Brian Ratliff

Oh HH. You are just some guy...

I post to gauge reactions. I post to learn stuff. I post to reveal another's true thoughts.

I've learned a great deal about the structure of VC advocacy and the relevance of bike lanes to those VC advocates in the thread I started. It turned out to be the right question to ask to gain insight into the VC advocacy movement, as represented on this forum.

You see HH, I am, also, a vehicular cycling advocate, though not part of your clique. I do not come here with a set of answers, and my opinions evolve over time, though I don't get swayed by any one person's argument. Indeed, my debates with you have highlighted the weakness of many of the bottled arguments against bike lanes and for WOLs. And they have modified my views on bike lanes. But no one of my posts here, or even each of my posts taken together will form a complete worldview representative of my thoughts.

Maybe I'll write a book!

Helmet Head

I look at the safety issue from the perspective of the individual cyclist. There are many factors that determine whether he will be involved in crash, including one that causes serious injuries or even his death.

Among those factors is the behavior of all the motorists around him that he will encounter in the coming years and decades. There are thousands and thousands of them, and there is no way to identify the particular ones he will encounter. The odds of any particular one of those motorists being the one whose mistake causes a crash with that cyclist is extremely low. So, the only way to reach that one motorist whose mistake will cause a crash with that cyclist is by reaching all of the motorists this cyclist will encounter. But, again, there is no way to identify all of these motorists. So we must reach ALL motorists, which of course is impossible. So, we reach as many as we can. But let's consider the possibility that we can reach one half of all motorists. That would mean that the odds of this one cyclist being involved in that crash is reduced by one half, and that's assuming "reaching" the motorists that are reached prevents the one motorist who is destined to crash with this cyclist from doing whatever that contributory mistake is. How effective is education at doing that? Consider the Wilberding case, or your case John R. What motorist education, if any, could have prevented the motorists involved in those crashes from doing whatever they did that contributed to the crash? The motorist in the Wilberding made a normal left turn. What would education teach him? Do you really think education would teach that when turning left into the sun, take the turn even slower than he did? Concentrate on the shadows because there might be a cyclist in that bike lane? So it's not even clear to me what exactly could be taught to all these motorists, assuming they could be reached, that would have a real significant effect on reducing car-bike crashes.

On the other hand, there is a ton the cyclist can do immediately to greatly improve his safety in terms of improving his own behavior with respect to adopting vehicular cycling and defensive driving techniques. A ton that will make a huge difference.

randya

+1 very close to my own sentiments on the subject.

IMO, bike lanes are certainly not a perfect solution, nor the only solution, nor are they everywhere perfectly implemented. But then again, neither is vehicular cycling the perfect or the only solution, particularly as presented by the Foresterologists with all the sociopolitical mumbo-jumbo. But the real tragedy is the inability of the Foresterologists to compromise on anything, their demeaning and insulting attitude towards those who disagree with them, and their total lack of interest in advancing bicycling as a popular transportational choice by promoting higher behavioral standards for all road users in the name of safety for the most vulnerable road users.

Brian Ratliff

1+

They are quite the clique.

joejack951

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? People only have so much time in their lives to devote to what they think is a good cause. If you could reach 1000 people a day by teaching 1 cyclist how to ride or reach a 1000 people a day (by communicating to tens of thousands most of whom will ignore the message) one of whom may encounter a cyclist within a reasonably short enough period of time to actually remember what they were taught, which would you choose?

Tom Stormcrowe

As I read this thread, I am reminded of a song done by Tom Chapin:



All my life's a circle..........

randya

You've obviously drunk the 'bicycling will never be a viable transportation option for the majority of Americans' kool-aid that the Foresterologists and organizations like the ADC promote.



What is needed is an universal change in what motorists are taught, the basis on which motorists are licensed; and much stronger enforcement and penalties for motorists that harrass, assault, endanger, injure or kill cyclists and other vulnerable road users. In other words, an end to motorist superiority disorder.

genec

Wow good news for me... I swim with sharks about 6 months of the year. HH has told me it is dangerous.

natelutkjohn

Once again you prove to be the patron saint of the persecuted! Good job HH! Although we all know it's just an act - go ahead man, admit it
If you want, I can sell you a cross and some roofing nails, it might make your point even better...

joejack951

And what about advocating for that has anything to do with cyclist advocacy?

randya

If you can't figure it out, I can't help you; it should be more than obvious by now that improving motorist behavior w/r/t cyclists on the roadway benefits both cyclists and cycling in general.

joejack951

What percentage of motorists do you think need a behavior adjustment? If after the revamping of the training system you still had motorists that did not respect cyclists on the road (which is a given no matter how much training you do) do you think they'd still have the same effect on cyclists and cycling in general as the amount that are out there today?

John C. Ratliff

I took my Adaptive Cycling route home today, and was passed by about 30 cars. Five of them were cell phone users. So that's somewhere around 16-20 percent (there were probably others I did not see).

I don't know where you and HH got hung up on training. Training only works for those who are motivated to learn new things. That apparently precludes HH, as all the carrots I've thrown him today have been thrown back into my face. If you'll look again at the DeJoy Accident Causation model I posted a few posts ago, there is a lot there that has nothing to do with training, or for which training is only a peripheral issue. Predisposing and enabling factors covers a lot of ground for groups, and this includes the endemic advertising we see day in and day out in the USA showing atrocious driving behavior (anything to sell cars, right?). We need more emphasis on the pain and suffering that autos cause in the USA, and less on the leisure enjoyment, but then, that doesn't sell cars, and there are no more government informational spots on TV about the risks of autos. Think about the ruckus that the war in Iraq is making, with 3422 Allied Forces dead, verses the 40,000 or so dead in auto accidents (from:
https://icasualties.org/oif/
(Of course, that doesn't take into account the number of people killed in Iraq, now figured between 64,061 and 70,169:
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/background.php
So maybe that isn't such a good analogy. But then, look at your local newspaper to see the traffic deaths for the day, or week. It's probably there, hidden away somewhere in the local section.

John

John C. Ratliff

Well, I accidentally posted the above message twice, so I'll erase that one here and add a comment on what Helmet Head is saying. I agree with you on this on. But my philosophy is to use route choices which minimize the number of encounters, using back streets, bike paths, and other infrastructure, so that I keep than number lower than it would be otherwise. Above I mentioned that on the route home I took today, I was passed by about 30 vehicles. If I had taken my noon route, straight down NW Evergreen Parkway, I would have been passed and otherwise encountered somewhere over 200 cars. That's a 85% reduction in the encounters, and postpones the encounter with those who may not be completely with it while driving.
John

randya

I think the poor behavior and role models displayed in motor vehicle advertisments sort of count as negative training.

Plus, it is a long held belief of mine that if motor vehicles were truly so desirable, they would not need to advertise them so incessantly in order to drum up business, they would just sell themselves, sort of like bicycles. When was the last time you saw an ad for bicycles or scooters or for that matter any two-wheeled vehicle on the tube???

I-Like-To-Bike

I would add to that group those who recognize HH for what he is and still join him repeatedly in endless debates over cycling and legal minutia,as well as forever counting the angels dancing on bike lane stripes. Some of these guys must like to pick at scabs; they keep returning to the HH induced fray after repeatedly promising never to humor HH again by taking him and his assumptions seriously.

sbhikes

I ride my bike on a bike path and on bike lanes every day. Every day I see motorists who don't know how to stop for the crossing guard leading small children across the street, motorists who go 40 in a school zone (I can tell because they have one of those signs that show your speed -- mine is usually 15), and motorists who run lights or pull out in front of others or who otherwise do stupid things and at the same time are on the phone (perhaps there is a correlation?).

I'm very happy once I reach the path as I am no longer subject to incompetent motoring. And I can finally hear the music in my iPod.

LittleBigMan

Here's some more interesting data from the same source:

https://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks...s/relarisk.htm

Sharks are not as interested in humans as the movie "Jaws" implies.

I remember a PBS special in which sharks were shown to be particularly disinterested in humans.

By the way, John Forester must have some powerful Mojo to live so long.

Helmet Head

Gene and a couple of others keep bringing up the "importance" of training motorists.

randya

Damn straight!!! Get wit da program, mofo!

Helmet Head

Yet my explanation for why I think trying to "educate" motorists (any more than they already are) is largely futile in terms of that making cycling actually safer by any significant degree, in post #605, remains unaddressed. It's one thing to agree to disagree, but ignoring the explanation for the opposing position, and simply dismissing it out of hand ("Get wit da program, mofo"), is something I, for one, would like to see eliminated on this forum. We can do better.

I think it's interesting in light of Al Gore's new book, "The Assault on Reason", in which he addresses the question of why we have moved away from "logic, reason and truth" in making political decisions in our society (he cites ignoring the science of global warming and the war in Iraq as two examples of that). I wish we would see a little bit more use of "logic, reason and truth" in bicycling advocacy. I suspect the answer might be that people believe their positions won't hold up to "logic, reason and truth".

Enough with the insults already. Let's address the issues, positions, and reasons we hold these positions, shall we?

Helmet Head

I had an idea this morning about another way to measure the role of motorist error in bike-crashes.

We know that teens are involved in a disproportionate number of crashes overall. I would like to see a comparison of those numbers overall, and with respect to bike-car crashes.

For example, say 45% of car-car crashes involve teens, but only 20% of all bike-car crashes involved teens. What that would indicate is that "bad driving" is probably much less of a factor in bike-car crashes than in car-car crashes.

Bekologist

ridiculous. is this science, or sophistry? nice self derailment of your own thread, head.

Helmet Head

Enough with insults, please.

It's not my fault that there is no science supporting the position of bike lane advocacy. So, we've moved on.

Bekologist

actually, there is a body of works supporting bike infrastructure. even your idol, mossy john, alludes to hundreds of studies.....


several posters have brought up studies in this thread.