Doubt Can Unite Us
Last night PBS aired the two-hour NOVA special “Darwin’s Darkest Hour,” about Charles Darwin’s struggle to finally decide to complete and publish On the Origin of Species. Part of his struggle was trying avoid running afoul of his wife Emma’s faith in God. In an early letter to Darwin, Emma wrote, “My reason tells me that honest & conscientious doubts cannot be a sin.”
My wife, who was believer when we met, expressed a similar sentiment about my agnosticism.
Respect for honest doubt would go a long way towards mending the huge rifts among the two main bicycling “camps.”
Bikeway proponents must respect the doubts of vehicular cycling proponents about the benefits of facilities, because there is significant objective evidence to support that doubt. Since decisions about bikeways are done by governments, objectivity is essential.
Vehicular cycling proponents must respect the doubt of others about the effectiveness of vehicular cycling. While vehicular cycling can also be measured objectively, it is experienced subjectively. There is significant subjective evidence to support that doubt; those many personal experiences in traffic which reinforce our culture’s taboo about cycling. Since cycling itself is done by individuals, many of whom are not trained, comfortable with, or prone towards objectivity, we vehicular cycling proponents must take a softer, subjective approach.
Respect and caring are the foundation.
“Certainty divides us; doubt unites us.”
– Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, The Laughing Jesus
8. October 2009 at 1:37 pm :
This sounds facetious, but it isn’t: I have always been a big fan of doubt. To me, doubt is a symptom of really thinking about things in all their comlpexity, and certainty a sign that perhaps you haven’t thought very hard yet.
9. October 2009 at 12:01 am :
Doesn’t sound the least bit facetious to me, Rant. Certainty is also a sign one probably hasn’t allowed certain solid and pertinent facts to influence one’s thought processes.
14. October 2009 at 7:48 am :
and then there is motorcycle statistics to look at. to me vehicular cycling is the best way to ride in most situations, and it’s safer than imagined, but it’s still riskier than I’d like. and at a certain population density, no fun at all with a kid.
I think that facilities are not always the best thing for cycle advocates to strive for, but many times it’s the best thing for livable streets activists to strive for.
Those issues overlap for many.
I just met a guy who has been cycling in nyc for 20 years and he’s beside himself with joy over the recent changes in the city.
I find it ironic that I think some of the most thoughtful and challenging bike writing is coming out of Orlando, and not Portland.
But what always loses me is the finger wagging at sidewalk riders and bike path wanters. and I wish I wouldn’t here so much talk about how sidewalk riding is so dangerous. let’s leave out the fear and shame all together.
like self rightousness and victimhood.
I think the middleground of these two camps can bring about changes in our traffic culture and built environment.
14. October 2009 at 11:12 am :
“I find it ironic that I think some of the most thoughtful and challenging bike writing is coming out of Orlando, and not Portland.”
Astute observation, Eddie! There are good reasons for that. We have many more challenges than Portland and most of them can’t be solved with Portland-style solutions. And we’re way at the bottom of the hill with the creation of a transportation cycling community and the culture and infrastructure to support it. The good part is, we have a nearly clean slate and can examine various solutions to emulate or avoid.
Since Portland already has a huge constituency (because of a preexisting culture), most of the writing there is for the purpose of rallying and cheerleading the bike culture and “innovative” facility design… as well as showing the rest of the U.S. how great they are. When advocacy morphs into propaganda, the bad stuff is typically swept under the carpet.
“But what always loses me is the finger wagging at sidewalk riders and bike path wanters.”
Any finger-wagging at sidewalk riders is ONLY at sidewalk riding in downtown where it is illegal and rude to pedestrians. Mighk and I are both pretty careful to say sidewalk riding is more risky that road riding. It is as dangerous as the person doing it. You or I could ride on a sidewalk and be safe because we know where the risks are and how to avoid them. Most people who ride on the sidewalk are clueless, that’s why they account for nearly half of our crashes.
I haven’t wagged a finger at path-wanters (I don’t think Mighk has either). I shake my fist at path-designers all the time. I want paths that work, create access, permeability and pleasant alternatives. I don’t want paths that are built with the mindset of keeping cyclists off the road. There’s a huge difference in the way those two models are deigned and built, and their utility and ease of use. The second mentality is dominating path design in Florida (and probably most of the U.S.).
Personally, I think we’re finding the middle ground between the orthodoxies of VC and PnP. The middle ground is cyclist-centric — making things better for CYCLISTS (through culture change and functional infrastructure improvements) rather than simply seeking to increase mode share.
14. October 2009 at 11:23 am :
Keri beat me to most of my comments. As for sidewalk cycling being “dangerous,” taking a teeny tiny number (the overall risk of cycling) and doubling or even quadrupling it, still results in a teeny tiny number. I’d rather focus on showing people that the most common motorist mistakes can be better avoided by roadway cyclists than by sidewalk cyclists.
I’d rather focus on showing people that proper roadway cycling is EASIER than sidewalk cycling, and help them to understand the real risks and the strategies to avoid them.
Either/or types of arguments often fail, but in some cases they are valid. For example, I think there are serious concerns to be expressed and addressed about the bike boxes being implemented in Portland, and arguments that “novice cyclists want these” is unprofessional at best.
14. October 2009 at 12:06 pm :
sorry I missed that about the downtown sidewalk riding distinction. that is exactly my impression. many sidewalks are that in name only, and these make for fun riding, especially when they end abruptly. best to have a mountain or cross bike and some time on your hands.
this is my go to blog (and commute orlando) for well thought out wonky transpo stuff.
bikeportland, TA and streetsblog great for, well, a well deserved pep rally.big fan of janet sadik khan.
and I know you guys are really careful with what you say, I was commenting more on the two camps, and where v/c camp sometimes loses me.
here in key west, almost all the answers lie in the v/c camp, as I find no real benefits for facilities.
for me, it depends on whether I feel more like ken kifer or jane jacobs that day.
just keep it coming guys.
14. October 2009 at 12:09 pm :
The argument that bike boxes prevent right-hooks is even worse! They only prevent one type of right hook. Here’s an animation that explains why they don’t prevent (and may even encourage) the other type.
14. October 2009 at 12:14 pm :
Eddie, I’d guess Key West doesn’t have much space for facilities either. I imagine facilities would be useful in other parts of the Keys, particularly the bridges.
14. October 2009 at 1:31 pm :
Keri wrote:
“You or I could ride on a sidewalk and be safe because we know where the risks are and how to avoid them.”
Maybe Keri and Eddie could, but not me ;^)
The last time I used a sidewalk to try to bypass a long back-up I got right-hooked. I assumed nobody would be turning right down the cross-street I was about to cross. Oops! Only good braking technique kept me from plowing into the side of the car.
14. October 2009 at 2:23 pm :
LOL! Well, safe, but not conflict-free
Good bike-handling skills kept you safe from an actual crash. Staying safe on the sidewalk requires a combo of hyper-awareness, slow speed and good bike handling skills.
I’ve been almost-hooked several times on the Cady Way extension side-path, but because I was prepared for the likelihood, they didn’t actually get me.
27. November 2009 at 8:20 pm :
Hey Mighk, on your many benefits of cycling you say , in part, this: “It’s no secret that automobiles contribute to serious air pollution issues, including climate change, ground level ozone, and particulate matter. They also contribute to water pollution through stormwater runoff. Their noise contributes to stress. Millions of animals — wild and pet — are hit and killed by them every year. And we pave over huge pieces of land to store those vehicles.”
In light of the entire basis for climate change turning out to be a hoax and a fraud, shouldn’t that reason be removed from this statement?
27. November 2009 at 8:40 pm :
No.
http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-is-a-hoax/
29. November 2009 at 7:43 pm :
Its only a “hoax and a fraud” in the world of political propaganda; most of the doubters out there in the general population are merely protecting their turf. That’s not surprising given the economic battles to be fought, but it doesn’t change the climate modelling, which even critics should admit points to the need for conservation and for hedging our bets on greenhouse emission induced climate change. Its a global experiment we cannot easily run in reverse, at least on the scale of centuries which is what matters to human societies and land use management. In the grand scheme of things, climate has always been changing. Of course, species have always been going extinct, too. We should worry about our own.
As far as the cycling camps? I recently quipped to Fred Oswald that the battle between the two camps reminds me of the Great Crusades, where I imagined the facilities-centric legions facing off against the VC crowd, Perhaps the LAB Board and John Forester on opposing great stallions. Meanwhile, neither side alone can prevail against the traditional motorized culture we all have to deal with.
Horses don’t do well against tanks, as the Poles discovered. Its about time the protagonists started working together.
30. November 2009 at 10:04 am :
That battle has bothered me for years. The facilities folks are “winning” because they haven’t wasted so much time trying to “disprove” vehicular cycling (not that the public needs any help with that). The vehicular cycling leadership has for the most part spent too much time fighting against facilities, and nowhere near enough time trying to figure out how to make people interested in learning how to ride safely. Too many VC advocates have been browbeating and insulting people who could have been allies. They treat their principles as dogma; the slightest variation from them often results in a personal attack.
The philosophy Keri & I are taking is to teach people to ride properly in as supportive an environment we can manage, and let them figure out for themselves whether or not bike-specific facilities help them or hinder them.
30. November 2009 at 3:42 pm :
Agree on the VC dogma issue. The elitism goes over like a lead balloon with the general cycling population, making many of the VC leaders irrelevant. This is tragic, as there is so much to learn.
But the recent attempt by the League to write a defense of facilities paper pointed to a similar weakness on the League’s part, i.e., it was unwilling or unable to clearly articulate that our cycling leadership needs to be a critical advocate of good design, equally vocal critic of bad design, and a strong advocate of universal cycling education adequate to 21st century cycling. I hope some good came out of that issue.
But as you say:
“…The philosophy Keri & I are taking is to teach people to ride properly in as supportive an environment we can manage, and let them figure out for themselves whether or not bike-specific facilities help them or hinder them.”
Exactly.
In addition, this approach helps individual cyclists tell the difference between good facility design and “crap facilities”, to quote Andy Clarke. Seems to me the best outcome is to teach people to ride properly and have them be out there working on cycling issues with a critical and open mind.
8. December 2009 at 3:48 pm :
“Seems to me the best outcome is to teach people to ride properly and have them be out there working on cycling issues with a critical and open mind.”
Even a step beyond teaching them to ride properly, is changing their view of the traffic system and their place in it — wiping the scales of cultural bias from their eyes. Once we let go of the car-culture crap that’s been heaped upon us, we see the roadway and our place within it in an irrevocably different and wonderful way. As a man who sees the outside of a prison in which the door has been open all along but he just didn’t recognize he could leave.
Cyclists who have made this transition have escaped the Matrix. They will not accept marginalization as accommodation.
5. May 2011 at 1:54 pm :
Thanks relating to the blog post, it’s good to listen to one other person’s opinion. I absolutely agree with precisely what you’re saying concerning the knowledge in a very totally different approach to assist make new connections. Please keep up the nice work as I’m definitely going back to learn more.
25. August 2011 at 11:40 am :
There are definitely a number of details like that to take into consideration. That is a nice level to carry up. I provide the ideas above as basic inspiration but clearly there are questions just like the one you carry up the place the most important factor will be working in honest good faith. I don?t know if greatest practices have emerged around issues like that, but I am sure that your job is clearly recognized as a fair game. Both boys and girls really feel the impact of only a moment’s pleasure, for the remainder of their lives.
10. November 2011 at 4:22 am :
I indeed like this advise, i did not appreciate a destiny of the things that you posted in here. i ahve much more latest information with regard to these topics and topics coordinated to it. some people may find it implacable to understadn the english language but i upon it moderately gentle for the retreat that has discover to be what is todays policy.