to expect all cyclists to negotiate traffic on all roadways in all conditions (nor do I expect an articulated bus to make a 3-point turn on a narrow residential street). Seconfly I reject the common VC statement that bike lanes are incompatible for vehicular riding, are somehow "discriminatory", or post a safety threat by their very existence.

[noisebeam]

Yes. Did you ever consider that in some cases, VC advocates and their lobby efforts may put some cyclists at increased risk?

My personal belief is that, whenever two or more people are sharing a space, conflict will exist. That conflict can be in rights, freedom, safety, etc. While I am all for advocacy, education, and spreading one's ideals in a general sense, when it comes to one-on-one situations my policy is that imposing my views is only acceptable when immediate and direct threat/issues occur.

I have considered that, but I am not convinced that need be the case for all bike lanes in a generic sense (obviously bad designs can occur anywhere, for any type of lane). For example a bike lane need not result in a narrower shared lane, instead it can be added to an existing roadway without affecting existing lanes.

I am not aware of where VC efforts put others at risk. Keep in mind I don't know all the past situations. Also keep in mind that while I use VC and the principles I don't believe in zero bike friendly facilities. Specifically I very much support WOLs instead of BLs.

I don't see how the replacement of BLs with WOLs to me any more of a direct threat to you as removal of WOL and replacement with BLs (which is happening) to be a 'threat' to me.

When I wrote that there is a resulting narrower shared lane I am refering to where there used to be a nice WOL for me to ride in. Now it has been painted with a BL and the shared lane (i.e. not the BL) is narrower and the where the BL is now has more debris- now instead of just cruising along in the right portion of the WOL, getting passed comfortably by cars, I ride sometimes in BL, sometimes in 'main' lane and am constantly moving in and out of each to accomidate cars and debris. This has been done both on 45mph multilane roads and on 25mph residential streets. The only change that was made was adding a stripe, which I my experience has made my commute more hazardous (admitedly only slightly) and I can't see how this particular change has made it any safer for any cyclist of any ability.

Al

[Daily Commute]

So, patc, what do you think about the common ground approavh I outlined in post 41 (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=960210&postcount=41)? What do you think about VC and non-VC'ers lobbying for bike lanes and laws that expressly say cyclists don't have to use them?

[patc]

You oppose being forced out of bike lanes. Would you agree that VC and other cyclists should not be forced to use bike lanes?

I strongly oppose any law forcing cyclist to use bike lanes under all conditions. We have no such law in Ontario, and if one was proposed I would be writing to my MP. That's not to say that I would disagree with a specific case, that would depend on the case.

I think that's the common ground: Pro-bike-lane people and bike-lane skeptics could agree to argue only for a combination of bike lanes and laws that give cyclists the clear right to ride as if the bike lanes weren't there. ... A clear law is needed because cops and judges could still interpret the as-far-right-as practicable language to require bike lane use even in the absense of a mandatory use law.

I think that common ground is impossible when dealing with absolutists, as some of the VC proponents on this forum seem to be. Having checked the Ontario Highway Traffic Act recently, I can paraphrase: the only requirement to ride to the right applies to slow vehicles: as long as you can keep up with the average speed of traffic on your bike you may use and take any lane you wish. The HTA also explicitely defines a bike as as vehicle, states when a vehicle may break the slow-keeps-right rule (e.g. positioing for a left turn), and notes that safety trumps these specific rules. I get the impression that bikes are treated very differently in many states than they are in Ontario.

Frankly I like my bike lanes. I don't use them exclusively by any means, but on several of my common trips they offer a faster/smoother/easier ride than the other lanes. On other trips I ignore them, or even ignore the recommened bike routes entirely. As I said I do not think there has to be a conflict between VC beliefs and bike lanes, they are not mutually exclusive. Same thing goes with pathways- we have an extensive pathway system that often gets me places faster and more pleasantly that the roads, but even there I consider myself a vehicle on a road (just an unusually thin and pretty road).

[patc]

I am not aware of where VC efforts put others at risk. Keep in mind I don't know all the past situations. Also keep in mind that while I use VC and the principles I don't believe in zero bike friendly facilities. Specifically I very much support WOLs instead of BLs.

Trust me, I have noted and appreciate your common-ground position. I do know some VC advocates who want anything resembling a bike lane, WOL, or any special bike facility removed, and I do consider that to pose a risk to (at least some) cyclists. Amusingly one of these people admitted to using the special bike priviledge on "no right on red except buses and bikes" intersections.


I don't see how the replacement of BLs with WOLs to me any more of a direct threat to you as removal of WOL and replacement with BLs (which is happening) to be a 'threat' to me.

I do see a problem with converting a WOL to a narrow lane plus a bike lane, if that results in one or both lanes being significantly narrower than normal. On the other hand, I prefer a bike lane to a WOL as long as the other lanes are normal width, not narrow. I would not say this is a big preference for me, but I feel the bike lane does a better job of increasing the visibility of bikes in general as a mode of transportation, and I feel that the white line on the pavement with the accompanying diamond shape and signage does a better job of keeping drivers clear of the right edge of the road. I have seen WOL blocked by traffic thanks to car drivers who drive to the extreme right of the lane, or legitimately blocked by parked cars, making it impossible for me to zoom by as I usually could in a bike lane. In other words, the line seems to make drivers behave a bit more (and you are not allowed to park in a bike lane here).

Having said all that, a bike lane is a stupid waste on a small residential street. I do like bike lanes, but I see no need to drop them on every roadway. Rather I see them like any other special-use lane: something you use when the situation calls for it.


Now it has been painted with a BL and the shared lane (i.e. not the BL) is narrower and the where the BL is now has more debris-

If I figure out why our streets are so much cleaner and I never see this debris others comment on, I'll bottle it and send you a free sample.


The only change that was made was adding a stripe, which I my experience has made my commute more hazardous (admitedly only slightly) and I can't see how this particular change has made it any safer for any cyclist of any ability.

In general I would oppose that conversion, unless some specific situation seemed to call for it. When I think of bike lanes being added, I associate it with major construction projects that completely re-build a road or bridge, and is often done hand-in-hand with added bus lanes, extra general lanes, wider side-walks, etc. In other words, I very much associate "adding bike lanes" with "modernizing an urban street". I'm not saying that Ottawa is perfect, and we do have bike lanes that seemed to have been added by a monkey with a paint brush, but that doesn't seem to be the norm.

[Helmet-Head]

In general I would oppose that conversion, unless some specific situation seemed to call for it. When I think of bike lanes being added, I associate it with major construction projects that completely re-build a road or bridge, and is often done hand-in-hand with added bus lanes, extra general lanes, wider side-walks, etc.
But the improvement then comes from added width (either to the pavement, outside lane, or both). The BL stripe is superfluous (and arguably counter-productive) to the benefits gained from the widening.

The only BL argument that makes any logical sense to me is the political defense of bike lanes: The only way we (can widen roads, get ride of on-street parking, whatever) is to get "them" to put in bike lanes.

But I reject that argument on the same grounds that I reject the "pragmatic" capital punishment argument (some people argue that because some life-sentence convicts are eventually released on parole, we need to have capital punishment to make sure they never get out) - that's addressing the wrong problem. In the case of released killers - we should make changing the system so that "life without parole" really means "life without parole".

Similarly, we should be working to change the system to recognize WOLs as legitimate facilities for facilitating safe passing of cyclists by faster motorists, particularly when parallel parking is not allowed within them.

[sbhikes]

I think VC advocates could reach others better if they didn't come across as having a ONE way, RIGHT way, MY way approach. And posting topics that go something like:

"Blah blah blah blah blah. Do you disagree with me?"

That comes across as a challenge, especially when someone answers with:

"I disagree."

And then the response to the response is:

"Well, you have to agree then with blah blah blah blah blah. Do you agree or disagree."

It's like you're setting traps, not trying to reach other people. You put yourself into an authority position by this technique and try to force others to accept your position through brute force. Key words to look out for are the use of words like fear, phobia, taboo, inexperienced, newbie, all, always, none, never, agree, disagree, must, should... etc.

To truly reach other people you set an example that others want to follow, not because you are persuasive, but because by your behavior you are attractive. When people say to themselves, Man, that guy has it going on. How can I be like him? Then you have reached them.

You cannot do this by trying to. You can't simply repeat your arguments more cleverly, more forcefully, more absolutely, or post more data than the other guy, challenge people to prove you wrong, or explain exactly where you went wrong. It's an attitude that must eminate from you naturally.

As an example, note the difference in tone between Serge and bwiler. Bwiler's position is attractive. Serge's position is by brute force and causes one to feel defensive.

I think it would help, too, if VC wasn't thought to be mutually exclusive of bicycling facilities. I see no reason why you cannot ride vehicularly and use bike facilities.

[Helmet-Head]

Bruce (bwileyr) does not use debate as a tool. I do. That explains the language that I use, and Bruce avoids.

I hope it's no surprise to anyone that I'm hear to debate these issues.

Bruce may be trying to be persuasive. I'm not. I'm trying to find out what people believe, and why, while at the same time sharing what I believe, and why. I find debate to be an effective tool for this process, though I know some are turned off by it. I believe there are at least some people who may be swayed by logical reasoning; I hope to reach them. I realize there are some who turned off by debate, regardless of the merits of the arguments. Which brings me back to my post #27:


I don't know how you get around sounding elitist, condescending, dismissive, patronizing, etc. etc., if you are arguing a position with which others disagree and who don't want to hear your position. This is especially difficult when your position is based on experience, education, logic, reason, and research, while those who don't want to hear your position don't even know why they believe what they believe, much less are able to explain it.


Anyway, if you're not interested in debating the issues, please ignore my posts.