What Can Cyclists Do About Our "Rogue" Element?

Fellow cyclists, it appears we have a serious perception problem in the city of Chicago.

Despite the efforts of Transportation Secretary Gabe Klein, the Active Transportation Alliance, the chainlink, Grid Chicago, and other pro-cycling advocates, certain careless “cyclists” among us threaten the goodwill everyone else has fought so hard to garner.  While being lumped together and stereotyped is not fair for reasons too numerous to list, it is a perception problem that we will need to address sooner rather than later.

It is difficult to wage a campaign for the right to share the road safely when some riders we seek to protect exhibit no regard for their own safety or the safety of others.

I’ll be the first to admit that riding a bike can be a very exhilarating experience.  Moving forward under your own power, feeling the breeze against your skin, processing the changing scents like a dog with his head hanging out of a car window, all while continually scanning your surroundings for obstructions to your momentum is an endorphin rush like no other.  It’s very easy to zone out – to ignore danger and suspend fear – just to hold onto that near-euphoric feeling for a moment longer.

But riding in city traffic isn’t the same as playing a video game.

Near misses with pedestrians aren’t a reinforcement of your mad skills.  Outmaneuvering a bus pulling away from the curb doesn’t earn you an extra life.  Leaving startled, frustrated, angry, or vengeful motorists in your wake as you zig-zag from curb to curb on a quest for a personal best doesn’t accumulate a points standing that will protect you from future failures.  To paraphrase Rush (the band, not the blowhard), “you are only immortal for a limited time.”

As champions for the right to ride on public roads, bicycle advocates face perpetual headwinds and continual uphill climbs.

Certain taxpayers consider us a special interest group composed of annoying do-gooders, tree-huggers, fitness freaks, and elitists who desire a Nanny State to protect us from the evils of the world.  We’re too idealistic, naïve even.  We embolden, empower, foster, and protect anarchists.  And we don’t pay gasoline taxes, so we don’t deserve to be on their roads.

America is facing an obesity epidemic, yet there is little political will to enhance an infrastructure that encourages greater physical activity.  We’re noticing the effects of climate change, yet there is little desire to encourage activities that lower our carbon emissions.  We pay an extraordinary price in blood and treasure to satisfy our appetite for oil, yet we’re not willing to invest in any technology, infrastructure, or activity that will free us from this dependency.

Despite a deaf ear to our simple solution, we cycling advocates soldier on - always focused on the battle at hand, winning some and losing some.

The last thing we need is to be fighting a battle within our own ranks.

Like it or not, cycling advocates are expected to answer for the individual behavior exhibited by their fellow cyclists.  While no reasonable person would expect all Baptists to answer for the funeral protests of the Westboro Baptist Church, AAA to defend drunk drivers, or the NRA to apologize for mass shootings, for some reason, anyone on two wheels represents everyone on two wheels.

So what do we responsible cyclists do to alter the behavior of our “rogue” element?

My last two posts – Who Is Against Protected Bike Lanes and Protected Bike Lanes and the Demand for Cyclist Education – opened up a dialogue that resulted in some well-reasoned comments.  Here are some excerpts:

“Bikers, though, seem to be the ones who complain most loudly about the behavior of those who choose other modes of transportation while ignoring the rampant disregard for rules in their own community.” – teewhy35

“No, the things they do that drive me bonkers is that they get in the way unnecessarily, they sometimes ride in an unpredictable and aggressive manner causing me to fear an accident, and they lobby for public expenditures on what are sometimes wholly unnecessary bike lanes.” – JakeH

“What I've seen from many of my fellow cyclist is that they switch back and forth acting like a pedestrian, bicyclist or motorist, whatever is most convenient at the time. And not knowing what they are at any one time makes it very difficult in dealing with them in traffic.” – ABIGSOXFAN

“The mistakes are too many to go through in this space, but they tend as they always do to statistically define a stereotype of youth, and/or ignorance (across all races and even genders) which will only be remedied through trial, error, the realization of affect, and an understanding of health and mortality.” – Commuteracer

“Cyclists need to stop making excuses and stop using the behavior of other, poor drivers as justification for their own behavior.   Cars protect their drivers, bicycles don't. If you are the type of cyclist who blows stop signs and lights then you should expect to be hurt if not killed while riding.” – Jnathan

“So let's be part of the community. We've gained lots of rights to be on the road, we're now part of the normal flow of the public street. Let's act as we expect others to act.” – Kate Gillogly

While the Sun Times rant that inspired this series of posts focused on the usual enforcement-education-licensing-taxing-prohibiting solutions one might expect from the intransigent “majority” when dealing with any complex, progressive issue involving small groups of “others”, the solution to our perception problem is as simple as the cycling solution itself.

Not that I like to quote from the handbook from the War on Terror, but one simple phrase makes sense for us; “if you see something, say something.”

We know what bad cycling looks like.  We have a duty to call it out.  While no one likes to be confronted with, corrected, or lectured about their bad behavior, they need to hear it.  Doing so may not be easy, pleasant, or without conflict, but it’s necessary.

There is a lot at stake in our fight for safer streets.

Beyond public acceptance and securing taxpayer funding is the safety of each of us when we ride.  The moment a motorist fails to see cyclists as fellow human beings with loved ones, we become another point to be won in a video game.  We only get one life.  The motorist is immortal.

I'm not ready for Game Over...

 

If you found this post helpful, share it on Google+, Facebook, and Twitter by clicking the boxes below the article title.

If you like this blog, fan it on Facebook and follow me on Twitter by clicking the boxes below my bio.

Keep riding and be safe.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Being someone who lives in an area where we get a lot of cyclists through our area, when we see "them" on "our" roads, we get upset. The truth of the matter is we really don't care, we love the fact that they are enjoying the weather and the area, but the problem is they do NOT follow the rules. Driving down in the city with cyclists is the same, rules are not followed. And the problem is, it's the motorist that is considered "at fault".

    What about making cyclists get a license, put a sticker on their bike showing that they passed the test. They need to be familiar and educated with RULES of the ROAD. Many Cyclists (city and suburbs) don't stop at lights-many proceed with caution and continue through (legal or illegal?). Single file rules...what are those rules-they are not followed either? Just as police monitor driving and write tickets, maybe it's time to start fining and ticketing the cyclists that don't follow the law.

    And to the cyclists that do follow the rules, we motorists thank you.

  • In reply to mom5:

    Thanks for taking the time to read and reply.

    I don't know the actual statistic, but most cyclists are also drivers. It's not a matter of ignorance of the law, it's an individual decision to ignore it. I won't defend or condone the behavior of any cyclist that isn't me.

    There is a difference between yielding at stop signs and blowing through them as if they don't exist. A bike offers a unique vantage point and quick maneuverability at a 4-way stop. If an intersection is clear of cars and pedestrians, I will hesitate and resume pedaling. If it's not, I'll put a foot down and take my turn. I stop at red lights, signal my intentions, as well as my turns, and try to ride in as predictable of a manner as the street will allow.

    I swerve for obstructions - opening doors, double-parked cars, debris, potholes - and always try to signal my intention. If a motorist is following the letter of the law - slowing down and giving me three feet of clearance when it's safe to pass - he or she shouldn't be panicked or aggravated sharing the road when I'm riding.

    If you have two parties - one not riding in a predictable manner and the other not aware of his/her responsibility for the safety of the other - you have a recipe for disaster. Since the car is bigger, the driver wins regardless of who was at fault. The driver's defense in court is always - the cyclist swerved in front of me...

    Take another look at each individual cyclist's behavior and pay attention to whether they are riding predictably or recklessly. If there is an epidemic of reckless behavior in your area - pedestrians and motorists getting injured by cyclists - call the police and ask them to monitor the situation.

  • What I can't understand is WHY they act this way? Maybe finding that reason is a start to solving the problems.

    I havent ridden since I was six so I bought a bike this year fully intending on becoming a daily rider. I've ridden it ONCE. I'm much more terrified of other cyclists than I am of cars. They are rude, arrogant, obnoxious, and oblivious to the fact that they need to follow certain rules of the road, not to mention common courtesy.

    And one thing I didn't see adressed in your article was the fact that it's becoming much more common for cyclists to use the sidewalk - which is technically against the law. There is an utter disregard for anyone else on the road or on the sidewalk. I've personally had close calls all summer. And I fear that some kid or someone less mobile is going to get injured because of the arrogance of certain cyclists.

  • In reply to goofyjj:

    Thanks for taking the time to read and reply.

    My guess is that you're witnessing what I call "Running Man Syndrome." It's when a young person - 16 - 23 years-old - rides a bike like he or she was running in a video game. If he or she manages to survive unscathed by this "I'm immortal!" behavior by age 25 and still continues to ride in this manner, I have no suggestion as to what will change this behavior.

    If you're frightened to ride, you should really look into the safe cycling classes offered by the League of American Bicyclists. When you're confident with your own bike handling skills and can ride predictably and defensively, other cyclists and cars should no longer bother you.

    As for riding on the sidewalk, I have no idea why adults think that's a good idea...

  • In reply to Brent Cohrs:

    Thank you. I will look into that. I can ride - a little. Just not confidently.

    Yet.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to goofyjj:

    May I suggest you join a local cycling club for some intro or social rides to learn better cycling skills and have more fun than riding alone? If you live in or near Chicago, the Chicago Cycling Club is a great place to start for riders of all skill levels.

  • fb_avatar

    It's great to see more cyclists calling for responsibility, but whenever I read these articles each one leads the same - cycling is fun, it's a great way to keep in shape... and oh by the way, stay safe.

    Absolutely nobody wants to admit that bicycles, by law, have to be driven the same as cars. That should be the first sentence.

    Cyclists have no special permission to ignore traffic signals, even in their own protected lanes. They're required by state law to obey every traffic signal that a car obeys. I guarantee that if you took a survey of commuter cyclists, less than half would own up to knowing either of these rules. If you wonder where the charge of elitism comes from, start with the common misunderstanding that bicycles have special permissions.

    There are two surefire ways to start getting cyclists to obey traffic signals.

    1.) Start ticketing cyclists. They are required to stop at all traffic signals and they should be issued tickets if they fail, just like a car, motorcycle, or any other vehicle.

    2.) Start requiring that bicycles be licensed by the State DOT and come with a sticker or tag that reads "DRIVE LIKE A CAR."

    Reinforce that bicycles have the same responsibilities as any other vehicle on public roads, and you'll start seeing a lot less traffic deaths.

  • In reply to Ryan Williams:

    Thanks for reading and taking the time to reply.

    If you haven't read my posts before, you wouldn't know that I advocate for following the rules of the road. For true cycling advocates, that's a given.

    If you read my response to the first commenter, I explain how I ride. I'm guilty of yielding at stop signs and I make no apologies for it. I would advocate for a state law that allows for this due to the momentum loss when making a full stop.

    If injuries of pedestrians by cyclists (or damage or injuries to motorists or other cyclists) reached epidemic proportions, you would see stepped up law enforcement.

    Requiring bicycles to be licensed could prove challenging. Will it be just another license where the fee collected pays for the administrative cost of tracking the licensee or would the money go toward cycling infrastructure and rider / motorist education? Would children's bikes be required to be licensed? If so, wouldn't that discourage kids from riding bikes?

    There are successful models for complete streets and bicycle friendly cities in Europe. None involve the draconian suggestions the anti-cycling crowd puts forward...

  • In reply to Brent Cohrs:

    "I'm guilty of yielding at stop signs and I make no apologies for it. I would advocate for a state law that allows for this due to the momentum loss when making a full stop."

    Until it IS state law, you should apologize. It's exactly that sort of "I violate the law regularly and don't care" attitude that annoys people. If you don't stop, why should drivers? If you don't obey stop signs, why should you signal a turn or a lane change? I expect other drivers/cyclists/pedestrians to obey the law and not claim special privileges.

  • In reply to 1948jlp:

    By the letter of the law, I am in violation. In terms of safety for myself and all others present, I am following the spirit of the law. Anyone behind me or approaching from the other three directions know exactly what I am doing (other than putting my foot down).

    A yield is not the same thing as a disregard. I slow enough to stop and put a foot down in a second if there is any other traffic at the intersection. This is the exact same technique that I see most motorcyclists use, btw.

    I shouldn't have to point out the difference between a 4,000-pound car hesitating and accelerating through an intersection and that of a 30-pound bike with a 170-pound cyclist. But I do understand your point about the slippery slope of rationalizing which laws to obey.

    The bottom line for me is my own safety. In the absence of pedestrians and other cyclists - which is most often the case when riding in traffic - I am the most vulnerable vehicle on the road. If I don't behave in a predictable manner - riding with traffic in a straight line, signalling turns and intentions to leave my lane, slowing for traffic devices - I put myself in danger of being hit by motor vehicles.

    I also ride like I drive - always taking responsibility for whatever may enter my path unexpectedly. This includes jaywalking pedestrians, people entering and exiting cars, and any user approaching not only four-way intersections, but t-intersections at well. Bicyclist are most vulnerable to being t-boned by motorists that yield from side streets rather than making full and complete stops.

    I take personal responsibility for my riding and my safety. I'm willing to risk getting a ticket for a yield instead of a full, foot-down stop, but I won't jeopardize anyone else's safety to avoid slowing my momentum.

  • It might be safe to call out a fellow rider in Chicago, but we've got "concealed carry" now in Wisconsin, and there was a famous incident in Madison of a well known bike shop owner advising another cyclist to "get some lights" only to be followed home and beaten in his driveway. Are car drivers expected to police themselves? Do you really think the guy passing me on the right to run the red light I'm waiting at is going to care what I think or say?

    As for why cyclists ride the way they do, the answer is easy: they usually get away with it. And the reason cops usually don't bother ticketing cyclists is also easy: statistics show that they cause way less damage than motorists. As Randy Cohen just wrote in the NY Times "In the last quarter of 2011, bicyclists in New York City killed no pedestrians and injured 26. During the same period, drivers killed 43 pedestrians and injured 3,607."

    Finally, the suggestion that cyclists "DRIVE LIKE A CAR" is incomplete. It should be "drive like a car until you are in my way. Then, get off the road."

  • In reply to AndrewDressel:

    Thanks for taking the time to read and reply.

    Calling out fellow cyclists won't be easy or without conflict. But if we don't make an attempt, we'll fall into the trap that every group of "others" faces when championing progressive solutions. The majority will continue to demonize all cyclists because of the actions of some cyclists and they'll change the debate in the court of public opinion.

    I'm not sure I understand your final point...

  • fb_avatar

    I live in Wicker Park and ride the Milwaukee bus downtown. In that 15 minutes I see dozens of bicyclists and actually count how many follow the rules of the road. On no single day has it ever been more than 10%. On almost every day, about 3/4 ignore stoplights. Where there are no marked bicycle lanes, about 2/3 switch from the right lane into spaces between moving cars when traffic stops. Frequently the bus I'm on is completely surrounded by bicyclists on both sides who can't seem to wait for the bus to unload and pick up passengers at the bus stop. Many bicyclists ride abreast rather than single file, many ride in the automobile lanes even where there are marked bicycle lanes. A small number ride against rather than with traffic. Almost NO ONE signals when turning.

    As a pedestrian, I have 3 times almost been hit by a bicyclist: once someone riding the wrong way on a one way street, once by two people riding southbound in a northbound bicycle lane (there was a southbound land on the other side of the two-way street) and once by a bicyclist turning south on Milwaukee from Division who didn't stop for me as I was in the cross-walk. Each time, I was the one to stop (or step back) to avoid the collision and the bicyclists just rode merrily and illegally on.

    People who complain about bicyclists' behavior are generally not suggesting that all bicyclists are responsible for others' behavior. The point is that the vast majority of bicyclists DO NOT follow the rules, so there is a growing feeling that they should be required to pass a licensing test indicating that they know the rules and that police should enforce them. I think that's eminently reasonable.

  • In reply to Aviva Patt:

    Thanks for reading and taking the time to reply.

    Thanks for sharing your observations.

    Considering that most cyclists also hold driver's licenses, additional licensing and testing isn't the solution. What do you do about kids? People who have lost their licenses and are forced to ride bikes to work? Immigrants and minorities who can't obtain or afford licenses?

    Do we really want to put up more barriers to bicycling? Part of the goal of traffic calming, dedicated bike lanes, protected bike lanes, and other infrastructure improvements is to encourage more people to ride instead of driving. Licensing seems a counter-productive and disproportionate solution.

  • I think one thing the "good" cyclists should do is to stand behind sticker enforcement and punishment of the "bad". I used to drive down Kinzie downtown every day where they built those protected lanes. It just became to slow and unbearable and I know take another route. When I was taking that route on Kinzie, there is one intersection in front of the East Bank Club where on a weekly basis I would see near misses of bikes hitting pedestrians or bikes hitting cars because of the bikes running stop signs. I'm not asking bikes to stop, just to at least slow down. It seems like some riders are purposely accelerating through the intersection. I've said to myself numerous times that someone will get killed at that intersection eventually. Good cyclists should try to put an end to what goes on at that intersection and other similar behavior.

  • fb_avatar

    I used to cycle quite a bit myself. But I always had a healthy respect for any vehicle larger than my own. Apparently some of today's riders do not have that common sense attitude...they just have attitude. And when they ride like maniacs, I can only see them as future road kill - another ghost bicycle chained to a lamp post.

    In the 20 some years since I used to ride, things have changed with regards to traffic control. There are a LOT more stop signs. I used to be able to ride east on Hubbard, with no stops between Ogden and Halsted. Now there are signs at every intersection. And more traffic lights too, which are not timed to promote the flow of traffic.

    You say that licensing seems counter-productive. Licensing is a way of creating consequences for poor driving behavior. A friend of mine was driving when her car was hit by a cyclist (who was at fault), and it caused several hundred dollars damage to her car. The cyclist's response? A string of obscenities, blaming my friend for the incident. No consequences for the cyclist, as she is not required to have a license for herself or her bicycle.

    The state has a separate classification for motorcyclists, truckers, and livery drivers. Why not a new classification for bicyclists? The other classes require a separate written test, so perhaps there should be a safety test for bicyclists. I think children under the age of 14 should not be required to have a license, but they should be required to attend a bicycle safety education. The cost of a license is $30, and only $10 for a motorcycle license, not really that expensive.

    I'd also like to see cyclists required to wear safety gear, not just helmets, but bright reflective vests. Let's face it, a cyclist wearing dark clothing at night is basically invisible, even with a headlight and reflectors on the bike. And the city should start enforce the state law requiring brakes. Too many bike messengers have removed their brakes for a variety of reasons.

  • I bike to work everyday and I am appalled at the lack of understanding most cyclists demonstrate regarding safety and how they are damaging the perception of cyclists in the city. I am veteran collegiate and USCF racer and they try to pull maneuvers I never would because they're just way too dangerous.

    If we want to be treated as and given the same rights as motorists, we need to obey the same rules as motorists. Don't run lights and stop signs. Don't jump up on sidewalks or ride on the wrong side of the road. Have brakes on your bike. Again, I am a veteran racer, and I've ridden fixed gears many, many miles, but always with a brake when riding on the road. Cyclists seem to have some myths about stopping without brakes on the road, but it is dangerous. You cannot stop quickly enough in an emergency without a brake on your bike. Track bikes (which are fixed gears) do not have brakes because they're riding on a track with a bank, so it rarely requires the top of slowing down that is necessary for riding with traffic.

    I could go on, but the long and the short of it is that being a few minutes earlier or getting cool points is not good for cycling in Chicago. Please mature and portray an image of cycling that is helpful to those of us who would like the city to continue to become more cycling friendly.

  • In reply to Myshkin:

    Excellent reply - thanks for commenting!

  • "Rogue element"? Can you say "Critical Mass"? You know, get a lot of cyclists together and illegally impede traffic with your numbers?

    One major reason for the "rogue" element is your own personal arrogance.

    "America is facing an obesity epidemic, yet there is little political will to enhance an infrastructure that encourages greater physical activity. We’re noticing the effects of climate change, yet there is little desire to encourage activities that lower our carbon emissions. We pay an extraordinary price in blood and treasure to satisfy our appetite for oil, yet we’re not willing to invest in any technology, infrastructure, or activity that will free us from this dependency."

    So we have problems and you have the solution and we're just too (ignorant, stubborn, selfish, immoral, whatever) to realize how superior you are. Have you any freaking idea how supremely arrogant you sound? The left has told the right that they have hubris. Guess what? You have it.

    I've added asterisks in the following sentence to mark all the loaded (pejorative, dismissive) terms you've used.

    'While the Sun Times *rant* that inspired this series of posts focused on the usual enforcement-education-licensing-taxing-prohibiting solutions one might expect from the *intransigent* *“majority”* when dealing with any complex, *progressive* issue involving small groups of *“others”*, the solution to our *perception* problem is as simple as the cycling solution itself.'

    I'll also note the scare quotes you put around "majority" and "others". With regard to "majority", why did you do that? Do you know what the word means?

    And thanks for finally admitting your ideas are "progressive". Of course, when I see that word, I know it really means "progressive increase in controlling people to make them behave like me because I know what's best for everybody".

    The main perception problem is yours. You perceive yourself as wonderful. Actually, you're just arrogant.

    I say yes to licensing for ALL cyclists. Children under some age should get one free or for a very small fee. Any fees should be just enough to cover processing and administrative costs. The point is not the money but being able to easily identify cyclists who break traffic laws.

  • In reply to Nate Whilk:

    Thanks for reading my opinion piece and taking the time to share your opinion.

    I'm not apologetic in offering a simple solution to the obesity epidemic, traffic congestion, air pollution, and the nation's dependency on fossil fuels for transportation. It is a progressive solution - one that advocates taking a "liberal" (I put that in quotes, too because it has a different perceived meaning than its literal definition of open-minded) approach to several costly problems facing our country.

    Riding a bike is taking personal responsibility for one's health. It is proven that regular physical exercise and stress-reducing activities can lower the risk for obesity-related ailments including metabolic syndrome (heart disease, stroke, diabetes). Are you against personal responsibility?

    Riding a bike also has residual benefits for a community. Every trip taken by bike (or on foot or via public transportation where available) eliminates a trip by car. This saves gas, reduces traffic congestion, and lowers emissions. I'm not implying that anyone who chooses to do this - for whatever reason they personally choose - is superior in any way. It is just a logical, societal benefit from an individual's choice. Are you against individual choice? Or just people voluntarily contributing to society?

    I used the word "majority" in quotes purposely. I believe our founding fathers warned against the tyranny of the majority, did they not? If it were up to the "majority" to decide who receives rights and who doesn't, we might still have slavery, segregation, and laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage. The "majority" would vote against extending civil rights to same gender couples - are these the majority rules that provide equality to all?

    The quote-unquote majority I refer to are those individuals who are resistant to change and hide behind the rule of law as their most prized virtue. This leads to their rationalized argument that the police should enforce the behavior of cyclists IF cyclists want to share the roads with motorists.

    Do we allow current law enforcement to prioritize enforcement of ALL traffic rules by safety threat - speeding motorists over yielding cyclists, red light running motorists over red light evading cyclists - or do we invest more tax dollars and hire more police officers to enforce bicycling violations?

    Will the fees generated by bicycle licenses be sufficient enough to cover the stepped up law enforcement you demand in the name of fairness? Or will licensing just serve as yet another regressive tax on those with lower incomes and prove a deterrent to participation? Or worse still, will bicycle licensing violations just serve as another means to raise municipal revenue and penalize the less fortunate?

    It doesn't sound like my progressive recommendations are controlling, coercing, or inhibiting anyone's choices or behavior. Your call to "easily identify cyclists who break traffic laws" sounds like a means to control the behavior of others.

    It's ok that you don't support bicycling as a transportation alternative or a means for one to take control of his or her own health. It's your right to speak out against my "progressive" suggestions. It's also your right to complain about escalating healthcare expenditures caused by the obesity epidemic and increased rates of juvenile asthma in traffic congested cities. You can complain about the rising cost of gas and the bloated federal defense budget that protects oil production.

    I exercise my right to complain about all of these issues. I also offer constructive solutions.

    And I choose to ride a bike.

    If I didn't have this blog to share my opinion, I'd still be out riding my bike. I only ask that you respect my right to ride on the road and don't judge me or my fellow cyclists for exercising our choice to make a personal difference.

  • So to the people who want bicycle licensing, what about people who are visiting chicago, or riding through Chicago, you are telling me thatthey can be avid cyclists, follow all the rules of the road, and would be default be in violation just because they came from outside the city? That isn't very welcoming.

  • fb_avatar

    Some thoughts that may help...
    http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2011/07/07/i-am-not-a-bicyclist/

  • I received this from a reader via email and thought I would add this to the discussion thread:

    I would like to see better enforcement of the rules of the road for all road users, ticketing cycling scofflaws as well as motorists who violate lawful cyclists' rights on the road, and requiring them to do community service and take a traffic cycling course or bicycling focused traffic safety course (yet to be established).

    Have you heard of CyclingSavvy? It's more focused on traffic cycling and has better emphasis on lane selection and positioning, to name a couple of advantages, than the LAB course. It also has great video and animation training. Currently, I am the only instructor in the Chicago area. The next nearest instructors are in Champaign/Urbana, Illinois, then Midland, MI.

    My hope is to get CyclingSavvy going in the Chicago area, working with municipalities, park districts, police departments, bike clubs and advocacy groups like ATA. A little blog exposure wouldn't hurt. I'll be scheduling a CyclingSavvy course for Crystal Lake in October. I also want to conduct the classroom segment at various locations over the winter. What do you think?

    Be Smart, Skilled and Safe!

Leave a comment