{"id":333,"date":"2012-12-21T16:54:40","date_gmt":"2012-12-21T22:54:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/iamtraffic.org\/?p=333"},"modified":"2014-07-30T11:12:27","modified_gmt":"2014-07-30T17:12:27","slug":"cyclingsavvy-works","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/iamtraffic.org\/education\/cyclingsavvy-works\/","title":{"rendered":"CyclingSavvy Works"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s\u00a0not <\/em>Effective Cycling repackaged with a new name.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

A common criticism of cyclist education is simply that \u201cit doesn\u2019t work.\u201d \u00a0Presented with such a statement, I suppose we first have to ask, \u201cwork at what?\u201d \u00a0Those making the claim seem to be saying it doesn\u2019t work at getting more people to ride bikes. \u00a0I don\u2019t think many are claiming a trained cyclist is just as likely to crash as an untrained one.<\/p>\n

Perhaps they may be right that it doesn\u2019t get more people to ride bikes; but on the other hand I know individuals who have most certainly increased their cycling due to education. They have said so themselves. \u00a0No doubt the \u201cit doesn\u2019t work\u201d claim is based on a belief that few people will take a traffic cycling course.<\/p>\n

\"katherine\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This debate is at the core of how our society decides to promote cycling.<\/p>\n

Do we take an ends-justify-the-means approach in which almost any strategy which encourages people to bike is deemed okay, or do we help each individual maximize their safety, comfort and competence through means which are as ethical as possible? \u00a0Those who argue for \u201cgetting more people on bikes\u201d use cycling as a means to various ends: health, climate change, community livability, etc. \u00a0Certainly those are all worthy goals, but it has led proponents to take some liberties with science, and misled many people about what factors are important both in increasing the number of cyclists and improving safety. \u00a0They argue that increasing the numbers of cyclists will make cycling safer in spite of hazards created by some types of bicycle-specific infrastructure.<\/p>\n

While it\u2019s true that an increase in the numbers of bicyclists reduces the overall crash rate, the same is true of auto use<\/a> and walking. \u00a0Analysis of one study of a Danish bikeway found that the decrease in crash rate was less than would be predicted by Smeed\u2019s Law. \u00a0To put it in a more direct light: the number<\/em> <\/strong>of crashes went up<\/em> <\/strong>more than it would have if there had been no bikeway. \u00a0Increasing numbers of bicyclists can<\/em> <\/strong>improve safety, but only given the right circumstances. \u00a0And even if safety in numbers through facilities does reduce the injury and fatality rates, if those same facilities actually cause some injuries and deaths, then we must question the ethics of such a strategy, especially if other strategies are available which would be less likely to cause harm.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s more, proponents assert that the right types of facilities significantly increase cycling. \u00a0But the scientific support for this is also debatable. \u00a0There are numerous factors that affect bicycle mode share, including climate, demographics, density, street network connectivity, terrain, the costs of owning and operating a motor vehicle, and most importantly, the presence of a college or university in a community. \u00a0Do places with bicycle facilities get more cyclists, or do places with more cyclists get more bicycle facilities? \u00a0It may be both. \u00a0But if increases in cycling are due in large part to factors other than bikeways, then any reduction in the crash rate is indirectly due to those other factors, not to the bikeways, and if those bikeways cause or contribute to conflicts and crashes — which they do — then providing bikeways as means of increasing use and improving safety does not work and is in fact unethical.<\/p>\n

Aside from the debate about whether or not bikeways improve safety, the need for cyclist training is essential. \u00a0Florida emergency room data shows that two-thirds of adult bicyclist hospital admissions do not involve a collision with a motor vehicle. \u00a0A significant portion of bicyclist\/motorist crashes occur on local streets which will never see any sort of bicyclist-specific accommodation. \u00a0Crashes involving turning and crossing conflicts occur whether one is cycling on a cycle track, a bike lane, a sidepath, a sidewalk, or on a road with no special accommodation at all. \u00a0Training cyclists reduces their crash risk for all of these circumstances.<\/p>\n

I — and other proponents of bicycle driving — am often assumed to be against all types of bicyclist-oriented infrastructure. \u00a0That is not at all true. \u00a0I support and very much enjoy shared use paths that run through independent rights-of-way. Short paths that connect local street networks. \u00a0Bicycle boulevards. \u00a0Bike routes and wayfinding that help people stay off of heavily traveled arterials. \u00a0Shared lane markings on those arterials. \u00a0Ensuring traffic signal systems detect bicyclists. \u00a0Well-design traffic calming that keeps motorist speeds down or diverts motorist traffic. \u00a0Even sidepaths can be a good solution in the right context. \u00a0None of these treatments (if properly designed) encourages bicyclists to violate the rules for vehicular movement.<\/p>\n

A Failure of Marketing, Not a Failure of Education<\/h2>\n

Another problem with the \u201cit doesn\u2019t work\u201d claim is that it assumes cyclist education and training to be quite limited in definition. \u00a0Adult cyclist education is presumed to be all the same. \u00a0For many years, adult education was limited mostly to the League of American Bicyclists\u2019 Traffic Skills 101 course and other descendants of John Forester\u2019s Effective Cycling program. \u00a0All other adult-oriented courses tend to be lumped together with them.<\/p>\n

When detractors say, \u201cWe tried education; it doesn\u2019t work (at getting enough people on bikes),\u201d what they are likely seeing is not a failure of a particular curriculum, but a failure to effectively market a curriculum. \u00a0Marketing is not merely advertising, it is determining what kind of product or service to provide in the first place and how to deliver it to the marketplace. \u00a0And that, I believe, is where earlier bicyclist education programs have failed the most.<\/p>\n

A number of years ago when Keri Caffrey and I were discussing what we\u2019d like to see in adult cyclist education, we were frustrated with the materials we had to work with (the League curriculum) as well as with those who said education was of little value. \u00a0We knew from direct experience teaching people that education had great potential, but also saw it fail for many individuals. \u00a0To us that meant the problem was the teaching strategy, not education per se. \u00a0Sitting in League education meetings and reading posts on the League Cycling Instructor email list, I saw how they were nibbling around the edges trying to incrementally improve a marginally effective curriculum, or arguing endlessly over minutiae such as whether or not to use a mirror. \u00a0Hardly anyone was asking who their students were, what they want, how they learn best, how they want to manage their time, and how much they might value good training. \u00a0The League\u2019s curriculum seemed to be based more on what they wanted to teach than on what the customer wanted.<\/p>\n

The League\u2019s course is based on the original Effective Cycling curriculum developed by John Forester; many of the long-time League instructors have wanted to return to it. \u00a0Effective Cycling was originally a 30-hour course, developed in the 1980s. It was intended to make someone into a highly competent sport rider, interested and capable of doing long-distance rides at higher speeds. \u00a0The League whittled that down into two 10-hour courses, initially named Road I and Road II; later renamed Traffic Skills 101 and 201. \u00a0While thousands have taken Road I and Traffic Skills 101, only a tiny number have followed up with the second course. \u00a0TS 101 attempts to achieve the same goal in 10 hours\u00a0— making an individual into a competent sport rider — as did the original 30-hour course. \u00a0To do so, students are given a significant amount of information on bicycle components, bike fit, special clothing, minor repairs, hydration and nutrition, cadence and gearing. \u00a0This leaves relatively little time for learning traffic skills.<\/p>\n

For the average person who just wants to bike around his or her community at a comfortable speed, to run errands, visit friends, bike to work, or just have fun, most of those sport-cyclist-oriented topics are wasted time, and make cycling seem more complicated and elite than they want it to be.<\/p>\n

CyclingSavvy was designed\u00a0from 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. \u00a0Observers of our courses will see very few Lycra shorts or club jerseys, and quite a few bikes with raised handlebars rather than dropped ones.<\/p>\n

Core Concepts<\/h2>\n

Fear was of course an essential issue we had to battle for those intimidated by the thought of cycling amid motor vehicle traffic. \u00a0That fear is based on beliefs, not on an objective assessment of clearly organized data, so belief-change<\/em> became a core goal of the curriculum.
\n\"cycles_simple\"<\/a><\/p>\n

As anyone who has waded into some of the hot-button issues of the day can tell you, beliefs don\u2019t get overturned merely by presenting facts. \u00a0How those facts are presented are at least as important as the facts themselves. \u00a0So Keri and I did a lot of reading on how to influence people. The most important strategies are getting students to \u201cown\u201d key concepts by discovering the information themselves, and by having them publicly break the taboos of traffic cycling in a peer-supported setting. \u00a0These strategies are unique to CyclingSavvy.<\/p>\n

The other critical strategy was focusing on right-brained learning. \u00a0Bicycling is a four-dimensional, kinesthetic and social experience, so learning must take place in all of those modes. \u00a0Few people can fully translate a written or verbal description, or even a static illustration, into a coherent four-dimensional model in their heads. \u00a0Animation and video get us much further with students. \u00a0Story-telling in the classroom and the group road tour make it social, and of course on-bike training brings in the essential kinesthetic component.<\/p>\n

How CyclingSavvy Differs From Effective Cycling<\/h2>\n

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. \u00a0But the differences do matter. \u00a0They matter because most people want to minimize the amount of time they spend cycling on high-speed arterials. \u00a0Depending on where one lives, much of one\u2019s cycling can be accomplished on lower-speed, lower-volume streets. \u00a0We like cycling on such streets as much for their ambiance as for safety (or the perception of safety). \u00a0We can ride side-by-side and talk to one another. \u00a0They tend to be more shaded (important here in the subtropics of Florida). \u00a0There\u2019s more to see and enjoy.<\/p>\n

But sooner or later we need to cross or use a stretch of arterial to get to our destination or to the next network of quiet streets. \u00a0CyclingSavvy\u2019s strategies show cyclists how to use these arterials in the most stress-free ways possible. \u00a0Examples include:<\/p>\n