Originally Posted by skanking biker
1. The "High Degree" of training I guess is an assumption I made based on the discussions of the tests generated and administered by the foresterites and the constant use of the phrase "incompetent" to describe those to feel uncomfortable riding on high speed high traffic aterials. I do get the impression that VC advocates want to require people to be "certified cyclists" before they are allowed to utilize the roadways. If I am wrong on this account, I apologize. However, JF comments here seem to postulate that "most" cyclists are "incompetent" and should not be utilizing the roadways.
Most of JF's test is very basic cycling skills although not necessarily skills a brand new road cyclist would have (due to the bad example set by most other cyclists on the road, in my experience). They are not difficult skills to master and I certainly don't think
everyone would need a class to "get it." Some might though and that is what I believe the classes are mostly for. With anything I do though, I always find it educational to talk with someone who has more experience than me with the subject even if I feel I have a really good grasp on the subject. There's almost always something more to learn. I've learned A LOT on these forums that I didn't get from Effective Cycling or the Art of Urban Cycling (doesn't mean it wasn't in there, but reading the book wasn't enough for me to "get it"). I believe the classes would also be useful in that respect as well.
Originally Posted by skanking biker
2. I have not had time to read Robert Hurst's book as of yet, so I cannot legitimately compare/contrast the two. While I do believe that cyclists should know the rules of the road (which everyone who has a driver's license pressumably learned at one point), I do not believe it is necessary to take a specific "cyling skills test." Based on the discussions and his posts here, it seems to me that Hursts' approach is more experience "hands-on" based whereas the VC approach is very rigid and academic.
Most people know how to apply to the rules of the road when going at or near the speed of other traffic on the roadway. Once there is a large speed differential, most people don't have a clue. It gets even worse when the are going slow on a narrow bicycle (a kid's toy).
I would call neither the VC or the Hurst approach rigid. HH has argued, and I agree, that the biggest difference is that VC stresses best practices to avoid accidents while Hurst stresses vigilance. Both stress some of the other side. I've found that it's much easier to abide by a set of best practices than to be 100% vigilant hence the side I argue for. I'm far a highly focussed individual (I'm the exact opposite) so doing things contrary to the rules of the road that can be done safely with a high dose of vigilance gets me out of my comfort zone. I'm perfectly comfortable on a high speed multilane arterial taking the full right lane though.
Originally Posted by skanking biker
3. With regard to the "unable/unwilling" comment, I was refering to the fact that many "average Joe's" do not have the skills to safely ride on certain roads and that even those of use who are experienced and in my opinion "competent" nonetheless choose not to ride on certain roads due to safety concerns. I guess I am also referring to a perception/reality dichotomy. Even assuming one could scientifically prove it is "safe" to ride vehicularly on "all" roads, including narrow, high traffic, high volume arterials" and even assuming the entire cycling population is sufficiently "trained" to use them to the satisfaction of VCers, there will still be a sizeable portion of cyclists who nevertheless refuse to do so based on their own risk/benefit analysis. As an analogy, you can train someone to safely jump out of an airplane with a parachute, but that does not mean that all those who are so trained will, given a choice in the matter, want to jump out of an airplane. Some believe it is unsafe no matter how much training one receives; others are simply unwilling to take the risk. VCers do not seem to take these categories of people into account.
Why should cyclist advocacy take into account people who will never feel comfortable riding a bike in traffic? Why try to coax them onto roads that they'd otherwise never ride on by striping a bike lane and hoping for the best for them?