John Forester

The program that wsbob thinks might be possible to create was created more than thirty years ago in the form of the Effective Cycling Program, the program that I-Like-To-Bike takes such pleasure in denigrating at every opportunity. The program was available (still is, for those who choose to use it) at levels for elementary, middle school, and adult levels. The program taught students how to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles in traffic that presented difficulties suitable for the students' ages. The program then demonstrated through actual cycling tests on real roads in real traffic that nearly all students had become far better at being able to obey the standard rules of the road than the average of the cycling populations in the neighboring cities.

The British have run such a program, on and off, for decades. However, because of the British acceptance of cycling according to the standard rules of the road, the British program did not incorporate a rigorous testing program. The British test consists of cyclists riding a prescribed route while being observed, at supposedly critical points, by observers standing beside the road. The Effective Cycling Program, being operated in a society which thinks that cyclists should not, and are not able to, obey the standard rules of the road, incorporated a rigorous measurement of cyclist behavior throughout variable routes, so that the degree of competence attained by its students was demonstrated to an accuracy that could not be denied.

That was done and operated for several years. It gradually died out because it became obvious that American society didn't want it. Wsbob suggests that government should operate such a program; well, American governments don't want it. American motorists and American bike planners all much prefer a society of incompetent cyclists instead of a society of competent cyclists. Raising the competence level of American cyclists has to be done by competent cyclists themselves, because nobody else wants competent cyclists.

rydabent

Licensing bikes is just plain stupid. What do you do if a poor kid is given a bike his parents couldnt afford? Are you now going to fine the parents that couldnt afford a bike in the first place because their child was caught riding without a license**********

mconlonx

State runs the scheme at State expense. Basically just to shut up the motorists who claim cyclists aren't paying their fair share, but also providing cyclists with some kind of benefit -- both the registry aspect, but also some expectation that since they are paying for registration there's a more than currently in preponderance expectation that state and local constabulary will follow-up with theft investigations.

If a used bike buyer fails to carry out follow-up voluntary registration, well, that's on them, just like any sale should entail sales tax, but private, second-hand sales hardly ever bother.

Used bike sale registrations at the bike retail level would voluntary.

genec

For that one reason alone, I actually would be willing to fork out money for such a scheme.

Yes, I know cyclists right now technically over pay through their taxes and low wear and tear on the roadways... but just to say F U to some certain motorists, I would lay out a reasonable fee amount just to show them I too "own the road."

(for some folks you have to "show them..." no amount of logic or reason works... )

I-Like-To-Bike

Where do you have these encounters with so many motorists who tell you their thoughts and opinions about cyclists' "fair share of contributions?" On the street, at the water cooler, or on Internet blog commentaries?

Commodus

It's a common refrain, I hear it often in social situations. It's awkward and tiresome when one of these idiots (friend of a friend) starts into some vent about cyclists, only to have all eyes turn to me for the expected rebuttal.

I would not, however, be willing to pay even more taxes for a chance to 'show them'. People don't want to understand things, they just want their own, selfish worldview continually reaffirmed.

I-Like-To-Bike

Guess it depends on your social situations. I never hear these comments from people who know I ride a bicycle daily, or from those who have no idea about my bicycling.

I have heard the occasional get on the sidewalk refrain, but I attribute that to stupidity and the output expected from a chuckle-head, not any particular thoughts on cyclist tax paying status.

genec

Not really a matter of "so many" as it is the most common complaint I hear when I do hear complaints. The second most common complaint is "you can't go the speed limit." This is usually followed by the discussion of what a LIMIT is.

I generally hear of such things around the company water cooler... when folks are just kibitzing and the conversation somehow turns to "those cyclists..."

Other than that, it really is a null argument. I would also pay if my fees went straight to cycling facilities and public school lessons for all road users. (cycling leading to motoring training as I have outlined many times) I would consider those valid costs, again, in spite of the fact that as a motorist and cyclist I already pay taxes, and that we as cyclists do NOT receive our far share of funding from the fed, based our 2% of use. (in fact I have paid for this in membership fees I have paid to the local advocacy group which puts pressure on the local government, AND provides LAB classes)

Now, all that said... I still consider the whole scheme stupid, as basically it is a tax on me propelling myself under my own power. I might as well be taxed for walking or breathing.

enigmaT120

I had some kind of bicycle training class when I was in the third grade at Stayton Grade School. I guess that was in the 70s, sheesh. They taught us the arm signals, I remember that much. And some kid had a cool internal gear rear hub 5 speed bike.

genec

It goes right alone with the folks that yell such things as "you're not a car" and "I thought bikes had to stay out of the way."

I don't hear those often, but every time I do...

genec

Also ILTB, I tend to put myself into blind conversations... just to gauge the feelings of the general public... so at places where I am not known as a cyclist, I bring cycling into conversations... and then just listen to the rants of others.

You would have to be there to really see the twists some of these conversations take, and the beliefs that some folks have, regarding their "ownership" of the road.

Sometimes I wish I could just flash a bike license and shut up the naysayers.

"Uh, bike cop here... you are full of crap."

mconlonx

What would you pay to avoid the "get on the sidewalk" refrain, yelled at you from those who think you're not paying your fair share...? $5? $50? What?

atbman

Not entirely true John. The old Cycling Proficiency test used to take place in school playgrounds and would use cones and model road signs to teach year 5 and 6 kids what the rules were. There were a very few councils who added a road module to this.

Bikeability, its replacement, has level 1 which is off-road and is broadly equivalent to the old CP test, followed by small group teaching on the road. As for the "supposedly critical points", in Level 2, the instructors always ride round with them, stopping at junctions and other points to discuss them and observe them and get feedback to ensure understanding, repeating where necessary. Every single route at a new school is risk assessed, for what you describe as "supposedly critical points". These are still usually years 5 and 6.

Level 3 is for older children and adults, the former having to do levels 1 and 2, first and this time with groups of 3 maximum. To quote the website:

"During Bikeability Level 3 training you will learn the skills to tackle a wider variety of traffic conditions than on Level 2. When you reach Level 3 standard you will be able to deal with all types of road conditions and more challenging traffic situations. The course covers dealing with hazards, making ‘on-the-move’ risk assessments and planning routes for safer cycling. Normally you will do this once you have started secondary school. You will be trained in smaller groups of up to three cyclists, although individual training may also be available in your area.

Once you’ve completed your Bikeability Level 3 and been awarded your green badge, you’ll be able to cycle almost anywhere and:

Make a trip safely to school, work or elsewhere on any roads
Use complex junctions and road features such as roundabouts, multi-lane roads and traffic lights
‘Filter’, to keep moving through stationary traffic
Plan your route
Interpret road signs"

Since, in levels 2 & 3 the trainers accompany the trainees along every part of the chosen routes, your characterisation of them as "observers standing beside the road" understates their role more than somewhat. However, when you have groups of children taking the course, stationary observation is a necessary part of the programme, so that each participant's understanding of what they have been taught can be assessed and, if necessary, corrected.

As a former trainer on the old Cycling Proficiency programme (and critical of its shortcomings), and a cycling officer with my city's Highways dept. who, as part of my duties surveyed potential routes on the proposed strategic cycling network, I took it on myself to buy both EF and Bicycle Transportation and found them extremely useful, even where I came across views I didn't always agree with.

As for the Huckaby proposals which kicked this whole thread off, I remain convinced that enforcement of cycle training via a licence/certificate is an unenforceable solution in search of a problem. Amongst other things, it would require the creation of new offences, such as riding while unlicenced, points on such a licence and so forth.

atbman

[QUOTE=mconlonx;14758836]Since current driver objections to cyclists are frequently not based on any understanding of existing cyclist rights, what makes you think that this would make any difference? Since the level at which any registration fee would have to be set could not possibly pay for the installation of widespread cycling facilities, I'm of the opinion that they would be even more likely to yell at you to "get on the cyclepath/lane!" and believe that you didn't have the right to ride anywhere else.

.

As I've previously pointed out, as soon as registration becomes voluntary, registration will fail and no taxpayers will support a state organisation which will clearly be seen to be of no purpose. As for expectation that the police will follow up theft investigations, you might wish to speak to your local senior police officers about that. If they know that any older bike which they've recovered is likely to have been sold on more than once and that the likelihood that the owner registration record is incorrect, how much enthusiasm and police time are they going to devote to it?

There is already a bike identification number on the frame and if the owner knows this, s/he can go to the police compound where stolen property is kept and prove ownership. That being the case, what need is there for this registration nonsense?

I-Like-To-Bike

$0. First I seriously doubt that "get on the sidewalk" shouts from strangers at strangers have a thing to do with "fair share" or any other rational thought. I shut them out both mentally and physically through the use of headphones and audiobooks/music played on my mp3 player.

Chief

fify !

mconlonx

[QUOTE=atbman;14760004]Because the most frequent refrain/misunderstanding is that cyclists don't pay their fair share. This is completely a misunderstanding of the situation, so if MV operators need some kind of assuaging fee, maybe a "registration" fee at purchase would be the best for all involved. Get's bike haterz off our case in this situation; provides a more traceable revenue stream than what currently exists... for cyclists and motorists.

$1 fee for cyclists share of road usage short circuits tax fee issues and provides for more than cyclists use of roadways, not cyclepaths or cyclist usage of MUPs.

If it's pointed out that a registration program is costing more than services provided are worth, then it's just a concrete example of why cycle registration does not work.

Either way, we win.

mconlonx

Then registration at purchase isn't such a good idea. But neither is riding with headphones...

mconlonx

Yes, of course. But which tax-payers...? When people start having to pay additional for their kids' bikes, maybe they'll figure this all out...

I-Like-To-Bike

Sez you! But thatz a different subject which has already been beaten to doo-doo.

mconlonx

You'd not want to be able to shout back "Screw you, I paid to be on the road, just like you!"? Not that you can't now, but with a bit more force of law and more immediate money-trail.

How 'bout if it was backed up with a registration tax deduction, since you're a "non-wear" road user, and a bike purchase tax deduction like those who buy hybrid cars and light trucks?

genec

So to get this straight... you'd have cyclists paying some basic registration fee, and then later be able to deduct some or all of the fee based on a non-polluting status.

Complicated, but I like it... gives you real street cred. "see I paid my road taxes..." and then rewards you for not polluting, thus encouraging more folks to bike.

Frankly I always did feel we were really doing the motorists out there a favor anyway... every bike is one less car on the road, one more parking space for motorists and just a little bit less bad exhaust going into the air we breath. Heck bikes should be hailed as super patriotic just for the foreign oil we don't use. We should be welcomed in the streets by motorists bearing flowers... yeah, that's the ticket!

mconlonx

Not really any different than paying sales + excise taxes + registration fees on your Low Emissions Vehicle (bicycles, motorcycles, scooters, etc. not included...) and then taking a Federal Tax credit on such.

Recently, our Beloved Leader, Bubba LePage, The Beast in the Blaine House, suggested a special tax on bicycles. While he was just being mean spirited about it, considering bikes a luxury good of the left, I'm not sure a one-time fee that we could point to and say "See?!? We are so paying our fair share!" wouldn't be worth it, as long as it was a fee which was tracked to infrastructure expenditure.

John Forester

Thank you very much for your account of the current British Bikeability program. The program with which I was familiar, some forty years ago, was an on-road program which terminated in a test in which the student cyclists rode a specific route and their performance was evaluated by observers standing beside the road. You assert that such observers are necessary for the measurement to be made. This is not so. In the Effective Cycling Program the observer was a cyclist following the student cyclists, and sometimes directing the route to be taken, while recording the behavior of each observed cyclist on a voice recorder. After the riding test, playing the recorder in short sections enabled the results for each cyclist to be recorded on a paper form that enabled the score to be computed in numerical form, as a percentage of perfect. The scoring system was set up to provide a positive score for each movement made, with negative scores for the errors that might be made, and set up so that 70% was the minimum acceptable score. Average scores for the local cycling populations during the morning rush hour, in cities that were considered to be homes of experienced cyclists, were flunking scores of about 55%. Complicated, yes, but necessary to be able to demonstrate that most of the students had learned the skills that American society believed to be impossible.

I-Like-To-Bike

The John Forester education method - he personally coached and tested every student to pass his own test (which meant something to him and nobody else) and compared the test "results" of these coached students who know they are being tested, against the "results" of his own "hidden test" of strangers passing by who were unaware that they were being "tested" by Forester. Needless to say there is no follow up by Forester to see if any Forester student ever used any of the "learned" procedures after the certificate was awarded, or if the tested students' safety record changed in any way, or was any better than anybody else.

Anyone who believes this procedure demonstrates anything but the questionable quality of John Forester's methods of devising and evaluating safety programs should sign up immediately.