genec

I love your caveat there... "as long as you pay attention...;" you also state that you take the effort to ensure that you are safe... Why? What effort is required if it is an inherently safe environment. You also indicate "best practices," of which I have no disagreement... as long as all involved are utilizing "best practices."

Perhaps we are dancing on the head of a semantic pin here, but the reality is that driving is an inherently dangerous activity, which oddly enough you finally acknowledge: But others can judge whether you denied it or not by their reading.

I simply stated that mixing cars and bikes together is an inherently dangerous activity, that is mitigated by rules. You went on a rampage to get me to deny that... and I cannot as it is the truth.

Now as to your further claims/comments/gestures/commentary... Do I believe that cycling in traffic is dangerous enough that some changes need to be made... Yes, in a certain sense I do... Cycling around on low speed streets with little traffic is not a dangerous activity... mixing it up with high speed dense traffic involves more danger (and thus more skill), but there is an asymptote too, under certain conditions, motor traffic can be too dangerous for a cyclist to be safe.

I also firmly believe that motorists generally do not use "best practices," but instead chose "minimal practices" to just get by... AND this is the basis for my arguments here... not the physics aspect, but just the basic "best practices" aspect... which when not followed by all, requires that the cyclist take extraordinary steps to protect themselves.

genec

At times that is exactly the problem. If a motorist does not follow the rules... what do YOU do?

Helmet Head

Gene, can we agree that it is dangerous to not pay attention when you're driving or cycling in traffic, or are you going to disagree with me on that too?

Can you comprehend that just because a given environment is inherently dangerous (which I do not and have not denied with regard to the traffic environment), does not mean that the environment must change in order for it to be safe to travel through that environment?

Helmet Head

Pay attention and follow best practices, of course. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. Where have you been?

John Forester

Randya stated: "and your first paragraph is a strawman, it's been clearly stated by JF himself numerous times here that his objectives do not include encouraging more people to bicycle."



That's not an accurate statement of my position. I have never stated that I do not have the objective of encouraging people to cycle, for any purpose that they choose. Cycling, properly done, is a good activity and more people should do it.

What I will not do is to entice ignorant people into cycling with the lies that bikeways make cycling safe without learning how to ride in the vehicular manner. I do not hold that motoring is so evil as to justify the lying propaganda that entices people into cycling in a dangerous manner, in the way that most bicycle advocates do.

Not only do I maintain that such activity is immoral, but I also consider that it is useless because it will not produce the transportationally significant reduction in motoring that the anti-motoring bicycle advocates desire.

I desire that those people who choose to cycle will cycle according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and, furthermore, that society will accept that as proper. The number of those who choose to cycle properly, whatever that is, is acceptable to me.

randya

so where do you stand on motorist education, John?

John Forester

The skills required to operate regarding same-direction motor traffic do not vary with the speed of that traffic. They are the same skills, the cyclist just has to look for a longer distance.

It doesn't matter much that motorists do not use "best practices". The normal operation of traffic is such that cyclists who follow the rules and are observant can cycle in reasonable safety. There are many of us who have done so for decades. It appears to be a reasonable conclusion that the amount of whining emitted by cyclists is in proportion to their dislike of traffic, rather than evidence of significant operational defects.

John Forester

Training of motorists to properly operate the traffic system is absolutely necessary, for two reasons. First, the motor vehicle has the potential of causing great injuries and damage. Second, if the drivers don't operate properly, the traffic system gets extremely inefficient. These are obvious.

I suspect that the meaning of your statement, considering your usual attitude, concerns the education (not training) of motorists with respect to cyclists. Well, of course motorists should be taught that cyclists are drivers of vehicles and should be treated as such. That did not occur because motorists didn't want vehicular cyclists on the roads, and now it is more strongly being prevented by the bicycle advocacy movement whose anti-motoring agenda advocates the exact opposite, that cyclists need special protection because they can't operate as drivers of vehicles.

John Forester

By learning to cycle according to the rules of operation, the vehicular cyclist learns what should be expected. Because he knows what should be expected, he is much more able and much quicker to detect when an unexpected occurrence has started. Then both the vehicular cycling habits and previously practiced avoidance maneuvers enable him to have a pretty good chance of avoiding a collision. Such kinds of skills enable competent cyclists to have a much lower collision (and other crash types also) rate than typical cyclists.

iltb-2

Ahhhh, Ye Olde Forester Straw Man Argument Ploy. Reply to your own "interpretation" of the "implications" of what someone else "implied", after spinning what was actually written. In other words: You never tire of the sophistry do you?

RobertHurst

People in Portland decide to ride bikes in greater numbers, but not because motoring is particularly inconvenient there. It is just as easy or easier to drive in Portland than it is to drive in cities of similar size, and 'motoring' is still the mode of choice, by far. So if they are trying to make motoring difficult in Portland they are doing a pretty horrible job. If they really wanted to do some damage they could simply raise the bridges at peak hours. That would surely do it.

Consider this: due to the city's devotion to light rail, walkable communities, bicycle infrastructure, and all that jive, they are going to be able to pack a lot more people, and a lot more commerce, into a small space than would otherwise be possible in a city devoted only to the motoring paradigm.

One thing that I've noticed about Portland -- not only are there a lot more cyclists per capita there, but the cycle-commuters are also the most law-abiding, light-sitting, conservative and proper riders I've ever seen anywhere.

Robert

The Industrialized Cyclist

Helmet Head

Gene has confirmed that I did not misunderstand or misrepresent his argument.

Your attempt to paint my genuine attempts at fruitful communication to be strawman arguing and sophistry is sophistry in itself.

invisiblehand

Well, it depends on what you mean by motorist education ... there seem to be a few ideas floating around here. Moreover, it depends on how much bang for the effort -- effort is costly -- you will get.

I think that it is fair to say that most drivers have a decent grasp on the basic rules of the road. They are probably unfamiliar with how the rules apply to cyclists. If you are behaving like another vehicle, however, they should understand how to interact with you even if they are unhappy about it.

Helmet Head

Again, we agree (despite your repeated claims about my position to the contrary) that the traffic environment is inherently dangerous to the cyclist.

Our difference is on whether cycling in the traffic environment is inherently dangerous, or whether the dangers inherent in the environment can be sufficiently mitigated through cyclist behavior alone such that cycling through the inherently dangerous environment becomes reasonably and acceptably safe.

Your position, if I understand it correctly (again, please correct me if I get something wrong), is that danger mitigation through cyclist behavior alone is not sufficient to make cycling through the inherently dangerous traffic environment reasonably and acceptably safe; that cycling through the inherently dangerous traffic environment remains unacceptably safe regardless of how safely the cyclist behaves (or it requires the cyclist to resort to "extraordinary steps" to be acceptably safe), and the only way to make cycling through it reasonably and acceptably safe is to change the environment itself (by causing motorist behavior to be safer, and/or with infrastructure changes).

My position is that though reducing dangers in the traffic environment should of course be encouraged, danger mitigation through cyclist behavior alone is sufficient to make cycling through the inherently dangerous traffic environment reasonably safe; that cycling through the inherently dangerous traffic environment is acceptably safe if the cyclist follows the rules, pays attention, and adheres to traffic cycling safe best practices (and resorting to "extraordinary steps" is not required to accomplish this). I also contend that your position -- the only way to make cycling through the inherently dangerous traffic environment reasonably and acceptably safe is to change the environment itself -- is anti-cycling advocacy (because it discourages people from taking up cycling in the environment whose inherent dangers you allege can only be sufficiently mitigated to make cycling through it reasonably and acceptably safe by changing the environment itself).

Gene, is this a fair assessment of where we are? If not, please make any corrections as you feel are appropriate.

Edit: I look forward to your reply, but take your time. I'll be gone a few days.

JohnBrooking

To reply to Scout's original comments (and no, I have not read the intervening 11 pages):

I think that most motorists are unsure how they are supposed to treat bicyclists, but in my experience, most at least have some vague feeling that cyclists should be following the rules and acting predictably. We do know that seeing cyclists engaging in behavior perceived as risky to themselves and other road users does get motorists' dander up. In my opinion, that's a good case for following the rules. (And yes, I know, sometimes they have an unfortunate misunderstanding of the rules, such as "has to stay out of my way" or "has to stay in bike lane", which does argue for motorist education.)

I also believe in the sense of freedom and independence afforded by both Forester's and Hurst's insistence that you the cyclist have the most control over what happens to you. No victimhood. I love how Hurst puts it (paraphrasing from memory): "Don't leave your fate to the planners, the police, the pedestrians, or the paramedics. Certainly don't leave your fate to the drivers."

As you can see, the theoretical application can be argued ad infinitum, and often is on these forums. All I can say really is that I believe Forester's statement to be largely true, and have found that it works well for me. If others have a different experience, I don't know why without knowing them and how and where they ride, which I don't. So I'd rather not spend too much time arguing with them about it. I can only tell you what I know, and now I have.

genec

Not necessarily the dislike of traffic as much as the issues of dealing with heavy traffic that is not treating us cyclists as equals on the road.

The law gives us relative equality, but society (empowered by the automotive industry) takes that equality away.

dyadinchlane

Bike Forum folks (especially flamers who don't know how to be civil cyclists): I'd appreciate you directing your attention to the right of my blog (just as you might when riding in traffic), as my humble blog is meant to gather and give information about Dooring of cyclists by cars/trucks/minivans... and to be personable at the same time. Thanks.

As to those who would impugn my credibility... flame on. Just don't fall on me. And when your next carbon fiber red-painted flaming fork goes under a bigger vehicle with you following closely behind, I hope someone can report your case with "credibility" rather than incredulity.

genec

It is a fairly reasonable assessment of where we are... and I am willing to drop details to look at the overall picture at large.

I'll go with your contentions (at this point) and put this forward... if cycling were "acceptably safe" then why is there not more uptake of it? Frankly people (who themselves are usually motorists) see the motoring environment as unsafe (hence the huge uptake of SUVs based on their false safety) and therefore do not see cycling in traffic as safe at all.

Now while anyone can learn the basic mechanical skills to ride a bike in traffic, the actual full skill set (often alluded to by you as a complex series of other skills, attitudes, and even appearance) is not easily learned, coupled with the physical requirements and the need to be attentive above and beyond the needs required to drive a car. This means that the likelihood of any major uptake of cycling in our society is not likely, no matter how many restrictions to the auto are put into place, or how high the fuel price is.

Further, your commitment to the imbalance of responsibilities assigned to motorist verses cyclist is a mind numbing hindrance to a newbie cyclist. The reality is that we all have equal responsibility to prevent harm to one another when sharing the same rules and environment.

I further contend that a cyclist cannot just "follow the rules, pay attention, and adhere to traffic cycling safe best practices," but must also be prepared to evade and overcome the lapses, and even intentional abuse, of motorists who by definition have more responsibility due to the size and power of the vehicles they command. (this is backed up by license and insurance requirements for those motorists).

If I honestly felt all I had to do was "follow the rules, pay attention, and adhere to traffic cycling safe best practices," then I would agree with you... but in reality, I have found that it takes more than that to be a safe cyclist... this has been shown to me time and time again by motorists who willfully do not follow the rules, pay attention, and adhere to traffic best practices, and threaten me by their actions intentional or otherwise... which I have skillfully managed to mitigate (so far), but said actions should not have occurred in the first place.

Scout!

I was trying to bring up the question of whether cyclists should act like vehicles even when they are not treated as such. As far as I can tell, the past eleven pages have been arguments for and against the following positions:

• The question is moot because cyclists who act like vehicles are treated like vehicles.
• The question would be moot if only automobile drivers were properly educated.
• The question is meaningless because nobody ever said what it means to "fare best".

I believe yours is the first post to really address the question I had in mind.

randya

I think you're making a lot of unfounded assumptions

invisiblehand

like what?

iltb-2

Given that you posted the question with a meaningless title and a question based on that trite phrase that nobody, including yourself has defined, are you surprised at the lack of meaningful answers?

John Forester

Not quite. The law gives while simultaneously taking away. Gives us the rights as drivers of vehicles, and then prohibits us from using them properly. That needs rectification. But, so what? Just get used to it. I have cycled under American conditions for 67 years now, and I don't bother about the treatment that I receive on the road. Most is OK, a little is obnoxious, and a minute fraction is somewhat dangerous.

Not only should the law be corrected to remove the prohibition [rarely enforced] against obeying the rules of the roads, but, even more, the bikeway programs and designs that exaggerate that discrimination should be removed, to be replaced by road designs that treat cyclists as drivers of vehicles.

randya

Like this:

"I think that it is fair to say that most drivers have a decent grasp on the basic rules of the road."

"If you are behaving like another vehicle, however, they should understand how to interact with you even if they are unhappy about it."

genec

John... I have to laugh... I am indeed "used to it;" we've been through this before, I am a very experienced cyclist, and frankly I can deal with anything out there, even though I only have half the riding time you do.

BUT that simply puts me into the league of elitist cyclists to which you and others belong, while the current situation shuts the door to those that are less skilled (unlike driving, which apparently nearly anyone can do). In our society, the "childish" apparently drive.

And yes, my comment "not quite" RE the laws... that was why I used the term "relative" equality... no, we are not quite equal...; there are conditions... and yes, these should be changed.

So my hue and cry basically come down to this... anyone should be able to easily bike... as readily as anyone can drive about... without encountering "situations that are a little obnoxious, or a minute fraction [that] are somewhat dangerous... " (thanks for acknowledging that perhaps things are not as "rosy" as some may portray)

And last, we are in somewhat agreement on this: If the current road designs (where needed) can be replaced by road designs that treat cyclists as drivers of vehicles, indeed, the bikeway programs and designs that exaggerate that discrimination should be removed. I worded it a bit differently, so it may not conform to your exact wishes, but the sentiment is there.