Education Versus Infrastructure? Do both.

[Jim Baross]

Is this explanation below useful?

How might I/we improve this?

.........................................................

I offer some things to consider when we encounter the divisive controversies too rampant among some bicycling advocates, especially those arguments that discount or even attack the ideas of John Forester and "Driver Behavior"/"Vehicular Cycling" in order, apparently, to emphasize the introduction of bikeways and improvements to vehicle-favoring infrastructure.

I believe that short and long-term changes in travel mode choice will be accomplished by both approaches to improving bicycling;  we can improve roadway and bikeway infrastructure AND we can improve the skill and abilities of individual bicyclists (and motorists?). These approaches are not in conflict with each other!

Infrastructure improvements are necessary. Infrastructure improvements will benefit all people using those facilities. More people will be more likely to use bicycles when the roadways and bikeways are safer and more accommodating to bicycling. We should advocate for infrastructure improvements to get the significant funding necessary to be accomplished especially on a wide scale of application. 

Becoming a better bicyclist can be accomplished in a month, though a lifetime of improvement is likely. Becoming more competent, skilled, and aware will allow a person to ride more often, to more destinations, and more safely immediately. Better bicyclists acting as "drivers of vehicles" (Vehicular Cyclists) are able to ride more right now to more places more often; replacing many of their former car trips with bicycle trips. 

Both approaches are appropriate and important for accomplishing one of my goals, to help save the earth by and for bicycling.

Do both please.

Jim Baross, CABO President

Board Member, League of American Bicyclists

President, Calif. Assoc. of Bicycling Organizations

[Stephen Bingham]

Thank you for this Jim.  I’ve always felt the perceived antagonism between the two ‘camps’ was unnecessary and counterproductive.  As always of course, the devil is in the details.  Not all bike infrastructure is helpful, e.g. bike lane next to door zone but much new bike/ped infrastructure does improve safety.  As I’ve read often on this forum, predictability is the key concept: motorists’ and cyclists’ behavior must be predictable.  Infrastructure can help improve predictability.

 

Steve

 

Stephen Bingham

Co-Director

Sylvia Bingham Fund

www.sylviabinghamfund.org

Coordinator, California Ride of Silence Organizers

Board of Directors, Ride of Silence

Member, Families for Safe Streets/San Francisco

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAG28zXe_Z_xD6b7tzeFSRcoyYZmydHngkLixOtFsCOOSeyPkng%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Eldon]

The problem in Encinitas is that we keep losing some of our best Class 2s to cycletraps, and the badvocates evidently can't spell "right hook" or "left cross."

John A. Eldon, D.Env.

http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JohnEldon
Digital Design Engineering Consultant
Environmental Engineering Consultant

Instructor, UCSD & UCSD Extension

Life Senior Member, IEEE

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/01ed01d781e0%245f238620%241d6a9260%24%40earthlink.net.

[John F. Hess]

OK, since there's been very little reply, I'll go.

I agree that often the 2 camps (1. we want to pretend we're cars and 2. we want separate bike facilities) do often come up against each other. And I've said it many times before, camp 1 never met a bike facility it liked.  The 2 replies above this (as I type it) exemplify this.  Door Zone bike lanes bad and Cycle tracks are "death traps", that's what you meant, right, John Eldon?

I suppose that my bias comes from the fact that I live and ride in a great little town with plenty of bike awareness (safety in numbers is more important than I can emphasize).  I'd much rather ride on 3rd St with a DZBL than 2nd St with a sharrow.  Why?  Because it's not uncommon to be passed on 2nd street by some motorist who thinks I'm just too slow, so zoom, pull out, pass, pull in, brake for stop sign (Davis has stop signs every single block in the downtown).  That behavior is not safe for me, OR other road users.  Riding the 3rd St DZBL, I hug the line, and folks pass me.  The infrastructure in Davis is a large part of the reason that folks ride in Davis (it's not some magical property of the water or the history).  It's why parents use trailers or bakfiets or cargo bikes to transport children.  It's why parents ride and instruct young children how to ride in a bike lane to school or to anywhere.  

While it's easy to dismiss Davis cycling as so far off the norm it doesn't count, the main point is and has been for years:  that getting people on bikes is the first step to creating cyclists.  Davis has newly born citizens and a new crop of freshman every fall.  Some ride.  Some don't.  Of those who ride, some will continue riding and will become confident and capable.  The number of cyclists in Davis creates an atmosphere of bikes.  Motorists are aware of bikes.  Gasp, even pedestrians are aware of bikes.  Without youngsters riding to school, or freshman riding to class and then to downtown, you have no cyclists upon which to build a cycling community.

And then the kicker.  When bad things happen, the Camp 1 folks victim blame or blame the infrastructure instead of the motorist for motor vehicle-cyclist collisions (what ever happened to the Encinitas/Moonstone truck driver?).  The camp 2 folks blame the motorists.

I will, generally speaking, always support more bike infrastructure and anything to "help" cyclists.  I think cycling is so good for me, you, and the planet, that I want special "stuff" for cycling.  I want folks in their multi-ton cages to be sometimes a tad inconvenienced so that I may continue on my cycling way. 

So yeah, I'd love to see both camps always united to support cycling.

cheers, John Hess, Davis, CA

[Serge Issakov]

Davis had more cycling in the early 60s, before the first bike lane was painted in 1966,  than it does today. Today it’s half of what it was in the 1970s despite all the infra built since then. 

Davis is a great example of how bike specific infrastructure does not increase the amount of cycling. 

Serge

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/ca4c02cd-80af-4b57-a259-d94bf12c2681n%40googlegroups.com.

[F Lehnerz]

Instead of creating and continuing to perpetuate an inaccurate and imprecise dichotomy, why not consider a spectrum?

Yes, there are probably a handful of people out there who reject every single piece bicycle facility just as there are probably a handful of people who flat out won’t ride on a road unless there is some sort of bicycle infrastructure. In between those two extremes lies, most likely, the vast majority of us. 

Also, the “pretending like we’re a car” trope is notoriously inaccurate. It’s the obeying the rules of movement for wheeled vehicles, which were largely codified before cars were common, that is being followed. 

The accusation that “camp 1” engages in “victim blaming” is also baseless and absurd. Sometimes, sadly, a crash is at least partial fault of the cyclist. Other times it’s completely their fault. This “silly one party is always the oppressor and the other the victim” always derails discussion and gets us nowhere.  

And yes, sometimes it’s also appropriate to blame the motorists or the infrastructure. Other times it’s necessary to blame the enablers who fail to think of the Nth order consequences and especially  the unaccountable bureaucrats. Just because the allure of infrastructure appears like something is being done to help or encourage bicycling doesn’t mean it’s actually doing so. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 27, 2021, at 10:10, John F. Hess <john...@gmail.com> wrote:

OK, since there's been very little reply, I'll go.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/ca4c02cd-80af-4b57-a259-d94bf12c2681n%40googlegroups.com.

[Pete van Nuys]

For decades I have defined the one and only ultimate goal of all responsible bicycle advocates: Parity With the Automobile. Ifra perpetuates tribalism and inequality, the very opposite of parity.

Personally, I've lived quite well as a bicyclists since 1963. I rode in Davis beginning with the second running of the Davis DC, visited one of my buds when he was an undergrad there in the 1970s, and can attest to it indeed "being in the water," or whatever it is that creates a culture, any culture. (Portland and Eugene and to some degree SFO also shared indigenous bicycle cultures-- I worked at San Francisco Cyclery on Stanyan St. in 1975 and while motor traffic was and remains aggressive in The City, drivers seemed used to bicyclists on my daily commutes.

Infra is being driven the Advocacy Industrial Complex, we all know that. Careers are being built on building it. The Consultant, Agency Bureaucrat, Non-profit Director revolving door operates at all levels-- not everywhere-- but commonly across the US. What will happen when the free market forces behind high powered motorized bicycles displace pedal bicycles in their constituency? Place your bets....

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/FED45A69-11E8-400D-B5E3-D74AB720B971%40gmail.com.

--
Pete van Nuys Exec. Dir. Orange County Bicycle Coalition ECI, LCI, CSI 949 492 5737

[Pete Penseyres]

After reading all of the above responses, I went back to Jim's original and his questions: Is it useful? and How might it be improved?

My answers are:

1. Yes. and

2. Perhaps revise the first paragraph to make it more positive and maybe eliminate the term "Vehicular Cyclists"?

Pete Penseyres

LCI 2020

Carlsbad Traffic and Mobility Commissioner and

A happy camper...in both camps.

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/22cecd18-a199-1fa7-b132-4f747c99f166%40cox.net

.

[Sandrine Georges]

More kids used to bike to school and around with their friends after school, on their own, without adult supervision, back in the 80s, 70s etc than today even with more and more bike infrastructure.
Cyclists are the only two wheeler operators to be told to keep to the right, out of the way of motorists and we then expect motorists to ditch their car and hop on bikes? Most motorists do realize that cyclists are relegated to narrow, slower spaces that conveniently keeps them away from them, they are not foolish enough to want to be put in their weak, dangerous, second class citizen position.
Don't we all want slower motor traffic? Then the best way is to mix it up with cyclists and motorists, this is what will help lower car use in favor or bike use. Not the other way around...

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/FED45A69-11E8-400D-B5E3-D74AB720B971%40gmail.com.

--

How to develop perfect pitch

[John F. Hess]

I really liked Pete's answer and I've been pondering Jim's original email.  

Paragraph 1: Intro, "I offer ideas".  Great thought/start.  Significantly derailed by mention of F******* and subtle (not subtle) demeaning/insulting folks who want bikeways.  "especially those arguments that discount or even attack the ideas of John Forester and "Driver Behavior"/"Vehicular Cycling" in order, apparently, to emphasize the introduction of bikeways...".  Not every word Mr F wrote is gold.  I am/was particularly offended by his depiction of folks on bike paths riding as slow as pedestrians walk while "competent" cyclists ride in 25 mph traffic and keep up with motorists. 

Paragraph 2  Great paragraph, but the double meanings are crippling.  For example, what do you  mean "we can improve roadway and bikeway infrastructure AND we can improve the skill and abilities of individual bicyclists (and motorists?)"  Do you mean we can make bike lanes and cycle tracks along roads so cyclists don't have to ride behind of or in front of motor vehicles?  Or do you mean something else?  Similarly, what do you mean by improve skill and abilities of individual cyclists?  Make them take a Cycle Savvy class and ride in traffic?  I'm all in favor of improving motorist education and skill and have chided the list for giving motorists a "pass"* when "it's too hard to look for a cyclist, so I hit/killed him or her".

Paragraph 3 really seems like your advocating for a place for cyclists to ride that is not in a line of cars.  Is that what you really meant?

Paragraph 4 seems OK, but I'd argue that the Portland confident and capable cyclist designation will take quite a bit of time/experience to attain.  A month may make you a better cyclist, but still not willing or able to tackle really crappy situations. For example, generally speaking, riding in Davis will not give you the skills to ride in fast paced, multi-lane roads in Sacramento.

And in reply to Serge, I know you don't have any numbers for biking riding in Davis in the 60s, no one does.  Suffice it to say, Davis in 2021 is way different from the 1960s. Based on TAPS parking problems, I would guess that new campus employees are more likely to live out of town and commute by car than bike.  A percentage of students also live out of town (cheaper rents) and commute by car to campus.  The town has grown so that students living in town no longer feel a bike ride is the best way to campus.  Combine this with the city/campus Unitrans buses being free to students, many opt for bus to campus, bike around campus, bus home.  Finally, the "small town atmosphere" and "good schools" has turned Davis into a bedroom community for Sacramento and the bay area.  

in reply to Frank, DUH.  Yes there's a continuum.  I was merely using generalities, the PPPC (pedal power pretend car) folks generally think DZBL are a significant enough safety hazard that they are against them (am I wrong?).  Similarly, the PPPC folks are generally against cycle tracks with extra intersections as being unsafe (again, is this a mischaracterization?).  And yes, users of this list write that "Badavocates" want/like the fake protection of a painted line or flexible bollards before riding on the street with cars.

And Sandrine, Davis pays someone to work on "safe routes to schools", trying to get kids to ride to school.  The job is (last I heard) open.

*Do folks remember Leucadia?  Blame the cyclist for not looking to make sure the truck wasn't going to run him over?  Blame the infrastructure because it's impossible to make a right turn unless you pull into a bike lane and then turn?   I'm sure you can find my post of around Dec 11, 2020. Does anyone know what happened?  Did the truck driver even get a ticket?  A pat on the back?

And for fun, I found a couple Youtube videos of Davis.  

For years it was popular to watch traffic circle behavior at the Intersection of Hutch and California on the first day of class at noon.  Here's a video most likely from that day in 2012 (I say that because of the crowd of people sitting and cheering the backward cyclist).  NOTE:  regarding the white van,  motor vehicle traffic is now excluded from campus from 10 minutes before the hour until 10 minutes after the hour.  Except, the campus Unitrans busses are allowed and do run along Hutchison Dr, I think it's horrible, but that's life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0QDBZXL6V4

This is a pretty realistic view of bike traffic on the Davis campus.  Everyone goes, peds, bikes, busses, cars.  Somehow it works, but laws for ROW?  Not quite followed.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIozaQehIVs

Happy hump day, 

[Scott Mace]

Echoing what others said, If infrastructure and education exist upon a spectrum, these days education is in either the infrared or ultraviolet region of the spectrum. That is, unseen.

On Monday evening I tuned into the July meeting of the city of San Jose Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. The topic of Monday night's meeting was to set the work plan for the next 12 months. All manner of infrastructure was on the very long list shared. But nowhere was "education" mentioned. I brought this up, acknowledging that some groups (such as Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition) do hold bicycling training classes, but the city of San Jose (#10 in the country by population) apparently does none, or at the very least, this committee has no top-level view of the situation. The committee seemed quite interested in this, so, in fact, education may now be added to the work plan.

But by and large, advocates these days expect a changing built environment (segregation) to provide EVERYTHING needed for joyful bicycling. Never mind that 95+% of all streets will never be equipped with segregated facilities for cyclists, scooters, etc., or the debates about whether that's a good thing.

Scott Mace

On 7/27/2021 12:21 PM, Pete van Nuys wrote:

[Scott Mace]

Echoing what others said, If infrastructure and education exist upon a spectrum, these days education is in either the infrared or ultraviolet region of the spectrum. That is, unseen.

On Monday evening I tuned into the July meeting of the city of San Jose Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. The topic of Monday night's meeting was to set the work plan for the next 12 months. All manner of infrastructure was on the very long list shared. But nowhere was "education" mentioned. I brought this up, acknowledging that some groups (such as Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition) do hold bicycling training classes, but the city of San Jose (#10 in the country by population) apparently does none, or at the very least, this committee has no top-level view of the situation. The committee seemed quite interested in this, so, in fact, education may now be added to the work plan.

But by and large, advocates these days expect a changing built environment (segregation) to provide EVERYTHING needed for joyful bicycling. Never mind that 95+% of all streets will never be equipped with segregated facilities for cyclists, scooters, etc., or the debates about whether that's a good thing.

Scott Mace

On 7/27/2021 12:21 PM, Pete van Nuys wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/22cecd18-a199-1fa7-b132-4f747c99f166%40cox.net.