Helmet Head

INTRODUCTION

A recurring theme in Robert Hurst's book, The Art of Urban Cycling, and in many of his posts on this forum, is that the Forester/Effective Cycling/Vehicular Cycling/LAB/LCI approach relies too much on others obeying the rules of the road. I agree that relying on others obeying the rules of the road can be a problem, but I strongly disagree that the Forester approach is an example of this.

Robert made a statement about this recently in the Filtering thread up in A&S, to which I replied, but that thread has since been closed. I am reposting his statement, along with the quote to which he was replying, and my comment here.

ROBERT'S POST ATTACKING LCIS

MY REPLY

Robert, you claim that LCIs put "their faith in the traffic _system_, without fully grasping that traffic is nothing more than individual humans doing human things".

No, Robert, with all due respect, you're the one who does not fully realize something. What you don't realize is that we "fellars" (at least the VC advocates and LCIs that I've met) do not put faith in the traffic system without fully grasping that traffic is nothing more than individual humans doing human things.

You also don't seem to realize that a cyclist, including you, is nothing more than an individual human doing human things as well. This is why a practice that puts more reliance on the cyclist's vigilance than another practice, all other factors held equal, is a higher risk practice that the other one is.

Vehicular cycling is about mitigating risk, not eliminating risk, and that includes accounting for the risk of the cyclist failing to be vigilant 100% of the time. That's what following the rules of road (*) is about, and that's why it's the vehicular cyclist's first line of defense. Following the rules of the road makes the cyclist less likely to make a mistake (if nothing else because violating the rules of the road is often already making a mistake), and it also makes a cyclist less vulnerable to a motorist's mistake. Vigilance -- in particular, looking ahead for hazards, reading motorists and watching for errors -- is the second line of defense.

Though you don't say so explicitly, I think you would agree that your book emphasises vigilance as a higher priority than following the rules of the road. You do not discount the value of following the rules as much as Glowacz does, but it's there, mostly between the lines. And doing so puts more reliance than necessary on the cyclist's ability to stay vigilant 100% of the time, which of course is impossible (as exemplified by your crash with the Mercedes backing out of the alley).

And, as I've pointed out before, simply focusing on trying to follow the rules improves a cyclist's vigilance. You have to establish and maintain good situational awareness in order to effectively follow the rules. So by making following the rules the first priority, VC helps the cyclist be less likely to fail being vigilant, including watching for and being ready for the inevitable motorist errors.



* By "following the rules of the road" I do not mean following the absolute letter of the law like a non-thinking automaton. In general, it means being conspicuous and predictable, which means the biggies... ride on the right half of the road, use lights at night, obey traffic controls and ROW rules, follow speed and destination positioning rules (which, when done properly, maximizes sight lines and buffer spaces), stay out of door zones, don't ride too fast for conditions, don't invite sharing in narrow lanes, etc. It also means knowing the rules and understanding their purpose, so that you understand the risk and potential ramifications of not following them when you choose to do so.

Brian Ratliff

^^^
Why are you yelling?

Since this is a new thread, why not add a little intro so we all can understand what it is you are talking about? Start over from the beginning. State your subject and your position, then the counterargument and then your rebuttle of your counterargument.

That phrase: "with all due respect" is funny. Whenever someone uses it, they mean to say exactly the opposite.

rando

with all due respect, Serge, please more riding and less posting.

zeytoun

False.

Following the "rules of the road" sometimes makes a cyclist less like vulnerable to a motorist's mistakes. Sometimes it increases vulnerability.

For example:

-careful filtering (counter to the rules of the road) can make a cyclist less vulnerable to being rear ended.
-beginner cyclists are probably less vulnerable to motorist mistakes if they do a pedestrian left turn, rather then trying to cross several lanes of arterial traffic
-many cyclists are probably less vulnerable to motorist mistakes if they choose to ride on the sidewalk of a bridge, if it has a slippery metal surface on the car-traveled section.
-many beginner cyclists are probably less vulnerable to motorist mistakes if they ride on an MUP, using due care at intersections
-on sections of freeways where cyclists are permitted to ride, cyclists are safer when they ignore destination positioning, and instead exit at each offramp, regardless of whether they are continuing on.

As Rando astutely pointed out once, (paraphrasing slightly) Cyclists fare best when they recognize that there are times when acting vehicularly is not the best practice, and are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants.

For many of us, this is a daily, frequent occurrence.

genec

Ah... truer words have never been spoken.

Helmet Head

I was trying to make the footnote smaller than the other part. I removed it.

The part above the quote is the intro. That, combined with Robert's statement, is the beginning.

EDIT: I added section headings. Hope that helps.

zeytoun

That was actually Rando's coinage, I believe

genec

My compliments also to Rando.

zeytoun

In order to follow the basic rules of the road, one must only maintain awareness of signs, road markings, etc. One only needs to pay attention to other drivers when potential ROW issues arise.

For example, I know a few drivers who pay attention when merging onto the freeway, and thereafter stay in one of the right lanes at below the speed limit. At that point, they only pay attention to traffic signs and keeping a safe distance to the car in front of them. They are oblivious to cars behind and in other lanes.

Is a driver like that breaking any of the basic rules of the road? I can't think of one. However I wouldn't call that driver vigilant, and I wouldn't call that driver safe.

Helmet Head

First, when something is generally true, as opposed to absolutely true in every instance, that means there will be exceptions, such as some of those in your list. No one has ever claimed that the VC principle is absolutely true in every instance, without exception.

As to the individual examples, which I took the liberty to identify by letter bullets for easier reference...

1. Whether filtering is counter to the rules of the road is an edge case question. In many countries, and in at least one state, CA, it's not against the law. As I said in the final sentence of the "following the rules" definition foot note, [following the rules] also means knowing the rules and understanding their purpose, so that you understand the risk and potential ramifications of not following them when you choose to do so.. With respect to filtering, as long as there is at least one line of stopped traffic on your left, you're strictly violating the speed positioning rule when filtering. Do so accordingly, and you're not violating the VC principle. That is, the vehicular cyclist, knowing and understanding the risks and potential ramifications of filtering to the right of vehicular traffic because it violates speed positioning, will do so with due car that the typical cyclist who lacks this understanding will not.
2. It is no secret that cycling in traffic becomes more challenging with higher volumes and speed differentials, with left merges and left turns being the most challenging. VC is no panacea for this (or anything else). But in most conditions where cyclists ride, it works great. There are special conditions, including left turns, which drivers of other types of vehicles also avoid. Some roads are too steep or cannot support the weight of large moving vans, for example, so drivers of those vehicles are required to take alternate routes. So are cyclists. If following pedestrian rules is even more efficient than choosing an alternate route, so be it. Yes, it's an exception to the rule. That's normal.
3. Long stretches of intersectionless road, like on a bridge, particularly with hazardous roadway conditions and perfectly decent sidewalk, is another obvious exception.
4. I know of no evidence that indicates "many beginner cyclists are probably less vulnerable to motorist mistakes if they ride on an MUP, using due care at intersections." If they know to "use care at intersections", and know how to do that, then they're probably just as safe on the roads. EDIT: I should add that the VC principle applies on roads. That is, on roads, cyclists fare best.... I've never understood it to mean that cyclists fare better on roads than on MUPs.
5. Freeways where cycling is generally prohibited are exceptions, to which VC obviously does not apply, of course. No surprise there.

In general, when riding on roadways shared with drivers of vehicles, cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles. This includes recognizing that there are relatively rare specific situations when acting strictly in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road may not be the best practice (e.g., riding along a safe sidewalk on a long bridge with surface hazards).

Recognizing exceptions is one thing, but to say "are flexible enough to do what is necessary as the situation warrants", which is very vague, opens Pandora's box and can easily lead to typical scofflaw and unpredictable cycling.

Helmet Head

No, he's not violating the rules, nor is he being vigilant, but my main point (in the OP) is his safety depends less on him being vigilant that does the safety of a driver who is not concerned with following rules such as safe following distances.

More to the particular secondary point you're challenging, the cyclist who is trying to obey the rules is more likely to be vigilant than is the cyclist mindlessly riding along in the margin not paying attention to obeying the rules or to other traffic.

Helmet Head

Hey, this subforum was supposedly created for me, and you complain about me posting in it?

Bekologist

no, head, not for you. this subforum was created because of your derailing, obfuscationist presence. BIG difference.


More saddle, less prattle.

csr

Ah, excellent. Just what I was thinking. Now if you would please write a book for me to read, or put a helmet cam on so I can learn by example, that would be super.

zeytoun

I would propose that "Robert's Post Attacking LCIs" is a bit sensationalist. I-Like-to-bike was the one that insulted some LCIs.

I think it's also interesting that you react so strongly to Robert's suggestion that you and some of your colleagues might not fully grasp the idea that "traffic" is made up of individuals, when you so often make a similar argument towards anyone that uses the term "car" to refer to the automobile and it's driver.

zeytoun

Which is why I personally prefer the philosophy of defensive driving, which Hurst adapted to cycling in his book.

My grandparents and parents have often espoused a "VC" driving philosophy to me while I rode in their cars with them. It went something along the lines of, "follow the rules, (be destination, speed oriented) don't change lanes unless you need to make a turn or really must pass a slowpoke, keep a good buffer between you and the next car. Do all that, and just pay attention to the road ahead." They didn't pay to much attention to other cars unless they were at an intersection or merging. They felt that since they were driving correctly they wouldn't ever cause an accident. In one sense they were right, they never caused accidents. But they've been victims in many accidents because they didn't avoid a bozo.

zeytoun

Many here are fans (rightly so) of Robert Hurst's The Art of Urban Cycling. Hurst talks about accident prevention in great detail, from a practical point of view, without having an ax to grind or a philosophy to sell, other then the attitude of not letting anyone hit you, no matter what a jerk they are.

I don't have a helmet cam, and would not presume to think that I know better than someone else how they should ride.

RobertHurst

In the end, nobody knows what the heck you mean by 'rules of the road,' not even you.

It takes a minimum of awareness to follow the actual rules of the road.

When I say 'rules of the road' I'm thinking of traffic law; as in, if you break these rules you may get a citation from a police officer, not just a critique from a certified cycling instructor on the intertron. Obviously you prefer a much more expansive definition of 'rules of the road' which would include all sorts of wonderful things but I suspect your definition would morph and change at your convenience and that it would have no beginning or end. Thus it would be no definition at all, and useless to discuss.

We already went through this whole ordeal in another thread I believe. And iirc the operative term that emerged there was 'monkey fist.'

As I have stated repeatedly, I believe the safest rider on the road would be one who both follows the rules of the road (traffic laws) and maintains situational awareness, and the least safe rider is the one who rides contrary to the rules and without situational awareness. We can agree on that, right? However, the rider who maintains situational awareness while breaking the law is going to be a safer cyclist than the one who rides lawfully but without situational awareness. Don't tell me that people don't, or can't, ride lawfully without situational awareness, or that riding according to the law is effective in protecting cyclists -- accident statistics are bulked out with adult riders who were riding according to the rules of the road but who got nailed anyway in imminently avoidable situations, like right hooks, left hooks and restarts from stop signs. And there is the other side of the coin: veteran messengers have proven over the decades that one can maintain a relatively stellar safety record (in terms of accident or injury per mile or per hour, several times better than the rates recorded in Moritz' survey of LAB members, or Kifer's survey of touring cyclists for instance), while running many hundreds of thousands of red lights and generally using the entire city surface in a way unconnected from the traffic code. In fact one can break one traffic law after another while (otherwise) staying completely loyal to the principles of safe, conservative, defensive riding that you would like to gather under the big party tent that you call 'rules of the road.' People may cringe to hear of the secondary importance, for safety purposes, of cyclists' following traffic law, but it is nonetheless reality. It may ultimately be much better (for other reasons) if cyclists wait at lights and obey other traffic laws, but the critical variable in a cyclist's _safety_ is situational awareness (aka vigilance), not rule following. This is something that I am quite sure of, as it is obvious in available statistics as well as in my own observations over many years.

If you believe otherwise you should try to come up with something other than hopes, dreams and enthusiastic assertions to back it up.

Robert

randya

^^ + alot!

Allister

Great post. It's a source of endless amusement to me that HH cites you as a source for his cockamamie theories, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Then again, anyone that can come up with the following sentence and think they're making a perfectly reasonable point has a dubious grasp on reality in the fiirst place

rando

Thanks, Guys. I forgot I said that! sometimes I DO nail it!

noisebeam

While I would not disagree with this, I have never in 4 years of commuting ever found a non-vehicular practice to be the better option. That does not mean I don't have the flexibility to use a non-vehicular option if needed, just that when riding in the same environment as Rando it has never been needed.

Al

Brian Ratliff

^^^
"never" is a strong word. You've never cut across a parking lot to avoid an intersection or taken to the sidewalk to ride up the wrong way on a one way street?

noisebeam

Nope. Very sure on those two. (Anyway cutting across a parking lot is vehicular, just not legal)

Sure never is a strong word and there may be some time I have, but far from memorable. Effectively never.

Al

genec

So you have never used a sidewalk to get to favorable intersection?

I have to laugh at this as I have no problem being vehicular; however some time back, as I left a local meeting, I was faced with the choice of either hitting the street, making a merge into traffic across two lanes to a left turn signal, waiting for the signal and then making a U turn to turn around to the direction I needed to go, OR... I could ride down the sidewalk to the other intersection (against the flow of traffic on my side of the center divide) leave the sidewalk at the light of this minor road and make the left turn there to the direction I needed to go.

So I had a choice of merging across 2 lanes of heavier traffic and waiting for two lights or using a sidewalk to get to one light and merging into a minor lane of traffic... it was a no brainer, and quite unvehicular.

The irony was that I was leaving an advocacy meeting.