01-26-2007, 05:54 PM
|
#31 (permalink)
|
| Guest | Re: drivers speeding away
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 26, 11:17 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 4:04 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Talk about putting the ball
> > > > in the wrong hoop! Instead of be 'visible and predictable,'
> > > > it should be 'keep your head up and your eyes open,
> > > > and think ahead.' Instead of visibility, Vision. Visibility
> > > > is a by-product of responsible riding anyway, and
> > > > shouldn't be a prime directive; 'predictable' means
> > > > different things to different people.
> > > Can you imagine if we taught people to drive using the same logic?
>
> > We do. It's called defensive driving ideology.
>
> Baloney. Nobody - or at least, no competent teacher - begins teaching
> fine points of defensive driving to a student who doesn't know the
> rules of the road. The rules come first - things like drive on the
> right, stop for stop signs, stop for red lights, proceed only when
> clear, etc. If you don't follow basic rules, you can't possibly defend
> against the chaos you'd cause.
It is implied in defensive driving ideology that any
halfbaked idiot can follow the rules of the road--what is
really important is constant vigilance toward other road users
(aka the defensive mindset), whereas vehicular cycling
seems to hold dearest the adherence to the basic
traffic principles, while paying lip-service at best to
defensive driving principles.
> >
> > Can you imagine if we taught people to drive, or ride
> > motorcycles, using your logic? "Just be visible and
> > predictable for all the other drivers out there, and
> > everything will work out swimmingly!! We'll teach
> > you how to turn the steering wheel sharply in
> > chapter 32, but you'll probably never need to!!"
> >
> > > "It doesn't matter what side of the freeway you use. Forget those
> > > 'Wrong Way' signs. Just keep your eyes open."
>
> > What a ridiculous straw man. Nobody said anything about
> > ignoring traffic law being part of safe riding.
>
> I'm responding to your straw man. Dozens of times, you've
> characterized vehicular cycling as "JUST follow the rules and you'll do
> fine." But AFAIK, it's _never_ taught that way. The official League
> of American Bicyclists' curricula for its courses has _always_ included
> theory and practice on evasive maneuvers. It's always had students out
> in parking lots practicing panic stops, emergency turns etc. It's
> always included information on spotting potential driver mistakes.
> Dozens of times, I've explained that, but you seem incapable of either
> believing it or retaining it.
I know exactly what it includes. Defensive driving ideology has
been back-burnered in Effective Cycling and remains so in
the evolving education programs which sprang from it
(although there are certainly reasonable LCIs out there
who have augmented their programs to reflect reality).
> Furthermore, you ignore the fact that, when teaching cycling, there
> are many people who do NOT know the most basic rules. I can give many
> more examples than I already have - like the sporty young man on a new
> performance bike, snazzy cycling clothes, brand new helmet etc, on a
> club ride who made a left turn by swerving first to the left gutter.
> That sort of behavior MUST be corrected first, before we get into any
> emergency maneuvers, let alone any "zen of traffic" mysticism.
VC indoctrination is good for these people. It is unclear
what good it does for an experienced rider.
> > Those heavily invested in 'vehicular cycling' ideology
> > seem to have trouble even admitting that the traffic system
> > is prone to breakdowns. Dangerous.
>
> I find it telling that the guy who argues strenuously that the rules of
> the road don't matter...
I never argued that the rules of the road don't matter.
What I said was that following the rules alone
will not keep you safe. You can follow the rules
and still be riding unsafely. Conversely, it is
sometimes possible to ignore the rules in a
safe manner. (Keeping in mind that there are a
whole load of issues surrounding rule-breaking that
are separate from the safety issue.) The key variable
is not rule-following or lack thereof, but the rider's
awareness of his/her surroundings regardless of
rule-following. This seems to me a critical and
fundamental principle of safe cycling--why does
VC dogma not mention it?
Do you agree that the key variable is the
rider's own awareness? Do you agree that
being 'predictive' (to use Tom's word) of others
is more important than being predictable for
others?
Robert
|
|
|  |