Advocacy & Safety - I asked the LAB.

Since ILTB refuses to ask the LAB for statistical data on how effective the Bike Ed. courses are I went ahead & did so myself. I just sent them an email asking if there is any statistical data, if there is to please share what it says.

If there is not I suggested a way to obtain the data. By having the people who completed the courses take part in surveys. I suggested the surveys be conducted at 3, 6 & 12 month intervals & that the surveys simply ask how much their cycling has improved & if they feel they are a better & safer cyclist then before they took the courses.

These survey's are not going to be conducted in a controlled enviroment. By that I mean like a food taste test or motor vehicle test drive. I do not think that would be possible, there are too many variables. They will rely on human opinion & emotion, but you know what, that is ok. This way there will be a broad scope of what people think of the courses. The LAB can compile that data & publish it to see how effective or not the courses really are.

If the data prooves the courses are very effective ILTB will just have to accept the fact that the Bike Ed. courses the LAB teaches is doing something good for the cycling community. And that Forester is not as bad as some think he is & he does know what he's talking about.

Frankly I'm getting tired of seeing ILTB's diatribe of crap posted here about the evil's of the LAB & Forester. So I'm doing something about it.

I'll let you know what the LAB says.

Forgot to ask. What do you think? Good idea, or no?

I would say LAB is good for everyone especially for people with no motorvehicle knowledge, and young people

Since ILTB refuses to ask the LAB for statistical data on how effective the Bike Ed. courses are I went ahead & did so myself. I just sent them an email asking if there is any statistical data, if there is to please share what it says.


Frankly I'm getting tired of seeing ILTB's diatribe of crap posted here about the evil's of the LAB & Forester. So I'm doing something about it.








Maybe I'm out of the loop, but what are you talking about? What is LAB and ILTB, and where is ILTB's diatribe?

i believe the disfavor with the pogrom of bicyclist training, in lieu of driver education, law enforcement, or better on-the-tarmac conditions for bicyclists, is that it depends soley on a bicyclist taking a class.

the fractions of a percent of bicyclists taking a course does NOT make bicycling safer. it makes bicyclists as individuals into better riders, hopefully.

i don't think there is anything wrong with becomming a better rider; advancing that cause at the expense of all other cycling advocacy is a grave disservice.

ILTB has issues, some of them personal, with Forester & the LAB & those that agree with what Forester says & what the LAB stands for, does & teaches. The LAB, Forester & those that take the Bike Ed. courses state that the what is taught in the courses helps cycling, makes people better & safer cyclists. ILTB takes issue with that. Part of the reason is of a personal conflict he had or has with Forester.

You can read his diatribe in various threads here & other places on the internet. Do a search for **** ****. You'll see the conflict he has had with & regarding Forester in other forums & threads.

In this forum, take your pick. Do a search under his user name.

Part of his issue is the perceived lack of statistical data proving what Forester says, what the LAB does & what the Bike Ed. courses teach works to improve cycling & make it safer.

I kindly advised that he put aside his ego. & personal issues & conflicts with Forester & the LAB & work with them to find out if they have the data & if they don't to help them obtain it. I advised he get down off of his soap box & stop *****ing, whining & moaning about it & take positive action to improve things. He more or less told me to **** off.

Honestly I hope to prove his diatribe wrong. In part because of the way he responded to my suggestions. He did/does not have to take the advice & follow it. I don't have a problem with that. But he could have reacted better then he did toward it.

I decided to ask the LAB myself about the data & if it does not exist I suggested how to obtian it.

i believe the disfavor with the pogrom of bicyclist training, in lieu of driver education, law enforcement, or better on-the-tarmac conditions for bicyclists, is that it depends soley on a bicyclist taking a class.

the fractions of a percent of bicyclists taking a course does NOT make bicycling safer. it makes bicyclists as individuals into better riders, hopefully.

i don't think there is anything wrong with becomming a better rider; advancing that cause at the expense of all other cycling advocacy is a grave disservice.

Something people may not realize is the LAB does have a course for motorists as well.

Here is the info. on it: http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/education/courses.php#motorist

ILTB has issues, some of them personal, with Forester & the LAB & those that agree with what Forester says & what the LAB stands for, does & teaches.

ILTB just has issues... period. Personally, I think you're investing WAY too much time into him.

*shrug*

I advised he get down off of his soap box & stop *****ing, whining & moaning about it & take positive action to improve things. He more or less told me to **** off.

Honestly I hope to prove his diatribe wrong. In part because of the way he responded to my suggestions. He did/does not have to take the advice & follow it. I don't have a problem with that. But he could have reacted better then he did toward it.


I know 10 and 12 year olds that don't act this childish.

ILTB just has issues... period. Personally, I think you're investing WAY too much time into him.

*shrug*

... and NC doesn't?:roflmao:

we've all got "issues"... that's why we're on A&S!! :D

Something people may not realize is the LAB does have a course for motorists as well.



yeah, I bet THAT'S real popular....

ILTB has issues, some of them personal, with Forester & the LAB & those that agree with what Forester says & what the LAB stands for, does & teaches. The LAB, Forester & those that take the Bike Ed. courses state that the what is taught in the courses helps cycling, makes people better & safer cyclists. ILTB takes issue with that. Part of the reason is of a personal conflict he had or has with Forester.



Forget Forester and the LAB... the LAB classes are not Forester approved anyway... Forester removed his sanction long ago. Anyone that continues to avoid the LAB classes due to some perceived notion that they are Forester related is just playing dumb.

Let ILTB display his bias about something he knows nothing about.

But above all don't listen to ILTB about LAB classes of which has never attended nor has any personal knowledge.

That would be like me trying to tell you how to use a parachute. (I have no experience in that area what so ever).

I know 10 and 12 year olds that don't act this childish.

Sigh... agreed.

yeah, I bet THAT'S real popular....

I don't know. If you mean motorists may view it as cyclists telling them how to drive when they think they have the sole right to the roadways & think cyclsits do not belong, then yeah, maybe.

I don't know. If you mean motorists may view it as cyclists telling them how to drive when they think they have the sole right to the roadways & think cyclsits do not belong, then yeah, maybe.
This is probably true. I think most motorists don't look at it as their problem. I suspect most of them think that if cyclists are unsatisfied with traffic conditions, that they should just choose not to ride. "Why would I take a class on how to drive from bike riders"?

PS: Your sig has a typo. 131545181201519 should be 13154518120151819.

[QUOTE=recursive]This is probably true. I think most motorists don't look at it as their problem. I suspect most of them think that if cyclists are unsatisfied with traffic conditions, that they should just choose not to ride. "Why would I take a class on how to drive from bike riders"?QUOTE]

In your or anyone else's opinion do think those that take the motorist course are cyclists who want to improve their driving when encountering other cyclists?

One possibility where this course may be put to good use is in driver's ed. classes.

In your or anyone else's opinion do think those that take the motorist course are cyclists who want to improve their driving when encountering other cyclists?

One possibility where this course may be put to good use is in driver's ed. classes.

Probably. If someone is motivated to take the class, they are probably not the one who needs it.

Let ILTB display his bias about something he knows nothing about.

But above all don't listen to ILTB about LAB classes of which has never attended nor has any personal knowledge.
Is that a fact, Jack? I don't think so. The OP confirmed EXACTLY what I posted; i.e. there currently exists NO record of results for students of LAB training; NO measured good or bad results for those who have ever taken any LAB course, EVER; whether Forester blessed it or not. That means exactly what I have previously posted, no safety record for students before or after, no measurement or even an indication of any change in behavior. PERIOD. And I don't need to sit in LAB class to learn this undisputed fact about an absence of any measured record of accomplishment or improvement for cyclists.

SO tell us, Mr. Educated LAB course graduate, What knowledge did you gain that disputes that fact? And more importantly why should the course be recommended for the general public besides the instructor's good wishes?

Is that a fact, Jack? I don't think so. The OP confirmed EXACTLY what I posted; i.e. there currently exists NO record of results for students of LAB training; NO measured good or bad results for those who have ever taken any LAB course, EVER; whether Forester blessed it or not. That means exactly what I have previously posted, no safety record for students before or after, no measurement or even an indication of any change in behavior. PERIOD. And I don't need to sit in LAB class to learn this undisputed fact about an absence of any measured record of accomplishment or improvement for cyclists.

SO tell us, Mr. Educated LAB course graduate, What knowledge did you gain that disputes that fact? And more importantly why should the course be recommended for the general public besides the instructor's good wishes?

First of all it is unknown as to whether or not results exist confirming or not that the LAB courses help. That is why I asked the LAB via an email last night. I will find out tonight, hopefully what they say about it. So in effect, neither you, I or anyone else here in the forum know what the results are.

I have not taken the course yet, but thanks for the compliment. I have not gained any knowledge yet, I've yet to take the course. The course should not be recommended because of the instructors wishes. It should be offered & conducted to anyone who wants to become a better cyclist which will hopefully make them a better cyclist.

I hope to find the course enhances my skills as a cyclist. I am going into the class with an open mind about it. I want to learn form it & hope I do. Will there be things taught I already know, probably. Will there be things taught I do not know, I hope so. WIll I find out I'm doing something wrong when riding & this course will tech me differant? Maybe, if so I will correct my on bike behavior.

Is that a fact, Jack? I don't think so. The OP confirmed EXACTLY what I posted; i.e. there currently exists NO record of results for students of LAB training; NO measured good or bad results for those who have ever taken any LAB course, EVER; whether Forester blessed it or not. That means exactly what I have previously posted, no safety record for students before or after, no measurement or even an indication of any change in behavior. PERIOD. And I don't need to sit in LAB class to learn this undisputed fact about an absence of any measured record of accomplishment or improvement for cyclists.

SO tell us, Mr. Educated LAB course graduate, What knowledge did you gain that disputes that fact? And more importantly why should the course be recommended for the general public besides the instructor's good wishes?

LOL. Well I personally learned how to adjust index shifters, and how to do a few maintenance items that I did not know about on modern bikes. I also learned how to do a high speed turn... which I still practice.

I know the students with me in the Road 1 class learned quite a bit. I felt I could have taught the Road 1 class... so there wasn't much for me to learn there. But the other cyclists learned how and when to shift, where to ride on the streets (including in bike lanes), how to signal, how to merge with traffic and how to make a left hand turn... just to cover a few items.

While you, ILTB may already know this stuff... there are folks out there that do not... folks that want to ride bikes and really have only the most basic knowledge... they can balance and turn. They don't know how to cross RR tracks for instance, or how to change flats, they don't know the first thing about how to operate a quick release. These are all simple practical things that I have learned over many years of cycling... as no doubt you have too...

But some folks don't want to make trial and error mistakes for many years to learn the basics... they want to plunge right in.

Just as one can probably learn to drive a car through observation and trial and error over many years... one can learn faster and better by taking a class.

Do I need statistics to tell me what these students learned... heck no... no more than I need statistics to tell me that I gained knowledge from sailing classes I took. I could not sail before... I could have learned by trial and error... but I took a class and was sailing in no time. What more proof do I need? Statistics... Ha!

Safety record? How about the fact that these folks did not know how to ride anywhere but perhaps on sidewalks or bike paths... and even then questionably... now they have the knowledge of how to ride in traffic, how to shift and how to brake.

In all fairness, gathering objective statistics to measure effectiveness of a cycling course would be about impossible. It's the same problem that ALL studies on cycling safety have to deal with. There is no consitent reporting of bicycle crashes or injuries. We don't even know how many miles the average cyclist rides let alone how many miles LAB course graduate rides.

Doing surveys, as N_C suggests, are worthless. Asking people if the "feel" safer is not a measure of safety. Unexperienced cyclists often ride down the left side of roads facing traffic because it makes them feel safer. But there is little disagreement that this is one of the most dangerous things you can do.

I will also remind viewers that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I.e. there doesn't have to be objective evidence of a course's effectivity for it to be beneficial.

BTW, I've never taken a LAB course so have no opinion on it's merits.

BTW, I've never taken a LAB course so have no opinion on it's merits.
Same as me. My observations is directed at those who proselytize of the "need" for LAB or VC courses to be implemented to solve/mitigate alleged safety problems within the bicycling community, with no evidence/record that it does so.

Since ILTB refuses to ask the LAB

Work with me ... Who's LAB?
http://wicycle.com/chocolat%20lab.jpg

Same as me. My observations is directed at those who proselytize of the "need" for LAB or VC courses to be implemented to solve/mitigate alleged safety problems within the bicycling community, with no evidence/record that it does so.

Well as the LAB courses teach riding with the flow of traffic and not riding on sidewalks... right away at least one huge problem is taken care of if riders follow those lessons... no more running into wrong way cyclists when riding on the roads.

That is some of the simple common sense stuff taught in LAB classes that some riders otherwise don't seem to "get."

I was riding Wednesday when a very nice looking young lady started keeping pace with me... except she was on the other side of the road... and approached each intersection with impunity... I cringed watching this situation as no motorist would have looked to see if she was there... and she did not slow down.

If common sense alone or the arrows on the bike lanes did not tell her... perhaps a class that points out the disadvantages of wrong way riding might have given her some guidance.

Work with me ... Who's LAB?
http://wicycle.com/chocolat%20lab.jpg

ILTB is I-like-to-bike... who apparently does not believe in any form of teaching... or expects it all to have documented statistics to account for any student progress. (I suppose student testing is just not enough).

LAB is the League of American Bicyclists. Found here:
http://www.bikeleague.org/

In all fairness, gathering objective statistics to measure effectiveness of a cycling course would be about impossible. It's the same problem that ALL studies on cycling safety have to deal with. There is no consitent reporting of bicycle crashes or injuries. We don't even know how many miles the average cyclist rides let alone how many miles LAB course graduate rides.

Doing surveys, as N_C suggests, are worthless. Asking people if the "feel" safer is not a measure of safety. Unexperienced cyclists often ride down the left side of roads facing traffic because it makes them feel safer. But there is little disagreement that this is one of the most dangerous things you can do.

I will also remind viewers that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I.e. there doesn't have to be objective evidence of a course's effectivity for it to be beneficial.

BTW, I've never taken a LAB course so have no opinion on it's merits.

Then how would you suggest collecting the data to be compiled? My idea of conducting survey's on peoples opinions is not the only way to do it. But conducting such in a controlled enviroment would be very difficult if not impossible. To do this I think you would have to have someone follow a group of cyclists around who have taken the courses to observe how they ride. This would have to be done in all geographical areas of the country. Not something easily done.

Other then that how else could it be done?

Before the students enroll they cold log the frequency of mishaps. Like getting cut-off at intersections, crashes, Car honks and yelll outs. After the class ... say for about 6 weeks...same thing.

ILTB, I have some questions for you. First do you even ride a bike? If you don't why are you wasting your time here? What style of riding do you do? Do you ride against or with the flow of traffic? Do you ride as far to the right as you can regardless of conditions? Are you a pacifist when it comes to dealing with motor vehicle traffic? Finally, what exactly did the LAB & Forester do to **** you up & make you so pissed off?

Before the students enroll they cold log the frequency of mishaps. Like getting cut-off at intersections, crashes, Car honks and yelll outs. After the class ... say for about 6 weeks...same thing.

Great idea... except the students I saw in the Road 1 classes were just trying to move from sidewalks and bike paths to riding in the streets. The reasons were various but the bottom line is sidewalks and bike paths do not go everywhere.

So in trying to document anything, these folks would simply put down... I don't ride anywhere but on sidewalks and paths... these folks were what I would call "park riders." They simply did not ride in the streets.

So for them "graduation" means having enough knowledge to ride basically just about anywhere in their city.

Perhaps you regular members of BF have a hard time relating to this whole concept. But I bet if you look around you may know "park riders" as friends or family. What might you tell them to get them to move from park riding to riding safely in the streets?

Now how would you measure their progress... what statistics would you gather? How?

So you're saying the park riders never have spills or enounters with peds or cars? I think if they'd be verying willing to supply past mishaps as a starting point for metrics

what exactly did the LAB & Forester do to **** you up & make you so pissed off?

Many of us consider Forester's studies to be somewhat dated. We're looking for data from this century that is more relevant to the complex intersections and crowded roads to protect our hides out on the road.

Great idea... except the students I saw in the Road 1 classes were just trying to move from sidewalks and bike paths to riding in the streets. The reasons were various but the bottom line is sidewalks and bike paths do not go everywhere.

So in trying to document anything, these folks would simply put down... I don't ride anywhere but on sidewalks and paths... these folks were what I would call "park riders." They simply did not ride in the streets.

So for them "graduation" means having enough knowledge to ride basically just about anywhere in their city.

Perhaps you regular members of BF have a hard time relating to this whole concept. But I bet if you look around you may know "park riders" as friends or family. What might you tell them to get them to move from park riding to riding safely in the streets?

Now how would you measure their progress... what statistics would you gather? How?

First of all I view park riders as those who think the only safe place to ride on in a park or on an MUP only. They get have this percieved notion that riding on a street is either illegal, unsafe or are only for those guys dressed in full kit riding expensive road bikes who look like racers.

I would dispell that notion right away that it simply is not true. I would advise them of the laws that state bicycles are legal vehicles of the road & are allowed to ride on the roadways. I would then advise them on how I ride on the road & state it may not be their style everyone has their own but this is how I ride. I would then advise they do not have to but it may be a good idea to take a Bike Ed. course & if I am an LCI I would offer to teach them otherwise I would put them in touch with whom ever is an LCI. I would not state they have to take the course to ride on the roadways, but it might make them more comfortable if they do first. I would also lead them in a group ride on some lesser travelled city streets to build up their confidence in riding in that type of enviroment.

Forester is extremely controversial. Many people, myself included, consider some of Forester's social and psychologial theories patently absurd and his (and his 'true believer' followers') politics extremely counter-productive.

I haven't taken the LAB course. I'm sure it's wonderful. If it doesn't include any Forester inspired political propagandizing and the teaching of any of Forester's ridiculous social and psychological theories, that's great. The LAB course reaches so few of the people who are most in need of cycling education that it's hardly the solution to cycling safety anyway, no matter how good the training might be. I don't doubt that the course helps those who take it be more effective and efficient bicyclists. Whether it makes them safer is debatable. It would be virtually impossible to prove, in any case.

The association of the LAB course with the Forester name is unfortunate.

The association of the LAB course with the Forester name is unfortunate.
Yes, it is, but the association is warranted. One, he originated the course, and two, some of the the most enthusiastic prostylizers post virtual odes to Forester and his books and his education materials (HH and Bruce Rosar) come to mind. In addition, the LAB-Reform group made up of several disgruntled LAB members including Forester have made one of their chief aims to reintroduce Forester teachings/influence back into the LAB education courses. Their disgruntled state is chiefly because the worst of the Forester influence on the education program has been given the boot from the organization. http://www.labreform.org/education/index.html

Thanks N_C. Please let us know what LAB says.

Of course these courses make cycling safer. There is no way to dispute that in a credible manner. While it's true that the LAB courses only reach a small percentage of all cyclists, that can in no way be the fault of LAB. The courses being strictly voluntary, it is the fault of all cyclists who choose not to take advantage of this training.

Thanks for pointing out that LAB also has a course for motorists. I did not know that.

Here is my equation for a safer cyclist:
safer cyclist = cyclist who has not taken ANY kind of course + LAB or equalivilent course.

I think the courses either enhances or teaches cyclists the skills they need to keep them safe. Better bike handeling skills, proper riding techniques, how to react & reasond in certain situations, how to think in an instant to decide the best course of action in a emergency situation to protect yourself or lessen the damage. To me enhanced & improved cycling skills does make for safer cyclists.

Forester is extremely controversial. Many people, myself included, consider some of Forester's social and psychologial theories patently absurd and his (and his 'true believer' followers') politics extremely counter-productive.

I haven't taken the LAB course. I'm sure it's wonderful. If it doesn't include any Forester inspired political propagandizing and the teaching of any of Forester's ridiculous social and psychological theories, that's great. The LAB course reaches so few of the people who are most in need of cycling education that it's hardly the solution to cycling safety anyway, no matter how good the training might be. I don't doubt that the course helps those who take it be more effective and efficient bicyclists. Whether it makes them safer is debatable. It would be virtually impossible to prove, in any case.

The association of the LAB course with the Forester name is unfortunate.

There you go... 100 percent right on.

I fully agree with this... especially on the issues of any association with Forester and some of his really wacky ideas. I also agree that in spite of what an LAB class can do, you are right in that it is too little and that the folks that really need it are the least likely to be aware of it.

Yes, it is, but the association is warranted. One, he originated the course, and two, some of the the most enthusiastic prostylizers post virtual odes to Forester and his books and his education materials (HH and Bruce Rosar) come to mind. In addition, the LAB-Reform group made up of several disgruntled LAB members including Forester have made one of their chief aims to reintroduce Forester teachings/influence back into the LAB education courses. Their disgruntled state is chiefly because the worst of the Forester influence on the education program has been given the boot from the organization. http://www.labreform.org/education/index.html

He may have originated the course, but he is not longer associated with it as the rest of your message points out. His more contriversial material has been removed and he then opted to discontinue his support of it. I have seen him pan any bike course that was not his. So be it. His way or or the hiway... so to speak.

Sorry, but he just is too wrapped up in wacky ideas.

But here you have just provided yourself the very evidence of the disassociation between LAB and Forester.

So why then are you ranting about the classes... oh yeah... you want statistical evidence that cyclists are somehow improved by taking a class. OK that is not readily available... so will you accept the word of someone that has gone to a class and seen the improvement in cyclists that went for training? If not... you are going to have to go for yourself.

RE HH and other isolated Fosterites... they may try to inject some of their also unproven philosophies into a class... but that is well beyond the curriculum... and any LCI can drop in and critique.

Gene,you should have lunch with Forester some time. He's not the whacked out nutball you make him out to be.

Gene,you should have lunch with Forester some time. He's not the whacked out nutball you make him out to be.

I'd love to ride with him sometime too.

The replys I got from him in email though were just over the top... he as got to be the leading champ at creating conspiracy theories. I just could not buy in... no way, no how. And I knew I was not about to change any of his his long formed opinion. (this is where we could go on and on over beers... )

That doesn't mean he is all wrong.... but the logic sure is uh, "interesting."

I think the most worrysome part though is his total distrust of any other form of training or any other agency.

In my opinion, nearly anything (as long as it is not patently harmful) is a step in the right direction. He pretty much seems to present a "His way or the Hiway" attitude.

But he does answer email... gotta hand that to him.

I'd love to ride with him sometime too.

The replys I got from him in email though were just over the top... he as got to be the leading champ at creating conspiracy theories. I just could not buy in... no way, no how. And I knew I was not about to change any of his his long formed opinion. (this is where we could go on and on over beers... )

That doesn't mean he is all wrong.... but the logic sure is uh, "interesting."

I think the most worrysome part though is his total distrust of any other form of training or any other agency.

In my opinion, nearly anything (as long as it is not patently harmful) is a step in the right direction. He pretty much seems to present a "His way or the Hiway" attitude.

But he does answer email... gotta hand that to him.

What is his email address? If you're not comfortable posting it in the forums then PM me with it.

What is his email address? If you're not comfortable posting it in the forums then PM me with it.

You guys could totally hang out! He could pedal you around like this:

http://www.cicle.org/cicle_content/images/christ_bike1.jpg

Actually I don't really care about the LAB classes, just tired of seeing so many threads with LAB in the title started by the same friggin' person.

You guys could totally hang out! He could pedal you around like this:

http://www.cicle.org/cicle_content/images/christ_bike1.jpg

Actually I don't really care about the LAB classes, just tired of seeing so many threads with LAB in the title started by the same friggin' person.

Who pissed in your post toasties? Did someone tinkle in your cheerios?

Who pissed in your post toasties? Did someone tinkle in your cheerios?

Geez, can't come up with a new line yet big boy? Sorry, thought I posted this in one of the other LAB threads that you seem to start every other day now, I got them mixed up. Do you even read half of the crap you post on here? I know I don't have to read what you post, but it provides a few minutes of humor everyday.

Seriously, there are decent discussions here sometimes, it just gets hard to find them through all of the LAB and Bike Iowa link threads that this forums has been getting littered with lately.

[QUOTE=N_C]Here is my equation for a safer cyclist: safer cyclist = cyclist who has not taken ANY kind of course + LAB or equalivilent course.
/QUOTE]

Agreed Here's my equation [notice theory fluff is factored out]:

Safer cyclist = safe driver + hi vi clothing + hi vis bicycle + 1 yr of regluar street riding

I say this because a good driver is more observant. If he takes up cycling, it takes time to judge when to pull out etc. The rest is good equipment.

Safer cyclist = safe driver + hi vi clothing + hi vis bicycle + 1 yr of regluar street riding



Notice the big hole in this theory...what about Kids? Anyone like to add a separate equation for safe kid bicyclists?

[QUOTE=N_C]Here is my equation for a safer cyclist: safer cyclist = cyclist who has not taken ANY kind of course + LAB or equalivilent course.
/QUOTE]

Agreed Here's my equation [notice theory fluff is factored out]:

Safer cyclist = safe driver + hi vi clothing + hi vis bicycle + 1 yr of regluar street riding

I say this because a good driver is more observant. If he takes up cycling it takes time to judge when to pull out etc. The rest is good equipment.

Nice thought... but the folks I saw in the Road 1 class had no idea of hi vis anything. And I doubt they could do "regular street riding."

Look around at the local park.... check out the folks getting bikes out of an SUV and then riding paths around at the park... no traffic to contend with, no stop signs or lights, barely any hills. If they have a flat they take the bike to a friend, or a local mall shop. When they change gears it is almost always in the wrong direction. ("wait aren't the big gears supposed to make you faster..."). Now imagine that they really do enjoy riding their bike... and decide that they want to ride the 3-5 miles to their office or place of work... only that now means stop lights and signs, and riding with traffic... maybe in a bike lane... but maybe not. And there are hills.

Or imagine someone that has not ridden a bike in 20 years. The doctor says "get some exercise." They go out and buy a bike... and decide that riding to the local park would be a good thing... where do they begin.

Most folks here on BF have been doing it for so long that these scenerios just seem foreign or worse, they braved it out for the first year or so and had a few close calls... but managed to improve... Wouldn't it have been nice if someone could have shown you the ropes for a while... just to get you started.

Funny story about a different kind of class... boating safety. I took a class from the Coast Guard Power Squad years ago, before I took sailing classes... and discovered that nearly everyone in the class had bought a boat and had a scary "near miss" and then decided to learn how to do it right... does that make sense.

Wait until you "oops" and then go forth to seek enlightenment?

Yes, they'd have to add hi vis stuff (as stated in the over simplified formula) I'd say after a year or so of regularly riding on the street, a most people would be pretty competent.

I have many friends who are very LAB centric as well as many that are LAB Reform centric. Both sides have a lot of valid points and I really wish there could come a day when once again they can embrace one another under the same roof. But with that being said I find Forester one of the most unpleasant and divisive personalities I have met on the net and JRA’s comments about “true believers” is very true and there are parts of his campaign that is reminiscent of some overly dogmatic religion and people are excommunicated for the slightest offence. FWIW anyone who wishes to talk with him or just listen in on his point of view, you can find him in this forum: http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/

FWIW my understanding of Forester’s withdrawal of support of LAB’s current education program is that LAB found that the 20 or so hours needed to teach a program was a bit much for people so they decided to break it down into smaller segments that can be completed independent of one another. Forester does not approve of this repartitioning of his work. Like I said both sides have valid points but it’s not like LAB is teaching something outright contrary to Foresters work but they do not have Forester’s endorsement either.

N_C I would strongly recommend that you write to LAB and encourage them to do the study or have them provide you with some oversight so you can do the study well and could be something that they could publish.

As for no study done on the effectiveness of the LAB course that’s not exactly true, (I have to look it up but I believe the following is true, that the last line was a survey of LAB members (who may or may not have taken the course but at least should be aware of the principles of the course.))


- Accidents per Million Miles
Child Cyclists - 720
College-associated Adults - 500
League of American Bicyclists - 113
John Forester's Bicycle Transportation (2nd ed, 1994, pg 41)

If ILTB’s point is some education (even if non-LAB approved) is better then nothing, that I might conditionally agree with. If the point is that there is something in LAB’s educational material that is unfounded and unsafe, that I will take issue with. All of LAB’s teaching points do have a basis in studies whither formally or informally. It’s the collective whole and the effectiveness of the teaching methodologies used by LAB that have not yet been documented.

As for no study done on the effectiveness of the LAB course that’s not exactly true, (I have to look it up but I believe the following is true, that the last line was a survey of LAB members (who may or may not have taken the course but at least should be aware of the principles of the course.))
- Accidents per Million Miles
Child Cyclists - 720
College-associated Adults - 500
League of American Bicyclists - 113
John Forester's Bicycle Transportation (2nd ed, 1994, pg 41)

The above Forester stuff proves nothing about the effectiveness of LAB courses.
1. The survey of the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) members (actually its predecessor League of American Wheelman) was in 1975, predating the existence of the LAB or Forester courses.
2. Forester presented no evidence that any of the populations practiced ANY specific cycling behavior (let alone any specific LAB course taught or vehicular cycling behavior) any different than the other groups.
3. The use of undefined "accidents" as a metric with no consideration of accident severity is less than worthless. Forester mixed up the data from numerous studies, none of which measured the same thing as far as accidents. In fact, the study that measured "League of American Bicyclists' didn't even require any injury to be considered an "accident."
4. Drawing conclusions by comparing vague, undefined "accident rates" between populations of 8 year olds and middle aged men is ludicrous. Comparing a population of mostly teenaged boys with either other group is just as foolish. Especially when no consideration is given to maturity, experience and obviously wildly different cycling environments. Remember "Forester's accidents" don't differentiate between a skinned knee, bent rim, or smashed and broken body.
5. There is zero evidence LAB members practice the principles of the course any more or less than anyone else.
6. And of course there is zero evidence that LAB graduates cycle any differently than they did before they took the course.