N_C

Took the Road I Course today. Passed with flying colors, over 95% on both the road & written test.

Did learn some things I did not know before & re-enforced what I already knew. There are some things I have to change some habits on which I will. I did have to adapt some of the bike handeling to work with using my recumbent.

This class will help my cycling skills, no doubt about it.

I recommend this class to anyone & everyone.

I can not wait to take the LCI certification course. I also hope I get a chance to take the Road II & Commuter courses too.

Did you know 85% of fatalities that occured when a person had an accident on a bicycle are from head injuries? Only 15% are not. A majority of the accidents do not include a motor vehicle. That is a shocking figure!

I also learned to pass the LCI course I have to pass a test about John Forester's book Effective Cycling.

Looks like I am on the right track.

Bruce Rosar

Congratulations!

You might also want to have a look at the companion Instructor's Manual.

Definitely! BTW, for a more comprehensive analysis of cycling for transportation issues, I suggest exploring his Bicycle Transportation book.

tomcryar

Did you know that 80 out of those 85 didn't know how to ride? You have to pass a test based on something that might have been valid 40 years ago?

I-Like-To-Bike

From I Asked the LAB thread (https://www.bikeforums.net/advocacy-safety/230724-i-asked-lab.html) And
And so was I. The association/relationship of the LAB course, its instructors, and the disciples of passionate Foresterism, with all of its associated excess baggage as found in the required/tested Forester Book, is neither a myth nor ancient history.

rando

this is interesting. what out of the book do they test you on, I wonder?

N_C

Don't know yet. I've yet to read the bok then find out how the testing is done. I do know a person has to pass with an 80% or better.

JohnBrooking

I had a similar experience with the Road I course I took in June: Knew most of it (mostly from these forums), but learned a little, and good to have it all reinforced. One cool thing we did that I have never done before is ride around a rotary. It was a two-laner, so he had us enter, move to the inside lane, go completely around a few times, then exit again. It was fun!

Extort

I do not currently own, have never owned, and have never read the Effective Cycling book, and I passed the test....

I did see a bunch of people carting them around during the class though....

CTAC

Just finished reading the book. I have an impression that that guy have never driven a car. Just some points from book: mirrors are bad; rear reflectors outperorm rear lights by far. Half of the book is filled with *****ing over bike lanes and pathes. There are some useful tips, though, like not using detergent for shorts washing.

Helmet Head

John Forester owns a car.

That's misleading. Forester writes that mirrors are bad when they are used instead of looking back. Mirrors are bad when used by cyclists who have not yet learned to properly look back - if it inhibits them from doing it.

Because reflectors reflect a much more powerful light source (car headlights) than rear bike lights with AA batteries can generate. At least that was the case prior to 1992 when the latest edition was published. Whether the difference is that significant with modern lights I don't know. A large red reflector plus at least one rear light seems to be the way to go.

I agree it's overboard on that.

The most useful parts are in the section on where to ride on the road when, and why.

CTAC

You are using a mirror, are you not? One would quickly learn to turn his head before the action. I'm using mirror to predict the road situation, not to replace head turning. Same thing with cars. If one uses rearview mirror when pulling back, his insuranse will quickly teach that this is not the best way to do. It takes weeks to get used to the mirror, but Forester was apparently too impatient, if he ever tried.

I'd disagree with that completely. Car headlights produce ~50W halogen light on low beam. Assuming headlight angle 45 degrees and distance to the reflector 30ft, and a huge 4x4in 100% efficient reflector. Rough estimation gives about 2 milliwatts of light energy produced by the reflector. At 100 ft it is less than 0.2 milliwatts. If you have a car nearby with tail lights on, producing 10W of light the reflector will not be seen. Situation is even worse in sunset or on a well lit street, especially with sodium lamps.

Well, I think this discussion is just pointless without Forester himself

Helmet Head

CTAC, I'm no expert on lighting so I'm not going to discuss that any further until I learn more about it, but, yes, I do use a mirror. And I see other people using mirrors too. There was one guy in my Road 2 course who used it instead of looking back. The instructor reminded him a few times, but it was a habit he had. I remember riding a ways behind him and seeing him suddenly start to merge to the left without warning. Later we ascertained he had checked with his mirror and saw it was clear (and assumed the blind spot was clear too?), but he did not look back.

I've seen other cyclists (mis)use mirrors like this too. This is what Forester predicted and the main reason he calls them "bad". However, he uses one himself.

genec

Of course Forester made his assertation back when autos typically had only one mirror... now these days all autos are required to have two mirrors. Surely at least one mirror on a bicycle should be a good thing.

Bruce Rosar

Another point of view (from the CPSC's BICYCLE REFLECTOR PROJECT):

N_C

What, if anything does Forester say about the style of bike people should ride? Does he make any statements about mtn bikes vs. road bikes vs. recumbents, etc? Does he state people should only ride diamond frame bikes over other frame styles? Or people should only ride mtn bikes on off road trails & road bikes on the road?

He is pretty clear in his statements about MUP's, bike lanes & mirrors. But what about other things like what I ask above?

N_C

I know the last time the book was published was 1992 or 1993. If there it was published today what do you think would be changed in it?

genec

Well frankly I would forget all the "noise" in the book about how "he did this" and "he did that" with respect to the laws.

I would have peer reviewed any statistics.

I wouldn't include anything about bike shortcuts such as how to oil a hub. (not lube mind you... "oil.")

I would stick to issues regarding cycling safely in traffic... period. About 1/3 of the Effective Cycling book.

CTAC

Looks like somebody got to kick their asses out. There are lots of research already done for medical purposes on human eye perseption.

I never had to figure out at what brightness one light eclipses another, but when I had to make light changing smoothly I found lots of medical papers on internet on the subject. For the project I found that I have to change current by no more than 10% to make transition smooth. Basically, if light source is less than 10% brighter then the enviroment it is not seen at all. To be barely distinctive it has to be at least 50% brighter. That's why reflectors are so poorly seen at sunset and work much better at night.

SSP

With a glasses-mounted mirror like my Take-a-Look, there's really no "blind spot". Unlike the fixed mirrors in cars, a helmet or glasses-mounted mirror can easily be used to "sweep" the entire area behind you. The only true blind spot is right next to me, and a simple glance to the side (not requiring a "look back") is all that's required to assure it's clear.

IMO, the mistake the mirror-wearer in your course made was in not signalling his intentions.

CommuterRun

Congrats, N_C!

Good scores.

Helmet Head

I use a Take-a-Look and I would never move laterally without a look back first, even if the road appeared empty in my mirror. If nothing else, I just think it's a good habit to instill in oneself.

SSP

In heavy traffic that might be prudent, but I have mixed feelings about the usefulness of the "look back".

With the mirror, I don't feel it's all that necessary for safety when I'm making small adjustments in lateral position (e.g., moving left into the lane as I approach an intersection). And even though I normally look back when changing lanes for a left turn, I don't think the look back makes me any safer compared to the "sweep" I can easily perform with the mirror.

Some folks advocate a look back to establish eye contact with the overtaking driver before changing lanes, but I'm not so sure that's a good idea. I think some drivers interpret the look back as: "Good...the bicycle guy sees me, so now I can pass him/turn right at the corner/etc.".

Assertive positioning with appropriate signalling, is IMO more important than the look back...but, I don't ride in heavily urban areas so YMMV.

Helmet Head

I like to stand up to accelerate, look back, see the motorist slow for me, and actually start moving left while still looking back, all in one "transaction" if you will. This eliminates any chance of miscommunication about the meaning of the look back.

N_C

The instructor sent an email congratulating us for successfully completeing the Road I Course. He also stated he will be teaching the Commuter & Road II courses in Omaha next spring. Since Omaha, Ne is only an hour & a half south of me I plan on taking both next year.

genec

This is almost too funny... none of those "other styles" of bikes existed when the book was written in the mid '70s. Mountain bikes were just coming into vouge in certain places in the late '70s and early 80's. 'Bents were a radical idea, but not much in the public eye... (gee, as if they are now). Probably the largest variants back then were the 10 speed, and the stingray. Otherwise, most bikes were single speed. The 10 speed was making some real in roads into the American scene in the early 70s and was probably part of the "bike revolution" at the time.