What does LCC think about Bikeability and cycle training?

It is strange why they are so extremely against trainers helping people skill up and gain confidence to ride bikes

People just try to make things simple for themselves when they're new to something, so over the years many have set up a supposed opposition between training and 'infrastructure'. This is exaggerated. Partly, it is because people think that either are 'options' for 'increasing cycling'/reducing crashes, i.e. the more you do of the one, the less you can have of the other, and people have different ideas about what increases cycling/reduces crashes.

You have to distinguish more carefully, though. Training is, simply, training--it gives people better skills. To the best of my knowledge, John Forester has never claimed that cycle training necessarily increases cycling levels, although it can of course conceivably be part of a drive towards increasing cycling levels. (You usually find that where tangible changes occurred, they were the result of multiple different measures working together.) The basic idea is just to give people better skills. I think I used to think that cycle training increases cycling, too, so it's something that you just go through at some point.

Part of the history of the controversy is that in his time as a campaigner in California in the 1970s, Forester campaigned against cycle lanes. This was because the idea back then was to introduce legislation to prohibit cycling in the carriageway alongside the cycle lanes where they were built. (In the US, legislation/ordinances can be enacted at federal, state and local level, although I think it varies from state to state.) Forester was primarily concerned with maintaining the freedom to cycle in the carriageway, but the two things were only offered together. His drive for higher skill levels was not in direct opposition to cycle lanes or concomitant to his interest in preventing facility compulsion, it was just a drive for higher skill levels. He's a problematic writer, though, and he often communicates poorly, is heavily polemic, and gets people's goat(s). For instance, he often uses dichotomies like 'competent cycling' vs. 'incompetent cycling on bikeways' and thinks that introduction of 'bikeways' can de-skill people. The real dichotomy is between 'competent' and 'incompetent cycling', so let's not lose sight of that.

I don't think that there's data available on whether 'bikeways' de-skill people or not, and I don't think that this is the primary thing that gets the debate about the drive towards 'better skills' heated. Rather, it's because of the questions of what reduces road danger for cyclists, and because some people fear that somehow a wider take-up of better skills training might create a high 'entry requirement' for cycling, which they in turn fear would reduce cycling levels. More specifically, some people want street use by bike to be more de-skilled. They see this as a virtue, as they think that it reduces the 'entry requirement'.

I suppose this is a little like the Brompton-cycle carriage argument--the existence of Bromptons (and, later, other, similar folders) enabled train companies to cut back space for cycle carriage on trains, as passengers were able to purchase Bromptons and store them in luggage racks. Similarly, you might think, that if skill levels were generally expected to be high, streets would continue to look like they do today, i.e. quite hostile, or get worse, because, to quote an example provided by the Mayor of London, the Elephant and Castle northern roundabout is fine because it's easy to negotiate if you 'keep your wits about you'. (This is actually true, but it's also incredibly unhelpful to the many victims of crashes there and those people who genuinely fear riding through it. It certainly doesn't provide a reason not to re-design the junction, which is horrid.) Later edit: It must be stressed that the Mayor wasn't necessarily talking about better skills here, as he himself has not (to the best of my knowledge) taken cycle training himself and is widely reported to have poor cycling skills. (I've never seen him cycle.)

There's quite a lot wrong with that type of argument. Firstly, there is no evidence that Bromptons in particular contributed to a loss of cycle carriage spaces--rather, it was the gradual loss of guard vans, which used to provide the main cycle carriage space (but only once guards stopped guarding goods in their vans), as old rolling stock was replaced. Secondly, most modern rolling stock contains cycle spaces in passenger areas, whereas rolling stock that was built while there were still guard vans typically doesn't. Likewise, it doesn't follow from advocating training that people suddenly stop caring about good infrastructure. Not only are there many other factors (urban liveability, walking, public transport use) to consider, but cycle campaigners who might also advocate training probably do more work on infrastructure than other areas of campaigning. (The analogy between the two arguments probably doesn't quite work, but perhaps you can see roughly what I mean. We don't want E&Cs and we still want people to have good cycling skills.)

(As a footnote, the existence of folding bikes has undoubtedly contributed to the more recent peak-hour restrictions on carrying full-size bikes on trains.)

There are, of course, debates about what training should be recommended. One of Forester's points (but few read his books--they're hard going) is simply that people, especially adults, should be trained to a level exceeding the competence that has traditionally been taught to children. Some think that the training portrayed in the Dutch videos linked to above is adequate, others don't, and it's certainly interesting to have a debate about the finer points of that.

One key misunderstanding of cycle training is that it's only set up to deal with a problem, i.e. is a bit of a stopgap and only there to correct a negative without being positive in itself. This is wrong. Cycle training essentially aims at increasing people's enjoyment of cycling. It is, of course, not the only way of increasing enjoyment--well-designed streets can greatly help with that, too. To use an image, cycle training aims to increase your enjoyment both by showing you how to avoid falling off your bike when performing an emergency stop (correcting a problem), and by showing you how not to have to perform an emergency stop in the first place (being positive and proactive).

To use another image, there's no opposition between apples and oranges, which both taste good. (Apologies to any apple-haters or orange-haters.) I suppose another objection is that there is only so much funding, and you can only buy so many apples or oranges, but again I'd argue that you need both to achieve progress.

Another thing that some get their knickers in a twist about is that cycle training is for 'vehicular cycling'. Training certainly contains vehicular techniques, but it's actually training for 'effective cycling' (this may not be your word of choice, but it's Forester's), which is a much wider concept that includes a lot more than just 'vehicular' techniques--they're actually only a small subset. As they (especially 'taking the primary position') are partly counter-intuitive, they are the most eye-catching, which probably explains the disproportionate amount of attention they receive and their use as pars/partes pro toto.

'Effective cycling' also includes such simple things as understanding your bike's mechanics and being able to effect repairs. Again, not too many people would probably object to teaching kids how to fix bikes, as many kids obviously love being taught that. Cycle training organisations, by the way, do a lot of work on mechanics, because, once again, they teach much more than just 'vehicular cycling'. Many things identified by Forester as part of 'effective cycling' are simply key life skills.

We also shouldn't forget that vehicular cycling (which means 'riding a bicycle in accordance with the rules for drivers of vehicles'--that is, where you're allowed to and where separate rules for cycle users don't apply or exist) includes such simple and commonsensical things like observing traffic regulations that apply to all vehicles, such as stopping at red traffic signals or giving way to pedestrians at zebra crossings. Naturally, these are things that are taught to Dutch children, too, so they, too, learn 'vehicular cycling' to an extent. As the use of segregated cycle tracks is mandatory in the Netherlands, you can only apply vehicular techniques when you're riding where they don't exist, but one of the first things that just about every Dutch person whom I've met in London in the last two years or so (about two dozen, I think) has been at pains to stress is that so much Dutch cycling takes place in the carriageway, so vehicular cycling skills are clearly important there.

I guess people enjoy a bit of controversy, but at the end of the day, we all want the same--more cycling and fewer crashes involving people on bikes, and all of it done with more enjoyment.