PatrickGSR94

I was referring to the exceptions listed under most states' FTR laws. "You must ride as far right as practicable/possible/safe, except for this and this and this and this situation. It's confusing to almost everyone. Why not just simplify it, and give cyclists the same lane rights as say, motorcyclists? After all the law does consider a bicycle a vehicle. But then to say "oh no, you need to ride over there instead" is discriminatory. And require a lane change to pass a cyclist. Very easy for motorists to carry out, rather than having to estimate some arbitrary width past the right side of their vehicles, and also very easy for law enforcement to enforce (you either changed lanes or you didn't, and if you didn't you get cited).

PatrickGSR94

Sorry man, they did NOT teach those techniques as "the only way" or "you must do it this way by default".

Various road risks were presented (right hooks, pull-outs, doorings, left crosses etc.), along with various ways to prevent such things from happening, which BTW from my own experience those avoidance techniques absolutely, unequivocally work!

It's your choice whether or not those techniques align with where you are, where you're going, the type of street you're on, and so forth.

CS gives people the tools and techniques to make their own choices. I've heard from a number of CS instructors that quieter, low traffic streets are preferred by them as well as most people. But when your destination is on a busy street, or you have to use a busy street to connect quieter streets, here are some tools and techniques to help you make it there safely.

I told one of the instructors about how just a few weeks ago in Destin FL I chose to ride contraflow on a sidewalk for a short stretch because of a huge intersection with massive amounts of traffic. I needed to turn left, and used an early gap in traffic to get across to the sidewalk for a short distance. And because I was aware of the risks of wrong-way sidewalk riding, I was careful, and indeed I saw a person pulling out while looking left the whole time, and never in my direction. I stopped and waited for that person to go. Someone without knowledge of such risks could have easily ridden right in front of this person as she pulled out and run right over the cyclist. The instructor I relayed this story to said yep, that's a perfectly acceptable alternative.

So until you actually take a CS class, perhaps you should stop making such generalizations.

ThermionicScott 

It wasn't clear whether that was a part of your last retort, or stepping back to criticize CS overall. Regardless, I was responding to your overall position, which seems to me that one should always ride in the periphery.

Cool.

I'm not sure how much effect cycling classes have on the adoption of cycling, though. Until some sort of "bicycle licenses" happen and require these kinds of classes (which I hope don't, but bear with me), I think the vast majority of people will just buy a bike and do whatever makes the most sense to them.

Giant Doofus

Good to know. I'll check out CS after I finish up my League certification.

spare_wheel

i never once stated this. my overall position is that most people do not want to "lane control" so we should teach techniques that allow them to negotiate streets in a less stressful manner without dogma.

these classes and their proponents have a wide footprint online and, imo, make cycling for transportation seem far more difficult than it actually is.

spivonious

I recently got my League instructor certification, and I really can't understand the complaints in this thread. While the League encourages VC techniques, they are about getting people riding and improving bike infrastructure. In my area, there is no bike infrastructure, so it's VC or nothing.

I-Like-To-Bike

No mention of any incurred increased risk, (or any risk at all) especially in the severity of so-called "crashes", by taking a pronounced take the lane position from traffic from the rear?

Makes sense for a course based on an assumption that such a risk is only a superstition of child-like incompetent cyclists, and that all so-called "crashes" are equal in severity when considering the "various road risks."

ThermionicScott 

I'm against dogma for dogma's sake, too, but are there any times when you think a cyclist should move to the center of a lane to prevent cars from passing?

I think this is a red herring -- all of the things involved in getting a driver's license and operating a motor vehicle would look complicated if put into a list, but that doesn't stop anyone. I think lack of desire to bike for transport is what's holding down mode share more than anything else. You're not even going to venture into thoughts of safety or complexity or getting sweaty or your hair mussed up if you just don't want to in the first place.

kickstart

Its the misrepresentation of the VC cabal that make it an if-you're-not-for-us-you're-against-us issue. VC is a valid technique for when there's no viable options. The issue is how and why its "encouraged" even when there's legitimate options that would better serve those who aren't dedicated enthusiasts.

Advice such as "adults don't belong on the sidewalk" is nothing more than trying to shame people into doing things that may be outside their comfort zone or abilities, and removing a viable option that can best answer some conditions for any skill level.

I-Like-To-Bike

Yes, there are road/traffic scenarios when a bicyclist could move towards the center of the lane to possibly reduce the likelihood of various possible crash scenarios (right hooks, pull-outs, doorings, left crosses etc.), but he should be aware that by doing so, he may be increasing his risk from another type of "crash" (rear end collision) with a high probability of severe/catastrophic injuries.

ThermionicScott 

Thanks, but I was asking spare_wheel, since I don't want to mischaracterize his position.

I-Like-To-Bike

That is OK, my request for information about Cycling Savvy explanations of "Various crash risk" is really directed at the OP.

So far he chooses not to respond, but that is par for the course when risk evaluation methodology of VC ideologues/Cycling instructors is questioned.

GamblerGORD53

I've been riding FRAP my whole life without a foam hat. No Hits, No Runs. Vietnam, China, Dozens of USA cities.
FRAP is the LAW in Canada where VCers are as rare as Leprechauns.
LAB = Loonies Astride Bicycles. AFAIK they DIE just as often if not MORE than FRAPers who Share The Road.
The first thing they teach you is cycling is DANGEROUS .... WEAR A HELMET. WTF
The second thing they teach is bike lane lines are JUST PAINT.... BUT car paint lines are some MAGICAL force field AND Maginot line or something. WTF
The third thing they teach is cyclist DRIVE and DON't belong on shoulders or a speck of dirt means get off, ALWAYS. WTF
The fourth thing they teach is Car Drivers are all STUPID and can't see you, especially on shoulders, no exceptions. WTF
The fifth thing they teach you is any other cyclist not of their LAB Religion is also STUPID.
The sixth thing they teach you is absolute FEAR of Partial lane passes and sidewalks. WTF
The seventh thing they teach is you are a CAR and MUST shove your way through any amount of traffic and lanes to do a CAR left turn completely oblivious to other traffic despite that it is often of NO benefit compared to just waiting on the right for the light to change ( No you don't have to WALK ACROSS). Even MORE stupid is they wait in the middle thru the Red light, when they could just plain cross like a Ped.
The eighth thing they teach you is riding on the car lane lines, between thru + turn lanes, is lillegal lane splitting. NOT (It is where I would ride in the above picture, Always)
The ninth thing they teach you is Inferiority Complex. WTF
The Tenth thing they teach is FEAR of FAST traffic... well compared to whimpy fearful cyclists, So go Complain to City Hall about THAT.
The eleventh thing they teach you is , You can nullify absloutely ANY LAW if you FEEL UNSAFE. Imagine that eh.
The twelfth thing they teach you is you are NOT a SMV and it's perfectly AOK hold up ANY amount of traffic at ANY time.

Then they advocate for segregated bike lanes and wonder why they are cluttered with dog walkers.

PS ... It is MY experience that motor vehicles are thoughtful, accommodating and courteous, ALWAYS. Even in Asia. Sure, they may slowly squeeze by if they have no choice. They do NOT need educating about any LAB lane hogging practices.

spare_wheel

why the strawman argument and the use of the word should? i often ride on the left side of narrow lanes to discourage passing. that's not VC -- it's bicycular cycling. on the other hand, i also often see people riding or walking their bikes on the sidewalk when there is no bike facility. both approaches are valid!

And ideologues who proselytize a "take the lane" approach as the proper/safe way to cycle certainly don't make the "interested but concerned" more interested in cycling. honestly, its a moot point here. imo, only in places where the car is still king does VC/CS ideology thrive. once a city reaches a certain mode share the vast majority of people go out of their way to avoid "lane control" and that's fine, imo.

PatrickGSR94

When I rode at the right edge, motorists (not their vehicles) were NOT courteous. Some were, but many were not. Close passes all the time.

When I control the lane, almost zero close passes. Maybe one in a month.

The data I've seen indicates the risk of a rear end crash when you're directly in front of and in line with other drivers is actually quite low, almost non-existent as compared to side-swipes or rear ends to a cyclist off to the side, on a shoulder, or in a bike lane. I can probably find it later, just not right now.

spare_wheel

So did you practice riding on the sidewalk, safely using crosswalks on a bike, or two step left-turns in your CS class.

I-Like-To-Bike

I do not question the veracity of your personal experiences or any anecdotal evidence discussed in the Cycling Savvy course.

Please post a reference/URL to the data that you previously saw on various cycling risk when you get a chance.

BTW, did the Cycling Savvy course instructor provide, or even hint at, the source of the various "crash" risk information provided in the course of instruction?

PatrickGSR94

No I did not, but because they go over the hazards presented by doing such things, I can recognize those hazards and watch out for them. All of those situations you mentioned put you in close proximity to turning traffic where the motorist is not looking your direction. By knowing the hazards one can watch out for and avoid them.

If you say that those situations do not present such hazards, well then you're kidding yourself.

spare_wheel

it's not all about you. most people will never feel comfortable "lane controlling". i have no problem with advanced cycling courses for people who want to ride VC but these classes are not pitched that way.

spare_wheel

ILTB asked you for the source of your safety claims up thread and you refused to answer. Therefore your renewed claim that these techniques are unsafe lacks credibility.

I should note that use of crosswalks (or crossbikes) and 2 point left turns by people cycling are common here. Both techniques are taught in cycling education programs here.

ThermionicScott 

Might "would" have been a better choice? Sounds like a lot of pro/anti-VC butthurt is leaking over here from A&S... I'm not firmly in either camp, just interested in your thoughts.

I imagine that any need to be vehicular would also go down when bikes are a regular sight on the road. In my area at least, a hybrid approach of moving to the center to stop at intersections (quaint, I know) and then moving toward the right of the lane as traffic starts flowing again works pretty well. No drivers seem genuinely miffed at the time spent behind me (or at least any more than they might be about another car that isn't moving fast enough for their liking), but maybe people are unusually nice here. As a car driver about 1/3 of the time, I certainly appreciate when other occupants of the road behave predictably.

PatrickGSR94

I told you I would get it when I'm able.

In the meantime please read this when you have time. Really read it. Don't just skim it. If you want to stop having this debate? | Commute Orlando

Why all the animosity towards this program and the people (Keri and Mighk) who developed it? The reality is that hundreds if not thousands of people have taken their course, MOST of them are very much beginners. And there have been many, many success stories. My wife happens to NOT have taken so well to it, only because she's not much of a cyclist anyway. She's not all that into it, and has no interest in using a bike to get somewhere. Other people in our class had ridden on trails and stuff, and were flat out SCARED of riding on roads with other traffic. But after we had done it, they marveled at how EASY it was. Even a 10 year old girl had great success in one of the classes in another city just a few weeks ago.

I-Like-To-Bike

Perhaps because at least some of the Cycling Savvy Instructors have for decades shared the VC ideological bed of John Forester and his agenda driven/manipulated analyses of cherry picked bicycling safety data to promote specific courses/methods of cycling instruction.

In addition, this same cherry picked data has been used by at least some of the Cycling Savvy instructors, to support irrational public ranting against almost all bicycling infrastructure or any course of action not devoted to the desires of their enthusiast bicycling organization comrades.

spare_wheel

Also my experience. I'm OK with people riding in the lane but I believe this approach should not be overly emphasized in general cycling education classes. It discourages people who are and will always be afraid of riding in traffic (the majority of people cycling in cities with higher mode share).

kickstart

I'm not in a pro/anti camp either, and most of my cycling is indeed VC. My objections are to the thinly veiled agendas behind their exaggerating the hazards of the alternatives, while at the same time white washing VCs hazards.