Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Debunking Forester

There is no more need to debunk Forester. After 200+ posts,those who worship him will never be dissuaded no matter how much debunking takes place.

I am actually surprised this thread is still going.

I am not sure whether debunk is even the right word to use. Most of his idea about cycling are fairly straightforward. I think that his mistake is to be so absolute about his ideas.

Well, i put down 60 miles of transportational cycling, both on crowded suburban roads, not so crowded suburban roads, downtown core streets, (all with and without bike lanes) path networks, a dirt shortcut as well, and some two lane rural roads, and the paths were by far the safest accomodations of the day today. and the most pleasant.

oh, wait. I can't ride paths for transportational purposes. or can I?

I think that his mistake is to be so absolute about his ideas. Why are you so absolute about this idea that Forester is so absolute about his ideas?

Seriously, I think his style is to leave an impression of absolutism that is really not there. He's actually pretty good at qualifying, sometimes directly but often by implication, what he's saying and where it applies, if you read his words carefully (the cumbersome style can make this challenging, and often easy to miss).

Do you have any specific examples of his ideas expressed in his words in absolute terms?

john forester is a crazier than a loon and distinctly anti-popular bicycling. he supports american sprawl and inconvient commute distances and roads with his speakers' engagements for the american dream coalition.

john forester is the anticyclist.

My purpose for this thread was to actually read some of his stuff on his web site and point out how flawed his arguments are. Some people seem to believe in his self-proclaimed status as a good scientist and good logical thinker, and I thought maybe his phoniness should be revealed.

I am actually surprised this thread is still going.

I am not sure whether debunk is even the right word to use. Most of his idea about cycling are fairly straightforward. I think that his mistake is to be so absolute about his ideas.
I am surprised that you take so lightly his fabrication of data to fit his assumptions and conclusions about the safety records of those he claims to be "Vehicular Cyclists." Didn't you previously post that you were a statistician?

Okay, Human Car, what I meant was that no one here in this discussion was arguing the conclusion that all sidepaths are not as safe as riding with traffic, which is what you implied when you said you disagreed with that conclusion.

Doesn’t your post #82 imply that you are arguing that [all] urban sidepaths are unsafe if traveled at road speeds?

So you have more qualifiers then my generalization of the subtopic so if you are after discussing any of your qualifiers there are better ways to bring that up then nit pick on how I summarized the subtopic. Or if you would like to put forth a better summarization feel free.

I will also mention conversely I don’t think anyone here was arguing for mandatory sidepath use laws or removal of cyclist’s rights to the road as you implied with your post #225. While I see some of the logic in Forester’s argument in promoting on-road cycling but at the same time there are so many flaws in using that argument to be anti-sidepath (which would be like being anti-frontage road per your example.) And all this goes back to the topic of debunking Forester.

HH can slip qualifiers into everything he has ever said, past, present or future. But what should be obvious is he has managed to shift the conversation away from the original topic, which is that Forester's writings are full of holes, lies, made up data, made up definitions, phony studies and all manner of emotional conjecture.

If this topic is over, and Forester has been fully debunked, let's start a new topic, shall we?

Diane, I don't slip qualifiers in after the fact, I put them in there in the first place to be as clear as reasonably possible (given the limits of the English language to convey some of this stuff) about what I intend to convey.

Human Car, in post #82 I am arguing that what Forester's experiment showed was that an (the one he tested) urban sidepath (with short blocks, frequent driveways, busy traffic, at grade intersection crossings, etc., is assumed) it was significantly dangerous if traveled at road speeds.

I think it's fair to extrapolate that other urban sidepaths with the same characteristics are also significantly dangerous if traveled at road speeds.

But the if traveled at road speeds qualifier, which you neglected to mention, is critical.
I don't know of anyone who argues that sidepaths are more dangerous than roads if used at ped speeds and in accordance with ped rules, and the extra vigilance required when riding on sidepaths.

I was cranking along preetty good on the paths today. in fact, just as fast as the roads, and was a lot safer as well. Oohh, ooohh, major urban area, over 3.5 million in the greater metropolitian area. maybe its 4.6 million.

but wait, I'm not allowed to use a path transportationally, am I??

john forester tested one path, decades ago, and deemed all paths unsafe? what a quack!

Bek, please give us address coordinates of an urban sidepath with short blocks and busy traffic (which is what Forester was writing about) that you were "cranking" on today.

not all urban sidepaths are like the path forester rode 3 decades ago.

What a quack.

aren't streets with short blocks, cross traffic, lots of intersections and busy traffic also not as approp for "crankin?"

john forester- what a cooky kinda fella. he speaks for urban sprawlers too??
.

My purpose for this thread was to actually read some of his stuff on his web site and point out how flawed his arguments are. Some people seem to believe in his self-proclaimed status as a good scientist and good logical thinker, and I thought maybe his phoniness should be revealed.

I think you succeeded. I'd never heard of Forester before this, and made use of the link you provided. Based on a fairly careful reading, I'd say the man's ideas pretty much speak for themselves, and not in a good way. I'm still surprised he has much of a following.

I was riding home tonight, on a city bike path, when I had an interesting thought. Why is it that bicycling must be done at breakneck speed? I was just tooling along, enjoying seeing the woodpeckers and other birds, seeing the storm winds going through the trees, and simply enjoying the ride. I cannot do that on the road, but for a part of my trip home, through the marsh that this path allows me to ride, I can. It is something that the drivers in cars cannot do.

The other surprises on a bike path include a flock of ducks that congregates around one section of the path near a creek. There is one duck which refuses to fly away when I approach, and I slow down to walking speed simply to ensure that I don't spook this duck. The duck is an amputee, standing on one leg, and to make it fly unnecessarily would cause an energy drag from him (a drake mallard). So I respectfully move to the far side of the bike path, and simply move by him as quietly as possible. He hops a few times, but stays there, watching as I go by. This has happened several times in the last two weeks, and it makes my morning commute. I "loose" about 30 seconds doing this.

So the question, why would one want to ride a bike path at "highway speeds"? If you look at societies who use a bike for transportation, they are not trying to break a sweat to get where they are going. They are riding fairly slowly, steadily, to their destination. What is it that is driving us to ride so quickly?

Then it occurred to me...we are still under the spell of the automobile. We are "competing" with the auto, trying to emulate its speed, trying to show that a bicycle is faster in some circumstances. For some of us, it's still "Zoom, Zoom," but only on a bicycle instead of a car. Is it the car ads? Is it the Western Society, type triple-A? Or is it simply an image in our minds saying that we have to go somewhere as fast as possible?

I am enjoying my time on the bike paths. Occasionally, I simply stop when there is something interesting to see, like what I think was a beaver in the creek near my home (too big and high out of the water for a nutria).

Enjoy,

John

Why is it that bicycling must be done at breakneck speed?...

So the question, why would one want to ride a bike path at "highway speeds"? If you look at societies who use a bike for transportation, they are not trying to break a sweat to get where they are going. They are riding fairly slowly, steadily, to their destination. What is it that is driving us to ride so quickly?
Back to debunking mode. Forester is all about (and reserves his alleged advocacy for) the "us" that has a need for speed. He, and his acolytes, repeat as a mantra that the first (if not only) priority for Real Cyclists is maximizing "speed and efficiency." And efficiency, in the Forester scheme of cycling, is in essence just a subset of speed.

My purpose for this thread was to actually read some of his stuff on his web site and point out how flawed his arguments are. Some people seem to believe in his self-proclaimed status as a good scientist and good logical thinker, and I thought maybe his phoniness should be revealed.I'm thankful for this thread because it has prompted me to attempt to read everything on Forester's website (I've read much of it before but it's been a while). I have directed a number of other people to Forester's website, including some non-cyclists, some of whom are scientists, some of whom have been quite amused by Forester. When I tell them he has a cult following, they're even more amused. As a scientist, Forester's a great propagandist.

Forester debunks himself. He had all the answers over half a century ago. His idea of science is to create "evidence", (by which he means "data and reasoning") to confirm what he already knows. For the most part, the data is meager and the reasoning is flawed and biased. It's no wonder his "scientific" articles have been rejected by some journals; no self-respecting scientific journal would print such nonsense.

I understand why he has a following. For one thing, he has written an excellent description of vehicular cycling technique. And he obviously has experience and some good stories to tell. And, most importantly, vehicular cyclists want to believe him (heck, I want to believe him).

"It had much of glamour might
To make a lady seem a knight"

But, come on! His psychological and social theories are a joke. His claims (and the claims of his followers) that there is a body of overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating the superior safety of vehicular cycling is nonsense (a.k.a. bunk, twaddle, horse hockey (thank you, Sherman Potter), sham, fraud, dishonesty, trickery, etc.)

I'm a vehicular cyclist. I believe in vehicular cycling. Vehicular cycling is certainly efficient. On the other hand, the anti-facilities, "only way to ride", anti-just about everything Vehicular Cycling (capital 'V', capital 'C') of John Forester and his- oh, so uncritial and oh, so unwilling to look at the premises underlying their ideology- followers is a bunch of cow manure. There is a definate stench. The irony is that many of Forester's strongest critics are vehicular cyclists (a fact which apparently ticks Forester off more than a little bit).

Forester's ego is legendary. He makes up titles for himself and calls just about everybody with the audacity to disagree with "The Great One" (which is obviously how he sees himself) a liar, if not worse (as if name-calling doesn't itself weaken Forester's arguments). He whines that everyone is against him; that he is ridiculed. If Forester isn't a Captain Queeg-like character, I don't know who is.

And, yet, for all of Forester's pretense, his overblown sense of self-importance, his absurd claims of scientific validity, his laughable claim that his bias is reason, there are things I think Forester has right (not many things but a few). And some of Forester's autobigraphical stuff is actually pretty entertaining (in a good way). Most of Forester's stuff, however, is entertaining in a bad way. Forester's "science" is a joke.

People can take issue with Forrester's personality or his science. Everybody knows data and information can and will be skewed (think Iraq invasion) to fall in line with the author's slant on reality.

However, with Forrester's riding principals, the proof is in the pudding. I don't know a single rider who does not ride vehicularly. You just can't get around with any degree of efficiency any other way. Many take liberties with stop signs and signals - failing to come to a complete stop and/or gutting around on the inside instead of waiting for a car to pass - but other than that it's in the lane, in the tire track.

Human Car, in post #82 I am arguing that what Forester's experiment showed was that an (the one he tested) urban sidepath (with short blocks, frequent driveways, busy traffic, at grade intersection crossings, etc., is assumed) it was significantly dangerous if traveled at road speeds.

Re: AN:

I realized that these urban bicycle-safety sidepaths were even more dangerous than I had estimated from the first ride...

Re: Short blocks

at an average frequency of 0.7 miles

That's not really short.


But the if traveled at road speeds qualifier, which you neglected to mention, is critical. I don't know of anyone who argues that sidepaths are more dangerous than roads if used at ped speeds and in accordance with ped rules, and the extra vigilance required when riding on sidepaths.

But there are discussions that slow ped speeds are not necessarily necessary for safe sidepath use (see posts that followed yours.)


Bek, please give us address coordinates of an urban sidepath with short blocks and busy traffic (which is what Forester was writing about) that you were "cranking" on today.

Here is something that's close to Forester's descriptions that you can crank on: http://www.aacounty.org/RecParks/Parks/aacotrails_park/bwitrailmap.cfm

Thank you everyone for understanding the purpose of this thread and providing interesting discussion. Since the topic isn't about bike paths but about Forester's "scientific" method (thanks JRA for explaining that his method is to create "evidence" -- that's a perfect explanation).

I'm going to ask the moderator to close the thread now. We can start another one if you'd like to debunk another article or something.

I was riding home tonight, on a city bike path, when I had an interesting thought. Why is it that bicycling must be done at breakneck speed?
...

So the question, why would one want to ride a bike path at "highway speeds"? If you look at societies who use a bike for transportation, they are not trying to break a sweat to get where they are going. They are riding fairly slowly, steadily, to their destination. What is it that is driving us to ride so quickly?

It doesn't, but the environment shouldn't be changed (not saying it is) to make it less safe or harder to ride at a decent clip.

I see the effciently/speed thing as an argument from 'both sides' - I see folks wanting paths that make shortcuts to get places quicker, I see proponents of BL striped fully up to intersections desiring this so they can pass traffic waiting at light to get places quicker.

Personally living in a spread out areas speed is important to me. 20mi commuting every day at 10mph vs. 20mph - the time difference adds up - some days with errands I may need to ride 30-40mi. When I first started my route (out of shape) it took 50min, now it is 25min. I do appreciate the extra 50min a day I get from going at my current comfortable fast pace - and I feel less tired from the riding than I did when I was slower. (another factor is 25min less of >110F summer heat exposure)

Also faster than some paths support is a comforatable cruising speed for some. My 'endless comfortable crusing speed' is faster than the MUP I sometimes use supports. I don't feel it is a 'breakneck' speed, just my comfort zone.

As to places where bike is used for transport? Perhaps the folks you see riding less fast are in more urban areas with less distance to travel. I lived in Germany for a while and stayed outside of Koln 20mile or so - a suburb if you will. The father of the family I was living with rode >15mi to work and changed clothes, but when he went to the local store just cruised casually. This is much like how I transportationally travel - but as one sees many more short trip riders the perception is most cyclist are going at a more casual pace.

There are of course city planning solutions to help minimize travel distance - I support those.

Al

My purpose for this thread was to actually read some of his stuff on his web site and point out how flawed his arguments are. Some people seem to believe in his self-proclaimed status as a good scientist and good logical thinker, and I thought maybe his phoniness should be revealed.

It worked for me :)

Some people seem to believe in his self-proclaimed status as a good scientist ...
Who?

I am surprised that you take so lightly his fabrication of data to fit his assumptions and conclusions about the safety records of those he claims to be "Vehicular Cyclists." Didn't you previously post that you were a statistician?

Yes I am.

With regards to what Forester does with data and statistics, I disagree with your assertion. At least in a global sense.

You already know that I feel that the data is full of noise and fails to capture key aspects of the population and behavior. However, there is some data out there and I feel that it is helpful to examine the data to make inferences about the real world.

In other words, I understand that there are issues with the data and there are moments where I wish Forester was more clear with the strength and weaknesses of his statistical results. But relative to other research I have experienced, I don't think that Forester does anything that warrants the label fabrication.

To use your example of his samples tainted with non-VC cyclists, some people might say that it just creates some noise in the data but that the substance of the results still remains the same. Others might disagree. Whether the analysis confers information and the power of that information is subjective.

One would have to look at the analysis/subjects carefully to assess the validity of the comparison.

I am not going to do that anytime soon. I will write that if there are a lot of objections to the analysis, then Forester has the responsibility to acknowledge that criticism and address it. But people have omitted criticism and/or addressing the issue for reasons other than delibrately trying to deceive others.

Mind you, I think you brought up some going points earlier. My take is that there is a lot of uncertainty in our understanding of cycling transportation risks. But I also think that it would be too strong of a statement to write that we can make no inferences or that we are completely clueless on the risks.

I view Effective Cycling as a guideline or a set of suggestions for cycling safely in the real world. Given the evidence and theory Forester presents, I think that the book does a good job as a quideline given the reader understands its limitations and that he/she is still required to actively examine his/her environment for the safe action or safe route. Whether that was Forester's intention, I don't know.

Unfortunately, I am running out of time. With regards to what HH asked me, I don't have my copy of the book with me. So for the time being, I am unable to produce specific examples off the top of my head. But perhaps I mis-used the word absolute and should have written something more relative. That is, relative to the strength of the evidence, I think he makes statements that are too assertive. Maybe one way of addressing this would be to clearly state what is theory and what is evidence consistent with that theory.

Anyway, until tomorrow ... take care guys/gals.

To use your example of his samples tainted with non-VC cyclists, some people might say that it just creates some noise in the data but that the substance of the results still remains the same. Others might disagree. Whether the analysis confers information and the power of that information is subjective.My objection is that Forester identifies zero data about any population of cyclists that identified any of them as VC Cyclists or non-VC Cyclists, or if any of them practice any procedure identified as the mark of a VC cyclist. Yet Forester assigns those unmeasured/unidentified VC techniques as the sole reason for an alleged drastically better or improved safety record for one group over another because of vehicular cycling, without a shred of relevant data. I don't think it a subjective opinion to debunk Forester's core conclusion about the safety record of vehicular cycling that is drawn entirely from whole cloth and speculation, but rather, a statement of fact about fabricated bunk.

My objection is that Forester identifies zero data about any population of cyclists that identified any of them as VC Cyclists or non-VC Cyclists, or if any of them practice any procedure identified as the mark of a VC cyclist. Yet Forester assigns those unmeasured/unidentified VC techniques as the sole reason for an alleged drastically better or improved safety record for one group over another because of vehicular cycling, without a shred of relevant data. I don't think it a subjective opinion to debunk Forester's core conclusion about the safety record of vehicular cycling that is drawn entirely from whole cloth and speculation, but rather, a statement of fact about fabricated bunk.

Stopped back in ...

I understand the complaint--although I admit the first sentence confuses me a bit and I do not recall the details of the VC/non-VC comparison at the moment.

Regardless ... I think that it is a valid complaint that lessens the weight of Forester's claim. But on the note of fabrication, a lot of scientific** papers similar omissions and leaps are taken without any acknowlegement of the underlying assumptions or potential pitfalls of the analysis.

Just a quick for instance. There are a lot of papers out there that use Decennial Census data to compare income statistics of geographic areas. Note that not everyone completely fills out their form. In those cases, responses are imputed for those households. But it is pretty rare for anyone to ever mention what the imputation rate is for compared areas. Nor do the standard errors control for those imputation rates. Note that imputation rates can be meaningful ... I am familiar with large areas with 60, 70, 80, and even 90% imputation rates. Yet the comparisons continue without acknowledgement. Is the imputation rate important? Many think so. Are there reasons to omit it at times? Many think so.

I don't know Forester's defense to your complaint. But I can think of responses as to why a discussion was omitted that would lead me to believe that he is not intentially deceiving the audience. I rather not try to defend Forester as much as read and evaluate criticisms of Forester's evidence.

I'll review the section on the VC/non-VC comparison. Maybe we should start another thread!

Anyway, this time for sure, take care until tomorrow.

Footnote: ** by scientific I am including peer reviewed journals (good ones) as well as articles and writings of a scientific nature.

My objection is that Forester identifies zero data about any population of cyclists that identified any of them as VC Cyclists or non-VC Cyclists, or if any of them practice any procedure identified as the mark of a VC cyclist. Yet Forester assigns those unmeasured/unidentified VC techniques as the sole reason for an alleged drastically better or improved safety record for one group over another because of vehicular cycling, without a shred of relevant data. I don't think it a subjective opinion to debunk Forester's core conclusion about the safety record of vehicular cycling that is drawn entirely from whole cloth and speculation, but rather, a statement of fact about fabricated bunk.

When one asserts that "vehicular cyclists" are more or less likely to be subject to this or that risk, I believe what is meant by "vehicular cyclists" is a hypothetical cyclist who is riding in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road versus a hypothetical cyclist who is riding contrary to those rules. Therefore I don't see the problem with not identifying any specific actual population of cyclists as being "VC cyclists" or "non-VC cyclists".

To me, it's similar to a statement such as "drunk drivers are X times more likely to get involved in a crash, or Y times more likely to kill someone, than sober drivers". In that case "drunk drivers" is a term for a hypothetical driver who is driving with a certain blood alcohol level, and a sober driver is one below that threshold. You don't need to identify specific real drivers that meet this criteria. You just need to specify the criteria. In this case it's blood alcohol level. In Forester's case it's acting in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road. In another case, "defensive drivers", it's driving in accordance to defensive driving best practices.

When one asserts that "vehicular cyclists" are more or less likely to be subject to this or that risk, I believe what is meant by "vehicular cyclists" is a hypothetical cyclist who is riding in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road versus a hypothetical cyclist who is riding contrary to those rules. Therefore I don't see the problem with not identifying any specific actual population of cyclists as being "VC cyclists" or "non-VC cyclists".

To me, it's similar to a statement such as "drunk drivers are X times more likely to get involved in a crash, or Y times more likely to kill someone, than sober drivers". In that case "drunk drivers" is a term for a hypothetical driver who is driving with a certain blood alcohol level, and a sober driver is one below that threshold. You don't need to identify specific real drivers that meet this criteria. You just need to specify the criteria. In this case it's blood alcohol level. In Forester's case it's acting in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road. In another case, "defensive drivers", it's driving in accordance to defensive driving best practices.
Baloney! Again! What Baloney "means to you" does not change its consistency or smell.

This (http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Safety/NatBSCalltoAction.htm) is the essence of Forester bunk:
"Those groups of cyclists, in both the U.S. and the U.K., whose members are most likely to operate in the vehicular manner have crash rates only 20% to 25% of those of the typical adult cycling population. (Forester 1994 Chap 5 Accidents)"
Forester claims an incredible quantitative reduction (80% reduction!) in "crash rates". (BTW another bogus Forester term without meaning to hide his lack of any serious approach to discussing accident risk.)

Forester claims some cyclists are "likely" to be vehicular cyclists without ever "identifying" or "specifying" a single vehicular cycling characteristic allegedly possessed by these cyclists, any population of cyclists or even a single cyclist. There is no "certain level" of anything identified (let alone measured) as a vehicular cycling characteristic possessed by the alleged safer cyclists. There is no Vehicular Cycling "criteria" identified as possessed by Forester's mythical population of vehicular cyclists with 80% less accidents than other cyclists.

Quantitative claims about a drastically lower safety record for those who "operate in the vehicular manner" (whatever that is) are nothing but Forester bunk and are made without a shred of identified "criteria", "thresholds" "certain level" nor data of any kind about alleged "vehicular cyclists" to support the Forester bunk on this key Forester claim.

It's amazing that Forester can quantify so precisely something that didn't happen. And to some vast quantity of people who apparently may not even exist! Wow, pass the Jehovah Witness Juice! I need a drink!

Now why didn't the moderators close this sorry topic? We've debunked the Master. His accolyte is only digging himself deeper. I think we're done here, don't you think?

It's amazing that Forester can quantify so precisely something that didn't happen. And to some vast quantity of people who apparently may not even exist! Wow, pass the Jehovah Witness Juice! I need a drink!

Now why didn't the moderators close this sorry topic? We've debunked the Master. His accolyte is only digging himself deeper. I think we're done here, don't you think?
Hold on sb. Invisible Hand says he is going to review his Good Book tonight and re-read what Forester has claimed about a safety record for Vehicular Cyclists vis-à-vis Non Vehicular Cyclists. Perhaps he will find the missing data about that makes a group of cyclists "more likely" to be vehicular cyclists.

I note that Forester pulled the ridiculous comparisons of wildly different cycling populations from his web site; or at least I can't find it anymore. Should still be in the Good Book, Chapter 5. Let's keep this thread open long enough to drive a silver stake through the stone cold heart of the Beast.

Thread closed per a request from the original poster.