Bekologist

good grief. more mischaracterizing & perpetuating the incompetency superstition by john.

rando

what if maybe, just maybe, our social and highway policies are based on a view that cyclists are more vulnerable to harm on their vehicles and deserve to have facilities specially made for them, to give an additional smidge of comfort and safety?

invisiblehand

OK. But I thought that public roadways had something to do with it too. For instance, I thought that one could qualify for certain types of motorized racing without the legal ability to drive on "normal" roads.

Anyway, I don't want to get sidetracked by my poor use of access and public.

Well, I have not come to the conclusion that cyclists should be licensed to operate bicycles on roads; although I clearly have some sympathies towards the idea. We have already discussed what I think is would be a positive result: there would be a mechanism to target the would be "road warriors". However, mandatory licensing would also discourage many from the road--which I believe is safer and more efficient in many settings--and perhaps from cycling in general.

Moreover, I also think that any program should be simple to understand and implement.

"One must have a license to ride a bicycle" is simple, easy to understand, and relatively easy to enforce. But my perception is that most people would believe that such a policy would be overkill.

"One must have a license to ride on any road" is simple, easy to understand, but becomes more difficult to enforce since an officer would have to catch the person riding on the road. Moreover, I don't think that people would want to stop kids from riding up and down their suburban block.

"One must have a license to ride on 'major' roads" is not so simple, less than well understood, and difficult to enforce. The adjective "major" would be a nightmare. However, I gather that this is what many would want from such a program; i.e., to make sure that riders on busy roads understand how to interact with autos.

Anyway, I don't have any quick answer (although I have some ideas on how to address some of the issues above ... I have not determined the quality of these ideas). Your suggestion of incorporating bicycle education into public education is a promising one. But I gather that education resources are a bit stretched in disadvantaged areas already. I also don't know how much of a life-long skill cycling is to some people.

Back to Bek's suggestion of driver's education of bicyclist's rights and use of the road and the omission of cyclist education ...

My initial perception is that suggesting that another group needs to be educated in some dimension without suggesting some change in the part of cyclists other than a demand for cycling infrastructure sounds similar to the pedestrian hit on the Capital Crescent Trail without taking any responsibility for her own actions.

https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...crescent+trail

a short snip of the article ...

Postscript: Jamie Ratner was treated and released from the hospital that night and is feeling better every day. Upon reflection, Ratner, who is a security manager at a District law firm, is, like Mark Rubin, very concerned about safety along the Capital Crescent Trail, which runs from Georgetown to Silver Spring.

Specifically, she suggests no bike racing; speed limits for bikers; increased police patrols; emergency phone boxes; and better signs about right-of-way and passing.

She thinks that any rule forbidding headphones would be unfair, asserting that walkers and runners have an equal right to enjoy the trail. A headphone ban, she says, would be misdirected, because it should be bikers' responsibility to yield to those on foot until a bike lane is specifically designated.

John Forester

At least you asked "If?" Our social and highway policies regarding bicycle transportation are based on the arrogant claim by motorists that their bikeway system would make cycling safe for the unskilled, which claim the government has been trying to demonstrate for the last thirty five years without success. The public believes the superstition, and the sense of comfort is produced by the superstition.

The Human Car

To add to the list:
* Bike route maps - if cars have highway maps then we should have bike route maps.
* Increased penalties and automatically at fault for speeding motorist who are involved in an accident. (How the h** is someone supposed to yield to a motorist doing twice the speed limit?)
* Mandatory state of the art bike/ped engineering training for people implementing facilities (there are only ~3 engineering schools in the country that offer such courses currently.)
* Eliminate the current think of no mater where a cyclist lateral position is in the roadway is they should/could have been somewhere else so they are at fault. (This goes for the VC forum as will as LEO’s) (Seek clarification between what is required by law and what is recommended for safety.)

sbhikes

We have an awesome bike route map here in Santa Barbara. If you ever come to visit, ask for it at a local bike shop. It's free and contains all kinds of routes, not just ones that are accommodated by bike lanes or other facilities. It even included the route I worked out for myself for my commute.

noisebeam

Bike maps: https://www.azbikeped.org/maps.htm

Check out this planning map for routes thoughout the entire state of AZ:
https://www.azbikeped.org/images/map%...0(3-03-06).pdf
It tell you lots of useful info: traffic volumes, grades, shoulder widths, narrow bridges, frontage roads, etc.

Tom Stormcrowe

"Herding cats" is a reference to trying to get a bunch of extreme individualists with different directions and goals into a group. How obedient are cats?

randya

no comment

invisiblehand

Just to be clear ... I understand the metaphor. I did not think it was appropriate in the context.

Around here, we always describe leading group rides as herding cats ...

Funny thing, a few weeks ago we saw a guy that trained a mouse to lie down on a cat that was lying down on a dog.

https://picasaweb.google.com/erika.st...28335459421042

genec

Really? Tell me then your plan on how to train cyclists? How do you notify them? How do you gather them. How do you require them to be trained in the first place?

The only reasonable systems are to either do it as part of the general education program or as part of the general driving program.

Otherwise... it is like herding cats... there is no way to notify, gather and enforce any training on cyclists currently.

John Forester

Considering the current state of America, it is impossible for the government (depts of motor vehicles, depts of education, etc) to require training of cyclists, and it is impossible to provide training as a required part of the general education program or as a part of the general driving program. Effective training of cyclists can only be done, in the America of today, by actual training on the road in real traffic. After all, that is what we expect of training in motoring, isn't it? Therefore, training of cyclists can only be done on a voluntary basis. However, it is entirely possible for government bodies to advocate proper training of cyclists instead of what they do now, most of which effort is the bikeway program that is based on incompetent cycling and the social attitudes appropriate for incompetent cycling. Were the traffic-concerned organizations in our society and government actively advocating proper training of cyclists, according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, I think that the picture would be far different.

Bekologist

john, broken record, dude.

genec

I think so too... but on the current voluntary basis, the cyclists that need the training the most are the least likely to seek it. And in that respect it is very ineffective.

I-Like-To-Bike

Exactly. Always with the same lyrics - any and all bicycling facility programs must be opposed because they are alleged stumbling blocks in the way of implementing, with government support, the only Forester-Approved Real Improvement for Cyclists: Forester Brand cycling education programs.

John Forester

I agree that useful, shall we say effective with a lower-case e, cyclist training programs attract only a very small proportion of the public. There are several reasons for this. The biggest, probably, is that very few in the American public are interested in bicycle transportation. They say they are in answer to survey questions, but few actually are as shown by their participation. The excuse that they offer is that they think the normal roads are too dangerous for cycling. That leads to the second large reason, that they think that bikeways make cycling safe while obviating the need for traffic-cycling skill. As long as our society and government continue proclaiming that bikeways obviate the need for traffic-cycling skill, those powerful forces operate against any program of cycling skill. As long as our society and government continue to operate on the strongly implemented policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways you can't expect anything else; cyclist training will be seen as interesting and useful only by those sufficiently strongminded to oppose the popular attitude on the basis if facts, reason, and experience.

I should not need to remind many of those participating in this discussion that you, as bicycle advocates, are strenuously advocating this policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways and are therefore a considerable portion of the opposition to useful cyclist training.

Oh, I know that some of you want to have your cake and eat it, too, in that you want to continue advocating according to the policy of incompetent cycling on bikeways while recognizing that vehicular cycling is necessary. Well, that won't work, because it will not turn around public opinion in the way that is required for social recognition that cyclists should be operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Bekologist

who is claiming bike infrastructure is "obviating the need for traffic cycling skill?"

that's laughable, john.

and no one I know of in our local advocacy community is advocating "incompetant cycling"

your slander is boundless.

genec

Actually my view is quite different, albeit perhaps just as schizophrenic as you say. I like on road cycling facilities primarily because they, if nothing else, indicate to motorists that indeed I should be cycling on the street and no where else. Where said facilities do not exist, the expressed opinion is often that cyclists should be on the sidewalk. Frankly, if motorists fully understood our rights and how they, the motorists, should interact with cyclists, then all the extra lines on the road could just go away. But until then, the "slot car minded" American driver is best served with lines. Motorists understand "stay between the lines," and that too is a lot of "culture" to try to remove.

rando

Dude, what are you talking about? bikeways obviate the need for cycling skill? that's not true! your whole argument falls on it's face if you don't accept this wacky theory, which I don't. you're the only one I've ever heard say this.

again, nobody I know of is advocating "incompetent cycling" whatever the hell that means to you, I suspect it means "you ride in a bike lane". your ideas are all twisted into a kind of pretzel logic, formed around this mistaken idea of why bike lanes exist and what they do. until you have exorcized yourself of these demons, or modify your ideas, you're doomed to the lunatic fringe of cycling.

see above, rinse, lather, repeat.

John Forester

Don't be silly about skill. There has been a sufficient level of discussion to disclose that I consider adequate traffic-cycling skill to be shown by a 70% or better score on the traffic-cycling parts of the Cyclist Proficiency Test, which test reflects the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Let's start at the beginning. The original designers of the bikeway design standards stated that their aim was to accommodate cyclists who did not, and were not capable, of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The federal government then published research and guidance papers that divided the cycling population into those who obeyed the rules of the road (Advanced cyclists) and those who did not (Basic and Child cyclists), and stated that Basic and Child cyclists need bike lanes.

Now consider the present. Bicycle advocates advocate bikeways in the belief that bikeways attract new cyclists. Those newly attracted cyclists believe that bikeways make cycling safe for them, beginners though they are. Safe routes to school advocates advocate bikeways in the belief that bikeways make cycling safe for children.

Considering all this, nobody has to shout from the housetops that bikeways make cycling safe for beginners and children; that belief permeates society. These beginners are, practically be definition, incompetent cyclists. That's what beginners are.

The whole system is based on the pervasive belief that bikeways make cycling safe for beginners, who are, practically by definition, incompetent cyclists. The bicycle advocates who advocate bikeways don't like this unpleasant truth, as evidenced by much discussion here.

invisiblehand

Yes, really.

I think your answers are in earlier posts in conjunction with a little imagination since I gather you are familiar with getting a drivers license and why one get one if they wanted to drive a car. If you feel otherwise, then we just disagree. Or you can ask a specific question in the DMV context.

In brief, we were talking about road cycling. A much smaller set of cyclists than the general population of people who ride bicycles. I also referenced licenses for road cycling where the fixed resources of DMV would be used; I imagine a motorcycle license would not be very different from a bicycle license. Enforcement could be straightforward. If the objective is to educate road cyclists, it would certainly do the job and probably be more far effective and efficient than doing so in schools.

As I wrote earlier, I have doubts whether this is the best thing for cycle advocacy; but it would reach road cyclists who ride now instead of hoping that the education system eventually filters the information out to the appropriate individuals over time.

Anyway, whether you or I think that herding cats is appropriate description is at best tangential to the thread.

I-Like-To-Bike

And who, besides yourself and perhaps a few "education" promoters, claims to have such an "objective"? And for what positive purpose?

invisiblehand

What is the point of the question?

From the thread, it appears that there are a few with such an idea. At a local advocacy group meeting, there was considerable discussion addressing League of American Bicyclist classes, confident city cycling classes, and youth outreach/education programs. From what I gather, a large portion of these programs appear to target riding on trafficked roads and seem to have the support of local advocacy community. There have also been specific recommendations to road riders at local events.

I have not taken a formal census of the issue. But the concept appears on a regular basis in different settings leading me to infer that there are people interested in changing the way individuals ride on the road through some sort of education/program.

Just to be clear, I have never taken any of these courses.

I think this answers the question. But alternative interpretations have crossed my mind.

I imagine these courses pass along some of the "tricks of the trade" from a consortium of experienced riders as well as some descriptive empirical evidence regarding cycling. For a particular target audience, say youth riders, one would probably include something about the physical skills of cycling. Presumably, these skills and tips would help new riders better navigate trafficked roads and make better basic decisions such as which route to take.

A good example would be suggesting that cyclists avoid riding on the right-side of a right-turn-only-lane.

While my memory is fuzzy, I recall an argument that empirical studies on the correlation of experience and safety had measurement/statistical issues such as the meaning of "experience", the actual techniques/strategies that experience cyclists used, and so on. Regardless, the studies I have seen along with my own biases and personal experience suggest that experienced riders almost certainly have learned something along the way that results in better decision making and safer riding.

I-Like-To-Bike

Apparently you missed it entirely. I am not questioning the value of experience in any activity, cycling or otherwise. I specifically asked about your statement about licensing and education objectives for road cyclists : "I also referenced licenses for road cycling where the fixed resources of DMV would be used; I imagine a motorcycle license would not be very different from a bicycle license."

Who has an objective for licensing road cyclists or requiring their "education" by anybody for licensing to ride a bicycle on the road? And why?

Roody

In the spirit of compromise i could get behind Bekologist's list of proposals. Streets redesigned from the ground up to better suit all users -- pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users, and (last because least) cars -- is a worthy long term goal. And genec has convinced me over the last couple years that motorist education about bikes is a good idea too. As for cyclist education, it's probably easier to concentrate on the kids rather than training adults.

However, I disagree with the proposals about rewarding people who ride bikes with tax breaks or other compensation. What is the point of this? Do you think the public will get behind the donation of their tax dollars to a few people who ride a bike to work?