Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Someone convince me not to put John Forester on ignore

We aren't in disagreement here at all!;) I was trying to provide an oportunity for clarification and see if what I believed he was trying to say was indeed correct as well as maybe ratchet dow the tension level to keep this a useful subforum.

Oh I understand exactly what HH is trying to say... and in a basic sense he is correct...

The fact that most young cyclists do not have any traffic training and get out there and ride and do violate some laws is an indicator that they do indeed need some basic training... But the flip side is there is no system to implement such training (unless it is given at the regular school level) and the LAB (League of American Bicyclists) method is so stilted as far as having any sort of reach, that it is effectively useless.

My point is that if you take two adults, one who motors and one who cycles, they have likely had the exact same traffic training... (most adult cyclists are also drivers).

If the motorist runs a red light, it was probably due to selective distraction... a choice that was made by the motorist at some time (cell phone, fiddling with CD/Radio, eating, makeup, etc... an action that was chosen by the motorist and became a priority over driving)... this action can be addressed in a defensive driving class. The choice may still be made, but with more and more knowledge, the choice becomes more difficult.

On the other hand the adult cyclist observes traffic, and sees that a break exists, and has had the same training as the motorist, but because of their observations of traffic, they choose consiously to run the light... very different circumstances.

Now in the case of general motorists... why is it that a 6 week course is sufficient for a lifetime activity? Why is there no follow on course (Road II) or other madatory retraining... to reinforce the good habits and point out the bad... and to eliminate misperceptions such as how to merge properly, how to use turn signals, point out that taxes and fees do not pay for the roads and what a motorists' responsiblity is around cyclists and peds. Six weeks of drivers' ed does not convey this stuff well. It has not had time to sink in... so the results are motorists that tailgate (don't leave 2 seconds), motorists who don't use turn signals, motorists that speed and over drive conditions... and who likely have long forgotten what was told to them 10 years ago in a 6 week class.

Ideally I would like to see children learn bike basics in elementary school, basic traffic in middle school and prove bike traffic skills before taking a full semester or year long drivers ed class in high school. Why is driving not a treated just like math and history and sex ed, and given at least a full semester as a minimum? People drive their entire lives and many drivers hold misconceptions from their early days. Yes they generally do OK... but what we really have is a nation of drivers that barely get by... perhaps it is time to improve the overall driving picture. I think it should start with cycle training at a young age and work up from there.

If the goal is to reduce the total number of cyclists killed each year, then I think cyclist training alone would be have a larger impact than motorist training alone.

If the goal is to make the roads feel safer and improve motorist/cyclist relations, then motorist training may help.

Most cylists in this forum don't fall into the category where further training will make them substantially safer, so for this select bunch, motorist training appeals more.

Al

If the goal is to reduce the total number of cyclists killed each year, then I think cyclist training alone would be have a larger impact than motorist training alone.

If the goal is to make the roads feel safer and improve motorist/cyclist relations, then motorist training may help.

Most cylists in this forum don't fall into the category where further training will make them substantially safer, so for this select bunch, motorist training appeals more.

Al

Exactly... and my point is that the cyclists most likely to need training are the least likely to be aware of it (and certainly even less likely to come to BF). Meanwhile motorists are out there killing more people per year than any war has ever done... yet we don't seem to be calling that a crisis or "battling" it.

BTW I am doing my part... I at least hand out these pamphets that tell new riders to look on the web for safe cycling info.

Coming soon: the 'war on bad driving', complete with 'traffic safety czar'...

UFB and I call BS on everything you've written here.

Current driver training and licensing programs in the US are a complete joke compared to other western countries, particularly western europe. Plain and simple, motorists who 'choose' to run red lights, speed, fail to signal, act aggressively towards other road users, etc. are deadly and need more training, or to have their licenses revoked and their vehicles impounded.

Conversely, in this day and age most cyclists (or at least the cyclists we're discussing here) also know that they are supposed to stop for red lights and stop signs (although some choose not to) and for you to argue otherwise is pretty disingenuous.

You should also not have to be told that there are different relative risks at play when a motorist runs a light or gets aggro vs. when a cyclist does.

The major flaw in the whole VC theory is that it assumes all motorists are perfect automatons that are unemotional, undistracted, never late or angry, highly trained and entirely predictable and safe in their behavior. The reason cycling will never follow the VC model is because motorists are not the perfectly behaved automatomic engineering ciphers that AJ unreasonably assumes they are. Thus, the foundation of VC theory is rotten to the core.


A major flaw in VC contrarianism is thinking that VC theory "assumes all motorists are perfect automatons that are unemotional, undistracted, never late or angry, highly trained and entirely predictable and safe in their behavior".

VC theory make no such absurd assumption. This makes your characterization of VC theory a strawman, and your entire argument an irrelevant strawman construction.

A major aspect of VC theory that VC contrarians miss, or disingenuously ignore, is the importance of understanding proper vehicular behavior not only in order for the cyclist to be able to practice it, but also in order for the cyclist to be able to recognize others who deviate from it sooner. Thus, recognizing and dealing with bad drivers is an implicit core component in the foundation of VC theory.


There is a reason people that drive won't leave their cars at home and bicycle instead, and it's because they already know how other US drivers misbehave on the road, and don't want to take, by choice, the percieved higher risk of becoming a statistic, to the tune of how many deaths and injuries on our roads each year, eh?
I have long said that I believe that the biggest reason we don't have more cyclists is the perceived notion that cycling in traffic is inherently dangerous - that no matter what the cyclist does, he is a sitting duck out there.

Faciliites, unless they are completely physically separated for the entire route, do not address this concern.
Vehicular cycling does.

Exactly... and my point is that the cyclists most likely to need training are the least likely to be aware of it (and certainly even less likely to come to BF). Meanwhile motorists are out there killing more people per year than any war has ever done... yet we don't seem to be calling that a crisis or "battling" it.

BTW I am doing my part... I at least hand out these pamphets that tell new riders to look on the web for safe cycling info.
So do I, I do cycling seminars with the Scouts (Boy and Girl), etc. Best I can do right now, and I am always looking for ways to make inroads.

If the goal is to reduce the total number of cyclists killed each year, then I think cyclist training alone would be have a larger impact than motorist training alone.

If the goal is to make the roads feel safer and improve motorist/cyclist relations, then motorist training may help.

Most cylists in this forum don't fall into the category where further training will make them substantially safer, so for this select bunch, motorist training appeals more.

Al
The problem is we already have motorist and cyclists training but it’s just badly implemented. But since we have it, it is hard getting in there and changing it.

My next issue is I have is with over specialized training. It should not be a matter of who (motorists or cyclists) needs the training more it should be all road users should know what to expect from their fellow road user. Motorists need to know that cyclist need to use the full lane (at least some of the time) and they should not expect cyclists to be to the extreme right, just to name a couple of items. I also believe it is parents (i.e. motorists) that have the most influence on their kids cycling instructions and not the school system. Since kids are still over represented in bike crashes even with receiving safety instruction at school it would that it would be a good idea to start including their parents as well.

A secondary proof of this point is that motorists affect bicycle and pedestrian behavior. Areas where motorist predominantly fail to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks also have a large number of j-walkers. I will also assert a lot of unsafe cycling practices are the result of motorists not respecting the cyclists’ rights. You can’t fairly or effectively clamp down on one side without also addressing the issue on the other side.

A secondary proof of this point is that motorists affect bicycle and pedestrian behavior. Areas where motorist predominantly fail to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks also have a large number of j-walkers. I will also assert a lot of unsafe cycling practices are the result of motorists not respecting the cyclists’ rights. You can’t fairly or effectively clamp down on one side without also addressing the issue on the other side. Sorry, I have to strongly disagree with this. Just because there is one motorist once in a while who acts in a way that disprespects cyclist rights is no excuse to avoid riding safely in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road, especially if you accept the finding of most vehicular cyclists that doing so greatly reduces the incidence of such disrespectful behavior.

Humans have a tendency to rise to the occasion, and drivers are human. What that means is when they see a cyclist riding competently, confidently and respectfully, by and large, they respect that and act accordingly.

Exactly!

some snipped

I disagree that when a cyclist runs a red light it's because he's lacking in training. That's the cyclist inferiority complex right there--the internalized belief that those who ride a bicycle are somehow less educated than motorists. Sorry but this smells foul.


I also believe that cyclists need training. But not Helmet Head's wacky theories and political BS. Just some practical advice about destination positioning and obeying basic traffic laws.



The first paragraph is inaccurate. There are plenty of cyclists who argue that cyclists should run red lights. I seem to remember that ILTB, a few weeks or so ago, admitted that he ran red lights. One of the excuses is that the vehicle code is for motor vehicles, not for bicycles. For others, it is plain ignorance. For others it is that they can get away with it. And, contrary to your judgment that this is not part of the cyclist-inferiority attitude, it is. If people had been taught from childhood that cyclists should operate as drivers of vehicles, this attitude would be much less prevalent. I never heard anything like it in England, either as a child or, later, as a cycling visitor talking to motorists in roadside pubs.

This is the reason that proper training for American cyclists has to include more than just how to operate in traffic according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. It has to include some material about why that method of operation is appropriate and about the opposition to that view that is so prevalent in America.

Oh I understand exactly what HH is trying to say... and in a basic sense he is correct...

The fact that most young cyclists do not have any traffic training and get out there and ride and do violate some laws is an indicator that they do indeed need some basic training... But the flip side is there is no system to implement such training (unless it is given at the regular school level) and the LAB (League of American Bicyclists) method is so stilted as far as having any sort of reach, that it is effectively useless.

My point is that if you take two adults, one who motors and one who cycles, they have likely had the exact same traffic training... (most adult cyclists are also drivers).

If the motorist runs a red light, it was probably due to selective distraction... a choice that was made by the motorist at some time (cell phone, fiddling with CD/Radio, eating, makeup, etc... an action that was chosen by the motorist and became a priority over driving)... this action can be addressed in a defensive driving class. The choice may still be made, but with more and more knowledge, the choice becomes more difficult.

On the other hand the adult cyclist observes traffic, and sees that a break exists, and has had the same training as the motorist, but because of their observations of traffic, they choose consiously to run the light... very different circumstances.

Now in the case of general motorists... why is it that a 6 week course is sufficient for a lifetime activity? Why is there no follow on course (Road II) or other madatory retraining... to reinforce the good habits and point out the bad... and to eliminate misperceptions such as how to merge properly, how to use turn signals, point out that taxes and fees do not pay for the roads and what a motorists' responsiblity is around cyclists and peds. Six weeks of drivers' ed does not convey this stuff well. It has not had time to sink in... so the results are motorists that tailgate (don't leave 2 seconds), motorists who don't use turn signals, motorists that speed and over drive conditions... and who likely have long forgotten what was told to them 10 years ago in a 6 week class.

Ideally I would like to see children learn bike basics in elementary school, basic traffic in middle school and prove bike traffic skills before taking a full semester or year long drivers ed class in high school. Why is driving not a treated just like math and history and sex ed, and given at least a full semester as a minimum? People drive their entire lives and many drivers hold misconceptions from their early days. Yes they generally do OK... but what we really have is a nation of drivers that barely get by... perhaps it is time to improve the overall driving picture. I think it should start with cycle training at a young age and work up from there.

In both the cases of the typical cyclist and the typical motorist we have to consider both the effect of society and the effect of early exposure.

The typical American motorist has been raised in a motoring society since childhood. He has seen motoring being done all his life, and he has heard motoring stories and traffic criticisms. When he starts motoring he has some start in the right direction, to assist the driving instruction he receives. When he continues motoring, he constantly observes generally proper motoring behavior, and some he recognizes as improper. And there is the threat of legal enforcement of improper actions. It is no wonder that motorists rarely need refreshing training.

The typical American cyclist starts out with childish cycling and is never exposed to the idea that there is anything in common between cycling and motoring. In fact, the social attitude that he absorbs is that cyclists are different from motorists and don't really belong on the roadways. The training that cyclists received until quite recently (and, for many, even today) taught him only a small part of the required skills and did not correct his initial attitude. There was no social support for operating properly. It is no wonder that the cyclist ends up with an entirely different attitude from the motorist, and, when he becomes a motorist, he retains his original attitude toward cyclists.

It has been a hope in the vehicular-cycling community that there should be a coherent sequence of traffic training, from walking to cycling to motoring, all based on the proper principles. Such a training sequence cannot be supported by the current American traffic culture. It can exist only in a culture that already supported vehicular cycling as the proper policy and practice. This existed, only once, and for a short time, in a middle school of the bicycle-friendly city of Palo Alto in the 1980s, but it died out for a combination of reasons. There have been rumors of other examples.

Therefore, proper training of cyclists has to be done by the private sector, and must be done by vehicular cyclists.

This is the reason that proper training for American cyclists has to include more than just how to operate in traffic according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. It has to include some material about why that method of operation is appropriate and about the opposition to that view that is so prevalent in America.
Is that right? Proper training for American cyclists has to include John Forester Brand ideological materials. Sez who besides John Forester?

Who buys into this line of self promotion/self delusion besides HH?

In both the cases of the typical cyclist and the typical motorist we have to consider both the effect of society and the effect of early exposure.

The typical American motorist has been raised in a motoring society since childhood. He has seen motoring being done all his life, and he has heard motoring stories and traffic criticisms. When he starts motoring he has some start in the right direction, to assist the driving instruction he receives. When he continues motoring, he constantly observes generally proper motoring behavior, and some he recognizes as improper. And there is the threat of legal enforcement of improper actions. It is no wonder that motorists rarely need refreshing training.

The typical American cyclist starts out with childish cycling and is never exposed to the idea that there is anything in common between cycling and motoring. In fact, the social attitude that he absorbs is that cyclists are different from motorists and don't really belong on the roadways. The training that cyclists received until quite recently (and, for many, even today) taught him only a small part of the required skills and did not correct his initial attitude. There was no social support for operating properly. It is no wonder that the cyclist ends up with an entirely different attitude from the motorist, and, when he becomes a motorist, he retains his original attitude toward cyclists.

It has been a hope in the vehicular-cycling community that there should be a coherent sequence of traffic training, from walking to cycling to motoring, all based on the proper principles. Such a training sequence cannot be supported by the current American traffic culture. It can exist only in a culture that already supported vehicular cycling as the proper policy and practice. This existed, only once, and for a short time, in a middle school of the bicycle-friendly city of Palo Alto in the 1980s, but it died out for a combination of reasons. There have been rumors of other examples.

Therefore, proper training of cyclists has to be done by the private sector, and must be done by vehicular cyclists.

I agree with most of what you wrote there except the "therefore" part... I believe your conclusion is wrong, and that cycling, like PE and other activity based curricula at school should be re-emphasized and integrated into the full school program. I think anything less will continue to put cycling education at a second tier level and keep it there, thus reinforcing that "second tier thinking" that forms the whole basis of the problem you mention in the second and third paragraphs.

Is that right? Proper training for American cyclists has to include John Forester Brand ideological materials. Sez who besides John Forester?

Who buys into this line of self promotion/self delusion besides HH?
joejack?

Who buys into this line of self promotion/self delusion besides HH?
Who buys into the delusion that the sidwalk-style bike paths with stop signs every minute or less is what cyclists really want?

Sorry, I have to strongly disagree with this. Just because there is one motorist once in a while who acts in a way that disprespects cyclist rights is no excuse to avoid riding safely in accordance to the vehicular rules of the road, especially if you accept the finding of most vehicular cyclists that doing so greatly reduces the incidence of such disrespectful behavior.

Humans have a tendency to rise to the occasion, and drivers are human. What that means is when they see a cyclist riding competently, confidently and respectfully, by and large, they respect that and act accordingly.

To me you are saying that good cycling safety education can overcome bad motorist behavior and I agree with that, the problem is how to get good cycling safety education to all the Joe average cyclists out there who will never join a bike club or advocacy group.

In MD ~60% of our bike crashes are 18 and younger and ~60% on 25mph or less roads. We have a bike safety class in the elementary schools (not that great but a whole lot better then what the motorists are getting.) Plus driver training is part of MDOT where I have some inroads, elementary schools is a whole other ball of wax.

Is that right? Proper training for American cyclists has to include John Forester Brand ideological materials. Sez who besides John Forester?

Who buys into this line of self promotion/self delusion besides HH?

I don't buy into the self promotion aspect of it, but I still do believe that for cycling to gain any mainstream support, it has to be taught mainstream. I think even the "bike rodeos" I experienced in my youth were better than nothing, and "nothing" is typically all that is offered today.

I agree with most of what you wrote there except the "therefore" part... I believe your conclusion is wrong, and that cycling, like PE and other activity based curricula at school should be re-emphasized and integrated into the full school program. I think anything less will continue to put cycling education at a second tier level and keep it there, thus reinforcing that "second tier thinking" that forms the whole basis of the problem you mention in the second and third paragraphs.

I forgot to mention in an earlier post that I also worked up a PE course for high-school students. In a way, they were the easiest to teach of all my students, because they already could drive cars as well as having current cycling experience. But their retention was poor, they took to risk-loving cycling too easily.

However, here's the problem. Most male PE teachers just don't want to participate in the sports that they teach. I don't know about the female ones. Getting the teachers to learn cycling and to participate was rather a failure, and the result lasted only about another semester after the one in which I had worked up the course.

Who buys into the delusion that the sidwalk-style bike paths with stop signs every minute or less is what cyclists really want?
Respond to what I wrote about Foresters' claim about what the American bicycling public needs, NOT to your own straw man argument.

I still do believe that for cycling to gain any mainstream support, it has to be taught mainstream.
Do you think there is anything mainstream about Forester Brand teaching materials or Forester Brand materials lambasting the widespread opposition to Forester's methods and teaching materials?

Or that there is a snowball's chance that any advocates, parroting the Forester line of ideology/sophistry, will ever get mainstream support in the 21st Century?

This is the reason that proper training for American cyclists has to include more than just how to operate in traffic according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. It has to include some material about why that method of operation is appropriate and about the opposition to that view that is so prevalent in America.


Is that right? Proper training for American cyclists has to include John Forester Brand ideological materials. Sez who besides John Forester?

Way to jump to conclusions, ILTB. Where exactly does JF promote his and only his work work in the above quote? Do you not think it's important to understand the "why" of traffic law in regards to cyclists? What percentage of Americans do you think would agree with the generally accepted (amongst cyclists)statements about the "why" of traffic law and how it applies to cyclists?

Way to jump to conclusions, ILTB. Where exactly does JF promote his and only his work work in the above quote?
Were you born yesterday?:rolleyes: What else/who else has Forester ever promoted/supported in the last 30 years, besides himself and his own brand of training materials?

You know, you all remind me of when I was in college, walking by the card tables set up by the various young Marxist/Socialist/Communist/Whateverist groups. Every one of them was populated by incredibly fervent, passionate, dedicated students who spent the vast majority of their time debating with (read:shouting at) the denizens of the other tables about arcane points of pro-proletariat doctrine. Each of them used their chosen vocabulary, each of them brandished their "logic" against the others and accused them of refusing to address the "real" questions they had raised. The result was the proverbial sound and fury, signifying nothing. How effective was it in actually accomplishing anything or converting anyone? Suffice to say that the only time I ever saw anyone - and I mean anyone - stop and pay attention was when a group of Maoists and a group of Trotskyites actually got into a group fist fight (and a pretty lame one at that). That got peoples' attention, but only until somebody broke up the fight, leaving the assembled group to wander off, commenting on what a bunch of idiots they had just seen.

This thread, and every other one about VC and/or John Forester I have made the mistake of checking out, is the equivalent. About the only difference is that you folks can only lob insults at each other. The level of general cluelessness, on the other hand, is pretty much identical, all the way around.

Respond to what I wrote about Foresters' claim about what the American bicycling public needs, NOT to your own straw man argument.

Why? Am I on the witness stand?

What makes your assertions more legitimate than mine?

The level of general cluelessness, on the other hand, is pretty much identical, all the way around.
I got it. Everybody is a dang idiot, except you. And there isn't a bit of difference in what anybody says, except for your brilliant analysis. Thanks for really straightening everything out.

Why? Am I on the witness stand?

If you weren't responding to my question, why are you quoting it in your response? If you just want to post your straw man assertions leave me out of 'em.

If you weren't responding to my question, why are you quoting it in your response? If you just want to post your straw man assertions leave me out of 'em.
I don't need to quote you to post whatever I want to say.

If you want to be left out of things, don't post.

You say discussion of sidewalk paths is a strawman argument. Does that mean you agree that sidewalk paths make no sense?

Around here, they aren't made of straw.

Were you born yesterday?:rolleyes: What else/who else has Forester ever promoted/supported in the last 30 years, besides himself and his own brand of training materials?

He's going to support what he feels is the right way to teach cyclists. That his support is offered for courses that sound a lot like his own should be of no surprise; it would be terribly inconsistent for a guy with a cycling course to recommend a course that didn't meet or exceed his own. That nobody else has put together such a course is not JF's fault.

Do you think there is anything mainstream about Forester Brand teaching materials or Forester Brand materials lambasting the widespread opposition to Forester's methods and teaching materials?

Or that there is a snowball's chance that any advocates, parroting the Forester line of ideology/sophistry, will ever get mainstream support in the 21st Century?

I wouldn't suggest that any one single source be used in a well organized class.

I just feel that the current situation (of parents and friends doing the only training) is less than adequate... as much as I feel that the current situation of only 6 weeks of driver's ed is less than sufficient. I think we do the rough equivalent of tossing folks into the "deep end" and hoping for the best... and our current traffic system reflects this.

Perhaps I am wrong... but it seems that other countries do it a bit better... And I think we can too.

You say discussion of sidewalk paths is a strawman argument. Does that mean you agree that sidewalk paths make no sense?

Feel free to be yourself.

I say that your posts are becoming just like HH's. No matter what the topic, no matter what the others posts say, you post another diatribe, rant, or rhetorical question about evil bike lanes/bike paths.

Feel free to be yourself.

I say that your posts are becoming just like HH's. No matter what the topic, no matter what the others posts say, you post another diatribe, rant, or rhetorical question about evil bike lanes/bike paths.
Ok, I don't want to argue too much, but: "No matter what the topic, no matter what the others posts say, you post another diatribe, rant, or rhetorical question about evil bike lanes/bike paths."

First, I can tell that you have by no means read all my posts. If you had, your comments would resemble those of the arguer who prefers terms such as, "you always" or, "you never." Such wording is very inaccurate.

Second, I seem to remember that you yourself have a decidedly strong tendency to take every opportunity to rant about "Foresterites," "acolytes," "bogus science," etc. Reading your posts can be so predictable that it's almost not necessary at times. A quick glance for those keywords is all that's needed to grasp the main idea.

I am refreshed when you occasionally abandon your anti-Forester focal point, such as when you posted pics of your bike.

But maybe we could all benefit from occasionally going back to what we have in common, rather than what divides us.

Then again, the topic of this entire thread is not exactly conducive to that. I wonder what would happen if we each started a thread, "Convince me not to put [insert favorite enemy here] on my ignore list." Is it really that constructive?

Ok, I don't want to argue too much, but: "No matter what the topic, no matter what the others posts say, you post another diatribe, rant, or rhetorical question about evil bike lanes/bike paths."

First, I can tell that you have by no means read all my posts. If you had, your comments would resemble those of the arguer who prefers terms such as, "you always" or, "you never." Such wording is very inaccurate.

Second, I seem to remember that you yourself have a decidedly strong tendency to take every opportunity to rant about "Foresterites," "acolytes," "bogus science," etc. Reading your posts can be so predictable that it's almost not necessary at times. A quick glance for those keywords is all that's needed to grasp the main idea.

I am refreshed when you occasionally abandon your anti-Forester focal point, such as when you posted pics of your bike.

But maybe we could all benefit from occasionally going back to what we have in common, rather than what divides us.

Then again, the topic of this entire thread is not exactly conducive to that. I wonder what would happen if we each started a thread, "Convince me not to put [insert favorite enemy here] on my ignore list." Is it really that constructive?
Very good post, LBM! Right on line with what I've been saying about this as well.

For the record, I'm not a VC acolyte or fanatic, I just happen to believe a bike is traffic though and has full rights to the road (and the law backs me in this belief in most areas;) ). I'm getting pretty tired of the attack threads though and wold love to see the conventions observed in Robert's Rules of Order observed. These conventions could easily be adapted to forum usage and would greatly contribute to a free dialogue because the first point is to maintain decorum at all times.

Here is a summarized version and yes, there would have to be adaptations made for the forum vs a meeting or group FTF dialogue


Robert's Rules of Order - Summary Version
For Fair and Orderly Meetings & Conventions

Provides common rules and procedures for deliberation and debate in order to place the whole membership on the same footing and speaking the same language. The conduct of ALL business is controlled by the general will of the whole membership - the right of the deliberate majority to decide. Complementary is the right of at least a strong minority to require the majority to be deliberate - to act according to its considered judgment AFTER a full and fair "working through" of the issues involved. Robert's Rules provides for constructive and democratic meetings, to help, not hinder, the business of the assembly. Under no circumstances should "undue strictness" be allowed to intimidate members or limit full participation.

The fundamental right of deliberative assemblies require all questions to be thoroughly discussed before taking action!

The assembly rules - they have the final say on everything!
Silence means consent!

* Obtain the floor (the right to speak) by being the first to stand when the person speaking has finished; state Mr./Madam Chairman. Raising your hand means nothing, and standing while another has the floor is out of order! Must be recognized by the Chair before speaking!
* Debate can not begin until the Chair has stated the motion or resolution and asked "are you ready for the question?" If no one rises, the chair calls for the vote!
* Before the motion is stated by the Chair (the question) members may suggest modification of the motion; the mover can modify as he pleases, or even withdraw the motion without consent of the seconder; if mover modifies, the seconder can withdraw the second.
* The "immediately pending question" is the last question stated by the Chair! Motion/Resolution - Amendment - Motion to Postpone
* The member moving the "immediately pending question" is entitled to preference to the floor!
* No member can speak twice to the same issue until everyone else wishing to speak has spoken to it once!
* All remarks must be directed to the Chair. Remarks must be courteous in language and deportment - avoid all personalities, never allude to others by name or to motives!
* The agenda and all committee reports are merely recommendations! When presented to the assembly and the question is stated, debate begins and changes occur!

The Rules

* Point of Privilege: Pertains to noise, personal comfort, etc. - may interrupt only if necessary!
* Parliamentary Inquiry: Inquire as to the correct motion - to accomplish a desired result, or raise a point of order
* Point of Information: Generally applies to information desired from the speaker: "I should like to ask the (speaker) a question."
* Orders of the Day (Agenda): A call to adhere to the agenda (a deviation from the agenda requires Suspending the Rules)
* Point of Order: Infraction of the rules, or improper decorum in speaking. Must be raised immediately after the error is made
* Main Motion: Brings new business (the next item on the agenda) before the assembly
* Divide the Question: Divides a motion into two or more separate motions (must be able to stand on their own)
* Consider by Paragraph: Adoption of paper is held until all paragraphs are debated and amended and entire paper is satisfactory; after all paragraphs are considered, the entire paper is then open to amendment, and paragraphs may be further amended. Any Preamble can not be considered until debate on the body of the paper has ceased.
* Amend: Inserting or striking out words or paragraphs, or substituting whole paragraphs or resolutions
* Withdraw/Modify Motion: Applies only after question is stated; mover can accept an amendment without obtaining the floor
* Commit /Refer/Recommit to Committee: State the committee to receive the question or resolution; if no committee exists include size of committee desired and method of selecting the members (election or appointment).
* Extend Debate: Applies only to the immediately pending question; extends until a certain time or for a certain period of time
* Limit Debate: Closing debate at a certain time, or limiting to a certain period of time
* Postpone to a Certain Time: State the time the motion or agenda item will be resumed
* Object to Consideration: Objection must be stated before discussion or another motion is stated
* Lay on the Table: Temporarily suspends further consideration/action on pending question; may be made after motion to close debate has carried or is pending
* Take from the Table: Resumes consideration of item previously "laid on the table" - state the motion to take from the table
* Reconsider: Can be made only by one on the prevailing side who has changed position or view
* Postpone Indefinitely: Kills the question/resolution for this session - exception: the motion to reconsider can be made this session
* Previous Question: Closes debate if successful - may be moved to "Close Debate" if preferred
* Informal Consideration: Move that the assembly go into "Committee of the Whole" - informal debate as if in committee; this committee may limit number or length of speeches or close debate by other means by a 2/3 vote. All votes, however, are formal.
* Appeal Decision of the Chair: Appeal for the assembly to decide - must be made before other business is resumed; NOT debatable if relates to decorum, violation of rules or order of business
* Suspend the Rules: Allows a violation of the assembly's own rules (except Constitution); the object of the suspension must be specified

© 1997 Beverly Kennedy

From: http://www.robertsrules.org/indexprint.html

I got it. Everybody is a dang idiot, except you. And there isn't a bit of difference in what anybody says, except for your brilliant analysis. Thanks for really straightening everything out.
Nope. Not even close. Let me see if being more direct helps you get it.

With very few exceptions, you and the people who post on these "bash/defend John Forester" threads talk past each other. Repeatedly. Constantly, even. Regardless of which side of the divide the poster is on, the posts quickly descend into name-calling, accusations of failing to answer each others' points, and generally uninformative screeds dripping with personal invective and/or sarcasm. You folks may well be charming, lucid, intellegent and thought-provoking on other subjects - I certainly hope so. But when it comes to Mr. Forester and his writings, the level of discourse is that of a second-grade playground, albeit with better vocabulary and (usually) better sentence structure.

Oh, and I certainly do not think that everybody is a dang idiot except for me. Rather, I am absolutely convinced that everyone is a dang idiot including me - just not on the same subjects.

But when it comes to Mr. Forester and his writings, the level of discourse is that of a second-grade playground, albeit with better vocabulary and (usually) better sentence structure.
I would agree with that description of Mr. Forester and his writings and his defense of same.
OTOH my critiques of the methods of statistical manipulation and sophomoric risk analysis techniques that are the foundation (AKA Forester Brand "best available evidence") for Forester's claims of Vehicular Cycling Training effectiveness (AKA "faring best" and 80% accident reduction) have been right on target, whether you understand it or not. Whether Forester and associates admit it or not.

I would agree with that description of Mr. Forester and his writings and his defense of same.
OTOH my critiques of the methods of statistical manipulation and sophomoric risk analysis techniques that are the foundation (AKA Forester Brand "best available evidence") for Forester's claims of Vehicular Cycling Training effectiveness (AKA "faring best" and 80% accident reduction) have been right on target, whether you understand it or not. Whether Forester and associates admit it or not.

I'm honestly asking this only because I know you and Forester go way back and I've only known of you both for less than a few years...Have you ever put together some detailed analysis critiquing Forester's work? All I've ever seen are comments here and there stating that you belive his risk analysis is "sophomoric" and that's about it. No substantiation for your comments at all. If you have written something before, I'd really like to read it if you can send me a link.

I'm honestly asking this only because I know you and Forester go way back and I've only known of you both for less than a few years...Have you ever put together some detailed analysis critiquing Forester's work? All I've ever seen are comments here and there stating that you belive his risk analysis is "sophomoric" and that's about it. No substantiation for your comments at all. If you have written something before, I'd really like to read it if you can send me a link.
I've written at length on this subject on the Chainguard list before the moderator purged the non true believer as well as the BTI list before it went belly up. I have not saved the files, but I suppose a search could turn up some nuggets, especially on Forester's "evidence" and analytical methods for supporting his claims of an 80% accident reduction for those trained in vehicular cycling.

The criticism in a nutshell is that Forester's analysis of accident risk, made without considering accident severities and without considering exposure to the variables is not only worthless but is deliberately distorted in order to promote Forester Brand propriatary materials and training programs as a fabulously successful risk management program (80% accident reduction!!).

The Foresterites' mantra/premise of cyclists "faring best" when acting as vehicular cyclists relies on furnishing zero defined metrics of "faring best", zero measurements/results of cyclists who "fare best", and in fact, zero identification of any population of actual vehicular cyclists with a record of "faring best" at anything.

I've written at length on this subject on the Chainguard list before the moderator purged the non true believer as well as the BTI list before it went belly up. I have not saved the files, but I suppose a search could turn up some nuggets, especially on Forester's "evidence" and analytical methods for supporting his claims of an 80% accident reduction for those trained in vehicular cycling.

The criticism in a nutshell is that Forester's analysis of accident risk, made without considering accident severities and without considering exposure to the variables is not only worthless but is deliberately distorted in order to promote Forester Brand propriatary materials and training programs as a fabulously successful risk management program (80% accident reduction!!).

The Foresterites' mantra/premise of cyclists "faring best" when acting as vehicular cyclists relies on furnishing zero defined metrics of "faring best", zero measurements/results of cyclists who "fare best", and in fact, zero identification of any population of actual vehicular cyclists with a record of "faring best" at anything.

Any suggestions on search terms that might help me find those posts?

Any suggestions on search terms that might help me find those posts?
Partially answered by PM.

Partially answered by PM.

If anyone else is interested, I searched "sophomoric" and got some interesting posts.

-G

I'm gonna bump this, just 'cause John is being more than his usual arrogant, reactionary self in the 'cyclists fare best' thread. FWIW I don't have him on ignore right now.

I'll pose another question: how relevant is John Forester's ideology in the 21st century?

I'm gonna bump this, just 'cause John is being more than his usual arrogant, reactionary self in the 'cyclists fare best' thread. FWIW I don't have him on ignore right now.

I'll pose another question: how relevant is John Forester's ideology in the 21st century?

He is relevant as a reference point to a way of thinking that has had it's day. Some of what John espouses had, and still has some value but the bulk of it has had either a negligible or counter productive effect on cycling advocacy. The attachment to some of his "notions", that have had more than ample time to prove themselves (and haven't), by some hard-headed adherents is divisive. It has mired cycling advocacy in a sticky glue that I cannot believe has held us in it's grip for more than 30 years.

I do think what he offers now is a model of how NOT to advocate. That placing oneself on a pedestal and referring to those who offer alternative points of view as advocates of "childish behavior", "phobic", "ignorant", "ill or uninformed". And to consistently reframe every argument to fit a standard form that can be countered with clich́ed catch phrases rather than actual careful consideration that might allow this "expert" to be wrong once in a while or to be open to anything new turns the majority of people off and not on to cycling.

I'm sure John's heart is, or at least one time was, once in the right place but I'm afraid there won't be much changing his point of view. I admire those of you who have had the staying power to keep the argument alive with JF and HH but I've found it exhausting. I don't find much of what JF and/or HH posts to be much of an inspiration to me. But I have found many of the posts in response to them to be rather enlightening so maybe they provide a service by offering a challenging counterpoint to other arguments that might actually offer some innovative solutions to some of the problems of cycling in various environments.

One personal payoff is that JF and HH's posts have renewed my commitment to advocacy and they actually got me to join LAB after a 20 year hiatus in order to advocate for more open minded thinking and not the lockstep of VC, which still hovers about LAB like a vulture.

One personal payoff is that JF and HH's posts have renewed my commitment to advocacy and they actually got me to join LAB after a 20 year hiatus in order to advocate for more open minded thinking and not the lockstep of VC, which still hovers about LAB like a vulture.

Okay buzzman, what's LAB?

Been solo cycling for a long time but haven't spent much in the ether until recently. It is interesting to read these posts.
My opinion that most people that ride, regardless of age, don't think much about VC, laws for automobile drivers, etc.
They just get on their wheels and go, responding to the moment. After all, we learn to ride on two wheels long before we learn to drive on four, or drink, or vote or a lot of other fun things. And we have the illusion of immortality until some time in our 20's or 30's.
Isn't it also kind of an appropriate illusion that there will be some big impact on rider behavior caused by web postings?

LAB=League of American Bicyclists http://www.bikeleague.org/

He is relevant as a reference point to a way of thinking that has had it's day. Some of what John espouses had, and still has some value but the bulk of it has had either a negligible or counter productive effect on cycling advocacy. The attachment to some of his "notions", that have had more than ample time to prove themselves (and haven't), by some hard-headed adherents is divisive. It has mired cycling advocacy in a sticky glue that I cannot believe has held us in it's grip for more than 30 years.

I do think what he offers now is a model of how NOT to advocate. That placing oneself on a pedestal and referring to those who offer alternative points of view as advocates of "childish behavior", "phobic", "ignorant", "ill or uninformed". And to consistently reframe every argument to fit a standard form that can be countered with clich́ed catch phrases rather than actual careful consideration that might allow this "expert" to be wrong once in a while or to be open to anything new turns the majority of people off and not on to cycling.

I'm sure John's heart is, or at least one time was, once in the right place but I'm afraid there won't be much changing his point of view. I admire those of you who have had the staying power to keep the argument alive with JF and HH but I've found it exhausting. I don't find much of what JF and/or HH posts to be much of an inspiration to me. But I have found many of the posts in response to them to be rather enlightening so maybe they provide a service by offering a challenging counterpoint to other arguments that might actually offer some innovative solutions to some of the problems of cycling in various environments.

One personal payoff is that JF and HH's posts have renewed my commitment to advocacy and they actually got me to join LAB after a 20 year hiatus in order to advocate for more open minded thinking and not the lockstep of VC, which still hovers about LAB like a vulture.

So, you claim that the vehicular-cycling view has had its day, that something better is now circulating. Please describe what characteristics of the traffic situation have changed, in what ways they require a new form of thought, and describe how this new variety of thought reduces car-bike collisions, reduces the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, and makes cycle trips more convenient.

What it really comes down to is that while John has promoted a method for dealing with low speed traffic, and coping in an autocentric society, the reality is that there are better communities for cycling, and there are better ways to encourage all means of human transport from walking to cycling for the overall benefit of people in general and the environment in particular.

Promotion of forward looking concepts dealing the future of our cities and their design, with people in mind, is the wave of the future. Most likely positive changes won't happen in my lifetime, but we can certainly plant the seed now and encourage sustainable environments for the future.

What it really comes down to is that while John has promoted a method for dealing with low speed traffic, and coping in an autocentric society, the reality is that there are better communities for cycling, and there are better ways to encourage all means of human transport from walking to cycling for the overall benefit of people in general and the environment in particular.

Promotion of forward looking concepts dealing the future of our cities and their design, with people in mind, is the wave of the future. Most likely positive changes won't happen in my lifetime, but we can certainly plant the seed now and encourage sustainable environments for the future.
Okay. Given that "most likely positive changes won't happen" in the next few decades (the remainder of your lifetime), what percentage of the very limited time and resources of bicycling advocacy do you think it is appropriate to allocate towards planting the seeds for such changes, as opposed to using that time and those resources on bringing about positive changes -- like reducing injuries and deaths given the current traffic environment -- and resisting negative changes -- defending our rights to the road -- for cyclists today and in the next few decades? 100%? 75%? 50%? 25%? 10%? 1%? .1%? And what do you think constitutes planting those seeds?

Should bicycling advocacy time/resources be spent on something other than planting those seeds or on the positive changes (and resisting negative changes) for the present and near future? If so what, and what percentage of time/resources should be allocated to that?

What percentage of bicycling advocacy time/resources would you estimate are being currently spent on all of this?

In other words, the three areas for using cycling advocacy time/resources I see are:

A) Planting seeds for the far future (more than a few decades away)
B) Making cycling safer today and near future; defending rights today
C) Other

If you were director of LAB, or on your local coalition board, how would you allocate time/resources among these three areas?
How do you think they are currently allocated?

This message is hidden because Helmet Head is on your ignore list.

:)

What it really comes down to is that while John has promoted a method for dealing with low speed traffic, and coping in an autocentric society, the reality is that there are better communities for cycling, and there are better ways to encourage all means of human transport from walking to cycling for the overall benefit of people in general and the environment in particular.

Promotion of forward looking concepts dealing the future of our cities and their design, with people in mind, is the wave of the future. Most likely positive changes won't happen in my lifetime, but we can certainly plant the seed now and encourage sustainable environments for the future.

Your article contains several dubious statements.

First, you assume that our cities have not been designed with people in mind. Cities have only one function. That is, to provide for the activities of large numbers of people. You appear to claim that our present cities have some other function. If so, what is it?

You appear to claim that our present cities have been designed. They have developed, certainly, but there is no evidence for conscious design of any urban area; what has been consciously designed is very limited.

You claim that the cities of the future will be designed. Since that has not occurred in the past, what will enable it to occur in the future?

You claim that we, today, should be working toward this presumed future designed city. Predicting the future is a notoriously inaccurate process; it hasn't happened for the near future, and therefore is even less likely to occur in the distant future. Since it is impossible to predict the pattern of future cities, it is equally impossible to know whether or not any action taken today will serve to accelerate that future. You obviously claim otherwise; on what basis do you make your claim?

Some future city of unknown characteristics will occur, but the change will likely take a lifetime or more. I don't know if anyone knows how long it took cities to adapt to wheeled animal-powered vehicles, but the animal-powered vehicle stage lasted several thousand years. Adapting the city to mechanical powered transport took oh, say, one hundred and fifty years. The problems that we observe today are likely to persist for at least the normal planning horizon. We should therefore spend almost all of our effort in working to improve today's conditions according to the facts that we know today.

In short, your article is inaccurate and useless, merely serving to misguide people.

So, you claim that the vehicular-cycling view has had its day, that something better is now circulating. Please describe what characteristics of the traffic situation have changed, in what ways they require a new form of thought, and describe how this new variety of thought reduces car-bike collisions, reduces the level of skill that is required for safe cycling, and makes cycle trips more convenient.

John, this is old territory here in BF and not a block I feel like riding around one more time with you-so I'll do my best to make my point and bow out.

Simply reference past posts here in A&S about the changes in American and European cities, newly designed infrastructures that put the quality of life foremost and not the outmoded autocentric infrastructures you seem so attached to.

And thank you for proving my point about your tendency to reframe arguments to fit your point of view.
Re-read my post. I never said, "that the vehicular-cycling view has had its day..."

While I appreciate that you more than likely coined the phrase "vehicular cycling" many of us were riding our bikes as vehicles long before we read a word of "Effective Cycling". Riding vehicularly has its place. But its not a one size fits all panacea as is often implied.

What I said was, "a way of thinking that has had its day..." by this I mean the kind of hierarchical, archaic way in which you often present your arguments. The "Daddy knows best"/"because I say so" attitude doesn't work in today's more egalitarian culture. This is the electronic age of communication and, as is so clearly demonstrated in these forums, we are only measured by the strength of our ability to communicate in this medium. So far as I can tell the strict VC argument has convinced few in these forums that it and it alone are a satisfactory solution to our everyday challenges as cyclists.

In your post to Genec you state the following as if it were factual:


You appear to claim that our present cities have been designed. They have developed, certainly, but there is no evidence for conscious design of any urban area; what has been consciously designed is very limited.

You claim that the cities of the future will be designed. Since that has not occurred in the past, what will enable it to occur in the future?

"No evidence for conscious design of any urban area..."?? I might accept this as a pretty narrow minded point of view but as a statement of fact!? And I would argue that even the "development" of an urban area is a form of conscious design. It is designed by what we as citizens make our priorities. Those you have labeled as "anti-motorist", by virtue of the fact that they wish to see cities friendlier places for bikes and pedestrians, are consciously putting the needs of people before that of insufficient existing infrastructures, which you seem more inclined to learn to live with than to change. I would no more do that than learn to live in a house with a leaking roof and crumbling foundation than work on redesign, repair and reconstruction. Designs of urban areas are not always* mandated (thank goodness) but a series of compromises- sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.

* edit

"No evidence for conscious design of any urban area..."?? I might accept this as a pretty narrow minded point of view but as a statement of fact!? And I would argue that even the "development" of an urban area is a form of conscious design.

I think John is trying to assert that Planning departments and zoning laws have no effect on urban design and have not changed over the years. He also seems to be unaware of the changes being brought about by the TEA legislation. :rolleyes:

I have two different editions of John Forester's books and find them very helpful and informative. But, as with most of the "better" books about cycling, his books are too long and too detailed for folks who want a quick and easy "Cycling on Public Roads for Dummies".

I wish every adult bike came with a ten page summary of Mr. Forrester's most helpful tips for riding on public roads. The ONE tip that every new adult cyclist could benefit from is Mr. Forrester's suggestion that people PRACTICE basic cycling techniques...I see many adults riding bikes who don't know how to maintain a consistent "line" and only seem to have a vague notion of how to use the brakes...

But, I have no idea why Mr. Forester would waste his time posting at "BikeForums". Here at "BikeForums", we all now EVERYTHING, so trying to convince us to learn something new is obviously hopeless.