View Full Version : Does John Forester still ride a bike?
Pages :
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
[
10]
11
Helmet Head
08-17-07, 01:51 PM
Well you hit the nail on the head with the issue of why 1999 vrs today... really the 30+ years since JF wrote his book and today is indeed where there have been massive changes.
:rolleyes:
MASSIVE changes? That impact how you ride? Oh, please. I rode 30 years ago, and I ride today. Traffic is traffic. The main difference is that there are probably fewer drunk drivers out there today than there were 30 years ago.
MASSIVE changes? That impact how you ride? Oh, please. I rode 30 years ago, and I ride today. Traffic is traffic. The main difference is that there are probably fewer drunk drivers out there today than there were 30 years ago.
Today there more larger vehicles moving at faster speeds filled with people that do not feel they are drunk, but according to studies have the same reaction times and cognitive abilities while "glued" to cell phones, the latter which did not exist 30 years ago.
At least 30 years ago when a drunk was pulled over there, it was probably evident that they had been drinking... These days the distractions are far more numerous and just as insidious.
30 years ago even Big Gulps were not even that big.
Pull your head out of the sand.
Well you hit the nail on the head ... However, the "justifications" you offer for cycling are quite limited especially in light of the number of people that do in fact use a bicycle as regular transportation. .
Yes ... Just for clarification, I was stating the justifications that I inferred from reading his (1993) book, not the reasons I personally feel are valid. Although he does have a chapter on commuting., I didn't come away with the impression that he felt that it was generally a good idea.
Yes ... Just for clarification, I was stating the justifications that I inferred from reading his (1993) book, not the reasons I personally feel are valid. Although he does have a chapter on commuting., I didn't come away with the impression that he felt that it was generally a good idea.
Ah OK... I read that as your opinion. Fair enough. JF does allow for commuting, but only among a group he calls voluntary transportational cyclists... young professionals that prefer to ride at high speeds.
See this pdf for more reading. http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf
Helmet Head
08-17-07, 02:58 PM
Today there more larger vehicles moving at faster speeds filled with people that do not feel they are drunk, but according to studies have the same reaction times and cognitive abilities while "glued" to cell phones, the latter which did not exist 30 years ago.
At least 30 years ago when a drunk was pulled over there, it was probably evident that they had been drinking... These days the distractions are far more numerous and just as insidious.
30 years ago even Big Gulps were not even that big.
Pull your head out of the sand.
Right. Like it matters if you're hit by a 2007 "average large sedan" which weighs 4300 lbs vs one from 1990 which weighs 3800 lbs. :rolleyes:
Brakes work better today and the cars handle much better.
How does any of this affect your riding in any signficant way? I said your riding, not your whacked out state of mind.
I-Like-To-Bike
08-17-07, 03:17 PM
Hmmmm, interesting. I assume that this problem would be made considerably worse by rolling terrain and that rural roads are more likely to remain unleveled compared to something like an interstate freeway.
One thing that might mitigate the effect at night would the improved lighting systems of today.
Although I would think that the greater proportion of trucks and other tall vehicles would make the problem worse.
The terrain isn't the issue in this discussion, the issue is vehicle opacity and the inability of high speed motorists to see a bicycle directly in front of it when another vehicle hinders the view until the last possible moment. The "improved lighting systems" of bicyles and/or motor vehicles doesn't alter the laws of physics; light does not pass through opaque objects. You are correct about a high proportion of tall vehicle making the problem worse.
Helmet Head
08-17-07, 04:00 PM
The terrain isn't the issue in this discussion, the issue is vehicle opacity and the inability of high speed motorists to see a bicycle directly in front of it when another vehicle hinders the view until the last possible moment. The "improved lighting systems" of bicyles and/or motor vehicles doesn't alter the laws of physics; light does not pass through opaque objects. You are correct about a high proportion of tall vehicle making the problem worse.
Has a cyclist anywhere ever been hit from behind by a motorist who did not see the cyclist in front of him because he was blocked from doing so by another "opaque" vehicle until momentarily prior to the crash when the opaque vehicle suddenly moved out of the way?
Anywhere? Ever?
Has it happened more than 10 times since the car and bike have co-existed?
The Human Car
08-17-07, 04:16 PM
Yes. We seem to be in some type of arms race to see who can have the most oversized (supersized?) vehicles on the road.
That's good! That is going to be my next sig line, thanks.
joejack951
08-17-07, 04:22 PM
Has a cyclist anywhere ever been hit from behind by a motorist who did not see the cyclist in front of him because he was blocked from doing so by another "opaque" vehicle until momentarily prior to the crash when the opaque vehicle suddenly moved out of the way?
Anywhere? Ever?
Has it happened more than 10 times since the car and bike have co-existed?
It sounds like that's what happened here: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=333558
and here: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=326762
I know that ILTB has some experience with the situation as well.
Right. Like it matters if you're hit by a 2007 "average large sedan" which weighs 4300 lbs vs one from 1990 which weighs 3800 lbs. :rolleyes:
Brakes work better today and the cars handle much better.
How does any of this affect your riding in any signficant way? I said your riding, not your whacked out state of mind.
Well as a matter of fact it does... since the larger vehicles have a way of blocking the vision of both me and the motorists around me of me. And since the handling is better (but the drivers have not improved) they tend to try to make the vehicles act like sports cars and reduce the gaps, and swerve into spots that they may not have otherwise attempted in a poorer handling vehicle. Drivers also tend to underestimate their speeds and the size of their vehicles thus pushing cyclists to react to situations based on these underestimations.
Motorists also become more aggressive when they drive a large SUV type vehicle. Again forcing cyclists to react to this aggression.
It all comes down to cyclists having to compensate for motorists and the same lack of driving skills (that have always existed) while they are now driving larger faster boxes.
Motorists have not improved their skills... and neither have cyclists frankly (myself included) yet the nature of the vehicles on the road has... they are larger and handle better, encouraging motorists to push the envelope just a bit further... and with built in protection devices (air bags, side impact, etc) the motorist is not taking the risk, those outside the vehicle are.
Would you, for instance have driving that California hiway at 100MPH, back in the day of driving your old VW bus? (if it could even go that fast?)
joejack951
08-17-07, 04:36 PM
Forgive me for being a bit young, but how long ago did prescription contact lenses become available? 20 years? I know Lasik is a relatively new thing (maybe 10 years old now?) that has greatly improved the odds that the driver behind you has good eyesight. Knowing how much of a hassle glasses are and how many people live with poor eyesight because they don't want to wear glasses, I think I feel safer now with the contact and Lasik options than I would have 30 years ago considering how much of an impact simply seeing the cyclist can make over not seeing the cyclist.
John Forester
08-17-07, 05:10 PM
Hmm, maybe. But why 1999? The question is the difference between 1970 and current times. Now vehicles are larger, speeds are faster, cell phones and other toys are routinely used by drivers, and society has become ever more auto-centric. A lot has changed even since 1993 -- the copyright of your last book -- which even then appeared to be a bit dated.
Speaking of which, why do you hate environmentalists so much? Environmentalists are the natural allies of biking. Transportational/utility cycling is a natural response to the need to reduce our emissions profile.
As much as I like bikes, if the only reasons we can offer for them being on the road are:
recreational cycling and
fitness cycling
(the only two important justifications I could discern from your book) then bikes should be banned from the roads. You can get recreation out on a bike path somewhere else and you can get fitness training in your own living room.
Why 1999? Because the claim was made that I was out of touch with 21 Century cycling.
Vehicles are larger? Truck size limits have not increased much. My first car, built in 1931, was very large. I drove Cadillacs for years before and after that. Speeds are not that much faster, though average point-to-point travel speed has risen as the result of reduced delays. Cell phones, they are new, but the old-fashioned radio diverted attention also.
Why do I hate environmentalists so much? I think that environmentalists is rather too broad a description; it is more accurate to say that I hate the anti-motoring part of environmentalism. Why them? Part of the answer is quite obvious from these discussions. Instead of actively encouraging people to cycle, they jumped on the motorists' bandwagon with their promotion of the motorists' system for controlling cyclists on the assumption that cyclists must be incompetent. I know a great deal about transportation beyond bicycle transportation, and I see that the anti-motorists spout misinformation at every opportunity, and have been doing so consistently for fifty years.
What you should have gained from my book (but perhaps your reading skills are not up to par?) is that cycling in the vehicular manner is both a legitimate way of travel and is reasonably safe, and that other methods of using the roadway are less useful, more dangerous, and more upsetting to other users. (I admit that I have not discussed the supremely fast system used by bicycle messengers, that has been praised so highly in these forums. I regard that system as actively poisoning our relations with the public [excepting, I suppose, the customers], and I suspect that it may have a high accident rate.) Because cycling is a legitimate, reasonably safe, healthful and enjoyable means of travel, it should be used whenever it is beneficial to the user. I have never limited the benefits of cycling to recreation and physical fitness, as you claim I have.
What I have not put into my books on cycling is the urging to interest people who are not interested, which appears to be the main object of so many of you. I accept that only some people will be interested in using a significant amount of bicycle transportation, and I aim my books at such people.
I-Like-To-Bike
08-17-07, 05:12 PM
Has a cyclist anywhere ever been hit from behind by a motorist who did not see the cyclist in front of him because he was blocked from doing so by another "opaque" vehicle until momentarily prior to the crash when the opaque vehicle suddenly moved out of the way?
Anywhere? Ever?
Has it happened more than 10 times since the car and bike have co-existed?
See http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5089148&postcount=474 , Jack!:mad:
Indyv8a
08-17-07, 05:43 PM
Wow, VC vs. Non-VC is an arrogant circle jerk. you guys spend more time whining and complaining just for sake of exercising anger on someone with whom you disagree. It's nice to know that those of you who have "first hand" evidience that Mr. Forester is full of crap have spent years studying his designs and theories. Do you have studies to back your theories?
And I'm not defending his theories. I tend to think cyclist inferiority could be stated better, but at least it is presented for discussion. Instead of discussion, you jerkwads just ***** because his theory dares to explain a modern phenomemon in a way YOU DO NOT LIKE.
All human theories and ideas have flaws, it's a shame this whole conversation has become a personal vendetta. Mr. Forester has spent a career trying to make your hobby safer and more accepted, so now let us heave him over the fence because your pet project or feelings are hurt? The whole of VC is a bunch of ****** bags bleating at the top of their lungs. Really, pool all of the time and energy you waste attacking people trying to help you and come up with some evidence your not just pulling all of you ideas out of your ass.
Gosh I hate stupid, whiny, "I know I'm right" ****** bags. I hear it enough on the job. I teach teenagers. Can't tell them anything either.
Pissant, obtuse morons.
sbhikes
08-17-07, 05:44 PM
As much as I like bikes, if the only reasons we can offer for them being on the road are:
recreational cycling and
fitness cycling
(the only two important justifications I could discern from your book) then bikes should be banned from the roads. You can get recreation out on a bike path somewhere else and you can get fitness training in your own living room.
This is brilliantly to the heart of it, isn't it? Most motorists are resentful of ANYBODY on a bicycle who slows them down because they all believe we're just recreating or exercising, and therefore it's for "no reason". They do not think we are taking care of "important business" like they always believe themselves to be doing. They think we're impeding their way for nothing more than play time. Even if we tell them it's because the side of the road is too dangerous, since it's just play time, why don't we go play somewhere safer and leave the roads to the big boys?
This is why VC and equating "taking the lane" as "standing up for our rights" is not sufficient or effective. You need something legal and tangible to tell drivers bikes belong on the road, regardless of why they are there, and nothing does that better than marking up the roadway with clear, unequivocal indicators of our rights to be there. THIS is what we should be seeking.
The Human Car
08-17-07, 06:41 PM
Wow, VC vs. Non-VC is an arrogant circle jerk. you guys spend more time whining and complaining just for sake of exercising anger on someone with whom you disagree. It's nice to know that those of you who have "first hand" evidience that Mr. Forester is full of crap have spent years studying his designs and theories. Do you have studies to back your theories?
And I'm not defending his theories. I tend to think cyclist inferiority could be stated better, but at least it is presented for discussion. Instead of discussion, you jerkwads just ***** because his theory dares to explain a modern phenomemon in a way YOU DO NOT LIKE.
All human theories and ideas have flaws, it's a shame this whole conversation has become a personal vendetta. Mr. Forester has spent a career trying to make your hobby safer and more accepted, so now let us heave him over the fence because your pet project or feelings are hurt? The whole of VC is a bunch of ****** bags bleating at the top of their lungs. Really, pool all of the time and energy you waste attacking people trying to help you and come up with some evidence your not just pulling all of you ideas out of your ass.
Gosh I hate stupid, whiny, "I know I'm right" ****** bags. I hear it enough on the job. I teach teenagers. Can't tell them anything either.
Pissant, obtuse morons.
but perhaps your reading skills are not up to par?
There is NO proof that JF theories make cycling any safer.
It is all a bunch of Gosh I hate stupid, whiny, "I know I'm right" ****** bags.
on both sides of the fence.
Why 1999? Because the claim was made that I was out of touch with 21 Century cycling.
An artificial date... while technically the 21st century began on the calender date, the advent of the 21st century began before that, (just as the 20th century was hailed in the late 1890s with introductions in technology such as the telephone and the motorcar), and the issues we are discussing primarily began in the late 1980s with the changes for instance in cycling technology such as SIS, and slightly later with the introduction of SUVs in the 1990s, and cell phones becoming common place in the mid 1990s. Walled communities with feeder highspeed mulilaned arterials were becoming commonplace in the mid 1980s. So while the 21st century technically occurred at the change of the calender, the changes effecting cyclists began prior to the turn of the century.
Vehicles are larger? Truck size limits have not increased much. My first car, built in 1931, was very large. I drove Cadillacs for years before and after that. Speeds are not that much faster, though average point-to-point travel speed has risen as the result of reduced delays. Cell phones, they are new, but the old-fashioned radio diverted attention also.
And back in your young age, the typical mother did not drive a vehicle larger (and taller) than your Cadillac with performance characteristics that made your old truck look like a farm tractor. SUVs have hit the motoring landscape by storm due to a loophole in the CAFE standards that allowed for "trucks" to have different emission standards. The large size of the vehicles was falsely perceived as being safer by the general public which lead to quick uptake by that public.
Also having changed since the mid '70s is the Right turn on Red rules which have now been adopted by every state in the Union. Prior to that, a cyclist or pedestrian could depend on motorists to remain stopped at a light. Such adoption was largely pushed during the gas crisis of the mid '70s.
While motoring speeds have not changed "that much," the performance characteristics of the average auto have allowed average speeds and faster acceleration to be higher than the speeds of the mid '70s (especially considering the national speed limit of 55 which existed in 1974) and certainly much higher than those of 1931.
Your comparison of a one way form of broadcast radio to the two way form of cellular communication is quite laughable; the auto radio while having some distraction factor, comes no where close to the distraction of having to respond to a two way remote conversation, which has been shown in many studies to result in reaction times and cognitive abilities of a drunk driver.
What I have not put into my books on cycling is the urging to interest people who are not interested, which appears to be the main object of so many of you. I accept that only some people will be interested in using a significant amount of bicycle transportation, and I aim my books at such people.
The problem with that last statement is that some 40% of the trips in the US are of 2 miles or less distance... encouragement of cycling as a viable regular means of short trip accomplishment would reduce the dependence on oil, allow for the potential of cleaner air, and possibly reduce the overabundant waistlines of the nation. Rather glorious proclamations to be sure, but the prevailing attitude is that the car is king, which has lead to such silly things as young mothers driving their children just blocks to school. As early as the '70s (and certainly the '50s) single car families were the norm, with children walking to schools or riding bikes.
A reflection of this can be seen in the very dated films/videos that show in fact the vehicular cycling style as the preferred and desired method for children to ride bicycles.
The Automotive industry is perhaps as much to blame as anything with their push to put a car (or two) in every garage... of course the laziness of the typical American can also be to blame as well as the perceived "prestige" of owning your very own motor car.
The "ultimate solution" (perhaps pushed by those involved in the auto industry or involved in it (such as AAA) has been the introduction of bike lanes... which you have rightly indicated were primarily devised to move cyclists out of the way. However, you John Forester perhaps have had as strong a hand in the advent of Bike Lanes with your push for some of the legislation that will pushing for rights of cyclists on the roads, has also introduced a set of laws that restrict cyclists to the side of the road except in the case of various exceptions. These laws or their model have enabled what those associated with "autocentric" thinking to devise the "solution" of Bike Lanes. Inadvertently you handed the keys of the "Bike Lane kingdom" to those that see the auto driver as the master of the roadway.
The real irony is that while vehicular depends on the "rules of the road," with laws granting the rights to th road for cyclists, vehicular cycling depends on the co-operation of motorists... Bike lanes also depend on laws and co-operation of motorists... meaning that either system does not stand alone, but depends on motorists understanding their responsibilities toward cyclists within the bounds of the law.
Indyv8a
08-17-07, 06:56 PM
Mr. Forester has spent a career trying to make your hobby safer and more accepted
I acknowledge the lack of detailed proof. I just can't stand all the arrogant, insipid, bomb-throwing, mine-is-bigger-than-yours, virtual screaming. If you don't believe Mr. Forester is correct, fine. You're allowed. It's the "just because neither of the us have proof you're a c0cksucker!" crap. I usually avoid these posts, but had a need to vent my spleen.
Why 1999? Because the claim was made that I was out of touch with 21 Century cycling.
So, are you doing much cycling in the 21st century? Apparently not if you don't recognize that about 80% of the vehicles on the road are supersized SUV's essentially trucks without the benefit of certified truck drivers behind the wheels. These vehicles are wider and taller than previous vehicles -- even taller than your 1931 Cadillac.
Cell phones, they are new, but the old-fashioned radio diverted attention also.
Way out of touch again if you think there isn't a difference between the concentration needed to casually listen to a radio and the intense concentration needed to engage in a converation. Once again, if you were riding on the road you would see this in daily experience. A class case occurred to me two years ago. I "took the lane" on a two lane road with bad pavement and a large door zone. This van behind me started honking. There is no place for me to go (except the door zone). I turn and see this lady ... yapping on her phone ... with a full lane to her right that she could move into. But of course, that would have meant interrupting her precious phone conversation.
Why do I hate environmentalists so much? I think that environmentalists is rather too broad a description; it is more accurate to say that I hate the anti-motoring part of environmentalism.
Well, since most of us don't run factories, the main thing that individuals can do about the environment is change their transporation habits. If you don't recognize the down-size to our auto-centric world -- global warming, smog-filled skies, and international wars -- you're probably not much of an environmentalist.
In any event, apparently you instantly rejected all environmentalism because you perceived that some would advocate on behalf of bike lanes. The idea that you hate "anti-motoring" environmentalists because they side with motorists is an extremely ironic non-sequitur. What you appear to really hate is seeing more cyclists on the road. Or "butts on bikes", as you say.
What you should have gained from my book (but perhaps your reading skills are not up to par?)
Whoa. I can see why they call you "Mr. Personality".
Its been a year, but what I can remember from my sub-par reading skills are:
There was a long discussion about putting salts in your drinking water. You didn't seem to know that Gatorade had been discovered in 1965
"Bents" have no future
A section on ankling. Sheldon Brown (someone who actually bikes) has refuted this concept.
Mirrors are useless. Funny, you call it "Vehicular Cycling" and yet you don't expect the same equipment that all motorized vehicles must have. Do you still feel that way now that you're older and presumably stiffer?
A 3" diameter reflector of your specifications is sufficient for all needs.
Bright clothes are unimportant for night cycling
A 3 watt light is sufficient for night time cycling
A long embarrassing part about romance and cycling
Actually, the part about how to ride in traffic was pretty good though short. I think if you could get Bekologist to read it he might even agree with the basic concepts.
It was just when you got to the political stuff that everything bogged down.
I have never limited the benefits of cycling to recreation and physical fitness, as you claim I have.But they seem to be your main emphasis. Your modern writings reflect the same:
The involuntary cyclists are those who have little other choice for
personal transportation. Such are those under driving age, those
attending universities where they either do not have cars or where
motoring to campus is restricted, those without sufficient money to
afford motoring, those unable to obtain or retain a motoring
licence, those who live in the few American urban centers where
motoring is very inconvenient. These are all niches with little
significance.
How did you decide that "involuntary" cyclists, that might represent 80% of all transportational cyclists, represent "niches with little significance" ? If people are too poor to own a car, is their life therefore worth less? Does CAR=PERSONAL WORTH?
Cycling should be for everyone -- not just yuppies with too much time on their hands.
Wow, VC vs. Non-VC is an arrogant circle jerk. you guys spend more time whining and complaining just for sake of exercising anger on someone with whom you disagree. It's nice to know that those of you who have "first hand" evidience that Mr. Forester is full of crap have spent years studying his designs and theories. Do you have studies to back your theories?.
oh, come on, man Forester doesn't even have studies to back his theories.
And I'm not defending his theories. I tend to think cyclist inferiority could be stated better, but at least it is presented for discussion. Instead of discussion, you jerkwads just ***** because his theory dares to explain a modern phenomemon in a way YOU DO NOT LIKE..
nah, we jerkwads attack his theories because they're full of crap.
All human theories and ideas have flaws, it's a shame this whole conversation has become a personal vendetta. Mr. Forester has spent a career trying to make your hobby safer and more accepted, so now let us heave him over the fence because your pet project or feelings are hurt? The whole of VC is a bunch of ****** bags bleating at the top of their lungs. Really, pool all of the time and energy you waste attacking people trying to help you and come up with some evidence your not just pulling all of you ideas out of your ass..
oh, man, another misconception. Forester and his followers have not spent years and careers trying to make cyclists safer and more accepted... just the opposite. they've made it more difficult by standing in the way of facilities that could help more people enjoy more cycling in more places.
Gosh I hate stupid, whiny, "I know I'm right" ****** bags. I hear it enough on the job. I teach teenagers. Can't tell them anything either..
wow, I bet you're a great teacher. calm down, beavus. it's only the internets.
Pissant, obtuse morons.
right back at you!
hope you got it off your chest.
I-Like-To-Bike
08-17-07, 07:15 PM
I acknowledge the lack of detailed proof. I just can't stand all the arrogant, insipid, bomb-throwing, mine-is-bigger-than-yours, virtual screaming. If you don't believe Mr. Forester is correct, fine. You're allowed. It's the "just because neither of the us have proof you're a c0cksucker!" crap. I usually avoid these posts, but had a need to vent my spleen.
That's OK, Bro. Venting your spleen (and your cutsie post at http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5093465&postcount=42400 ) just indicates you are right on with the description about at least one poster with no proof of any kind (detailed or otherwise) about a position he is ardently defending.
Indyv8a
08-17-07, 09:04 PM
Do tell. You mean you have detailed studies to back up your theories? I'll I said is you guys are loud, rude, and hostile. That is my opinion. Oh, and I acknowledged in another post that this would get your dander up. Amazing isn't it, that as I typed the whole thing I knew that you would be one to be all offended.
I also admitted in my next post that I was ranting. Rants are emotional responses. But of course, you are not being emotional. Just purely rational.:rolleyes:
Do tell. You mean you have detailed studies to back up your theories? I'll I said is you guys are loud, rude, and hostile. That is my opinion. Oh, and I acknowledged in another post that this would get your dander up. Amazing isn't it, that as I typed the whole thing I knew that you would be one to be all offended.
I also admitted in my next post that I was ranting. Rants are emotional responses. But of course, you are not being emotional. Just purely rational.:rolleyes:
OK not a rant... which studies do you wish to see backed up... those regarding the increased percent of bigger vehicles on the road since the 70's? Those regarding the distractive factor of the cell phone, or those that show that road speeds are up since the mid 70s? Or how about the advent of road rage since the mid 80s'? I can do quick searches to prove all of this in seconds... will that cover it?
How about I throw in that the most common type of collisions between motorists are rear end collisions that occur due primarily because of distraction?
All this data is easily retrievable and current.
I-Like-To-Bike
08-17-07, 10:55 PM
Do tell. You mean you have detailed studies to back up your theories? I'll I said is you guys are loud, rude, and hostile. That is my opinion. Oh, and I acknowledged in another post that this would get your dander up. Amazing isn't it, that as I typed the whole thing I knew that you would be one to be all offended.
I also admitted in my next post that I was ranting. Rants are emotional responses. But of course, you are not being emotional. Just purely rational.:rolleyes:
Yes do tell, Jack. Nothing amazing at all, you posted a moronic blast at posters for being skeptical of the WAG's that pass for Forester Brand Science which you apparently accept at face value. The skeptics are not the party promoting a program/theory based on the smoke and mirrors of Forester Brand Science and statistical chicanery. You must have learned how to "prove" theories from your high school students.
The responses have been perfectly rational reactions to a pompous JackAss's gratuitous insults.
All human theories and ideas have flaws, it's a shame this whole conversation has become a personal vendetta. Mr. Forester has spent a career trying to make your hobby safer and more accepted, so now let us heave him over the fence because your pet project or feelings are hurt? The whole of VC is a bunch of ****** bags bleating at the top of their lungs. Really, pool all of the time and energy you waste attacking people trying to help you and come up with some evidence your not just pulling all of you ideas out of your ass.
.
The bottom line is that Bike Lanes and bike paths "interact" with far more cyclists daily than Forester's ideas and books have in the years since his books were written. The possible exceptions to that are the laws in place which he supposedly helped to mold, which frankly are the basis for the design of bike lanes of today.
Ask any cyclist on the road today if they know of vehicular cycling or Effective Cycling, then ask that cyclist if they know what a bike lane is and where the nearest one is.
While BL are far from perfect, they exist and are being used. The energy wasted in this type of debate and the denial of BL is what keeps the cycling community in general a spintered group; rather than having the combined energy and voice to focus and lead our future.
Just look at the LAB and LAB reform. (google them) to see the split. United we stand... divided we fall. The Forester group is against any form of bike lanes... yet many cyclists prefer them and few cyclists are aware of the "teachings of Forester."
Forester has also aligned with a group that feels that roads are for cars and promotes 50-60 MPH roadways for "efficiency." (google American Dream Coalition.)
Again BL are not the perfect answer... but we cyclists will never have the political voice to direct what we really want, as long as we remain so divided.
LittleBigMan
08-18-07, 12:42 AM
There is NO proof that JF theories make cycling any safer.
If you're talking about cooperation with traffic, instead of working at cross-purposes with traffic by creating numerous additional intersections, I'd have to disagree. Eliminating potential traffic conflict has been at the heart of traffic planning strategy for years.
Separate bike paths, for example, while enjoyable for many and quite desireable in certain settings for recreation and cut-throughs, tend to create more conflicts with motorized and pedestrian traffic in dense urban/suburban areas. They are only another option (with exceptions--some roads are so hostile that no other option is economically viable other than a sidepath or shoulder, such as some rural, shoulderless highways that provide the only reasonable option for some cyclists to get from A to B.) But they can't generally substitute for the vast potential cyclists have for accessing as many desired destinations as possible that the road offers. Granted, roads as they are might not be inviting to potential or present cyclists, but that is something that should be addressed directly, instead of assuming that cyclists just need to be separated (with exceptions.)
Now obviously, bike lanes as such are not quite the same as bike paths. Bike lanes use the same roads, which helps eliminate many of the conflicts.
When all is said and done, the important thing is that cyclists are given more options, not fewer. If a facility gives a cyclist another option, great. But simply adding facilities, without also seriously addressing cyclists' needs to use the same roadways safely with cars and trucks, falls short of the big picture.
LittleBigMan
08-18-07, 12:46 AM
I really don't want to hijack this thread so I'll keep it brief.
1. I'm not fat, happen to weigh in at 170lbs. 6ft.
2. I see you didn't address the real meat of my comments.
3. If you are ouchy the clown(apt) then you are the fat ass.
4. I've read many of your posts and you don't seem to make any constuctive statements just insults.
5. My feelings aren't hurt by negative sh*theads, I don't have feelings.
6.I guess I'd better leave the flaming to the professional flamer er attack of the mountian bike fairey.
7. If riding classic bikes makes me a fred I'd better change my name.
8. I don't drive my car to ride my bike. no truck? minivan? widdle wed car for the other clowns?
don't feed the troll ;)
If you're talking about cooperation with traffic, instead of working at cross-purposes with traffic by creating numerous additional intersections, I'd have to disagree. Eliminating potential traffic conflict has been at the heart of traffic planning strategy for years.
Separate bike paths, for example, while enjoyable for many and quite desireable in certain settings for recreation and cut-throughs, tend to create more conflicts with motorized and pedestrian traffic in dense urban/suburban areas. They are only another option (with exceptions--some roads are so hostile that no other option is economically viable other than a sidepath or shoulder, such as some rural, shoulderless highways that provide the only reasonable option for some cyclists to get from A to B.) But they can't generally substitute for the vast potential cyclists have for accessing as many desired destinations as possible that the road offers. Granted, roads as they are might not be inviting to potential or present cyclists, but that is something that should be addressed directly, instead of assuming that cyclists just need to be separated (with exceptions.)
Now obviously, bike lanes as such are not quite the same as bike paths. Bike lanes use the same roads, which helps eliminate many of the conflicts.
When all is said and done, the important thing is that cyclists are given more options, not fewer. If a facility gives a cyclist another option, great. But simply adding facilities, without also seriously addressing cyclists' needs to use the same roadways safely with cars and trucks, falls short of the big picture.
The whole concept hinges on one thing: cooperation with traffic By which you actually mean "cooperation with motorists." As long as there is an adversarial relationship between motorists and cyclists (motorists simply don't like us) then "cooperation" is hardly going to be the result. At best, we are merely "tolerated."
Of course, honestly, that is pretty much how most motorists feel about all the other traffic... as the "joke" goes: "the slow driver in front of you is an ahole, and the speeder tailgating you is a jerk."
Wouldn't be nice if everyone on the road really drove "friendly?"
To paraphrase Forester... We all fare best when we act and are treated well.
Why do I hate environmentalists so much? I think that environmentalists is rather too broad a description; it is more accurate to say that I hate the anti-motoring part of environmentalism. Why them? Part of the answer is quite obvious from these discussions. Instead of actively encouraging people to cycle, they jumped on the motorists' bandwagon with their promotion of the motorists' system for controlling cyclists on the assumption that cyclists must be incompetent. I know a great deal about transportation beyond bicycle transportation, and I see that the anti-motorists spout misinformation at every opportunity, and have been doing so consistently for fifty years.
Isn't this what you do? Ride like a driver?
Cyclist inferiority complex = incompetent cyclists?
John, you jumped on the motorists band wagon. You also call your cycling "vehicular" cycling. You expect cyclists to follow the rules of the road and the act 'vehicularly'. You oppose bike lanes, stressing that bikes should work with the normal flow of traffic, its normal signals, lane markings, etc.
And, to clarify, motorists and anti-motorists alike spout misinformation. Some motorists, governements, and corporations do this at every opportunity.
The Human Car
08-18-07, 07:47 AM
arrogant circle jerk
you jerkwads
stupid, whiny, "I know I'm right" ****** bags.
Pissant, obtuse morons."
arrogant, insipid, bomb-throwing, mine-is-bigger-than-yours, virtual screaming
c0cksucker!" crap.
…
I usually avoid these posts, but had a need to vent my spleen.
I understand the need to vent but I would encourage everyone to part of the solution and not the problem. While Mr. Forester has done a great deal of good he has also done a great deal of bad and that’s just a shame. Mr. Forester’s phobia and fight over bike lanes is not about safety (just a very small decrease for on-road cyclists and a huge increase in safety for sidewalk and wrong way cyclists) it is not about improving engineering for improved safety and comfort of cyclists, it is not about anything that I would consider constructive and helpful.
You live in my neighborhood so let me ask you is Reisterstown Rd heading toward the city a perfectly acceptable bike friendly road? And how frequently do you bike on that road? And would you agree that more roads like Reisterstown Rd are more desirable then roads with bike lanes? This is the problem in implementing the great Forester plan, overstressing just no bike lanes does not result in the best engineering.
The Human Car
08-18-07, 08:06 AM
If you're talking about cooperation with traffic, instead of working at cross-purposes with traffic by creating numerous additional intersections, I'd have to disagree.
Is VC anti-bike trail as well?
My point is there is no study that shows a take the lane VCer fairs any better then a gutter bunny. Just knowing what the potential hazards are is 90% of the solution. I also think we can get far more bang for the buck in trying to educate motorist then sticking with the Forester approved only cyclists need education scheme.
sbhikes
08-18-07, 08:36 AM
The bottom line is that Bike Lanes and bike paths "interact" with far more cyclists daily than Forester's ideas and books have in the years since his books were written. The possible exceptions to that are the laws in place which he supposedly helped to mold, which frankly are the basis for the design of bike lanes of today.
Ask any cyclist on the road today if they know of vehicular cycling or Effective Cycling, then ask that cyclist if they know what a bike lane is and where the nearest one is.
While BL are far from perfect, they exist and are being used. The energy wasted in this type of debate and the denial of BL is what keeps the cycling community in general a spintered group; rather than having the combined energy and voice to focus and lead our future.
Just look at the LAB and LAB reform. (google them) to see the split. United we stand... divided we fall. The Forester group is against any form of bike lanes... yet many cyclists prefer them and few cyclists are aware of the "teachings of Forester."
Forester has also aligned with a group that feels that roads are for cars and promotes 50-60 MPH roadways for "efficiency." (google American Dream Coalition.)
Again BL are not the perfect answer... but we cyclists will never have the political voice to direct what we really want, as long as we remain so divided.
Another brilliant post. Right to the heart of the matter.
Is VC anti-bike trail as well?
My point is there is no study that shows a take the lane VCer fairs any better then a gutter bunny. Just knowing what the potential hazards are is 90% of the solution. I also think we can get far more bang for the buck in trying to educate motorist then sticking with the Forester approved only cyclists need education scheme.
Well certainly we are not going to get the treatment we want, as long as we pretend motorists will "just get it."
Indyv8a
08-18-07, 09:18 AM
THC, Genec, sbh, you are having a reasonable conversation. I appreciate that.
Truthfully, THC, I almost never ride on Reisterstown Road, I don't even like when I have to drive on it. It is truly an overbusy poorly designed accident waiting to happen.
It would be in our best interests as cyclists to stop arguing like, ooh, pissant, obtuse morons, and bring the idea of bicycles as serious vehicles to the general population.
I also think we can get far more bang for the buck in trying to educate motorist then sticking with the Forester approved only cyclists need education scheme.
+ 100000000
We need a comrehensive transportation system that does not focus on method, but on moving from A to B. And to back up the system, we need a realistic and comprehensive and diverse training program that includes bikes, trucks, cars, Winnebagos, pedestrians, school kids, families towing trailers and boats, and even Cadillacs. (not the joke we have now of 'driver education')
The Human Car
08-18-07, 10:31 AM
Truthfully, THC, I almost never ride on Reisterstown Road, I don't even like when I have to drive on it. It is truly an overbusy poorly designed accident waiting to happen.
I really appreciate this comment! Sometimes I just focus on how cyclists see things I forget that motorists see something near identical and this is a very important point for improving road conditions.
Spike3905
08-18-07, 11:12 AM
I really appreciate this comment! Sometimes I just focus on how cyclists see things I forget that motorists see something near identical and this is a very important point for improving road conditions.
This is a really important point that too often gets lost. This is not just a car v. bike thing. The traffic on some streets is so bad that people don't want to drive their cars on them! That's the sign of a dysfunctional transportation system, not just a place that's hostile to bikes.
John Forester
08-18-07, 12:09 PM
[QUOTE=MarkS;5093644]So, are you doing much cycling in the 21st century? Apparently not if you don't recognize that about 80% of the vehicles on the road are supersized SUV's essentially trucks without the benefit of certified truck drivers behind the wheels. These vehicles are wider and taller than previous vehicles -- even taller than your 1931 Cadillac.
===============
Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
Why 1999? Because the claim was made that I was out of touch with 21 Century cycling.
So, are you doing much cycling in the 21st century? Apparently not if you don't recognize that about 80% of the vehicles on the road are supersized SUV's essentially trucks without the benefit of certified truck drivers behind the wheels. These vehicles are wider and taller than previous vehicles -- even taller than your 1931 Cadillac.
Originally Posted by JF
Cell phones, they are new, but the old-fashioned radio diverted attention also.
Way out of touch again if you think there isn't a difference between the concentration needed to casually listen to a radio and the intense concentration needed to engage in a converation. Once again, if you were riding on the road you would see this in daily experience. A class case occurred to me two years ago. I "took the lane" on a two lane road with bad pavement and a large door zone. This van behind me started honking. There is no place for me to go (except the door zone). I turn and see this lady ... yapping on her phone ... with a full lane to her right that she could move into. But of course, that would have meant interrupting her precious phone conversation.
But what you forget was that operating the old-fashioned car radio required considerable attention. That's why I wrote "old-fashioned". And, of course, there was the case in Santa Clara CA county in which a motorist, seeking to pick up her cassette, drove into a family of four cyclists, with fatal consequences.
Originally Posted by JF
Why do I hate environmentalists so much? I think that environmentalists is rather too broad a description; it is more accurate to say that I hate the anti-motoring part of environmentalism.
Well, since most of us don't run factories, the main thing that individuals can do about the environment is change their transporation habits. If you don't recognize the down-size to our auto-centric world -- global warming, smog-filled skies, and international wars -- you're probably not much of an environmentalist.
In any event, apparently you instantly rejected all environmentalism because you perceived that some would advocate on behalf of bike lanes. The idea that you hate "anti-motoring" environmentalists because they side with motorists is an extremely ironic non-sequitur. What you appear to really hate is seeing more cyclists on the road. Or "butts on bikes", as you say.
What I do say is that all cyclists ought to operate in the legal and competent manner and to believe that that is the legitimate, proper, and safe way to operate. I oppose the anti-motoring bicycle activists because their agenda opposes such operating system.
Originally Posted by JF
What you should have gained from my book (but perhaps your reading skills are not up to par?)
Whoa. I can see why they call you "Mr. Personality".
Its been a year, but what I can remember from my sub-par reading skills are:
1. There was a long discussion about putting salts in your drinking water. You didn't seem to know that Gatorade had been discovered in 1965
Whether or not Gatorade had been invented in 1965 is irrelevant, for three reasons. First, it was not a new concept; salt tablets had been issued to workers in hot environments for decades. Second, Gatorade did not become generally available in grocery stores until many years later. Third, I was vilified for recommending salt, sugar, and flavoring in cyclists' drinking water by the health faddists of the time. This was a live discussion, rather like this one. Strange, isn't it, that the science for which I was vilified is now the accepted custom?
2. "Bents" have no future
Some people like them, some don't. They haven't taken over the cycling world as their advocates hoped.
3. A section on ankling. Sheldon Brown (someone who actually bikes) has refuted this concept.
Refuted it? I haven't seen such evidence in Brown's writings. The evidence of more than a century of cycling says that ankling is valuable. Furthermore, the human leg and foot have been developed through evolution for ankling; the appropriate motion when cycling is similar, and provides the same advantages.
4. Mirrors are useless. Funny, you call it "Vehicular Cycling" and yet you don't expect the same equipment that all motorized vehicles must have. Do you still feel that way now that you're older and presumably stiffer?
Mirrors are a convenience item, not a safety item. The argument being advanced was that mirrors are a necessary safety device. Before moving laterally, you still have to turn your head to get a good look at all the area of interest, and turning your head also works as a good signal of your desire, if any other driver is in that area. However, the safety argument placed more emphasis on knowing whether a driver coming up behind you was going to run you over. Considering the large number of overtaking drivers and the difficulty of recognizing which one will run you over, and the need of the cyclist to know the conditions in front of him, it is extremely improbable that the cyclist will actually be looking at such a driver at the time that the cyclist could determine that he was about to be run over.
5. A 3" diameter reflector of your specifications is sufficient for all needs.
It is certainly better than the reflectors that the regulatory agencies specified as sufficient, which was the argument at the time. With the development of LED lights, a brighter rear lamp is now practical, but whether or not such reduce the accident rate has not been determined.
6. Bright clothes are unimportant for night cycling
If you have the bicycle equipment to alert other drivers, you do not need more. Bright clothing? You mean fluorescent yellow, or similar? Or do you mean reflective clothing? You don't seem to know the science at all, do you, either the optical part or the traffic part.
7. A 3 watt light is sufficient for night time cycling
On normal streets, that is correct. 3 watts of incandescence is not adequate for darkened paths. Possibly 3 watts LED would be sufficient for darkened paths. And an acetylene lamp also gives a broader beam than the 3 watt incandescent beam, but is very inconvenient. But, as I have always written, when cycling at night one runs greater risk of punctures caused by objects that one might well have avoided during daylight.
8. A long embarrassing part about romance and cycling
Embarrassing to you? That's very strange, in this forum, because it was an encouraging description of how to live a cycling life and pass that skill and desire on to your children. What could be better?
Actually, the part about how to ride in traffic was pretty good though short. I think if you could get Bekologist to read it he might even agree with the basic concepts.
It was just when you got to the political stuff that everything bogged down.
Originally Posted by JF
I have never limited the benefits of cycling to recreation and physical fitness, as you claim I have.
But they seem to be your main emphasis. Your modern writings reflect the same:
Originally Posted by The Place of Bicycle Transportation in Modern Industrialized Societies by JF
The involuntary cyclists are those who have little other choice for
personal transportation. Such are those under driving age, those
attending universities where they either do not have cars or where
motoring to campus is restricted, those without sufficient money to
afford motoring, those unable to obtain or retain a motoring
licence, those who live in the few American urban centers where
motoring is very inconvenient. These are all niches with little
significance.
How did you decide that "involuntary" cyclists, that might represent 80% of all transportational cyclists, represent "niches with little significance" ? If people are too poor to own a car, is their life therefore worth less? Does CAR=PERSONAL WORTH?
Well, everyone, read this crowning claim from one of your own. That is, 80% of [American] transportational cyclists are those who don't really want to do it, but have to do it because they have no other choice. This does not appear to be a solitary opinion; there have been many statements in this forum reflecting a similar view of bicycle transportation. Which is, of course, exactly contrary to my view that most of the American bicycle transportation is done by people who choose to use bicycle transportation because they enjoy cycling.
Indeed, as is evidence from the description, for many of these the involuntary use of bicycle transportation is short term in a long-term life: university students, those old enough to travel a bit but too young to have a driving license, those too poor to own a car (most of whom are saving up to own a car), those whose driving license has been revoked for cause. In my opinion, it is difficult to interest these people in learning about cycling and in improving cycling, and, guess what, that is exactly the opinion of most of those in this forum.
Cycling should be for everyone -- not just yuppies with too much time on their hands.
I don't disagree at all. However, my opinion is that the socially and governmentally approved method of cycling should be in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles, while the opinion of many on this forum, specifically the bicycle advocates, of whom Mark appears to be one, have the opposite opinion that our society should advocate incompetent cycling because so many people do not want to learn competent cycling. It appears that these bicycle advocates have a vision of bicycle transportation being done in the absence of any training as to how to do it properly, as if, as the motorists put it decades ago, as long as cyclists stay at the edge of the roadway any child will be safe.
Those with such a vision are faced with completely incompatible facts. They refuse to believe in those facts because to believe facts would destroy their vision.
Real wars have real speed limits!
Bekologist
08-18-07, 11:05 PM
john, that rebuttal is virtually unreadable. and you fall, parrotlike, into your flawed, sophistic logic surrounding bicycling infrastructure.
if you can't admit to not riding anymore, that's okay.
but being so out of touch with modern riding and the seriousness of driver distractions like cell phones and text messaging? inexcusable.
Suggesting Acetylene lamps? for first world riding? 3W incandescent systems? quaint. terribly out of touch, john. terrifically, astoundingly out of date.
I strongly encourage and promote your retirement from bicycling advocacy, john.
Real wars have real speed limits!
Catchy.
Was the rest of the stream-of-consciousness supposed to mean anything? Learn to format your posts, man! It is hard to take you seriously when you are unable to show minimal writing and technical skills on forums.
I-Like-To-Bike
08-19-07, 11:06 AM
Catchy.
Was the rest of the stream-of-consciousness supposed to mean anything? Learn to format your posts, man! It is hard to take you seriously when you are unable to show minimal writing and technical skills on forums.
It doesn't get any better with proper formating.
It is hard to take seriously JF's writing on any subject where the conclusions depend on JF Brand Science, JF Brand Interpretations of Law , Psychology and History, and JF Brand Statistical Manipulation/Data Fabrication.
Learn to format your posts, man! It is hard to take you seriously when you are unable to show minimal writing and technical skills on forums.
Remember that cycling and the internet haven't really changed since the 1970's. ;)
The Human Car
08-19-07, 01:26 PM
Remember that cycling and the internet haven't really changed since the 1970's. ;)
+1 ;)
Remember that cycling and the internet haven't really changed since the 1970's. ;)
Why, I remember using the internet back in the '70s, it was as slow as an old Cadillac, what with dial up acoustic modems and all... ;)
But the rules haven't changed a bit since then... :rolleyes:
Why, I remember using the internet back in the '70s, it was as slow as an old Cadillac, what with dial up acoustic modems and all... ;)
But the rules haven't changed a bit since then... :rolleyes:
Was that JFs caddylack of bicycle riding? Sounds like he spent a lot more time in a cage fiddling with that new fangled radio.
3. A section on ankling. Sheldon Brown (someone who actually bikes) has refuted this concept.
Refuted it? I haven't seen such evidence in Brown's writings. The evidence of more than a century of cycling says that ankling is valuable. Furthermore, the human leg and foot have been developed through evolution for ankling; the appropriate motion when cycling is similar, and provides the same advantages.
From http://sheldonbrown.com/gloss_an-z.html#ankling:
Some older cycling books and articles recommend the practice of "ankling." This refers to changing the angle of the foot fairly drastically during the course of the pedal stroke, so that the toe is pointed upward at the top of the stroke, and downward at the bottom. The idea is to make more use of the muscles of the lower leg, and to permit "pedaling in circles", i.e., applying more force to the cranks at top and bottom dead center.
This practice is pretty much discredited these days. If carried to an extreme, it can cause injury. This happened to me when I was a teen-ager ...
6. Bright clothes are unimportant for night cycling
If you have the bicycle equipment to alert other drivers, you do not need more. Bright clothing? You mean fluorescent yellow, or similar? Or do you mean reflective clothing? You don't seem to know the science at all, do you, either the optical part or the traffic part.I believe I'm using the same generic, non-scientific terminology you used in your book.
Its amazing to me that someone involved with "public relations" of any type would instantly resort to insult and abuse.
Bekologist
08-20-07, 08:08 AM
Mark, if you're running jhon forrestor approved :rolleyes: acetylene bike lights, no need for bright clothing!
Brian Ratliff
08-20-07, 11:52 AM
On normal streets, that is correct. 3 watts of incandescence is not adequate for darkened paths. Possibly 3 watts LED would be sufficient for darkened paths. And an acetylene lamp also gives a broader beam than the 3 watt incandescent beam, but is very inconvenient. But, as I have always written, when cycling at night one runs greater risk of punctures caused by objects that one might well have avoided during daylight.
Just so we are clear. Halogen lamps have surplanted most everything in the current day. 1.25-3 watt systems can be had for $15 that run on AA or C cell batteries and are generally not good for seeing the road, though they are useful for being seen at night. 10 watt halogen systems are around $100-$200 and have a runtime of 2.5 hours with a rechargeable NiMH or 3-4 hours with a lithium ion battery. These are recommended for use on completely darkened roads such as rural highways or trails/bike paths.
15 watt halogen can be used for night time mountain bike riding and are great for road riding in pitch black conditions.
There is also high intensity discharge lamps which have much higher lumens for the same power output as halogen, but are higher cost. This means that they will generally have a much longer battery life, on the order of 4 or 5 hours for the same luminesence as a halogen system with a 1.5 hour runtime.
There are still 3W halogen generator systems; these work in a road cycling context only because the beam is more tightly focused than most lamp systems. I would not recommend these for pitch black conditions.
LED lamps, in my opinion, still do not have a beam which is focused tightly enough to warrent their use in anything but a "to be seen" duty. They are not good for seeing obstacles on the road.
Personally, I use a Niterider 6-10-15W halogen lamp (Digital Evolution) and have ridden with it in pitch black conditions on rural highways. 15W is great; you get the best of all worlds with a broad beam and the brightness to see the road surface clearly. With this system, there is no need to run the extra risk of punctures unless you are using 6W in an attempt to conserve battery life (another story).
EDIT: I'm surprised. A brief glance at REI.com shows that the low end alkaline battery driven halogen lamps have all been replaced by LED lamps. It makes sense. They were never good at anything other than for being seen on the road anyway and the LEDs have much better battery life.
Mark, if you're running jhon forrestor approved :rolleyes: acetylene bike lights, no need for bright clothing!
Ok. Sure. Um, where do I get them?
At least I finally understand the "This bike is a bomb" stickers.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.