PaperBoy

I have to rebut this one, Serge. What got me thinking about getting back on a bike after a 35-year hiatus was a facility called the Katy Trail. Two or three 10-mile recreational group rides a year on a rental bike whetted my appetite for more.

I am the only one in our "group" who has embraced biking as more than recreation. Do you know why? Fear of traffic has nothing to do with it. Everyone else in the group feels too self-conscious about riding "in public". They don't mind being seen riding in an obviously recreational manner in a recreational setting, but they cannot make themselves ride a bike to the post office, or the bank, or the grocery store, much less commute to work. These are the same people who will walk a couple of miles around a track to lose weight but would not be caught dead walking home with a sack of groceries.

You have to crawl before you can walk. First get them comfortable on a bike in a recreational setting (i.e., bike facility) then you can work on convincing them of the benefits of biking as transportation (and the benefits of vehicular cycling )

webist

If the objective is to get more people cycling where drivers can observe them in order to enhance our political stature as well as demonstrate our rights to the road, why would we not try to get our fellow cyclists off the trails to ride in the streets once in a while?

Frankly, I don't feel any more oppressed on the streets when I am on my bike than I do in my car (SUV). There are unobservant, rude, inattentive, angry, distracted and unskilled cyclists and drivers out there. I don't like 'em whether they or I am on a bike or in a vehicle.

I've said before, there are at least one thousand engagements between myself and motorized vehicles during a typical 10 mile bike ride and several times that many when I drive 10 miles in my truck. Dangerous activities, misbehavior and accidents are an extreme rarity in both circumstances.

Frankly, I do not particualrly care whether or not anyone except me rides a bike, or drives a motorized vehicle. I'd leave each to their own on this. However, being both a "cager" and a "cyclist" I find myself a bit resentful of characterizations which are generalized to either group, either positive generalizations or negative.

On your next bike ride why not count all the vehicles which pass by you in either direction without incident? Come back and post that number.

operator

Why do we need to help other people...?

Helmet-Head

The fact that there other groups other than those who do not cycle because of their fear of traffic does not refute my point.

I had not thought of the group that does not ride more because of social "status" reasons, or whatever you want to call it, and advocating cycling to that group would certainly require a different strategy than vehicular cycling. What that strategy would be, I don't know. Get Hollywood to show more cycling in movies to make it look more respectable?

Never-the-less, you're talking about a group who is already willing to cycle.

I am talking specifically about the group who is unwilling to cycle primarly because they believe cycling in traffic is inherently unsafe. Do you deny that group exists? Do you deny that that is probably not a large group? Do you deny we should not be trying to reach them? How? More facilities? I don't think that's an effective route. I think advocating, explaining, and educating vehicular cycling is. And nothing anyone has said has made me change my mind.


Fair enough. Yes, I overstated the problems with BLs when I said that "bike lanes are at the root of most of cyclists' woes". In retrospect, that's absurd. Thanks for calling me on it. I'll go back and add a post-remark/correction in red.

My main points in this thread are:

1. Probably the biggest group that cycling advocacy can effectively reach are those that do not cycle because they believe cycling in traffic is inherently unsafe.
2. Building facilities is not the way to reach them, because facilities do not solve the fundamental problem: alleviate them of the belief that cycling in traffic is inherently unsafe. In fact, facilities arguably exacerbate the problem (if cycling in traffic is safe, why do we need facilities at all?).
3. Finding a way to get them to see that cycling in traffic can be safe (without or without facilities) is what needs to be done.
4. I believe the promotion of vehicular cycling - cycling in accordance to the rules of the road, as taught in LAB's Road 1 & 2 courses - is a good start, along with the the promotion of the idea that cyclists who learn VC can cycle safely in traffic, and just about any cyclist can learn it.

Dchiefransom

Wasn't the Katy Trail an old railroad track, that was converted to a trail under the Rails to Trails program?
Something I just remembered when I read this post, was that if we don't convert them into trails, they will either go back to farmland, which isn't really that bad, or, they will be given to developers to build more houses. Spending money on making them a MUT is a good thing.

LittleBigMan

While I confess to have no workable idea as to how we cyclists will ever agree on anything except that we like to ride a bike, and for that matter, even fewer ideas as to how to convince non-cyclists to ride (except by example,) I have to agree that we certainly don't have "one voice," and that without being unified, we are weak. This thread is just one more example of how divided we are.

But on the other hand, at least we are talking honestly. True unity starts with open discussion. Common ground is built through communication. Strong points are emphasized and less important goals take a back seat. We learn to agree to disagree about things that are peripheral, and agree on central issues that promote out common desires.

When I see a cyclist riding a bike on a path, I wave (Oops! How in the *blank* did I get on a path? Looks like I am not a purist, after all!) I don't stop and lecture him/her about the "superiority of roads vs. paths." I might believe it, but I realize what's most important: our common love of cycling.

You just have to know when it's wiser to build a bridge than to burn one down.

Thanks for listening.

nick burns

Because we live in a society. Unhealthy, overweight people end up placing an unfair burden on everyone else.

Plus there's that caring thing...

genec

How do you propose to promote this Education, to folks that first probably only go a bike shop for a flat fix.

Far far more riders start out on Wal-Mart bikes.

There has to be someway of reaching into the general population and first getting them enthusiastic about cycling, second to want to venture out on the roads, and third to want to excel enough to take a class in this.

Paperboy pointed to the joy of riding on an isolated trail or path that motivated him to pursue cycling further. While paths cannot connect entire cities, these facilities can at least start a person down the road of cycle enjoyment.

What beyond facilities could encourage a person to want to go to the next steps of riding in the streets and getting further education? In this area there is a Bike to Work campaign every year. I don’t recall any form of education being touted at such events. I don’t know of any plan to educate young kids.

I realize this is a difficult area, but beyond promotion (which could also be targeted at motorists as an education campaign regarding the rights of cyclists) could be done?

royalflash

I think the best way to get more people out cycling is by providing more facilities such as bike lanes. Regardless of the actual risk reduction the truth is that people FEEL safer on them. They will then cycle rather than use the car. I am a hardened bicycle commuter and even though I know that cycling is relatively safe I still sometimes feel nervous at negotiating traffic on roads with fast moving traffic and other hazards (and yes I cycle more or less vehicularly on the roads but dont believe that this makes me invulnerable).

The more numerous that cyclists become the less easily it is to discount us and marginalise us and the more legitimate cycling appears. We can then pressure for more accomodation on the roads.

It is only anecdotal but I have lived in places with poor bicycle facilities (mainly the UK) and almost no one cycles on the road. I now live in Germany and there are good bike facilities and cycling is very popular among people all ages.

And we should also stop trying to sell cycling as exercise and healthy. People HATE exercise and doing things that are healthy. We need to emphasise more basic things like the cost saving, the freedom, the time savings, the fun, getting out in the sun and getting nice legs. Appreciation of the health benefts will follow.

LittleBigMan

I think sometimes we confuse vehicular cycling training with the bicycle facility debate.

Vehicular cycling training is valuable for every cyclist, regardless of where they stand on the bicycle facility debate. Every cyclist will, at one time or another, find it necessary to ride on the road where there is no bike lane or convenient bike path. At that time, they will need the confidence vehicular cycling principles provide.

Sometimes I think proponents of vehicular cycling spend too much time debating "bike lanes vs. no bike lanes," when the bigger issue is getting people to realize the importance of vehicular cycling training. Anyone who rides vehicularly on their bike will know when/how to leave a bike lane, and won't be constrained by a painted line. They'll know when a bike lane is dangerous and when it's ok.

On the other hand, proponents of bike lanes (or bike paths) should not think that the most important issue is creating bike lanes. Some cities are even called "cycling friendly" if they have more bike lanes and special markings than other cities. That would be like calling a city a "safe driving city" because they keep building more roads.
Far more important than building more roads is the training and competancy of the drivers on them.

I think the bike facility debate is a peripheral issue. Cyclist training is issue one. Even if some bicycle facilites are dangerously designed (which needs urgent addressing,) a properly trained cyclist will know how to negotiate that, or any other roadway scenario.

closetbiker

Great post!

genec

OK how do you propose to train cyclists? How are you going to get the message out to all the folks now riding and the next generation?

I have heard so many advocates talk about education, and yet not one of them has a plan on how to implement this process.

LittleBigMan

If educating cyclists (and all roads users) about where and how cyclists should ride is too difficult, we have no business building bike lanes to "increase the number of cyclists." Luring cyclists out onto the roadway, protected only by a stripe and the government's promise of safety, is immoral.

During the "bike boom" of the 1970's, more cyclists per 1,000 were injured and killed than in previous years. Studies show a direct correlation between cyclist safety and training.

The question isn't, "How do we educate cyclists," but, "Why aren't we educating cyclists?" The straight answer is that if enough people cared about the issue, it would get done.

I-Like-To-Bike

Really?

What "studies show a direct correlation between cyclist safety and training"? Any involve adult cyclists?


Did these "studies" describe any specific successful "training" program or how improved "cyclist safety" was defined or measured?

closetbiker

Oh really now. You're not suggesting we all ride each to his own idea of how we each think rules of the road should suit each of us in our own way are you? Isn't road use based on a set plan of co-operation between the users so we all get to where we want to go without accidents with each other because 2 road user won't take their fair turn to occupy the space each wants to go at the same time? Do you honestly think anything other than lower collision rates would define what is the safest way to do things?

Blackberry

Too true. Just look at the number of McDonald's in your town compared with health food joints. I'm interested in safety, belong to a couple orgs that promote safe cycling, but sometimes I feel like we are a bunch of bible thumpers trying to convert the world's hotentots, who for some strange reason, don't want to hear our sermons about the meaning of bike lanes. In my view, it's a good thing we have this forum or we'd be boring our friends and families into the ground.

genec

I have proposed a menthod, but others feel it is too restrictive. License cyclists just like motorists. If vehicular cyclists have all the same rights to the roads, then why not the training requirements? Of course, some will say that cyclists are not likely to cause harm with their 40 pound bikes like motorists can cause with their thousands of pound autos.

Passive instruction could possibly take place with better bike lanes with arrows and signs that indicate how and where to ride, where to merge etc. That argument is often met with "well motorists... " But again, motorists have required training, and still need signs like "keep right;" and still fail to drive according to the law.

I have yet to hear any other ideas to address training cyclists.

I-Like-To-Bike

No. I didn't ask what anyone THOUGHT about the rules of the road. I'm stating, not suggesting, that when someone proclaims "studies show a direct correlation between cyclist safety and training" he should be able to indicate where he heard or read about these studies; even better he should be able to talk or write intelligently about what training, cyclists and safety indices were measured and "directly correlated". Otherwise, at best the poster is passing rumors and/or gas.

I suspect the original poster was conjuring such "results" from wishful thinking. Do you think otherwise? Maybe you know of the existence of credible studies that "show a direct correlation between cyclist safety and training," especially for adults. Perhaps you can identify any adult cyclist training program where the students safety performance was measured before and after training and found to have actually significantly improved, direct correlation or not.

FarHorizon

Why limit it here? Many don't come to cycling (or **back** to cycling, in my case) until significant health problems ring their bell. In my case, it was 50 unwanted pounds and increased cholesterol numbers. If I don't live, I don't do anything else! Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn't it..

I tried to resume running for fitness, as I did for many years, but older ankles that sprain more easily put the end to that plan. Instead, I now ride for one to 1.5 hours per day and things are (slowly) turning around.

I encourage my friends with (and without) health problems to ride with me, usually to no avail. Perhaps their own health crises will bring them back to sensible habits before it is too late. I hope so..

I-Like-To-Bike

I propose that the solution promoters state and define the alleged problem they are trying to fix before coming up with "solutions". And who it is that considers the current situation a significant problem and for whom. The measure of any proposed solution is its likely effect on fixing, or at least mitigating the stated "problem."

In the case of cyclist "training" the fix seems to be promoted regardless of any agreement about the existance or nature of a significant problem or evidence that the promoted product produces any measurable significant results.

LittleBigMan

I remember someone said something about a "strong cycling culture" that could influence us positively. It seems that volunteers are doing the most to educate cyclists and motorists about cycling and training. The beauty of this is that education always advances the individuals who receive it, releasing them into greater freedoms, while laws and requirements serve only to restrict behavior.

The bottom line is that laws are for the lawless (and uneducated,) while education can remove the need for restrictive laws, properly understood.

Having said that, I'm still for lower speed limits and stricter compliance among motorists (until something more effective comes along, like willful obedience.)

ivan_yulaev

Truth. My buddy said, "It's not that I'm getting less excersise than you, it's that you're getting more than me." And guess who weights 130 and who weighs 190?

Bruce Rosar

While the process of obtaining a license to drive a motor vehicle does require testing, few states that have a minimum training requirement.

In other words; since operating a Pedal Vehicle (PV) does not pose an extraordinary danger to the person or property of others [as higher-energy Motor Vehicle operation does], PV operation no more deserves licensing than does walking.

Richard C. Moeur, P.E., once asserted the following in another listAs you may know, the League of American Bicyclists has an education program in the USA which has several hundred League Cycling Instructors. Here's one idea to encourage young people to seek training from those LCIs; toughen up testing for the Motor Vehicle license to the point where the experience gained by operating a Pedal Vehicle according to the Rules of the Road improves the odds of obtaining a MV learner's permit.

Bruce "certified PVOI" Rosar

sbhikes

Rather than license cyclists, why not license bike sellers? Force even Wall-Mart to include safety instruction with every bike. Even the minimal booklets (in the Alcoholics Anonymous/religious tract cartoon style) I got with my purchase of my motorcycles were helpful and better than nothing.

Also, you know what got me started? My dad. He believed in going for bike rides. It was recreation, but we always went somewhere, like out to ice cream or to the beach. All of you who have children could do much good by dragging your kids on long rides to real destinations. Or forcing them to ride their bikes to school. They might hate it like I did, but later on as adults they may want to do it again, but to work.

closetbiker

If you want some results from studies, or a suggestion on how or what to teach in cycling education, you can check out this link and track down more information if you want on Canada's answer to cyclist training.