The Bicycle Driver's Dilemma.
Jim Baross
John F. Hess
Culture, demographics, topography, climate? Is this a specific dig at Davis? Or Amsterdam? Or is it a more subtle dig at all the places that don't have those things? I've seen things written that claim it's something in Davis water, ha ha again. My experience as a student without a car at UC Davis from 77-81 was typical. I could ride where I needed to go. Speed limits on most streets were 25mph. Bike lanes existed on many streets where I rode. In 1986 I moved to the supposedly fabulous bicycling community of Palo Alto, former home of the infamous first vehicular cyclist (FVC). It was a horrible place to ride a bike.. Luckily, I didn't get killed there. Unfortunately, I drove a motor vehicle a lot. Moving back to Davis in 1990 clinched it for me, I was back on my bike everyday, commuting to work and running errands. Davis was a way better place to ride a bike than Paly. (I was unknowingly benefitting from safety in numbers, to be published in 2003*); Since 1990, I've racked up over 50K miles in day to day riding/commuting and shopping, plus more outside of town on "recreational rides".
The swimming pool comparison was I suppose exaggerated for effect and misses the point of Bicycle Advocates: learning to ride a bicycle, gaining confidence and then continuing to ride for utility and for enjoyment. The pool scenario is in fact much closer to the bicycling situation than the ludicrous example in the essay. Are children or adults thrown into a 12 foot deep diving pool after being given a lecture on how to swim? after taking a test on swimming strokes? No. People are taught how to swim in the shallow end. They have folks there to help them. Do they learn after one session? No. But in time they do learn and from that they gain confidence. After that, the depth of the pool doesn't matter.
In my mind, the division between "we want to ride in traffic folks" and the "we want separate facilities folks" is detrimental to bicycling overall. The "we want to ride in traffic folks" proclaim Everything is dangerous! A driveway, dangerous! A right turn, dangerous! A left turn, dangerous! That bike lane is dangerous! But somehow they think a cyclist at 15 mph in a 35 mph zone holding up motor vehicles is not dangerous and readily accepted by motorists as "traffic". NOT. Reading the infamous first vehicular cyclist book I found the constant assertions that strong cyclists can keep up with 25 mph motor vehicle speeds limited to a small subset of cyclists, mostly MAMILs. Conversely, the FVC claimed that everyone on a "bike path" rode at walking speed, <5mph. The assertion that motorists want bicyclists to be in traffic is a fantasy.
In my opinion, cycling advocates (not BAdvocates. Why would you allow such a term to be used? and have the temerity to object to the use of "strong and fearless" for those who want to ride in traffic?) have been able to get some improvements made to encourage cycling. It's hilarious that the essay ends with this short paragraph: "That approach doesn’t scale into a political movement very easily, but it does produce capable cyclists — people who have discovered, sometimes to their own surprise, that riding in traffic is not only manageable but genuinely pleasant, once you understand how it works." Who wants to ride in motor vehicle traffic? Can anyone on this list actually say that he/she prefers riding in a lane with cars all around in preference to an empty road? If you do claim to want to ride with cars all around, would you consider yourself fearful or fearless? The answer seems clear to me. And if you're not impending traffic by keeping up with 25 mph speeds, you sound pretty strong to me. Of course, if you're riding in traffic and slowing motor vehicles down, then you're generating anti-cyclist feelings in motorists and that is certainly not good for any cyclist.
Unabashed proponent of providing cycling infrastructure to encourage more people to ride bicycles, cheers,
* might want to look up Elvik R, Bjørnskau T. Safety-in-numbers: A systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence. Safety Science [Internet]. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753515001812
Pete van Nuys
The link John provides does not lead to a study of
credible research into the supposed "safety in numbers."
It leads to an abstract by two Norwegian folks.
They site 26 studies which we must assume support
the cultural assertion by most Scandinavians
that the whole world will be vastly improved if only
more humans would ride bikes every day.
Unfortunately in the conclusion it's revealed that:
The remaining 11 studies had various
methodological shortcomings that prevented
them from being included in the meta-analysis.
And so it goes with the data regarding most-- maybe
all--
of the assertions of the Badvocates.
Their passion to force infrastructure on 100% of road users
for the 1% of their would-be global warriors
cannot be moderated.
Bicycling is great, as all CABOforum readers know.
It's also rather inconvenient for Americans
who live in cities designed in the 20th Century.
Even cities with wide boulevards, wide outside lanes,
and good sight lines.
It's not inherently dangerous.
Not even uncomfortable -- weather permitting.
But adapting to transportation cycling
is simply inconceivable, i.e. virtually impossible,
for most Americans.
And the biggest issue: that awful Exercise thing.
Americans are exercise averse.
We're trained from birth that any and all
Goods or Services must have two fundamental qualities:
Convenience and Ease of Use.
If a thing or activity doesn't fit my current lifestyle
it can be shunned, pushed out of consideration.
So it is with the bicycling we all cherish.
We have learned to overcome that nasty exercise issue,
find it a feature in fact.
We have learned that the benefits vastly
outweigh the inconvenience of arriving sweaty,
maybe in funny clothes, and having to stash our trusty
"wheel" just as (some of) our great-grandfathers did.
But the Badvocates know they can cajole, whine,
fear monger, and lie if they must to make government
build dangerous "infra."
Because they believe the reason people from "8 to 80"
aren't joining them on the front lines is
they're just don't "feel safe" on the street.
No.
The reason only 2% max
of Americans don't ride is because
They Don't Want To.
Americans believe it's their choice.
They look around.
They drive 80 miles round trip to work.
They have kids and groceries to schlep.
Soccer practice. Social events.
And even the coolest $5,000 bicycle
looks like a toy to them.
And, c'mon, it is.
You want visible proof?
Look at "Ebikes."
Get ride of that nasty Exercise and a whole
giant cohort of the American market
-- previously inaccessible
to the bicycle industry--
has jumped onboard.
Sure, half of 'em are illegal.
Sure, kids and adults alike ride like
idiots.
Sure, ER visits are up 1,000% where
teenage boys run wild.
But that blows the whole
"don't feel safe" lie
Badvocates have been pedaling
for years.
And the infra they yearn for
is completely ill-designed for
heavier, wider, faster E-things.
Just another detail Badvocates
can blow off.
John reaffirms his staunch support for infra
because it "encourages more people to ride."
I hope he can prove that; I'd love to see
those numbers. But that study, too,
has never been conducted.
Just like safety in numbers it's an
empty assertion.
Thanks for the link; I kid. Same drivel as always. I particularly liked this bit: "The empirical case for Safety in Numbers rests largely on correlational data: cities with high cycling rates tend to have lower rates of cycling injuries. But this confuses cause and effect. Cities with high cycling rates tend to be cities with culture, demographics, topography, climate, and urban forms that are already amenable to cycling — and to careful driving. The numbers don’t create the safety. The underlying conditions create both."
Culture, demographics, topography, climate? Is this a specific dig at Davis? Or Amsterdam? Or is it a more subtle dig at all the places that don't have those things? I've seen things written that claim it's something in Davis water, ha ha again. My experience as a student without a car at UC Davis from 77-81 was typical. I could ride where I needed to go. Speed limits on most streets were 25mph. Bike lanes existed on many streets where I rode. In 1986 I moved to the supposedly fabulous bicycling community of Palo Alto, former home of the infamous first vehicular cyclist (FVC). It was a horrible place to ride a bike.. Luckily, I didn't get killed there. Unfortunately, I drove a motor vehicle a lot. Moving back to Davis in 1990 clinched it for me, I was back on my bike everyday, commuting to work and running errands. Davis was a way better place to ride a bike than Paly. (I was unknowingly benefitting from safety in numbers, to be published in 2003*); Since 1990, I've racked up over 50K miles in day to day riding/commuting and shopping, plus more outside of town on "recreational rides".
The swimming pool comparison was I suppose exaggerated for effect and misses the point of Bicycle Advocates: learning to ride a bicycle, gaining confidence and then continuing to ride for utility and for enjoyment. The pool scenario is in fact much closer to the bicycling situation than the ludicrous example in the essay. Are children or abutdults thrown into a 12 foot deep diving pool after being given a lecture on how to swim? after taking a test on swimming strokes? No. People are taught how to swim in the shallow end. They have folks there to help them. Do they learn after one session? No. But in time they do learn and from that they gain confidence. After that, the depth of the pool doesn't matter.
In my mind, the division between "we want to ride in traffic folks" and the "we want separate facilities folks" is detrimental to bicycling overall. The "we want to ride in traffic folks" proclaim Everything is dangerous! A driveway, dangerous! A right turn, dangerous! A left turn, dangerous! That bike lane is dangerous! But somehow they think a cyclist at 15 mph in a 35 mph zone holding up motor vehicles is not dangerous and readily accepted by motorists as "traffic". NOT. Reading the infamous first vehicular cyclist book I found the constant assertions that strong cyclists can keep up with 25 mph motor vehicle speeds limited to a small subset of cyclists, mostly MAMILs. Conversely, the FVC claimed that everyone on a "bike path" rode at walking speed, <5mph. The assertion that motorists want bicyclists to be in traffic is a fantasy.
Furthermore, "the folks who want to ride in traffic" manifest what I call IMS, infallible motorist syndrome; whatever the motorist does that results in hitting a bicyclist is not the motorists fault, it’s the infrastructure. A few years ago I wrote an email to this list following a killing of a cyclist by a cement truck. Everyone but me blamed the infrastructure or the cyclist. No one thought that the truck driver should have looked to see if the path was clear before turning into a driveway and running over a cyclist. Sad to say this is a logical result given that the past 100 years has been a long slow effort of making the infrastructure so motor vehicle supportive that they couldn’t possibly look out for anything that would interfere. When people criticize infrastructure, I usually counter with start requiring motorists to actually pay attention and be attentive.
In my opinion, cycling advocates (not BAdvocates. Why would you allow such a term to be used? and have the temerity to object to the use of "strong and fearless" for those who want to ride in traffic?) have been able to get some improvements made to encourage cycling. It's hilarious that the essay ends with this short paragraph: "That approach doesn’t scale into a political movement very easily, but it does produce capable cyclists — people who have discovered, sometimes to their own surprise, that riding in traffic is not only manageable but genuinely pleasant, once you understand how it works." Who wants to ride in motor vehicle traffic? Can anyone on this list actually say that he/she prefers riding in a lane with cars all around in preference to an empty road? If you do claim to want to ride with cars all around, would you consider yourself fearful or fearless? The answer seems clear to me. And if you're not impending traffic by keeping up with 25 mph speeds, you sound pretty strong to me. Of course, if you're riding in traffic and slowing motor vehicles down, then you're generating anti-cyclist feelings in motorists and that is certainly not good for any cyclist.
Unabashed proponent of providing cycling infrastructure to encourage more people to ride bicycles, cheers,
* might want to look up Elvik R, Bjørnskau T. Safety-in-numbers: A systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence. Safety Science [Internet]. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753515001812
On Thursday, July 23, 2026 at 12:02:31 PM UTC-7 Jim Baross wrote:
An essay by Justin McMurtry, The Bicycle Drivers' Dilemma, https://www.onfurtherreflection.blog/p/the-bicycle-drivers-dilemma
"Cycling advocacy should be straightforward: you want people to ride bicycles, and you want them to do so safely and effectively. But even people who share those goals often disagree sharply about how to achieve them. Some prioritize dedicated infrastructure that makes cycling feel safe to newcomers; others prioritize the skills and confidence to be safe regardless of infrastructure. I’ve spent more than two decades thinking about that disagreement, and this essay is about what I’ve learned."
Jim BarossCABO President
--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/0bae2c05-9396-47e9-a51d-9d823eab0db2n%40googlegroups.com.
