| Guest | Re: drivers speeding away
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Again, your "seems to" statement above merely illustrates your own
> misunderstanding. To say vehicular cycling "pays lip service at best
> to defensive driving" is ludicrous.
>
> The video shown in class has clips of motorists making right turns and
> left turns, etc. into the paths of cyclists, and cyclists performing
> the appropriate evasive maneuvers. How is that "lip service"?
>
> Hell, our paper had photos of one of the courses I taught, showing a
> student canted over in a 45 degree Jobst-like emergency turn during a
> parking lot drill! How is that "lip service"?
>
> The only way I know to make it more realistic would be to recruit a
> volunteer motorist to try to run down the students during the on-road
> exercises or during the road test. Maybe that would satisfy you?
> Nonetheless, it would be unconscionably dumb.
If you think the 'rock dodge' and 'insta-turn' represent
substantial endorsement of defensive driving ideology, then
clearly you have no grasp of that ideology. The defensive
approach to traffic begins before the ride and is maintained
throughout, silly goose, it is not activated suddenly at the
moment of crisis.
Teaching evasive maneuvers does not even rise to the level
of giving lip service. The lip service I was referring to is
'Anticipating Motorist Mistakes' which is buried in the back
of the book as if it were some sort of afterthought.
Unfortunately for the denizens of Effective
Cycling, anticipating motorist mistakes is actually the
most critical task that a cyclist has. Dealing with those
moments is all-important--everything else in between is
just politics, pomp and circumstance, hurt feelings, and
other worthless **** that means absolutely nothing next
to the possibility of having your life altered suddenly and
irrevocably for the worse.
> > The key variable
> > is not rule-following or lack thereof, but the rider's
> > awareness of his/her surroundings regardless of
> > rule-following.
>
> Sorry, but you're deluding yourself. I'm sure your ninja-like skills
> allow you to judge the value of any and all traffic laws; but most
> cyclists are mere civilians, so to speak. Given the high percentage of
> people that overestimate their own judgement skills, and given the high
> percentage of cyclist fatalities that are doing things like riding
> facing traffic, riding at night without lights and/or riding drunk, I
> think rule following is key. Pretending otherwise is specious, and
> most of society realizes that.
It is generally recognized that about half of cyclist fatalities
could be eliminated with proper cyclist behavior ie rule-following
lights, sobriety, adulthood, etc. Do you have any answer for
the other half? You keep telling us how idiot child cyclists and
drunks can ride more safely. This isn't exactly front page news.
The issue of importance is how can experienced adult cyclists
neutralize drivers' mistakes.
> > Do you agree that the key variable is the
> > rider's own awareness?
>
> The first awareness needed, at least regarding bike-car interaction, is
> awareness of how to fit smoothly into the traffic flow. That happens
> mostly by following the rules of the road, and those rules are
> fundamental. Second in importance come the finer points such as proper
> lane position, communication with other road users, etc. Like
> obedience to basic traffic laws, those techniques greatly reduce the
> need for lightning reflexes and psychic tricks.
>
> The awareness of possible motorist mistakes and proper evasive
> maneuvers is good, but it's hardly as important as the first and second
> points I list above.
'...hardly as important...' Well, there you have it, Frank
feels it is much more important for a rider to be predictable
FOR drivers than to be 'predictive' OF them. Some (me for instance)
would see that as a dangerous abdication of personal
responsibility. What you have given us above is a vehement
repudiation of the defensive mindset--which followed
an equally vehement protest that vehicular cycling
ideology in fact embraces the defensive mindset (it
does not). Confusion!
Furthermore, you're bonkers. Most of the car-bike wrecks
suffered by experienced adult cyclists occur when
the cyclist is riding predictably according to the rules
of the road. These collisions occur because cyclists
are often overlooked by drivers, no matter
how or where they ride, just as drivers overlook
motorcyclists and other cars; these collisions also
involve moments of cyclist inattention, non-vigilance, and
surprise. With a certain level of awareness a cyclist
can predict driver mistakes and avoid these collisions.
Clearly, maintaining that level of awareness is of primary
importance, and everything else--from a safety
standpoint mind you--is secondary, including
rule-following. In fact--self-conscious rule-following
can have a narcotic effect on the cyclist's
external awareness, and the rule-following
cyclist (perhaps lolled into complacency with the
assurance that they are taking care of the most
important task) may have to work even harder to
maintain a safe level of awareness than someone
who is seen as a dangerous traffic anarchist.
This may not be as obvious to someone with
different background and experience.
> If we pretend one has to be a mind-reading, ninja-skilled zen master to
> ride a bike safely, we're telling people to never get out of their
> cars.
What is this 'mind-reading, ninja-skilled zen master' crap?
I'm just talking about simple vigilance in traffic. There's
nothing magical about it. It's either on or it's off.
A cyclist can ride (1) without awareness and not according to
the rules of the road, which is really bad obviously, (2) without
awareness and according to the rules of the road, (3) with
awareness and not according to the rules of the road, or
(4) with awareness and according to the rules of the road.
One thing I am dead certain of is that 4 is safer than 3 which
is safer than 2 which is safer than 1. For those who are
convinced that plugging into the system is more important
than maintaining simple vigilance, and emphasize visibility
over vision, it seems more likely that they drift into the
lowly 2 category, the realm of surprise and pain.
And anyway, why don't you quit worrying about what message
we may or may not send to people who may or may not
ever get out of their cars and start speaking truth to people
who are cool enough to have already made that choice.
Have some respect for your audience.
Robert
|