Finally I'm a CyclingSavvy graduate!
My wife and I attended the CyclingSavvy course in St. Louis this past Friday and Saturday, something I've been wanting to do ever since I heard about the course over 2 years ago. We did the classroom session on Friday evening, and then the parking lot drills Saturday morning, and the Tour of St. Louis ride in the afternoon. Weather couldn't have been better, with a mix of sun and clouds and temps in the upper 70's. In June!
I thoroughly enjoyed the course. I was definitely the most experienced cyclist in attendance. Pretty much everyone else (all women other than one woman's 15 y.o. son) were beginners of some level or another. Even though I've been putting CS principles into practice for a couple of years now, there was still more to learn. For those who think CS teaches dogmatic vehicular cycling, you are absolutely mistaken. CS is geared towards transportation cycling (which is why I'm posting in the Commuting forum), but the principles can be used by anyone and everyone who rides on public roads, for any reason. What CS does is try to identify and convey what the hazards are on public roads, and then teach principles that can be used to avoid those hazards, avoid crashes, as much as possible. You may prefer bike lanes, or quiet side streets, and that's just fine. But sometimes you might have to use part of a larger, busier road to connect the smaller roads you want to be on. CS teaches you how to safely and EASILY traverse those larger roads without any problems from motorists or anyone else. Maybe you even prefer to use the sidewalk for a short distance. With CS you're better equipped to recognize the hazards of sidewalk riding, so that you can still make it safely to your destination. For example, we went from the mall parking lot on the right here, through 3 traffic lights under this massive interchange, and turned left onto another side street (Eager Road). https://goo.gl/maps/n2DYH Using CS principles it was quite easy. One of the ladies who goes through this area in her car every day even said it was LESS stressful on her bike than it is in her car. And there was just as much traffic with the mall as there is on a weekday rush hour. I learned some new techniques such as "right on green", meaning waiting to turn right until the light turns green (move left in the lane to let right on red motorists by you, if you want). This gives you an almost empty road which is useful if you have a left turn coming right up. Much easier than turning right into the right lane and then having to negotiate through adjacent lanes with passing traffic. I would highly recommend CyclingSavvy to anyone who uses their bike for transportation, or for any purpose really. It can and does change people's lives. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...pslbwiwy7j.jpg |
I didn't even know there was such a course. I would recommend it too to any beginner rider.
|
That's cool! I took the Motorcycle Safety Foundation class when I learned to ride and then took the experienced rider class several years later. I'm extremely grateful to have been able to have learned this way, and understand your gratitude here.
|
Cycling saavy is pure VC dogma. For example:
1) Ride on the road. Adult bicyclists do not belong on the sidewalk. 2) Know and follow the rules. The rules of the road are for everyone. They exist to make us all predictable to one another. Bicyclists who violate the rules are not only far more likely to be hit by a car, they are disruptive and breed animosity among fellow road users. 3) Integrate in the intersections. 4) Ride Big. 5) Communicate. 6) Be mindful of your surroundings. This often means leaving a bike lane Passing a queue of stopped traffic on the right can expose you to many crash hazards. Sometimes it’s better just to wait in the queue. 8) Want respect? Act respectably. When motorists arrive before you at a red light, stop behind them. Don’t pull to the front of the queue Cycling savvy is asking people who bike to give up their legal right of way to placate some hypothetical angry minority of people driving. I am legal vulnerable traffic and I will use the quickest and most expeditious route while also being considerate to the right of way of other road users (and especially vulnerable pedestrians). |
Sorry guys but what's "VC"?
|
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver
(Post 17939814)
Sorry guys but what's "VC"?
|
Originally Posted by GovernorSilver
(Post 17939814)
Sorry guys but what's "VC"?
I think Spare Nuts is just trying to see if he can start a war. |
I agree with sparewheel, its elitist dogma indoctrination.
By placing artificial limitations, and arbitrary demands on ones choices, it alienates those who don't possess the boldness, and athletic abilities to pull it off......which is most people who aren't already cycling enthusiasts. |
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
(Post 17940016)
Vehicular cycling. The ideology that people cycling should behave like motorvehicles. Also known as "bicycle driving".
|
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
(Post 17939694)
This mushy language calls for people to play chicken with multi-ton machines driven by people who typically face no legal consequence for hitting, injuring, or killing vulnerable traffic. A perfect recipe for 0.5% mode share for ever.
|
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
(Post 17939694)
Cycling saavy is pure VC dogma. For example:
One of the advantages of cycling for transportation is that people cycling often have the legal option to ride on sidewalks, in crosswalks, on turf/dirt, and in between lanes. Any organization that seeks to limit this freedom of movement harms cycling advocacy. The rules are written for and by motorists and their enforcement is typically motorist-centric. Moreover, bike-specific traffic statutes are often discriminatory, contradictory, and/or intentionally vague. IMO, cyclists should prioritize safety over car-centric traffic statutes. Many states have different rules and there is essentially no evidence that these differences make people "more likely to be hit by a car" or that "they are disruptive and breed animosity among fellow road users." This mushy language calls for people to play chicken with multi-ton machines driven by people who typically face no legal consequence for hitting, injuring, or killing vulnerable traffic. A perfect recipe for 0.5% mode share for ever. Elitist macho BS. And I'm being polite. Victim blaming. Its not the job of vulnerable traffic to communicate to people sealed hermetically in multi-ton metal machines. It's the job of drivers to pay the %^&* attention. A vague title that hides more VC extremism: Of course it does...because bike lanes are dangerous things that will kill you if you do not ride like a car. /sarcasm More fear mongering. In OR cyclists have the legal right to pass on the right and many, many thousands do so safely every day. There are so many other options than just sucking on a tail pipe. Car head. Car head. Cycling savvy is asking people who bike to give up their legal right of way to placate some hypothetical angry minority of people driving. I am legal vulnerable traffic and I will use the quickest and most expeditious route while also being considerate to the right of way of other road users (and especially vulnerable pedestrians). I agree with you about bike laws being discriminatory. That's why FTR laws and 3FP laws need to be repealed and replaced with full lane rights for cyclists, with no exceptions. Until you have been through the class, stop making ASSumptions. |
Sounds really interesting @PatrickGSR94. I'm doing something similar later this month. It's a course with the League of American Bicyclists, Traffic Safety 101. After that I'm planning to do their course to become a League certified instructor. I'm hoping this will make me a more effective volunteer at the co-op. Really looking forward to it!
|
I heard a famous basketball coach (don't remember his name as I don't follow sports much) tell a story once. He was at some sort of conference for coaches, and while he was standing around between sessions someone introduced him to John Wooden (famous UCLA basketball coach). He was a bit star struck, but Coach Wooden started chatting with him and discussing some of the upcoming sessions. He was amazed that as successful a coach as Wooden was going to sessions and listening to presentations, always interested in learning. A great lesson that I carry with me, there is always something new to learn. I am on the list for a cycling savvy class at our club and looking forward to it.
|
Originally Posted by jimincalif
(Post 17940806)
I heard a famous basketball coach (don't remember his name as I don't follow sports much) tell a story once. He was at some sort of conference for coaches, and while he was standing around between sessions someone introduced him to John Wooden (famous UCLA basketball coach). He was a bit star struck, but Coach Wooden started chatting with him and discussing some of the upcoming sessions. He was amazed that as successful a coach as Wooden was going to sessions and listening to presentations, always interested in learning. A great lesson that I carry with me, there is always something new to learn. I am on the list for a cycling savvy class at our club and looking forward to it.
You may learn something you didn't know. You may not. In all likelihood, there is something of value in it, even if one doesn't agree with all of it. |
Originally Posted by Giant Doofus
(Post 17940757)
Sounds really interesting @PatrickGSR94. I'm doing something similar later this month. It's a course with the League of American Bicyclists, Traffic Safety 101. After that I'm planning to do their course to become a League certified instructor. I'm hoping this will make me a more effective volunteer at the co-op. Really looking forward to it!
TS101 is a good class for general cycling-related topics, but for transportational cyclists I think CS really hits it out of the park. |
Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94
(Post 17941046)
rules and rights of cyclists.
rights and duties of cyclists, control and release techniques, Oh, sorry, its a trick question hat has no legitimate answer |
Originally Posted by kickstart
(Post 17941151)
What "right"' "rule"' or "duty" grants cyclists permission to interfere with other road users in an illegal attempt to control their actions?
Oh, sorry, its a trick question hat has no legitimate answer Maybe you can enlighten us as to what right and rules you think Patrick was talking about then we can have a discussion about those. |
Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94
(Post 17941046)
...
TS101 is a good class for general cycling-related topics, but for transportational cyclists I think CS really hits it out of the park. The differences between CS and LAB are purely political and that's fine. You can't go wrong with either course. Any commuter or utilitarian cyclist would benefit their safety by taking either one. |
Originally Posted by kickstart
(Post 17941151)
What "right"' "rule"' or "duty" grants cyclists permission to interfere with other road users in an illegal attempt to control their actions?
Oh, sorry, its a trick question hat has no legitimate answer LAB's TS101 teaches some of the same principles about lane control, also. Do you dogmatically oppose them, also? My TS101 instructor used the Street Smarts booklet written by John S. Allen, and *surprise* he's a CS instructor also! |
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
(Post 17941552)
I didn't read in his paragraph that he was supporting illegal riding to control others, if that is his agenda then he needs to explain himself, but I didn't get that from the paragraph. Cyclists do have rules and rights, just as motorists do and are the same as motorists with the exception that cyclists are to ride as far right as they safely can when not keeping up with the flow of traffic, and if you break those rules then you get penalized if you get caught.
Maybe you can enlighten us as to what right and rules you think Patrick was talking about then we can have a discussion about those. *1 Riding a bicycle like its a bicycle in accordance with its strengths and weaknesses to best match conditions and ones abilities. *2 Driving a bicycle like its a car despite its strengths and weaknesses even when contrary to conditions and ones abilities. |
Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94
(Post 17941763)
Where are you getting this "illegal" stuff from? When a lane is too narrow to share (almost all travel lanes), I control it by not riding at the edge and making it clear that a lane change is required to pass. On a 2-lane road if I'm on a blind hill or curve, or I can see oncoming traffic that the motorist behind me may not see, I motion for them to stay back until it's safe so they don't try something stupid. What makes you think that is illegal? It's about safety for all road users.
LAB's TS101 teaches some of the same principles about lane control, also. Do you dogmatically oppose them, also? My TS101 instructor used the Street Smarts booklet written by John S. Allen, and *surprise* he's a CS instructor also! Ones duty and responsibility is to their own actions, traffic control is for those duly authorized to engage in those activities. Ride where you choose, but don't try to make those choices for other road users. |
Originally Posted by spare_wheel
(Post 17939694)
Cycling savvy is asking people who bike to give up their legal right of way to placate some hypothetical angry minority of people driving.
|
Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94
(Post 17940450)
Okay buddy, you continue to ride in fear of getting clobbered by 2-ton vehicles, and I'll continue to ride with almost no negative interactions or problems whatsoever, communicating with motorists and paying attention to my surroundings.
I agree with you about bike laws being discriminatory. That's why FTR laws and 3FP laws need to be repealed and replaced with full lane rights for cyclists, with no exceptions. |
Originally Posted by PatrickGSR94
(Post 17941046)
The rest of it really focuses on the rights and duties of cyclists, as well as explain various crash risks with techniques on how to avoid such risks.
If not VC dogma/agenda derived, what was/is the source of the Cycling Savvy course information about "various crash risk"? |
Originally Posted by ThermionicScott
(Post 17941857)
I'm getting a little cognitive dissonance here. You whine about cyclists giving up their legal right of way, but tell them they shouldn't be getting in the way of cars. :rolleyes:
i defend the right of people to bicycle drive* or to flow through traffic in a more organic style but teaching these styles of cycling as default techniques is elitist and, imo, harmful to more widespread adoption of cycling. *still think sucking tail pipe is nucking futs but no direct harm no foul... |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:42 PM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.