drivers speeding away - Page 4 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

01-26-2007, 05:54 PM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> On Jan 26, 11:17 am, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 4:04 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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

01-26-2007, 06:02 PM

In article <1169853310.866331.82480@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] writes in part:

> Furthermore, you ignore the fact that, when teaching cycling, there
> are many people who do NOT know the most basic rules.

That's scary, because chances are they drive cars
with the same ignorance.

cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

01-26-2007, 06:18 PM

Tom Keats wrote:

> In article <45ba6303$0$27066$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>,
> Wayne Pein <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> writes:
>
>>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>One who has faith that simply following the main pillars
>>>of 'vehicular cycling' ('be visible and predictable') will keep
>>>them safe in traffic has put all their eggs in the wrong basket.
>>
>>The main pillars of vehicular cycling are not to be visible and
>>predictable as you assert. Obviously the main pillar of vehicular
>>cycling is to operate a bicycle as a vehicle, following vehicular rules
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> In other words, observing the right of way protocol.
> Why are people (especially cyclists) so loathe to
> outrightly say: "right of way", and instead, dance
> around such succint phrasing with foggy euphemisms
> such as "rules of the road," "vehicular rules," &c?
>

Since I was specifically distinguishing between rules for vehicle
operators vs rules for pedestrians, I don't believe I was being foggy.
Vehicle operators use the road, drive with traffic, and have their own
set of right of way rules, whereas pedestrians use sidewalks (if
available), walk in either direction on same, walk facing traffic when
using the road, and have their own set of right of way rules with
respect to interaction with motor traffic.

Wayne

01-26-2007, 09:45 PM

On Jan 26, 6:24 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Tom Keats) wrote:
> In article <1169766269.903611.261...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] writes:
>
> > On Jan 25, 11:41 am, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> >> On Jan 24, 9:52 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Tom Keats) wrote:
>
> >> > ...Because "being predictable" connotes
> >> > relying on others to look after our safety. But we've
> >> > really gotta look after ourselves.You said it all when you said it.
>
> >> > Maybe cyclists' safety is more about predicting, than
> >> > it is about being "predictable."Sing it, Brother!!!
>
> >> New cyclists are admonished to be 'visible and
> >> predictable' first and foremost. This implies that
> >> ultimately it is up to the drivers to keep them safe,
> >> and that their responsibility as cyclists lies in helping
> >> the drivers keep them safe.
>
> > The implication you state is only in your own mind.
>
> > Beginning cyclists are admonished to be visible and predictable
> > because, without such instruction, so many of them are neither.
> > Without instruction, most of them don't seem to know that rules of the
> > road even exist for cyclists. Their behavior is random and dangerous
> > to themselves.When I learned to ride (a handful of decades ago) I was
> immediately taught the protocol of right-of-way. In fact,
> I figure Effective Cycling's 5 basic principles pretty much
> sublimate down to that.
>
> I guess following a protocol is a manner of being
> predictable.
>
> So why not specifically say: "observe (or at least
> recognize) right-of-way rules" instead of just a
> mamby-pambyishly glib: "be predictable?"

You need to understand that my statement "be predictable" is in the
context of responding to Robert. That's not the vocabulary emphasized
in class nor in the various books and websites that espouse vehicular
cycling; it's merely the way it was brought up in this particular
thread.

In teaching League cycling courses, I've taught mostly folks who have
drivers licenses. With them, the most efficient way to describe "rules
of the road" behavior is, I think, to say "If you wouldn't do it in a
car, you probably shouldn't do it on a bike." I also quote whoever
said "Same roads, same rights, same rules." I also quote Forester's
statement, "Cyclists fare best when they act, and are treated as,
drivers of vehicles."

But I also express that concept in other ways, especially when I've had
pre-driving kids in my classes. One advantage of a class over an
Internet posting is that you can explain (and demonstrate) concepts in
many ways.

You also need to understand that these classes do not rely on mere talk
& chalk. There's classroom discussion, video, demos using models, etc.
but there's parking lot work (that's where emergency turns are taught,
for example) and there are hours of road work among motor vehicles,
with lots of stops for discussion.

> Or one could optionally, list the 5 basic principles
> of Effective Cycling at them. But I'd still put them
> in context of right-of-way.

I suppose each teacher explains things slightly differently. That's
normal. But good teachers will still get the ideas across.

- Frank Krygowski

01-26-2007, 10:24 PM

On Jan 26, 8:54 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 11:17 am, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> > > On Jan 25, 4:04 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>
> > 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.

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.

> > > 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, is the same guy who proclaims that cycling is
> > dangerous.

> 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.

Fine. As I've explained at least 14 times, that is thoroughly covered
in the relevant classes, in the book that first popularized the ideas,
and I believe in most pamphlets and websites that competently explain
vehicular cycling. You just keep missing it.

> 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.

> This seems to me a critical and
> fundamental principle of safe cycling--why does
> VC dogma not mention it?

Why does VC not put generalized "awareness" before rules of the road?
Because the nationally prominent, expert cyclists that developed
Vehicular Cycling principles disagree with you. They think that, for
example, a cyclist riding the proper direction will have so much less
need of ninja skills that it's best to get people on the right side of
the road first.

> 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.

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.

- Frank Krygowski

01-26-2007, 11:15 PM

we're telling people to never get out of their
cars.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
They can get out and walk. If they feel safer. Poor drivers are also poor
cyclists probably 10X worse.
They give good cyclists a bad name. That is also why I think I get treated
badly when I am not doing anything wrong. They just think you are another
stoned cyclist or punk. Too bad for them I guess cause they are not
thinking right either.

01-27-2007, 11:43 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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

01-28-2007, 09:16 PM

On Jan 27, 2:43 pm, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> >
> > 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.

And again, your complaints are based on your mistaken assumption of
how these classes are taught. And your complaints are driven by your
need to instill fear in cyclists.

>
> 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.

??

Sorry, but I think you're off base again. If by "the book" you mean
John Forester's _Effective Cycling_, I find "Motorists' Overtaking
Errors" way, way before the back of the book. Ditto the emergency
evasive maneuvers you now think seem to think are useless. Similarly,
in the standard classes that cover this material, such concepts are
covered in the video shown the first day.

I think your real objection is that there's no attempt to instill
fear. Take it as a compliment - the Vehicular Cycling world has
decided to leave that up to you. ;-)

> 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.

Amazing! So riding on the proper side of the road is "just
politics"? Using lights at night is mere "pomp"? Stopping for
traffic lights and stop signs is just "circumstance"? Proper lane
position is "worthless ****"?

Apparently nothing matters to you but scaring people with the remote
possibility that a crash might alter their lives "suddenly and
irrevocably." Indeed, even telling them how to best avoid that
doesn't matter as much as scaring them!

Astonishing.

>
> > > 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.

Yes, and yet you imply that training to reduce that half of the
problem is "worthless ****."

> 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.

And you keep refusing to believe the fact that neutralizing drivers'
mistakes is part of vehicular cycling education.

> > 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.

AFAIK, you're the only person making that claim. And you're foolishly
wrong yet again.

To teach cycling, one MUST start by making sure people ride their
bikes correctly - for example, on the proper side of the road, with
decent lane position. If you don't, how do you teach cyclists to "be
predictive" of driver behavior? Do you put out one set of rules for
those who ride up the left gutter? Another set for those cowering in
the right gutter? A separate set for those who ride in the door
zone? Yet another for those who ride at night with no lights?

The sane way is to get cyclists riding predictably - that is,
according to best practice. Once everyone understands where they
should be on the road, THEN you can say "Now this is what you do if a
motorist approaches a stop sign to your right..."

> What you have given us above is a vehement
> repudiation of the defensive mindset...

Bull****.

> 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.

That's fearmongering. Most "experienced adult cyclists" do ride
pretty much according to the rules of the road. If they do happen to
experience a car-bike wreck, that's often what they will have been
riding.

But there is not much to fear in that statement, because - as
explained and documented many times in these discussions - most
"experienced adult cyclists" will never get into a serious car-bike
wreck. It's just not that bad out there, despite your fear and your
fearmongering.

> 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;

"Often overlooked"? Less often than pedestrians are overlooked. Less
often than motorcycles are overlooked. Less often than other cars are
overlooked. Not often enough to cause any large number of fatalities
or serious injuries. Why the fearmongering?

> Clearly, maintaining that level of awareness is of primary
> importance, and everything else--from a safety
> standpoint mind you--is secondary, including
> rule-following.

Ah. "Ride whereever you like on the road, Johnny. Just remember, as
you ride facing traffic and blow through red lights, please maintain
awareness."

Such pap.

Again: On these newsgroups, I've been saying that one should follow
the rules of the road, and I've presented much evidence that proper
cycling is plenty safe.

You long been claiming that cycling is dangerous. And we see you now
believe following the rules of the road is not particularly important.

The cause and effect is certainly easy to understand!

- Frank Krygowski

01-29-2007, 08:59 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:

> > 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.
>
> That's fearmongering. Most "experienced adult cyclists" do ride
> pretty much according to the rules of the road. If they do happen to
> experience a car-bike wreck, that's often what they will have been
> riding.

You just repeated my statement, which you labeled
'fearmongering.' Your statement is just as much
fearmongering as mine.

>Most "experienced adult cyclists" do ride
> pretty much according to the rules of the road.

Exactly. And how many
of them took EC classes or read the book? Very small
percentage. How are you going to serve these cyclists--
by teaching them the importance of riding according
to the rules of the road, which they already do? Brilliant!

> If they do happen to
> experience a car-bike wreck, that's often what they will have been
> riding [according to the rules of the road].

Yup. These car-bike collisions tend to occur at the
confluence of driver mistake and _cyclist inattention_.
Experienced riders minimize these occurrences through
increasing and maintaining their level of awareness, not
by increasing and maintaining their level of rule-following.
Isn't it obvious what the key variable is? And messengers
typically run hundreds of thousands of lights without incident but
get tagged while daydreaming in a green light intersection.
Isn't it obvious what the key variable is, and what the key
variable isn't? At some point those who continue to refuse
to understand the most self-evident truths about traffic
cycling will just have to get left behind as the rest of
the class moves on.

> But there is not much to fear in that statement, because - as
> explained and documented many times in these discussions - most
> "experienced adult cyclists" will never get into a serious car-bike
> wreck. It's just not that bad out there, despite your fear and your
> fearmongering.

If you ride a lot for a long time it is not unlikely that
you will be injured in some substantial fashion at some
point in a bike-related injury. Car-bike collisions are
the worst and can have devastating consequences.
Avoiding them is the most important task we have.
For experienced riders, everything else amounts to
pomp and circumstance, sound and fury. Some
people understand this and some people don't.

I don't agree that it's 'fearmongering' to speak truth to
fellow cyclists. You sound like Dick Ch*n*y with that.
Also, it's weird getting lectured on how bad
it is or isn't 'out there' by a guy whose bike has no doubt
been hanging on a hook in the garage for several
weeks at least.

> > 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;
>
> "Often overlooked"? Less often than pedestrians are overlooked. Less
> often than motorcycles are overlooked. Less often than other cars are
> overlooked.

Do you honestly believe that? What magical property
do cyclists possess that makes them harder to overlook
than cars and motorcycles? Is it the aura of self-righteousness?

> Not often enough to cause any large number of fatalities
> or serious injuries. Why the fearmongering?
>
> > Clearly, maintaining that level of awareness is of primary
> > importance, and everything else--from a safety
> > standpoint mind you--is secondary, including
> > rule-following.
>
> Ah. "Ride whereever you like on the road, Johnny. Just remember, as
> you ride facing traffic and blow through red lights, please maintain
> awareness."
>
> Such pap.
>
> Again: On these newsgroups, I've been saying that one should follow
> the rules of the road, and I've presented much evidence that proper
> cycling is plenty safe.
>
> You long been claiming that cycling is dangerous. And we see you now
> believe following the rules of the road is not particularly important.
>
> The cause and effect is certainly easy to understand!

Sorry, I'm just not a very clear writer sometimes.
You keep repeating the straw man that I would tell
beginners to forget about traffic laws. Setting aside for
a moment that nearly all beginners would be able to
figure the basics of traffic cycling (ride according to
basic rules with traffic not facing it) for themselves,
as I did when I was about 11 and headed downtown
to buy model airplanes at Levine's, that hypothetical lesson
should take about 15 seconds. The rest is anticipating
motorist mistakes, focusing awareness where and why, which
informs the decision of lateral positioning and everything
else. Without this vigilance, the rule-following framework
means little--it is actually safer to ride like a madman
anarchist with a high level of awareness than to ride
according to the rules of the road with one's head in
the clouds.

If you don't disclose to beginners what the key variable
is in their personal cycling safety--their own awareness --
then it seems to me you're just shooting smoke up
their asses. And don't kneejerk your way to the conclusion
that recognizing awareness as the key variable means
completely writing off the utility of rule-following, because
it doesn't.

I'll just repeat this part. A person can ride (1) without
awareness and not according to the rules of the road,
(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. I know that 4 is safer than 3 which is
safer than 2 which is safer than 1. I know this because
of my particular background and experience.

You must believe that 2 is safer than 3 if you think that
plugging into the system is more important to cyclist safety than
awareness. In which case the beginners you teach are
ill-served.

Robert

01-29-2007, 09:58 AM

"Often overlooked"? Less often than pedestrians are overlooked. Less
often than motorcycles are overlooked. Less often than other cars are
overlooked. Not often enough to cause any large number of fatalities
or serious injuries. Why the fearmongering?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I often feel that drivers treat you like you are not there. So they come
too close and too fast for me to react and by the grace of God I am not hit.
If you are invisible riding by the rules are not going to help if there is a
murderer on the road.
He is just stating the glass is half empty. It might save someone's life it
may not. Everyone has their own opinion.
In fact the US is run on fearmongering just look at the President. Scary
guy. You think you are protecting your way of life by fighting wars. Talk
about putting the ball in the wrong basket. lol
So if a driver is having a bad day he takes it out on you, cat and mouse.
Immature truly. In a rush always. Irresponsible.
I still think the rules are there to protect us. 30 miles/hr etc. Starts
breaking down when we push the limit. The one that never works is stay to
the right next to the curb. They keep pushing the limits of my safety so I
have to take back the safety margin.
Turning left I have to keep my eyes on cars overtaking my right side. I
leave plenty of room for a freight train to be on the left but they do not
take it most of the time. It is wierd.

SN