Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Forester takes on BF Posters

Isn't this true with most of our roads though? There must be thousands of unsafe lanes for autos - places where it is dangerous to turn, enter or exit a parking lot, etc.

Should we tear up the roads in these locations or work on ways to solve the problems...?

If we determine that bike lanes in some locations are dangerous... couldn't we sign it / color it / etc. like we would with motor vehicles? At some point we need to realize that we will not create a full proof system - cyclists are adults and have free will like anyone else. In the end they need to use common sense when coming upon these locations.

Are we to assume that the engineer will solve all our problems and we need not worry about our surroundings?

Well, in those places where bike lanes markedly increase the risk of car-bike collision, then the obvious safety precaution is not to install bike lanes at those places.

the more I read this thread, the more convinced I am that John forester and his minions are interested in marginalizing cycling and inculcating an elitist, certified class of chestbeating few who will ride America's sprawl.

john forester and crewe are not interested in increasing cycling in communities, lobby to reduce cycling for the expediency of cars, and foster auto-centric road designs distinctly unfriendly for bicycling.

I suppose that it has been noted that I have described the emotional difficulties of advocating opposition to motoring by means of the very means that the motoring establishment invented, promoted, and pays for, in order to discriminate against cyclists. That is obviously difficult, and it seems to me that the nastiness that keeps surfacing in this discussion is one more demonstration of that.
I've read this three times and still have no idea what it means. All I can say is that adjustments to our transporation infrastructure that allow bicycling to increase to a reasonable 10% mode split may in fact inconvenience a few motorists a wee bit, but it is certainly not anti-motorist. Nor is providing bike lanes or other facilities 'capitulation to anti-bicycling motorists' or otherwise discrimination against bicyclists in any way, shape or form. It's the 21st century now, and it's time to move on.

Your understanding of the blue bike lanes is superficial and flawed. 'The stripe' did not create the high level of danger. Conditions for cyclists were much worse at these high traffic volume locations before the bike lanes were striped. The coloration of the bike lanes in these specific locations is a technique borrowed from the dutch and other european countries; all it is meant to do is convey to all road users, cyclists and motorists alike, of the need for caution and awareness at these locations. Several of the bue bike lanes are in locations where the bike lane is correctly positioned to the left of a RTOL, and are meant to serve as cautionary warnings to motorists merging across the properly positioned bike lane to reach the RTOL.

Somewhat inaccurate, your statement. The cyclist who intends to take the left branch should position himself in advance away from the right-turning traffic. Borrowing bikeway technique from the Dutch and other European nations is no recommendation for quality. When the European bicycle program officials appeared on this side of the Atlantic, in Montreal, they admitted that they had no information to support their designs, and, so far as I know, they haven't changed their designs since. We know more about bicycle transportation engineering than they do.

Well, in those places where bike lanes markedly increase the risk of car-bike collision, then the obvious safety precaution is not to install bike lanes at those places.

I guess I could stay off my bike too.

Are those areas more or less dangerous with the bike lanes? Would these areas be as dangerous to cyclists without the lanes?

Do the bike lanes, over time, through reinforcing familiarity with drivers and cyclists, increase safety in these areas?
If more people are out there due to the lanes, will this increase cyclings exposure in this area and eventually change drivers and cyclists attitudes about the dangers located therein?

It is hardly worth further discussion with you, because your attitude is even worse than HH's and JF's, and you are so completely wrong it's not even funny; it is elitist, and you are no better than all the motorists who insist that bicyclists 'do as I say not as I do' when it comes to the rules of the road

Wanting road users to be competent and behave lawfully is "completely wrong?" I don't understand how you can seriously assert such a thing.



since 99% of motorists are behaving neither lawfully nor competently a vast majority of the time.

This is just silly.

I suppose that it has been noted that I have described the emotional difficulties of advocating opposition to motoring by means of the very means that the motoring establishment invented, promoted, and pays for, in order to discriminate against cyclists. That is obviously difficult, and it seems to me that the nastiness that keeps surfacing in this discussion is one more demonstration of that.


I've read this three times and still have no idea what it means.

It means that you are eagerly, albeit unwittingly, collaborating in your own oppression.

The elitist has spoken - Kalliergo does not want more cyclists on the road, they interfere with his precious cycling space and demystify and debunk the arcane principles of 'vehicular cycling'.

Another of these emotionally nasty statements by one who thinks of herself as a bicycle advocate. Vehicular cycling is not arcane: it is no more than obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, with a little bit extra because the bicycle is narrow. There is no sense of elitism about it, because practically everybody can do it. There are two reasons that one might not desire more non-vehicular cyclists on the road. The first is that operating in the non-vehicular manner is dangerous for the cyclist (and, dare I mention it, for the motorist's paint). The second is that it would be better to have the rate of acquisition of new cyclists closer to the rate of learning through experience, so that the population of cyclists acquires better skills at a faster rate, thus making things easier for those who join later.

Somewhat inaccurate, your statement. The cyclist who intends to take the left branch should position himself in advance away from the right-turning traffic.
You admit to not having seen or ridden the blue bike lanes in person, yet the joke goes on forever here: http://probicycle.com/da/bluebikers.html

The merge area is in advance of the intersection.


We know more about bicycle transportation engineering than they do.
Only if your initial assumption is that any engineering design provided for motorists, regarless of its safety, is also safe for cyclists. Based on a 40% mode split for bicyclists in Amsterdam, I'd say we actually have something to learn from them.

[edit] Truck speed limit differentials
The following states have different statutory speed limits for cars and trucks.

State Statutory car speed limit Statutory truck speed limit
Arkansas 70 65
California 70 55
Idaho 75 65
Illinois 65 55
Indiana 70 65
Michigan 70 60
Montana 75 65
Ohio 65 65 on Ohio Turnpike, 55 on all other freeways.
Oregon 70* never implemented, 65 or less still in effect[72] 5 mph differential, effectively 60[73] although 55 is still posted in most locations
Texas 70-80 mph day/65 mph night 70 day/65 night
Texas (Farm-to-Market roads only) 70 mph day/65 mph night 60 day/55 night
Washington 70 60
(and this is just the tip of the iceberg for commercial vehicles)

:D Chaos reigns supreme!

(Incidentally Motorcyles also have different rules in many states as covered in another thread)

The lower speed limits for large vehicles than for passenger cars make absolutely no difference in how these vehicles are maneuvered. There is no law requiring passenger cars to always be driven faster than the truck speed limit. Passenger cars are allowed to be driven considerably below the limit, think of that, and nobody claims that the drivers of these passenger cars are not driving in the vehicular manner, in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

This is just silly.
I'm serious as a heart attack. What percentage of motorists do you think rigorously follow the speed limits, come to complete stops at stop signs, yield when and as appropriate, and always use their turn signals?

:roflmao:

It means that you are eagerly, albeit unwittingly, collaborating in your own oppression.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

The lower speed limits for large vehicles than for passenger cars make absolutely no difference in how these vehicles are maneuvered. There is no law requiring passenger cars to always be driven faster than the truck speed limit. Passenger cars are allowed to be driven considerably below the limit, think of that, and nobody claims that the drivers of these passenger cars are not driving in the vehicular manner, in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Except that there are minimum speed limits on some roadways, and one can be cited for "impeding traffic" even on roadways without specific mandatory minimums. And, in many districts, large trucks are prohibited from using the left lane unless passing.

Bottom line: there are already many specific rules in place that "discriminate" between vehicle types.

You kinda got a point there. Perhaps that is why we see such desperation...more and more bikeways are being built or improved and more and more cyclists are using bikeways safely every day. It's just a matter of time until data IS collected that will break the 'no evidence' stalemate and it's pretty obvious that the ant-bikeway hardliners are not at all confident that the evidence will support the pillar of their defense.

Well, no, chipcom. Think of the theory of hypothesis testing, particularly in accordance with Bayes' Theorem. The bikeway advocates have had thirty years to discover and advance evidence for their major scientific claims for bike lanes, or for urban transportational bike paths. These claims are that systems of each of these bikeways reduce the car-bike collision rate and lower the level of skill that is required for safe cycling around town. They have produced no such evidence, despite strenuous and expensive investigations. Contrariwise, in those same thirty years, with much less effort and practically no money, the advocates of vehicular cycling have produced a considerable amount of evidence supporting vehicular cycling. The probability that any amount of future effort will reverse the weight of the evidence is vanishingly small, as the mathematicians say.

It is hardly worth further discussion with you, because your attitude is even worse than HH's and JF's, and you are so completely wrong it's not even funny; it is elitist, and you are no better than all the motorists who insist that bicyclists 'do as I say not as I do' when it comes to the rules of the road, since 99% of motorists are behaving neither lawfully nor competently a vast majority of the time.

"since 99% of motorists are behaving neither lawfully nor competently a vast majority of the time."

Absolute falsehood. I haven't measured the performance of motorists according to my proficiency scale, which might be managed, but the typical motorist performance in traffic is almost perfect compared to the average failing scores for the cycling populations of major American cycling cities.

john, have you EVER ridden in an on-road bike lane? do you still ride much?

I feel john's 20th century bias is marginalizing cycling in this country by his dogged insistence against bike facilites.

"typical motorist performance in traffic is almost perfect?"

john HAS taken leave of his senses.

"since 99% of motorists are behaving neither lawfully nor competently a vast majority of the time."

Absolute falsehood. I haven't measured the performance of motorists according to my proficiency scale, which might be managed, but the typical motorist performance in traffic is almost perfect compared to the average failing scores for the cycling populations of major American cycling cities.
Yet motorists still manage to kill 40,000+ of themselves each year in the US. Is that due to engineering flaws in the transporation system or competency issues related to the motorists themselves? I can go for a 30 minute walk downtown at lunchtime any day and easily see more motorist violations than I can count, including (1) speeding, (2) failure to stop for a traffic control device (e.g. red light), (3) failure to yield ROW to other vehicles and/or pedestrians, (4) failure to signal turns, etc., etc., etc. The ideal world in which cyclists rely on the competence of motorists for their safety does not exist in the US, and motorist behavior is only getting worse over time.

the more I read this thread, the more convinced I am that John forester and his minions are interested in marginalizing cycling and inculcating an elitist, certified class of chestbeating few who will ride America's sprawl.

john forester and crewe are not interested in increasing cycling in communities, lobby to reduce cycling for the expediency of cars, and foster auto-centric road designs distinctly unfriendly for bicycling.

Absolutely false, as you ought to be able to discern had you paid attention to the material posted. I cannot help it if your emotions cause you to read into statement what is not there. I have never lobbied to reduce cycling for the convenience of motorists, and I have never fostered auto-centric road designs distinctly unfriendly for lawful, competent cyclists. Furthermore, I would be delighted to see more cycling, provided that is done in the safe and reasonable way required by the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

You admit to not having seen or ridden the blue bike lanes in person, yet the joke goes on forever here: http://probicycle.com/da/bluebikers.html

The merge area is in advance of the intersection.

Like this?

http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/033Summer/images/06portland.jpg

Like this?

http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/033Summer/images/06portland.jpg
No, that's a bike lane crossing a right turn slip lane from a perpendicular street; but since you posted the photo, how would you propose that bicyclists negotiate this particular intersection?

You admit to not having seen or ridden the blue bike lanes in person, yet the joke goes on forever here: http://probicycle.com/da/bluebikers.html

The merge area is in advance of the intersection.


Or is it like this?

http://members.tripod.com/allstondave/images/portlandbike.jpg

I may not have found the "right" blue bike lane, yet, but I challenge the paint proponents to explain how these examples could possibly be safe for cyclists.

You admit to not having seen or ridden the blue bike lanes in person, yet the joke goes on forever here: http://probicycle.com/da/bluebikers.html

The merge area is in advance of the intersection.


Only if your initial assumption is that any engineering design provided for motorists, regarless of its safety, is also safe for cyclists. Based on a 40% mode split for bicyclists in Amsterdam, I'd say we actually have something to learn from them.

Again more emotional superstition. What do you think used to be the ratio of bicycle traffic to private car traffic in Amsterdam? It used to be higher, but has dropped. It is maintained at the current level not by the bikeway system, but because motoring in Amsterdam is extremely inconvenient, making cycling much more competitive. There are those in The Netherlands who maintain that the bikeway system was started to clear the way for the motoring revolution that was predicted. Indeed, the first Dutch bike paths were in the country, intended to service farm workers for their trips to town. Of course, as one with knowledge of history would have expected, it was the rural people who first took up motoring in a big way, leaving those Dutch rural bike paths open for tourists.

Or is it like this?

http://members.tripod.com/allstondave/images/portlandbike.jpg

I may not have found the "right" blue bike lane, yet, but I challenge the paint proponents to explain how these examples could possibly be safe for cyclists.
Nope, not that one either. But since you posted this photo, I can tell you from personal experience that it is much more pleasant and safe to ride on this particular stretch of road than it was before the bike lane was installed. I ride this daily, I'm cautious at this location, but I've never had an incident with a motorist.

How many times have you ridden this stretch of road, either before or after the bike lane was installed?

Well, no, chipcom. Think of the theory of hypothesis testing, particularly in accordance with Bayes' Theorem.

Have you no sense of decency? If you abuse Bayes Theorem I will report you to the mods!

Appealing to Bayes in this discussion falls under the category of lies, damned lies and statistics. Bayes Hypothesis testing is chock full of places where you can insert your opinions. Priors, costs of misclassification and the like. I haven't seen anywhere in these threads where anyone can even agree on what the case conditional probabilities are.

Bayes Theorem my eye.

Speedo

The lower speed limits for large vehicles than for passenger cars make absolutely no difference in how these vehicles are maneuvered. There is no law requiring passenger cars to always be driven faster than the truck speed limit. Passenger cars are allowed to be driven considerably below the limit, think of that, and nobody claims that the drivers of these passenger cars are not driving in the vehicular manner, in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles.

Talk to some truckers some time about the way drivers of smaller cars drive "vehicularly" around them.

What do you think used to be the ratio of bicycle traffic to private car traffic in Amsterdam?
I don't know, circa when?

I don't know,

If you don't know, why would you hold Amsterdam up as a model for increasing cycling in other places?

If you don't know, why would you hold Amsterdam up as a model for increasing cycling in other places?

Nice misquote :rolleyes:

If you don't know, why would you hold Amsterdam up as a model for increasing cycling in other places?

Randya's "circa" question is pretty important. Without a date, Mr. Forrester's Amsterdam comment is nothing but a dodge. If you go back far enough in the United States there were more bicycles than automobiles.

Speedo

Absolute falsehood. I haven't measured the performance of motorists according to my proficiency scale, which might be managed, but the typical motorist performance in traffic is almost perfect compared to the average failing scores for the cycling populations of major American cycling cities.

What?
Explain.

Well, no, chipcom. Think of the theory of hypothesis testing, particularly in accordance with Bayes' Theorem. The bikeway advocates have had thirty years to discover and advance evidence for their major scientific claims for bike lanes, or for urban transportational bike paths. These claims are that systems of each of these bikeways reduce the car-bike collision rate and lower the level of skill that is required for safe cycling around town. They have produced no such evidence, despite strenuous and expensive investigations. Contrariwise, in those same thirty years, with much less effort and practically no money, the advocates of vehicular cycling have produced a considerable amount of evidence supporting vehicular cycling. The probability that any amount of future effort will reverse the weight of the evidence is vanishingly small, as the mathematicians say.

John, you have no evidence that they don't reduce car-bike collisions. There lies the problem, there is no compelling, accepted data to support either position, so going round and round about it is rather pointless. You have your questionable evidence, bikeway proponents have theirs. You attempt to advance vehicular cycling as the antithesis os bikeways, but it is not, and you know it. Vehicular cycling can be applied to many environments and, indeed, on the roadways vehicular cyclists commonly do things that are not vehicular.

I see stubborness and an unwillingness to compromise on all sides...and it sickens me. I feel like I am debating firearms or abortion rather than something so simple as riding a bicycle. Darn shame. I think it's about time moderates rejected all of these extremist, inflexible viewpoints and worked towards a compromise that would benefit ALL cyclists.

Of course your response will outline why I feel you are on the extreme - because you will feel any compromise is bad for cyclists and cycling. Compromise is the way we get things done, rather than remaining deadlocked and doing nothing.

Randya's "circa" question is pretty important. Without a date, Mr. Forrester's Amsterdam comment is nothing but a dodge. If you go back far enough in the United States there were more bicycles than automobiles.

Right, but, (1) those who would have us "learn from Amsterdam" ought to at least know whether the practices they believe we should learn from have actually had the effect they desire here (this promotion without evidence goes to the very heart of our objections to paint-and-path advocacy); and (2) the history of automobile use in the Netherlands, as in most of Europe, is very different than in North America, with comparable levels of ownership not being reached until well after World War II. Consequently, you don't have to go back nearly as far to find much higher percentages of trips by bike as would be necessary here.

Also, of course, the Netherlands is so different from North America in so very many ways that comparisons are of very limited value anyway.

No, that's a bike lane crossing a right turn slip lane from a perpendicular street; but since you posted the photo, how would you propose that bicyclists negotiate this particular intersection?


About 5 feet into the right through lane. No problem.

John, you have no evidence that they don't reduce car-bike collisions. There lies the problem, there is no compelling, accepted data to support either position, so going round and round about it is rather pointless. You have your questionable evidence, bikeway proponents have theirs. You attempt to advance vehicular cycling as the antithesis os bikeways, but it is not, and you know it. Vehicular cycling can be applied to many environments and, indeed, on the roadways vehicular cyclists commonly do things that are not vehicular.

I see stubborness and an unwillingness to compromise on all sides...and it sickens me. I feel like I am debating firearms or abortion rather than something so simple as riding a bicycle. Darn shame. I think it's about time moderates rejected all of these extremist, inflexible viewpoints and worked towards a compromise that would benefit ALL cyclists.

Of course your response will outline why I feel you are on the extreme - because you will feel any compromise is bad for cyclists and cycling. Compromise is the way we get things done, rather than remaining deadlocked and doing nothing.


Chipcom, you have either not been paying attention or have misunderstood. You assume that the only evidence is clear evidence of differential crash rates. That would be nice, but we don't have it, and probably never will. Therefore we have to decide based on the information that is available. Such t yupes of information as analysis of car-bike collision patterns (as previously discussed), consideration of the extent to which each type of bikeway upsets the operation of the rules of the road, human factors analysis of the methods of performing each maneuver under the different conditions. All of these end up supporting the vehicular operation view and work against the bikeway method; greater difference for the bike path than for the bike lane. I repeat, the bikeway advocates have produced no such evidence; all that they have produced is evidence of popularity, which is surely misguided given the preponderance of substantive evidence on the other side. Maybe you should read up on this material?

What?
Explain.
Another reference to the Forester Brand Forester Cycling Proficiency Test that Forester alone believes has some relevance to the safety record of anyone he chooses to grade, including strangers on the street who have no idea that they are taking this "test", automobile drivers and who knows who else.

Or is it like this?

http://members.tripod.com/allstondave/images/portlandbike.jpg

I may not have found the "right" blue bike lane, yet, but I challenge the paint proponents to explain how these examples could possibly be safe for cyclists.

Is that one of the great bike lanes you silly bike lane fascists are raving about??? YOU WANT MORE OF THOSE??????:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

That has got to be the most horrendous design ever foisted on the cycling public. I think you have been drinking the blue paint....

About 5 feet into the right through lane. No problem.

Exactly.

Now, someone please explain the BL in post #1274.

I've been looking for a photo of the location I had, somewhere, that was taken during fairly heavy traffic on a rainy day. I wouldn't cycle through there without a flag-bearer preceding me. That is a design atrocity.

While I see the irony in quoting this piece from an author, I'm gonna leave this thread to the unbending extremists, who fiddle with mythical numbers while the rest of us ride, with a quote from Robert Hurst, found in the second edition of his book The Art of Cycling:



The key to escaping statistical tyranny is to not strain your brain too much about it. One must realize that there will be more art than science to this enterprise. Beware of engineers, cycling advocates, spokes-models, and authors who come at you spewing official-sounding statistics about cycling accidents. Numbers are not the ultimate authority here.

Rather than searching for answers in piles of paper, let us seek knowledge from the cyclists themselves, those with literally hundreds of thousands of miles' worth of experience and decades of truck dodging behind them. These men and women have plenty of stories to tell. We are wise to listen to them well, and to read their scars with a careful eye, while taking the stats with a grain of salt.


Nice piece of writing, Robert. ;)

I appreciate you taking the time to join us here, John Forester, while I don't agree with a lot of what you have to say, I respect that fact that you don't hide behind the pedestal some have put you on. I hope that some day you can see the value of respecting the views and experience of others, as well as the value of working with them to find compromise that will enable cyclists to speak with one voice, rather than from a position of division and weakness.

John,

In most of your responses you seem to hold the 'rules of the road' sacred, and push for getting cyclists to adapt to these rules.

Instead of trying to get bicycles to act like cars, SUVs, and other motorized transport, why not adapt and change the 'rules of the road' to serve the users of the roads... which include bicycles - and include them as the vehicles they are - human powered, small, relatively unprotected, yet incredibly effecient and fun?

The laws we have should serve the people that write them. You offer techniques for working within the current system - which 30 years ago was an admirable undertaking - but I think at this point in time cyclists (and drivers) would be better served by working on the arbitraty system of laws we have written to keep ourselves in check. If these include special provisions for bicycles as vehicles, and even provisions for the use (or disuse) of bike lanes - would you be for them? Assume that over time, with enough work on the law, bicycles and cyclists become common place, and most drivers respect cyclists as any other road user....

If we keep defining cycling in the language of the automobile, it will forever be defined relative to the dominant system. If we begin to define the bicycle as a thing unto itself - a serious, successful, and simple machine for transport, fun, utility, and recreation - it will begin to be taken seriously along side, rather than second rate, to other 'vehicles' on the road.

When we write history, create laws, and speak to each other - the language we use reinforces the position of our ideals. Continuing to define the bicycle in the language of the auto, according to the laws of the auto, does cyclists a great disservice. Those who write history often control the future. We should be writing the history (and the present) of cycling in a way that empowers cyclists with their own strength, culture, and language.

About 5 feet into the right through lane. No problem.
You can't ride a bike on the bridge deck, aqualung. You need to be aiming for the <gasp> sidewalk. Any other suggestions?

Maybe you should read up on this material?
I have. And I've read enough of Forester's stuff too. For example:


The bikeway advocates have had thirty years to discover and advance evidence for their major scientific claims for bike lanes, or for urban transportational bike paths. These claims are that systems of each of these bikeways reduce the car-bike collision rate and lower the level of skill that is required for safe cycling around town. They have produced no such evidence, despite strenuous and expensive investigations. Contrariwise, in those same thirty years, with much less effort and practically no money, the advocates of vehicular cycling have produced a considerable amount of evidence supporting vehicular cycling. The probability that any amount of future effort will reverse the weight of the evidence is vanishingly small, as the mathematicians say.

This baloney about "The Bikeway advocates" making "major scientific claims" is just one more example of Forester assigning his straw man arguments to his unnamed Bikeway Ringleaders/Manipulators/Conspirators and criticizing these same opponents for not proving the claims/arguments/motivations he has fabricated for them. Who are these mysterious all powerful Bikeway advocates making "major scientific claims"?- Posters on Internet discussion groups? Where are these major scientific claims spelled out as the justification for every BikeWay project? Where besides in John Forester's web site, books, and Internet rantings?

And Contrariwise: Forester's "considerable evidence" is his either his own product manufactured to meet his agenda or his own skewed analysis of data carefully selected to meet the same predetermined conclusion.

I've already addressed enough of the fatal errors in his analysis of his own evidence. If characters like the few making fools of themselves on this thread wish to buy in to Forester "analysis" of Forester "evidence," no amount of explanation will shake their sacred belief in the weight of Forester Brand evidence.

Is that one of the great bike lanes you silly bike lane fascists are raving about??? YOU WANT MORE OF THOSE??????:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

That has got to be the most horrendous design ever foisted on the cycling public. I think you have been drinking the blue paint....
About 3,000 cyclists now ride safely through this intersection every day, including in the dark and the rain. You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about, and it's much safer now than back in the good ol' dark days of 'vehicular cycling', when only a few hundred cyclists a day were brave enough to risk this road and intersection in 50 mph traffic.

You can't ride a bike on the bridge deck, aqualung. You need to be aiming for the <gasp> sidewalk. Any other suggestions?
So with the bikelane and sidewalk, your right to use the roadway has been taken away!

..... you will not find in anything that I have ever written statements that I support any policy of the American Dream Coalition. They may have their policies; I have mine.


John, what is this?

Quoting you in a transcript from the 'american dream' conference 2005....


At the Preserving the American Dream Conference', 2005, John Forester implied that one benefit of WOLs is that they keep bicyclists from delaying motorists:

"The appropriate facilities for bicycle transportation are well-designed and well-maintained standard roadways with width adequate for the amount of traffic that chooses to use them. Generally, this means adequate width in the outside through lane for motorists to overtake cyclists without delay." - John Forester

john, your apologist 'near perfect' drivers comments and concurrent damnification of everyday cyclists in this thread and throughout your blathering johnforester website have convinced me you are pro-car and work against populist bicycling in this country.

john forester is an anti-cyclist of the lowest order.

So with the bikelane and sidewalk, your right to use the roadway has been taken away!
You can take your stand based on principle if you want, but it doesn't gain you anything.

John, what is this?

Quoting you in a transcript from the 'american dream' conference 2005....


At the Preserving the American Dream Conference', 2005, John Forester implied that one benefit of WOLs is that they keep bicyclists from delaying motorists:

"The appropriate facilities for bicycle transportation are well-designed and well-maintained standard roadways with width adequate for the amount of traffic that chooses to use them. Generally, this means adequate width in the outside through lane for motorists to overtake cyclists without delay." - John Forester

john, your apologist 'near perfect' drivers comments and concurrent damnification of everyday cyclists in this thread and throughout your blathering johnforester website have convinced me you are pro-car and work against populist bicycling in this country.

john forester is an anti-cyclist of the lowest order.


One more misunderstanding of a perfectly ordinary trade offer. I suppose that Bekologist's aim in life is to cycle along making a roadblock to motor traffic. Is that the way you cycle, Bekologist? You certainly talk as if that were your aim in life. If that is so, you should damn bikeways even more than I do, because they prevent you from carrying out that aim.

All I was doing was pointing out to motorists that if they provided a bit more width in the outside lane, which is what cyclists like, then they wouldn't be delayed by bicycle traffic.

All I was doing was pointing out to motorists that if they provided a bit more width in the outside lane, which is what cyclists like, then they wouldn't be delayed by bicycle traffic.
Well then why not say that in the first place. People should say what they mean and not try to use more sophisticated terms than necessary to convey their message.
I don't know exactly who you are, hell I don't know who I am to be honest, and I don't even know if I care. But I do know that some people love your ideas, some hate them, and others like me don't understand what all the fuss is about. We're talking about riding a bike here, not rocket surgery.
I've tried reading your website. Granted I've never picked up a copy of your book(s) because I don't see the point in paying my hard earned money for a book that seems, to me at least, to be a 30 year old drivers manual for bikes. Hell, the roads I ride weren't even around 30 years ago, and neither was the mentality of the motorists operating on them today. But the point is, I'm a simple man, who comes from a simple background, who speaks a simple language. And when someone is trying to get a point across to me in their writings, and I have to dust off my thesarus and abacus just to figure out the first paragraph and all the numbers being tossed around, I dismiss it. I'm just a hillbilly boy trying to ride a bike in the big city, and I don't need a label or title on the way I do it.
But hey, all this crap going on in here has probably boosted your book sales no? Maybe I should right one some day.

Well then why not say that in the first place. People should say what they mean and not try to use more sophisticated terms than necessary to convey their message.
+100

:beer:

Well then why not say that in the first place. People should say what they mean and not try to use more sophisticated terms than necessary to convey their message.
I don't know exactly who you are, hell I don't know who I am to be honest, and I don't even know if I care. But I do know that some people love your ideas, some hate them, and others like me don't understand what all the fuss is about. We're talking about riding a bike here, not rocket surgery.
I've tried reading your website. Granted I've never picked up a copy of your book(s) because I don't see the point in paying my hard earned money for a book that seems, to me at least, to be a 30 year old drivers manual for bikes. Hell, the roads I ride weren't even around 30 years ago, and neither was the mentality of the motorists operating on them today. But the point is, I'm a simple man, who comes from a simple background, who speaks a simple language. And when someone is trying to get a point across to me in their writings, and I have to dust off my thesarus and abacus just to figure out the first paragraph and all the numbers being tossed around, I dismiss it. I'm just a hillbilly boy trying to ride a bike in the big city, and I don't need a label or title on the way I do it.
But hey, all this crap going on in here has probably boosted your book sales no? Maybe I should right one some day.

I'd buy it. On the ground experiences make for much more interesting reading.