[NoImmatureAdHom]

Just like there is a speed that is too low on most roads, there absolutely should be a floor for skill level and risk tolerance. People who are very unskilled or too scared to bike normally, such that they impede the flow of traffic or put others at risk, should not be biking. Obviously step 1 is help them correct their behavior, of course--better to have them biking in the end.

[actionablefiber]

I don't think "stopping at stop signs" is anywhere near that floor. On top of that, cycling is inherently so much less dangerous to others that the floor can safely be a lot lower than it would be for motor vehicles.

For people at the extremely low ends of skill and risk tolerance - most of those people aren't cycling, especially not in the U.S., where driving is considered the "default" mode of getting around. The single best way to help them improve is putting in better bike infrastructure since people need a low-stakes place to gain experience and confidence.

[NoImmatureAdHom]

> I don't think "stopping at stop signs" is anywhere near that floor.

Sure, but I'm responding to a comment that made a much broader claim. I think the claim I'm responding to is wrong.

Americans in particular don't really have a mental category like "road for bikes". I see it all the time...if it's for bikes, then that means it's really for pedestrians too, right? For kids learning to bike? For prams?

What I want in bicycle infrastructure is a means for regular people to get around. What I don't want is people learning to bike in traffic (where "traffic" means regular people on bikes just trying to get around!). If you're not a confident bicyclist, the road is not the place to learn. You should not be taking your little kids with their trikes on bicycle roads. You should be performing to some minimum standard of competence, such that you're not going to hurt or delay others.

> For people at the extremely low ends of skill and risk tolerance - most of those people aren't cycling, especially not in the U.S., where driving is considered the "default" mode of getting around. The single best way to help them improve is putting in better bike infrastructure

We agree!

>since people need a low-stakes place to gain experience and confidence.

Except this bit. I think making it seem safer is certainly a thing that will result in more people bicycling. Part of it is affecting decisions made by people who are already competent cyclists ("Should I continue to cycle to work?"), and part of it is affecting the decision to start cycling for newbies. But you really shouldn't be on the road until you're some minimum level of competent; find a parking lot.

If you want to stop at stop signs, that's totally fine.

[actionablefiber]

> Americans in particular don't really have a mental category like "road for bikes". I see it all the time...if it's for bikes, then that means it's really for pedestrians too, right? For kids learning to bike? For prams?

I'll cop to the claim being so broad that it includes the extremely, extremely low end of skill ("unable to reliably operate a bicycle"), which is a level where most people do not stay for long, especially in places where cycling is common for everyday tasks.

I can't think of a pithy way to rephrase the original claim, so I will nuance it instead, that any cyclist who has mastered the basics of a bicycle should feel free to continue their learning in public places.

After acquiring a basic ability to stay balanced, pedal, turn and brake, learning how to cycle and conquering the anxieties people have around negotiating their environments on a bicycle is trial-by-fire with (hopefully progressively) larger fires. This is even true for a lot of people learning to drive: many people in car-dependent suburbia figure out how to operate the steering wheel, pedals, and gears in a deserted parking lot somewhere, and then have to spend time on an actual road with cars to figure out how to interact intelligently with traffic. If learners weren't supposed to interact with traffic before they knew confidently how to interact with traffic, they'd be caught in a chicken-egg problem since it's fundamentally a trial and error process.

Ultimately cycling is by its nature much more forgiving to people who are still figuring it out since the probability of an accident is much lower, as is its expected severity. It's much easier for competent cyclists to identify people who are clumsy or slow in a timely manner, and navigate around them.