randya
Representing "lawful, competent cyclists". Read it here (too long to cut and paste):
http://www.johnforester.com/League%20Reform.htm
http://www.johnforester.com/League%20Reform.htm
John Forester Running on Reform Ticket for LAB Board, Western Region
Pages :
[1]
2
The BikeForums Team
-adv-
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
- http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in this thread)
- http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
- http://www.bikeforums.net
I-Like-To-Bike
Representing "lawful, competent cyclists". Read it here (too long to cut and paste):
http://www.johnforester.com/League%20Reform.htm
Bottom Line, short and sweet: Forester represents and advocates for his handful of ideological acolytes and the self proclaimed precious Experienced High Mileage Road Cyclists who share his dogmatic views. He would like to return LAB to that narrow view of advocacy; to promote his propriatary methods of educating "incompetent"/ "untrained" cyclists, or discouraging all the "lawless, ncompetent cyclists"(i.e, "untrained" in EC™ dogma) from cycling.
http://www.johnforester.com/League%20Reform.htm
Bottom Line, short and sweet: Forester represents and advocates for his handful of ideological acolytes and the self proclaimed precious Experienced High Mileage Road Cyclists who share his dogmatic views. He would like to return LAB to that narrow view of advocacy; to promote his propriatary methods of educating "incompetent"/ "untrained" cyclists, or discouraging all the "lawless, ncompetent cyclists"(i.e, "untrained" in EC™ dogma) from cycling.
LittleBigMan
Bottom Line, short and sweet: Forester represents and advocates for his handful of ideological acolytes...
However dogmatic, John Forester's writings encouraged me to use the public roads I was entitled to use. Before that, I was afraid to venture out of my tiny neighborhood except on broken sidewalks and way
out-of-the-way bike paths.
He expanded my horizons to the degree that I became a dedicated, full-time bicycle commuter, which I would not be today were it not for "Forester and his handful of ideological acolytes."
Thank you, John Forester, you old curmudgeon. :D
However dogmatic, John Forester's writings encouraged me to use the public roads I was entitled to use. Before that, I was afraid to venture out of my tiny neighborhood except on broken sidewalks and way
out-of-the-way bike paths.
He expanded my horizons to the degree that I became a dedicated, full-time bicycle commuter, which I would not be today were it not for "Forester and his handful of ideological acolytes."
Thank you, John Forester, you old curmudgeon. :D
dwightonabike
I have yet to hear a good arguement against JF's claims besides "ya know, I just feel safer with that strip of paint between me and traffic", while Forrester is pretty good at backing up his claims with scientific evidence. You can find innumerable posts on this forum where cyclists were harrased to get off the road due to the presence of a MUP nearby. It has happened to me on several occasions, even cops have told me to get off the road and on the sidewalk/MUP running next to it.
Maybe he is pushing his own program for financial gain. In this country, people with good ideas and the motivation to persue them are expected to gain financially. Forrester makes a good case that the current LAB leadership are looking after their own financial interests.
Instead of reciting the same arguments leveled against Forrester every time his name comes up, take the time to read this article and respond to specific points you might disagree with.
Maybe he is pushing his own program for financial gain. In this country, people with good ideas and the motivation to persue them are expected to gain financially. Forrester makes a good case that the current LAB leadership are looking after their own financial interests.
Instead of reciting the same arguments leveled against Forrester every time his name comes up, take the time to read this article and respond to specific points you might disagree with.
flipped4bikes
However dogmatic, John Forester's writings encouraged me to use the public roads I was entitled to use. Before that, I was afraid to venture out of my tiny neighborhood except on broken sidewalks and way
out-of-the-way bike paths.
He expanded my horizons to the degree that I became a dedicated, full-time bicycle commuter, which I would not be today were it not for "Forester and his handful of ideological acolytes."
Thank you, John Forester, you old curmudgeon. :D
+1. I don't agree with everything that he does, but I'm riding more than I ever would have without him...:)
out-of-the-way bike paths.
He expanded my horizons to the degree that I became a dedicated, full-time bicycle commuter, which I would not be today were it not for "Forester and his handful of ideological acolytes."
Thank you, John Forester, you old curmudgeon. :D
+1. I don't agree with everything that he does, but I'm riding more than I ever would have without him...:)
I-Like-To-Bike
I have yet to hear a good arguement against JF's claims besides "ya know, I just feel safer with that strip of paint between me and traffic", while Forrester is pretty good at backing up his claims with scientific evidence. You can find innumerable posts on this forum where cyclists were harrased to get off the road due to the presence of a MUP nearby.
ONE. I guess it depends on what you consider "scientific evidence" when it comes to selection of appropriate metrics, measurement and collection of relevant and essential data, and unbiased analysis beforereaching risk management conclusions.
TWO. Beats me what is the relevance to Forester risk reduction claims, of "innumerable" cyclists posts about motorist harrassment (as well as the cryptic relationship of such vague references of harrasment to the possible existence somewhere of MUPs). Significance of such "MUP related" vaguely (un)defined harrasssment to cyclist risk? Your guess or mine?
ONE. I guess it depends on what you consider "scientific evidence" when it comes to selection of appropriate metrics, measurement and collection of relevant and essential data, and unbiased analysis beforereaching risk management conclusions.
TWO. Beats me what is the relevance to Forester risk reduction claims, of "innumerable" cyclists posts about motorist harrassment (as well as the cryptic relationship of such vague references of harrasment to the possible existence somewhere of MUPs). Significance of such "MUP related" vaguely (un)defined harrasssment to cyclist risk? Your guess or mine?
Daily Commute
+1. I don't agree with everything that he does, but I'm riding more than I ever would have without him...:)
I agree on both counts. No one has worked harder to keep our right to use the road. I don't think I'd want to see him lead the LAB, but the organization will be better to have his voice on the board.
I agree on both counts. No one has worked harder to keep our right to use the road. I don't think I'd want to see him lead the LAB, but the organization will be better to have his voice on the board.
dwightonabike
In regards to "ONE":
Forrester is the only source I have found that attempts to look at the problem empirically, rather than emotionally. Do you have scientific sources that show the effectiveness of separate facilities that you consider more sound that Forrester’s conclusions? If not, what are your specific arguments with Forrester’s methods? Not asking to be smart, I’m always interested in a good methodology discussion. I would submit that there’s no unbiased analysis; every scientist sets out to prove their hypothesis. The question is of honest conclusions.
In regards to "TWO":
Forrester says that by segregating cyclists into separate lanes, we reinforce the idea that cycles don't belong on the road with cars. Therefore auto drivers are more likely to be aggressive when they encounter cycles in normal traffic lanes. I have read lots of posts and had personal experience of being told to get off the road and onto the adjacent MUP or bike lane. I don't think that's cryptic and vague. I should have separated that part of my original post into two paragraphs; I have seen no data that shows MUP presence increases cyclist’s risk. I do think that it is a safe assumption that more aggressive drivers makes for a more dangerous environment.
Not to say I never ride MUPs; I enjoy them on many occasions. They’re good for tooling around parks and cruising next to creeks, but they make for poor A to B transportation.
Forrester is the only source I have found that attempts to look at the problem empirically, rather than emotionally. Do you have scientific sources that show the effectiveness of separate facilities that you consider more sound that Forrester’s conclusions? If not, what are your specific arguments with Forrester’s methods? Not asking to be smart, I’m always interested in a good methodology discussion. I would submit that there’s no unbiased analysis; every scientist sets out to prove their hypothesis. The question is of honest conclusions.
In regards to "TWO":
Forrester says that by segregating cyclists into separate lanes, we reinforce the idea that cycles don't belong on the road with cars. Therefore auto drivers are more likely to be aggressive when they encounter cycles in normal traffic lanes. I have read lots of posts and had personal experience of being told to get off the road and onto the adjacent MUP or bike lane. I don't think that's cryptic and vague. I should have separated that part of my original post into two paragraphs; I have seen no data that shows MUP presence increases cyclist’s risk. I do think that it is a safe assumption that more aggressive drivers makes for a more dangerous environment.
Not to say I never ride MUPs; I enjoy them on many occasions. They’re good for tooling around parks and cruising next to creeks, but they make for poor A to B transportation.
I-Like-To-Bike
In regards to "ONE":
Forrester is the only source I have found that attempts to look at the problem empirically, rather than emotionally. Do you have scientific sources that show the effectiveness of separate facilities that you consider more sound that Forrester’s conclusions? If not, what are your specific arguments with Forrester’s methods?
The problem is not effectiveness of separate facilities, however you choose to define "effectiveness."
The problem is Forester's claims of the effectivess of his cycling education program and recommended techniques in reducing cyclist risk by an astounding 80%. Especially since none of the various studies he cherry picks measured risk in any serious way and even more importantly NONE measured an iota of information about cyclists use of any particular technique attributable to vehicular cycling or training in vehicular training techniques.
Also in 30 years not a single bit of relevant data has been gathered to show that being trained in Effective Cycling techniques (orn reading Forester materials) has had the slightest effect on cyclist risk.
Already mentioned is the futility of discussing risk or danger while ignoring the severity of accident events. I could go on about the glaring misreprentations, fabrication data (like the alleged safety record of a mystical population of Vehicular Cyclists) and distortions passed off as the best available scientific evidence, but why bother if anyone of intelligence can't figure out the problem with quantitative claims of risk reduction based on wishful thinking and fabricated data, no amount of explanation will help.
Forrester is the only source I have found that attempts to look at the problem empirically, rather than emotionally. Do you have scientific sources that show the effectiveness of separate facilities that you consider more sound that Forrester’s conclusions? If not, what are your specific arguments with Forrester’s methods?
The problem is not effectiveness of separate facilities, however you choose to define "effectiveness."
The problem is Forester's claims of the effectivess of his cycling education program and recommended techniques in reducing cyclist risk by an astounding 80%. Especially since none of the various studies he cherry picks measured risk in any serious way and even more importantly NONE measured an iota of information about cyclists use of any particular technique attributable to vehicular cycling or training in vehicular training techniques.
Also in 30 years not a single bit of relevant data has been gathered to show that being trained in Effective Cycling techniques (orn reading Forester materials) has had the slightest effect on cyclist risk.
Already mentioned is the futility of discussing risk or danger while ignoring the severity of accident events. I could go on about the glaring misreprentations, fabrication data (like the alleged safety record of a mystical population of Vehicular Cyclists) and distortions passed off as the best available scientific evidence, but why bother if anyone of intelligence can't figure out the problem with quantitative claims of risk reduction based on wishful thinking and fabricated data, no amount of explanation will help.
joejack951
The problem is not effectiveness of separate facilities, however you choose to define "effectiveness."
The problem is Forester's claims of the effectivess of his cycling education program and recommended techniques in reducing cyclist risk by an astounding 80%. Especially since none of the various studies he cherry picks measured risk in any serious way and even more importantly NONE measured an iota of information about cyclists use of any particular technique attributable to vehicular cycling or training in vehicular training techniques.
Also in 30 years not a single bit of relevant data has been gathered to show that being trained in Effective Cycling techniques (orn reading Forester materials) has had the slightest effect on cyclist risk.
Already mentioned is the futility of discussing risk or danger while ignoring the severity of accident events. I could go on about the glaring misreprentations, fabrication data (like the alleged safety record of a mystical population of Vehicular Cyclists) and distortions passed off as the best available scientific evidence, but why bother if anyone of intelligence can't figure out the problem with quantitative claims of risk reduction based on wishful thinking and fabricated data, no amount of explanation will help.
So if vehicular cycling only reduced accidents by 50%, would that mean that Forrester is wrong and no one should listen to him? I can't always agree with his approach to spreading his message, but I can't disagree with the message.
The problem is Forester's claims of the effectivess of his cycling education program and recommended techniques in reducing cyclist risk by an astounding 80%. Especially since none of the various studies he cherry picks measured risk in any serious way and even more importantly NONE measured an iota of information about cyclists use of any particular technique attributable to vehicular cycling or training in vehicular training techniques.
Also in 30 years not a single bit of relevant data has been gathered to show that being trained in Effective Cycling techniques (orn reading Forester materials) has had the slightest effect on cyclist risk.
Already mentioned is the futility of discussing risk or danger while ignoring the severity of accident events. I could go on about the glaring misreprentations, fabrication data (like the alleged safety record of a mystical population of Vehicular Cyclists) and distortions passed off as the best available scientific evidence, but why bother if anyone of intelligence can't figure out the problem with quantitative claims of risk reduction based on wishful thinking and fabricated data, no amount of explanation will help.
So if vehicular cycling only reduced accidents by 50%, would that mean that Forrester is wrong and no one should listen to him? I can't always agree with his approach to spreading his message, but I can't disagree with the message.
LittleBigMan
To be fair, Amanda Clark is a commuting bicyclist who advocates cyclist training as part of a many-faceted cycling advocacy approach. From what I have read about her, everything she has done seems to be positive and helpful for cyclists on the road.
dwightonabike
"I could go on about the glaring misreprentations, fabrication data (like the alleged safety record of a mystical population of Vehicular Cyclists) and distortions passed off as the best available scientific evidence, but why bother if anyone of intelligence can't figure out the problem with quantitative claims of risk reduction based on wishful thinking and fabricated data, no amount of explanation will help."
So, I ask you to explain a position, you call me stupid and say if I don't already know, I can't understand. Good technique.
I asked for specific problems with his methodology, which you gave - sort of. Actually you gave more general complaints. I was looking for something more like, "in Forrester, et al, 1992 the sample group was was not representative of the true population becasue..." but you gave the same stuff I have already read in dozens of Forrester posts.
I must have missed where you gave alternative research to refute Forrester's.
But I did not want to make this an argument about Effective Cycling, that's not what this thread is about. Back to my original post:
"Instead of reciting the same arguments leveled against Forrester every time his name comes up, take the time to read this article and respond to specific points you might disagree with."
He only mentions Effective Cycling breifly, down near the bottom, and not to push its safety record or try to sell training. He talks about how the LAB used to teach it, but has moved away from it. Most of the article originally posted by randya discusses how the LAB has moved towards seperate bike facility promotion. Any comments on the original article?
So, I ask you to explain a position, you call me stupid and say if I don't already know, I can't understand. Good technique.
I asked for specific problems with his methodology, which you gave - sort of. Actually you gave more general complaints. I was looking for something more like, "in Forrester, et al, 1992 the sample group was was not representative of the true population becasue..." but you gave the same stuff I have already read in dozens of Forrester posts.
I must have missed where you gave alternative research to refute Forrester's.
But I did not want to make this an argument about Effective Cycling, that's not what this thread is about. Back to my original post:
"Instead of reciting the same arguments leveled against Forrester every time his name comes up, take the time to read this article and respond to specific points you might disagree with."
He only mentions Effective Cycling breifly, down near the bottom, and not to push its safety record or try to sell training. He talks about how the LAB used to teach it, but has moved away from it. Most of the article originally posted by randya discusses how the LAB has moved towards seperate bike facility promotion. Any comments on the original article?
sggoodri
To be fair, Amanda Clark is a commuting bicyclist who advocates cyclist training as part of a many-faceted cycling advocacy approach. From what I have read about her, everything she has done seems to be positive and helpful for cyclists on the road.
I think Amanda is a strong enough cyclist-rights and education proponent to stand up to John Forester's challenge. (She's also an LCI, although some challenge that the recent LCI training has been watered down.) She has certainly highlighted these aspects of her platform and experience in her self-description in the League's magazine.
I don't think John has enough political appeal to win, even if we ignore appearances. If John takes the high road and treats her respectfully during his campaign, their debate will probably enlighten her a bit about the history of the League, the special interests on the Board, and the bikeway controversy. But if John goes on the attack, he may risk alienation of the Board from other strong vehicular cycling proponents.
I think Amanda is a strong enough cyclist-rights and education proponent to stand up to John Forester's challenge. (She's also an LCI, although some challenge that the recent LCI training has been watered down.) She has certainly highlighted these aspects of her platform and experience in her self-description in the League's magazine.
I don't think John has enough political appeal to win, even if we ignore appearances. If John takes the high road and treats her respectfully during his campaign, their debate will probably enlighten her a bit about the history of the League, the special interests on the Board, and the bikeway controversy. But if John goes on the attack, he may risk alienation of the Board from other strong vehicular cycling proponents.
I-Like-To-Bike
I must have missed where you gave alternative research to refute Forrester's.
You must have also missed the day "Argumentum ad ignorantiam" or "Shifting The Burden Of Proof" was discussed in logic class.
No alternative research is necessay to refute so-called "studies" where the conclusions are based on fabricated, conjured ,and cherry picked misrepresentative and/or entirely inadequate data.
Try for a start at:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Proving_a_Negative
or from http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000656.php
"Shifting The Burden Of Proof"
By Dr Madsen Pirie
Shifting the burden of proof is a specialized form of the argumentum ad ignorantiam. It consists of putting forward an assertion without justification, on the basis that the audience must disprove it if it is to be rejected. Normally we take it that the new position must have supporting evidence or reason adduced in its favour by the person who introduces it. When we are required instead to produce arguments against it, he commits the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
'Schoolchildren should be given a major say in the hiring of their teachers.' 'Why ever should they?' 'Give me one good reason why they should not.' (It always looks more reasonable than it is. You could equally ask that the janitor, the dinner ladies and the local turf accountant be given a say. Come to think of it, they might do a better job.)
It is the proposal itself which has to be justified, not the resistance to it. The source of the fallacy is the implicit presumption that something is acceptable unless it is proved otherwise. In fact the onus is upon the person who wishes to change the status quo to supply reasons. He has to show why our present practices and beliefs are somehow inadequate, and why his proposals would be superior.
'I believe that a secret conspiracy of illuminati has clandestinely directed world events for several hundred years. Prove to me that it isn't so.' (We don't have to, anymore than we have to prove that it isn't done by invisible elves or Andromedans living in pyramids under the Bermuda triangle.)
The maxim of William of Occam, usually shortened to 'entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity,' tells us not to introduce more by way of explanation that is needed to explain. World events are already explained by divine purpose, evolutionary progress or sheer random chaos. We do not need illuminati added to the brew, and he who would introduce them must show what evidence requires them to explain it.
‘Let him among you that is without sin cast the first stone.’
Shifting the burden is a very widespread and common fallacy. Popular conception has it that he who says 'prove it,' and he who says 'prove it isn't' are on equal ground. It is a misconception. The one who asks for proof is simply declaring an intention not to accept more than the evidence requires. The other is declaring his intent to assume more than that.
This particular fallacy is the frail prop on which rests the entire weight of unidentified flying objects, extra-sensory perception, monsters, demons and bending spoons. Advocates of these, and many other, ethereal phenomena try to make us accept the burden of establishing falsity. That burden, once taken up, would be infinite. Not only is it extraordinarily difficult to show that something does not exist, but there is also an infinite load of possibilities to test.
You will need shifting the burden of proof if you intend to foray into the world of metaphysical entities. Instead of resorting to the simple 'you prove it isn't,' you should clothe your fallacy in more circumlocuitous form,
‘Can you show me one convincing piece of evidence which actually disproves that...?’ (This tempts the audience into supplying instances, giving you chance to slide into refuting the example' instead of giving any arguments in favour of your case.)
The popular misconception about the onus of proof will enable you to put forward views for which there is not a shred of evidence. You can back gryphons, the perfectability of man, or the peaceful intentions of the Soviet Union.
You must have also missed the day "Argumentum ad ignorantiam" or "Shifting The Burden Of Proof" was discussed in logic class.
No alternative research is necessay to refute so-called "studies" where the conclusions are based on fabricated, conjured ,and cherry picked misrepresentative and/or entirely inadequate data.
Try for a start at:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Proving_a_Negative
or from http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000656.php
"Shifting The Burden Of Proof"
By Dr Madsen Pirie
Shifting the burden of proof is a specialized form of the argumentum ad ignorantiam. It consists of putting forward an assertion without justification, on the basis that the audience must disprove it if it is to be rejected. Normally we take it that the new position must have supporting evidence or reason adduced in its favour by the person who introduces it. When we are required instead to produce arguments against it, he commits the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
'Schoolchildren should be given a major say in the hiring of their teachers.' 'Why ever should they?' 'Give me one good reason why they should not.' (It always looks more reasonable than it is. You could equally ask that the janitor, the dinner ladies and the local turf accountant be given a say. Come to think of it, they might do a better job.)
It is the proposal itself which has to be justified, not the resistance to it. The source of the fallacy is the implicit presumption that something is acceptable unless it is proved otherwise. In fact the onus is upon the person who wishes to change the status quo to supply reasons. He has to show why our present practices and beliefs are somehow inadequate, and why his proposals would be superior.
'I believe that a secret conspiracy of illuminati has clandestinely directed world events for several hundred years. Prove to me that it isn't so.' (We don't have to, anymore than we have to prove that it isn't done by invisible elves or Andromedans living in pyramids under the Bermuda triangle.)
The maxim of William of Occam, usually shortened to 'entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity,' tells us not to introduce more by way of explanation that is needed to explain. World events are already explained by divine purpose, evolutionary progress or sheer random chaos. We do not need illuminati added to the brew, and he who would introduce them must show what evidence requires them to explain it.
‘Let him among you that is without sin cast the first stone.’
Shifting the burden is a very widespread and common fallacy. Popular conception has it that he who says 'prove it,' and he who says 'prove it isn't' are on equal ground. It is a misconception. The one who asks for proof is simply declaring an intention not to accept more than the evidence requires. The other is declaring his intent to assume more than that.
This particular fallacy is the frail prop on which rests the entire weight of unidentified flying objects, extra-sensory perception, monsters, demons and bending spoons. Advocates of these, and many other, ethereal phenomena try to make us accept the burden of establishing falsity. That burden, once taken up, would be infinite. Not only is it extraordinarily difficult to show that something does not exist, but there is also an infinite load of possibilities to test.
You will need shifting the burden of proof if you intend to foray into the world of metaphysical entities. Instead of resorting to the simple 'you prove it isn't,' you should clothe your fallacy in more circumlocuitous form,
‘Can you show me one convincing piece of evidence which actually disproves that...?’ (This tempts the audience into supplying instances, giving you chance to slide into refuting the example' instead of giving any arguments in favour of your case.)
The popular misconception about the onus of proof will enable you to put forward views for which there is not a shred of evidence. You can back gryphons, the perfectability of man, or the peaceful intentions of the Soviet Union.
I-Like-To-Bike
So if vehicular cycling only reduced accidents by 50%, would that mean that Forrester is wrong and no one should listen to him? I can't always agree with his approach to spreading his message, but I can't disagree with the message.
50%, 80%, 100% what's the difference among ideologues, eh? Since we can believe anything we want and call it "scientific evidence" until someone proves some other number is better, eh?
Forester has not produced a shred of evidence that vehicular cycling training or reading Forester books reduces cycling risk by anyamount for any segment of the population. Nor has anyone produced any measurable results that such formal training actually significantly altered the behavior or safety record of ANY population of cyclists who have taken vehicular cycling instruction classes.
50%, 80%, 100% what's the difference among ideologues, eh? Since we can believe anything we want and call it "scientific evidence" until someone proves some other number is better, eh?
Forester has not produced a shred of evidence that vehicular cycling training or reading Forester books reduces cycling risk by anyamount for any segment of the population. Nor has anyone produced any measurable results that such formal training actually significantly altered the behavior or safety record of ANY population of cyclists who have taken vehicular cycling instruction classes.
Helmet Head
Forester has not produced a shred of evidence that vehicular cycling training or reading Forester books reduces cycling risk by any amount for any segment of the population.
Whether Forester has actually produced a shred of evidence that vehicular cycling training or reading his books reduces cycling risk by an amount for any segment of the population is irrelevant and moot to the issue of whether vehicular cycling training or reading his books reduces cycling risk by any amount for any segment of the population. It either does so, or it doesn't. The fact that cycling using any technique is relatively safe makes producing such evidence very difficult and timeconsuming (costly). Evidence doesn't determine what the outcomes are. Evidence indicates what the outcomes are. And lack of production of evidence does not necessarily indicate lack of existence. For example, North America, Pluto, and penicillin existed long before humans were able to produce any evidence of their existence. Lack of evidence often indicates difficulty to produce evidence, that's all.
You might want to sit around and wait for some costly and very-difficult-to-produce study to allegedly show definitively whether VC training works to reduce traffic cycling risk. Not me. I'm the type to find out for myself, thank you very much.
The drastic reduction in close calls I have encountered, coupled with the tremendously improved treatment from motorists I now enjoy, since I studied Forester's book, and learned to apply the techniques in my own traffic cycling, is all the evidence I need, thank you very much. Even if you could produce 100 studies that allege to show that Effective Cycling is not effective, I wouldn't believe it, because I know it is highly effective, from my own experience.
Whether Forester has actually produced a shred of evidence that vehicular cycling training or reading his books reduces cycling risk by an amount for any segment of the population is irrelevant and moot to the issue of whether vehicular cycling training or reading his books reduces cycling risk by any amount for any segment of the population. It either does so, or it doesn't. The fact that cycling using any technique is relatively safe makes producing such evidence very difficult and timeconsuming (costly). Evidence doesn't determine what the outcomes are. Evidence indicates what the outcomes are. And lack of production of evidence does not necessarily indicate lack of existence. For example, North America, Pluto, and penicillin existed long before humans were able to produce any evidence of their existence. Lack of evidence often indicates difficulty to produce evidence, that's all.
You might want to sit around and wait for some costly and very-difficult-to-produce study to allegedly show definitively whether VC training works to reduce traffic cycling risk. Not me. I'm the type to find out for myself, thank you very much.
The drastic reduction in close calls I have encountered, coupled with the tremendously improved treatment from motorists I now enjoy, since I studied Forester's book, and learned to apply the techniques in my own traffic cycling, is all the evidence I need, thank you very much. Even if you could produce 100 studies that allege to show that Effective Cycling is not effective, I wouldn't believe it, because I know it is highly effective, from my own experience.
dwightonabike
'You must have also missed the day "Argumentum ad ignorantiam" or "Shifting The Burden Of Proof" was discussed in logic class.
No alternative research is necessay to refute so-called "studies" where the conclusions are based on fabricated, conjured ,and cherry picked misrepresentative and/or entirely inadequate data."
Either you have misunderstood me, or you have mis-used your rule of debate (or I have misrepresented my request - but how could that be? I understand myself perfectly!) There are two camps here; one that supports driving bicycles as traffic, one that supports separate bicycle facilities. Forrester is among the former. You have rejected his arguments (without specifics). That is fine. I do not ask you for proof that his conclusions are false; I ask you to provide support of the opposing argument.
You choose to harp on a single line in one of my posts. Back (again) to my original post - do you have anything to say regarding the article in question?
"
No alternative research is necessay to refute so-called "studies" where the conclusions are based on fabricated, conjured ,and cherry picked misrepresentative and/or entirely inadequate data."
Either you have misunderstood me, or you have mis-used your rule of debate (or I have misrepresented my request - but how could that be? I understand myself perfectly!) There are two camps here; one that supports driving bicycles as traffic, one that supports separate bicycle facilities. Forrester is among the former. You have rejected his arguments (without specifics). That is fine. I do not ask you for proof that his conclusions are false; I ask you to provide support of the opposing argument.
You choose to harp on a single line in one of my posts. Back (again) to my original post - do you have anything to say regarding the article in question?
"
sggoodri
Forester has not produced a shred of evidence that vehicular cycling training or reading Forester books reduces cycling risk by anyamount for any segment of the population. Nor has anyone produced any measurable results that such formal training actually significantly altered the behavior or safety record of ANY population of cyclists who have taken vehicular cycling instruction classes.
A few studies that have been done of automobile and motorcycle driver education classes, mandatory or otherwise, have failed to show a reduction in crash likelihood per driver compared to those who did not attend the classes.
What the studies did show, however, is a substantial increase in driving by those who attended the training compared to the untrained population.
Those who attended the training likely feel more confident while also being better equipped to estimate and compensate for hazards they may encounter. If one subscribes to the theory of risk compensation, one might expect the trained population to undertake more challenging trips with more traffic than the untrained population.
It's problematic to use participant surveys to measure the performance of a training program, but participants in bicycle driving training courses generally report feeling more confident and cycling more often, and under higher traffic conditions, than before they took the course. This also helps explain why those who took the LAB Road course tend to defend it. Participants also generally report being less likely to engage in those behaviors associated with common collision types, such as contra-flow sidewalk cycling, running red lights, riding at night without lights, etc. than they were before. I certainly know that this is all true for me personally.
Vehicular cycling education has improved my cycling and I encourage others to try it.
A few studies that have been done of automobile and motorcycle driver education classes, mandatory or otherwise, have failed to show a reduction in crash likelihood per driver compared to those who did not attend the classes.
What the studies did show, however, is a substantial increase in driving by those who attended the training compared to the untrained population.
Those who attended the training likely feel more confident while also being better equipped to estimate and compensate for hazards they may encounter. If one subscribes to the theory of risk compensation, one might expect the trained population to undertake more challenging trips with more traffic than the untrained population.
It's problematic to use participant surveys to measure the performance of a training program, but participants in bicycle driving training courses generally report feeling more confident and cycling more often, and under higher traffic conditions, than before they took the course. This also helps explain why those who took the LAB Road course tend to defend it. Participants also generally report being less likely to engage in those behaviors associated with common collision types, such as contra-flow sidewalk cycling, running red lights, riding at night without lights, etc. than they were before. I certainly know that this is all true for me personally.
Vehicular cycling education has improved my cycling and I encourage others to try it.
noisebeam
A few studies that have been done of automobile and motorcycle driver education classes, mandatory or otherwise, have failed to show a reduction in crash likelihood per driver compared to those who did not attend the classes.
What the studies did show, however, is a substantial increase in driving by those who attended the training compared to the untrained population.
Would it be correct based on what you cite that the incident per driver remained steady, but the incident per mile driven declined for those who took the course(s)?
Al
What the studies did show, however, is a substantial increase in driving by those who attended the training compared to the untrained population.
Would it be correct based on what you cite that the incident per driver remained steady, but the incident per mile driven declined for those who took the course(s)?
Al
I-Like-To-Bike
Back (again) to my original post - do you have anything to say regarding the article in question?
Sure. The first page lays the scheme out clearly enough:
"The foundation of all this is the government's policy *** excuse that cyclists ride dangerously incompetently. The current League management is inextricably involved in this governmental institutionalization of incompetent cycling on bikeways….
…
The League's lawful and competent cyclists need a League that reverses the old policy and stands up for competent cyclists treated equitably as lawful, competent drivers of vehicles. This is what traffic law and traffic engineering require for safety. There is no substitute for cycling competence; competence reduces the cyclist accident rate by about 75%. The League's members need a League that promotes the teaching of competent cycling. The nation needs the example and proof that such a program will demonstrate when operated by a League that cares about cyclists' safety and cyclists' rights and status.
...
A reformed cyclist training program is the necessary foundation of reform of the government's policy regarding bicycling, from dangerous incompetence, as it has been for thirty years, to lawful, competent cycling as the traffic laws require.
...
This is the policy that I have advanced and advocated for thirty years in books, speeches, and as president of both the California Association of Bicycling Organizations and the League of American Bicyclists."
Why go further?
"Government conspiracies" cooked up in Forester's fevered imagination.
Strawman arguments about the "real" intentions of bikeway proponents.
"Traffic engineering" in relation to bicyclists is whatever John Forester says it is.
"Competent" cyclists are those club cyclists and road cycling enthusiasts enthusiasts who follow the VC doctrine as preached and interpreted by Forester and his acolytes.
Cycling is way too "dangerous" for those "incompetent" cyclists who are not made "competent" by Forester Brand Training.
It should be the principal mission of a national bicycling advocacy organization to promote that Forester Brand Training program. I did note he has changed his conjured magic risk reduction rate to 75% from the equally fabricated 80% figure used previously.
Believe in it if you want. There are always gullible types who can be spun up on all sorts of "scientic" gibberish.
Sure. The first page lays the scheme out clearly enough:
"The foundation of all this is the government's policy *** excuse that cyclists ride dangerously incompetently. The current League management is inextricably involved in this governmental institutionalization of incompetent cycling on bikeways….
…
The League's lawful and competent cyclists need a League that reverses the old policy and stands up for competent cyclists treated equitably as lawful, competent drivers of vehicles. This is what traffic law and traffic engineering require for safety. There is no substitute for cycling competence; competence reduces the cyclist accident rate by about 75%. The League's members need a League that promotes the teaching of competent cycling. The nation needs the example and proof that such a program will demonstrate when operated by a League that cares about cyclists' safety and cyclists' rights and status.
...
A reformed cyclist training program is the necessary foundation of reform of the government's policy regarding bicycling, from dangerous incompetence, as it has been for thirty years, to lawful, competent cycling as the traffic laws require.
...
This is the policy that I have advanced and advocated for thirty years in books, speeches, and as president of both the California Association of Bicycling Organizations and the League of American Bicyclists."
Why go further?
"Government conspiracies" cooked up in Forester's fevered imagination.
Strawman arguments about the "real" intentions of bikeway proponents.
"Traffic engineering" in relation to bicyclists is whatever John Forester says it is.
"Competent" cyclists are those club cyclists and road cycling enthusiasts enthusiasts who follow the VC doctrine as preached and interpreted by Forester and his acolytes.
Cycling is way too "dangerous" for those "incompetent" cyclists who are not made "competent" by Forester Brand Training.
It should be the principal mission of a national bicycling advocacy organization to promote that Forester Brand Training program. I did note he has changed his conjured magic risk reduction rate to 75% from the equally fabricated 80% figure used previously.
Believe in it if you want. There are always gullible types who can be spun up on all sorts of "scientic" gibberish.
Helmet Head
Believe in it if you want.
It's not about believing in anything. It's about trying it, and seeing for yourself whether there is anything substantive to it or not.
It's not about believing in anything. It's about trying it, and seeing for yourself whether there is anything substantive to it or not.
joejack951
Nor has anyone produced any measurable results that such formal training actually significantly altered the behavior or safety record of ANY population of cyclists who have taken vehicular cycling instruction classes.
Do you consider member of Bikeforums as a population of cyclists? If so, there are plenty here who will tell you that their cycling behavior changed as a result of reading "Effective Cycling." Personally, instead of being involved in close calls, I now see how lane position has helped me avoid them altogether.
Do you consider member of Bikeforums as a population of cyclists? If so, there are plenty here who will tell you that their cycling behavior changed as a result of reading "Effective Cycling." Personally, instead of being involved in close calls, I now see how lane position has helped me avoid them altogether.
Tmax1
I am a vehicular cyclist!!
John E
I generally agree with and practice the fundamental principles of "effective" or "vehicular" cycling. However, I differ on a few key points:
1) I do not dogmatically reject all bike lanes. I still claim there are good ones and bad ones.
2) I am not too proud to make a 2-part left turn from a prime arterial.
3) I detest high-speed freeway-style free merges and diverges and strongly advocate traffic controls, bicycle-friendly traffic calming, whatever it takes.
1) I do not dogmatically reject all bike lanes. I still claim there are good ones and bad ones.
2) I am not too proud to make a 2-part left turn from a prime arterial.
3) I detest high-speed freeway-style free merges and diverges and strongly advocate traffic controls, bicycle-friendly traffic calming, whatever it takes.
I-Like-To-Bike
Do you consider member of Bikeforums as a population of cyclists? If so, there are plenty here who will tell you that their cycling behavior changed as a result of reading "Effective Cycling." Personally, instead of being involved in close calls, I now see how lane position has helped me avoid them altogether.
Swell, anecdotes are interesting, possibly even informative; might even lead one to question one's current behavior. But they are not measurements of risk , nor evidence of effectivess or a risk counter-measures.
Forester and associates are promoting the quantitaive effectiveness of a specific program to drastically reduce risk for i"ncompetent" cyclists; without a shred of any empirical evidence of any results. Instead they keep tossing out the same fabricated statistical and theoretical dreck to see what will stick.
Swell, anecdotes are interesting, possibly even informative; might even lead one to question one's current behavior. But they are not measurements of risk , nor evidence of effectivess or a risk counter-measures.
Forester and associates are promoting the quantitaive effectiveness of a specific program to drastically reduce risk for i"ncompetent" cyclists; without a shred of any empirical evidence of any results. Instead they keep tossing out the same fabricated statistical and theoretical dreck to see what will stick.
Roody
I think the unstated question underlying the debate is, "Who does LAB represent and advocate for?"
Forester's answer: "Lawful competent cyclists." Those we represent do not need or want bikeways. The proper emphasis is on cyclist education and protection of cyclist's rights to use the roads.
The answer from the other side (represented here by ILTB): "All cyclists and all potential cyclists." Those we represent require bikeways to protect them from other traffic, and to encourage more new cyclists.
Forester's answer: "Lawful competent cyclists." Those we represent do not need or want bikeways. The proper emphasis is on cyclist education and protection of cyclist's rights to use the roads.
The answer from the other side (represented here by ILTB): "All cyclists and all potential cyclists." Those we represent require bikeways to protect them from other traffic, and to encourage more new cyclists.
alanbikehouston
LAW at one time represented hundreds of thousands of cyclists. Today, it has dwindling membership, dwindingly influence, and a would-be leader whose philosophy of cycling represents, oh, maybe half of one percent of the hundred million Americans who ride bikes.
I-Like-To-Bike
I think the unstated question underlying the debate is, "Who does LAB represent and advocate for?"
Forester's answer: "Lawful competent cyclists." Those we represent do not need or want bikeways. The proper emphasis is on cyclist education and protection of cyclist's rights to use the roads.
The answer from the other side (represented here by ILTB): "All cyclists and all potential cyclists." Those we represent require bikeways to protect them from other traffic, and to encourage more new cyclists.
Really? Where have you read that proposed platform of requirements? Besides in Forester and clique's strawman arguments?
Forester's answer: "Lawful competent cyclists." Those we represent do not need or want bikeways. The proper emphasis is on cyclist education and protection of cyclist's rights to use the roads.
The answer from the other side (represented here by ILTB): "All cyclists and all potential cyclists." Those we represent require bikeways to protect them from other traffic, and to encourage more new cyclists.
Really? Where have you read that proposed platform of requirements? Besides in Forester and clique's strawman arguments?
Roody
Really? Where have you read that proposed platform of requirements? Besides in Forester and clique's strawman arguments?
Right here in this thread (your posts) and the Forester position paper linked to in the OP. I was just restating the obvious.
I hope I didn't misrepresent your position. If I did, please let me know and I will apologize.
Right here in this thread (your posts) and the Forester position paper linked to in the OP. I was just restating the obvious.
I hope I didn't misrepresent your position. If I did, please let me know and I will apologize.
I-Like-To-Bike
Right here in this thread (your posts) and the Forester position paper linked to in the OP. I was just restating the obvious.
I hope I didn't misrepresent your position. If I did, please let me know and I will apologize.
You did misrepresent my position as you are only repeating Forester strawmen arguments; nothing I said or anyone else for that matter. Except the Guru who is notorious for fabricating strawman arguments for his long list of cycling enemies (i.e. anyone who disagrees with him.)
I hope I didn't misrepresent your position. If I did, please let me know and I will apologize.
You did misrepresent my position as you are only repeating Forester strawmen arguments; nothing I said or anyone else for that matter. Except the Guru who is notorious for fabricating strawman arguments for his long list of cycling enemies (i.e. anyone who disagrees with him.)
I-Like-To-Bike
LAW at one time represented hundreds of thousands of cyclists. Today, it has dwindling membership, dwindingly influence, and a would-be leader whose philosophy of cycling represents, oh, maybe half of one percent of the hundred million Americans who ride bikes.
Worse than that; his philosophy of cycling advocacy is also limited to representing only those who have taken the pledge of loyalty to the Forester dogma (AKA "competent cyclists" in Forester speak.)
Worse than that; his philosophy of cycling advocacy is also limited to representing only those who have taken the pledge of loyalty to the Forester dogma (AKA "competent cyclists" in Forester speak.)
randya
I find it somewhat offensive that Forester claims to represent 'lawful, competent cyclists', as it presupposes that every other cyclist that doesn't subscribe to 100% of Forester's agenda is an 'unlawful, incompetent cyclist'.
The following exchange from a local listserve pretty much sums it up for me:
John Forrester is a grouchy old white man who literally wrote the book on "Effective Cycling". It's actually a very good book --pretty much considered "The Bible" by long-time League members-- and one could learn a lot of good information by reading it.
Agreed. I learned from it and practice vehicular cycling techniques 95% of the time. Much of the fussing and fuming is over the 5%, and Forester's insistence that that be 0%.
John is a retired engineer who believes that human behavior (on the bike) is pretty much the source of all ills when it comes to the problems of car/bike interactions.
I'm an engineer myself, so I recognize the mindset: We build self-contained systems that follow rules. This mindset doesn't work too well if it's too simplistic for the variables one actually encounters (e.g. human behavior). It's frustrating when the variables don't do what one wants them too, but these are human beings, not Microsoft APIs, so it's not useful to just declare them wrong and spend decades spewing invective at them.
So that LAB staff is all for bike lanes and multi-use trails, anything that will get them away from cars.
Actually, LAB devotes many resources towards education in vehicular training. The problem is that they also advocate for facilities (the worst f-word ever!), which is anathema to the rigid dogma of 100% Effective Cycling.
The contributions of the vehicular cycling faction are of great value and have vastly improved bicycling in the U.S. They have been advocated quite strenuously for 30 years, to the point where we can see their limitations. The thing to do is incorporate that wisdom and move on to the next phase of evolution; but IMHO the Foresterites cannot accept change.
The following exchange from a local listserve pretty much sums it up for me:
John Forrester is a grouchy old white man who literally wrote the book on "Effective Cycling". It's actually a very good book --pretty much considered "The Bible" by long-time League members-- and one could learn a lot of good information by reading it.
Agreed. I learned from it and practice vehicular cycling techniques 95% of the time. Much of the fussing and fuming is over the 5%, and Forester's insistence that that be 0%.
John is a retired engineer who believes that human behavior (on the bike) is pretty much the source of all ills when it comes to the problems of car/bike interactions.
I'm an engineer myself, so I recognize the mindset: We build self-contained systems that follow rules. This mindset doesn't work too well if it's too simplistic for the variables one actually encounters (e.g. human behavior). It's frustrating when the variables don't do what one wants them too, but these are human beings, not Microsoft APIs, so it's not useful to just declare them wrong and spend decades spewing invective at them.
So that LAB staff is all for bike lanes and multi-use trails, anything that will get them away from cars.
Actually, LAB devotes many resources towards education in vehicular training. The problem is that they also advocate for facilities (the worst f-word ever!), which is anathema to the rigid dogma of 100% Effective Cycling.
The contributions of the vehicular cycling faction are of great value and have vastly improved bicycling in the U.S. They have been advocated quite strenuously for 30 years, to the point where we can see their limitations. The thing to do is incorporate that wisdom and move on to the next phase of evolution; but IMHO the Foresterites cannot accept change.
Helmet Head
Forester's insistence that that be 0%.
I am not aware of any such insistence on his part. Can you point me to whatever has caused you to have this opinion?
I'm an engineer myself, so I recognize the mindset: We build self-contained systems that follow rules. This mindset doesn't work too well if it's too simplistic for the variables one actually encounters (e.g. human behavior). It's frustrating when the variables don't do what one wants them too, but these are human beings, not Microsoft APIs, so it's not useful to just declare them wrong and spend decades spewing invective at them.
There are rules of the road for vehicle drivers that are designed to prevent collisions. When everyone obeys the rules, there are no collisions. Not obeying the rules simply increases one's chances of being in a collision. It is that simple.
I am not aware of any such insistence on his part. Can you point me to whatever has caused you to have this opinion?
I'm an engineer myself, so I recognize the mindset: We build self-contained systems that follow rules. This mindset doesn't work too well if it's too simplistic for the variables one actually encounters (e.g. human behavior). It's frustrating when the variables don't do what one wants them too, but these are human beings, not Microsoft APIs, so it's not useful to just declare them wrong and spend decades spewing invective at them.
There are rules of the road for vehicle drivers that are designed to prevent collisions. When everyone obeys the rules, there are no collisions. Not obeying the rules simply increases one's chances of being in a collision. It is that simple.
randya
There are rules of the road for vehicle drivers that are designed to prevent collisions. When everyone obeys the rules, there are no collisions. Not obeying the rules simply increases one's chances of being in a collision.
So who breaks more rules, more egregiously, cyclists or motorists?
So who breaks more rules, more egregiously, cyclists or motorists?
I-Like-To-Bike
So who breaks more rules, more egregiously, cyclists or motorists?
And even more significant, what is the effect on the public health risk? It is at this point the EC™ puppets ignore credible event severities and jabber their gibberish about "risky/dangerous lawlesss" cycling.
And even more significant, what is the effect on the public health risk? It is at this point the EC™ puppets ignore credible event severities and jabber their gibberish about "risky/dangerous lawlesss" cycling.
Helmet Head
So who breaks more rules, more egregiously, cyclists or motorists?
Per mile traveled, based on my observations, I would guess that cyclists break more rules than motorists by at least one order of magnitude.
For example, while cyclists and motorists are probably equally negligent in "stretching greens" at traffic signals and making "hollywood stops', I almost never see motorists blatantly run reds and stop signs like I see cyclists do all the time.
The vast majority of motorists position themselves according to destination at intersections and their approaches; the vast majority of cyclists do not (the only one they seem to get right with any regularity is when they're turning right). I would not be surprised if cyclists break this rule more than motorists by two or even three orders of magnitude. I mean, say out of 10,000 cyclists only 20% get it right. That would mean 8,000/10,000 break the rule. Now, out of 10,000 motorists probably all but a handful get it right. Say 5/10,000 break the rule. The difference between 5 and 8,000 is more than 1,000x, or 3 orders of magnitude.
And even more significant, what is the effect on the public health risk? It is at this point the EC™ puppets ignore credible event severities and jabber their gibberish about "risky/dangerous lawlesss" cycling.
There is no question that motorists breaking the rules cause way more damage to others than do cyclists.
But in terms of preventing car-bike collisions, the significance is the same. A cyclist who does not break the rules probably reduces his chance of being involved in a collision by one or more orders of magnitude.
Per mile traveled, based on my observations, I would guess that cyclists break more rules than motorists by at least one order of magnitude.
For example, while cyclists and motorists are probably equally negligent in "stretching greens" at traffic signals and making "hollywood stops', I almost never see motorists blatantly run reds and stop signs like I see cyclists do all the time.
The vast majority of motorists position themselves according to destination at intersections and their approaches; the vast majority of cyclists do not (the only one they seem to get right with any regularity is when they're turning right). I would not be surprised if cyclists break this rule more than motorists by two or even three orders of magnitude. I mean, say out of 10,000 cyclists only 20% get it right. That would mean 8,000/10,000 break the rule. Now, out of 10,000 motorists probably all but a handful get it right. Say 5/10,000 break the rule. The difference between 5 and 8,000 is more than 1,000x, or 3 orders of magnitude.
And even more significant, what is the effect on the public health risk? It is at this point the EC™ puppets ignore credible event severities and jabber their gibberish about "risky/dangerous lawlesss" cycling.
There is no question that motorists breaking the rules cause way more damage to others than do cyclists.
But in terms of preventing car-bike collisions, the significance is the same. A cyclist who does not break the rules probably reduces his chance of being involved in a collision by one or more orders of magnitude.
Roody
You did misrepresent my position as you are only repeating Forester strawmen arguments; nothing I said or anyone else for that matter. Except the Guru who is notorious for fabricating strawman arguments for his long list of cycling enemies (i.e. anyone who disagrees with him.)
I am sorry. I thought that's what you were getting at here, when you set up your argument against Forester:
Cycling is way too "dangerous" for those "incompetent" cyclists who are not made "competent" by Forester Brand Training.
It should be the principal mission of a national bicycling advocacy organization to promote that Forester Brand Training program. I did note he has changed his conjured magic risk reduction rate to 75% from the equally fabricated 80% figure used previously.
Believe in it if you want. There are always gullible types who can be spun up on all sorts of "scientic" gibberish.
I am sorry. I thought that's what you were getting at here, when you set up your argument against Forester:
Cycling is way too "dangerous" for those "incompetent" cyclists who are not made "competent" by Forester Brand Training.
It should be the principal mission of a national bicycling advocacy organization to promote that Forester Brand Training program. I did note he has changed his conjured magic risk reduction rate to 75% from the equally fabricated 80% figure used previously.
Believe in it if you want. There are always gullible types who can be spun up on all sorts of "scientic" gibberish.
billh
But if John goes on the attack, he may risk alienation of the Board from other strong vehicular cycling proponents.
. . . does Forrester ever NOT go on the attack?!
. . . does Forrester ever NOT go on the attack?!
Helmet Head
. . . does Forrester ever NOT go on the attack?!
Yes. And I have good reason to believe he will not go on the attack in this particular campaign.
Yes. And I have good reason to believe he will not go on the attack in this particular campaign.
billh
It's not about believing in anything. It's about trying it, and seeing for yourself whether there is anything substantive to it or not.
I tried VC and found many of the techniques useful and generally ride as "a vehicle". But I've also found some of the techniques, in particular, "taking the lane", are interpreted negatively by most motorists in my area as discourteous and arrogant. Sure, much of this stems from their ignorance of the law. But then THAT is the real world too. And I have to adapt my riding somewhat to their ignorance.
I tried VC and found many of the techniques useful and generally ride as "a vehicle". But I've also found some of the techniques, in particular, "taking the lane", are interpreted negatively by most motorists in my area as discourteous and arrogant. Sure, much of this stems from their ignorance of the law. But then THAT is the real world too. And I have to adapt my riding somewhat to their ignorance.
Helmet Head
But I've also found some of the techniques, in particular, "taking the lane", are interpreted negatively by most motorists in my area as discourteous and arrogant.
So what? What's the alternative? Sharing a lane that is too narrow to be safely shared? Sorry, I would rather have some motorists interpret my behavior negatively than sacrifice my safety. YMMV.
So what? What's the alternative? Sharing a lane that is too narrow to be safely shared? Sorry, I would rather have some motorists interpret my behavior negatively than sacrifice my safety. YMMV.
billh
So what? What's the alternative? Sharing a lane that is too narrow to be safely shared? Sorry, I would rather have some motorists interpret my behavior negatively than sacrifice my safety. YMMV.
You argue from your experience. I'm simply saying my experience with VC is different.
You argue from your experience. I'm simply saying my experience with VC is different.
noisebeam
Sorry, I would rather have some motorists interpret my behavior negatively than sacrifice my safety. YMMV.
An angry motorist is more likely to make heat of the moment poor decisions. Poor decisions that can negatively affect the safety of the cyclist being followed or passed.
Al
An angry motorist is more likely to make heat of the moment poor decisions. Poor decisions that can negatively affect the safety of the cyclist being followed or passed.
Al
Helmet Head
In this case, I'm not arguing anything, and certainly not arguing from my experience. I'm asking YOU about YOUR experience.
What's the alternative to taking the lane?
Getting off the road onto the sidewalk until traffic has past?
Riding on the sidewalk?
Riding near the curb attempting to share a lane that is too narrow to be safely shared?
What's the alternative to taking the lane?
Getting off the road onto the sidewalk until traffic has past?
Riding on the sidewalk?
Riding near the curb attempting to share a lane that is too narrow to be safely shared?
billh
I generally agree with and practice the fundamental principles of "effective" or "vehicular" cycling. However, I differ on a few key points:
1) I do not dogmatically reject all bike lanes. I still claim there are good ones and bad ones.
2) I am not too proud to make a 2-part left turn from a prime arterial.
3) I detest high-speed freeway-style free merges and diverges and strongly advocate traffic controls, bicycle-friendly traffic calming, whatever it takes.
Amen, my position exactly, plus I add . . .
4) Modern motorists are increasingly distracted and inattentive (cell phones, gadgets in car), therefore techniques that count on driver attention are less effective than they used to be.
5) Bicycles are unique vehicles and should be driven to take advantage of their uniqueness, which includes in certain circumstances sidewalk riding.
1) I do not dogmatically reject all bike lanes. I still claim there are good ones and bad ones.
2) I am not too proud to make a 2-part left turn from a prime arterial.
3) I detest high-speed freeway-style free merges and diverges and strongly advocate traffic controls, bicycle-friendly traffic calming, whatever it takes.
Amen, my position exactly, plus I add . . .
4) Modern motorists are increasingly distracted and inattentive (cell phones, gadgets in car), therefore techniques that count on driver attention are less effective than they used to be.
5) Bicycles are unique vehicles and should be driven to take advantage of their uniqueness, which includes in certain circumstances sidewalk riding.
noisebeam
In this case, I'm not arguing anything, and certainly not arguing from my experience. I'm asking YOU about YOUR experience.
What's the alternative to taking the lane?
Getting off the road onto the sidewalk until traffic has past?
Riding on the sidewalk?
Riding near the curb attempting to share a lane that is too narrow to be safely shared?
Unfortunately there is no immediate alternative.
But I think to be balanced 'center lane position' advocates should also acknowledge the potential downsides as well. Now in my opinion this downside does not counter the benefits, but it also shouldn't be swept under the rug or ignored or claims made they don't exist because of a supernatural ability to communicate with every stranger one comes across.
The long term alternative is for all cycling advocates including VCs to advocate for WOLs.
Al
What's the alternative to taking the lane?
Getting off the road onto the sidewalk until traffic has past?
Riding on the sidewalk?
Riding near the curb attempting to share a lane that is too narrow to be safely shared?
Unfortunately there is no immediate alternative.
But I think to be balanced 'center lane position' advocates should also acknowledge the potential downsides as well. Now in my opinion this downside does not counter the benefits, but it also shouldn't be swept under the rug or ignored or claims made they don't exist because of a supernatural ability to communicate with every stranger one comes across.
The long term alternative is for all cycling advocates including VCs to advocate for WOLs.
Al
billh
In this case, I'm not arguing anything, and certainly not arguing from my experience. I'm asking YOU about YOUR experience.
What are you talking about, didn't you write this? . . . bold added for emphasis. My experience is that in certain circumstances it's perfectly safe to ride on the sidwalk. And like John E said, striped lanes are NOT always bad.
The drastic reduction in close calls I have encountered, coupled with the tremendously improved treatment from motorists I now enjoy, since I studied Forester's book, and learned to apply the techniques in my own traffic cycling, is all the evidence I need, thank you very much. Even if you could produce 100 studies that allege to show that Effective Cycling is not effective, I wouldn't believe it, because I know it is highly effective, from my own experience.
What are you talking about, didn't you write this? . . . bold added for emphasis. My experience is that in certain circumstances it's perfectly safe to ride on the sidwalk. And like John E said, striped lanes are NOT always bad.
The drastic reduction in close calls I have encountered, coupled with the tremendously improved treatment from motorists I now enjoy, since I studied Forester's book, and learned to apply the techniques in my own traffic cycling, is all the evidence I need, thank you very much. Even if you could produce 100 studies that allege to show that Effective Cycling is not effective, I wouldn't believe it, because I know it is highly effective, from my own experience.
Helmet Head
What are you talking about, didn't you write this?
Yes, I wrote that, but right now I'm only talking about our discussion, starting with the questions I posed in in #41 and expanded on in #44 regarding the point you made in #40: "But I've also found some of the techniques, in particular, 'taking the lane', are interpreted negatively by most motorists in my area as discourteous and arrogant."
That's not necessarily contrary to my experience, but what are you suggesting we do instead of taking the lane when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared? Not ride on that road? Sacrifice our safety by riding on the sidewalk or in the gutter? What?
Yes, I wrote that, but right now I'm only talking about our discussion, starting with the questions I posed in in #41 and expanded on in #44 regarding the point you made in #40: "But I've also found some of the techniques, in particular, 'taking the lane', are interpreted negatively by most motorists in my area as discourteous and arrogant."
That's not necessarily contrary to my experience, but what are you suggesting we do instead of taking the lane when the lane is too narrow to be safely shared? Not ride on that road? Sacrifice our safety by riding on the sidewalk or in the gutter? What?
billh
I have yet to hear a good arguement against JF's claims besides "ya know, I just feel safer with that strip of paint between me and traffic", while Forrester is pretty good at backing up his claims with scientific evidence. You can find innumerable posts on this forum where cyclists were harrased to get off the road due to the presence of a MUP nearby. It has happened to me on several occasions, even cops have told me to get off the road and on the sidewalk/MUP running next to it.
Maybe he is pushing his own program for financial gain. In this country, people with good ideas and the motivation to persue them are expected to gain financially. Forrester makes a good case that the current LAB leadership are looking after their own financial interests.
Instead of reciting the same arguments leveled against Forrester every time his name comes up, take the time to read this article and respond to specific points you might disagree with.
I've read two scientific articles that Forrester rebutted and in both cases I found his rebuttals to be very one-sided or simply off the mark. I don't know the articles well-enough from memory, but one was a DOT study that videotaped bicyclists on streets with BL and with WOL, which found among other things that cyclists in BL had fewer mid-block problems with motorists, however they defined it, and less sidewalk riding. The Forrester rebuttal didn't acknowledge that finding at all! Instead he focussed on differences between the two sets of streets that might confound the findings, which is fine to point out. In my opinion, he just needs a little more nuance, rather than black and white interpretations.
The other study was a psychology study on reaction time in children riding bicycles in traffic, compared to adults on the same simulation, which found that 12 year olds judge the same gaps in traffic as adults but have 1.1s delay in responding to those gaps RELATIVE to adults. Forrester had done his own research on how much he could teach children as young as 8 and recommended 10 year olds could ride alone safely on 4-lane 25mph streets, and take the lane, make left hand turns, judging gaps in traffic appropriately. On a local St Louis list, he criticized the psychologists research by saying the ABSOLUTE judgment of gap time in traffic of 3.5 seconds was unrealistic, when that was completely beside the point from my perspective.
Just two small examples. I work in research so I'm very familiar with investigators, very talented and intelligent, who unfortunately are so invested in their pet hypotheses, that they will defend to the death, without seeing any merit in opposing hypotheses, or any weakness in theirs. Just my opinion, what do I know!
Maybe he is pushing his own program for financial gain. In this country, people with good ideas and the motivation to persue them are expected to gain financially. Forrester makes a good case that the current LAB leadership are looking after their own financial interests.
Instead of reciting the same arguments leveled against Forrester every time his name comes up, take the time to read this article and respond to specific points you might disagree with.
I've read two scientific articles that Forrester rebutted and in both cases I found his rebuttals to be very one-sided or simply off the mark. I don't know the articles well-enough from memory, but one was a DOT study that videotaped bicyclists on streets with BL and with WOL, which found among other things that cyclists in BL had fewer mid-block problems with motorists, however they defined it, and less sidewalk riding. The Forrester rebuttal didn't acknowledge that finding at all! Instead he focussed on differences between the two sets of streets that might confound the findings, which is fine to point out. In my opinion, he just needs a little more nuance, rather than black and white interpretations.
The other study was a psychology study on reaction time in children riding bicycles in traffic, compared to adults on the same simulation, which found that 12 year olds judge the same gaps in traffic as adults but have 1.1s delay in responding to those gaps RELATIVE to adults. Forrester had done his own research on how much he could teach children as young as 8 and recommended 10 year olds could ride alone safely on 4-lane 25mph streets, and take the lane, make left hand turns, judging gaps in traffic appropriately. On a local St Louis list, he criticized the psychologists research by saying the ABSOLUTE judgment of gap time in traffic of 3.5 seconds was unrealistic, when that was completely beside the point from my perspective.
Just two small examples. I work in research so I'm very familiar with investigators, very talented and intelligent, who unfortunately are so invested in their pet hypotheses, that they will defend to the death, without seeing any merit in opposing hypotheses, or any weakness in theirs. Just my opinion, what do I know!
I-Like-To-Bike
I am sorry. I thought that's what you were getting at here, when you set up your argument against Forester:
Apology accepted. I only can't figure out why you would assumet hat my pointing out Forester's extreme position in promoting his education program as the salvation of cyclists from danger, would be an endorsement of this anti-cyclist agenda.
Apology accepted. I only can't figure out why you would assumet hat my pointing out Forester's extreme position in promoting his education program as the salvation of cyclists from danger, would be an endorsement of this anti-cyclist agenda.
Previous - Top - Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007 BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.