“CyclingSavvy was designed from the outset for the average adult who wishes to bike around his or her community at a comfortable and sociable speed; who prefers to avoid busy arterials but occasionally needs to use them for short distances to get to a destination or another quiet, low-volume street.”
This is, of course, useless in most of San Diego where a ride of any distance is going to require one to ride through fast paced, high volume streets.
For the slower streets, most people can learn enough about street riding by doing a Tweed, Taco, or Sunday morning ride. A full blown class is NOT necessary for something as simple as riding a bicycle, which like I said can be done by a toddler.
“How CyclingSavvy Differs From Effective Cycling”
One thing I’d like to know is do the CyclingSavvy (sic) People feel that Effective Cycling sucks (say real fast three times). Inquiring minds want to know.
“Since the rules for vehicular movement are nearly universal, especially in North America, the similarities between CyclingSavvy and Effective Cycling are far more prominent than their differences.”
I have no idea what “rules for vehicular movement” means. It sounds like they believe that there are some kind of universal laws for riding a “vehcicle” that have been discovered like the Laws Of Physics rather than semi-random humans trying to interact, usually at high speed, in an environment which was built without any kind of study for safety nor any particular concern for non-motorized traffic.
“So we control the lane so motorists don’t try to squeeze past in an unsafe manner, but then, if conditions allow, we move over and strategically allow motorists to pass at lower speed, or at locations where we get some extra width to work with.”
While this makes sense, we must note here that this is TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THE DRIVER OF A MOTORIZED VEHICLE IS TAUGHT TO DO. THUS IT’S NICE TO SEE THAT CYCLING SAVVY UNDERSTANDS THAT BICYCLISTS SHOULD BE TREATED BY BICYCLISTS INSTEAD OF LIKE MOTORIZED VEHICLES.
Yeah for common sense.
On the other hand, I never do what is stated above because I’m too afraid.
“One need only read the student stories on the CyclingSavvy website to see that speed is of little consequence in getting the average non-sport cyclist to be confident in traffic.”
It’s nice to be “confident”, but this is a false confidence. CYCLING IN THE TRAVEL THE LANE ON A HIGH SPEED ROAD, IS VERY DANGEROUS. This is proven by looking at the five million a year rear endings that motor vehicles get each year. This is quite a bit. Motor vehicles tend to be much faster than bicycles, but one of the things that make getting rear ended, in a car, is slow speed compared with traffic. This has been proven each year since the dawn of motoring and the crash data is available for anyone with an internet connection, a brain, and a single working finger.
“Forester in Effective Cycling and the League of American Bicyclists in their curricula tell cyclists to drive in the right wheel track when the lane is too narrow to share. What we have found, and what has been confirmed by research done by Dan Gutierrez and Brian DeSousa in southern California, is that the right tire track can sometimes be the worst position, particularly on higher-speed, multi-lane arterials.”
Again, if I were truly “driving my bicycle”, I’d be in the middle of the lane at all times. This lesson treats cyclists like they differ from motorists. While I applaud this great leap to common sense, I am bewildered as to why these people continue to say stupid things like their bicycle should be considered a vehicle when this is meaningless if “vehicle” means should focus on minutia such as lane position that motorists have no concern about what so ever.
Also, Ken Cross’ research says that you should ride on the right part of the shoulder which is not in the lane at all. In fact, he considered the travel lane to be the most dangerous place to ride on the road.
I have asked this question in numerous forums and I have yet to have gotten a response to why they are contradicting this point.
“…and yes, even the pedestrian-style dismount-and-use-the-crosswalk (not recommended for Florida and other states where motorists treat pedestrians poorly).”
Fantastic. Nice to see context considered. Also, this is an intelligent and safe way to cross a large street. Again, good job. However, all of this would be totally useless with proper infrastructure.