The best way to improve safety for cyclists in a city...

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
Dan <[email protected]> writes in part:

> Until I'm sure
> that the driver making that right hand turn at a red light, sees me then I
> must be invisible. I'd say a high percentage of vehicles turning right do
> not wait long before they coast on out. Did he see me, am I invisible?

At most perpendicular city intersections, that's a sufficiently
low-speed maneouver to easily deal with.

If you're going to be adamant that you're unseen (invisible),
what would your tactic be? Move right and slow down or maybe
stop, until the puller-outer makes his move up ahead of you?

Actually, I've done that (with great success,) while cruising
the "quiet" side-streets, which can be a much more heads-up
riding environment than the big arterial streets. Usually I
do it when I'm slowly clawing my way up a steep hump while
packing a heavy cargo, and I don't want to make the driver on
the cross street with the stop sign have to wait for me to go by.
My "go-ahead" head-nods & cheerful waves of thanks back indicate
to me I was quite visible all along.

But drivers wanting to ingress onto arterials are /generally/
more heads-up than at other times. They /are/ looking. But
they're looking in the particular strip of lane that they want
to ingress. If you want to be seen, that's the place to be.
As long as you're not riding too close behind a large, wide
vehicle like a bus or a garbage truck.


cheers,
Tom

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

 

[Paul R]

"Darin McGrew" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Adelantado wrote:
> >> I disagree that making motorists responsible for all accidents with
> >> bicyclists would improve safety, particularly where bicyclists are
> >> often the cause of the accident.
>
> Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote:
> > No one has suggested that -- only enforcing laws that already exist.
>
> Actually, the OP did suggest that:
>
> >>> Personally, I believe that in ANY altercation between a cyclist and
> >>> motorized vehicle, the motorized vehicle should be held 100% at fault.
> >>> Likewise, in any altercation between a cyclist and pedestrian the
> >>> cyclist should be held 100% responsible. This is unfair, but I think
> >>> the benefits to society outweigh the few cases where someone gets
> >>> burned. Before people start screaming, be aware that this is how the
> >>> law is in Holland, a cyclists utopia.
> --

Yep, that was me.

Bicyclists are rarely the cause of accidents, but often make mistakes that
lead to them being hurt. For example, you can't blame a cyclist for getting
doored, even though the cyclist may have been driving within range of the
door.

However there will be times when the cyclist is at fault. But my point is
that life's not fair anyway, so why not try to make things better for
everybody?

If drivers knew they were going to be held responsible for injuring that
reckless cyclist, they might slow down, take a little more time, instead of
running them off the road. Eventually people will get used to it.

Right now, it's basically open season on cyclists. If a driver hits a
cyclist, they just say it was an accident, or they didn't see the cyclist.
At most, they get a $105 fine and maybe 2 or 3 points (3 for dooring, i
think?). So, now, a driver can kill a cyclist and get away with it. How's
that fair? How does that serve society?

That's what i think,
Paul

 

[Peter]

Paul R wrote:
>>>>>Personally, I believe that in ANY altercation between a cyclist and
>>>>>motorized vehicle, the motorized vehicle should be held 100% at fault.
>>>>>Likewise, in any altercation between a cyclist and pedestrian the
>>>>>cyclist should be held 100% responsible. This is unfair, but I think
>>>>>the benefits to society outweigh the few cases where someone gets
>>>>>burned. Before people start screaming, be aware that this is how the
>>>>>law is in Holland, a cyclists utopia.

> Yep, that was me.
>
> Bicyclists are rarely the cause of accidents, but often make mistakes that
> lead to them being hurt. For example, you can't blame a cyclist for getting
> doored, even though the cyclist may have been driving within range of the
> door.
>
> However there will be times when the cyclist is at fault. But my point is
> that life's not fair anyway, so why not try to make things better for
> everybody?

I believe you've slightly overstated the current state of the law
in the Netherlands. According to
http://www.fevr.org/anwbfevr E netherlands.htm
"However, if an accident involves a motor vehicle (car or motor bike)
and a non-motorised road user (pedestrian or cyclist) risk liability
applies. This means that the driver is liable unless he can prove force
majeure. If the pedestrian or cyclist is younger than 14 years of age,
the driver is 100% liable. If the pedestrian or cyclists is over 14
years of age, the driver is 50% liable. The amount of the compensation
for the remaining 50% is dependent on the degree of fault of all the
parties involved."

So in an accident between an adult cyclist and a motorist where the
cyclist was primarily at fault the motorist would still have to pay
50% of the damages - but he wouldn't be held 100% responsible as you
stated above.

 

[Paul R]

"Peter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Paul R wrote:
> >>>>>Personally, I believe that in ANY altercation between a cyclist and
> >>>>>motorized vehicle, the motorized vehicle should be held 100% at
fault.
> >>>>>Likewise, in any altercation between a cyclist and pedestrian the
> >>>>>cyclist should be held 100% responsible. This is unfair, but I think
> >>>>>the benefits to society outweigh the few cases where someone gets
> >>>>>burned. Before people start screaming, be aware that this is how the
> >>>>>law is in Holland, a cyclists utopia.
>
> > Yep, that was me.
> >
> > Bicyclists are rarely the cause of accidents, but often make mistakes
that
> > lead to them being hurt. For example, you can't blame a cyclist for
getting
> > doored, even though the cyclist may have been driving within range of
the
> > door.
> >
> > However there will be times when the cyclist is at fault. But my point
is
> > that life's not fair anyway, so why not try to make things better for
> > everybody?
>
> I believe you've slightly overstated the current state of the law
> in the Netherlands. According to
> http://www.fevr.org/anwbfevr E netherlands.htm
> "However, if an accident involves a motor vehicle (car or motor bike)
> and a non-motorised road user (pedestrian or cyclist) risk liability
> applies. This means that the driver is liable unless he can prove force
> majeure. If the pedestrian or cyclist is younger than 14 years of age,
> the driver is 100% liable. If the pedestrian or cyclists is over 14
> years of age, the driver is 50% liable. The amount of the compensation
> for the remaining 50% is dependent on the degree of fault of all the
> parties involved."
>
> So in an accident between an adult cyclist and a motorist where the
> cyclist was primarily at fault the motorist would still have to pay
> 50% of the damages - but he wouldn't be held 100% responsible as you
> stated above.

Thanks for correcting me. It's good to be better informed.

Regardless, I'd love to see something like that here, especially for
altercations involving children. Might even slow down drivers in residential
areas. I live on a 1 lane (+ parking) residential section of Adelaide St.,
in Toronto (west of Bathurst) where the speed limit is 40km/h (there is a
primary school on the corner). People driver over 80 on this section all the
time because they think it's the same as the other side of Bathurst, where
it's a 4 lane street.

Cheers,
Paul

 

[R15757]

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:

>And, BTW, I don't believe _you_ actually ride as if you're invisible.
>Think about it next time you're out on the road.

And you don't actually
ride as if you're a vehicle.

Robert

 

[R15757]

Frank K wrote:

>
>To quote you: "Rider experiences collision or near-misses,
>begins to understand that he is invisible to a significant number of
>motorists

Yeah, Frank..."invisible to a significant
number of motorists." That's true.
Where do I advise people to ride as if
they're invisible? Must have missed
that one.

>This idea that "you are invisible" or "ride as if you're invisible" is a
>
>cute sound bite, but it's bad advice.

Hey we agree. It is bad advice and so is vehicular
cycling dogma. For much the same reason,too.
Both views are unrealistic. What we need is
a little of both and a lot of in between.

>If a cyclist really were
>invisible, the best advice would be to stay completely off the road when
>
>_any_ cars were present. Assuming you don't advocate that, you should
>find a different way to phrase your advice.

Maybe you should strap your little jerky knees
down and actually read what I wrote.

"Ride as if you're invisible" IS bad advice
because the fact is that most/almost all
drivers will see the cyclist, and the cyclist
must take this into account and ride in a
somewhat predictable manner.

It is also a fact that 1-in-??? drivers will
drive right through you while looking
right into your eyes. That really complicates
things. So, because it only takes one
f'ing Suburban driving into you to mess
you up beyond repair, to some degree
we may as well be invisible to all of them
and must ride as such. There is no way
to tell from a distance which vehicle
contains the driver whose visual-cognitive
mistake will put you in the hospital.

In the end, the successful rider uses a
combination of VCP and IC, sliding along
the continuum between these two
extremes, occasionally touching one or
the other.

> He [Forester] teaches how to anticipate motorist
>mistakes,

That's what it's all about. Please give an
example of how F. teaches us to anticipate
motorist mistakes.

>
>The fact that you don't know this is enough to disqualify your
>criticism, and much of your advice.

Well, let's see who knows what.
Please give one example of Forester discussing
how to anticipate motorist mistakes.

Robert

 

[R15757]

Guy wrote:

>[email protected] (R15757) wrote:
>
>>My point is that, while the road position may
>>be exactly the same, the mindset is fundamentally
>>different. One rides there in hopes of being
>>seen, the other rides there because they assume
>>they will _not_ be seen.
>
>And I think it is a meaningless distinction. In both cases the action
>is prompted by the fact that drivers do not look properly.

I can't agree with that. I believe
the EC emphasis on taking road position
_primarily_ to enhance visibility is a sign
of excessive trust in motorist vision, not
skepticism. Being more visible to motorists
is a nice side-effect, a bonus, from taking
a good road position, but not the primary
reason for doing it. To think otherwise is
innocent, innocent.

>>When the inevitable intrusion occurs, one rider
>>will be surprised, and one rider will be ready.
>>The outcome is not the same in both
>>cases.


>...If you want to
>write a teen cycling training guide that rams home the point that
>teenagers are not immortal, you go right ahead - they still won't
>believe you. Just look what happens when they get behind the wheel of
>a car.

If there's anything that this NG has
taught me, it's that you don't have to
be a kid to have a grade schooler's
innocence about the dangers of road
traffic. Respect for traffic doesn't
come with age, unfortunately, only
with experience.

Robert

 

[R15757]

Paul wrote:

>Bicyclists are rarely the cause of accidents,

Say again? You might want to check the stats
on that one.

>For example, you can't blame a cyclist for getting
>doored,

Eh?

Note to Paul: blame is useless. I advise you
to take more responsibility for your own
physical well being in traffic.

Robert

 

[R15757]

Frank K:

>> What part of "Never Ride On the Sidewalk"
>> don't you understand?
>
>I don't understand where you get that quote from - except, perhaps, your
>
>imagination!

For the record, I have seen this video
that you claim to show to your students.
The Effective Cycling video. I watched
the whole thing. It definitely says
"Never ride on the sidewalk." If i remember
correctly, it puts the words up on
the screen in big letters: NEVER RIDE
ON THE SIDEWALK.

Maybe you were so disgusted by the
simplistic suggestions to wear a helmet
that you walked out and missed the
NEVER RIDE ON THE SIDEWALK part.

>And mine is from first reading the book in the mid-1970s, when it was
>self published using a garage mimeograph machine.

Are you saying you used to live in Forester's
garage? Now we're getting somewhere.

> As a college teacher, I know many students need to re-study the
>material from time to time. I think you're at that time!

Maybe so. Please give us some examples of
defensive cycling techniques that EC
promotes, and that you teach in your
classes. I am your student. And please
explain Forester's new view of sidewalk
riding, as he apparently no longer feels
it is the prime symptom of the "cyclist-
inferiority superstition." So Forester now
thinks it's ok for a cyclist to ride the
sidewalk every now and again? This is very
interesting stuff. Maybe you could go to
the index and find out exactly what he
has to say about sidewalk riding and post
it here.

>Back to school, Robert.

Excellent.

Robert

 

[R15757]

Guy,

>Citations, please. Frank has said this dogma does not exist outside
>your own mind, and he is a certified instructor. Time to put up or
>shut up.

Well I went to the Instructor's Manual

http://www.johnforester.com/BTEO/ECIM5.pdf

and found a short section in there where
he does pay lip service to anticipating
motorist mistakes. I think it is a token
discussion on his part, and I think it
rightfully should be much more
developed, and placed at the front of
the class, but there it is. I gave my copy
of EC away, or burned it,
but I remember he spent a paragraph or
two or seven belittling what he called
"road sneaks," a veiled reference to
defensive cycling in the older edition;
I think the new one has incorporated
some defensive ideology. Since he seems
to have softened his stance I will have
to admit that he might not be as
dogmatic as I thought. There is still
the pervasive bias that any
fear of riding in traffic is irrational,
"cyclist-inferiority superstition."
This is an offense to those cyclists
who are truly experienced.

There are five pillars of VC.
Riding defensively aint one of em.
Never ride on the sidewalk is though.

Robert

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 23 Nov 2004 06:03:58 GMT, [email protected] (R15757) wrote:

>>>My point is that, while the road position may
>>>be exactly the same, the mindset is fundamentally
>>>different. One rides there in hopes of being
>>>seen, the other rides there because they assume
>>>they will _not_ be seen.

>>And I think it is a meaningless distinction. In both cases the action
>>is prompted by the fact that drivers do not look properly.

>I can't agree with that. I believe
>the EC emphasis on taking road position
>_primarily_ to enhance visibility is a sign
>of excessive trust in motorist vision, not
>skepticism.

And I think that it is taught as a counter to the normal tendency of
adult cyclists to defer excessively to motor traffic, something which
has been widely observed. I can't think of any reason to use good
road position which is not intimately bound up in the idea of
visibility. It is not just conspicuity, in the sense of reflective
jackets, it is about taking our place as traffic, being where the
drivers are actively looking, rather then in their peripheral vision,
asserting our rights as vehicle users, and setting the expectation
that we will both behave and be treated as traffic. It goes along
with other traffic-type behaviours like indicating, obeying traffic
restrictions and so on.

>If there's anything that this NG has
>taught me, it's that you don't have to
>be a kid to have a grade schooler's
>innocence about the dangers of road
>traffic.

But it's not about respect for traffic, I don't know any cyclist who
does not have respect for traffic - and yo have been told by a
certified instructor that you are in any case misrepresenting EC as
/not/ teaching this. It's about combating excessive deference, and
placing ourselves in the traffic stream, where drivers are looking,
and behaving in a way drivers expect of a vehicle. It's about
changing from being an obstruction to being a (relatively) slow-moving
vehicle.

I know both the contents and the author of Cyclecraft, and I am in no
doubt whatsoever of their espousal of the need to be vigilant.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:23:06 -0500, "Paul R" <[email protected]> wrote:

>For example, you can't blame a cyclist for getting
>doored, even though the cyclist may have been driving within range of the
>door.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. In law the responsibility lies with the
doorer, but the event is sufficiently predictable that the dooree must
carry at least some of the blame. Luckily the courts have thus far
(in the UK) held that the doorer is wholly liable, since they were
committing an offence (cause or permit the door to be opened
endangering someone, or some such) at the time. On the whole, though,
it's better not to run the risk of giving the weasels^W lawyers
something to play with

If you were doored, wouldn't you feel even the tiniest suggestion of
"silly me?"

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On 23 Nov 2004 10:12:03 GMT, [email protected] (R15757) wrote:

>>Citations, please. Frank has said this dogma does not exist outside
>>your own mind, and he is a certified instructor. Time to put up or
>>shut up.

>Well I went to the Instructor's Manual
>http://www.johnforester.com/BTEO/ECIM5.pdf
>and found a short section in there where
>he does pay lip service to anticipating
>motorist mistakes. I think it is a token
>discussion on his part, and I think it
>rightfully should be much more
>developed, and placed at the front of
>the class, but there it is.

So it exists, as Frank said, but it fails to reach the level of your
own personal monomania, which is not a surprise.

>There is still
>the pervasive bias that any
>fear of riding in traffic is irrational,
>"cyclist-inferiority superstition."

It is irrational, since the fear itself gives rise to the behaviour
which causes the danger of which we are afraid. It is not necessary
to ride in a state of permanent abject terror in order to be safe.

>This is an offense to those cyclists
>who are truly experienced.

Like me, you mean? I don't find it at all offensive.

>There are five pillars of VC.
>Riding defensively aint one of em.
>Never ride on the sidewalk is though.

Damned good advice if you ask me - dangerous and annoys the
pedestrians, who should be our natural allies in the war against motor
danger. There are few exceptions to this sound principle, and the
habit of sidewalk riding "for safety" is sufficiently ingrained in the
public psyche to amply justify its inclusion in the list.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Frank Krygowski]

R15757 wrote:

> Guy,
>
>
>>Citations, please. Frank has said this dogma does not exist outside
>>your own mind, and he is a certified instructor. Time to put up or
>>shut up.
>
>
> Well I went to the Instructor's Manual
>
> http://www.johnforester.com/BTEO/ECIM5.pdf
>
> and found a short section in there where
> he does pay lip service to anticipating
> motorist mistakes.

Why, son of a gun! When one actually looks at what Forester writes, one
finds that Robert's been mis-representing things all along! Who'd have
guessed? ;-)

Since he seems
> to have softened his stance I will have
> to admit that he might not be as
> dogmatic as I thought.

You're beginning to learn. See, actually reading the actual material
works better than dim recollections filtered through personal prejudices.

Too bad you "gave away or burned" your copy of the book. If you plan on
posting more critique of the book, you might want to go out and buy
another copy. Actual citations work well in these discussions.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

R15757 wrote:

> Frank K:
>
>
>>>What part of "Never Ride On the Sidewalk"
>>>don't you understand?
>>
>>I don't understand where you get that quote from - except, perhaps, your
>>
>>imagination!
>
>
> For the record, I have seen this video
> that you claim to show to your students.
> The Effective Cycling video. I watched
> the whole thing. It definitely says
> "Never ride on the sidewalk." If i remember
> correctly, it puts the words up on
> the screen in big letters: NEVER RIDE
> ON THE SIDEWALK.

I've shown the video many times. I'll admit I don't recall every scene,
so such a statement may be in there - but if so, it was certainly not a
major point.

And of course, it's difficult to search for such a statement in a video.
I suppose I can watch it yet again, to see if the statement you claim
to remember pops up. I suspect, though, that it will be significantly
different than what you claim.

As an example: a different source, the instructor's manual written by
Forester, contains the phrase "_rarely_ ride on the sidewalk" in a
couple places; it does NOT contain the phrase "neve ride on the sidewalk."

Here's a more extensive quote:

"There are only two classes of person in the rules of the road: drivers
and pedestrians. Cyclists are the only drivers who have the choice, but
they cannot safely combine both roles. They must absolutely be either
drivers or pedestrians at any one time, for to act like a pedestrian on
the roadway, or to act like a driver on the sidewalk or in crosswalks,
is extremely dangerous. Answer any suggestions that cyclists' slow
speed, fragility or immaturity demand different rules as follows: Low
speed requires that the cyclist obey the slow vehicle rules, or get on
the sidewalk and obey the pedestrian rules at walking speed. Fragility
demands that the cyclist stay out of accidents, and since the driving
rules are the safest rules that we know he should obey them very
exactly. Immatu-rity due to youth demands that the cyclist still obey
either the pedestrian or the vehicular rules, depending on the traffic
conditions, and that the young cyclist should be more likely to decide
to be a pedestrian under given conditions. Immaturity due to false
training, like the present students have all had before this, demands
that they learn how to ride properly as drivers of vehicles to be safe,
because they are too old to choose to ride as pedestrians on sidewalks
at walking speed."

Note that in direct contrast to your assertion, Forester is specifically
saying cyclists may, at times, "get on the sidewalk and obey the
pedestrian rules at walking speed."

>>And mine is from first reading the book in the mid-1970s, when it was
>>self published using a garage mimeograph machine.
>
>
> Are you saying you used to live in Forester's
> garage? Now we're getting somewhere.

?? Are you deliberately trying to look foolish?


>
>
>> As a college teacher, I know many students need to re-study the
>>material from time to time. I think you're at that time!
>
>
> Maybe so. Please give us some examples of
> defensive cycling techniques that EC
> promotes, and that you teach in your
> classes.

Robert, I've given plenty.

So Forester now
> thinks it's ok for a cyclist to ride the
> sidewalk every now and again? This is very
> interesting stuff. Maybe you could go to
> the index and find out exactly what he
> has to say about sidewalk riding and post
> it here.

See above. Again, that's from the online instructor's manual.

You really should do your reading before you do your posting.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

 

[Frank Krygowski]

R15757 wrote:

> Frank K wrote:
>
>>He [Forester] teaches how to anticipate motorist
>>mistakes,
>>The fact that you don't know this is enough to disqualify your
>>criticism, and much of your advice.
>
>
> Well, let's see who knows what.
> Please give one example of Forester discussing
> how to anticipate motorist mistakes.

<sigh> I've given several. What do you prefer, description of scenes
from the video, or quotations from the book?

Let's start with the video. It shows _several_ scenes of motorists
making sudden right turns or left turns across a cyclist's path (among
other situations). It discusses these, makes sure the cyclist
understands these mistakes might happen, discusses contermeasures such
as proper cyclist lane position, and demonstrates using emergency
maneuvers to avoid resulting crashes.

The scenes were done with real cyclists and real driver on real roads.
They were pretty dramatic (and I'm always impressed that the volunteers
enacting them didn't get hurt.)

The students in my cycling courses definitely pay attention to those
scenes, and they seem to remember them. Apparently, you simply didn't
pay enough attention.

Say, what was the name of your instructor for the course? I can tell
you how to get in touch with him. A review course might do you some
good! At the very least, it'll jog your memory - something that's
obviously necessary!

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

 

[Paul R]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:23:06 -0500, "Paul R" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >For example, you can't blame a cyclist for getting
> >doored, even though the cyclist may have been driving within range of the
> >door.
>
> Up to a point, Lord Copper. In law the responsibility lies with the
> doorer, but the event is sufficiently predictable that the dooree must
> carry at least some of the blame. Luckily the courts have thus far
> (in the UK) held that the doorer is wholly liable, since they were
> committing an offence (cause or permit the door to be opened
> endangering someone, or some such) at the time. On the whole, though,
> it's better not to run the risk of giving the weasels^W lawyers
> something to play with
>
> If you were doored, wouldn't you feel even the tiniest suggestion of
> "silly me?"

Sure I would (right after I checked that my bike was ok!) - but I'm a very
experienced urban cyclist who's seen my fair share of doors miss me by
inches (classic story - I'm sure we've all experienced something like this -
travelling north on yonge street, about a metre from the parked cars. One
lane of traffic can safely pass me. cars in the inside lane (shared with the
parked cars and me) must wait to safely pass me. Fur coat wearing women
driving jag behind me is waving her hands around and honking at me for being
in her way. this carries on for a couple of hundred metres when a driver
opens door right beside me - missing by inches. All I have to do is point
out the door to driver behind me and she immedietly stops honking.).

Regardless, would you blame someone who was mugged in a rough side of town
for being in the bad area of town? would you blame a woman wearing a short
skirt for being raped?

the fact of the matter is, someone opening a vehicle door in another
vehicles path is illegal and very dangerous to cyclists. That person should
take 100% of legal blame.

Paul

 

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:55:57 -0500, "Paul R" <[email protected]> wrote in
message <[email protected]>:

>the fact of the matter is, someone opening a vehicle door in another
>vehicles path is illegal and very dangerous to cyclists. That person should
>take 100% of legal blame.

Which is what I said. Legally, the doorer gets 100% of the blame.
But my sympathy for the cyclist is tempered by the certain knowledge
that it really isn't that hard to predict the consequences of riding
too close to parked cars.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[R15757]

Frank K wrote:


>I've shown the video many times. I'll admit I don't recall every scene,
>
>so such a statement may be in there - but if so, it was certainly not a
>
>major point.

I have a serious sidebar question for you:
when the helmet part comes up, do you stop
the tape and deliver a scathing Frank K.
helmet critique?

>As an example: a different source, the instructor's manual written by
>Forester, contains the phrase "_rarely_ ride on the sidewalk" in a
>couple places; it does NOT contain the phrase "neve ride on the sidewalk."

Are you sure you want to stick to
your guns on this one?

Maybe you don't recall the FIRST of F.'s five
principles of vehicular cycling.

It seems unlikely that a "certified instructor"
would forget the FIRST of the five principles of
VC, but it's a wacky world and anything is
possible.

I think you might want to go back and
review the material, Frank.

Please, do tell us--what is the FIRST of
the five principles of vehicular cycling?

>Note that in direct contrast to your assertion, Forester is specifically
>
>saying cyclists may, at times, "get on the sidewalk and obey the
>pedestrian rules at walking speed."

Wow, if that aint the best indication
that the whole idea of principles for riding
in traffic is bankrupt--the guy who came
up with these principles can't even support
them. (You may (or may not) recall the FIRST
principle of VC, which tells cyclists to
never ride on the sidewalk.) Are the other
four principles bunk as well?

> Maybe so. Please give us some examples of
>> defensive cycling techniques that EC
>> promotes, and that you teach in your
>> classes.
>
>Robert, I've given plenty.

No, you haven't given a single one. Hint:
panic stops and "instant turns" are not
anticipatory moves, they are reactionary
moves, and the use of them is a symptom
of lack of awareness in the cyclist. Riders who
have trust in the concept of visibility must
have to use these tactics quite a lot. The
best riders don't panic (panic stops) or
swerve harshly (instant turns) even as
motor traffic goes berserk around them.
They don't have to resort to these last-ditch
tactics because they possess an understanding
of what traffic is and is not.

Robert

 

[R15757]

Guy wrote in part:

>And I think that it [Effective Cycling] is taught as a counter to the normal
tendency of
>adult cyclists to defer excessively to motor traffic,

Yes! It was and is a reaction to the "bike safety"
paradigm, that is exactly what it is, and
because that is Forester's unabashed agenda,
he ends up reaching too far in the other
direction and ignores some of the most
important aspects of city riding--so the
poor, stupid unwashed masses can be
completely cleansed of their "superstitions."

Problem is, it's not all superstition.

>I can't think of any reason to use good
>road position which is not intimately bound up in the idea of
>visibility.

Eh?

>It is not just conspicuity, in the sense of reflective
>jackets, it is about taking our place as traffic, being where the
>drivers are actively looking, rather then in their peripheral vision,
>asserting our rights as vehicle users, and setting the expectation
>that we will both behave and be treated as traffic.

Damn, Guy, you have mentioned a whole lot
of reasons to ride out in the road but somehow
left out the most important one.

Ride well out in the road
to create SPACE for yourself.
Everything else is secondary.

Robert