Originally Posted by Roody
All experts are "self-described" to some extent. Newton did not have a degree in physics, nor did Einstein. Both were "self-described" experts. They became full-fledged experts when others read their books and agreed with their ideas. The books published by experts in cyling safety, agreed to by the many people who read these books, basically agree that bicycles should be driven on the roadway in a vehicular manner. Do you know of anybody who has thought this matter through, who is an expert, who believes that there is any other way to ride? While there are many disagreements on details, the basic assumptions of all experts support a vehicular cycling style.
An expert, as I think you agree, is a person who is recognized in their field of study. A person such as John Forester or John Allen, may be an expert at "vehicular cycling," but this is not the only way to get around on a bicycle. Most messengers use a different sort of technique than is commonly advocated by vehicular cyclists, relying more on space, intrinsic physics and sociology to make their movements on the road than the standard vehicular rules of the road. That they all ride in similar fashion (similar enough for a stereotype anyway) and they survive (their safety is probably at least equal to any other cyclist when taking into account "bike hours" rather than simple trips or calender time).
You might even say there are experts on "invisible" cycling and "pedestrian mode" cycling (for lack of better terminology). Whether one style is more dangerous than another is still up for debate and probably varies depending on the cyclist's goals, their environment, and their skill at evaluating traffic and at controlling their bikes. It is probably the case that a pedestrian mode is simply the best style of cycling for one not skilled at bicycle control. Vehicular cycling is probably safest when practiced by a skilled cyclist on suburban and faster urban streets. Messenger style cycling might well be safer for urban city centers and is definitely more efficient. "Invisible cycling" might well be safer at night when caught out without lights.
The "style" I see most cyclists use around here is definitely not vehicular. It is a mish-mash of dangerous practices including wrong-way, sudden erratic turns and swerves, a total reliance on other road users to avoid them, rather than any attempt to ride defensively. This "style" obviously puts the riders at greater risk, along with anybody else, including other cyclists, who is unlucky enough to be on the road with them.
I don't see how anybody can condone this kind of riding, or rightly describe it as a "system." People obviously do not have an innate or instinctive ability to handle a vehicle in traffic. We require training, education and experience. Cagers get some training, and they still screw up from time to time. Cyclists get no training, and the only reason they do not get hit more often, in my opinion, is because cagers have learned (through education and experience) to give us a wide berth.
Yet, they survive. Part of the problem with the vehicular cycling advocacy is that the vehicular cyclists continually assert that certain types of riding styles are "dangerous" and those people who practice said riding styles should change and practice vehicular cycling. More than once I have heard the term "deadly" bandied about these forums. Yet they survive. Why would they listen to "some guy" when he tells them that their riding style, which they have been practicing for years, is mortally dangerous and should be changed. The truth is that the difference in the risk of "safe" styles of riding and "dangerous" styles of riding is not that much. Even if it there results a 50% or 75% decrease in risk by changing practices, it is a 50 or 75% decrease of a very small number, which equals a small number. Cycling can be dangerous, but not as dangerous as we sometimes make it out to be, regardless of the style of riding.
Messengers and other experienced or intelligent cyclists may eventually develop a "system" that works for them so far. Does it also work for other road users? Do these nonvehicular tricks sometimes (or often) annoy and aggravate motorists? Other cyclists? Pedestrians? Is there any possibility that the main reason that cagers are hostile to us is because so many of us are just poor cyclists who never bothered to learn the rudiments of our craft, and show no consideration for other users. How long will it be before they crack down on this behavior with restrictions that will affect us all? Why is this not the primary area of concern for cycling advocates?
There is a fine line between when we should be cleaning up our own house and when we should be showing a united front. I would argue for a united front, but others can just as easily argue we should clean our own house first. I suspect that there should be a good balance between the two - we shouldn't sit by and only make efforts to change the behaviors of cyclists, and we shouldn't be completely uncritical of the image that irresponsible cyclists give cyclists as a whole.