Vehicular Cycling (VC) - When HH & JF make their claims about cycling...

... & spout their diatribe of how BL's reduce cycling, the only way to ride is VC, etc., etc., yadda, yadda, yadda. Could it be they are focusing on their geographical area? And they don't know **** about other areas simply because they do not or ever have lived in other areas? For example a lot of what they say does not apply to my area. I understand if it applies to theirs. but why say things about cycling & claim it will work or is happening in other areas when in fact they do not know? why are they assuming? I do hope they know what the word assume means.

Considering that California is one of the few states where a bicycle is not considered a vehicle and has laws requiring people to ride in bike lanes, if present, I don't think I want the 'success' of their advocacy over the last 30 years to spread to the rest of the country.

For example a lot of what they say does not apply to my area.

Could be more specific? What exactly doesn't apply in your area. I'm 3000 miles away, living in the northeast right outside Philadelphia, an area that most people would say is about as different from California as it gets. The vast majority of what HH and JF has to say applies to me, and the includes riding in areas other than my home town. I can't imagine what makes your area so special.

Could be more specific? What exactly doesn't apply in your area. I'm 3000 miles away, living in the northeast right outside Philadelphia, an area that most people would say is about as different from California as it gets. The vast majority of what HH and JF has to say applies to me, and the includes riding in areas other than my home town. I can't imagine what makes your area so special.

For one in my area BL's or MUP's do not reduce the amount of bicycle traffic on the roadways. In our area the BL's are not marked by a painted line it is a wider roadway with more of a shoulder then anywthing. The existing established bike routes are marked as shared roadways. The BL's offer an alternative if people want to use them. If people want to ride legally on the roadways they can. In fact there are more non-cycling traffic on the MUP's then those on bikes. But the amount of MUP's or roadways with wide enough shoulders to allow both a car & a cyclist abreast with enough room between the 2 for safe passing has nothing to do with a reduction of cyclists on the other roadways.

spout their diatribe of how BL's reduce cycling,


in my area BL's or MUP's do not reduce the amount of bicycle traffic on the roadways.
Neither Forester nor I have ever claimed that BLs or MUPs reduce the amount of bicycle traffic.

You don't even understand what we're saying, but you're convinced you disagree. Brilliant.

For one in my area BL's or MUP's do not reduce the amount of bicycle traffic on the roadways. In our area the BL's are not marked by a painted line it is a wider roadway with more of a shoulder then anywthing. The existing established bike routes are marked as shared roadways. The BL's offer an alternative if people want to use them. If people want to ride legally on the roadways they can. In fact there are more non-cycling traffic on the MUP's then those on bikes. But the amount of MUP's or roadways with wide enough shoulders to allow both a car & a cyclist abreast with enough room between the 2 for safe passing has nothing to do with a reduction of cyclists on the other roadways.

I'm sorry, NC, but I have no idea what you are talking about or trying to prove with this post. In your second sentence, you show a lack of understanding about what a bike lane is. A bike lane is not a shoulder or a road with a wide lane. A bike route marked as a shared roadway (as redundant as that is) is not a bike lane either. Furthermore, as HH has already chimed in to say, he has never claimed that bike lanes or MUPs reduce cycling. His claim, along with JF's, is that they do not significantly increase cycling, at least not on their own. By the way, non-cycling traffic on the MUP's has nothing to do with cycling. I'm glad that people use the MUP's in your area. That's why they are there. But walkers on a MUP are certainly not evidence that MUP's do not decrease cycling (this last statement is completely ridiculous but after reading NC's post, I feel like it needs to be said as it appears that is the conclusion he is coming to).

By the way, how much has cycling increased due to that new door zone bike lane they installed downtown?

despite the fervent rants and raves of the VC-addled in this forum,

traffic engineers readily admit, in regards to bike infrastructure, "build it, and they will ride!"

bike specific infrastructure will and does increase cycling on specific roads and in communities, despite the VC addled rants & raves spouted in this forum.

Considering that California is one of the few states where a bicycle is not considered a vehicle and has laws requiring people to ride in bike lanes, if present, I don't think I want the 'success' of their advocacy over the last 30 years to spread to the rest of the country.

Indeed.

I think this quote can answer your question quite simply:


I don't know where you live, I don't care where you live...

And since Helmet Head seems to have never had an original idea (he's always quoting books, ALWAYS) it's safe to say that he will back up Lord Forester on that as well.

And since Helmet Head seems to have never had an original idea (he's always quoting books, ALWAYS) it's safe to say that he will back up Lord Forester on that as well.

Do you read this forum or just make stuff up to try and make someone look bad? HH rarely quotes anybody's book, although he will often refer to them when presenting his ideas which are original enough that they have sparked pages and pages of controversy (search for DLLP <---yes, that's an acronym that HH made up to define his original idea).

I'd like to try and take everyone seriously on this forum but some of the childish remarks (I consider any criticism based on nothing to be childish) make it very difficult.

Do you read this forum or just make stuff up to try and make someone look bad? HH rarely quotes anybody's book, although he will often refer to them when presenting his ideas which are original enough that they have sparked pages and pages of controversy (search for DLLP <---yes, that's an acronym that HH made up to define his original idea).

I'd like to try and take everyone seriously on this forum but some of the childish remarks (I consider any criticism based on nothing to be childish) make it very difficult.
Rarely?? Rarely??? Dude, find me 5 threads that he has posted in within the last week that he hasn't made a quote from or referred to a book in.
DLLP eh? So Ole Helmie gave an overly-long name to "ride where you'll be noticed" and you call that an original idea? Well hell, I guess I can claim my own originality when I first called farting "TAOGYOWOYM" (The Act Of Giving You Opinion Without Opening Your Mouth)!

On second thought, forget about it. I'll leave the Vehicular Cycling section of the forum to the 3 or 4 of you "VC" guys. Obviously your advocating for VC has done a great job up until this point.

Rarely?? Rarely??? Dude, find me 5 threads that he has posted in within the last week that he hasn't made a quote from or referred to a book in.
DLLP eh? So Ole Helmie gave an overly-long name to "ride where you'll be noticed" and you call that an original idea? Well hell, I guess I can claim my own originality when I first called farting "TAOGYOWOYM" (The Act Of Giving You Opinion Without Opening Your Mouth)!

Find me ONE POST that I have posted in the within the last week that I HAVE made a quote from or referred to a book (not including a context in which someone else raised the topic).

Find me ONE POST that I have posted in the within the last week that I HAVE made a quote from or referred to a book (not including a context in which someone else raised the topic).
Nice aversion.
Just as I said to you last night. You take someones challenge, then you create your own in order to avoid the one that was previously posed. And not only that but you changed the original meaning of it.
I said you are always quoting (and making references to) books and others works. That you are never original.
Then you come back and bring "context" into this. Instead of having your own stance you always repeat someone elses.
I doubt many posts of your are out there from the last week where a book or quote from a book was out of context because almost every damned thing you talk about has to do with someone elses work.
But I tire of this. Ask yourself HH, what good is coming of all of this "stuff" you do in here? It was you that turned me off of the whole idea of VC. Your mountebank ways and "superiority complex" you seem to have over everyone else that doesn't see your way off the bat.
But like I said, I'll leave the 3 or 4 of you VC guys alone for now. Because it's obvious that you have "it" all figured out and the numerous thousands of the rest of us just don't get it(TM).

Neither Forester nor I have ever claimed that BLs or MUPs reduce the amount of bicycle traffic.

You don't even understand what we're saying, but you're convinced you disagree. Brilliant.

His lack of understanding of what you are saying or advocating for may not be his fault. I have read many pages of HH posts on this board, and I can honestly say I still have no idea what you advocate for if anything.

His lack of understanding of what you are saying or advocating for may not be his fault. I have read many pages of HH posts on this board, and I can honestly say I still have no idea what you advocate for if anything.
Yet there are others like JJ, noisebeam, Galen, Daily Commute, and others who clearly have a good idea of what I advocate for.

Hmm, they read the same posts as you do, they know, and you don't. Hmm. How can this be if I'm unclear about what I advocate for?

Neither Forester nor I have ever claimed that BLs or MUPs reduce the amount of bicycle traffic.
That's because everybody knows these things increase the amount of bicycle traffic. And THAT is what you guys advocate against, despite yourselves.

Nice aversion.
Just as I said to you last night. You take someones challenge, then you create your own in order to avoid the one that was previously posed. And not only that but you changed the original meaning of it.
I said you are always quoting (and making references to) books and others works. That you are never original.
Then you come back and bring "context" into this. Instead of having your own stance you always repeat someone elses.
I doubt many posts of your are out there from the last week where a book or quote from a book was out of context because almost every damned thing you talk about has to do with someone elses work.
But I tire of this. Ask yourself HH, what good is coming of all of this "stuff" you do in here? It was you that turned me off of the whole idea of VC. Your mountebank ways and "superiority complex" you seem to have over everyone else that doesn't see your way off the bat.
But like I said, I'll leave the 3 or 4 of you VC guys alone for now. Because it's obvious that you have "it" all figured out and the numerous thousands of the rest of us just don't get it(TM). You missed my point.

Whatever. I can provide 5 threads that meet your challenge simply by listing the top 5 current threads in the VC subforum in which I have posted.

When HH & JF make their claims about cycling...
VC acolytes, followers, disciples, etc.
Take the VC Challenge!
Positioning question when RTOL present
Why do you agree/disagree with Forester
And why is it important whether I have my own original ideas or not? My purpose here is to advocate traffic cycling safety, which I happen to believe is best accomplished by advocating vehicular-cycling, which results in me having to explain why I believe this much of the time. When those explanations have been made by others, I cite them. So what?

Considering that California is one of the few states where a bicycle is not considered a vehicle and has laws requiring people to ride in bike lanes, if present, I don't think I want the 'success' of their advocacy over the last 30 years to spread to the rest of the country.One has to wonder, given Forester's sometimes nasty, always arrogant condescension in this forum, what cycling advocacy would have gained had he been sweet-tempered and respectful instead. They say you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar...

Neither Forester nor I have ever claimed that BLs or MUPs reduce the amount of bicycle traffic.
That's because everybody knows these things increase the amount of bicycle traffic. And THAT is what you guys advocate against, despite yourselves. Neither Forester nor I have ever advocated against MUPs.
We don't advocate against bike lanes as much as we advocate against the invalid arguments made in their support.

Whether bike lanes actually incresae the amount of bicycle traffic is NOT known by anyone.
If they do, it is by some small and probably insignificant amount (not significant enough to show up in any study) relative to the amount of problems they cause for cyclists.

One has to wonder, given Forester's sometimes nasty, always arrogant condescension in this forum, what cycling advocacy would have gained had he been sweet-tempered and respectful instead. They say you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar...

You also catch a lot of flies with **** too. What's JF's excuse for the **** he preaches. It sure seems to attract a lot of people.

You missed my point.

Whatever. I can provide 5 threads that meet your challenge simply by listing the top 5 current threads in the VC subforum in which I have posted.

When HH & JF make their claims about cycling...
VC acolytes, followers, disciples, etc.
Take the VC Challenge!
Positioning question when RTOL present
Why do you agree/disagree with Forester
And why is it important whether I have my own original ideas or not? My purpose here is to advocate traffic cycling safety, which I happen to believe is best accomplished by advocating vehicular-cycling, which results in me having to explain why I believe this much of the time. When those explanations have been made by others, I cite them. So what?

VC acolytes, followers, disciples, etc.: See post #27

When John Forester writes, "obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles..."

Take the VC Challenge!: See post #53

Isn't it in Effective Cycling that Forester compares the German model...

Positioning question when RTOL present: So all that talk about "phobias" was not first introduced in Foresters book?

Why do you agree/disagree with Forester: I find it hard to believe that nothing you said in this thread had to do with the literary works of Forester.

So you provided one example.
But really, there is no point in all of this. Out of the thousands of people on this board you have what... five that see your POV? Maybe you should borrow G. W. Bush's Mission Accomplished banner.
Oh, and do you really believe you are advocating traffic/cycling safety to anyone here? Seriously?? How in the hell does pretending to be a psychologist and diagnosing people with "phobias" or pretending to be a lawyer and "interpeting" laws advocate for safety?
Bleh, it matters not. Why am I still reading this thread? You and your 4 or 5 VC friends have fun in here. If it weren't for the people that challenged you, this "Vehicular Cycling" subforum would be empty, and you know it.

Yet there are others like JJ, noisebeam, Galen, Daily Commute, and others who clearly have a good idea of what I advocate for.

Hmm, they read the same posts as you do, they know, and you don't. Hmm. How can this be if I'm unclear about what I advocate for?

Ah yes, the standard "reading comprehension problem" HH answer. At least you're predictable.

At least you're predictable.
Ahhhh yes, be predictable. A lesson learned from Lord Forester no doubt ;)

The "reading comprehension" HH answer (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-17,GGLR:en&q=site%3Abikeforums%2Enet+%22helmet+head%22+comprehension). Does he have an F key assigned to this one?

The "reading comprehension" HH answer (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLR,GGLR:2006-17,GGLR:en&q=site%3Abikeforums%2Enet+%22helmet+head%22+comprehension). Does he have an F key assigned to this one?

Wow 77 citations.

Hey if nothing else, thanks for showing me a new way to google.

Considering that California is one of the few states where a bicycle is not considered a vehicle and has laws requiring people to ride in bike lanes, if present, I don't think I want the 'success' of their advocacy over the last 30 years to spread to the rest of the country.

Whether or not bicycles are defined as vehicles is irrelevant to any discussion of operating rules, because giving cyclists the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles covers the issue. We in California consciously decided not to ask for a change in definition, because that would cause a very large number of problems elsewhere in the Vehicle Code, which might never be corrected or, very likely, would be corrected to harm cyclists.

California's proposed bikeway system and its proposed mandatory side path and mandatory bike lane laws caused the creation of cyclist activism in this nation. We managed to throw out the most dangerous bikeway designs, to reject the mandatory side path law, and to water down the mandatory bike lane and side of the road laws so as to eliminate most of the items in which they conflicted with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Not too bad. If we had not done these things, cyclists would be having a much harder time today.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/9149/helmetheadpk0.jpg

Neither Forester nor I have ever advocated against MUPs.
We don't advocate against bike lanes as much as we advocate against the invalid arguments made in their support.

Whether bike lanes actually incresae the amount of bicycle traffic is NOT known by anyone.
If they do, it is by some small and probably insignificant amount (not significant enough to show up in any study) relative to the amount of problems they cause for cyclists.
Yah right, 144% increase is small and insignificant.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/10/CMGL7CDNMK1.DTL

Whether bike lanes actually incresae the amount of bicycle traffic is NOT known by anyone.
If they do, it is by some small and probably insignificant amount (not significant enough to show up in any study) relative to the amount of problems they cause for cyclists.

Yah right, 144% increase is small and insignificant.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/10/CMGL7CDNMK1.DTL
"The bike lane on Valencia Street was the Bicycle Coalition's first big success. When those bike lanes were striped after a long campaign, biking increased 144 percent, according to city counts."

That's not a study. That's an anecdote.

What's missing from this anecdote is what else changed on Valencia besides the addition of the stripe. Was the outside lane always 17 feet or more and they just added a bike lane stripe? Very doubtful. They probably had to do other things, like remove onstreet parking or narrow the inner vehicular traffic to add enought width to the outside lane so they could add the bike lane stripe. What's missing is consideration for the question of what if they did everything except add the stripe? How would cycling use have been affected? WOLs are cycling facilities with or without a bike lane stripe.

"The bike lane on Valencia Street was the Bicycle Coalition's first big success. When those bike lanes were striped after a long campaign, biking increased 144 percent, according to city counts."

That's not a study. That's an anecdote.

What's missing from this anecdote is what else changed on Valencia besides the addition of the stripe. Was the outside lane always 17 feet or more and they just added a bike lane stripe? Very doubtful. They probably had to do other things, like remove onstreet parking or narrow the inner vehicular traffic to add enought width to the outside lane so they could add the bike lane stripe. What's missing is consideration for the question of what if they did everything except add the stripe? How would cycling use have been affected? WOLs are cycling facilities with or without a bike lane stripe.

The installation of bike-lane striping on Valencia Street in San Francisco was done a long time ago. I visited that street, after striping, I think in the time I still lived in the Bay Area. Other things were done, though I forget just what.

But consider the argument. Bicycle transportation increased 144%? There's no evidence of that, because all that was measured was the cycling volume on Valencia Street. There's no evidence, so far as I know, that the increase was in new cyclists rather than diverted cyclists.

Whether bike lanes actually incresae the amount of bicycle traffic is NOT known by anyone.
If they do, it is by some small and probably insignificant amount (not significant enough to show up in any study) relative to the amount of problems they cause for cyclists.
Yah right, 144% increase is small and insignificant.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MGL7CDNMK1.DTL "The bike lane on Valencia Street was the Bicycle Coalition's first big success. When those bike lanes were striped after a long campaign, biking increased 144 percent, according to city counts."

That's not a study. That's an anecdote.

What's missing from this anecdote is what else changed on Valencia besides the addition of the stripe. Was the outside lane always 17 feet or more and they just added a bike lane stripe? Very doubtful. They probably had to do other things, like remove onstreet parking or narrow the inner vehicular traffic to add enought width to the outside lane so they could add the bike lane stripe. What's missing is consideration for the question of what if they did everything except add the stripe? How would cycling use have been affected? WOLs are cycling facilities with or without a bike lane stripe.

Then by the same token riding VC is not known to be safer by anyone as there has been no official study done on that either.

Anyway you guys need to come out to Baltimore the most bike friendly city in America as we only have ~5 miles worth of bike lanes (but tucked away in a far out of the way corner) and lots of low speed multi-lane roadways. You can experience many delightful and bike encouraging events on our roadways such as buses forcing you into the door zone, the near pass, honk and swerve maneuver that all our SUV owners love to do to show their appreciation of cyclists. There are also educational opportunities as Soccer Moms try to expand cyclists’ vocabulary with what was previously only reserved for sailors.

Ok tongue in cheek but my point is not having bike lanes does not necessarily increase cycling either. Anyway I think I have a healthy amount of skepticism and I have been pushing for some bike traffic counts before we install more bike lanes as I would like to see more facts on the subject.

Then by the same token riding VC is not known to be safer by anyone as there has been no official study done on that either.


Bingo!!! Hand that Human Car a cookie.

Exactly... no peer review studies have been done by anyone regarding any aspect of cycling.

Then by the same token riding VC is not known to be safer by anyone as there has been no official study done on that either.
Except no one claims otherwise. That's the difference.

In the mean time, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on creating bike lanes when the only engineering justification is keeping bicyclists out of the way of slowing down motor traffic.

Except no one claims otherwise. That's the difference.



"Cyclists fare best... "

Sounds like a bold claim to me.

No one claims that there has been an official study done to show that riding VC is known to be safer.

All the evidence we have, including studies of bike-car crashes, indicate it is, hence "Cyclists fare best...", but no official studies that clearly conclude this.

In contrast, there is no evidence that bike lanes make cycling safer, period.

Then by the same token riding VC is not known to be safer by anyone as there has been no official study done on that either.



Known? But there is considerable evidence that vehicular cycling is safer than general public cycling. Vehicular cycling is riding in accord with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The rules of the road have been worked out to provide a reasonable balance between safety and convenience, and violating those rules is a known cause of collisions, for all kinds of drivers. Those groups of cyclists who ride more in accordance with the rules of the road have a far lower collision rate than those groups who ride less in accordance with the rules of the road.

That is significant evidence. Contrariwise, there has been no evidence whatsoever that violating the rules of the road produces a lower collision rate.

Those groups of cyclists who ride more in accordance with the rules of the road have a far lower collision rate than those groups who ride less in accordance with the rules of the road. ...



I think this statement above is just plain false.

As far as I know, the lowest accident rate ever recorded for any group of cyclists is that recorded by Moritz in '96 in his survey of LAB members. Respondents to his survey were primarily recreational riders averaging about 15 years experience. Their collective accident rate, as impressive as it is compared to other recorded rates from other surveys, would be considered almost unworkably bad to any veteran messenger. Many messengers I know will ride 4-5 times as many miles annually as the average survey respondent and encounter orders of magnitude more road users, while achieving a per-mile accident rate that is far, far lower. It has to be. At the rate in the Moritz survey -- the lowest rate ever formally recorded! -- I would have been involved in about 10 'serious' (by Moritz' definition) accidents/collisions and around 100 minor accidents, so far.

As the statistics you compile indicate, experience level is the only variable that is shown to have an effect on accident rate. Nobody has more experience than veteran messengers, few achieve better accident rates, and few ride less in accordance with the rules of the road. How does that work?

Robert

Alright, there it is, "the challange..." prove that collision rates of cyclists who ride "in accordance to the rules of the road" are better than those that ride in the ultimate "adaptive mode" of messengers.

Except no one claims otherwise. That's the difference.

In the mean time, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on creating bike lanes when the only engineering justification is keeping bicyclists out of the way of slowing down motor traffic.
Bike lanes that can be created with a line of paint or thermoplastic do not cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Way to pull a number out of your ass, dude.

^^^
I think he is mixing in the planning that goes with those bike lanes, not realizing that the planning will have to be done, bike lanes or no, as bike lanes are only a very small component of what goes on when planning a new road.

Gotta love numbers pulled from the a-hole regions. I'd like to see some supporting evidence for that!

Alright, there it is, "the challange..." prove that collision rates of cyclists who ride "in accordance to the rules of the road" are better than those that ride in the ultimate "adaptive mode" of messengers.

I don't think anybody is going to prove anything in the near term, because the data doesn't quite exist. But I think the rate recorded by Moritz would be pretty much a dealbreaker for long-term messenger work -- and if the VC-ists are right, shouldn't scofflaw messengers have an accident rate that is much worse than the all-time best recorded accident rate? Food for thought anyway.

Robert

Basically, what this shows is that accident rate is not a pure measure of exposure hours and that defining exposure hours per accident might be a shell game. What is more important, but hard to quantify, is the effect of experience as a function of accident rate by exposure hours. The directly contradicts Helmet Head's argument that safety is not a strong function of experience.

It does, though, beg the question of what type of experience is required to lower the accident rate and can some of this experience be supplimented by book or classroom learning.

I don't think anybody is going to prove anything in the near term, because the data doesn't quite exist. But I think the rate recorded by Moritz would be pretty much a dealbreaker for long-term messenger work -- and if the VC-ists are right, shouldn't scofflaw messengers have an accident rate that is much worse than the all-time best recorded accident rate? Food for thought anyway.

Robert
Moritz's study is useful since it shows similar results when using the same limited sampling and crude statistical techniques as used previously by Kaplan in the 70's.

I wouldn't place too much credence on a study of risk that deals in "accident rates" that are nothing more than accident totals and considered accident severity as "serious" if it involved $50 or more property damage or medical costs. Is there any accident with any injury or damage that costs less than $50 if it can't be fixed treated by the cyclist? Moritz himself acknowledges the application limitations of his study and described it asmostly providing a snapshot of an unrepresentative slice of North American cyclists.

Bike lanes that can be created with a line of paint or thermoplastic do not cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Way to pull a number out of your ass, dude.
They've been planning and painting and repainting bike lanes for 30 years now. It adds up. But maybe it's only tens of millions. Whatever. My point stands. It's not warranted for engineering reasons.

Tdirectly contradicts Helmet Head's argument that safety is not a strong function of experience.
:eek:

What argument that safety is not a strong function of experience???

I think knowledge and understanding of traffic, and how one can safely interact with it, is the ultimate key.

Experience certainly helps one gain such knowledge and understanding. The instincts follow.
But that implies you learn something with experience.

In most cases, and I don't see why traffic cycling would be an exception, anything where learning helps, books and classes can accelerate the process. After all, that's why Forester and Hurst wrote their books.

It makes sense that knowledge of the rules of the road is a help in predicting the behavior of others (though not relying on it 100%!), as well as following them.

It is possible that once knowledge and understanding and instincts reach a high enough level, the cyclist can relatively safely bend the rules more and more. That's what makes it an art. There are two ways to get there. The hard way, with lots of crashes, or the easier way, by learning and obeying the rules and staying out of the crashes while gaining the requisite knowledge and understanding. Hurst is clearly a proponent of the school of hard knocks, though kudos to him and his book for trying to give folks a chance to bypass at least some of crashes. I however prefer the Forester/VC approach, where crashes are not necessarily part of the learning process.

Moritz's study is useful since it shows similar results when using the same limited sampling and crude statistical techniques as used previously by Kaplan in the 70's.

The Moritz numbers for LAB members were quite a bit better than what Kaplan found for LAB members 20 years earlier. I wonder if there were far fewer older, seasoned riders among the survey respondents in '76, than in '96. Moritz's findings were corroborated fairly nicely by Ken Kifer in a small survey on his website of similarly experienced touring cyclists, imo. FWIW -- www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/survey/sept01.htm
As Kifer himself wrote: "..it's interesting to look at the numbers. Just don't take them very seriously."


I wouldn't place too much credence on a study of risk that deals in "accident rates" that are nothing more than accident totals and considered accident severity as "serious" if it involved $50 or more property damage or medical costs. Is there any accident with any injury or damage that costs less than $50 if it can't be fixed treated by the cyclist? Moritz himself acknowledges the application limitations of his study and described it asmostly providing a snapshot of an unrepresentative slice of North American cyclists.

Indeed the Moritz survey can be questioned on many levels and drawing conclusions from it is a sketchy endeavor. It is also among the most solid statistical evidence available on the subject.

Robert

:eek:

What argument that safety is not a strong function of experience???

I think knowledge and understanding of traffic, and how one can safely interact with it, is the ultimate key.

Experience certainly helps one gain such knowledge and understanding. The instincts follow.
But that implies you learn something with experience.

In most cases, and I don't see why traffic cycling would be an exception, anything where learning helps, books and classes can accelerate the process. After all, that's why Forester and Hurst wrote their books.

It makes sense that knowledge of the rules of the road is a help in predicting the behavior of others (though not relying on it 100%!), as well as following them.

It is possible that once knowledge and understanding and instincts reach a high enough level, the cyclist can relatively safely bend the rules more and more. That's what makes it an art. There are two ways to get there. The hard way, with lots of crashes, or the easier way, by learning and obeying the rules and staying out of the crashes while gaining the requisite knowledge and understanding. Hurst is clearly a proponent of the school of hard knocks, though kudos to him and his book for trying to give folks a chance to bypass at least some of crashes. I however prefer the Forester/VC approach, where crashes are not necessarily part of the learning process.

Of course, there is the social acceptability factor as well. Hurst advocates knowing so much about the rules by which traffic operates that one can figure out how to disobey them to one's advantage with little risk. That level of skill is a far cry from that of most drivers, and is attained by constant immersion in traffic as a business proposition. It is also correct that drivers of emergency vehicles are allowed to disobey the rules, and they are given the training to be able to do so with small increase in public danger. However, Hurst is similar to any advocate of unlawful behavior who argues that it's acceptable as long as you don't get prosecuted. The rules of the road have been designed for all to use in a way that justifies the distribution of responsibilities in a reasonably fair and safe way. Hurst is taking advantage of everyone else. He may say that he just sneaks between cars in a way that delays none of them. All I can say is that when I have been in areas permeated by bike messengers, as a pedestrian I have been threatened by being run down by them, in a most unpleasant way. And, as a cyclist, I hate to see the display of real violations of the rules of the road, because of the harm that does to all the rest of us. There are two kinds of unlawful cycling: one kind is the result of typical ignorance, the other kind is blatant, in your face, unlawful operation. Both are undesirable.

Mr Forester,

I understand that messengers in general, and Robert Hurst in particular, probably stretch the rules to the detriment of the image of cyclists to the general population, but this is hardly what he advocates in his book. I think his only sin here is being generally more accepting of bending the rules to a cyclist's favor than more rigid bicycling advocates.

As you said though, he bicycles that way, or used to, as a business proposition. A messenger is paid to do what he does, otherwise the messenger company would only hire drivers. I understand why he bends the rules the way he does during the course of his work. It is simple capitalism. He is good at messenging and people pay for his services, no harm, no foul, in my opinion. But he hardly advocates this position in his book. The closest thing to a "recommendation" is an acknowledgement that bicycles have an advantage in traffic and it is not always wrong to take advantage. He actually explicitly says that many cyclists take too much advantage of these liberties. And he give you credit, saying your book was a breath of fresh air on the subject.

Mr Forester,

I understand that messengers in general, and Robert Hurst in particular, probably stretch the rules to the detriment of the image of cyclists to the general population, but this is hardly what he advocates in his book. I think his only sin here is being generally more accepting of bending the rules to a cyclist's favor than more rigid bicycling advocates.

As you said though, he bicycles that way, or used to, as a business proposition. A messenger is paid to do what he does, otherwise the messenger company would only hire drivers. I understand why he bends the rules the way he does during the course of his work. It is simple capitalism. He is good at messenging and people pay for his services, no harm, no foul, in my opinion. But he hardly advocates this position in his book. The closest thing to a "recommendation" is an acknowledgement that bicycles have an advantage in traffic and it is not always wrong to take advantage. He actually explicitly says that many cyclists take too much advantage of these liberties. And he give you credit, saying your book was a breath of fresh air on the subject.


I am one of those who considers that simple capitalism requires some regulation for the public good.

There are two kinds of unlawful cycling: one kind is the result of typical ignorance, the other kind is blatant, in your face, unlawful operation. Both are undesirable.
Indeed, but whether a given approach is socially undesirable is not relevant to the question at hand: how safe is it compared to VC? In particular: is there any evidence that an experienced messenger is more or less safe per mile or hour of bicycling than is a typical experienced vehicular cyclist?