Advocacy & Safety - Forrester's Effective Cycling... BLECH !!!

I am going to take the LCI course soon, and the League sent me a copy of Forrester... man, that guy rubs me the wrong way!

He is completely wrong on mirrors... thinks that looking back is always better, you shouldn't use mirrors. He doesn't believe that mirrors help you avoid getting struck from behind. What a pompous a**.

Oh jezz, then his TMI (Too Much Information) on the female lab** and cli***** as they affect female saddles. I'm thinking, why did he have to go into such intimate details? Left me with an icky feeling in the pit of my stomach. :(

Then his TMI about how his first wife and he split up, and his chasing after blondes when he was in his 40s, and how best to accomplish courtship by means of a bike (written only from a male POv of course)

Too Much Information.

And his writing style sucks, from a technical writing POV. His great tome could've and should've been put into half or 1/3 as many pages, with no loss of real information, in fact, it would be better.

The man is a genius, don't get me wrong, and he's right 80 - 90 % of the time, but there are times when he should acknowledge that there is a disparity of opinion on a topic, that experts agree to disagree, here are the issues and the physics involved, you decide for yourself. Instead, he arrogantly and often without data dismisses any contrary opinion that he dislikes... using terms like "it is obvious that". Well no, it's not obvious to me that mirrors are of little use, especially since mirrors have saved my butt on a few occasions.

To an self-proclaimed "expert" everything is "obvious".

Granted, I havn't read his work and can't comment on any particulars, if he has a background in female anatomy, then he may be able to comment on the effect of saddles on their genetalia. Otherwise, it's pretty much guesswork since he really can't talk from personal experience.

As for mirrors, I don't personally use one, but thats mostly because I don't have room on my handlebars for them. I don't like looking back because I have a nasty habit of veering left when looking over my left shoulder.

(edit: Spelling fix)

Welcome to the contentious world of VC. For more insight into this dogmatic riding style check out the bike lane thread.

Very few people actually write about female problems with cycling. So 1) if you're not female, why are you reading it, and 2) appreciate that someone is finally addressing female problems and let it be.

Koffee

Well, large swaths of the book are required reading for the course, so that's why I was reading it.

I'm happy that someone addressed female cycling problems... but he didn't have to do it in such graphic detail. He could've just said, "female cyclists have difficulty finding a comfortable saddle".

Taken out of context, I would've let it go, really... but combined with his weirdo chapter on divorce, courtship, and love as they relate to cycling, I get the distinct impression that is a man who is, as they say in some therapy circles, "boundaryless", or has "boundary issues".

Oh yeah, he advises that to get rid of saddle sores, you need a "special friend" who can basically pop 'n' squeeze your crotch zits for ya. Yee-haaa, whatever turns you on, dude! Is there a name for that kind of fetish?

Like if you had a pretty 16 y.o. daughter, you wouldn't want the man within five yards of her alone. OR maybe you wouldn't even want her to see how he's looking at her?

That kind of thing. But, hopefully my hunch is wrong. Maybe someone who knows him can rise to his defense?



Very few people actually write about female problems with cycling. So 1) if you're not female, why are you reading it, and 2) appreciate that someone is finally addressing female problems and let it be.

Koffee

i'm a firm believer in VC, but have just discovered that it's main proponent has "issues"


Welcome to the contentious world of VC. For more insight into this dogmatic riding style check out the bike lane thread.

Well, large swaths of the book are required reading for the course, so that's why I was reading it.

I'm happy that someone addressed female cycling problems... but he didn't have to do it in such graphic detail. He could've just said, "female cyclists have difficulty finding a comfortable saddle".

Taken out of context, I would've let it go, really... but combined with his weirdo chapter on divorce, courtship, and love as they relate to cycling, I get the distinct impression that is a man who is, as they say in some therapy circles, "boundaryless", or has "boundary issues".

Oh yeah, he advises that to get rid of saddle sores, you need a "special friend" who can basically pop 'n' squeeze your crotch zits for ya. Yee-haaa, whatever turns you on, dude! Is there a name for that kind of fetish?

Like if you had a pretty 16 y.o. daughter, you wouldn't want the man within five yards of her alone. OR maybe you wouldn't even want her to see how he's looking at her?

That kind of thing. But, hopefully my hunch is wrong. Maybe someone who knows him can rise to his defense?

I really am not concerned with a chapter on family life. We do need GRAPHIC information with clinical terms that goes through the female anatomy and cycling. They do it for men ALL THE TIME, yet for women, there is rarely a peep on the subject. While you may find using clinical, anatomical terms disturbing, this is how doctors talk to females when going in for routine gynecological exams. Clinical terms are necessary, and if you can't take it, perhaps you'd be best not taking the course. Grow up already- it's a good topic that should be discussed in such a way that folks understand female issues. Do you expect him to use "thingie" and "who-ha" when referring to female parts?

Koffee

I'm with you (and against Forester) when it comes to mirrors. I can use my helmet-mounted mirror easy and quicker than a turn. My brother was a HUGE Forester/VC proponent, and we'd argue this point a lot.

Forester has some weird ideas, yes. His "courtship" chapters are downright funny. I read some paragraphs out of there to my boyfriend and we had a good laugh. He also is far too opinionated on too many issues (do you know he advocates for NO tail light?). But the "graphic detail" is fine with me, somehow. Yeah, sure, you can say "girls have trouple finding comfy saddles, so they should use the special ladies saddles", but it's helpful to know what exactly the problem is and how to pick a saddle that avoids it.

JF is rather crusty in his beliefs & writing style, harkening back to an era past. As an example, look at some old (pre - WW II) Scout manuals. After all, his father is C. S. Forrester, of Horatio Hornblower fame.

As for mirrors, anyone who has every turned their head, stared a motorist in the eye, and gotten their room to maneuver, has lived what JF preaches.

InfamousG, looking back is a skill, just like riding a straight line. It just takes a bit of practise.

kf5nd, even in the LCI community, much less the LAB, there are conflicts over JF. You might try the other 'Cycling Gospels according to John', to provide other points of view.
Effective Cycling - John Forrester
Street Smarts - John Allen
Cyclecraft - John Franklin

I agree, Forrester is old fashioned. And Effective Cycling desperately needs updating (and editing) by someone with a fresh perspective.

having said all that.... I am not sure I would be riding today without his help. My library had the book, and it made a big difference in my life. So despite the issues, I remain a fan.

You learn something every day.
I never knew John Forester was the son of C S Forester.
He writes like a pedantic Englishman, so he comes by it honestly.
I agree with three quarters of his vehicular cycling concept, but I've not read Effective Cycling. I am going to go the library and get it just for entertainment value.

I'm happy that someone addressed female cycling problems... but he didn't have to do it in such graphic detail. He could've just said, "female cyclists have difficulty finding a comfortable saddle".

What would be the point of just saying "female cyclists have difficulty finding a comfortable saddle"? By explaining the reasons behind this, he's isolated the specific problem. Information like this is incredibly useful for those with saddle fit issues - helps figure out if the issue is female specific, or if they're just experiencing the standard saddle incompatibilities that many men suffer too.

I don't understand why anyone could be disturbed by this in any context. He's not using dirty words, but just standard medical/scientific terms. We learn by understanding why, not by just being told what.

The book probably does need a re-write, but in any text like this you'll find some things you agree with and some you don't. The section on female saddle fit is definitely not a section that needs to be censored.

Asterisks for labia and clitoris?! Are these dirty words in T***s? And as for for a president named after f****e p***c h***s, well, how disgusting can you get?

With regard to mirrors, they don't save your life - using them effectively can. Relying on them, however, might lead to an accident, since you might not spot someone in your blind spot. The "lifesaver" look over the shoulder gives you a wider field of vision and a better appreciation of distances and speeds.

I can't say I agree with him 100%, but I don't regard him as an *ss, or even a d****y. Bear in mind that he's been campaigning since most people on this forum were in diapoos and that he's had to cope with blind stupidity and ignorance on the part of public bodies, from federal govt agencies to local councils, not to mention occasional dishonesty, it's not surprising that he comes over as dogmatic.

As for the sheer amount of detail and occasional repetition in his two main books, you should remember that he's had to deal with people who have been painfully slow on the uptake, so it's probably habit.

He also has to cover every possible argument that newbies, engineers, traffi "experts", etc., are likely to come up with. One thing I do know is that anyone riding according to the principles of EC is far less likely to suffer a collision with a motor vehicle than someone who doesn't know them

Now I'm curious - which is the "thingie" and which is the "who-ha"? :)

Asterisks for labia and clitoris?! Are these dirty words in T***s? And as for for a president named after f****e p***c h***s, well, how disgusting can you get?


<bows to this excellent post

Forrester... man, that guy rubs me the wrong way!
me too...his writing style somehow conveys pompous arrogance. Even though I agree with a good part of his message.


He is completely wrong on mirrors... thinks that looking back is always better, you shouldn't use mirrors. He doesn't believe that mirrors help you avoid getting struck from behind.
One problem with mirrors would be if you get into the habit where you only use them, and lose the habit and skill of doing shoulder checks. As well, a shoulder check lets others know that you know they are there.


Oh jezz, then his TMI (Too Much Information) on the female lab** and cli***** as they affect female saddles. I'm thinking, why did he have to go into such intimate details? Left me with an icky feeling in the pit of my stomach. :(
Get over it.


Then his TMI about how his first wife and he split up, and his chasing after blondes when he was in his 40s, and how best to accomplish courtship by means of a bike (written only from a male POv of course)
That was pretty weird, I agree.


it's not obvious to me that mirrors are of little use, especially since mirrors have saved my butt on a few occasions.
I don't use mirrors and can readily hear vehicles overtaking me and judge their proximity - which I verify with a shoulder check. The only times I've been really caught off guard, is by reckless overtaking cyclists who blew by me, for example passing on the right as I slowed at a stopsign, and drifted towards the curb to stop for a pedestrian. Can you give some examples of how mirrors have helped you?
Robert

My take is that Forester has the right idea, but has presented them in a tech manual form... difficult to read, worse to understand, but technically correct. Ever actually read a tech manual from cover to cover?

Of course, some of his work is now quite dated... that bit refering to the mechanics of bikes, not to VC.

More readable is Robert Hurst's "The Art of Urban Cycling."

I don't use mirrors and can readily hear vehicles overtaking me and judge their proximity - which I verify with a shoulder check. The only times I've been really caught off guard, is by reckless overtaking cyclists who blew by me, for example passing on the right as I slowed at a stopsign, and drifted towards the curb to stop for a pedestrian. Can you give some examples of how mirrors have helped you?


I can give you great examples... You cannot hear overtaking vehicles when in heavy traffic of 2-3 lanes thick... it all starts to blend together, and when it is moving at 45-50MPH with intersections, it is difficult to move your eyes, much less your head and upper body to look behind you for that split second just to see if it clear enough to think about merging.

Glancing in a mirror provides the information that there may be a break in traffic approaching (that you cannot hear as it is not there yet) that you can use, while at the same time allowing you to maintain a forward look. Using that information, coupled with a true look behind, gives you the edge needed in fast dense traffic of the kind that frankly did not exist for the most part back in the good old days of 1976.

Consider a mirror your technological improvement. Also note that motorvehicles are now required to have two mirrors... they did not have that requirement in 1976. 'Bout time bikes just sorta kept up with at least one mirror, eh?

I concur with much of what I have read here. Forester knows alot, and I do respect him, but he is extremely intolerant of those who hold differing opinions. Also, I think he could be a more effective cycling advocate if he turned down the rhetoric. I generally recommend John Franklin's excellent little book, "Cyclecraft," to anyone who simply wants to read about how to survive in traffic. I also concur that Forester's book is hopelessly out of date on lighting, mechanicals, etc. I will keep my bright red rear blinkies, thank you!

I don't remember him saying that you shouldn't use mirrors but instead not rely on them entirely. (then again I don't remember all he said about this topic).

Mirrors are great, they have in fact improved greatly since he wrote his last edition. I have been using a "Take-a-Look" for a couple of months and can tell you that I don't want to ride without one anymore, prior to trying the T-a-L, I hated them.

But: it is still necessary to scan back, especially when preparing for a left turn or taking hold of the lane. Like with a car, a mirror cannot show everything that is happening around you, meaning 90 or 100 degrees back there. The turn of the head also gives an early signal to motorists of an intention to make a move, it doesn't replace the hand signal but it gives an early hint.

Scanning is an important part of the communication with other road users. While driving a car, see how differently you think and react while approaching a cyclist that scans as opposed to one that doesn't.

Regarding the book itself, I must admit it is quite an undertaking before the class (600+ pages? :eek: ) but you should have received a self-assessment sheet with it that gives you a guidance on what's important to read ;).
Don't worry, you will go through plenty of other stuff than Forester during the course.

Good luck with the certification!

I am going to take the LCI course soon, and the League sent me a copy of Forrester... man, that guy rubs me the wrong way!

He is completely wrong on mirrors... thinks that looking back is always better, you shouldn't use mirrors. He doesn't believe that mirrors help you avoid getting struck from behind. What a pompous a**.

I gave my copy to a former colleague who teaches English writing at a local college. He uses it as an example of a writer destroying his own credibility. :p

Forrester has some good ideas stuck in there, but many of his ideas are outdated and some I found downright dangerous. Mostly, though, the book seems to serve as his "the world according to me" oeuvre. He had stuck to vehicular cycling, and spared on his thoughts on life, the universe, and everything, the book might actually be useful reading (with several disclaimers).

Have a beer, and read it the same way you would watch an old Godzilla movie :D

Hmm. Tell me more about this "lab** and cli*****" business, please.

Forester has changed his mind on mirrors and uses one himself today.

I agree EC needs an update, and there is some weird stuff in there. In fact, I only recommend it for the traffic cycling chapters, which are actually as applicable today as ever. I agree Hurst's Urban Cycling reads better, but disagree it is the more readable update to EC. In some ways, UC is the antithesis to EC. In particular, while Forester's approach is to build a cyclist's confidence through practice, and concept and skill building, Hurst is a fear monger. He has some good advice, but really misses the mark on a lot of traffic cycling as well.

I agree with John that Cyclecraft is another excellent book on traffic cycling.

I'd like to know which of Forester's ideas Pat finds to be "downright dangerous".

Hmmm I viewed Forester as the theory, and Hurst as the practical.

In terms of traffic cycling advice - where to ride in what situation - I found Forester's three or so chapters on traffic cycling to be much more practical, and better, than anything Hurst describes, however eloquently.

Can you give some examples of how mirrors have helped you?
Robert


Before making a move I always do a head turn, but when I am getting ready to make my move accross 2 lanes to get into the left turn lane I find the mirror a great tool to see gaps in traffic approaching and am able to adjust my speed to hit the gaps right. With the mirror I am able to check behind me a lot more. Not that I don't look behind me anymore with a head turn, the mirror just adds to what I already do.

In terms of traffic cycling advice - where to ride in what situation - I found Forester's three or so chapters on traffic cycling to be much more practical, and better, than anything Hurst describes, however eloquently.

But the average reader is not likely to get to those fine points if they are so turned off early in their reading.

Perhaps what is needed is an update paring of EC to just those fine points, and with a touch more attention to eloquent writing.

Have a beer, and read it the same way you would watch an old Godzilla movie

That kind of sums up how I feel about Effective Cycling. I checked out of the local library some years back.
While Forester has some valid points, he is extremely,,, how to put this nicely,,, Long winded! Yeesh! And yes, he does come across with a "The world according to me" attitude. (Nicely put.)

I'm a member of the LAB, and no, I don't agree with their policies on everything. But isn't Forester butting heads with them these days?

Good luck with your coursework, kf5nd. I suspect you'll do just fine.

Like if you had a pretty 16 y.o. daughter, you wouldn't want the man within five yards of her alone. OR maybe you wouldn't even want her to see how he's looking at her?

Unfounded personnel attacks! Is this how you normally discuss issues you may disagree with?

Uncalled for in my opinion.

Unfounded personnel attacks! Is this how you normally discuss issues you may disagree with?

Uncalled for in my opinion.

More than one poster stated that the author included things about his personal life in the book. If a parent gets this idea from reading something a person has written, then it is not an unfounded observation. A few posters said this part of the book was too much information about the author, and was not needed in the book.

More than one poster stated that the author included things about his personal life in the book. If a parent gets this idea from reading something a person has written, then it is not an unfounded observation. A few posters said this part of the book was too much information about the author, and was not needed in the book.
Would you care to quote the portions of the book which justify implying Forester is a child molester?

I'd like to know which of Forester's ideas Pat finds to be "downright dangerous".

I'm sure you would. Sorry, not playing with you anymore.

Maybe we can combine two threads... "Fourty Year Old Virgin Reads Effective Cycling" ?

Keep Cycling!

Mirrors should be used just like they are used on all vehicles. Check them from time to time, but always look over your shoulder before changing lanes (or doing any kind of lateral movement). Mirrors should limit the amount of time to do a quick over the shoulder check by giving the rider an idea of the scene before they move.

Oh c'mon, I never said he was a child molester !

But, based on what he wrote and put into his own book, he seems to me to be the kind of guy who is just way inappropriately explicit about private matters. I would not want him alone with my daughter, absolutely not.

1. Going off on zit-popping expeditions with a "special friend" in the crotch area?
2. Writing about his failed marriage, and post-divorce experiences pursuing "blondes" (very objectifying way to refer to a human being)
3. Very explicit anatomical references that maybe didn't really need to be there (IMHO, YMMV)

All of this is in the book, read it yourself.

The sum total of which means, the guy gives me the creeps!

too much information !!!


Would you care to quote the portions of the book which justify implying Forester is a child molester?

Oh c'mon, I never said he was a child molester !

Like if you had a pretty 16 y.o. daughter, you wouldn't want the man within five yards of her alone. OR maybe you wouldn't even want her to see how he's looking at her?

No you did not say it, you implied it. Why else would you use "16 y.o. daughter" in your statement.

Your implication was simply uncalled for.

Note that at the time of the books writing, no one else was willing to discuss women specific cycling problems. Many women cyclist appreciate the franc discussion. Some had stated exactly that, in this forum. If you do not want to hear those issues or the personnel points, then simply skip those chapters.

Oh c'mon, I never said he was a child molester !

But, based on what he wrote and put into his own book, he seems to me to be the kind of guy who is just way inappropriately explicit about private matters. I would not want him alone with my daughter, absolutely not.

1. Going off on zit-popping expeditions with a "special friend" in the crotch area?
2. Writing about his failed marriage, and post-divorce experiences pursuing "blondes" (very objectifying way to refer to a human being)
3. Very explicit anatomical references that maybe didn't really need to be there (IMHO, YMMV)

All of this is in the book, read it yourself.

The sum total of which means, the guy gives me the creeps!

too much information !!!

LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!
LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!




:D

Deal with it already and grow up! They're called anatomical terms, and in order to talk about these common problems, you have to use their names.

Koffee

That reminded me of the Spam song.

Shocked. I am shocked.Such language!
I'm going to complain to a moderator.
Oh.
Wait.
Koffee is one

Good Lord I can't believe that people are offended by Effective Cycling.
It does have its faults, and Forester does come off as a bit umm... weird,

but come off it people, Get a Grip!

Yeah, the book can get a little weird, and it would be nice if the maintainance section applied to anything built after 1976, but the traffic riding advice is still excellent which is why I still recommend the book to customers. I do think that Forester is a little out of touch regarding the mental workings of US drivers and gives them too much credit for intelligence and humanity, however.

That reminded me of the Spam song.
Reminded me of Monty Python too, but different song...

Penis Song

Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis?
Isn't it frightfully good to have a dong?
It's swell to have a stiffy,
It's divine to own a dick,
From the tiniest little tadger,
To the world's biggest prick.

So, three cheers for your Willy or John Thomas,
Hooray for your one-eyed trouser snake,
Your piece of pork,
Your wife's best friend,
Your Percy, or your cock.
You can wrap it up in ribbons.
You can slip it in your sock,
But don't take it out in public,
Or they will stick you in the dock,
And you won't
come
back.

Yeah, the book can get a little weird, and it would be nice if the maintainance section applied to anything built after 1976, but the traffic riding advice is still excellent which is why I still recommend the book to customers. I do think that Forester is a little out of touch regarding the mental workings of US drivers and gives them too much credit for intelligence and humanity, however.

Sign of the times; back in 1976, it did seem that drivers had more intelligence and humanity than they do these days. Things seemed to start changing around 1990-1994 from my prospective and depending on the state you lived in.

:eek:

But like I said, I don't mind using anatomically correct terms, but the totality of what he writes, and how he writes, gives me the creeps. Viewed in isolation, the section on female saddles is fine.

But, viewed in totality... given the intimate group saddle-sore popping advice, and the how-to-hit-on-blondes advice, and then the explicit saddle advice, the sum of all of these just gives me a hunch (can't explain it) that he's just a wee bit too interested in sexual matters in an out-in-the-open way to make me feel comfortable.

Hey, but if that kind of guy inspires confidence in you, then that's your opinion. I'm entitled to mine. After all, I spend my free weekends on a zafu in front of a Buddha statue, maybe the problem is me, LOL.



LABIA! VAGINA! CLITORIS! PENIS! SCROTUM! TESTICLES!

:D

Deal with it already and grow up! They're called anatomical terms, and in order to talk about these common problems, you have to use their names.

Koffee

Sign of the times; back in 1976, it did seem that drivers had more intelligence and humanity than they do these days. Things seemed to start changing around 1990-1994 from my prospective and depending on the state you lived in.

I'd say around the late '80s/early 90's too... I wonder what happened? This was well after the gas crisis of the '70s...

Something to ponder.

I'd say around the late '80s/early 90's too... I wonder what happened? This was well after the gas crisis of the '70s...

Something to ponder.

That's when you guys started getting old
:eek:

"Darn kids don't show any respect!"

Come on, can you seriously argue that there weren't bad drivers back in the 1970s? My stepfather was yelling at someone when he was driving us around.

I'd say around the late '80s/early 90's too... I wonder what happened? This was well after the gas crisis of the '70s...

Something to ponder.

For San Diego and Washington D.C., I would agree the change began in the late 80s.

For Hawaii, it began in 1993, corresponding to significant traffic congestion. About 1999 or so, it appeared the Insurance Companies set down the law to the trucking unions. In the space of one week, I noticed a 180 degree change in how truckers treated cyclist (except for one low life trucking company that trucks tourist luggage from the airport to hotels).

Cabs have always been a problem. Women drivers use to be pretty good, but are now 50 to 60% of the private driver problem (particularly women with brand new SUVs). Men problem drivers has increased slightly (Women, don't take this as a slight, it means men have been rude to cyclist far longer and women are beginning to gain equal rights to be rude to cyclist).

That's when you guys started getting old
:eek:

"Darn kids don't show any respect!"

Come on, can you seriously argue that there weren't bad drivers back in the 1970s? My stepfather was yelling at someone when he was driving us around.

I didn't start getting old until 2000.

Yes, there were bad drivers back then, but they left cyclist alone.

In 1982, I had one women start to pull in front of me while she was making a right turn into my lane. I yelled "STOP", she did and seemed sorry for almost running into me. No rude intent on her part.
From 1982-1989, in California and Hawaii - no rude, intentional behaviors from drivers.
While in DC, 1990-1991, got several rude, intentional behaviors from drivers.
Back in Hawaii for 1992, all was well.
1993 in Hawaii, driver sees me but is in too much of a hurry to wait, so he left hooks me and then claims it is my fault. Things have gone down from there (except for the trucker thing in 1999 that I mentioned before).

I am going to take the LCI course soon, and the League sent me a copy of Forrester... man, that guy rubs me the wrong way!

He is completely wrong on mirrors... thinks that looking back is always better, you shouldn't use mirrors. He doesn't believe that mirrors help you avoid getting struck from behind. What a pompous a**.

Oh jezz, then his TMI (Too Much Information) on the female lab** and cli***** as they affect female saddles. I'm thinking, why did he have to go into such intimate details? Left me with an icky feeling in the pit of my stomach. :(

Then his TMI about how his first wife and he split up, and his chasing after blondes when he was in his 40s, and how best to accomplish courtship by means of a bike (written only from a male POv of course)

Too Much Information.

And his writing style sucks, from a technical writing POV. His great tome could've and should've been put into half or 1/3 as many pages, with no loss of real information, in fact, it would be better.

The man is a genius, don't get me wrong, and he's right 80 - 90 % of the time, but there are times when he should acknowledge that there is a disparity of opinion on a topic, that experts agree to disagree, here are the issues and the physics involved, you decide for yourself. Instead, he arrogantly and often without data dismisses any contrary opinion that he dislikes... using terms like "it is obvious that". Well no, it's not obvious to me that mirrors are of little use, especially since mirrors have saved my butt on a few occasions.
On mirrors v turning. Any time you turn your head you also tend to veer a bit in the direction you look esp when looking over your shoulder.

I think I understand why SUV drivers are so bad. I rented one this weekend. What a child killer! I could not see out the back. I could only rely on the mirrors to go in reverse, but there wasn't complete view behind me so I really had to rely on blind faith. If there were any children playing behind me, well, squish. And turning left? Ha! There is a side view mirror the size of the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary. I couldn't see a thing turning left. What an awful vehicle.

I've never read John Forrester and I probably never will. I can't see why on earth cycling can be considered so complicated you need to study a bible, I mean book, to understand how to do it. Even the driver's manual is just a pamphlet.