Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Forester takes on BF Posters

No I don't think he has a personal vendetta, I think he has a problem with what JF is selling and just plain doesn't like him based on some history that is none of my business. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you have a personal vendetta. I doubt ILTB lies awake at night thinking of ways he can 'get' JF, even if he does, as I do, enjoy blasting holes in this 'theories' and 'facts'. I enjoy blasting your theories too, do you think I have a personal vendetta against you?
I know you enjoy attempting to blast my theories, and, no, I don't think you have a personal vendetta against me.

But you and I can have pleasant non-hostile exchanges, like this one. These are characteristically missing between ILTB/Forester. In fact, ILTB's negative anti-Forester sentiments run so deep, that he seems to be unable to have any kind of rational/pleasant/civil/non-hostile discourse with anyone that he even associates with Forester. Surely you've noticed this.

Yes, it would probably be very difficult to find an example of you acting in a hostile retaliatory way towards John Forester. Like your words above would not be an example of that. Nothing hostile there. And starting this thread would not be an example of that. Nothing retaliatory about that. Got it.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

You still ain't figured out how to understand what is said, rather than how it is said, have you? :rolleyes:
People have their own individual styles and mannerisms and last I looked, that ain't a crime - and dude, you (or I for that matter) are the last people who should be preaching political correctness.

Maybe Diane has an alter ego too? ChipcomMan and his trusty wonder pugle Thor are always on the lookout for other superheros ya know, especially wimmin in tights! :D

I know you enjoy attempting to blast my theories, and, no, I don't think you have a personal vendetta against me.

But you and I can have pleasant non-hostile exchanges, like this one. These are characteristically missing between ILTB/Forester. In fact, ILTB's negative anti-Forester sentiments run so deep, that he seems to be unable to have any kind of rational/pleasant/civil/non-hostile discourse with anyone that he even associates with Forester. Surely you've noticed this.

No, actually I noticed that he treats everyone pretty much the same - blunt and to the point. Seriously, most folks with a skin thicker than a Reese's wrapper* don't have a problem with that - once they learn to understand the words rather than how they are said. :p

* Yes, I used the same term in another thread in another forum tonight...hey, you can't fault a guy for expanding his vocabulary :D

Thats my point. First, what is the definition of "proficient in road skills?" Who sets forth the criteria for "proficient road skills"?

Below are the standards to which he holds students in his cycling class for people ages 12 and older. Note that Forester claims that after this class, the students perform much better than most adults on the road.

Note that I enjoy teaching novice cyclists how to make the most out of their road system, and have taught traffic cycling informally to a number of people. I taught my 13yo niece basic traffic cycling and bought her a nice new flat-bar road bike; she even rode her new bike home from the store with me through downtown Cary. She rides the heck out of it. I find Forester's teaching approach insightful, and I like the LAB cycling classes enough that next weekend I will be training to become a League Certified Instructor.
-Steve Goodridge


Students of age twelve and over learn the skills of using all the five basic traffic principles in all types of traffic.This enables them to travel to any part of town that is otherwise suitable for them. For an account of how this course works and the results that it achieves, see: Intermediate-Level Cyclist Proficiency Training: Objectives, Techniques, and Results (http://www.johnforester.com/Articles/Education/intecpro.htm)


Cycling Proficiency Testing. Take out 8 at a time. Use tape recorder technique with students bearing numbers. Follow a route which includes as many of the taught maneuvers as possible in no more than 2 miles. With assistant instructor assigning and pinning-on numbers the principal instructor should be able to take out 2 test groups in each period. The assistant instructor also administers the questionnaires. Scores must be calculated after class, but performance that is obviously adequate can be praised at close of test.


4 RESULTS

Favorable Results in Achieving Course Objectives

The immediate objective of the Intermediate-Level Effective Cycling Program is to develop certain traffic cycling skills. These skills are all those that are required for making the standard traffic maneuvers in a medium-traffic urban environment. It would have been useful to have extended this training to levels of higher traffic intensity and to techniques for detecting and avoiding motorist errors, as is done in the Adult Effective Cycling Course. There was insufficient time to cover these subjects, and there was also some evidence that the students would not be ready to progress further without more extensive traffic- cycling experience. The results achieved within this defined performance envelope were eminently satisfactory. Out of 48 students riding the cycling proficiency test only 2 failed, and the average successful score was 97%.

The skills covered are:

1) Riding on the right-hand side of the roadway and not on the left-hand side or on the sidewalk.
2) Technique of yielding to cross traffic at driveways, superior roadways, yield signs, stop signs, traffic signals, and when turning left.
3) Technique of yielding to same-direction traffic whenever moving laterally on the roadway, used for overtaking parked or slower vehicles (including cyclists), and when lane changing.
4) Proper roadway position with respect to travel speed.
5) Proper intersection position for right turns, straight-through and left turns.


To what extent did the students develop these skills?

Proper side of the roadway.
After the first road session nobody rode on the left-hand side (except in the bikelane entering the school driveway, where there was great temptation and no obvious danger). Riding on sidewalks was controlled with greater difficulty, because these children had been told to ride on the sidewalk beside several of the practice streets. They are smart enough to realize that the sidewalk offers a free path to the front of traffic congestion, but did not realize the dangers inherent in crossing driveways and in dashing from sidewalk to roadway. Understanding was hastened when a recent graduate, on her way to high school, swung off the sidewalk and was hit by a car immediately in front of this school just before class time. All the students knew of the accident, and the instructor took advantage of the incident to emphasize the dangers of sidewalk cycling. Another temptation for "sidewalk" cycling was the chance to ride the curb-top and jump at driveway cuts. This had to be controlled by strong reprimands. By the end of the course nobody diverted onto sidewalks.


Yielding to Cross Traffic
All students learned the technique of yielding to the cross traffic of 2- and 4-lane arterial streets with medium traffic at non-signalized intersections. However, they did not always practice this technique in class because, as a particularly visible group of cyclists, motorists on the arterial tended to stop for them, inviting the contrary action of going without the right-of-way. The students frequently took advantage of this invitation, and in fact seemed adept at persuading Palo Alto motorists to extend it. I have noticed myself that even for a single cyclist Palo Alto motorists are too well-wishing, creating the Alphonse and Gaston syndrome that neither will proceed at minor intersections. This motorist tendency made it more difficult to train the students, as at least one perceptive student remarked. On the other hand, sometimes the students waved the motorists onward, and complained that the motorists were making everybody wait. Training proceeded best when the students were transferred as rapidly as possible to heavy-traffic streets on which the motorists were less likely to incorrectly yield the right-of-way. Under these circumstances the students all showed that they understood the proper technique.


On the final examination, the one failure in yielding to cross traffic occurred as a small group made a stop-sign-right-turn too fast, knowing the road was wide enough for them to slip around without getting in the way of the cars. During class the same actions occurred at both stop signs and at red traffic signals (right turn allowed on red), requiring and later reprimands.

Yielding to Same-Direction Traffic
All students learned the technique of looking over one's shoulder and yielding to faster traffic, either cyclist or motorist, before moving laterally. However, the action was occasionally omitted, generally when the student expected no faster traffic was present. Under traffic conditions, particularly on multi-lane streets, performance was very good. Students looked, yielded if appropriate, and proceeded when safe. They recognized each lane of traffic as a separate maneuver.


Speed Positioning
All students learned speed positioning, generally passing each other on the left and leaving room for faster traffic.


Intersection Positioning
Students learned the simpler, by rote, aspects very well, but had trouble learning the more complicated aspects where correct lateral position has to be judged. Correct left turn positioning from a straight-or-through lane (which is right against the centerline) was learned very well. They also used left- turn-only lanes, but followed the centerline or bunched up in these instead of lining up along the right- hand side. They had no opportunity to learn the proper selection of multiple left turn lanes.


Straight-through positioning on wide intersections remained a problem, for the students frequently traveled further to the right than desirable.

Intersection etiquette remained a problem. Students frequently filtered forward, generally on the right- hand side of cars but also, when preparing for a left turn, on the left-hand side of cars which were quite close to the centerline and obviously, to the practiced eye, were going to turn left. The tendency always existed to move forward whenever it was physically possible to do so.

The two students who failed the examination rode together, largely with hands in pockets. At a stop- signed T intersection where they could not go straight they filtered forward on the left-hand side of a waiting car. Considering the type of intersection the motorist had to be intending to turn left because there was no way straight through. At a 4-lane signalized intersection with left-turn-only lanes but no left-turn signal phases they filtered forward on the left of a motor vehicle which was waiting in the left-turn-only lane, and observing that cross traffic had the yellow phase they swung left and turned before the waiting opposite-direction traffic could start.

It may be that these students have developed little ability to read the signs which indicate the maneuver a driver intends to make, or it may be that they read these signs well enough to guess when to take a chance, or it may be that they seize opportunities which they understand, without appreciation of the more complicated situation.

Cycling Proficiency Test The cycling proficiency test given in the last 2 days of the class covered a 2-mile circuit involving: 5 traffic signals; 4 stop signs; 4 2-lane left turns; 1 4-lane left turn; 3 lane change locations; 2 right turns; 1 wide intersection approach.

48 students rode the test. Two failed with scores of 57% and 52%. The average score for the remainder was 97.6%, although none earned 100%.

If Robert Hurst is willing to 'get down in the pit and mingle with the 'plebes'', so too should John Forrrester be. FYI: In addition to authoring the articles on his web site (http://www.johnforester.com/), Forester has also written over 1,000 posts in another cycling forum: ChainGuard (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/)

Chip I have you -- well, you're head anyway -- riding on the back of my trike now. It's hard to tell, but that's your head. I ain't gonna be no Robin. But you can be my impaled head-on-a-stick riding on the back of my trike.

FYI: In addition to authoring the articles on his web site (http://www.johnforester.com/), Forester has also written over 1,000 posts in another cycling forum: ChainGuard (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/)

Truthfully, Bruce...would that forum allow any meaningful debate with JF? From what I hear, it's moderated to prevent such dissension in the ranks.

Chip I have you -- well, you're head anyway -- riding on the back of my trike now. It's hard to tell, but that's your head. I ain't gonna be no Robin. But you can be my impaled head-on-a-stick riding on the back of my trike.

You are so good to me Diane, my eyes are welling up with tears as I write this - could you maybe move my head a little to the left, something is sticking in my ear from the inside out and it hurts! :eek:

FYI: In addition to authoring the articles on his web site (http://www.johnforester.com/), Forester has also written over 1,000 posts in another cycling forum: ChainGuard (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/)
Forum is one word to describe the ChainGuard site. Another and IMO, more accurate description might be tight knit clique of Forester cheerleaders. Maybe fan club or support group would be good and less "personal" than Forester toadies and minions. There is only one regular there who seriously disagrees with Forester on anything substantive, and that's because he is even more extreme in his views of the mystical powers of Vehicular Cycling. Forester is definitely preaching to the choir on that "forum."

Toady is good. but I still like "weenus".

that's just 'cause it rhymes with "penis"!

(heh-heh, heh-heh...he said penis)

LOL

Chip I have you -- well, you're head anyway -- riding on the back of my trike now. It's hard to tell, but that's your head. I ain't gonna be no Robin. But you can be my impaled head-on-a-stick riding on the back of my trike.

dibs on next!

You still ain't figured out how to understand what is said, rather than how it is said, have you? :rolleyes:
People have their own individual styles and mannerisms and last I looked, that ain't a crime - and dude, you (or I for that matter) are the last people who should be preaching political correctness.
You've got to be kidding.

Has anyone been subjected to more hostile attacks than me on this forum? Anyone a close second?
Anyone exhibit an uncanny ability to ignore the how and focus on the what better than I? You? Maybe. Who else?

And as far as political correctness, yeah, I've got a long way to go, but I'm trying.

If you really look at what ILTB actually says, however, most of it amounts to nothing much than criticisms that are pure opinion, served on a platter of hostility. In contrast, and all style "how" issues aside, there are several posts in this thread with substantive criticisms of Forester's work. None of them were posted by ILTB.

ILTB exhibits vindictiveness towards Forester and his "acolytes" of a form that is second to none.

Truthfully, Bruce...would that forum allow any meaningful debate with JF? From what I hear, it's moderated to prevent such dissension in the ranks.

I believe you are correct; the purpose of that list is to discuss how to defend vehicular cycling, not to debate its merits, and the moderator tries to enforce that.

Below are the standards to which he holds students in his cycling class for people ages 12 and older. Note that Forester claims that after this class, the students perform much better than most adults on the road.

That is true, Forester claims that.

And, as with almost all of his claims about the effects of his training materials, without a shred of evidence of how his students actually perform from day one, let alone any length of time after they complete the class, let alone in comparison with anybody else.

The scores on the so-called Forester Proficiency Test have absolutely zero correlation with anybody's safety record or any other performance metric.

Has anyone been subjected to more hostile attacks than me on this forum?
Ever wonder why?

...would that forum allow any meaningful debate with JF? From what I hear, it's moderated to prevent such dissension in the ranks.Here's what the moderator of ChainGuard recently posted about that (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/23059):

... the only moderating that I intend to be doing is restricting the number of posts per person per day, so combining fragments or simply adding a note at the front requesting that the reader change a couple of words and reread the post at three-hour intervals for the rest of the day may also work.
Seriously, the problem is more with number of fragments than with content.
He then posted an addendum (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/23075) after yet-another-debate-about-facilities:

... the chainguard list is for those who have moved past the endless facilities debate.
...if you wish to to continue or follow the discussion please do so on the chainguard annex list (chainguardannex@yahoogroups.com), or on any of the other dozens of web locations that enjoy this sort of thing.

FYI: In addition to authoring the articles on his web site (http://www.johnforester.com/), Forester has also written over 1,000 posts in another cycling forum: ChainGuard (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/)
That's great. Forester posts on the ChainGuard list where the posting rules are, essentially: accept Forester-inspired VC dogma or don't post here. That list is nothing but organized group-think. Don't look for any disagreement with Forester dogma on the ChainGuard list.

Forester could have posted his notice of an attack on BikeForum posters right here -that would have been the honorable thing to do - but perhaps The Great One suffers from some kind of phobia, complex or syndrome that prevents him from posting in an open forum- maybe a pseudo-scientist inferiority phobia or something.

He didn't even get poster's names right but, hey, that article is more scientific than most of the articles on Forester's website. Forester is a joke- seriously. Just read his website.

Forester could have posted his notice of an attack on BikeForum posters right here -that would have been the honorable thing to do - but perhaps The Great One suffers from some kind of phobia, complex or syndrome that prevents him from posting in an open forum- maybe a pseudo-scientist inferiority phobia or something.
He apparently delegated the task of throwing up a smokescreen defense to his shameless apologists.

He apparently delegated the task of throwing up a smokescreen defense to his shameless apologists.LOL That's pretty obvious. I've been laughing all evening. Ah, well, they say laughter is good for you.

The fact that he regularly posts in another pro-VC forum proves how cowardly he is. If he chose to just think all us "regular" cyclists were beneath his great engineering intellect and not address us that would be fine, but to address hand picked quotes on a static page....COWARD.

**Caveat: I HAD no problem with him or his theories before this thread. I just did not like the manner in which his theories were espoused here by some of his advocates. Now I feel like we must have some spies among us who are reporting back to the all seeing eye.

Forester wrote in ChainGuard (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/chainguard/message/23113) that:

... cyclists need to accept that they are a small minority who need to consider how best to protect their right to operate in the proper manner.

Well, saying that in Santa Barbara aroused a storm of opposition ... some of which appeared in an email discussion group called bikeforums.net.

... dogma ... group-think ... dogma ... pseudo-scientist ... joke ...
Forester continued:
... The peculiar nastiness of that discussion...
Gee, I wonder where he got that impression? :rolleyes:

Of course we have "spies" here. Some of us even suspect that HH, who used to post under his real name, changed his screen name to Helmet Head so that John himself could post under his pseudonym from time-to-time. I don't know if that's true, but sometimes I do sense a second personality behind those lengthy tomes.

I agree that John Forester's little web page of rebuttals is rather cowardly. Not only that, but it really looks bad. Not professional at all. Makes him look even more like a crackpot than he did before.

I have some questions for anyone who can answer them, but most of all JF. First is why? Why does he believe the way & what he does? Why is he trying to get people or sway people to his line of thinking? Why does he think others are wrong & only he is right? Why does he not have statistical proof of his so called findings? Why does he just spout off diatribe & expect people to take it in as the gospel? BTW, why is often the most difficult question to answer.

Next is what? What the hell happened to him to cause him to be this way? Obviously something happened, the question is what?

After that is who? Who pissed him off & who continues to piss him off?

Then there's where? Where did this happen? Again obviously something happened, so where did it happen? Also where is his proof?

Now I feel like we must have some spies among us who are reporting back to the all seeing eye.I think I found one of the spies:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+site:www.bikeforums.net+bike-forums+deputyjones

You should read some of the replies to John's post on CG. Even his minions don't think his "logic" is entirely without emotional BS.

That is true, Forester claims that.

And, as with almost all of his claims about the effects of his training materials, without a shred of evidence of how his students actually perform from day one, let alone any length of time after they complete the class, let alone in comparison with anybody else.

The scores on the so-called Forester Proficiency Test have absolutely zero correlation with anybody's safety record or any other performance metric.

I cannot speak about Forester's students, but my own experience with novices is that they appear to cycle much more safely and confidently after I have taught them the basic concepts that Forester describes in his course outline than they did before. Since these people are friends of mine, I had time to observe them before and after, and they share their stories with me. They had a number of close calls and other problems before I worked with them, and far fewer after.

This is why I find it worthwhile to spend my own time trying to teach vehicular cycling basics, and will be taking a three day course to become a certified instructor. I see a significant benefit in terms of empowering novices and encouraging cycling.

-Steve Goodridge

I think I found one of the spies:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+site:www.bikeforums.net+bike-forums+deputyjones

Right, mostly what you will find there is me arguing with HH and telling people that I ride a bike path to work everyday, which I do.

Where is Bek?

I think I found one of the spies:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+site:www.bikeforums.net+bike-forums+deputyjones

Perhaps my verson of Google is broken. I don't get it. I've seen most of these posts before and it doesn't look like deputyjones is any spy. Please, spell it out for poor ol' Brian to understand the uber clever point you are trying to make here.

Where is Bek?

I wondered the same, and I'm hoping he is riding :D

Diane, you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions. I did not know of the speakers bureau list and site until told of it today. I am not ashamed of being on it. However, note that I have no speaking fee, only travel expenses. I am there because someone has to speak up for lawful, competent cyclists and against bike planning with its cyclist-inferiority base.

I don't wonder that the discussion on this list is so disorganized. When intending to reply to a particular message, one cannot read the message to which one is replying. Or is there some hidden system for doing this? If so, please inform me by email to forester@johnforester.com

Diane, you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions. I did not know of the speakers bureau list and site until told of it today. I am not ashamed of being on it. However, note that I have no speaking fee, only travel expenses. I am there because someone has to speak up for lawful, competent cyclists and against bike planning with its cyclist-inferiority base.

John, welcome aboard. You and I have exchanged emails through the SDCBC list. I can't say I agree with all of your opinions, but none the less, you have provided guidance to thousands of cyclists and if nothing else provided hours of debatable discussion here.

People here are going to have a wide range of opinions, as you no doubt have probably read.

At any rate, before any fur flies, I just wanted to welcome you to this very public forum.

Now I feel like we must have some spies among us who are reporting back to the all seeing eye.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+site:www.bikeforums.net+bike-forums+deputyjones

Right, mostly what you will find there is me arguing with HH and telling people that I ride a bike path to work everyday...
The fact that these forums are publicly searchable means that there's no need for spies among us.

I don't wonder that the discussion on this list is so disorganized. When intending to reply to a particular message, one cannot read the message to which one is replying. Or is there some hidden system for doing this? If so, please inform me by email to forester@johnforester.com

This is not a list, nor a "email discussion group."

BTW, welcome to the Internet (and your bow tie is simply smashing ole chap!).

I cannot speak about Forester's students, but my own experience with novices is that they appear to cycle much more safely and confidently after I have taught them the basic concepts that Forester describes in his course outline than they did before. Since these people are friends of mine, I had time to observe them before and after, and they share their stories with me. They had a number of close calls and other problems before I worked with them, and far fewer after.

This is why I find it worthwhile to spend my own time trying to teach vehicular cycling basics, and will be taking a three day course to become a certified instructor. I see a significant benefit in terms of empowering novices and encouraging cycling.

-Steve Goodridge

i applaud your desire to certify.

that said, let me say this:

novice cyclists will show improvement once someone shows them ANYTHING!

I don't wonder that the discussion on this list is so disorganized. When intending to reply to a particular message, one cannot read the message to which one is replying. Or is there some hidden system for doing this? If so, please inform me by email to "Address Removed"

Click "reply with a quote."

But no, it doesn't provide a threaded list to follow... just the quote of the immediate message for which you can reply.

Welcome John Forester!

I should warn you, you should not post your email here unless you are fond of spam (webcrawlers run through all websites on the internet and pick out email like phrases for spammers to use). If you scroll down the "reply" page, you will find a listing of the previous 25 messages. Otherwise, beneath the message you want to reply to, there is a link called [reply w/ quote]. Hit that and you will get a reply box with a copy of the message included.

To edit your message to take out the email address, or at least to make it less "email like" so the webcrawlers won't recognize it (replacing '@' with 'at' and '.' with 'dot' will do it), click on the link which says [edit].

Has anyone been subjected to more hostile attacks than me on this forum?
It's as close to unanimous animosity as you can get! I guess it might be possible that everyone is wrong, though. Maybe it's the comic sans. Everyone hates comic sans.


Anyone a close second?
Now, boasting isn't any way to make friends.


Anyone exhibit an uncanny ability to ignore the how and focus on the what better than I?
You do realize what you just said...? You're bragging that you singlemindedly focus so tightly on what to do, you completely overlook how to do it? Because that's it exactly, there's no way to misinterpret what you wrote.
I think you're finally beginning to figure it out! :beer: Cheers!

novice cyclists will show improvement once someone shows them ANYTHING!Depending on

what they're shown and
how they're shown it,what they then do will likely be different, but not necessarily an improvement.

I'd like to take a moment to nominate ILTB for the position of Bike Forums Curmudgeon.
Sorry too late. I already opened the vote for ILTB as forum contrarian a few months back. He won in a landslide!


I won't - I'm just going to let you guys tear each other up and watch - it's much more fun.

+1

Pretty much all the A&S board is good for anyhow. I'm all outta popcorn though:(

Made Tapioca pudding instead:D

Brian Ratliff claims: " in many places where cycling for transportation has been encouraged, lo and behold, the number of cyclists on the streets goes up! "

Brian, what are those places, and to what extent has whatever change that has occurred reduced motoring in a transportationally significant way?

Also from Brian: "According to his worldview, cycling will always be second best to the car, always fighting for space on the road and to be left alone against the encroaching auto-centric society."

Cycling second best to the car, indeed? That's not English, it has no meaning. If you mean that much more personal transportation will be done by car than by bicycle, that's my position. So what? Fighting for space on the road, indeed? I've never had to fight for space on the road. Why do you, and with what weapon do you choose to fight? The encroaching auto-centric society, indeed? I think that the proportional growth of motoring is reaching the top of the supply curve; most all the motoring that people want to do, and can do, is being done. And so what? What do you propose to do about it without actually being the anti-motoring person whom you claimed above that you weren't?

Diane, you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions. I did not know of the speakers bureau list and site until told of it today. I am not ashamed of being on it. However, note that I have no speaking fee, only travel expenses. I am there because someone has to speak up for lawful, competent cyclists and against bike planning with its cyclist-inferiority base.

Somebody call Cloe at CTU and have her run a trace on that IP.

skanking asks a rather naive question: "I really don't understand why you can't have both segregated facilities and lawful bicycle use in traffic at the same time. Why are these 2 ideas oppossed?"

The answer is in terms of resources in space, money, social attitude, and political will. Having both requires more space, more money, it requires two different social attitudes (vehicular cycling vs cyclist inferiority cycling, if you will), and sufficient political will to carry all of these pairs. Won't happen, hasn't happened anywhere that we know of.

And some more from skanking: "How does advocating that people know the rules of the road when cycling in traffic result in opposition of all other types of cycling?" This not the real issue. As far as cycling on the roads in traffic is concerned, obeying the rules of the road is very necessary. All other types of cycling on the roads in traffic are dangerous and clumsy, and we need one social policy about cycling on the roads in traffic. What you do on offroad trails is immaterial and is outside the scope of the discussion.

And a bit more also from skanker: "What am I missing here? I understand his point that cyclists are a minority and the reality is that we need to learn to operate in the world as it is---but how does that translate into oppossition of efforts to change that reality?"

Two reasons: The first reason is that attempts to change from operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles are directly harmful to lawful, competent cyclists. We must not lose that right. The second reason is that there is no reasonable probability that anything bicycle advocates can do will eliminate the preponderance of private motor transportation. Since its results are both harmful and impossible to achieve, don't even contemplate it.




skanking biker's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Green Bay, WI

Questions---How does one's support of "segregated" bike facilities translate into "anti-motoring" emotional sophistry???????--As the chainguard letter states

I really don't understand why you can't have both segregated facilities and lawful bicycle use in traffic at the same time. Why are these 2 ideas oppossed? How does advocating that people know the rules of the road when cycling in traffic result in opposition of all other types of cycling?

What am I missing here? I understand his point that cyclists are a minority and the reality is that we need to learn to operate in the world as it is---but how does that translate into oppossition of efforts to change that reality?

skanking asks a rather naive question: "I really don't understand why you can't have both segregated facilities and lawful bicycle use in traffic at the same time. Why are these 2 ideas oppossed?"

The answer is in terms of resources in space, money, social attitude, and political will. Having both requires more space, more money, it requires two different social attitudes (vehicular cycling vs cyclist inferiority cycling, if you will), and sufficient political will to carry all of these pairs. Won't happen, hasn't happened anywhere that we know of.

OK. I'll bite although I am not yet convinced.

I DO have both in the area where I live. There are bike paths that are multi-use and I have the right to ride in the roadway. I use both approaches when I ride depending on the location, time of day, specifically hazardous intersections, etc.

Zeytoun states: "This is a very common error people make, confusing correlation for causation.
The correlation is club riding experience to fewer accidents. The causation he assumes is that it is the VC concepts of club riding that cause the fewer accidents."

There is a very great difference between correlation and causation, as I have frequently stated. One very great difference is that a reasonable causal connection has to exist for a correlation to be used as support for causation. We are discussing here only collisions between cyclists and motorists. It is recognized that obeying the rules of the road causes traffic to flow in patterns that do not cause collisions. Contrariwise, it is recognized that nearly all collisions are caused by one or both parties disobeying the rules of the road. It is also recognized that few American cyclists obey the rules of the road, while a much greater proportion of those with club cycling experience do so. If the club cyclists show a car-bike collision rate per mile only 25% of that of the general public, it is reasonable to conclude that obeying the rules of the road had a great deal in preventing collisions.

On his web site that is.
http://johnforester.com/Articles/Social/Cyclist_vs_Bicycle_Advocacies.htm See paragraph 2 & 3.
Nothing like a one sided debate, Forester style. What a guy!

:roflmao:

I DO have both in the area where I live. There are bike paths that are multi-use and I have the right to ride in the roadway. I use both approaches when ...I suspect that John is thinking of completely separate systems. Truly separate systems don't have their traffic sharing junctions (i.e., intersections, crossings, etc.) at the same grade and time.

For example, the U.S. Interstate system is completely separate from the ordinary highway system. All of the junctions (interchanges) within a true Interstate (a fully controlled access highway) are grade separated.

Brian Ratliff claims: " in many places where cycling for transportation has been encouraged, lo and behold, the number of cyclists on the streets goes up! "

Brian, what are those places, and to what extent has whatever change that has occurred reduced motoring in a transportationally significant way?

Portland, OR, for one. Here are some rough stats. (http://bikeportland.org/resources/bikesafety#charts) Because of the way Portland is arranged, the bridge counts encompass ~90-100% of the bicycle commuting traffic.


Also from Brian: "According to his worldview, cycling will always be second best to the car, always fighting for space on the road and to be left alone against the encroaching auto-centric society."

Cycling second best to the car, indeed? That's not English, it has no meaning. If you mean that much more personal transportation will be done by car than by bicycle, that's my position. So what? Fighting for space on the road, indeed? I've never had to fight for space on the road. Why do you, and with what weapon do you choose to fight? The encroaching auto-centric society, indeed? I think that the proportional growth of motoring is reaching the top of the supply curve; most all the motoring that people want to do, and can do, is being done. And so what? What do you propose to do about it without actually being the anti-motoring person whom you claimed above that you weren't?

I am not sure exactly what you are talking about here, but I would not characterize myself as "anti-motorist" or "pro-motorist". I think society largely expands into whatever space it is given. If you keep building roads (LA is the perfect example), people will make more car trips. To build a road or not is not a decision that society makes. It is a decision the government makes, and society makes use of the space.

So, to keep auto-centricity from encroaching into city life, the government should build less roads, and modify the existing roads to be more accomodating to uses other than by cars. Yes, cars have played an integral role in shaping our economy and expanding the wealth of, and indeed, creating, the middle class. But there are limits, and I believe we are reaching them.