Road or Sidewalk?

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:03:26 -0400, "Matt O'Toole"
wrote:

Badger_South wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 13:08:07 -0400, "Matt O'Toole"
wrote:

This can definately be an issue. I do much better with SPDs. Have
you tried them?

I'll have to look that term up.

It's Shimano's brand name for clipless pedals -- Shimano Pedaling Dynamics?

If you mean special shoes and clips,
nope, I'm too chicken. Eventually, though I may get to that level.

I went out and practiced on the toeclips, and getting in and out and
I'm doing a -lot- better. Don't even have to look - just a glance
down once I'm in to get centered - I tend to get the left foot too
far inboard and then the shoe rubs the crank arm and I have to
struggle a bit to get centered even though the straps are loose.
Shouldn't be long now, though...thx for the help! ;-)

Most people find SPDs easier and safer than pedals with clips and straps.
That's why they're so popular! Give 'em a try, when you get a chance. It's a
big hunk of money, but the biggest advance in cycling technology in the last 20
years, IMO.

Matt O.

Hmm. easier and safer? I don't know of any threads about being scared
getting accustomed to toeclips; OTOH, we have several of those on SPDs. Not
to be argumentative, hah, I'm just sayin'...

Thx!

-Badger

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:21:51 -0400, Badger_South
wrote:

Most people find SPDs easier and safer than pedals with clips and straps.
That's why they're so popular! Give 'em a try, when you get a chance. It's a
big hunk of money, but the biggest advance in cycling technology in the last 20
years, IMO.

Matt O.

Hmm. easier and safer? I don't know of any threads about being scared
getting accustomed to toeclips; OTOH, we have several of those on SPDs. Not
to be argumentative, hah, I'm just sayin'...

Well, its not quite the same thing (a lot of people are afraid to try
things that they then find to be easy). And if you set the release
pressure to the low side, a lot of the threads on doing Arties would
also be irrelevant.

OTOH, loose toe clips and pedals with a catch tab to flip them over
are pretty easy to use. I would still go with the earlier post,
though. Double sided SPDs set to low release pressure are pretty easy
to learn to use.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Badger_South wrote:

Hmm. easier and safer? I don't know of any threads about being scared
getting accustomed to toeclips; OTOH, we have several of those on
SPDs. Not to be argumentative, hah, I'm just sayin'...

This is true. Some people have trouble getting used to SPDs, and some never get
used to them at all. But I think most people find them easier and safer once
they do. And many people, myself included, found them easier immediately.

Matt O.

"LioNiNoiL_a t_Ne t s c a pE_D 0 T_Ne T" wrote
Pete wrote:

I've ridden in a lot of places, and haven't found,
on the whole, any one place much worse than the others.

The next time you come to Las Vegas, ride a bike across town. It's only
about 15 miles. Piece of cake.


Another comment that agrees with my theory above...

Pete

Frank Krygowski wrote:

The rest are what--wipeouts.
Wiping out on sand, potholes, ramming into curbs, et
cetera.

Yes. And running into other cyclists (as often as cars!) and hitting
loose dogs, etc. IOW, just simple little crashes.

Personally I never bought the dog numbers. And the running into other
cyclists numbers reflect very simply the overrepresentation of club
cyclists (group riders) in the statistics. Club cyclists are a very
small slice of the pie. Everyday riders aren't colliding with other
cyclists with any notable frequency.

And most of that wrecking is done by kids and beginners.

Sure. As it's always been, back into the 1890s.

When you start talking about experienced, adult

cyclists, it's a very different story. Experienced
cyclists are much less likely to wreck in the first
place,

... logically enough ...

but the likelihood that any particular wreck
will be a serious car-bike collision increases with
experience.

That's oddly phrased. To look at it another way: After (say) ten
years of cycling, an adult is much less likely to just lose his
balance, or slip on gravel, or get his shoelace caught in the chain,
or forget where his brake levers are, etc etc. So if he _does_ crash
(a rare event) it's more likely to be with a car. He's eliminated
most other crash sources.

That's true. You see we are looking at the same thing, the phenomenon
of experience, from two different sides.

And that collision will most likely be the "fault" of the
motorist. This is straight out of Forester, although it
strikes a blow to his/your fundamental arguments,
imo..

??? I'm not sure which of my "fundamental arguments" you mean...

You just got through saying "IIRC, roughly half of serious bike
accidents are the fault of the cyclist, usually violating a very clear
law. My bet is that every one of those cyclists thought, ahead of
time, that he was smart - or smart
enough - to do things his illegal way....The traffic laws work
remarkably well. I'd advise obeying them."

And therein lies the fundamental assumption of the vehicularists:

What about the cyclists who get hit while riding lawfully (as are most
experienced riders who are injured in car-bike collisions)? My bet is
that many of those cyclists thought that following the law would be
enough to keep them out of trouble up until that last moment of
terrible clarity. But
you live and learn.

Last
time you and I went around, I was saying cycling is pretty darned
safe. You seemed to be saying that no, it's quite dangerous.

That's a gross oversimplification of what I said.

Before that, IIRC, I was saying we should obey traffic laws, and you
were a guy who was saying it's OK to run red lights. (I _think_ that
was you - it's harder to tell with an anonymous poster.)

I never said that. You have reading comprehension issues. I did happen
to mention that I had run a load of lights while doing my job. I also
advised others not to if they don't have to, but asked the question:
how is it that a guy can bust half a million red lights and never even
get kissed on the cheek by a car, but gets brutally run over while
cruising lawfully in a bike lane? Obviously, as my experience proves,
running red lights is among the safest things a cyclist can do. This
is a ludicrous claim, you say! But no more ludicrous than what you
suggest. In fact, rule-following or lack thereof is not the first or
last determiner of danger in traffic. It is a factor but down the list
a bit.

So cyclists as a whole can eliminate roughtly half of
car-bike collisions by riding lawfully. What about the
other half?

Cyclists can eliminate almost all of those by riding with proper
awareness,..

Proper awareness. PROPER AWARENESS! The issue is: how does your
definition of proper awareness differ from mine? Awareness--you could
have stopped right there, but I'll accept the rest of your
list...

by asserting their right to the road (e.g. taking the lane
when necessary to prevent an unsafe pass), by communicating with other
road users (i.e. learning to negotiate lane changes, etc.), by
learning a few emergency maneuvers (like quick stops and quick turns).

Awareness is the key. There are different brands and levels of
awareness. I wrote that there is a bloody potential with riding in
traffic, to which you replied only "Oh, good grief." Such replies give
me no confidence that you are sending people out into traffic with
anything approaching the proper awareness.

This stuff is what gets taught in an Effective Cycling (or Bike Ed)
class. It's easy to learn. I have no idea what you propose as an
alternative.

I have never taken an EC course but I have read the book, there is a
lot missing imo. It is missing on purpose. What I propose as an
alternative, in very simple terms, is the addition of a cyclists'
version of defensive driving ideology to vehicular cycling dogma,
where it has been conspicuously absent. I propose a more realistic
view of traffic--EC is far too trusting of motorists and especially
motorists' awareness of cyclists. This argument is made using numbers
Forester himself gathered.

When you say "the laws work remarkably well" I'm wondering for whom?
Cyclists certainly can't count on them. City cyclists need to approach
every intersection as if they were running a friggin red light.

We teach new drivers that operating a vehicle in traffic is a serious
proposition with grave consequences for those who take it lightly; we
should teach new cyclists the same thing. Anyway it happens to be
true.

Robert

RobertH wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Before that, IIRC, I was saying we should obey traffic laws, and you
were a guy who was saying it's OK to run red lights. (I _think_ that
was you - it's harder to tell with an anonymous poster.)


I never said that. You have reading comprehension issues.

Gosh, that's surprising. I always scored way above the 90th percentile
on those tests!

I did happen
to mention that I had run a load of lights while doing my job.

Uh huh. And you didn't seem to be saying it was wrong, either.

I also
advised others not to if they don't have to,

"Have to" as in "To save my life" or "have to" as in "to keep from
wasting thirty seconds"?

but asked the question:
how is it that a guy can bust half a million red lights and never even
get kissed on the cheek by a car, but gets brutally run over while
cruising lawfully in a bike lane?

It's a silly question, actually. Stuff happens to _all_ road users.

In fact, rule-following or lack thereof is not the first or
last determiner of danger in traffic. It is a factor but down the list
a bit.

I'd love to see your version of "the list."



...

I have never taken an EC course but I have read the book, there is a
lot missing imo. It is missing on purpose. What I propose as an
alternative, in very simple terms, is the addition of a cyclists'
version of defensive driving ideology to vehicular cycling dogma,
where it has been conspicuously absent. I propose a more realistic
view of traffic--EC is far too trusting of motorists and especially
motorists' awareness of cyclists.

Frankly, you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

I'm teaching one of those classes now. It is absolutely false that the
idea is, as you seem to characterize it, "Follow the rules and the world
will be perfect."

Yes, the details of the traffic rules are an important part of the
course. But we also cover common motorist mistakes and defense against
them. The mistakes are explained in the course booklet and in the video
tape that's shown in class. The video shows drivers making right hooks,
opening doors in front of cyclists, turning left into their path, etc.
It shows cyclists demonstrating the appropriate emergency maneuvers to
avoid these hazards.

In next week's class, we'll be explaining, demonstrating and practicing
instant turns and quick braking, which can be used as defenses. (We'll
also do rock dodges, although that's not a motorist-defense move.)

We'll do road riding in which I'll be talking about potential motorist
mistakes as those situations arise. And, FWIW, a couple years ago I had
a motorist "kind enough" to demonstrate an attempt at a right hook,
which I thwarted using the techniques we'd talked about.


When you say "the laws work remarkably well" I'm wondering for whom?
Cyclists certainly can't count on them. City cyclists need to approach
every intersection as if they were running a friggin red light.

If I did that, I'd approach every intersection with embarrassment, if
not mortification. Because I think red light runners are foolish, and
that they _should_ be embarrassed.

Personally, I try to approach intersections with alertness, with proper
lane position, with an awareness of the position and motion of
motorists, and with competence. And it's worked for the past 30-odd years.

We teach new drivers that operating a vehicle in traffic is a serious
proposition with grave consequences for those who take it lightly; we
should teach new cyclists the same thing.

Somehow, you seem to have developed the idea that the only responsible
approach is to make cycling sound very scary. "Grave consequences"
indeed! Are the "consequences" for cyclists worse than the
"consequences" for pedestrians? For motorcyclists? For motorists?

Tell you what: maybe we can split up the work. Why don't you deal with
terrifying people who plan to walk near traffic, or ride motorcycles, or
drive? (Maybe you can cut down on people's driving!)

I'll handle the bicyclists.


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

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:

I did happen
to mention that I had run a load of lights while doing my job.

Uh huh. And you didn't seem to be saying it was wrong, either.

It wasn't right or wrong in any normal sense. It was part of the job.
Civilian cyclists shouldn't ride like that. Is that clear? I rarely
bust lights outside of work, because while the same opportunities are
there I don't feel I have the same right to do it.

I also
advised others not to if they don't have to,

"Have to" as in "To save my life" or "have to" as in "to keep from
wasting thirty seconds"?

Have to as in have to. Messenger might roll through 100-150 red lights
each work day. Average 30 seconds saved at each light and you do the
math. I was not exaggeratng when I said that the bike courier industry
is based on running red lights. A courier could decide suddenly to
obey all the red lights, but would get fired I'm guessing 1-2 hours
into the experiment. Complaining about messengers blowing lights is
like ****ing into the wind.

Anyway the messengers are probably not as big of a problem as many
like to think. It is actually a very nice self-organizing system. If
there were a high rate of incidents with messengers and red lights,
the plug would have been pulled on that party decades ago, because
messengers are so visible. Laws would have been passed, the big
crackdown would have come cracking down. But cities accept
law-flouting messengers because the system works. It polices
itself--the crazies, the half-catatonic, the poorly skilled, the
excessively prideful rookies are shuttled to the hospital in short
order. They come back changed, or they come back not at all. Fact is,
the vast majority of veteran messengers are very good at what they do.
Just because they break laws does not mean they are unsafe. The
typical rate of injuries-per-hour among pro messengers makes the
crusty old bearded commuters look like rank amateurs, which, in
comparison, they are.

Those who hate bike messengers can take heart with the knowledge that
mandatory e-filing at the federal courts will start next summer and
may finally kill the messenger after the Great White Hope called the
fax machine proved to be no match.

but asked the question:
how is it that a guy can bust half a million red lights and never even
get kissed on the cheek by a car, but gets brutally run over while
cruising lawfully in a bike lane?

It's a silly question, actually. Stuff happens to _all_ road users.

It's not a silly question. It's a question that you must dismiss or
your whole system breaks down. My experience is in no way unusual.

Just for fun, I could say "experienced riders are more likely to get
hit when they are following the law than when they are breaking it."
And this claim would be impossible for you to refute with statistics.
Do you think the problem is with the statistics or with your
assumptions?

Why do you think it is that the majority of experienced cyclists who
are hit by cars--almost all of whom admit to busting lights and stop
signs and other occasional crimes against humanity--are actually hit
while they are following the law rather than breaking it? I have a
good idea why. It's a question of Awareness, once again. It all comes
back to Awareness. Experienced cyclists get hit when their awareness
lapses. A casual glance down at the drivetrain, or to an attractive
member of the opposite sex walking on the side of the road, a bit of
daydreaming, whatever, while cruising lawfully, happens to fall at the
exact moment when a motorist who has failed to notice the bike turns
left into the cyclist's path, rolls through a stop sign, rockets
backward out of a driveway, et cetera, and CRASH. Bad luck, or bad
cycling? It takes two to tango. Fact is, if a cyclist can maintain
proper awareness, he/she will neutralize motorist mistake after
motorist mistake and will stay out of trouble. The cyclist controls
his/her own destiny. Whether or not they get hit is up to the cyclist
alone. With that knowledge, there is no acceptable level of risk for
car-bike collision.

A tremendous responsibility it is, this power over one's own
well-being. The responsibility seems a terrible burden to some as they
are continually trying to foist it off on others.

The old adage turns out to be true. Accidents happen when you least
expect them. When we are in this state of non-expecting, we are
letting go, reality has slipped from our grasp. It is a dream-state
from which we are asking for a violent awakening. So, how best to keep
people from falling into this dream-state? By reassuring them about
the effectiveness of traffic law? By repeating the bizarre mantra that
"cycling is not unusually dangerous?" No that won't work and niether
will scratching their head and rubbing their tummy.

I have never taken an EC course but I have read the book, there is a
lot missing imo. It is missing on purpose. What I propose as an
alternative, in very simple terms, is the addition of a cyclists'
version of defensive driving ideology to vehicular cycling dogma,
where it has been conspicuously absent. I propose a more realistic
view of traffic--EC is far too trusting of motorists and especially
motorists' awareness of cyclists.

Frankly, you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

I'm teaching one of those classes now. It is absolutely false that the
idea is, as you seem to characterize it, "Follow the rules and the world
will be perfect."

Near-perfect?

Yes, the details of the traffic rules are an important part of the
course. But we also cover common motorist mistakes and defense against
them. The mistakes are explained in the course booklet and in the video
tape that's shown in class. The video shows drivers making right hooks,
opening doors in front of cyclists, turning left into their path, etc.
It shows cyclists demonstrating the appropriate emergency maneuvers to
avoid these hazards.

In next week's class, we'll be explaining, demonstrating and practicing
instant turns and quick braking, which can be used as defenses. (We'll
also do rock dodges, although that's not a motorist-defense move.)

I've seen that video. Heh, heh. (Don't they tell everyone to be good
and wear their helmet in that video, or did you edit that part out?)

We'll do road riding in which I'll be talking about potential motorist
mistakes as those situations arise. And, FWIW, a couple years ago I had
a motorist "kind enough" to demonstrate an attempt at a right hook,
which I thwarted using the techniques we'd talked about.

The use of those maneuvers is a sign of cyclists' failures. ("He's
blaming the cyclist!") The proper awareness, a stone cold vigilance,
profound distrust of motorists' faculties but patient nonetheless, is
something that begins before the cyclist even leaves the house.
Without it, the hopeful, innocent, childlike rider will be forced into
evasive maneuvers quite often and they won't always work.

When you say "the laws work remarkably well" I'm wondering for whom?
Cyclists certainly can't count on them. City cyclists need to approach
every intersection as if they were running a friggin red light.

If I did that, I'd approach every intersection with embarrassment, if
not mortification. Because I think red light runners are foolish, and
that they _should_ be embarrassed.

I honestly don't understand how so much Napoleon complex found its way
into vehicular cycling dogma. It is ironic considering the constant
references to the "Cyclist Inferiority Superstition." Such flowering
Little Man Syndrome can only grow on innocent soil. So you're out
riding a bike in traffic. Get over yourself. The most important thing
is to protect your physical self, not your ego.

I don't get where you're coming from. The religious vehicularists
remind me of the Redcoats. Marching into battle in perfect formation,
completely in their own world. Marching innocently toward disaster,
full of confidence and pride.

Personally, I try to approach intersections with alertness, with proper
lane position, with an awareness of the position and motion of
motorists, and with competence. And it's worked for the past 30-odd years.

Sounds good, but I have a hard time believing you are imparting the
proper sense of gravity to your EC students. Maybe I'm wrong.

We teach new drivers that operating a vehicle in traffic is a serious
proposition with grave consequences for those who take it lightly; we
should teach new cyclists the same thing.

Somehow, you seem to have developed the idea that the only responsible
approach is to make cycling sound very scary. "Grave consequences"
indeed! Are the "consequences" for cyclists worse than the
"consequences" for pedestrians? For motorcyclists? For motorists?

I don't know why you continually fall back on "cycling is no more
dangerous than driving or motorcycing..." because this tack does not
help you one iota (outside your helmet debate, which is quite separate
from this). The general disregard for the dangers of driving or
motorcycling or walking in traffic I find to be pathological
mass-delusion.

Let me say it again: Traffic is Dangerous. Whether you're on a bike,
moped, in a car, or whatever. Traffic is dangerous because traffic is
people. But to you, it all works "remarkably well." Ha! For God's
sakes keep your eyes open and your head up! The whole thing is hanging
by a thread!

Traffic is people. That is the starting point for any system of riding
in traffic. Traffic is people. And what are people all about? Who the
hell knows. Cyclists need to think of traffic as people, and jettison
the idea of traffic as rules and lines. You don't leave your health in
the hands of total strangers if you can help it--never, if that were
somehow possible. That's the "proper awareness" we were talking about.

Proper awareness is a full-time job.

Unfortunately it appears that only personal experience can install the
"proper awareness" in someone.

Robert

(RobertH) wrote

Cyclists need to think of traffic as people, and jettison
the idea of traffic as rules and lines. You don't leave your health in
the hands of total strangers if you can help it--never, if that were
somehow possible. That's the "proper awareness" we were talking about.

Indeed, traffic is people, and that is why the traffic laws are based
on analysis of human behavior, and finding the set of operating rules
that represent the optimum tradeoff of safety and efficiency for the
vast majority of the population.

It is certainly possible for a person like myself to exploit my
above-average cognitive and physical ability to obtain greater
convenience, at no reduction in safety, by occasionally breaking the
letter of the law. But I realize that when other people are watching
(especially kids who are themselves bicyclists and future motorists) I
set an example for them about cycling technique and cyclists as a
population. That's why I avoid breaking the rules of the road; the
social contract of predictable, easy roadway cooperation is something
I want to support, so that everybody, not just expert cyclists like
us, can travel in reasonable safety, according to easily explainable
and effective principles of traffic negotiation. I save my superior
skills for responding to other road users' unpredictability rather
than creating more unpredictability for others.

-Steve Goodridge

Steven Goodridge wrote:

Indeed, traffic is people, and that is why the traffic laws are based
on analysis of human behavior, and finding the set of operating rules
that represent the optimum tradeoff of safety and efficiency for the
vast majority of the population.

It doesn't bode well for us that basic cooperation must
be enforced.

It is certainly possible for a person like myself to exploit my
above-average cognitive and physical ability to obtain greater
convenience, at no reduction in safety, by occasionally breaking the
letter of the law. But I realize that when other people are watching
(especially kids who are themselves bicyclists and future motorists) I
set an example for them about cycling technique and cyclists as a
population. That's why I avoid breaking the rules of the road; the
social contract of predictable, easy roadway cooperation is something
I want to support, so that everybody, not just expert cyclists like
us, can travel in reasonable safety, according to easily explainable
and effective principles of traffic negotiation. I save my superior
skills for responding to other road users' unpredictability rather
than creating more unpredictability for others.

That's well said I think. Cyclists almost always have
some sort of audience out there and need to be
cognizant of it. That's why I am very selective about
running lights outside of work.

When ranking PR problems, I think that running red
lights falls some distance behind unnecessary lane
hogging.

Robert

The anonymous RobertH wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote in part:

[RobertH:]
I did happen

to mention that I had run a load of lights while doing my job.

Uh huh. And you didn't seem to be saying it was wrong, either.


It wasn't right or wrong in any normal sense. It was part of the job.
Civilian cyclists shouldn't ride like that. Is that clear?

:-) It's clear that you're in some quasi-military fantasy! "Civilian
cyclists" indeed! So what are you - a Commando Cyclist?

I also

advised others not to if they don't have to,

"Have to" as in "To save my life" or "have to" as in "to keep from
wasting thirty seconds"?


Have to as in have to.

.... and you refuse to realize that most people who flout traffic laws
think exactly the same: "I've got a good reason for doing this, and I'm
way better than the average dummy these laws are _really_ designed
for... BANG!!!"


Those who hate bike messengers...

I don't hate bike messengers, so you're off-topic.


It's a question of Awareness, once again. It all comes
back to Awareness. Experienced cyclists get hit when their awareness
lapses.

Please stop pretending this is new information. And please stop
pretending that vehicular cyclists don't know this and teach this.


Accidents happen when you least
expect them. When we are in this state of non-expecting, we are
letting go, reality has slipped from our grasp. It is a dream-state
from which we are asking for a violent awakening. So, how best to keep
people from falling into this dream-state? By reassuring them about
the effectiveness of traffic law? By repeating the bizarre mantra that
"cycling is not unusually dangerous?"

There is no conflict between telling people that cycling is not
unusually dangerous, and telling people that they need to be alert while
riding.

I believe most people understand the latter point instinctively, yet
when teaching cycling classes, I emphasize it with practical details.
Again, this is part of the official curriculum.

I believe the "safety industry" has deluded people on the former point -
that is, deluded people into thinking all cycling is an "extreme"
activity. Consequently, I spend some time in those classes and in these
forums rebutting that delusion.

I believe most people are capable of understanding both points. Not
everyone, obviously, but most people.

I'm teaching one of those [Bike Ed, or EC] classes now. It is absolutely false that the
idea is, as you seem to characterize it, "Follow the rules and the world
will be perfect."
Yes, the details of the traffic rules are an important part of the
course. But we also cover common motorist mistakes and defense against
them. The mistakes are explained in the course booklet and in the video
tape that's shown in class. The video shows drivers making right hooks,
opening doors in front of cyclists, turning left into their path, etc.
It shows cyclists demonstrating the appropriate emergency maneuvers to
avoid these hazards.

In next week's class, we'll be explaining, demonstrating and practicing
instant turns and quick braking, which can be used as defenses. (We'll
also do rock dodges, although that's not a motorist-defense move.)
We'll do road riding in which I'll be talking about potential motorist
mistakes as those situations arise. And, FWIW, a couple years ago I had
a motorist "kind enough" to demonstrate an attempt at a right hook,
which I thwarted using the techniques we'd talked about.


The use of those maneuvers is a sign of cyclists' failures. ("He's
blaming the cyclist!") The proper awareness, a stone cold vigilance,
profound distrust of motorists' faculties but patient nonetheless, is
something that begins before the cyclist even leaves the house.
Without it, the hopeful, innocent, childlike rider will be forced into
evasive maneuvers quite often and they won't always work.

You are making no sense at all. We teach people to be aware of
motorists and their potential mistakes. We teach people how to react to
avoid those mistakes. We show videos and draw diagrams explaining these
things, as well as fundamentals like proper lane position, etc. We do
parking lot exercises to drill on needed skills. We do road rides in
traffic to teach application of these skills. It's good practical stuff.

Again, I have no idea what you propose as an alternative ... perhaps
meditating on "vigilance" and "distrust" before riding into traffic with
no skills at all?

Personally, I try to approach intersections with alertness, with proper
lane position, with an awareness of the position and motion of
motorists, and with competence. And it's worked for the past 30-odd years.


Sounds good, but I have a hard time believing you are imparting the
proper sense of gravity to your EC students. Maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe you are absolutely, thoroughly wrong.

Meditate on that for a while.

Let me say it again: Traffic is Dangerous. Whether you're on a bike,
moped, in a car, or whatever. Traffic is dangerous because traffic is
people.

And again, I ask: Please devote your energy to scaring those people on
mopeds, or in cars, or "whatever."


But to you, it all works "remarkably well." Ha! For God's
sakes keep your eyes open and your head up! The whole thing is hanging
by a thread!

Traffic is people. That is the starting point for any system of riding
in traffic. Traffic is people. And what are people all about? Who the
hell knows. Cyclists need to think of traffic as people, and jettison
the idea of traffic as rules and lines. You don't leave your health in
the hands of total strangers if you can help it--never, if that were
somehow possible. That's the "proper awareness" we were talking about.

Proper awareness is a full-time job.

Unfortunately it appears that only personal experience can install the
"proper awareness" in someone.

Yes, traffic IS people - and the traffic rules work specifically because
they were designed with people's limitations in mind.

Despite your fear mongering, the rules DO work remarkably well. There
is no "hanging by a thread." Instead, there are millions and millions
of trips taken daily by people of all ages, skills and mental abilities.
The level of injury is low enough that nobody worries "I may get
hurt!!!" before setting off in their car, or on foot.

What we have now, thanks in part to propaganda such as yours, is that
many people _do_ think that when considering a bike ride. This despite
the fact that biking in traffic is as safe as walking near traffic!

And it's quite ironic to hear a "commando cyclist" excusing his
violation of road rules, all the while wringing his hands about the
danger of cycling. It's amazing you see no connection.

I have personal experience. Again, I may not do as many miles as you,
but my experience stretches over more than thirty years, countless
cities, several countries, and decades of bike commuting. I don't
perceive bike safety as "hanging by a thread." I see it as (yes)
staying alert, knowing what to do, and doing it.

The world's not perfect - but when I'm biking, the world's a nice place
indeed. I want others to experience the same world. I'm not about to
accept the use of fear-mongering to drive them away.


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