Alan's Letters:Vehicular Cyclism
29th of January 2009
I've just copied some excerpts from what has been a very confrontational e-mail exchange with a very assertive and emphatic exponent of 'vehicular' cycling , in reply to my comments on The Fear of Cycling discussion aired on Radio New Zealand on January 29th 2009.
'Take the lane' ride hard out, 'comply or die' and all that macho stuff .... ( my replies and comments are in green
Sorry it's a bit of a mish-mash and although much of this may be viewed as heretical by many cycle advocates in New Zealand, I believe it is essential that anyone working in this field be exposed to other working models.
I preceded the second part of my reply to hime with the following anecdote: While I was riding into college this morning ( 29th of January 2009)I decided to take my old route ( through Addington Raceway and the back streets of Addington ) in which I come out near the Hagley Park end of Lincoln Road which I've been avoiding as I've been run off the road several times by cars undertaking vehicles that have stopped in the traffic to turn right into Harman Street.
Predictably a car stopped to turn right and the cars next to me all started cutting in to the cycle lane and pushing me further and further into the cars parked to my left.
Just as I was giving the offending driver the fingers, I saw the cyclist who had passed me back up the road lying on the road with 4 people around him having just been hit by a car crossing the cycle lane to pull into the gas station on the corner.
I will continue to avoid using this piece of road again. I'm not saying it doesn't happen , but in 10 years of riding in Japan, I never saw any accidents and especially none like that.
- And that is the 2nd car vs cyclist accident I have witnessed this week and I don't even see many cyclists here.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He wrote:
"By my definition a proficient cyclist understands Cycle safety and acts on it."
The best way to stay safe is to avoid danger. Ask any New Zealander who won't cycle.
Avoiding danger is still an effective behaviour when cycling.
"A proficient cyclist has no problem with parked cars."
That is a dangerous assertion
I wouldn't call you a proficient cyclist.
If I am not a proficient cyclist , then who is ?
I am 49 years old and have been cycling since I was 11. ( I grew up in west Auckland) so I am not a novice.
I have ridden extensively in Japanese cities ( for 10 years) and on long trips through that country and have also cycled in India, Indonesia, China and occasionally in a few other countries.
I never had any incidents in those countries.
In New Zealand I have had many incidents in which through my own actions I avoided collisions with motor-vehicles . I would say I am a proficient cyclist.
I prefer to avoid any situations in which I have to relinquish control of my destiny to the drivers of motor vehicles whom I have no reason to trust.
Where appropriate, riding segregated from motor vehicles on the footpath is my preferred option. Even at the risk of getting a $200 fine.
If I am concerned about getting somewhere as fast as possible, I will ride on the road but I resent being forced to ride on the road when there is a safer segregated route available to me.
Its people feeling safe that increases Cyclist numbers not actually being safe.
People are not stupid and those who want to live to grow old do not take risks.
If risks exist for cyclists, only those who are willing to take those risks will cycle.
That's why there are so few cyclists in New Zealand .
An added risk that cyclists in New Zealand face is that of being fined for choosing to
segregate themselves from motor-vehicular traffic.
Proficient Cyclists ride where it is safe and where they are visable the problem is the
novices who usually travel slower and like to ride on the footpath or as
far away from the traffic as possible.
"It is the configuration that puts cyclists between
> parked and moving
> vehicles and the fear is always of the aberrant."
This configuration that you quote as being unsafe. Is safe. Ride where the experts tell you to.
1 meter from parked cars. Its the safest place. Not just because they say it is. It is because its where you are most visible. Car doors are a secondary matter that is also solved by this. If you are riding where you are safest then no car door can ever hit you.
This is a dangerous assertion that is simply not true.
You can NEVER state how things 'SHOULD' be according to your assertion.
The real world is full of an infinite range of variables, some predictable, others less so.
Ask the other guy who was killed on the same day that the Police cycle guy was killed in
Wellington. Knocked off by a door then killed by the car behind him.
Rather then putting all this effort into encouraging people to ride in a less safe place.
Isn't it better just to say ride 1 meter from parked cars.
Absolutely not !
Focusing on increasing proficiency and making it easier to become proficient is one step. Thats where cycle lanes are good they make the semi proficient feel safe.
We have to let go of the idea that all potential 'would-be' cyclists are going to be like those of us who are cycling now. Can you imagine your grandmother or people of her generation riding a mountain bike in heavy traffic ? - A large proportion of cyclists in Japan are elderly ladies on their heavily laden shopping bikes. I'm yet to see that here.
People develop the skills they need to do what THEY personally need to do.
Its the Novices that are scared of riding on the road that need to be
reached to get significant numbers to get the safety through numbers
effect.
Why stick with this assertion that ALL cyclists have to ride on the road AT ALL TIMES ?
Conditions in Japanese cities are in many places extremely similar to what we have here
but Japanese cyclists habitually cycle on the footpaths. 86 million of them.
See http://urbanbicycles.googlepages.com/japan
There may be a similar number of cyclists in Japan who ride on the roads there but they are probably less than 2 % of all cyclists there. ( and that is being generous ) .
The rest are the people who are not cycling here.- The people who WILL NEVER cycle on the roads. The 'vulnerable' user groups. Old ladies, young ladies, old men , kids, 'ordinary people' of all shapes and sizes.
Why move proficient Cyclists off the road just so novices can feel safe?
I'm not advocating that cyclists who want to ride on the road should move off the road at all !.
I'm advocating that people who don't want to ride on the roads should not be forced
to . ( which is why we have so few cyclists in New Zealand ) and that priority be given to making provision for them first .
So I suggest keep the Proficient cyclists where they should be and ween Novices from other facilitys when they become proficient.
I am already proficient and I am defending my right to choose where I feel I am safest.
They know where to go, and motorists should know in theory where to expect them.
It only takes one time for a cyclist to be unlucky and that may well be their last time.
The measures you suggest do not save you from unknown drivers rather the opposite it puts you at more risk from them.
That hasn't been my experience. I would prefer to survive as 'my own scientist' than to die as a part of a large experiment run by 'experts'.
The roads are safer unless you do really stupid things on the road.
Like this morning? (The cyclist in front of me was hit by a car and seriously injured ,-while riding on a straight piece of road. )
As long as the possibility exists of : having a door open up in front of you or of having a car pull in on you to park, or to pull out of a park , or of being hit from behind, you are never going
to get the risk-averse to use bicycles.
Well there are two factors as I said more cyclists means more awareness so more people will check.
On the other hand they are less visible in the first place.
This visibility thing you keep referring to needs further definition.
The driver who almost ran me of the road this morning had just passed me.
There is no way in the world that s/he didn't 'see' me.
It is also very likely thay s/he did indeed 'notice' me too.
It is very likely that they made a ( wrong ) calculation about where (they hoped) I'd be .
It is this active dismissing what one sees in order to facilitate the continuation of one's place either within the flow or through a specific manouvre , despite being fully aware that they are taking a chance which may involve harm to the cycliist.
This is where ( if you are going to force cyclists to ride on roads ) the law can be used.
Unfortunately for the cyclist, this is not of much use after the event.
The law isn't creating problems. Its people not following good principles and ignoring the law that is the problem.
If everyone followed the Law there would be no accidents.
If........- sorry, but I can not afford to blindly trust drivers.
The law insists that Cars make sure the way is clear before turning.
People do get fines and penalties. But following out of fear still doesn't address the core of the problem, people need to value good principles and live them consistently.
At which point the tap comes on the shoulder and the reminder that we are all human and all become complacent and make mistakes. yeah it would be great if we didn't though.
....Nothing I do on bicycle should be illegal. I am a cautious, conscientious and safe cyclist.
- Yet, most of what I do on a bicycle IS illegal.
I was fined last year for refusing to wear a helmet. I resent that.
- As would the 86 million unhelmeted cyclists in Japan and the 120 million unhelmeted cyclists in the EU.
I resent the authorities , who on one hand say we need to be reducing our carbon emissions, while on the other hand gaining financially from fining those of us who are acting upon their commitment. ( I ride about 15 kms per day )
It would more sensible if the police were to issue 'spot rewards' to anyone who is cycling.
( For every 1$ spent on cycle promotion, there is an estimated $20 reduction in costs to the economy)
If you respect the findings of science of Climatology you will understand why I 'bother myself'to be involved in making cycling practicable by the greatest number of people.
Getting as many New Zealanders to stop using private motor cars is THE biggest step we can each take ( I don't own a car) towards minimising our greenhouse gas emissions.
I lived for 10 years surrounded by the reality of a society in which a very large percentage of the population ride bicycles as their everyday transport .
- Where it IS commonplace to see mothers with kids on the front and back of their bicycles with all their shopping , to see girls and old ladies, old men, kids , - on bikes.
'Vulnerable users' are just ordinary people.
Japanese cyclists are not subject to any punitive laws or restrictions on their mobility and they choose where possible to ride on the footpaths, - and virtually none of them wear helmets.
http://urbanbicycles.googlepages.com/japan
That is the REALITY of what cycling looks like when everyone does it.
It is not some whacko idealistic dream that I am trying to impose .
I am merely communicating it to what seems to be an extremely hostile , defensive and unreceptive audience.
I am certain that if you were to impose the same punitive regime as we have here on the cyclists in Japan, that you'd see a similar abandonment of cycling to that which we have here.
The reality is in New Zealand that a percentage only slightly above zero choose to take the risks that are associated with complying with the authoritarian patronistic laws that apply to cyclists here.
.
" majority of us it is plain to see that fundamentally,
> forcing cyclists to
> ride ON THE ROAD with motor vehicles is potentially
> extremely dangerous."
The majority that you are referring to are wrong. Riding on the road is safer.
The experts and logical scientists among us are right.
So were the communists !
The Japanese didn't even bother designing facilities for cyclists.
They just let them find their own way with existing facilities and let them look after themselves.
It works !
Your whole paradigm is based on creating 'model users'.
This is where the authoritarian approach is fatally flawed.
The reality is that the number of humans who are perfect is rather limited.
Designs which create a preconception of 'the ideal user' and then design for that user will fail in the real world.
Having the freedom to choose what the safest (micro) route is in any given situation is the way forward for the vast majority of humans who prefer making their own decisions than to have blanket decisions imposed upon them.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expecting that all cyclists should behave assertively is a fundamental flaw in cycle planning.
If the non-assertive wont cycle there , it is bad planning.
That's why I wrote Why cycle lanes are fatally flawed .
http://urbanbicycles.googlepages.com/cyclelanes
A important safety issue is that the more cyclists there are the more aware Motorists will be of them.
Yes but we will never have enough cyclists in New Zealand if we keep on expecting them all to be and act like 'model cyclists' ( capable, confident, assertive, athletic, fast, intelligent, decisive, experienced etc)
The general population is simply not like that.
If we want to get the general population cycling , we can't expect them to change to meet your 'ideal model.'.
And there is no political mileage in providing for what are seen as people who look like they can look after themselves. That is why it is so important to prioritise opening up segregated
facilities for vulnerable user groups.
There is much more political mileage in being seen to be acting responsibly to serve the needs of vulnerable users.
Read the article by John Pucher that I've copied in at the bottom of :
http://urbanbicycles.googlepages.com/cyclelanes and google 'Making Cycling Irresistable'
which compares cycling in Europe with that in the Anglophone countries.
============================================