Cyclists fare best?
#76
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Reaching those that need the education the most is the penthouse suite of what we're trying to accomplish. But if you rush this thing and try to accomplish that first, everything we're doing will collapse. Patience, and for goodness sakes, stop resisting already. Help me get invisiblehand, Allister, Bek and everyone else to agree that this is what we need to. Until folks like that get on board, it's not going to happen. And folks like them are not going to get on board until folks like you get on board. What are you waiting for?
At least cyclists associated with clubs and LBSs and secondary education may be exposed to the opportunity for voluntary cyclist education, but the group most likely to be sidewalk riders and night ninja riders and wrong way riders are not likely to be associated with clubs or LBSs.
So unless cyclist education is mandated at the public school level, it is highly unlikely that "everyone" will get that education. The only other system is one in which cyclists are licensed and mandated to take education.
So unless cyclist education is mandated at the public school level, it is highly unlikely that "everyone" will get that education. The only other system is one in which cyclists are licensed and mandated to take education.
There will still be a very small group that will fall out of this education too... and for them and others that are already licensed drivers, PSAs and other public declarations of road safety and education could be implemented... including arrows in BL and police enforcement.
The other issue you fail to realize is that by improving the education of licensed road users, you improve the environment for everyone across the board... so that you as a cyclist also have a lower chance of being killed while you are driving. And by combining cycling education at the motorist level, you leverage the small funding for cyclist education into a larger pool of education monies.
You need to look at this as not a cyclist issue, but as a whole systemic issue... for all road users.
You need to look at this as not a cyclist issue, but as a whole systemic issue... for all road users.
What makes you think I fail to realize this? What part of
What I'm opposed to is having the bulk of the limited education-related focus, attention and resources that the cycling community has going towards whining about the need for more motorist education rather than towards promoting and providing cyclist education. The former (whining about drivers and their need for education) accomplishes nothing in terms of improving cyclist safety; the latter, promoting and providing cyclist education (classes, books, articles, forums, clubs, conversations) has almost infinite promise in terms of improving cyclist safety.
How much promoting of the needs for and benefits of cyclist education have you done lately?
Last edited by Helmet Head; 02-05-08 at 01:39 PM.
#77
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Following HH's comment, changing an attitude is going to be really difficult in a mandated class with unmotivated students. I do think that if you present the idea from an authority figure that more people will consider the strategy. But I speculate that vast majority of the less-enthusiastic (my vocabulary is shrinking today ... baby on the brain) will never seriously execute the strategy without several other attitude changes -- namely those of drivers and law-enforcement. More generally, I just don't think that the payoff from trying has much value to most cyclists.
Something this large will not work at the lower level HH envisions... it must be done at the top and pushed down.
#78
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally posted by invisible hand:
"Regarding educating cyclists, I think that you are underestimating the cost and overestimating effectiveness of education. Getting the less-enthusiastic-cyclist to adopt a take-the-lane strategy is not easy. Moreover, teaching is generally human capital intensive which almost always makes it expensive and less apt for any economies of scale."
I think that there are additional factors to be considered. Instruction in proper traffic cycling, to bring the class of students up to passing the bicycle driving test, has required about 1 instructor hour per student. For young children, this increased to 2 assistant-instructor hours per student. I suspect that this is more than is required for safe swimming classes, but is less than, say, skiing classes. However, I suspect that many reading this list are considering the expense of mass instruction for all children. That is socially impossible; it didn't continue very long when tried in one middle school of the bicycle-friendly city of Palo Alto (and the pressures on the schools have increased markedly since then). The only possible system, for modern America, is one that teaches those who are interested in learning better cycling.
It is certainly possible to have a society in which cyclists are expected to obey the rules of the road, and actually do so. The England in which I was raised was such. And, so far as I know, at that time there was no specific instruction of cyclists. Not only the cycling community believed in vehicular cycling; the rest of society also did. Cyclists were told to act like everybody else, and, largely, they learned by doing. Unfortunately, such has not been the case for quite a long time, and it will never be the case in America.
In America, up to the 1970s, the active cycling community practiced vehicular cycling without any system of formal instruction. Some cyclists were Europeans, or Americans who had cycled in Europe, who brought with them the vehicular cycling tradition; some were Americans who learned it on their own, through experience; these two groups informally spread vehicular cycling skills and attitude throughout the club cycling community. This is the situation that HH describes as exceeding the critical mass, and describes the dissemination process as: "This is accomplished on multiple fronts, including with bike clubs, bike education, newsletters, books, magazine articles, and forums like this."
One might think that this process will work equally well today; I conclude that it cannot, that it will require far more effort because the opposition is so much stronger and well entrenched. Up to the 1970s, vehicular cyclists faced practically no opposition. The basic traffic laws were on their side, except for the restrictions to using the full width of the roadway, which were rarely enforced against vehicular cyclists. While society believed that children should cycle in the childish-cycling and cyclist-inferiority way, and taught them that, nobody bothered to object to those who obeyed the rules of the road. This is not the condition today.
When society, meaning the motoring establishment that controls highway affairs, got bothered in 1970 about growing bicycle traffic, they clamped down by imposing the bikeway system that was the physical and legal embodiment of the childish-cycling and cyclist-inferiority social superstition. As one would expect, we now have a bureaucracy whose professional careers are devoted to expanding that bikeway system, and who publish reports attempting, unsuccessfully, to defend its discriminatory effects. Not only that, but this anti-cyclist, motorist-favoring bikeway system is advocated by people whom the public believes to be cyclists acting for cyclists. Actually, these people are anti-motorists ferociously advocating bikeways because they believe (without any real grounds) that bikeways reduce motoring by increasing bicycling.
So vehicular cyclists now face determined opposition from two sides, or maybe three. The motoring establishment wants bikeways to control bicycle traffic; the bikeway bureaucracy, paid by the motorists but supported by the bicycle advocates, want to keep and expand their jobs; the bicycle advocates want bikeways as a weapon against motoring. That's real tough opposition, and vehicular cyclists need all their abilities to simply protect their right to obey the rules of the road rather than the childish-cycling superstition that is built into bikeways.
"Regarding educating cyclists, I think that you are underestimating the cost and overestimating effectiveness of education. Getting the less-enthusiastic-cyclist to adopt a take-the-lane strategy is not easy. Moreover, teaching is generally human capital intensive which almost always makes it expensive and less apt for any economies of scale."
I agree that getting the less-enthusiastic-cyclist to adopt a take-the-lane strategy is not easy, but accomplishing that is much more about attitude adjustment than acquiring knowledge. I also think it's much more about time than money, since it's really about changing the zeitgeist in the cycling community.
I believe that there is a critical mass within the cyclist community that needs to "get it", and once that happens the sheeple will follow. I'm not sure what the size of that critical mass is, but I know we have not yet achieved it, and I suspect it's substantially less than 50%.
The thing is, we just have to keep working on increasing the number of cyclists who "get it", and who then turn around to help others "get it". This is accomplished on multiple fronts, including with bike clubs, bike education, newsletters, books, magazine articles, and forums like this.
We have the truth and time on our side. Best of all, how long it takes doesn't matter, as long as we have enough support to not lose the rights that we have. That's because in the mean time, we can just keep on riding in accordance with those rights - not much affected by how the others are not getting it, yet.
I believe that there is a critical mass within the cyclist community that needs to "get it", and once that happens the sheeple will follow. I'm not sure what the size of that critical mass is, but I know we have not yet achieved it, and I suspect it's substantially less than 50%.
The thing is, we just have to keep working on increasing the number of cyclists who "get it", and who then turn around to help others "get it". This is accomplished on multiple fronts, including with bike clubs, bike education, newsletters, books, magazine articles, and forums like this.
We have the truth and time on our side. Best of all, how long it takes doesn't matter, as long as we have enough support to not lose the rights that we have. That's because in the mean time, we can just keep on riding in accordance with those rights - not much affected by how the others are not getting it, yet.
It is certainly possible to have a society in which cyclists are expected to obey the rules of the road, and actually do so. The England in which I was raised was such. And, so far as I know, at that time there was no specific instruction of cyclists. Not only the cycling community believed in vehicular cycling; the rest of society also did. Cyclists were told to act like everybody else, and, largely, they learned by doing. Unfortunately, such has not been the case for quite a long time, and it will never be the case in America.
In America, up to the 1970s, the active cycling community practiced vehicular cycling without any system of formal instruction. Some cyclists were Europeans, or Americans who had cycled in Europe, who brought with them the vehicular cycling tradition; some were Americans who learned it on their own, through experience; these two groups informally spread vehicular cycling skills and attitude throughout the club cycling community. This is the situation that HH describes as exceeding the critical mass, and describes the dissemination process as: "This is accomplished on multiple fronts, including with bike clubs, bike education, newsletters, books, magazine articles, and forums like this."
One might think that this process will work equally well today; I conclude that it cannot, that it will require far more effort because the opposition is so much stronger and well entrenched. Up to the 1970s, vehicular cyclists faced practically no opposition. The basic traffic laws were on their side, except for the restrictions to using the full width of the roadway, which were rarely enforced against vehicular cyclists. While society believed that children should cycle in the childish-cycling and cyclist-inferiority way, and taught them that, nobody bothered to object to those who obeyed the rules of the road. This is not the condition today.
When society, meaning the motoring establishment that controls highway affairs, got bothered in 1970 about growing bicycle traffic, they clamped down by imposing the bikeway system that was the physical and legal embodiment of the childish-cycling and cyclist-inferiority social superstition. As one would expect, we now have a bureaucracy whose professional careers are devoted to expanding that bikeway system, and who publish reports attempting, unsuccessfully, to defend its discriminatory effects. Not only that, but this anti-cyclist, motorist-favoring bikeway system is advocated by people whom the public believes to be cyclists acting for cyclists. Actually, these people are anti-motorists ferociously advocating bikeways because they believe (without any real grounds) that bikeways reduce motoring by increasing bicycling.
So vehicular cyclists now face determined opposition from two sides, or maybe three. The motoring establishment wants bikeways to control bicycle traffic; the bikeway bureaucracy, paid by the motorists but supported by the bicycle advocates, want to keep and expand their jobs; the bicycle advocates want bikeways as a weapon against motoring. That's real tough opposition, and vehicular cyclists need all their abilities to simply protect their right to obey the rules of the road rather than the childish-cycling superstition that is built into bikeways.
#79
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
And now the England where you were raised has fewer cyclists per capita that regularly share the road... (Less than America's 2%) so your "system" failed there.
Where as someplace like Denmark has about a 25% rider share and they do educate the children in public schools... in fact they have unique cycling playgrounds.
It certainly looks as though you "vehicular cyclists" are trying to do things the hard way.
Where as someplace like Denmark has about a 25% rider share and they do educate the children in public schools... in fact they have unique cycling playgrounds.
It certainly looks as though you "vehicular cyclists" are trying to do things the hard way.
#80
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by invisiblehand
Following HH's comment, changing an attitude is going to be really difficult in a mandated class with unmotivated students. I do think that if you present the idea from an authority figure that more people will consider the strategy. But I speculate that vast majority of the less-enthusiastic (my vocabulary is shrinking today ... baby on the brain) will never seriously execute the strategy without several other attitude changes -- namely those of drivers and law-enforcement. More generally, I just don't think that the payoff from trying has much value to most cyclists.
Something this large will not work at the lower level HH envisions... it must be done at the top and pushed down.
Invisiblehand, I agree change is very difficult to bring about in a mandated class with unmotivated students. That is essentially what Gene seems to be pushing for in terms of educating motorists, and even cyclists.
#81
Still Around
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Same goes for the unsubstantiated claim of making cyclists "safer" by educating them in your preferred propriatary program of "principles, techniques and best practices."
#82
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
And now the England where you were raised has fewer cyclists per capita that regularly share the road... (Less than America's 2%) so your "system" failed there.
Where as someplace like Denmark has about a 25% rider share and they do educate the children in public schools... in fact they have unique cycling playgrounds.
It certainly looks as though you "vehicular cyclists" are trying to do things the hard way.
Where as someplace like Denmark has about a 25% rider share and they do educate the children in public schools... in fact they have unique cycling playgrounds.
It certainly looks as though you "vehicular cyclists" are trying to do things the hard way.
As for whether or not vehicular cycling has failed, that depends on your definition of failure. Have you not noticed that the prime bikeway advocates on this list ride in the vehicular manner because they have found that it is the best way? In such an acrimonious group as this, I consider this to be logical proof.
You argue as if the Danish training were unexpected. Don't be so silly. When something like 50% of the adult population ride bicycles, and almost any of them might ride on any given day, it makes sense to have mass education in bicycling. Bicycling in the socially approved manner is not only a necessary social and living skill, it is also necessary to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists. Notice that I wrote "socially approved manner"; you can bet your bottom dollar that the Danes don't teach vehicular cycling; they teach childish-cycling on bikeways, because that is the official manner.
That is what we vehicular cyclists are fighting here, because the childish-cycling, cyclist-inferiority system that has been taught for decades has never worked in America, and there is no reason to suspect that, when implemented in the form of bikeways, it does work. It does not make cycling safe, and it has not reduced motoring; all it does is make motorists more comfortable, and those who think like motorists.
#83
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
ah, what grand delusions. john, I've told you before, spouting fallacies 1000 times does not make them true.
Evidence seen in cities AROUND THE WORLD, john, provide irrefutable proof bike infrastructure and planning for bikes with bike specific infrastructure increases bicycling, bicyclists and bicyclists' safety.
Evidence seen in cities AROUND THE WORLD, john, provide irrefutable proof bike infrastructure and planning for bikes with bike specific infrastructure increases bicycling, bicyclists and bicyclists' safety.
#84
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Gene, I agree this can and must be done at the penthouse level. My point is you can't do anything at the penthouse level - the 100th floor - until you've built the 99th floor, and, of course, all the floors below it. And building those lower floors includes getting the existing community of experienced cyclists to understand and appreciate the value of learning the principles, techniques and best practices in terms of making a cyclist safer. You have to do that first, and we still have a long way to go, as is made quite evident by some of the experienced cyclists posting to this thread.
Invisiblehand, I agree change is very difficult to bring about in a mandated class with unmotivated students. That is essentially what Gene seems to be pushing for in terms of educating motorists, and even cyclists.
Invisiblehand, I agree change is very difficult to bring about in a mandated class with unmotivated students. That is essentially what Gene seems to be pushing for in terms of educating motorists, and even cyclists.
Right now every school ever made does not rely on the students to create the curriculum; the curriculum is made up by the teachers and administrators... those in the "lofty offices," to use your penthouse metaphor.
As far as the motivation for students... Students readily attend classes for Driver's licenses... they are very motivated. Just modify a bit the lesson plans to ensure that cyclist safety and rights are clearly spelled out.
On the other hand... you have provided no system to teach cycling... either voluntarily, or mandatory, to the masses that need it. You somehow imagine that a core of trained cyclists will somehow pass on their lessons, to people that indeed fit the "unmotivated" group you outline above.
#85
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
You fail to consider the difference in social and urban conditions between the two. The Danes used to boast that their royal family could be seen cycling around Copenhagen; the idea that the British royal family would be seen cycling around London is incredible. And there are all the other differences that have been discussed ad infinitum within your reading; you should not ignore facts that you don't like.
As for whether or not vehicular cycling has failed, that depends on your definition of failure. Have you not noticed that the prime bikeway advocates on this list ride in the vehicular manner because they have found that it is the best way? In such an acrimonious group as this, I consider this to be logical proof.
As for whether or not vehicular cycling has failed, that depends on your definition of failure. Have you not noticed that the prime bikeway advocates on this list ride in the vehicular manner because they have found that it is the best way? In such an acrimonious group as this, I consider this to be logical proof.
Perhaps you should try riding a bike in a country where cyclists are actually considered equal to other users of the road.
You argue as if the Danish training were unexpected. Don't be so silly. When something like 50% of the adult population ride bicycles, and almost any of them might ride on any given day, it makes sense to have mass education in bicycling. Bicycling in the socially approved manner is not only a necessary social and living skill, it is also necessary to keep cyclists out of the way of motorists. Notice that I wrote "socially approved manner"; you can bet your bottom dollar that the Danes don't teach vehicular cycling; they teach childish-cycling on bikeways, because that is the official manner.
That is what we vehicular cyclists are fighting here, because the childish-cycling, cyclist-inferiority system that has been taught for decades has never worked in America, and there is no reason to suspect that, when implemented in the form of bikeways, it does work. It does not make cycling safe, and it has not reduced motoring; all it does is make motorists more comfortable, and those who think like motorists.
That is what we vehicular cyclists are fighting here, because the childish-cycling, cyclist-inferiority system that has been taught for decades has never worked in America, and there is no reason to suspect that, when implemented in the form of bikeways, it does work. It does not make cycling safe, and it has not reduced motoring; all it does is make motorists more comfortable, and those who think like motorists.
No where can you show that vehicular cycling alone will lead to increased rider share... ie MORE CYCLISTS on the road... which, time and time, has been touted as the best way to get more acceptance of cyclists.
Vehicular Cycling alone is perceived by the general public as foolhardy at best and dangerous at worst, with the result of fewer people riding bikes for transportation.
Vehicular Cycling alone is a downward spiral... when it alone is used, then only an elite few will ride bike.
When facilities and education are used, there is an upward growth in the number of cyclists.
I know you will deny this... (you always do, and always will), but there is no record of vehicular cycling alone increasing rider share anywhere.
#86
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Welcome to my world.
Why should I provide some other system? I'm fine with using the existing education system. What I'm saying is that we're never going to use that system to teach traffic cycling until we have at least semi-consensus in the cycling community with folks like you on the value of doing so. How are we going to get the powers that be to accept that it's valuable to teach riding "further left" when an experienced rider like you, Bek, Allister, ILTB, IH, etc., still can't accept it, or at least can't stop chiding me for pointing it out when it applies?
Right now every school ever made does not rely on the students to create the curriculum; the curriculum is made up by the teachers and administrators... those in the "lofty offices," to use your penthouse metaphor.
As far as the motivation for students... Students readily attend classes for Driver's licenses... they are very motivated. Just modify a bit the lesson plans to ensure that cyclist safety and rights are clearly spelled out.
On the other hand... you have provided no system to teach cycling... either voluntarily, or mandatory, to the masses that need it. You somehow imagine that a core of trained cyclists will somehow pass on their lessons, to people that indeed fit the "unmotivated" group you outline above.
As far as the motivation for students... Students readily attend classes for Driver's licenses... they are very motivated. Just modify a bit the lesson plans to ensure that cyclist safety and rights are clearly spelled out.
On the other hand... you have provided no system to teach cycling... either voluntarily, or mandatory, to the masses that need it. You somehow imagine that a core of trained cyclists will somehow pass on their lessons, to people that indeed fit the "unmotivated" group you outline above.
#87
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Gene, you may apply your words,
to yourself with respect to your discussion with John. This is classic.
You fail to consider the difference in social and urban conditions between the two.
<snip discussion about the difference in social and urban conditions between the two which explains the differences in rider share between the two>
And yet the Danes have far more rider share than even your old country which apparently did exactly what you said... with the resultant of loss of ridershare...
And yet???
You fail to consider the difference in social and urban conditions between the two.
Do you not understand what this means?
Do you not understand that the social and urban conditions are independent of anything that Forester said?
And yet the camel rider share in Anchorage is much lower than that of Riyadh.
to yourself with respect to your discussion with John. This is classic.
And now the England where you were raised has fewer cyclists per capita that regularly share the road... (Less than America's 2%) so your "system" failed there.
Where as someplace like Denmark has about a 25% rider share and they do educate the children in public schools... in fact they have unique cycling playgrounds.
Where as someplace like Denmark has about a 25% rider share and they do educate the children in public schools... in fact they have unique cycling playgrounds.
<snip discussion about the difference in social and urban conditions between the two which explains the differences in rider share between the two>
You fail to consider the difference in social and urban conditions between the two.
Do you not understand what this means?
Do you not understand that the social and urban conditions are independent of anything that Forester said?
And yet the camel rider share in Anchorage is much lower than that of Riyadh.
Last edited by Helmet Head; 02-05-08 at 06:39 PM.
#88
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Welcome to my world.
Why should I provide some other system? I'm fine with using the existing education system. What I'm saying is that we're never going to use that system to teach traffic cycling until we have at least semi-consensus in the cycling community with folks like you on the value of doing so. How are we going to get the powers that be to accept that it's valuable to teach riding "further left" when an experienced rider like you, Bek, Allister, IH, etc., still can't accept it, or at least can't stop chiding me for pointing it out when it applies?
Why should I provide some other system? I'm fine with using the existing education system. What I'm saying is that we're never going to use that system to teach traffic cycling until we have at least semi-consensus in the cycling community with folks like you on the value of doing so. How are we going to get the powers that be to accept that it's valuable to teach riding "further left" when an experienced rider like you, Bek, Allister, IH, etc., still can't accept it, or at least can't stop chiding me for pointing it out when it applies?
The only way to change that is to train motorists to believe that cyclists have the same rights to the road they do.
Otherwise you have cyclists like me, that do ride further left, constantly complaining about the push back from motorists. And you have motorists constantly bickering about "those cyclists... they don't pay taxes etc, and they want to use the whole damn road... "
Train every motorist from the beginning that the road is not theirs and must be shared with others... This is best done in Driver's Ed. At the same time potential cyclists (most cyclists also drive) are instructed to follow the laws. This all has to be emphasized... not plastered on two pages near the back of the driver's handbook.
#89
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
If John was right... where are all the cyclists in his beloved England?
Go ahead, show me one place were vehicular cycling alone has increased rider share.
Time and time again it has been acknowledged that increasing the number of cyclists will increase their acceptance... yet nowhere has vehicular cycling increased rider share. Vehicular cycling alone is defeatist... and a downward spiral.
#90
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
What I'm saying is that we're never going to use that system to teach traffic cycling until we have at least semi-consensus in the cycling community with folks like you on the value of doing so. How are we going to get the powers that be to accept that it's valuable to teach riding "further left" when an experienced rider like you, Bek, Allister, ILTB, IH, etc., still can't accept it, or at least can't stop chiding me for pointing it out when it applies?
How are we going to get the powers that be to accept that it's valuable to teach that riding "further left" is acceptable even in a society where motorists feel they own the road when an experienced rider like you still doesn't get it?
You make my point.
Train every motorist from the beginning that the road is not theirs and must be shared with others... This is best done in Driver's Ed. At the same time potential cyclists (most cyclists also drive) are instructed to follow the laws. This all has to be emphasized... not plastered on two pages near the back of the driver's handbook.
#91
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
actually, head, you are WRONG. To get more motorist respect for bicyclists you need to educate the MOTORISTS.
And just teaching bicyclists to ride further left is not a "solution"- what about when vehicular cyclists hug the curb on a high speed road???
VC is ideologically bankrupt.
And just teaching bicyclists to ride further left is not a "solution"- what about when vehicular cyclists hug the curb on a high speed road???
VC is ideologically bankrupt.
#92
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You fail to consider the difference in social and urban conditions between the two.
If you didn't "fail to consider the difference in social and urban conditions" of England, then you wouldn't be asking "where are all the cyclists in his beloved England". What part of this do you not understand?
The Danes used to boast that their royal family could be seen cycling around Copenhagen; the idea that the British royal family would be seen cycling around London is incredible. And there are all the other differences that have been discussed ad infinitum within your reading; you should not ignore facts that you don't like.
You are confusing the general decline in interest in transportational cycling with a decline in vehicular cycling.
#93
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
writing it in big type doesn't correct YOUR erronous analysis of bicycling conditions in Europe vs. the USA.
#94
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
actually, head, you are WRONG. To get more motorist respect for bicyclists you need to educate the MOTORISTS.
And just teaching bicyclists to ride further left is not a "solution"- what about when vehicular cyclists hug the curb on a high speed road???
VC is ideologically bankrupt.
And just teaching bicyclists to ride further left is not a "solution"- what about when vehicular cyclists hug the curb on a high speed road???
VC is ideologically bankrupt.
In the mean time, I get far more respect than I need to cycle safely, effectively and enjoyably on the roads simply by using vehicular cycling. You should try it.
#95
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#96
totally louche
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 10 Times
in
9 Posts
hardeharhar, helmet head. you should try actually being a dedicated bicycle commuter sometime. I already ride "VC" and probably take the lane more than you do- certainly more days a year than you, parttimer.
#97
Still Around
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 285
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Well that certainly should settle the issue! Makes as much sense and has as much relevance to the issue at hand as any other nutcase argument from the VC Meister.
#98
Devilmaycare Cycling Fool
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Wynnum, Australia
Posts: 3,819
Bikes: 1998 Cannondale F700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#99
Banned.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 13,075
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I can't even imagine the cost and effort that would be required to reduce that 40,000 to 35,000; it's probably practically impossible. But even if it could happen, it wouldn't alter how I ride by one iota. I honestly don't think it would make cycling any safer for cyclists by any significant degree, since so few car-bike crashes are caused by motorist behavior that could and would be eliminated by such a program.
If the water in a swimming pool represents all the crashes that lead to death and injury to cyclists, then you're trying to empty it (reduce those crashes) with a million dollar 24k gold teaspoon studded with 5k diamonds (going with motorist education) when all you have to do is suck on a $20 garden hose and watch gravity and vacuum do all the work (cycling education).
#100
genec
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times
in
3,158 Posts
Okay, let me put it this way:
How are we going to get the powers that be to accept that it's valuable to teach that riding "further left" is acceptable even in a society where motorists feel they own the road when an experienced rider like you still doesn't get it?
You make my point.
No, we have to convince cyclists like you that motorists believing they own the road does not preclude you or anyone else from riding further left (when it's safe, reasonable and appropriate to do so).
No. We have to teach cyclists like you that riding further left when it's safe, reasonable and appropriate being acceptable even in a society where motorists feel they own the road does not mean it's acceptable to do so whenever you feel like doing it for no apparent reason whatsoever, and when doing so will unnecessarily hold up motorists.
We cannot get the powers to accept that it's valuable to teach that riding "further left" in the absence of faster same direction traffic is acceptable even in a society where motorists are constantly bickering about "those cyclists... they don't pay taxes etc, and they want to use the whole damn road... ", as long as experienced cyclists like you still don't get it.
You're trying to solve a problem that is relatively insignificant to cyclist safety and effectiveness - driver attitude and behavior - and ignoring a huge problem that is relatively VERY significant to cyclist safety and effectiveness - cyclist attitude and behavior.
How are we going to get the powers that be to accept that it's valuable to teach that riding "further left" is acceptable even in a society where motorists feel they own the road when an experienced rider like you still doesn't get it?
You make my point.
No, we have to convince cyclists like you that motorists believing they own the road does not preclude you or anyone else from riding further left (when it's safe, reasonable and appropriate to do so).
No. We have to teach cyclists like you that riding further left when it's safe, reasonable and appropriate being acceptable even in a society where motorists feel they own the road does not mean it's acceptable to do so whenever you feel like doing it for no apparent reason whatsoever, and when doing so will unnecessarily hold up motorists.
We cannot get the powers to accept that it's valuable to teach that riding "further left" in the absence of faster same direction traffic is acceptable even in a society where motorists are constantly bickering about "those cyclists... they don't pay taxes etc, and they want to use the whole damn road... ", as long as experienced cyclists like you still don't get it.
You're trying to solve a problem that is relatively insignificant to cyclist safety and effectiveness - driver attitude and behavior - and ignoring a huge problem that is relatively VERY significant to cyclist safety and effectiveness - cyclist attitude and behavior.
"Cyclist attitude and behavior..." right, take the magic pill and ignore the 600 lb gorilla in the room... or rather the 6000 lb SUV. Amen, it's all in faith brother... yeah verily I tell you all you have to do is believe. Amen, brother.
Meanwhile... those that have not had the koolaid can clearly see that dancing with 600 lb gorillas is a fools game.
Like I said, show me the success story... show me one place that has increased ridershare while using only vehicular cycling.