Our conversation continues...

OB: What are the most appalling or objectionable things being done in the name of bike-friendliness?

Oswald: Carelessness about safety and cyclist's rights. In particular, the LAB [League Of American Bicyclists] has awarded and praised very dangerous bike lane and path designs and given awards to cities that ban cyclists from important roads (examples include Ft. Collins, Chicago and Schaumburg). For more BFC [Bicycle Friendly Communities] horror stories, see [this page].

BFC fails to emphasize education -- teaching cyclists to be drivers. Instead it often exploits fears to help sell facilities. Education is given only lukewarm support.

One might think that the premier US cycling organization would insist on the highest standards for any bicycle facilities and refuse to give awards to any communities that have defective or dangerous designs. But it has done the opposite. That is corrupt.

OB: I've read your many objections to the League's awards, policies and practices. I don't claim to know their "real" motives. I'll leave that up to you and other watchdogs to monitor.

However, regarding "defective and dangerous designs" it's obvious that you are not only at odds with the League, but all the transportation engineers and designers that implement these so-called "dangerous practices." It raises interesting questions such as, "Are all these professionals incompetent?" "Or have they formed some great conspiracy with the League to make cycling a living hell?"

Oswald: It is hard to know the motivations of others. My guess is that there is a combination of three elements. (1) There are some who are terrified of motor traffic. People like this are unable to objectively judge hazards. They expose themselves to more danger -- which reinforces their fear. (2) There are many who hate the automobile for its damage to [the] environment and society. I actually share their concerns but I am not an ideologue about it. I do not accept their "ends justify the means" approach. (3) There are some bicycle mercenaries. They are in this business for the money. There is more money in facilities than in education.

OB: I believe the [bad bike lanes & trails] issue is more complex than simply good vs. bad design. Take the notorious bike lane in the door zone as an example. Is that the best place for a bike lane? No. But to stop there and make condemnations doesn't address the entire issue. Was that the only design option on that road section? We don't know unless we research the matter. And what about a driver's responsibility when opening a door into the traffic lane?

Oswald: If there is not room to put a bike zone outside the door zone then there should be no bike lane. If some type of marking is wanted, then "share the road" stencils (sometimes called "sharrows") are much more benign. But education is what is really needed. Last year Cleveland put some stencils right between the tire tracks on Franklin Blvd. near W 25th St. This is the correct spot.

OB: When I attended a Driver's Education course in public school, I was taught to never open a door into the traffic lane without looking. Ever. If I'm rolling over a clearly marked adjacent bike lane to park, I'll note that I must also beware of cyclists passing close to my car at speed. It's my responsibility. But your online materials conveniently don't address this negligence issue. Why is that?

Oswald: No doubt the motorist has the duty of care in opening a door. That said, we know that some fail in this duty. The cyclist can and should take his own safety in his own hands. If one stays out of reach of car doors, then the dooring risk is exactly zero. We need to teach this to cyclists, not lure them into danger.

As for my online materials -- they are addressed to cyclists. I doubt that non-cyclists read them. Preaching to the absent does not accomplish much. If I were teaching a motorists' class then I would certainly cover the responsibility of door opening.

OB: But you do have materials for non-cyclists. What about your course that's intended for police officers? Not only do they need to be aware of a cyclist's right to be on the road, but some "sensitivity" training would go a long way to demonstrating the perils that cyclists face on a regular basis, such as being doored, poor road conditions and harassment from drivers who feel bikes do not belong.

Oswald: What I have is a draft of a booklet that I hope will be distributed to police. There are at least two police courses (in addition to civilian Traffic Cycling 101 (formerly called BikeEd Road 1). One of these is from the Int'l Police Mountain Bike Assoc.. The other is from Massbike.

OB: May I suggest the officers that complete your course be required to ride -- [in civilian clothes] -- on their city streets. Should they become too frustrated in a bike-unfriendly urban environment, they can simply pull out their badges and start handing out tickets. Then perhaps the local media can report these undercover busts and create some real awareness of cyclists' rights on the road.

Oswald: I've suggested that police ride "plain clothes" where there are harassment incidents and that they publicize this to deter perps.

Oswald: Finally, "bike-friendliness" usually reinforces the Three Great Fallacies of bicycle operation. We need to overcome these fallacies, not perpetuate them. Note that believing these fallacies makes cycling much less appealing as well as less safe. How can we promote cycling when people believe these things?

• There is great danger in riding on the road because of traffic passing from behind (fear from the rear).
• Roads are for cars. Cyclists’ greatest duty is “staying out of the way”.
• The normal rules of the road do not apply. Cyclists do not need (or cannot learn) to follow the rules of the road.

OB: I agree that cyclists have equal rights to the road. As for those misguided, outdated local laws that ban road cycling and order it to the sidewalks... those should all be wiped from the books.

But there is real "fear from the rear" and it's primary source is not fear mongering. Most cyclists also travel by car and see how others conduct themselves behind the wheel. With the popularity of cell phones, text messaging, I-pods, Blackberries and other portable personal devices, distracted drivers are more commonplace now than ever and cyclists know it.

In 2006, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported --

"Driver inattention is the leading factor in most crashes and near-crashes, according to a landmark research report released today by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI). Nearly 80 percent of crashes and 65 percent of near-crashes involved some form of driver inattention within three seconds before the event. Primary causes of driver inattention are distracting activities, such as cell phone use, and drowsiness."

Even a brief distraction can prove fatal to a cyclist as this video demonstrates.

You suggest being struck from behind is a rare event. Just three weeks ago I was riding a rural road in Richland County when a car that overtook me veered suddenly and completely off the road a mere second or two after passing me safely, taking out a rural electric service box. Apparently the driver panicked while trying to regain control and mashed the accelerator instead of the brake and [the car] lurched back onto the road at high speed only to veer off again a second time glancing off a tree, taking down a fence before coming to a stop against a shed.

I approached and stopped at the scene. I spoke to the young man (unhurt) who was driving and asked what had caused him to lose control. He responded that "the front wheel caught the edge of the road causing the car to pull suddenly to one side." It was obvious that he didn't want to discuss what he was doing that allowed the car to drift off the road edge. I'm thankful his "distraction" didn't occur a second or two sooner.

More recent data should prove interesting as many expect the problem to worsen. But I question how many drivers will admit to driving distracted once faced with an accident -- or worse yet -- a fatality they caused. My "near miss" driver didn't.

Oswald: Safety statistics show clearly that "hit from behind is rare". Rare things happen, just not often. Also, the statistics indicate that hit from behind is a greater risk in the country than the city. In a city, drivers are less likely to be distracted because they are less likely to get away with it -- they'll hit something. In the country, maybe not.

Forester estimates that only about 2% of car-bike collisions in daylight in urban areas are the "overtaking" type. The rate is much higher at night due to drunkenness (by both motorists & cyclists) and due to inadequate lighting by cyclists plus the generally higher risk of night riding.

We should be concerned more about the 90% and less fearful of the less than 10%. But even that small fraction can be reduced by best practices. Some of these practices (like riding near the middle of the lane under some situations) are counterintuitive.

There have been some interesting discussions about lane position and motorist attentiveness on the LCI (cycling instructors) list and on the chainguard list during the past year or two.

Regarding distractions: cyclists who ride at the extreme edge of the road, including the "ghetto in the gutter" bikelanes blend into the clutter at the edge of the road and are likely to subconsciously be ignored by an approaching motorist. However, the cyclist in the middle of the lane is much more likely to be noticed because (s)he is relevant to the approaching motorist.

On lower-speed roads, the right tire track is often a good spot. However, on a higher-speed urban road, it is important to be noticed and recognized early by the approaching motorist. This means it is better to ride near the middle of the lane or even in the left tire track. Being visible is essential. That means bright clothing during the day and good lights at night.

There are no guarantees, of course. Occasionally one hears of people being hit on a sidewalk, in a market, or even in bed. Indeed this nearly happened to my neighbor across the street. Several years ago, a drunk, trying to outrun police, lost control on a curve, took out a mailbox and hit a tree just outside the bedroom of the house where my neighbors' son was sleeping. The tree was destroyed.

While no-one can have absolute safety, we can adopt lower risk behaviors. Controlling the lane when it is necessary is one of the lower risk behaviors. Few cyclists understand this -- our society does a poor job in cycling instruction. We need better and most of our advocacy organizations are failing us.

OB: I question any national or broad-based statistics regarding cycling in the U.S. as many large urban areas have virtually no bikes on the road in relation to cars. So low numbers of most any bike-related statistic would not be surprising. Stats where cycling is more widespread, say Portland, would be more useful in terms of real data.

City drivers less likely to be distracted? That's highly debatable. The most drivers I see driving while using their cell phones, do so on city streets. Of course my city only has about a 50k population, so perhaps you're suggesting that in larger urban areas drivers stop taking calls.

Not every distraction will lead to an accident and that's precisely the danger. Drivers become accustomed to them and develop a false sense that they can drive safely while doing them.

One could argue that the most skilled road cyclists are bike racers. They race and spend endless hours training on roads in groups and alone. Their experience and bike-handling skills far exceed the average road cyclist. Yet an alarming number of this small, select percentage of the population has been getting mowed down by drivers in the last few years. In fact, entire training groups have been taken out by cars. The overall stats will show this to be a very small number, to be sure. But reports of these events are becoming more commonplace.

In contrast, on a bike trail there are no cars. So along many trail sections this level of danger is simply not present. The only place you can typically encounter vehicular traffic is at a road [or driveway] crossing. If you are careful and vigilant at these points, your chances of a collision with a driver (distracted or otherwise) is quite small. For those intimidated by a particular crossing there are options. You can simply turn around and ride back the way you came, avoiding it altogether. Or, depending on the area, walk your bike along the sidewalk to the nearest intersection to use the pedestrian crossing to reach the other side.

Oswald: There is very little risk that a bike trail can protect from. Bicycle safety studies beginning with Cross-Fisher (still the most complete) show that the vast majority (about 90%) of car-bike crashes involve turning or crossing traffic. (Very similar to the situation with car-car crashes.) Of the remaining 10% at least half are the fault of the cyclist (swerve, drunk, no lights at night, riding wrong-way, etc.) But most uninformed people have the "fear from the rear".

At road and some driveway crossings, where the risk is already much higher, trails generally increase the risk even while they make people feel safe. If crossings are very infrequent, then perhaps people will be careful. But in a city, crossings are usually encountered frequently. Anyone in a hurry (like going to work) is likely to take chances, especially if they do not understand the risk.

This is why I almost always oppose sidepath facilities. They are essentially asphalt sidewalks. But a trail in the country or along a barrier like a large river with very rare road crossings might be relatively safe and could be very useful.

OB: I agree, no bike trail can protect a cyclist just as no roadway can. How one utilizes these lanes makes all the difference. And the choices cyclists make speak volumes:

Touring riders often prefer back roads where exhaust fumes are less of an issue, the scenery is better and traffic is lighter. This choice makes them feel safer and effectively reduces their exposure to traffic. Cross-town bike commuters often opt for quieter roads and avenues (when available), doing the same. Dedicated trails are by far the most popular choice for cyclists and further reduce one's exposure to automobile traffic.

Trail-building continues to grow in Ohio with more communities developing bikeways every year. Cities have long wish lists which include: becoming more walkable, livable, eco and bike-friendly, increasing tourist revenue and luring young professionals to their communities by improving quality of life in their area. Bikeways play a important role in many of these pursuits.

Trails are certainly here to stay. But they are newer infrastructure compared with our roadway system. In that sense trail design and integration into existing transportation corridors is still relatively new and as such will see improvements and redesign as it evolves. Finding fault with a bike lane, trail configuration or even a roadway is not difficult to do and should be done for the sake of safety. But to suggest trails are bad because they haven't been perfected yet, is simply "throwing the baby out with the bath water." A more constructive approach would be to help eradicate weakpoints and speed up the evolution process so trails can be even better sooner, rather than later.

OB: I definitely agree with your "best practices" point made earlier. I strongly suggest that both new and experienced road riders read your online materials for proper road riding. Inexperienced riders will pickup valuable tips and techniques that will teach them to ride more effectively and safely in traffic. They can start practicing these methods with experienced riding partners or small groups if they are intimidated in attempting solo rides initially. Experienced riders can benefit as well, as I discovered for myself. My riding had been creeping toward the gutter in recent years and I was reminded that this can lead to undesirable behavior by drivers determined to "squeeze by."

Aspiring trail riders should learn trail rules before jumping on the trail. Minors and small children should be taught by well-versed parents, mentors or other experienced users. Not only regarding safe practices on the trail, but most importantly at road and driveway crossings and in parking areas. Visit our Trail Rules & Tips and Bikeway Safety pages to get started learning safe practices and techniques.

Oswald: Most people learned how to ride a bike when they were young and they think that is all there is to know. But much of their "knowledge" is based on fallacies. Learning the best practices is not hard except perhaps unlearning the wrong information.

I like to think of safety as involving four or five "layers of safety". About half of car-bike crashes are the fault of the cyclist, thus following the standard rules of the road eliminates about half of the risk. Riding assertively, often near the middle of the lane, deters many motorist mistakes. Anticipating and reacting in advance deters more mistakes. That's the second layer. Layer three involves keeping a safety zone (usually to the right) and knowing some evasive maneuvers allows escaping form the very rare situation that can't be prevented. Finally, safety equipment (helmet, gloves, first aid kit, etc.) forms the fourth layer.

One of my colleagues added another layer at the top. Since most bicycle crashes are single vehicle accidents (typically falls) bike handling, avoiding surface hazards and avoiding riding in the gutter or on sidewalks forms his top layer.

Once someone gets over the misinformation, cycling is safer, more useful and much more enjoyable. The bicycle is a vehicle both in fact and in Ohio law. It is really liberating to act as the driver of a vehicle.

I recently added a new article discussing the claim that bike lanes serve to "train" cyclists. I call this "Bike Lanes and Training Wheels." The best places for this training are regular streets that have light traffic (or main streets at times of little traffic -- like some roads late on Sunday afternoon).

One of the important "secrets" that cyclists must learn is good lane position. Too many people think they must never "get in the way" because they do not deserve to delay the more important people who drive cars. Ironically, this attitude afflicts even people who think they are morally superior for being car free.

Cyclists should take their place on the roads, using whatever space they need for their own safety rather than trying to slink along in the gutter. This does not mean being a road hog, deliberately delaying others. But it does mean controlling the lane when that is the safe and reasonable thing to do. For more, see "Passing Thoughts -- Bikes and Cars Sharing the Road."

OB: Thank you for taking time for our discussion.