Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Evidence that VC is safer

Sorry for the delay. We have been quite busy here--house shopping--and one computer died. Given that the boss is surfing for homes all of the time it leaves little time for Bike Forums. :cry:

The theme for this post is the evidence that vehicular cycling is safer than alternative theories/paradigms/strategies. More specifically, what is the scientific evidence that supports vehicular cycling as
(1) an effective accident reduction strategy
(2) a strategy that is better than the alternatives?

So notice that (1) is different from (2). Question (1) asks, "How do we scientifically know that this is an effective strategy relative to just riding and learning?" Question (2) asks, "Given the other well-defined strategies, What is the evidence that implementing VC is the best option?" Feel free to address either. Note that this is not about J. Forester.

Seriously, wouldn't we rather talk about safer cycling than some guy?

Anecdotal evidence, while helpful to describe a characteristic observed in empirical data, is generally not considered scientific. So please use it sparingly. A theoretical discussion of cycling theory is interesting, but since we are searching for empirical backing for those theories, we should only introduce it in the context of empirical evidence.

The motivation was a recent thread on J. Forester where there was a discussion of the evidence used to support vehicular cycling as an effective accident reduction tool and there was a disagreement on the value of the evidence presented. Long story short, it turns out that Effective Cycling (6th Edition, ~pages 257-278) doesn't really provide enough details for me to evaluate.

The argument in Effective Cycling as I understand it, goes roughly like this ...

(1) we can show that experience matters
(2a) we have information on numbers of accidents by their characteristics
(2b) we have an understanding how to avoid certain classes of these accidents
(3) effective cycling instruction speeds up the learning process of traffic-safe cycling

Presumably J. Forester is talking about vehicular cycling when he writes the effective cycling program.

I recall explicitly reading some research that I-Like-To-bike referenced, but I did not find it in the expected section. It is probably on his website someplace. I did notice ILTB link an article at the end of the aforementioned thread, perhaps it leads to the online source.

Since the "good book" did not have the details, I will follow ILTB's link. If that doesn't get the article, I'll surf for it.

I don't understand the purpose of this thread exactly.
Are you going to provide evidence that VC is the safest way to cycle?
Or are you making a blanket statement that VS *is* the safest way to cycle and you are expecting other to provide evidence of this?
*confused*

Sorry for the delay. We have been quite busy here--house shopping--and one computer died. Given that the boss is surfing for homes all of the time it leaves little time for Bike Forums. :cry:

The theme for this post is the evidence that vehicular cycling is safer than alternative theories/paradigms/strategies. More specifically, what is the scientific evidence that supports vehicular cycling as
(1) an effective accident reduction strategy
(2) a strategy that is better than the alternatives?

So notice that (1) is different from (2). Question (1) asks, "How do we scientifically know that this is an effective strategy relative to just riding and learning?" Question (2) asks, "Given the other well-defined strategies, What is the evidence that implementing VC is the best option?" Feel free to address either. Note that this is not about J. Forester.

Seriously, wouldn't we rather talk about safer cycling than some guy?

Anecdotal evidence, while helpful to describe a characteristic observed in empirical data, is generally not considered scientific. So please use it sparingly. A theoretical discussion of cycling theory is interesting, but since we are searching for empirical backing for those theories, we should only introduce it in the context of empirical evidence.

The motivation was a recent thread on J. Forester where there was a discussion of the evidence used to support vehicular cycling as an effective accident reduction tool and there was a disagreement on the value of the evidence presented. Long story short, it turns out that Effective Cycling (6th Edition, ~pages 257-278) doesn't really provide enough details for me to evaluate.

The argument in Effective Cycling as I understand it, goes roughly like this ...

(1) we can show that experience matters
(2a) we have information on numbers of accidents by their characteristics
(2b) we have an understanding how to avoid certain classes of these accidents
(3) effective cycling instruction speeds up the learning process of traffic-safe cycling

Presumably J. Forester is talking about vehicular cycling when he writes the effective cycling program.

I recall explicitly reading some research that I-Like-To-bike referenced, but I did not find it in the expected section. It is probably on his website someplace. I did notice ILTB link an article at the end of the aforementioned thread, perhaps it leads to the online source.

Since the "good book" did not have the details, I will follow ILTB's link. If that doesn't get the article, I'll surf for it.
Forester apparently removed from his website the more detailed description of his idiotic comparison of wildly different cyclist populations and concluded that differences in "accident rates" could be attributed to unnamed Vehicular Cycling techniques that are either learned from 20 years of experience or taking his proprietary classes. The essence of that "comparison" can be found at http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/aaas94.htm go to the section heading "Studies of the safety and convenience of cycling transportation" . This is where Forester compares vaguely defined and undefined "accident rates" of various groups. Perhaps some Forester devotee can tell us the appropriate Chapter and Verse of Effective Cycling that tells all of how Forester determined that Vehicular Cycling training will lead to 80% reduction in "accident rates."

I think statistics regards accident rates in Portland would indicate adding facilities helps bring down accidents per miles travelled by bicyclists. Facilties both increase cyclists numbers and decrease per trip accident rates.

If you looked at cities like Copenhagen, Denmark, with 40 percent of trips by bicycle, i have an unfounded idea that facilties there help to both increase ridership and keep riders safer than unaccomodated road networks :D

And Bogota, Columbia....


NOW, I am not trying to indicate that vehicular cycling isn't valid or valuable; it is. but what helps keep riders, en masse safer? a notion about riding technique, shared by a few select percent of all cyclists, or on the ground engineering to benefit bicycles? seems pretty basic, actually.

I don't understand the purpose of this thread exactly.
Are you going to provide evidence that VC is the safest way to cycle?
Or are you making a blanket statement that VS *is* the safest way to cycle and you are expecting other to provide evidence of this?
*confused*
Heck, if anyone has a reference to quantitative evidence of any kind of safety record for an identified group of vehicular cyclists vis-à-vis non vehicular cyclists - Please post it here. Be sure that the reference indicates how the distinction was made between the population of cyclists who are vehicular and those who were not.

You want evidence that VC is safer? Safer than what? Are you trying to suggest that you cannot employ vehicular cycling and still use on-street or off-street cycling facilities? That they are somehow opposed to each other?

I don't find the dichotomy VC vs bike lane or VC vs bike path to be a valid dichotomy.

Heck, if anyone has a reference to quantitative evidence of any kind of safety record for an identified group of vehicular cyclists vis-`a-vis non vehicular cyclists - Please post it here. Be sure that the reference indicates how the distinction was made between the population of cyclists who are vehicular and those who were not.
ummm... big words... big words...ooh, I recognize that one... big words...
remember man, I'm just a hillbilly :D
but I see your point, and quite possibly share it

however, I still don't see the point of this thread other than to start another pissing match

You want evidence that VC is safer? Safer than what? Are you trying to suggest that you cannot employ vehicular cycling and still use on-street or off-street cycling facilities? That they are somehow opposed to each other?

I don't find the dichotomy VC vs bike lane or VC vs bike path to be a valid dichotomy.

Excellent points, Diane. Vehicular cycling and roadway cycling networks are NOT mutually exclusive.

ummm... big words... big words...ooh, I recognize that one... big words...
remember man, I'm just a hillbilly :D
but I see your point, and quite possibly share it

however, I still don't see the point of this thread other than to start another pissing match
If you don't see the point of this thread, maybe this thread is not for you.

If you don't see the point of this thread, maybe this thread is not for you.
I think you're right
/me heads back to Foo

Check out the following URL for more preposterous unsubstantiated Forester safety claims for his proprietary Effective Cycling "VC" Course. This Forester's manual for the Instructors of his miracle course.
http://www.johnforester.com/BTEO/ECIM5.pdf

See
Paragraph 4.2, Accident prevention

Forester, without a shred of evidence that his course has ever altered the behavior of a single student over any extended period, estimates Effective Cycling Courses would eliminate over 50% of all bicycling fatalities and reduce injuries by over 100,000.

Check out the following URL for more preposterous unsubstantiated Forester safety claims for his proprietary Effective Cycling "VC" Course. This Forester's manual for the Instructors of his miracle course.
http://www.johnforester.com/BTEO/ECIM5.pdf

See
Paragraph 4.2, Accident prevention

Forester, without a shred of evidence that his course has ever altered the behavior of a single student over any extended period, estimates Effective Cycling Courses would eliminate over 50% of all bicycling fatalities and reduce injuries by over 100,000.

Yet more statistics from "The department of I Just Pulled This Out Of My Arse".
I just don't see VC as being the safest thing to do in most circumstances. It's like the whole idea of it is to give you one option and one option only and if it fails, then it's your fault, because the "system" can not fail.
I think this guy just wanted to make some money so he started his own cult, like L. Ron hubbard or that J. Christ guy.

ummm... big words... big words...ooh, I recognize that one... big words...
remember man, I'm just a hillbilly :D
but I see your point, and quite possibly share it

however, I still don't see the point of this thread other than to start another pissing match

Yeah I don't get it either. "VC is safer"? I would imagine following vehicle traffic laws would be safer then not . I think for safety you should emphasis teaching handling skills and technique since there is some anecdotal and real evidence that taking those types of skill based classes will make you a better and safer like driving school. Several accidents that I actually saw was based on poor handling skills on rough road... they did repave that section after 3 (edit: that I actually saw happen so was probally more. ) accidents in 2 years but it was clear the cyclist had poor handling skills.

Yet more statistics from "The department of I Just Pulled This Out Of My Arse".
I just don't see VC as being the safest thing to do in most circumstances. It's like the whole idea of it is to give you one option and one option only and if it fails, then it's your fault, because the "system" can not fail.
I think this guy just wanted to make some money so he started his own cult, like L. Ron hubbard or that J. Christ guy.
Welcome back from FooLand; your journey was brief. You do get it. VC may (or may not) be the safest method. Only neither Forester, nor his minions have ever produced any evidence of any Vehicular Cyclists' safety record from which to make an evaluation.

Just Horse Arse products that we incompetents are to take at face value as safety gospel.

The theme for this post is the evidence that vehicular cycling is safer than alternative theories/paradigms/strategies. More specifically, what is the scientific evidence that supports vehicular cycling as ...

In order to explore this, we would have to be clear about what you mean by vehicular cycling. I don't see such a definition in this thread, explicit or implied.



I just don't see VC as being the safest thing to do in most circumstances. It's like the whole idea of it is to give you one option and one option only and if it fails, then it's your fault, because the "system" can not fail.

For example, what is the definition of VC to which pj7 refers above? What interpretation of VC "gives you one option and one option only"?

Yeah I don't get it either...but it was clear the cyclist had poor handling skills.
And what makes you think cyclists' handling skills improved after being certified as trained vehicular cyclists?

It is only a product of John Forester's egotistical boasting that all his graduated students permanently alter their assumed pre-training "incompetent behavior" to cycling standards that match his training objectives.

Take a look at the work that Dr. Ian Walker, Department of Psychology, University of Bath in Great Britian has published. It's at this website:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/uob-wah091106.php

At the bottom of this webpage, there is link to this page:

http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/

and a downloadable PDF on the "overview of the main results." This is the most scientifically valid study that I have yet seen. I cannot spend time discussing it yet (supper time), but after you have looked it over, I think it deserves some attention.

John

In order to explore this, we would have to be clear about what you mean by vehicular cycling. I don't see such a definition in this thread, explicit or implied.
Good point. Nor does Forester or any of his minions identify any characteristic that makes a cyclist "vehicular" when their claims are made about an alleged superior safety record for the mystery population of vehicular cyclists. The closest working definition for the proselytizers establishing a "safety record" appears to be that everybody is a "vehicular cyclist" until they have an accident, then they are not.

Good point. Nor does Forester or any of his minions identify any characteristic that makes a cyclist "vehicular" when their claims are made about an alleged superior safety record for the mystery population of vehicular cyclists. The closest working definition for the proselytizers establishing a "safety record" appears to be that everybody is a "vehicular cyclist" until they have an accident, then they are not.
To the OP. The reference for the comparison of wildly mismatched populations of cyclists with scanty to non existent risk factors can be found in the other Forester tome, Bicycle Transportation, 2nd Edition published by MIT Press in 1994. Chapter 5 I believe.

From what I gather, VC means riding your bike as though it were any other vehicle, obeying ALL traffic laws and wot-not, this also means to me "getting stuck in the same traffic messes".
So if I'm riding along the road and there is an accident up ahead, blocking all lanes and traffic is backed up for a mile, I should sit there and wait like every other vehicle instead of hopping the curb and riding on the sidewalk, because afterall, other vehicles aren't allowed on the sidewalk so why should I?
That's just one example.
In my mind though, I can't figure out why this guy whould have gone thru all of this if there hadn't been a monitary gain or fame out of it for him. And we all know that the human race would sell their own mother for a chance to become wealthier and have their name associated with various organizations.

Forester apparently removed from his website the more detailed description of his idiotic comparison of wildly different cyclist populations and concluded that differences in "accident rates" could be attributed to unnamed Vehicular Cycling techniques that are either learned from 20 years of experience or taking his proprietary classes. The essence of that "comparison" can be found at http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Social/aaas94.htm go to the section heading "Studies of the safety and convenience of cycling transportation" . This is where Forester compares vaguely defined and undefined "accident rates" of various groups. Perhaps some Forester devotee can tell us the appropriate Chapter and Verse of Effective Cycling that tells all of how Forester determined that Vehicular Cycling training will lead to 80% reduction in "accident rates."
Forester probably calculated the 80% figure from either the Kaplan survey of LAB members or from one of the Cross studies (since those seem to be the main sources, besides Forester, that he references).

It can be hard to find things on Forester's website. Forester discusses his study of the traffic behavior of four groups of cyclists (3 "college town" cyclists compared to one group of club cyclists, with JF doing the evaluation). That discussion is on a page under the "Lost League" heading, not the "Social" section.

http://www.johnforester.com/LAW/Bikeway%20Controversy.htm

Look down near the bottom of the page for a section entitled "The Evidence from Cyclist Behavior".

And what makes you think cyclists' handling skills improved after being certified as trained vehicular cyclists.

It is only a product of John Forester's egotistical boasting that all his graduated students permanently alter their assumed pre-training "incompetent behavior" to cycling standards that match his training objectives.

Any skill based training course would by definition increase your skill in that endevour. There must be some statistical evidence for insurance companies to lower premium based on a driver taking a driving course. Who knows maybe its just coincidence but I would imagine skill has a some factor evidenced by every winter when 1st snow fall you have 300% increase in traffic accidents till people get used to it.

I get the arguments in ski technique thread about which teaching method is better or worse and they argue endless there too but here I'm not even sure what you guys are arguing about when you argue over VC most of the time.

Yeah I don't get it either. "VC is safer"? I would imagine following vehicle traffic laws would be safer then not .

Perhaps not... as a vc cyclist one is expected to ride in the street and obey traffic laws... but while riding in the street one is exposed to not only intersection traffic, but traffic from behind and traffic from the side in the form of motorists leaving parking positions.

Riding as a sidewalk rider, one only is exposed to traffic at intersections... the very same intersections where a vc cyclist also has to be on the defensive, however the sidewalk cyclist is not exposed to traffic from behind, nor motorists suddenly leaving parking spaces.

Just by sheer exposure alone, the sidewalk cyclist encounters fewer situations of potential danger.

This alone explains the preponderance of sidewalk cyclists I see in the area near my home... it is easier for those cyclists to simply act like fast pedestrians, especially considering the rarity of actual pedestrians on those same local sidewalks.

Now of course the sidewalk cyclists still have to obey all the pedestrian laws... but again sheer exposure to automotive traffic simply reduces their potential for automotive accidents.

Now I know that the response to this will be to offer that greater numbers of pedestrians are killed annually then cyclists. Could this possibly be that there are more pedestrians than cyclists, on any particular day using sidewalks and crossing streets? And how many of those ped deaths are due to alcohol?

Any skill based training course would by definition increase your skill in that endevour. There must be some statistical evidence for insurance companies to lower premium based on a driver taking a driving course...I'm not even sure what you guys are arguing about when you argue over VC most of the time.
Obviously. Here's a hint, we are not discussing driving an automobile. And here's another hint, better look up the definition of results and note that it is not the same as training objectives. Lots of people are taught the Golden Rule or how to lead the "Good Life". In case you haven't noticed it doesn't necessarily increase the student's skill in those endeavors.

It can be hard to find things on Forester's website. Forester discusses his study of the traffic behavior of four groups of cyclists (3 "college town" cyclists compared to one group of club cyclists, with JF doing the evaluation). That discussion is on a page under the "Lost League" heading, not the "Social" section.

http://www.johnforester.com/LAW/Bikeway%20Controversy.htm

Look down near the bottom of the page for a section entitled "The Evidence from Cyclist Behavior".
Oh these are the studies alright but he used to give the details. Like how he "tested" random unaware cyclists for compliance with his own secret test, and compared the results of the cyclists who had no idea they were taking a test with his students who were being specifically tested on what Forester had just taught them to do and had to pass the test to get the certificate. And better yet, Forester jumps to the conclusion that these results had some sort of statistical significance beyond showing what a statistical charlatan Forester is.

Apparently he has removed from his site the details of these comparisons but our Forester scholars should be able to cite chapter and verse from the hardback tomes.

with any luck, one should be able to use http://www.archive.org/ to find these missing parts. I'd look, but I don't know what to look for.

Obviously. Here's a hint, we are not discussing driving an automobile. And here's another hint, better look up the definition of results and note that it is not the same as training objectives. Lots of people are taught the Golden Rule or how to lead the "Good Life". In case you haven't noticed it doesn't necessarily increase the student's skill in those endeavors.

Obviously I understand the definition of hint and results. and I know we are not discussing driving an automobile, it was obviously an example... but maybe it wasn't clear enough.
I tend to agree that beginner class would be mostly waste of money and time for skiing, biking, driving, etc... but for most of us if we want to increase our skill from intermediate to expert to world class taking a course wouldn't hurt. yeah I know we are not talking about skiing or driving or dancing or chewing gum... let me make it clear that those are examples. please look up the definition of the word examples if it's still not clear.

i disagree that, for the cycling populace as a whole, a few dodgy codgers taking a class will increase bicyclist safety as a group.

Portland, however, has decreased per-trip accident rates at the same time as greatly increasing cyclist trips.

Copenhagen Denmark has 40 percent trips by bike. I doubt their civic mindedness would enable a corresponding rate in cyclist injuries.

I suspect there ARE better ways to improve cyclists' safety- as a group or class of road users- than this VC by the few that choose to subscribe, take classes, drink koolaid- whatever it is that we cyclists do on our course to the illusion of vehicular parity.

...what is the scientific evidence that supports vehicular cycling as
(1) an effective accident reduction strategy
(2) a strategy that is better than the alternatives?

Little to none, is the answer to both. VC/EC people can reasonably claim that about half of cyclist fatalities could be eliminated if everyone rode according to the rules, as about half of these fatalities follow some blatant rule-breaking by the victim. Keeping in mind that a lot of those cyclist-at-fault fatalities involve little kids and bigger kids just riding right out of their driveways and such into the paths of speeding vehicles. Yes, adhering to VC principles would have helped them. Not exactly a stop-the-presses revelation. The flip-side of this -- only half? The rest of those fatalities, where the cyclist was following the vehicular rules of the road but still got tagged, those don't look so good for the VC'ers, do they? Experienced adult riders who get hit by cars are most likely to be riding lawfully and predictably at the time of the event. Slim pickins for VC/EC spokesmodels hoping to shore up their presentations with accident statistics, imo.



The argument in Effective Cycling as I understand it, goes roughly like this ...

(1) we can show that experience matters
[...]

Yeah, that's what the evidence Forester compiled shows. You may as well stop there. And more recent evidence from still more experienced riders shows still better accident rates, with data that falls reasonably along the curve he described with that older, stankier evidence (see William Moritz' survey of LAB members, "Adult Bicyclists in the United States," 1996: <www.bicyclinglife.com/library/Moritz2htm>). Inexperienced riders are far more likely to get hurt (per mile or hour of riding) than experienced ones. The difference between the least experienced and most experienced is dramatic. Experience is the key variable. Now, we may encounter some overzealous converts to Foresterism who would have us believe that level of experience is just a disguise for level of VC-ishness, but we should resist such colossal leaps of faith.
The fact that the most experienced riders out there are veteran bicycle messengers is not a dot that tends to get connected to any other dot by vocal VC proponents. From what I've seen over the years, (alert--anecdotal although well-informed assertions to follow) highly experienced, non-VC riding messengers tend to have exemplary accident rates (per hour or per mile, mind you) that correspond to their unmatched saddle-time. It is my belief that they are way down the curve from the LAB members of the Moritz survey, for instance, who as the most experienced riders ever formally surveyed own the lowest accident rate ever recorded (AFAIK). If I'm right about the veteran messengers, it's still more verification that experience is the variable that matters, while blowing up one key leap-of-faith/hopeful implication -- that the safest riders would necessarily be VC/EC adherents.

It is clearly not by riding more and more VC that the safest riders achieve accident rates drastically lower than those of their VC-riding brethren. Must be some other reason.

Robert

however the sidewalk cyclist is not exposed to traffic from behind, nor motorists suddenly leaving parking spaces.

Very exposed to cars leaving parking space because motorists don't expect anything faster than a pedestrian on the sidewalk. Same at intersections, motorists don't look far (or at all) on the sidewalk.

with any luck, one should be able to use http://www.archive.org/ to find these missing parts. I'd look, but I don't know what to look for.
Hey, Thanks! Here's one of the missing "analyses" that discusses the Forester "testing" scheme. Check out the methodology and "imaginative" extrapolations. Especially the selection of a cycling club of his pals and and known acquaintances used as a "control" sample. http://web.archive.org/web/20021001142658/www.johnforester.com/Articles/Facilities/bikelane.htm

It is clearly not by riding more and more VC that the safest riders achieve accident rates drastically lower than those of their VC-riding brethren. Must be some other reason.


My personal theory - situational awareness. Those who can pay attention and UNDERSTAND what is going on around them, enabling them to proactively deal with their environment, tend to fare better. This is a skill that grows with experience, which tracks nicely with the findings of others. ;)

A while back, I posted some links to some new studies, but apparently nobody is interested in pursuing it. So I'll try one more time. Take a look at this sheet, which is from those links:

http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf

If no one is interested, then you can continue to discuss only Forester, but this offers some alternatives in study methodology.

John

Very exposed to cars leaving parking space because motorists don't expect anything faster than a pedestrian on the sidewalk. Same at intersections, motorists don't look far (or at all) on the sidewalk.

When motorists start leaving parking spaces (along the side of the road) and driving on sidewalks, then you will have a point.

But primarily sidewalk cyclists are only in harms way at any intersection. And any cyclist riding in the street faces the same dangers at intersections. Just listen to HH preach about the dangers at intersections.

Let me know when motorists "look" for cyclists at all... in the lane or out. They may notice us when we ride in the street, but I doubt very much that they "look" for us.

Look I am not promoting sidewalk cycling. I don't do it. But just pointing out that in certain ways it may be safer than riding in the lane, even when fully obeying the law and cycing in the most vc of vc styles. Of course don't expect to do 20MPH on a sidewalk either.

A while back, I posted some links to some new studies, but apparently nobody is interested in pursuing it. So I'll try one more time. Take a look at this sheet, which is from those links:

http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf

If no one is interested, then you can continue to discuss only Forester, but this offers some alternatives in study methodology.

John


Actually I think this study has been discussed in a number of threads over the past 6 months or so, John. I'm interested to hear more about why you think this study uses a more valid methodology, since the results have been pretty much poo-pooed by most folks in BF and has indeed spawned a number of jokes about riding helmetless with a wig and skirt.

Personally, I think the study makes a valid point when it theorizes that those without helmets and women are considered less 'professional' and/or predictable, which is why they are given more room. The lane positioning results also track with my own experience - my lane position has no impact on how much room I am given when passed.

I don't understand the purpose of this thread exactly.
Are you going to provide evidence that VC is the safest way to cycle?
Or are you making a blanket statement that VS *is* the safest way to cycle and you are expecting other to provide evidence of this?
*confused*

I can understand the confusion if you are unfamiliar with the old thread. The answer to both questions is no. This is more about what empirical evidence is there to support notions of safe cycling.

Just focus on the following text ...

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The theme for this post is the evidence that vehicular cycling is safer than alternative theories/paradigms/strategies. More specifically, what is the scientific evidence that supports vehicular cycling as
(1) an effective accident reduction strategy
(2) a strategy that is better than the alternatives?

So notice that (1) is different from (2). Question (1) asks, "How do we scientifically know that this is an effective strategy relative to just riding and learning?" Question (2) asks, "Given the other well-defined strategies, What is the evidence that implementing VC is the best option?" Feel free to address either. Note that this is not about J. Forester.

Take a look at the work that Dr. Ian Walker, Department of Psychology, University of Bath in Great Britian has published. It's at this website:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-09/uob-wah091106.php

At the bottom of this webpage, there is link to this page:

http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/

and a downloadable PDF on the "overview of the main results." This is the most scientifically valid study that I have yet seen. I cannot spend time discussing it yet (supper time), but after you have looked it over, I think it deserves some attention.

John

So, by this study if you are female (or look like one from behind) and don't wear a helmet and don't ride centered in the lane and aren't overtaken by a lot of trucks you will be given a wider passing berth. Though the study is interesting, it has little to do with the OP's topic. And considering overtaking collisions are extremely rare what does the study really tell you about on road safety?

You want evidence that VC is safer? Safer than what? Are you trying to suggest that you cannot employ vehicular cycling and still use on-street or off-street cycling facilities? That they are somehow opposed to each other?

I don't find the dichotomy VC vs bike lane or VC vs bike path to be a valid dichotomy.

That is a good point. And no. I am not trying to suggest that VC is better than any alternative strategy. Although I can understand the confusion. Let me try to explain differently.

I phrased the question relative to VC since it seems to be a relatively well-defined strategy for safe cycling. Whether there is statistical evidence that it is effective, however, is uncertain ... at least to a nubie like myself. Moreover, since Forester and others (I recall J. S. Allen) have written essays on VC and--at least by my first read--suggested that it is the best methodolgy for riding, it seemed worthwhile to ask, "Is there evidence that VC is best?" with the idea that it would help flesh out whatever statistical evidence there is on safe cycling in general.

To reiterate, this thread is about the scientific evidence--i.e.; what do we know--on safe cycling. Given the old thread, it seemed appropriate to phrase it relative to VC.

As Diane pointed out and I implied above, I don't really know of another well defined strategy out there. I have not picked up on any alternatives other than a handful of references by Chip and others to alternative books. In direct reference to your statement about bikepaths, my understanding is that regularly practicing VC does not explicitly prohibit using off-street facilities.

I think the idea that experience matters makes the most sense.

I thought maybe John's purpose for posting that helmet study was to show how somebody actually used real measurements (such as that sonic device that measured the distance of passing cars) to gather data and come to a conclusion. Rather than phony made up stuff like "I decided to ride on the bike path and count all the horrible accidents that didn't actually happen to me."

And considering overtaking collisions are extremely rare what does the study really tell you about on road safety?

Subject for another thread - are overtaking collisions as rare as you claim? This site seems to indicate otherwise: http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bc/types.cfm


Motorist overtaking a bicyclist (8.6 percent of all crashes). Of these crashes, 23 percent appeared to involve a motorist who misjudged the space required to safely pass the bicyclist.

As Diane pointed out and I implied above, I don't really know of another well defined strategy out there. I have not picked up on any alternatives other than a handful of references by Chip and others to alternative books. In direct reference to your statement about bikepaths, my understanding is that regularly practicing VC does not explicitly prohibit using off-street facilities.

I doubt that I have pointed you to any books, that's not something I do in here, I prefer to relate my own observations and theories based on my experience. I rarely cite other people's work, though I think Hurst's book is one of the better of the bunch that are usually cited.

I phrased the question relative to VC since it seems to be a relatively well-defined strategy for safe cycling...I don't really know of another well defined strategy out there.
Have to differ with you on the statement that Vehicular Cycling is a well defined strategy; certainly not when it is alleged that a "VC strategy" is the principal, if not only method available to significantly reduce cycling risk for the public. The destination positioning technique is defined by Forester and is well described and presumably utilized by the mystery population of vehicular cyclists. Any other technique/practice that is a necessary component of an effective VC strategy is anybody's guess and certainly has never been measured for any kind of risk reduction effects. Nor has any group ever been identified as possessing the undefined VC "right stuff."

Criteria for the VC strategy could be anything or nothing at all, as the documentation is non existent ; may be it includes and maybe not includes the use/occasional use/non use of bike lanes, sidewalks and paths, full stops at stop signs, "proper" cadence for maximum speed and efficiency at all times, use of 3" amber rear reflectors, mirrors, helmets or anything/everything/nothing else vaguely considered by any conjurer of results as "competent" or "lawful."

Subject for another thread - are overtaking collisions as rare as you claim? This site seems to indicate otherwise: http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bc/types.cfm
Yep, could start even another debunking thread on the methodology used by a prominent self annointed expert on cycling risk who established the Scientific Evidence that the risk of overtaking collisions is insignificant.

Hint: the mystery expert juggles, slices and dices cherry picked statistics in order to give him the desired results he used to further establish the presence of his pet theory: (TaaDaa!!) Cyclist Inferiority Complexes/Phobias in the majority of cyclists.

Subject for another thread - are overtaking collisions as rare as you claim? This site seems to indicate otherwise: http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bc/types.cfm

This site seem to indicate the oposite:

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm

But of course, the study also goes on to state that cyclist integrated with traffic are the safest so we can't have that....

Here is a great police memo:

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/NewsAndViews/News990707.htm

This site seem to indicate the oposite:

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm

But of course, the study also goes on to state that cyclist integrated with traffic are the safest so we can't have that....
This study can be dismissed as having nothing to offer about measuring cycling risk since there is zero consideration, let alone measurement of accident severity. Only counts of undefined "accidents." But then what else could be expected from a study that offers the following completely unsubstantiated result and gratuitious plug for its mentor's training course: "The Effective Cycling program then being offered in the Palo Alto middle schools, and other safety measures, may have had a positive influence on the behavior of younger bicyclists. If so, it might be beneficial to extend similar educational measures to adult bicyclists."

Here is a great police memo:

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/NewsAndViews/News990707.htm
You really are grasping at straws as evidence that "VC is safer."

bicyclinglife.com

...Food for Foresterites; VC pabulum.

This site seem to indicate the oposite:

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm


Yours:

From 1981 to 1990, one of the authors, Diana Lewiston, analyzed all police reports of bicycle accidents in Palo Alto. This study considers only the period from July 1985 through June 1989. (Earlier data were entered in an incompatible computer format and are no longer available.) During this period, bicycle-motor vehicle collisions accounted for 314 of 371 bicycle accidents for which a substantially complete police report was available (85 percent).

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT):

In the 1970's, a methodology for typing bicycle crashes was developed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to better define the sequence of events and precipitating actions leading to pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes. (1) In the early 1990's, this method was refined and used to determine the crash types for more than 3,000 pedestrian crashes in the States of California, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Utah. (2)

bicyclinglife.com

...Food for Foresterites; VC pabulum.
Not surprisingly Diana Lewiston,the author of the "study" cited by Galen coauthored with John Forester, Intermediate-Level Cyclist Training Program:Objectives, Techniques and Results

Another acolyte using the master's sophomoric risk analysis methods.