Boston bike advocacy has tectonic shift -- supports facilities

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 17, 9:28 am, Peter Cole wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
[PC:]
Now that you've clarified you're specifically referring to current LAB
offerings, I'd point out that LAB offers "Traffic Skills 101" for the 9
hours you cite, but also "Traffic Skills 201" for 12 hours.

You can cherry pick and say that there's a separate "vehicular cycling"
subset, so that 9-12 (or even 20) hours is a gross overstatement, but
I'd counter-argue that the specific VC skills require a larger set of
basic skills. You may disagree, but I'm sure Forester and lots of other
cycling instructors wouldn't.

Again, I'm speaking as a nationally certified instructor for these
courses. Although nobody remembers this, I was the instructor who
first proposed a private e-mail list for instructors to discuss
teaching techniques and course material. I still read those
discussions daily, contribute frequently, and (I think) have a pretty
good handle on the state of the project. This probably covers 99% of
the bicycling classes taught in America.

AFAIK, _nobody_ teaches according to Forester's blueprint, which was
designed to vaguely resemble a college course. Furthermore, almost all
the classes actually taught are TS101. In fact, there are more
"abbreviated" classes (even shorter versions) of TS101 than there are
TS201. Those abbreviated classes typically omit things like choosing
and adjusting a bike, choice of accessories, adjusting derailleurs,
etc. and concentrate on the high-value stuff: how to ride as a vehicle
operator. And again, the high-value stuff is not difficult to learn,
despite your implications.

That's the reality. If you've never taken nor taught a class, I can
understand how you might not know that. But you do need to realize
you do not know what you're talking about!

... Would she have fared better
if the facility was more "innovative" - painted green, perhaps?
Well, there's little doubt that she would still be alive if she had been
on a bike path, but that's rather beside the point I was attempting to
make. I don't mean to exploit her death to support the facilities
argument, only to illustrate the unique (in vulnerability) status of
cyclists in the road.

Which is, of course, the 'idee fixe' of the facilities proponents -
that we are so very vulnerable we need separate bike paths, stripes,
colored pavement, boxes, barrier separation and all the rest.
"Danger! Danger!" Fortunately (once again) reality is different, and
data shows that. (Yes, that data isn't part of the TS101 class, but
the data is still very real.)

... I've come to the realization, after many years and
much reading and thinking, that vehicular cycling is a solution to the
wrong problem. ... My "problem to be solved" is to achieve
a much larger utility cycling participation in urban areas --
particularly dense, older cities not well served by the automobile. Some
may differ on priorities, but this seems to be a widely sought
objective. It is rationalized by practical arguments that I won't repeat
here. Vehicular cycling proponents claim that their techniques are
sufficient to achieve this goal, and that the development of facilities
may actually retard it. I am skeptical, to say the least.

There are two points to address here. First, you're proclaiming
vehicular cycling to be a failure because it doesn't solve _your_
chosen problem. That's like saying "nobody should ever use a wrench,
because it's the wrong tool to measure my voltage." The goal of
vehicular cycling is not to get every housewife on a bike, although
that may be laudable. The goal is to allow cyclists to safely operate
wherever they want to ride, within reason - and not just where there
are bike paths and bike lanes. As a sub-category of that goal, most
vehicular cyclists want to retain the _right_ to operate on ordinary
roads. (They decry things like "bicycle friendly" cities that have
bike bans on important city streets.)

The second point is, what's the best way to achieve your goal? You
claim it is the "paint & path" method, no matter whether the paint or
the paths meet elementary engineering standards. In my mind, the
problems are that the "paint & path" sales pitch always seems to
include statements like "because cyclists are so vulnerable, and the
road are so dangerous." There is deception inherent in the campaign,
especially since the supposed solutions are sometimes _more_
dangerous; and there is the downside that the "vulnerable, dangerous"
message actually dissuades cycling until the paint & paths are
installed - if they ever are. Why don't we try telling the truth,
with as much energy as the P&P people tell their misleading tales?
Why not say that riding is so easy a child can do it, and is safer
than walking, and that it's healthy and energy efficient and often the
fastest way to get around? Why not try some _honest_ promotion? It
would be a completely new approach for most Americans.

Your paint & path approach has other problems. It's damned difficult
to fit proper bike lanes and safe bike paths into dense older American
cities, because the city is already built, and the limited road space
is needed for vast numbers of cars coming in from suburbs.
Shoehorning in door zone bike lanes and sidewalk bike paths increases
danger, and is internally inconsistent and dishonest. And no matter
what, there will always be city streets that cyclists need to ride,
but which will have no special stripes, for lack of room. The
cyclists have to learn to ride as vehicle operators anyway.

At this point, you are flailing about, hoping to find some effective
complaint against what I write, whether its substantive or not. But
over and over, you're posting mistakes or nonsense.
Not only do you need to quit while you're behind, you need to re-
examine your belief system. It's literally out of touch with reality.
You argue as if there is some ultimate reference for vehicular cycling.
The "reality" (as you are so fond of citing without definition) appears
to be a spectrum of opinion and claims. You claim that vehicular cycling
is easily taught and advanced cycling skills are not necessarily a
prerequisite -- at least that's my best guess at what you're saying,
you're not as clear in your claims as you are in your insults --
Forester and many other former LAB instructors would seem to disagree.

It's common for certain people to paint all their opponents as one
uniform, monolithic batch of robots. It's done by calling people
"liberals" or "Islamists" or "gun nuts" or - in this case - "vehicular
cyclists." It's a dishonest approach. You should know better.

So of course there is a spectrum of claims. Those who favor vehicular
cycling are not identical in their ideas nor in their arguments. On
some points, enthusiastic debate continues - and it shouldn't surprise
you that I've been in some of those debates.

However, I understand that you have not come across those debates or
those differences of opinion. You're arguing against vehicular
cycling based on your imperfect understanding of it. Once again,
you'd benefit from learning a lot more before you begin typing.

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, you don't address any of my points, you just go off on your
tirades and call me names, too. Having a discussion is impossible with
you. I'm out.

On 2010-03-17, Peter Cole wrote:
AMuzi wrote:

Not sure where this is going but a competent experienced river in a well
maintained vehicle is surely safe at 90-ish on modern divided highways.

It's the occasional distracted/ addled/ impaired idiot (and there is
always one. Or more). One's reaction time/ space/ etc can be
insufficient to avoid the predictable mess. You're depending on actions
of a few hundred randomly selected humans to arrive safely. Sobering
thought for cycling or driving.

That's the rub. A single (or even group) driver may be perfectly safe
with those qualifications, but it's really a "lowest common denominator"
that has to be accommodated, not the average or best. Differences in
relative speed, vehicle and driver performance, traffic and weather
conditions all factor in, it's just too complex to have rules for every
situation, and fuzzy rules (of which there are still plenty by
necessity) are problematic to enforce. A simple single speed limit for
most drivers, vehicles and conditions is very much a compromise, but
arguably better than the next best compromise.

It tends to make the traffic flow better if it's relatively busy if
everyone's going in the range 60-80mph rather than 60-150mph like you
get in Germany. That's why I think you want variable limits based on
traffic flow like we have on the M25 in GB, going to completely
unrestricted late at night when there is very little traffic (we aren't
quite enlightened enough to have that last bit).

On Mar 17, 2:09*pm, Peter Cole wrote:


Frank, you don't address any of my points, you just go off on your
tirades and call me names, too. Having a discussion is impossible with
you. I'm out.

Which points have I not addressed, Peter?

ISTM that most points you've posted have been flat out mistakes, and I
have addressed them. I've addressed your mistaken idea about the
length of the courses that teach vehicular cycling. And the mistaken
ideas about what all vehicular cyclists believe. I've addressed your
mistake that the goal of VC is to get everyone on bikes, and about how
difficult it is to learn to ride as a legitimate vehicle. I pointed
out that your chosen fatality would not have been prevented by a bike
lane (or really, any reasonable facility). I've pointed out that your
chosen method of getting everyone on bikes is based on misleading
everyone, both on the supposed danger of biking, and on the supposed
extra safety of special bike facilities. Oh, and I have pointed out
that I'm not against all bike facilities; I'm merely against dangerous
ones, and not a fan of useless ones. What have I left out?

The fundamental disagreement is simply this: You have proclaimed that
you believe bike facilities need not meet any safety standards, and
that it's OK to have built-in dangers if it will get lots of people
riding. I believe bike facilities should not directly endanger
riders, and that it's more important for their design to be safe than
"innovative."

That's the heart of it.

- Frank Krygowski