[SDCBC] What were they thinking?

[Mike Elliott]

Thanks, Serge -- I recognize what you're saying and it makes sense.

Experienced cyclists are distrustful of "Bike Lane" signs -- we know 
they mean nothing. It might be a ride in the park, or it might be the 
most "exciting" ride one's ever taken. Novices not so.

So yeah, my language was charged with war-zone imagery, and maybe that 
was a bit much. I do know that if I had a loved one visiting out here, 
someone I knew hadn't either taken Road 2 or been riding in traffic all 
their life, I'd use whatever language I needed to to dissuade them from 
riding through areas of heightened danger.

-- 
Mike "Rocket J Squirrel" Elliott

On 3/26/2008 11:23 AM Serge Issakov wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Mike Elliott <camping.elliott at gmail.com 
> <mailto:camping.elliott at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     While riding with and in traffic is always risky business, there are
>     degrees of riskiness, and intersections like this one are riskier than
>     many other places where cages and bicycles mix. To my mind, such places
>     are essentially combat zones where only the alert, hardened, and trained
>     rider can survive; and if it is a war there then either the bike lane
>     should be removed so civilians don't wander into that meat grinder by
>     accident, or new signage should be added describing the area as a
>     conflict-level intersection.
> 
> 
> John Eldon wrote:
> 
>     My point has consistently been that Mike's "combat zone"
>     intersections need to be demilitarized ...
> 
> 
> With all due respect to Mike and John, I think such language ("always 
> risky business", "combat zones", "can survive", "need to be 
> demilitarized") greatly overstates the dangers of cycling in such areas, 
> and exaggerates ("only the alert, hardened and trained can survive") how 
> difficult it is to obtain and develop the skills, knowledge and 
> confidence required to ride through "intersections like this one" 
> safely, and reflects a cycling-discouraging attitude.  One might argue 
> (but I won't) that such fear mongering language has no place on the list 
> of an organization that /promotes/ cycling, including, presumably, the 
> notion that cycling in traffic is (given roads and motorist behavior as 
> they currently are) a reasonably safe activity.
> 
> Having said that, yes, the average cyclist whose traffic cycling safety 
> beliefs rest on the premise that the primary rules are to /assume you're 
> invisible/ and/ stay out of the way of cars/ is going to find such 
> intersections to be challenging and uncomfortable to navigate.  And, 
> yes, you do have to be alert - but that should go without saying.   But 
> the solution is not to feed the monster by reinforcing false notions of 
> exaggerated dangers, but by spreading within the cycling culture the 
> knowledge and skills required to slay this imaginary monster.  It's just 
> not very difficult to achieve the necessary level of traffic cycling 
> skill and knowledge, and the rewards are enormous.  That's what I would 
> like to see at least one cycling advocacy group focus on, and this San 
> Diego organization seems to me to be an excellent choice for that.
> 
> Technically, learning to safely navigate this type of intersection is 
> not supposed to be covered until the Road 2 course, but I know that at 
> least Kerry and Brian both include it in at least some of their Road 1 
> classes, depending on the abilities of their students.
> 
> Serge
> 
> -- 
> NOTE: Any opinions expressed above are mine and not necessarily shared 
> by any organization in which I am involved.