it's not BS to some of the VC elite, Al. Forester, Serge, and a few others here all have social, legal and even psychological theories and goals tied up with their riding theories and advocacy. there are those components to foresterite brand VC, no doubt. the meeting in another thread with the yelling foresterite trying to keep bike facilities from the roadway is a great example of political and social obstructionism.

what about john, steve, and serge, Al? they advocate greater acceptance of riders on the roads by more people vehicular cycling. VCism is a political platform... it's a pretty lame advocacy platform, IMO.

Lame, to forcefeed drivers a small minority of bicyclists to begrudge acceptance of riders on the roads, versus driver education, public service announcements, bike infrastructure...


Its the old, do we work within the system or fight outside the system argument

it's not BS to some of the VC elite, Al. Forester, Serge, and a few others here all have social, legal and even psychological theories and goals tied up with their riding theories and advocacy. there are those components to foresterite brand VC, no doubt.
Where do those theories say to ride so as to unneccessarily block faster traffic for political or advocacy reasons?

Al

But six, based on other recent dicussions, you seem disregard these exceptions to the point you believe that a cyclist should not ride on a road with a narrow lane, including roads with multiple lanes.
This is a product of preconcieved notions. I've been pedalling around the countryside for a couple of decades, and I have always tried to stay out of the way of other road users. This has worked quite well, as I have never been struck by a car and have very, very rarely been yelled or honked at.

But that's apparently not good enough for VCers, who have for some odd reason decided that the solution to decades of trouble-free cycling is to ride around in the middle of the road -- excuse me, "take the lane" -- regardless of who it pisses off.

Am I saying that you should never ride on narrow roads? Of course not. I'm merely pointing out that intentionally holding up other road users is rude and has no demonstrable benefits. I have put in countless miles on narrow roads, and have always ridden as far to the right as is safe and practical. My experience has been that the great majority of motorists will be courteous and safe, as long as the cyclist is doing his part as well -- and that means truly "sharing the road", not taking over the whole thing in the name of VC.

But hey, maybe I'm all wrong. Maybe VC really is the key to safe cycling. So all you need to do, then, is prove it.

al, it is advocating riding styles at the expense of infrastructure and public awareness campaigns that is the flaw of vc bike advocacy. the end result of flawed communications and disputes between what is best for the bicycling community as a whole, leaving the bike community split and innefective. see the thread by roody about the jackstrap in Lansing that was adamant all he needed was nothing. And vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane, despite the vehement vc protestations of this fact.

trying to dictate the only accomodation needed on high speed arterials is my grandmother tootling along on an Electra in the middle of a narrow lane is NOT effective for advancing bicycling in a community.

vc at the expense of bike infrastructure and driver ed, public service campaigns is a pretty weak platform for advancing bicycling in communities.

trying to dictate the only accomodation needed on high speed arterials is my grandmother tootling along on an Electra in the middle of a narrow lane is NOT effective for advancing bicycling in a community.


The day the grandmas all come out and start tootling along on their Electras in the middle of high-speed narrow lanes in busy traffic is the day I will accept John Forester(TM) Brand Vehicular Cycling.

Until then, if it's only macho guys with huge thighs and the ability to go 25 mph (no matter that you can tell they're totally running for their lives to go that fast), I'll take a pass on adopting JF(TM)BVC.

al, it is advocating riding styles at the expense of infrastructure and public awareness campaigns that is the flaw of vc bike advocacy. the end result of flawed communications and disputes between what is best for the bicycling community as a whole, leaving the bike community split and innefective. see the thread by roody about the jackstrap in Lansing that was adamant all he needed was nothing. And vehicular cyclists can ride vehicularily in a bike lane, despite the vehement vc protestations of this fact.

trying to dictate the only accomodation needed on high speed arterials is my grandmother tootling along on an Electra in the middle of a narrow lane is NOT effective for advancing bicycling in a community.

vc at the expense of bike infrastructure and driver ed, public service campaigns is a pretty weak platform for advancing bicycling in communities.

Vehicular cycling is not a system for unnecessarily delaying other traffic for either ideological or political reasons. It is a system for cooperating with other drivers for our mutual safety and convenience.

Furthermore, this is not "advocating riding styles at the expense of infrastructure", or at "the expense of bike infrastructure and driver ed, public service campaigns". It is you anti-motorists who insist on describing vehicular cycling in such nasty terms as you often use. You anti-motorists either do not have the wits to understand that you are not advocating for cyclists, or you have the argumentative urge to falsify in the cause of your anti-motoring ideology.

You have committed yourselves to advocating the specific system that was invented by motorists to keep cyclists where motorists think they belong. You do not argue that cyclists should operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and that society should treat cyclists as drivers of vehicles, which is good advocacy for cyclists. You have committed yourselves to advocating the motorist-invented bikeway system, specially bike lanes, because you believe that it is the most effective way to reduce motoring. You believe this for either of two reasons, or a mix of the two. One reason is that you believe the superstition, never demonstrated in valid study, that bikeways, most typically bike lanes, make cycling much safer, particularly for beginning cyclists. The other reason is that you don't believe in this superstition, but you believe that this superstition is prevalent among the general motoring public who are your target audience.

In short, you not only have to prevaricate about the motorist-invented system that you advocate, because otherwise it would be recognized for the anti-cyclist system that it is, but you also choose to prevaricate about the pro-cyclist system that would do good for cyclists. Talk about creating disagreement and antagonism among the cycling community; you anti-motorists have been the source of this for decades.

Vehicular cycling is not a system for unnecessarily delaying other traffic for either ideological or political reasons. It is a system for cooperating with other drivers for our mutual safety and convenience.

Furthermore, this is not "advocating riding styles at the expense of infrastructure", or at "the expense of bike infrastructure and driver ed, public service campaigns". It is you anti-motorists who insist on describing vehicular cycling in such nasty terms as you often use. You anti-motorists either do not have the wits to understand that you are not advocating for cyclists, or you have the argumentative urge to falsify in the cause of your anti-motoring ideology.

You have committed yourselves to advocating the specific system that was invented by motorists to keep cyclists where motorists think they belong. You do not argue that cyclists should operate according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, and that society should treat cyclists as drivers of vehicles, which is good advocacy for cyclists. You have committed yourselves to advocating the motorist-invented bikeway system, specially bike lanes, because you believe that it is the most effective way to reduce motoring. You believe this for either of two reasons, or a mix of the two. One reason is that you believe the superstition, never demonstrated in valid study, that bikeways, most typically bike lanes, make cycling much safer, particularly for beginning cyclists. The other reason is that you don't believe in this superstition, but you believe that this superstition is prevalent among the general motoring public who are your target audience.

In short, you not only have to prevaricate about the motorist-invented system that you advocate, because otherwise it would be recognized for the anti-cyclist system that it is, but you also choose to prevaricate about the pro-cyclist system that would do good for cyclists. Talk about creating disagreement and antagonism among the cycling community; you anti-motorists have been the source of this for decades.
Very well written. Obviously proof read and edited; I almost reached for my thesaurus. If I'd never actually ridden a bicycle you would have an instant fan.

The problem is that I have ridden a bicycle, and it all boils down to a very simple concept: you're in the way, and you think that's a good thing. Most experienced cyclists disagree, and with good reason.

Very well written. Obviously proof read and edited; I almost reached for my thesaurus. If I'd never actually ridden a bicycle you would have an instant fan.
well honed from years of mindless rote repetition

What happened to "Can't we all get along?", cupcake?

1. I don't waste time attempting to get along with idiots

2. I don't know who you're talking to, but cupcake (http://www.bikeforums.net/member.php?u=66022) is someone else

boy, john protests a lot against my railings. makes me think I'm onto something :D that can erode his tired little delusion-laden diatribe.

not his insufferable self of course; he'll die before admitting bike infrastructure can have clear and demonstrable benefits to even the most experienced bicyclists on the road. but his obsessive need to spew quixotic delusional rants against common sense is very telling.

1. I don't waste time attempting to get along with idiots

2. I don't know who you're talking to, but cupcake (http://www.bikeforums.net/member.php?u=66022) is someone else
I think he thinks you are a woman!;)

Very well written. Obviously proof read and edited; I almost reached for my thesaurus. If I'd never actually ridden a bicycle you would have an instant fan.

The problem is that I have ridden a bicycle, and it all boils down to a very simple concept: you're in the way, and you think that's a good thing. Most experienced cyclists disagree, and with good reason.

It seems to me that the anti-motorists want to impede motoring, so that they impute that desire onto vehicular cyclists. Your argument is just plain false.

no, john, people you consider anti-motorists are actually pro-cyclist, that want to encourage cycling.

you, however, seem to have a vested interest in stifling populist developments in bicycling infrastructure that has been proven to increase cycling in cities around the world.

some european cities pulled their communities away from a growing autocentric dystopian road use and into a 40 percent modal split due in no small part to bike infrastructure. plueaze. your petty dismissal of the european model is lame.

cities in america that are suffering from sprawl and suburbs can benefit cycling greatly with the addition of bike infrastructure along arterials and other inducements to cycling; even the most experienced cyclist can take advantage of bike infrastructure to cross sprawling american cities. your dismissal of american bike infrastructure by petty complaints of 'dual rules' or faulting the use of facilites by 'incompetent beginners' is very lame.

It seems to me that the anti-motorists want to impede motoring, so that they impute that desire onto vehicular cyclists. Your argument is just plain false.

How about if "pro-cyclists" really just want roads that suit cyclists... for instance 50 MPH arterials are not an ideal environment for even the most adherent VC cyclist.

Is asking for lowered speed limits and traffic calming so "anti motorist?"

no, john, people you consider anti-motorists are actually pro-cyclist, that want to encourage cycling.

you, however, seem to have a vested interest in stifling populist developments in bicycling infrastructure that has been proven to increase cycling in cities around the world.

some european cities pulled their communities away from a growing autocentric dystopian road use and into a 40 percent modal split due in no small part to bike infrastructure. plueaze. your petty dismissal of the european model is lame.

cities in america that are suffering from sprawl and suburbs can benefit cycling greatly with the addition of bike infrastructure along arterials and other inducements to cycling; even the most experienced cyclist can take advantage of bike infrastructure to cross sprawling american cities. your dismissal of american bike infrastructure by petty complaints of 'dual rules' or faulting the use of facilites by 'incompetent beginners' is very lame.

If you self-named bicycle advocates wanted to do good things for cyclists you would be advocating such items as improving the skills of cyclists, which is about the best thing that can be done for cyclists. Instead, you denigrate that because the system that you advocate was designed to restrict cyclists to the side of the road because they were deemed incompetent. If you self-named bicycle advocates chose to do good things for cyclists you would be advocating wide outside lanes that provide the width without the legal and status complications of bike lanes. If you self-named bicycle advocates wanted to do good things for cyclists, you would be standing up for cyclists' rights as drivers of vehicles.

Since you do none of these things, and in contrast vociferously advocate the system designed by motorists to control cyclists, I cannot see you people as being pro-cyclist.

All the Euroean cities about which you heap praise for the correlation of bicycling with bikeways had far greater proportions of bicycle traffic before any bikeways were built. Those cities and the social life that they developed are suited to bicycle transportation, ours are not so suited. And, even in those cities, the proportion of motoring has been growing, particularly in the outer areas of new development, just as in the American model.

How about if "pro-cyclists" really just want roads that suit cyclists... for instance 50 MPH arterials are not an ideal environment for even the most adherent VC cyclist.

Is asking for lowered speed limits and traffic calming so "anti motorist?"

What in particular is wrong with a 50 mph arterial? I have cycled on roads with speed limits of 45, 50, 65 mph, without any particular problem. The most significant problem that I have felt is wind blast from fast large vehicles. It appears that you are stating some condition as presenting a problem, while concealing whatever may be the real problem.

How about if "pro-cyclists" really just want roads that suit cyclists... for instance 50 MPH arterials are not an ideal environment for even the most adherent VC cyclist.

Is asking for lowered speed limits and traffic calming so "anti motorist?"

No, it's not! lowered speeds, traffic calming, cycling infrastructure, complete streets, bike paths and more all should be a part of roadway design in the 21st century. it's not anti-mtoring. it's PRO-human-powered vehicles and pedestrian design that takes back the streets to create places more welcoming for people, not automobiles. makes sense to me.

john, you ask what is wrong with a 50 mile arterial and yet you profess to have a grasp of bicycling advocacy.

you are remarkably out of touch with bicyclists, john. flawed misunderstanding. you can chestbeat your alledged abilities all you want, i doubt you ride much anymore, certainly not as a transportationalist. when's the last time you rode your bike with a load of groceries at 11 miles an hour on a 60 MPH arterial?

have you even done that? doubtful.

sure, chestbeat your 'skills' all you want john, it shows how out of touch with the bicycling contingent in america you really are.

personally, I have no problems taking the lane on any road; however, i understand my fellow riders and know there are many levels of comfort and ability on the roads between rank 'incompetence' and followers of johns' mythic skillset of traffic 'competency.'

john, you ask what is wrong with a 50 mile arterial and yet you profess to have a grasp of bicycling advocacy.

you are remarkably out of touch with bicyclists, john. flawed misunderstanding. you can chestbeat your alledged abilities all you want, i doubt you ride much anymore, certainly not as a transportationalist. when's the last time you rode your bike with a load of groceries at 11 miles an hour on a 60 MPH arterial?

have you even done that? doubtful.

sure, chestbeat your 'skills' all you want john, it shows how out of touch with the bicycling contingent in america you really are.

personally, I have no problems taking the lane on any road; however, i understand my fellow riders and know there are many levels of comfort and ability on the roads between rank 'incompetence' and followers of johns' mythic skillset of traffic 'competency.'

About 10 years ago, along El Camino Real between Palo Alto and Sunnyvale, though the traffic speed is about 50 mph rather than 60. And at night, too. Though I was carrying books and binders of documents rather than groceries on that trip; just as heavy as groceries. And, Bekologist, I have seen you give a written admission that you have a financial interest in the bicycle industry; the reasoning that you present is just about par for members of that industry, both in purpose and in accuracy.

wow, john, a decade ago? in palo alto? so, you've been driving transportationally since then?

you are remarkably out of touch with american bicyclists. your message of skills over infrastructure adds nothing, and stands in the way of greater acceptance of bicycles as transportation in america.

its quite sad to see someone like john turned into a quixotic obstructionist.

wow, john, a decade ago? in palo alto? so, you've been driving transportationally since then?

you are remarkably out of touch with american bicyclists. your message of skills over infrastructure adds nothing, and stands in the way of greater acceptance of bicycles as transportation in america.

its quite sad to see someone like john turned into a quixotic obstructionist.

I do not at this time have particular reason to cycle for transportation. All my present activities to which I need transportation cannot be done or reached by bicycle. But that does not diminish the knowledge that I have acquired over a near lifetime of cycling for transportation, recreation, racing, and investigation. The knowledge is still there.

wow, john, a decade ago? in palo alto? so, you've been driving transportationally since then?

you are remarkably out of touch with american bicyclists. your message of skills over infrastructure adds nothing, and stands in the way of greater acceptance of bicycles as transportation in america.

its quite sad to see someone like john turned into a quixotic obstructionist.

[ I've edited out a request to take part of this discussion offlist, which I made in a burst of cranky irritation ]

But here on the forum I'll make a few statements in response:

1) John Forester and I don't have a whole lot in common with respect to questions of urban design or policy. Every single communication he has directed at me has been a criticism, so I'm far from a Forester sycophant.

2) John Forester has done more for protecting the rights of cyclists to the road in the United States than
any individual of whom I'm aware. Every serious cyclist in the US owes a debt of gratitude to those California cyclists from the 1960s who provided input into the legal status of cyclists. If not for them the status of the bicycle as a toy would've been codified into American law.

3) The whole concept of "effective cycling" was devised by Forester based on the tradition of road cycling. His book continues to be the best single textbook of cycling.

4) John Forester is getting older. I'm 56 years old, and while I'm still an active commuter and tourist, I can visualize a time when I can travel less distance under my own power. The statement Forester made about his lifetime of of experience is dead on target. Learn from the experience of cyclists before you or act like, and be treated like, a doofus.

5) If you feel up to it, I'd invite you to write a textbook on the proper manner of cycling on bike lanes and bike paths. I haven't seen a single work by advocates of bike lanes which explains how to properly handle intersection conflicts, or how to consistently and safely move along at the 20 miles per hour possible on a commute or tour using VC principles.

2) John Forester has done more for protecting the rights of cyclists to the road in the United States than
any individual of whom I'm aware. Every serious cyclist in the US owes a debt of gratitude to those California cyclists from the 1960s who provided input into the legal status of cyclists. If not for them the status of the bicycle as a toy would've been codified into American law.

3) The whole concept of "effective cycling" was devised by Forester based on the tradition of road cycling. His book continues to be the best single textbook of cycling.
No failure for Forester to communicate with a Serious Cyclist like yourself. You really bought into his self promotion pitch; hook, line and sinker.

No failure for Forester to communicate with a Serious Cyclist like yourself. You really bought into his self promotion pitch; hook, line and sinker.

I'd read Forester's book, and learned a bit about his political history in defense of the rights of on-road cycling long before I encountered him in these internet forums. So my exposure to any self promotion on his part would've been through using his book. Based on using his book I take his opinions on cycling policy more seriously than I take most people's notions.

I also think he unneccessarily personalizes debate, often plays up his opposition to bike lanes at the expense of much needed education of motorists, and pushes an opposition to urbanism which has the effect of creating a whole class of enemies for reasons irrelevant to vehicular cycling.

As for me being a "serious cyclist", I cycle because I enjoy it. I've been doing it for a long time (since the 1950's) but I continue to learn something about it every day. It's easier on the environment than automobiles, which is a side benefit, but I don't have any particular political or cultural axe to grind. I bike to work when circumstances allow it, take long rides on the weekends, utility cycle, and tinker with my bikes. I don't make any particular claims to being super-roadie.

But in my experience cycling is more fun and useful if I assert my right to behave in a vehicular manner.

But in my experience cycling is more fun and useful if I assert my right to behave in a vehicular manner.

That you have to "assert" your rights is the issue for me... it tells me that cyclists are not being treated as "drivers of vehicles" but as something less and that you have to "fight" for recognition as an equal road user.

Can you see your grandma "asserting" her rights? How about that quiet spoken neighbor... can you see him or her "asserting" their rights?

What has to be done for America to accept cyclists as equal users of the road, and as part of the transportation solution?

That you have to "assert" your rights is the issue for me... it tells me that cyclists are not being treated as "drivers of vehicles" but as something less and that you have to "fight" for recognition as an equal road user.

Can you see your grandma "asserting" her rights? How about that quiet spoken neighbor... can you see him or her "asserting" their rights?

What has to be done for America to accept cyclists as equal users of the road, and as part of the transportation solution?
I can't think of a single right that doesn't have to be claimed by assertion from time to time. It's the manner in which the world works. In the case of cycling many years of being in the minority with respect to transportation mode has left large segments of the population ignorant of the rights and responsibilities of cyclists.

As for grandma (and I'm certainly old enough to be someone's grandpa) I can't see how creating a situation whereby she has to jockey for position at every intersection is going to enhance her cycling experience.

And the best means to ensure that cyclists are accepted as equal users of road is to learn the techniques and act the part.

I'd read Forester's book, and learned a bit about his political history in defense of the rights of on-road cycling long before I encountered him in these internet forums. So my exposure to any self promotion on his part would've been through using his book. Based on using his book I take his opinions on cycling policy more seriously than I take most people's notions.
I repeat, you certainly have bought into the Forester version of cycling history and Forester's unique and prominent influence on it. Have you read any documents of cycling history, not written by Forester that spoke so glowingly of Forester's shining role that didn't trace back to the same unique source of this "information"?

I repeat, you certainly have bought into the Forester version of cycling history and Forester's unique and prominent influence on it. Have you read any documents of cycling history, not written by Forester that spoke so glowingly of Forester's shining role that didn't trace back to the same unique source of this "information"?

What facts are you disputing?

1) That Forester was the founder of the Effective Cycling program?
2) That Forester wrote Effective Cycling?

Given the dismal state into which road cycling had lapsed by the time I was a child those two accomplishments alone make Forester deserving of a prominent place in the history of U.S. transportational cycling.

What facts are you disputing?

1) That Forester was the founder of the Effective Cycling program?
2) That Forester wrote Effective Cycling?

Given the dismal state into which road cycling had lapsed by the time I was a child those two accomplishments alone make Forester deserving of a prominent place in the history of U.S. transportational cycling.

I agree. he has a place in the history of US transportational cycling. at the present moment, though, his obstructionist, anti-facilities stance limits his effectiveness as an advocate for cyclists in the 21st century. In my opinion.

I agree. he has a place in the history of US transportational cycling. at the present moment, though, his obstructionist, anti-facilities stance limits his effectiveness as an advocate for cyclists in the 21st century. In my opinion.

Right, do all that work then let the new wave of cycling advocates come in and reverse it all without a single objection.

What facts are you disputing?

1) That Forester was the founder of the Effective Cycling program?
2) That Forester wrote Effective Cycling?
Nope dat ain't it.
I repeat, your adulation of John Forester and "his" concepts, as well as your paean to his alleged positive influence on the legal status of cyclists:
"2) John Forester has done more for protecting the rights of cyclists to the road in the United States than
any individual of whom I'm aware. Every serious cyclist in the US owes a debt of gratitude to those California cyclists from the 1960s who provided input into the legal status of cyclists. If not for them the status of the bicycle as a toy would've been codified into American law.

3) The whole concept of "effective cycling" was devised by Forester based on the tradition of road cycling. His book continues to be the best single textbook of cycling."

I can't think of a single right that doesn't have to be claimed by assertion from time to time. It's the manner in which the world works. In the case of cycling many years of being in the minority with respect to transportation mode has left large segments of the population ignorant of the rights and responsibilities of cyclists.
As for grandma (and I'm certainly old enough to be someone's grandpa) I can't see how creating a situation whereby she has to jockey for position at every intersection is going to enhance her cycling experience.

And the best means to ensure that cyclists are accepted as equal users of road is to learn the techniques and act the part.

The part in bold above is the problem in a nutshell. You have to be assertive due to that problem... remove that ignorance and the problem goes away.

2) John Forester has done more for protecting the rights of cyclists to the road in the United States than
any individual of whom I'm aware. Every serious cyclist in the US owes a debt of gratitude to those California cyclists from the 1960s who provided input into the legal status of cyclists. If not for them the status of the bicycle as a toy would've been codified into American law..

this is debatable. how do you know what "would've" happened? what do you call a serious cyclist?

3) The whole concept of "effective cycling" was devised by Forester based on the tradition of road cycling. His book continues to be the best single textbook of cycling..

well, this is subjective. I got more practical information out of Hurst and others.


5) If you feel up to it, I'd invite you to write a textbook on the proper manner of cycling on bike lanes and bike paths. I haven't seen a single work by advocates of bike lanes which explains how to properly handle intersection conflicts, or how to consistently and safely move along at the 20 miles per hour possible on a commute or tour using VC principles.

I really don't understand the constantly cited "problems" posed by bike lanes and intersections. plan ahead, Merge, don't merge, watch for hooks, use the crosswalk, whatever... it's not that difficult. I rarely reach speeds of 20 MPH, but I feel plenty safe and consistent at 13-15 mph. why do you need a book to know how to be safe and consistently VC at 20 mph?

The part in bold above is the problem in a nutshell. You have to be assertive due to that problem... remove that ignorance and the problem goes away.

Remove ignorance the world over and you have world peace. Good luck, Gene.

Hi, Larry, welcome. I ride from Stone Mountain to downtown Atlanta along the east MARTA rail line through Avondale, Decatur, and Inman Park.

I hope you continue to post here and aren't discouraged that some here are more interested in how you feel about John Forester than finding out more about you and your enjoyment of cycling in Atlanta. If I were you, I'd leave that topic to the perpetual debaters of it, you probably won't change their minds.

I'd love to read more of your posts, though, especially since I have been bike commuting in Atlanta for over a decade, and have ridden my bike and driven a car here since the mid '70's. It's not the hell-hole some people make it out to be, in fact, I find the alternate routes available that bring you though quiet, shaded areas can be very appealing.

What is your experience cycling in the Atlanta area?

Remove ignorance the world over and you have world peace. Good luck, Gene.

I think informing motorists that cyclists do indeed have rights to use any or all of the road is probably easier than "the quest for world peace."

Then again, the ignorance that has been displayed by some world leaders is astounding... :rolleyes:

Hi, Larry, welcome. I ride from Stone Mountain to downtown Atlanta along the east MARTA rail line through Avondale, Decatur, and Inman Park.

I hope you continue to post here and aren't discouraged that some here are more interested in how you feel about John Forester than finding out more about you and your enjoyment of cycling in Atlanta. If I were you, I'd leave that topic to the perpetual debaters of it, you probably won't change their minds.

I'd love to read more of your posts, though, especially since I have been bike commuting in Atlanta for over a decade, and have ridden my bike and driven a car here since the mid '70's. It's not the hell-hole some people make it out to be, in fact, I find the alternate routes available that bring you though quiet, shaded areas can be very appealing.

What is your experience cycling in the Atlanta area?

I've always found Atlanta a pretty good place to cycle. My commute isn't nearly as long as yours (mine is from East Atlanta to downtown, about 8 miles RT) but I retrace part of your route when I ride to Decatur or the Dekalb Farmer's Market. My route takes me through East Atlanta, Ormewood Park (and Glenwood Park if I route that way) and into downtown.

You're correct about the circular nature of this discussion. I periodically get an urge to argue, and quit when it's out of my system. I'll go through two or three more loops, stop enjoying it, and wander over the the Road Cycling, Commuting, or Vintage Bikes forum.

.

I hope you continue to post here and aren't discouraged that some here are more interested in how you feel about John Forester than finding out more about you and your enjoyment of cycling in Atlanta. If I were you, I'd leave that topic to the perpetual debaters of it, you probably won't change their minds.
LBM,
Perhaps you should read what Larry posted on this thread. it wasn't anything about cycling in Atlanta but was an ode to John Forester and his alleged good deeds for Serious Cyclists. How Larry feels about John Forester is exactly what he gratuitously wrote about on this thread. Do you think Larry's posts on this thread on that subject are not debatable? What flawed message are You trying to communicate?

why do you need a book to know how to be safe and consistently VC at 20 mph?

This is a rather odd statement. I take it as obvious when I'm honing my skill at nearly any activity a certain amount of study and guidance is helpful. When I was learning to build cabinets, in addition to working in the field I consulted manuals and textbooks. When I changed careers and entered the wonderful world of unix geekdom I determined which unix guides and language manuals seemed best for each category and studied them.

Do you avoid study?

I think informing motorists that cyclists do indeed have rights to use any or all of the road is probably easier than "the quest for world peace."

It is easy, and it's already being done, and most motorists know it already or tolerate cyclists on the road at least. Why waste your time beating it into their heads trying to covince the small group that didn't listen the first time around?

LBM,
Perhaps you should read what Larry posted on this thread. it wasn't anything about cycling in Atlanta but was an ode to John Forester and his alleged good deeds for Serious Cyclists. How Larry feels about John Forester is exactly what he gratuitously wrote about on this thread. Do you think Larry's posts on this thread on that subject are not debatable? What flawed message are You trying to communicate?

Gratuitously? :) I thought this thread was about vehicular cycling. So if you're referring to the usage of gratuitous I hear most often ("Unneccessary or unwarranted") I'm perplexed. If you mean "given freely" I'll accept it.

And of course anything I write on one of these forums is subject to debate.

It is easy, and it's already being done, and most motorists know it already or tolerate cyclists on the road at least. Why waste your time beating it into their heads trying to covince the small group that didn't listen the first time around?


Really, motorists know this?

Not the many motorists I talk to. Tell you what... the next time you have a chance, have a candid conversation with a group of folks that does not know you as a cyclist. Bring up the price of gas and then suggest that you plan on cycling to work and that you heard that people on bikes can use the road just like people in cars.

Then sit back and listen. Really listen. Don't defend bikes, just listen to motorists talk about the rights of cyclists. At best they tolerate us. At worse we are targets. For the most part cyclists are something to be avoided in any manner... motorists are quite afraid of hitting us and would just as soon we disappeared from the road. Some motorists will do anything to avoid us, even dangerous stupid things that put themselves into danger.

"Tolerate" is not exactly the word I would use for how motorists feel about cyclists.

Don't believe me... ask... candidly.

Heck we even have postings here on BF of cops not knowing the laws and rights... and you think motorists are aware... :rolleyes:

This is a rather odd statement. I take it as obvious when I'm honing my skill at nearly any activity a certain amount of study and guidance is helpful. When I was learning to build cabinets, in addition to working in the field I consulted manuals and textbooks. When I changed careers and entered the wonderful world of unix geekdom I determined which unix guides and language manuals seemed best for each category and studied them.

Do you avoid study?

maybe I should have said "read a certain book by a certain author". safe riding can be learned any number of places other than EC. Following the rules of the road is not that complicated. Inferring that it is is doing a disservice to those not in the Cult.

the rules of the road is not that complicated.
It can be when the stripes on the road tell you to do otherwise and help re-enforce the notion that one shouldn't be following the rules.

Al

If John Forester's work has been such a boon to cycling, why is the state of cycling in the US so dismal?

If John Forester's work has been such a boon to cycling, why is the state of cycling in the US so dismal?
There are two points I think you need to mull over. One is that Forester (and by extension those of us favoring vehicular cycling) has been losing the argument among the public. Most people associate advances in cycling with seperate facilities.

Secondly, and despite the first observation I've made, the state of cycling in the U.S. is quite good in my assessment. The roads in my area tend to be smooth and the laws largely work in favor of efficient cycling (with a few notable exceptions). If I thought the state of cycling were dismal here I wouldn't be doing it. I don't have much of a tendency to masochism, and if I didn't enjoy cycling I'd stop doing it.

Gratuitously? :) I thought this thread was about vehicular cycling. So if you're referring to the usage of gratuitous I hear most often ("Unneccessary or unwarranted") I'm perplexed. If you mean "given freely" I'll accept it.

And of course anything I write on one of these forums is subject to debate.
Consider it done. "Given Freely" it is.

I'm glad you are willing to debate your ideas. Others brag about ignoring those who don't tell them what they want to hear.