On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 10:54:03 AM UTC-5, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-02-19 16:06, Frank Krygowski wrote:
You may say you know that. But it should be obvious even to you that
many, many cyclists do NOT know that.
Then they have no place on a bicycle in traffic.
But what is the solution? There is very little effort expended to
teaching cyclists how to operate competently in traffic.
Do you really believe everything should be done by a nanny state or some
"organization"?
Not _everything_. But should "organizations" teach proper use of the road? YES!
We have "organizations" called schools that teach things like the rules
of Dodge Ball. Why should they not teach people the rules of cycling in traffic?
We have "organizations" called driver testing bureaus that pass out instruction
manuals and give driving tests, both written and on-road. Why should they not
instruct future motorists about how to act around bicycists?
We have "organizations" at the national and state levels that mount educational
campaigns to get people to use seat belts; or change lanes to give clearance
to roadside emergency vehicles; or use headlights when it's raining. Why
should we not have campaigns to educate existing drivers about respecting
cyclists' rights to the road, and educate existing cyclists about riding better?
You want YOUR nanny state to build segregated bike facilities all over the
place. I think education would be far more cost effective, especially because
truly competent cyclists rarely need your fancy lanes and trails.
... Instead, the
major lobbying efforts are all about building facilities that will make
bicycling safe for anyone "8 to 80." The implication is that nobody will
have to know anything. They'll just toddle along in segregated
facilities and all will be beautiful.
Wot nonsense. Almost any rider I ever rode with knows how to ride.
Then either you ride with an unusual crew, or your standards are low. Based on
your posts here, I strongly suspect the latter.
"Knows how to ride" means a LOT more than "can balance, pedal, shift and brake."
In fact, the earliest version of the LAB's cycling classes started out with
a slide that said "balancing ain't biking." There's much to learn about legal
rights, where to ride in a lane, destination positioning, anticipating and
avoiding hazards, and much more.
I used to teach those classes. I never had a student who claimed they didn't
learn a lot.
But it won't. The "protected cycle tracks" those people lobby for lose
all protection at every intersection; yet the cyclists are told they are
safe, safe, safe - so of course, no need to look for the motorists who
turn across the cyclist's path because the cyclists are hidden from
view. No need to be aware that half the cyclists are riding opposite the
normal direction of traffic, entering the intersection from a
"Surprise!!" direction or location.
I've got news for you: Cyclists have indeed grasped the concept that you
ride on the right on bidirectional cycle paths. Except in AUS, UK and
some other countries where they ride on the left. Heck, even pedestrians
adhere to the "walk left" rule quite well out here so trips on MUP are
very enjoyable. Those on busy country roads are not.
OK, two points: First, I've been on bike trails (specifically, in Bismarck ND)
that had signs telling pedestrians to walk on the right and bicyclists to ride
on the left. That shows how weird your facilities can be.
But more to the point: American bike advocates are yelling for two-way
cycle tracks on one side of a normal street. That means half the cyclists will
enter an intersection from a very unexpected direction. Does this really look
good to you?
https://vimeo.com/23743067
Even the simple stripe of paint tells cyclists they can relax, when just
the opposite is true. They now have to try to watch for opening car
doors, plus extra debris on the road, plus motorists not noticing them
and cutting across their path from behind or from ahead or from driveways.
And why? Because they are afraid of being run down from behind. They are
increasing the likelihood of about 95% of car-bike crashes, by hoping to
reduce 5%. It's nuts.
Hit from behind is how a lot of cyclists out here are crippled or killed.
"A lot" is marvelously unspecific. Your hand waving isn't data. This is:
http://truewheelers.org/research/studies/aaa/index.htm
Let me add: Honestly, I'm not against all bike facilities. Even
barrier-segregated cycle tracks can be appropriate in places with high
vehicle speeds and no intersections. But this stuff is being pushed
within cities with countless intersections, driveways, parked cars etc.
And all because "If we build it they will come."
If built correctly they do come.
That's merely your built-in excuse. You ask for facilities everywhere, claiming
they will tremendously increase cycling mode share. (All the way up to 2%!!!)
And when that hasn't happened, you claim "Well, they weren't built correctly."
As in Stevenage and Milton Keynes in England, where the entire town was
designed with a completely separate and expensive bikeway network that is
almost entirely unused.
- Frank Krygowski