Saving Cyclists
Another long forgotten resource which cuts to the heart of the Principled Bicycling Vision
Adding to the long archive of forgotten and depreciated cycling advocacy resources aka the contribution of this current Dark Age of bicycling advocacy is Dan Sullivan’s Saving Cyclists.
Sullivan is also the webmaster of the page Saving Communities where he writes primarily from the long forgotten intellectual and philosophical tradition known previously as liberalism but he’s also primarily a Georgist.
Easily one of the best articles on that site is entitled “Orwellian Economics: How Euphemisms Have Turned Economics from a Science to a Propaganda Device.” Well worth the read especially since cycling advocacy has not been immune from language manipulation and propaganda.
Not much content, admittedly, is on Saving Cyclists though. Which IMO is unfortunate.
In fact, visiting the main site of the page provides only a simple message:
Saving Cyclists
This is just a test page.
The purpose of Saving Cyclists is to focus attention on the fact that advocates of "vehicular cycling" are have the safety of cyclists in mind, and that vehicular cyclists oppose many bike lanes and similar measures solely because we have concerns about the safety of such lanes.
This page is primarily a place holder until there is enough consensus among vehicular cyclists about how to proceed.
Dan Sullivan,
Domain owner.
The phrase "vehicular cycling" is easily uh, triggering to many, especially to the Platitude-driven (who for all intents and purposes should be labeled as segregationists) advocate types in large part due specifically to what Sullivan highlights in his Orwellian Economics essay.
That aside, there appear to be two pages under Saving Cyclists he’s covered but are only searchable via a search engine’s “site:” feature.
The Liberty Avenue Bike Lane: The Deadliest Bike Lane in Pittsburgh?
Greenfield Road: A Very Sensible Bike Lane in Schenley Park
In both pieces Sullivan cuts to the heart of the Principled Vision which to refresh contrasts with the Platitude Vision as defined a few pieces back.1
In the case of the Liberty Avenue door zone bike lane, the Platitude Vision ruled supreme. Advocates proposed the fact this short section of road had a downgrade, on-street parking, and various intersections and driveways - all which are potential crash hazards for cyclists.
Under the section “How Did We Get this Deadly Bike Lane” Sullivan explains.
Winning this bike lane was the first "accomplishment" for the then-new bicycling advocacy group, Bike Pittsburgh. At the neighborhood hearing where this bike lane was proposed, the traffic engineer who designed the bike lane explicitly assured Saving Cyclists advocate Dan Sullivan that there would be a five-foot buffer between parked cars and the bike lane. As it turns out, the bike lane is the buffer. In the first two weeks the bike lane was open, a woman staying with Sullivan's next-door neighbor was "doored" and had to be treated at a hospital.
However, Bike Pittsburgh has remained committed to this lane, despite the obvious hazards it creates.
And hilariously of course in the comments section of the very same page commenter @throwsknives insists on removing on-street parking to fix the door zone issue. To which Sullivan provides a useful dose of logic in his reply:
Also disappointingly in the comments is an anecdote from Mr. Sullivan about a bureaucrat ignoring his sending of an article about a cyclist injured in the door zone bike lane. That article came courtesy of legitimate cycling safety advocate Patricia Kovaks who has been key to calling out much of the grotesquely flawed cycling research coming out of Fiat Academia.
An example of Kovak’s work is here, where she debunks the safety claims of two-way so-called “protected bike lanes.”
In Greenfield Road: A Very Sensible Bike Lane in Schenley Park, Mr. Sullivan highlights and example of a case where a bicycle lane indeed makes some sense. And the bicycle lane in his example is not one which compromises the safety of the intended user - the cyclist. Here too he’s direct about exactly why this lane makes a great deal of sense.
We generally advocate that bicycles use the same lanes as motor vehicles, but we also recognize that there are cases where even slow motor vehicles, such as heavy trucks, are relegated to slower lanes to make passing easier going up hills. Such slow lanes are not often necessary for bicyclists, who usually have the good sense to let people pass when it is safe to do so. However, this road has an additional problem: a blind curve that motorists - especially in sporty cars, tend to take at speeds that are only safe if there are no obstacles further up the road. The inside of the curve cuts into a heavily wooded embankment, concealing the road ahead, especially during seasons of thick vegetation.
The speed limit is only 25 miles per hour, and if cars even stayed under 40 miles per hour, they would have little difficulty seeing and safely passing cyclists. In that case, savvy cyclists would protect themselves by riding toward the left side of the lane where they could be seen sooner, and would veer to the right at the approach of motorists. But when a motorist is testing the limits of his road-hugging sports car, there just isn't time to get over. In that case, it's better that the motorist knows the five feet on the right-hand edge are off limits to him.
The last part of this would likely raise a great deal of hysteria among the Platitude-driven vision though. The idea of course that some motorists would not only dare to exceed the posted speed limit but that a bicycle advocate would accept such a thing.
Platitude-Vision
Outcome based
A greater emphasis on positive liberty (rights, justice, etc, must be derived by humanity mostly via the State)
Different rules for different people, largely based on group identity.
Heavy focus on oppressor/victim dichotomy.
Heavy focus on “ought” and “should.”
A desire for quick change, in the name of progress, or to solve what is seen as a dire and urgent problem.
Solutions
High Time Preference
Principled-Vision
Process-based
Greater emphasis on negative liberty, less reliance on the State for derivation of rights.
Equal rules with constraints.
Heavy emphasis on “is” and acceptance of reality and the constants to change.
A desire for slower change, but not always due to resistance, but instead as a respect for experience.
Tradeoffs
Low Time Preference