Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Forester takes on BF Posters

Maybe one day I'll get to have my a****** examined as thoroughly, too. :eek:

Maybe one day I'll get to have my a****** examined as thoroughly, too. :eek:
Hmm, the joy of a Flexible Sigmoidoscopy. Something to look forward to.:rolleyes:

Actually the joy comes afterwards, when told, hopefully, that all is well. Bicycle content: I rode my bicycle to and from such an examination, no problem.

Yes, but seriously, ILTB--isn't all this just a little ridiculous...?

Yes, but seriously, ILTB--isn't all this just a little ridiculous...?

which part?

Yes, but seriously, ILTB--isn't all this just a little ridiculous...?
I agree with you that John Forester's lifestyle or choice of friends, associates and/or business partners means absolutely nothing as far as evaluating his analyses, tests, and conclusions about cycling. I agree that those who chastise him for his personal lifestyle decisions are missing the picture and providing names to fit the generalization/sterotype he assigns to all critics.

Critics should stick to what he writes about bicycling and bicyclists, and his unique "Scientific process"for reaching those conclusions. There is enough to find fault with there, no need to delve into his personal life or personal beliefs. That is an irrelevant non-issue for me.

This is in reply to post #1376. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4078241&postcount=1376)


This contradicts your previous statement of lines keeping drivers out and generating debris.
How so? The fact that, say, even as many one or two drivers per hour may briefly drift into the bike lane at some particular portion of it hardly competes with the sweeping of debris into the bike lane caused by the hundreds of cars per hour that do not drift at that point. Anyway, for more information on this, please read this paper:

http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/library/Debris.pdf

Then at least you'll know what I'm talking about.




Bike lanes may also be effective at making cyclists up ahead seem relatively irrelevant to drivers approaching from behind, and, so, drivers are more likely to feel it is safe to choose to attend to a distraction (that may result in a drift) even though a cyclist is up ahead, if that is cyclist is in a bike lane
And the proof of this is? You mean in your opinion bike lanes yada yada yada.

The entire list was predicated with the statement, "Possible explanations ... include:"
It is simply one of a number of possible explanations for why there is no evidence that bike lane stripes make cycling safer.



So does riding vehicularly in a WOL. Stupid drivers are stupid drivers.
No comparison. The bike lane stripe demarcating the margin of a right-or-straight lane at an intersection is what keeps most right-turning drivers from entering the margin. In fact, they are forbidden from entering the bike lane in some states, like OR and AZ (while they are required to enter in states like CA, but this hardly causes them to actually do so). What is the law in your state? Anyway, when there is no BL stripe, most right-turning drivers naturally merge right close to the right edge/curb of the road before turning right.



WOLs don't do this? On a 40+ mph arterial what is the alternative?
See the video clips linked in the OP of the cyclist view videos thread for the alternative.






5. Because bike lanes are not real lanes ... bicyclists tend to not use bike lanes normally.
In particular, bicyclists tend to ride at the bike lane edge, often encroaching on the adjacent vehicular lane.

I can't buy this one. We should avoid country roads then and any road which has windblown debris in it by your reasoning. Hygenic is not a problem for me. Major debris that will affect me also resides in WOLs due to its degree of hazard (boards stuff like that, little rocks and things do not bug me).
If you don't buy it, you don't buy it. But it's consistent with how I ride and how I see most other cyclists ride, and is consistent with what others say, including SSP just yesterday:


I've told you before that (like many other experienced cyclists) when I'm in a BL I usually ride near to, but to the right of, the white line.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4078818&postcount=95



Absolutely. I think when traffic is working everyone is comfortable with it. that is what rules are for. That doesn't mean people should not be alert, but comfortable and not slamming on the brakes and causing rear end collisions due to suddenly having to decellerate 30 -40 mph to get around a cyclists is going to create a hazard behind the car, a hazard which would not exist if the driver could predict the actions of the cyclist as he can predict the actions of every other vehicle on the road which is using a "lane".
Feeling "comfortable" is a two-edged sword, since comfort breeds complacency. Don't you think a complacent driver is more likely to choose to attend to a distraction that takes his eyes off the road than is a driver who is not quite sure about the safety of doing so until he passes that cyclist who is currently up ahead in the driver's lane?



I don't see how this differs from WOLs. If you have to dodge large debris you have to dodge large debris and car tires are not going to sweep it away for you.

You don't see how this differs from WOLs because you have not accepted the effect of bike lane stripes with respect to collecting debris and how this affects cyclist positioning in bike lanes. If this is the first time this effect of bike lanes has been brought to your attention, that's understandable. Again, I refer you to the paper linked above. In addition, I urge you to obtain knowledge regarding this issue by gathering your own evidence empirically.




8. Because cyclists believe the stripe protects them, they are likely to be less vigilant when riding in bike lanes.

Which psychological study are you basing this on?

Again, it's just another possible explanation. But seriously, do you really need a psych study to convince you that, in general, the more protected someone feels, the less likely he is to be vigilant?


WOLs are also treated as shoulders.
That makes no sense to me. Drivers normally drive their cars in WOLs. Drivers do not normally drive their cars in shoulders. Do you mean the unused margin off to the right of a WOL is treated as a shoulder? Again, this is covered somewhat in the paper linked above. More importantly, the concept of my lane extends for the full width of the WOL for most drivers (it certainly does for me), while it ends at the stripe when there is a bike lane present. What is to the right of "my lane" is treated as a shoulder. Therefore, that margin space off to the right of a WOL is part of the driver's lane, and, so, is his responsibility. But that lane responsibility ends at the stripe. What is to the right of the stripe is therefore less relevant to the driver than whatever is in his lane.


On this point I concede. You are right and I was hasty in my reply earlier.
Thank you for an interesting and respectful discussion.

Critics should stick to what he writes about bicycling and bicyclists, and his unique "Scientific process"for reaching those conclusions.

I agree with this one.

I don't see a point in making any of this personal.

Critics should stick to what he writes about bicycling and bicyclists, and his unique "Scientific process"for reaching those conclusions. There is enough to find fault with there, no need to delve into his personal life or personal beliefs. That is an irrelevant non-issue for me.

I guess I respectfully disagree to a point and feel that his comments referencing the ADC, on his own website, conflict with his scholarly approach.


I have no knowledge of being on such a Speakers Bureau, or even whether one exists.



He is showcased here, on a speakers page. (http://americandreamcoalition.org/forester.html)

They have his picture posted, a link to his email, and stipulations for paying him for speaking.

If he claims that he doesnt know about it, and he is half as scholarly as he pretends to be, and if he doesn't explicitly agree with the website that is using his image, and his work, he should ask that it be removed. I was asking these questions to get a broader sense of who JF is.

You will also note that the ADC links to a paper he wrote for the preserving the American Dream Conference 2005. Seems he would know about the organization if he presented a paper with their name in the title.

While I do not think this is relevant to the specific deconstruction of JFs work, it has for me filled in some information on who JF is and what he believes.

Like most of his answers he sidestepped some of the trickier issues until I pressed, when he answered them, the last of which seemed to actually be written by a human being sitting at a keyboard. I was thankful for this. I wish he'd answer to some of the other questions on this thread in the same way.

I guess the direction of my question was to press the issue of climate change and the data that we see from it - and does JF, who continually stands by his interpretation of the data in his studies, think this will change how he relates to cycling and advocacy.

Seems the two can be related, if one wants to maintain individual mobility (expanding the distance one can travel beyond a walk) and move away from the private auto. The private auto is in many cases the reason why we are having much of this debate at all - if there were fewer of them on the road cycling would be a safer, saner way to negotiate our environment.

Pick apart the data all you want and use the "straw-man" defense over and over - but the reality I see is that without cars we wouldn't be arguing over where JF pulled the data about bike lanes and collisions and what is safer. Working towards fewer cars and less sprawl would be a noble pursuit for a bicycle advocate - the world would get a little smaller - perhaps designed with people instead of plastic and metal in mind - and the roads that we do have might be a bit nicer to traverse.

Getting a sense of where JF stands politically and personally on these issues, and reading a website that has listed him as a speaker, has informed my understanding of him. One can't ask a question without influencing the answer. (I'm guilty of that!) JF's questions seem to stem from an autocentric base - and its no wonder his data supports it.

I thanked him for his response and do not think I chastised, only asked several pointed questions.

Critics should stick to what he writes about bicycling and bicyclists, and his unique "Scientific process"for reaching those conclusions.
I agree with this one.

I disagree, because none of his important conclusions about vehicular cycling actually require a unique "Scientific process" in order to be supported.

I disagree, because none of his important conclusions about vehicular cycling actually require a unique "Scientific process" in order to be supported.
Dat's funny. Forester's recently posted criticism of the Dutch "bikeway system" designers was all about their failure to address his questions/interpretations of an appropriate (IAW Forester) "scientific basis" supporting their design.

And I have to agree in one sense, you've shown a willingness to "support" conclusions about your own unique cycling technique (DLLP/Power Weaving/Alpha dawg staring, steely eyed gazes, pedal dancing, etc) regardless of no process but conjuring.

I guess I respectfully disagree to a point and feel that his comments referencing the ADC, on his own website, conflict with his scholarly approach..

Whether Forester is scholarly or not referencing the ADC is irrelevant to his writings on cycling and cycling safety. Might give a good indication of his character but that too is irrelevant when discussing bicycling data, facts and/or analysis.


Seems the two can be related, if one wants to maintain individual mobility (expanding the distance one can travel beyond a walk) and move away from the private auto.
Moving away from the private auto, or desiring that others do is not necessarily a requirement, for properly or fairly evaluating/comparing cycling techniques or cycling risks.

Whether Forester is scholarly or not referencing the ADC is irrelevant to his writings on cycling and cycling safety. Might give a good indication of his character but that too is irrelevant when discussing bicycling data, facts and/or analysis.


Moving away from the private auto, or desiring that others do is not necessarily a requirement, for properly or fairly evaluating/comparing cycling techniques or cycling risks.

Here's what I've learned from this thread:

Cycling where there are fewer autos may lead to more / reduced accident rates.
Cycling where there are more autos may lead to more / reduced accident rates.
Cycling in a vehicular fashion may make you safer and or put you at more risk.
Cycling in bike lanes may make you safer and or put you more at risk.
Cycling on a MUP may make you safer and or put you more at risk.


The private auto is the centerpiece of most of this debate.

We can argue all day long about the symptoms of our cultural design failures (or successes -depending on how you see it) - the difficulty of proving one way of transportational cycling is better than another - or we can work to change the very design of our cities and towns and landscape.

The private auto is the centerpiece of most of this debate.

Only for those who wish to make it so.

The private auto is the centerpiece of most of this debate.
Only to the extent you find the motoring environment pleasant and safe, and wish to inject yourself and others into the motoring environment on bicycles.

Only for those who wish to make it so.

??

Without the thousands / millions of cars out on the roads cyclists (recreational and transportational) would have nearly free reign of the paved environment.

(perhaps I should clarify that in addition to the private auto we have commercial vehicles, trucks, motorcycles, etc. I should have said "motorized" transport)

Only to the extent you find the motoring environment pleasant and safe, and wish to inject yourself and others into the motoring environment on bicycles.

To be fair, we don't always have a choice about this - talk to any bike commuter :)

Ed

I guess I respectfully disagree to a point and feel that his comments referencing the ADC, on his own website, conflict with his scholarly approach.





He is showcased here, on a speakers page. (http://americandreamcoalition.org/forester.html)

They have his picture posted, a link to his email, and stipulations for paying him for speaking.

If he claims that he doesnt know about it, and he is half as scholarly as he pretends to be, and if he doesn't explicitly agree with the website that is using his image, and his work, he should ask that it be removed. I was asking these questions to get a broader sense of who JF is.

You will also note that the ADC links to a paper he wrote for the preserving the American Dream Conference 2005. Seems he would know about the organization if he presented a paper with their name in the title.

While I do not think this is relevant to the specific deconstruction of JFs work, it has for me filled in some information on who JF is and what he believes.

Like most of his answers he sidestepped some of the trickier issues until I pressed, when he answered them, the last of which seemed to actually be written by a human being sitting at a keyboard. I was thankful for this. I wish he'd answer to some of the other questions on this thread in the same way.

I guess the direction of my question was to press the issue of climate change and the data that we see from it - and does JF, who continually stands by his interpretation of the data in his studies, think this will change how he relates to cycling and advocacy.

Seems the two can be related, if one wants to maintain individual mobility (expanding the distance one can travel beyond a walk) and move away from the private auto. The private auto is in many cases the reason why we are having much of this debate at all - if there were fewer of them on the road cycling would be a safer, saner way to negotiate our environment.

Pick apart the data all you want and use the "straw-man" defense over and over - but the reality I see is that without cars we wouldn't be arguing over where JF pulled the data about bike lanes and collisions and what is safer. Working towards fewer cars and less sprawl would be a noble pursuit for a bicycle advocate - the world would get a little smaller - perhaps designed with people instead of plastic and metal in mind - and the roads that we do have might be a bit nicer to traverse.

Getting a sense of where JF stands politically and personally on these issues, and reading a website that has listed him as a speaker, has informed my understanding of him. One can't ask a question without influencing the answer. (I'm guilty of that!) JF's questions seem to stem from an autocentric base - and its no wonder his data supports it.

I thanked him for his response and do not think I chastised, only asked several pointed questions.

I never wrote that I did not know the American Dream Coalition. All that I did write was correct, and that was that I had never seen the posted list of speakers before being told about it on this list.

I have studied transportation issues since my teen-age years. With my best friend, we rode every ferry route and every streetcar route in the San Francisco Bay Area. We built a model of the Bay in the top floor of his house, in which paper model ferries and interurbans ran to schedule. This friend started his professional life as a civil engineer with Southern Pacific, and about ten years ago retired to become an international consultant in railroad engineering. I understand how it is that our cities have grown as they have as people chose to take advantage of the opportunities provided by sufficient money and by private automobiles.

I became involved in the governmental aspects of cycling when both California and the Federal Govt started doing nasty things to cyclists: California with bikeways; Feds with bicycle design regulation; both based on cyclists as incompetent children. Both of these I have opposed, and the opposition that I raised compelled government to remove the most dangerous aspects of bikeways and some of the absurdities, but not the most dangerous, from the bicycle design regulation.

Regarding motoring, I have neither promoted nor opposed it. All I have done is to consider what's best for cyclists, which is lawful and competent operation as drivers of vehicles. Might I have done more to oppose motoring? Two strong deterrents exist. The first is that the anti-motoring bicycle advocates chose to base their strategy on the system that was invented by motorists to treat cyclists as incompetent children in order to make motoring more convenient. The anti-motoring bicycle advocates should have chosen to treat cyclists as competent adults who should be given the same respect as other drivers, and hence avoided all this bikeway controversy and gotten on with improving the roads for cycling according to standard engineering principles. The second deterrent is that I think that bicycle transportation, by itself, will never significantly reduce motoring. Cyclists need to wait until conditions make motoring much less useful and more expensive before expecting a significant switching from motor trips to bicycle trips.

To be fair, we don't always have a choice about this...
To really be fair, not having a choice should not be the only choice.

To really be fair, not having a choice should not be the only choice.

I agree completely. However, I've observed that life is not always fair :)

Here's what I've learned from this thread:

Cycling where there are fewer autos may lead to more / reduced accident rates.
Cycling where there are more autos may lead to more / reduced accident rates.
Cycling in a vehicular fashion may make you safer and or put you at more risk.
Cycling in bike lanes may make you safer and or put you more at risk.
Cycling on a MUP may make you safer and or put you more at risk.


All true.

...the anti-motoring bicycle advocates chose to base their strategy on the system that was invented by motorists to treat cyclists as incompetent children in order to make motoring more convenient.
I've always said that bicycling advocates that prefer various bikeways should be free to have what they want, if they are willing to pay for it and if it doesn't interfere with other cyclists' rights to use the roads they are accustomed to. The fact that motoring interests are their allies in this can only be a plus for them.

However, when cyclists are told they are not competant enough to use the roadway and must get off the road onto a sidepath or any other facility, this is over-protective nannying at it's worst.

I disagree, because none of his important conclusions about vehicular cycling actually require a unique "Scientific process" in order to be supported.

If it were my own words, I would not have included the adjective "unique".

With regards to how to ride on a regular basis among traffic, I agree with a lot of ideas in Effective Cycling. It conforms to motorcycle riding in many ways. So it is a comfortable strategy for me. I do think that there are situations where l will deviate from the strategy.

EDIT: But to be convincing and to be able to say that a particular strategy is "safest" or "safest known" I do think it requires a scientific process.