bandit1990

I still think "Beklologist" and "John Forester" are the same person. Definitely keeps the thread moving....

hagen2456

That was funny the first time round.

gcottay

I avoid the idea of lane control. I cannot control a lane. I can, however, control my position in a lane. I can ride far right signalling to other traffic the lane is appropriate for safe sharing. I can ride near the middle of the lane indicating to other traffic the lane is too narrow or otherwise inappropriate for safe sharing.

Bekologist

Come on, Man! the joke is getting tired.

here's a way to tell us apart:

"road sneak", ride the lane lines when changing lanes, don't signal, ride just outside the traffic stream unless something unusual arises, avoid taking the lane in front of faster traffic - Forester method.

laws allow reasonable lane control, always choose a safe lane position, be clear in your lane control while changing lanes - Beck method.

adamhenry

It is awfully tough to find a safe lane position when you are trying to merge with traffic that is traveling 40 mph faster than you are.

genec

Merge? What are you, the driver of a vehicle? Sneak man, sneak... that is the way of the master.

Daves_Not_Here

Here's how I tell you guys apart:

Forester: "Summarizes" or restates arguments made by others, misrepresenting them in the process. Demands others provide extensive proof and evidence to support inconsequential arguments posted in an internet forum. Discusses cyclists in terms of a subjugated minority who must assert their competence and lack of inferiority. Takes the bait when personally attacked by critics, of which there appear to be more than a few.

Bek: Does not capitalize the first word of many sentences. Often uses the rolling, laughing, yellow head ( ) and other emoticons, apparently to communicate that Forester's statements are so ridiculous as to induce uncontrollable laughter. Reflexively argues with anything posted by Forester. When addressing Forester, communications are snide and laden with insults.

Of course, when critiquing others, one opens oneself to one's own critique, so I'll beat you to the punch:

Dave: Sticks his nose into other peoples' long running disputes. Often makes facetious statements. Is discourteous when encouraging others to be courteous. Lacks empathy for those who experience frequent drama when cycling. Has made no significant contribution to the world of cycling or its advocacy, yet would dare to critique those who have.

So anyway, the Forester / Bekologist, et al on-going pissing contest seems to be pre-date my participation in this forum. Has anyone ever posted a historical narrative describing where it came from? Business deal gone sour? Political competition?

I-Like-To-Bike

You are my kinda guy, bro. Keep up the fine work!

Daves_Not_Here

Don't know if you're being facetious, but if so I deserve it!

Bekologist

you can't see the gaping, inferiority laden holes in effective (sic) cycling's advice about lane control?

Effective (sic) cycling the book recommends cyclists operate with an abject lack of lane control when faster traffic is present. here's some more advice on how not to control the lane, straight out of EC

hidden within effective cycling is a deep rooted message to NOT CONTROL THE LANE, DON'T SIGNAL, RIDE ON LANE LINES TO ALLOW MOTORISTS TO PASS WHEN CHANGING LANES EVEN IN 25MPH TRAFFIC.

EC recommends all these riding techniques, and also suggests cyclists fight all manner of bicycling infrastructure, AND fight laws allowing bicyclists legal cause to control a lane of traffic under many circumstances.

-keep cities decidedly cyclist-unfriendly, get rid of laws allowing us to ride safely well into the road, AND ride like a road sneak.

It's very clear "effective cycling" has roots that reach out in the desire to clear the roads of bicyclists.

There's very real reason to be concerned affiliates of this bicycling 'program' are damaging to the sport, the utility, the industry, and hold back the positive social effects seen in normalizing bicycling. There's reason to be concerned the ec pogrom hinders the potential for people of all abilities to feel comfortable enough to ride a bike on the built environment they encounter.

It's like the Robert Moses plan for american bicycling!

In light of that, and the published advice on how not to control the lane when faster traffic is present,

"effective cycling" is a fraud.

Daves_Not_Here

Bek -- I understand you disagree with Forester on a number of fronts. Frankly, when I read both of your advice on how to negotiate specific traffic situations, I don't see vastly different recommendations, but then again I don't parse it very closely -- once the discussion devolves, I miss the signal for the noise. It seems that your substantive differences pertain to infrastructure and public policy.

I'm just curious if there is some history that would explain why passions have remained high for so long.

adamhenry

I gotta agree with Dave. I 'm a newbie here so I have been trying to absorb some useful info but I can't glean anything from the Forester/Bek urination contest. This stuff is a waste of bandwidth and I'm considering putting both of them on my ignore list.

Bekologist

Actually, Dave, it should be easy to see the bigger picture. There's been a lot of collateral damage to the entire bicycling population/industry and general public by affiliates of the ec pogrom.

It's like the Robert Moses highway empowerment plan for bicyclists!

As to the topic of lane control, there is substantial printed proof ec promotes an abject lack of lane control, not signaling, riding like a "road sneak" and riding between lanes of faster traffic under most conditions when changing lanes- in short, a trainwreck of ineffective cycling method.

I do NOT endorse those methods.

Bekologist

If you need to cross traffic going 40 mph faster, you need to OWN those lanes in my experience. the safe lane position is controlling the lane. Plan ahead (well ahead in that large a speed differential, and signal clearly.

Riding at the lane lines and not signaling as published advice for changing lanes in traffic is NOT lane control.

hagen2456

Let's see: We may presume, that prior to starting your left turn, you're not moving in the lane on these high speed roads, right (and I believe we're talking about cars going c. 60 mph, right?)? Then, I don't really find yours to be good advice. Sure, if you insist on not demounting, but that puts you at a disadvantage when it comes to assessing what is going on behind you. At such speed differential, a cyclist looking back will not get nearly as much information as one standing at the roadside. This, of course, has to do with the amount of time you'll be able to use on the assessing.

The lane-taking method will save you some time, but dismounting may save your life.

Bekologist

you can choose to ride either a pedestrian style turn or a vehicular style turn, hagen.

A rider choosing to operate a bicycle in North America on 60mph roads needs to learn a default technique of assertive lane control when changing lanes as a vehicular cyclist, as well as the pedestrian method.

Planning well in advance, clear lane control, clear signaling, riding with a large traffic awareness envelope (manila ) - that is how a rider safely negotiates changing lanes in high speed traffic.

What is generally never recommended - expoused nowhere except in a book of shrill, furtively submissive cycling invective, is to stop controlling the lane and ride on the lane lines once traffic begins moving faster than the bicyclist.

hagen2456

Yes, I got that part of it - my objection was based on the quality of the necessary assessment of traffic from behind. As far as I can see, one will be in a hugely better position to judge the position and speed of the motor vehicles coming up on one, if one makes the left turn pedestrian style. But the risks involved in a vehicular left turn do, of course, depend on how heavy the traffic is.

Bekologist

It's not a skill most want to learn, and expectations of lane control on high speed roads serves as a clear disincentive to popular cycling in North America.

However, for the chap over here complaining about merging into high speed traffic needs to see riding the lane lines between faster traffic and not signalling ISN'T the way to do it.

John Forester

This second post by Bek gets closer to the truth about the origin of our conflict than did the first, although the first contains some useful information about that conflict. The origin of our conflict is that Bek is a "bicycle advocate" one of those who advocate incompetent cyclist-inferiority bicycle transportation on bikeways because they believe that this is the most effective way to produce a big switch from motor to bicycle trips, while I, as do other vehicular cyclists, advocate operating in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Other bicycle advocates beside Bek have published statements that Forester and vehicular cycling are the greatest opposition to their program of incompetent, cyclist-inferiority bicycle transportation on bikeways.

Ever since the motoring establishment imposed bikeways on cyclists (California, 1972, for the convenience of motorists), against the strong opposition of cyclists, I have opposed the bikeway claims, presented by the motoring establishment, that bikeways make cycling much safer, particularly for those bicycle riders who are not able to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. In short, the safety claims for American-style bikeways in American traffic, as invented by motorists, are bull****. Forty years of experience have born out my skepticism; no such evidence has surfaced.

Therefore Bek took it on himself to discredit my work and vehicular cycling in general. But notice how that effort to advocate incompetent bicycle transportation on bikeways by discrediting the operation according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles has forced Bek to reverse his line of argument. Bek now puts himself out as the champion of controlling lanes, while putting together phrases of mine to create the illusion that I advocate cyclist inferiority cycling afraid of cars. His latest is to argue that I am against signalling lane changes; nothing could be further from the truth. I have always advocated signalling lane changes and waiting until that signal has persuaded a motorist to open a gap for the cyclist. That is quite different from the traditional cyclist-inferiority signalling, which was based on the unlawful assumption that the signal itself created a new right-of-way for the cyclist, whether or not a motorist noticed it. (Don't ask me to explain the techniques for cyclist-inferiority cycling as invented by motorists; they are unexplainable.)

So now Bek is forced to write out of both sides of his mouth, advocating cyclist-inferiority mass cycling on one side while advocating lane control by confident cyclists on the other, just to discredit cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Bekologist

oh, John! Your book talks about cycling instructors being ready to accept criticisms of not using hand signals in medium speed traffic, relying instead on steely eyed gazes or some such while riding on lane lines.

hardly effective communication by bicyclists in the midst of 30mph traffic. isn't it related to some fear in the book about suddenly losing control of the bike while signalling? I'm pretty sure that's what you talk about when you explain NOT signalling in your book. i will have to go get some more quotes on this subject.

adamhenry

How do you OWN or control a lane you are not in? The traffic in these lanes that I need to cross do not pay attention to a signal.

genec

What I wonder is how well Dutch cyclists, used to all sorts of cycling facilities, fare on other roads in Europe that have no such cycling facilities... are these "incompetent cyclists," as Forester would put it, getting into any more trouble in countries that don't have the Dutch system?

Has anyone done a study on that?

I-Like-To-Bike

There was a former BF poster who was an ardent vehicular cyclist advocate who claimed that he controlled the traffic to the rear with steely-eyed, Alpha Dawg stare-downs. No joke.

hagen2456

I don't know of any studies. However, I have personally never felt "incompetent" when cycling in places where there was no bike infrastructure, like in France or some places in Denmark and Sweden. What I did feel was that those were roads and streets I wouldn't like to se my kids or my old parents bike on.

After all, the abilities you need when riding on crowded rush hour bike paths aren't that different in principle from what you need to ride without them. It's a matter of degrees - but that can certainly make a big difference to how it feels and how dangerous it is.

John Forester

More misrepresentations from Bek. When negotiating for a lane change, the cyclist has to look at the vehicle of the driver with whom he is negotiating to determine whether that driver has responded favorably to the negotiation and has slowed to open a gap in traffic for the cyclist. Is that not obvious? But it turns out that the act of looking (and nothing about the "steely eyed gazes" that Bek ascribes to my writing) frequently serves as both the outgoing signal, "I want to change lanes", and the receipt of the reply, "Here's the room for you". Since looking does both necessary tasks, and since it does help to have both hands on the bars, there's no reason not to use this method.

Bek's argument about this is just another example of Bek's desperate ideological desire to discredit vehicular cycling.