Andy Clarke, President/Director of the League of American Bicyclists and renowned proponent of trails and bike lanes over shared facilities, recently posted on the League Cycling Instructor listserve that vehicular cycling won't work because "motorists can be expected to do the wrong thing 98% of the time" (para-phrased).
John Forester posted the following commentary yesterday, commenting on an ongoing discussion on the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition's email list (where Andy's sentiments are expressed by others).
It's a keeper.
Thanks to Serge Issakov for forwarding it.
The discussion that we have been having has many similarities with many other discussions around the nation, in that it shows the contrast between vehicular and cyclist-inferiority modes of thought.
The c-i (cyclist-inferiority) cyclist does exactly what he thinks he should be doing, and rides into trouble. Because the trouble occurs when he thinks that he is riding properly, he thinks that the trouble is unavoidable and is caused by others.
On the other hand, the vehicular cyclist recognizes that he is just another part of traffic. This enables him to both operate with greater flexibility and to recognize the need to do so whenever the traffic situation suggests. Certainly, traffic does not always operate properly, but the vehicular cyclist both recognizes this and accepts its minor errors as just normal. So he avoids the consequences without worrying about it.
In a way, the c-i criticism of vehicular cycling, that vehicular cycling doesn't work because traffic cannot be counted to operate properly, reflects just this difference. The c-i cyclist thinks that traffic is supposed to operate according to his ideal view of the rules, and complains when reality steps in, while the vehicular cyclist accepts reality and works around it. So we get annoyed idealists and pragmatic realists.
-- John Forester
10 comments:
As a recent "convert" to VC practices in the last year or so, I very much appreciate Forester's eloquent view.
Reading his words makes me realize that with VC as my guidelines, bicycle transportation is simply transportation. The benefits associated with the bicycle are not diminished, but the imagined dangers in cycling as transportation are not there.
I ride, therefore I am.
Advocates who coddle CIC are taking us in the wrong direction. And worst of all, they are punishing the competent, cooperative cyclists by redesigning a functional environment into a dysfunctional one to coddle ignorance and incompetence. That's no way to build a healthy community!
Think about it. Cyclist advocates and educators (Like P.M. Summer) are here to EMPOWER cyclists. It is in our best interest to be empowered by confidence and competence (both are very easy to attain and require no athletic prowess).
Bike advocates who push for segregated on-road facilities are creating dependency on a limited network. They are content to have us marginalized in a door zone or debris-filled gutter. What's their ulterior motive? They must have one because what they advocate is certainly not in the best interest of cyclists.
Saith Keri...
"Bike advocates who push for segregated on-road facilities are creating dependency on a limited network. They are content to have us marginalized in a door zone or debris-filled gutter. What's their ulterior motive? They must have one because what they advocate is certainly not in the best interest of cyclists."
Because they take money from Toyota (and BellSports)?
http://environment.about.com/od/fossilfuels/a/streetcars.htm
Just kidding... I hope.
Although, if you follow the money from BellSports, you might be surprised at what you see.
Saith fred...
"I ride, therefore I am.
You made my day, sir. :D
You know, the more I ride like a vehicle, the more I find pedestrians to be PITA's. Jaywalkers especially.
I think I'll have that little chat with PT I've been desiring. See if I can do some emboldening.
Question - Is it the LAB's responsibility to teach BOTH basic cycling skills AND Basic cycling-in-traffic skills, or is it an either/or, or both situation?
whareagle said...
"Question - Is it the LAB's responsibility to teach BOTH basic cycling skills AND Basic cycling-in-traffic skills, or is it an either/or, or both situation?"
It's one in the same. I do not believe you can teach basic cycling skills WITHOUT teaching vehicular cycling. The analogy is Driver's Education.
As for peds... all of my bikes have bells. Great ped-protection and smile generator.
It just seems like one is based on stuff you can do in the cul-de-sac, and the other is more purposeful.
Richard, part of the problem we see in Dallas (NORTHERN Dallas/southern Collin counties in particular) is a result of Bike Rally Disease. Bike rallies may sell a lot of bicycles, but they breed poor cycling habits and attitudes.
Aha! (Sound of angelic choirs and enlightenment images).
Maketh me wonder. 2 seconds of 'foot down' may affect your average wattage with zeroes, but it won't ruin your metabolism. I wonder if a 10-second Non-zero average power might not be a better averaging mode for urban cycling and fitness.
We need to be educating these people from the moment they leave the store - any store.
A few years back, there were bookmarks with instructions for cyclists and motorists that could easily go under windshield wipers at parking lots. Whatever happened to those? Would 1 year of PSA style pamphlets make a dent at all?
Classes are pending for Dallas. Please be patient while the Cycling Center of Dallas deals with parking-lot repaving and restriping.
whareagle said...
It just seems like one is based on stuff you can do in the cul-de-sac, and the other is more purposeful.
After years of teaching pace line skills and observing a few Road I classes, I learned that any class (whether it's traffic skills or group riding) needs to begin with fundamental bike handling. You would be amazed at how many people with hundreds of miles of riding experience still don't have a command of the simple skills of starting and stopping their bikes. Once you notice it, you'll see it everywhere.
Post a Comment