john, MY, you're defensive!

care to answer the questions?



when's the last time you went for a good, long bike ride?

did you ride in any bike lanes? I see Lemon Grove is chock a block with bike facilities.

when's the last time you experienced an irate motorist, angry honks, close passes or swerves to teach you a lesson?

just curious, oh great never was a dedicated transportational bicyclist one??

Needless to say (I hope) I'm not talking about roads with wide outside lanes or bike lanes where there is obviously enough space to safely share a lane.

Even on roads with BL, or a WOL, I move well to the left when approaching intersections... especially when I am moving fast and may not have time to well react to a fast turning motorist. Typical example is say when I am moving well over 20MPH on a 50MPH arterial... and approaching a cross street... I do a head check, signal and move to the left to try to prevent right hooks.

If on the other hand I am moving slow, such as up a hill, I have more time to study approaching motorists from behind and determine when and where someone may "right hook."

That's the heart of the matter right there.

So much fear.

Consider all the motorists driving military like vehicles and SUVs for "safety reasons." Talk about "fear factor..." :rolleyes:

While that may be true for some motorists, that has no bearing on the fact that some people are incredibly fearful while riding bicycles.

p.s. "military like"? That's even sillier than your usual hyperbole.

Humvee... originally designed for the military... now on it's third gas guzzling design cycle... apparently it is highly needed by urban moms to access the back parking lot at the grocery store... eh?

I have yet to see a single Humvee with brush scratches from actually being used off road.

Another example of your vendetta, Bekologist. Have I lost touch with present day bicycling? How would you know, you who know so little about cycling, limiting yourself to some ideological agenda? And irrational at that. What difference does it make to you whether or not there are bike lanes in my community? And what constitutes a good long bike ride? Time was when it had to be at least a century over many major hills before I would so classify a ride, or a double.

Your argument is based on your feeling that bicycle transportation has changed markedly in the last few years. It has not. People as bigoted as you have been around for thirty years that I know of.

What's your evidence, Bekologist, that bicycle transportation has changed markedly in the last few years? Without such evidence, your words are worth nothing.

I repeat in terms more simply, Bekologist, just in case you cannot understand the issue. Your argument is based on the idea that my sixty years of extensive cycling, much done when I was seriously concerned about proper cycling and about bicycle transportation, is now worthless because cycling conditions have changed so much that only modern experience of your kind is relevant.

I say that cycling conditions have not changed in really significant ways. One item of outside evidence that I offer is the recent North Carolina partial replication of the Cross study of 1977, which concluded that there was no significant difference in car-bike collision patterns over that period.

I am not going to play your silly and irrelevant game. If you have evidence to offer that my long history of cycling and studying cycling is no longer relevant, then present it for all to read. It is you who never answers questions regarding the relevance of your own thought patterns. One can conclude only that your thoughts are irrelevant except to your own ideological agenda.

If you think that an H2 or H3 is a "military like" vehicle then you are even more confused than you usually are. Your comments continue to be silly hyperbole.

They are both design variants based on the original H1... they are hardly military qualified; don't even use the same frame or other military parts... but don't tell the consumer that, who is indeed buying that vehicle not for speed, agility, comfort, nor even off road ability, but due to the connection to the H1, and the "tough military like appearance." It is something of a marketing scam, but folks still buy into it.

Hyperbole, for the record, is that which is used to promote most vehicles in ads on television... from the "zoom zoom" to the cars that are the "ultimate driving experience" to the off road promotions that show vehicles on mountain tops that they could never reach. Now that is Hyperbole. I don't know of a single ad that shows the reality of bumper to bumper traffic, where a motorist is moving along at a "stately" >10MPH, while some cyclist moves past at 15MPH...

I say that cycling conditions have not changed in really significant ways.
Ya, right.

They share the name only and yes they are not military qualified, nor "military like." Thanks for the admission that your claim was merely hyperbole.

It's also quite funny that your psychic powers enable to to divine the motivation of strangers and how those motivations affect their auto purchases. I mean, it was funny the first time around but it just keeps on getting more and more amusing as you repeat that behavior.

That's just more of your myopia since it's quite easy to experience "the ultimate driving experience" type driving, or off-roading and not be stuck in "the reality" of bumper-to-bumper traffic.

The fact that you repeatedly make wild, hyperbolic claims in futile attempts to "argue" your "points" merely highlights the fact that your "points" are for the most part unsupportable and/or indefensible.

Yeah... hyperbole, right... now what exactly is the targeted market segment for H2 and H3? And what is the motivation for driving such a vehicle? Ever see the ads? Any claim I make is based on my actual observations of the ads, and where I seem them actually being used. No psychic powers needed. Just opening the old eyes and watching the world.

Here in Del Mar, I see them all the time parking in the lot at the local Jimbos "health food store." Never once have I seen one with off road brush scratches on it.

So you made actual observations of ads and that led you to determine why people purchased a given vehicle and what their motivations were?



No Pete, going through this line of questions with you is what is goofy.

Perhaps you simply have not seen the ads... here you go. You can probably relate. :rolleyes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lbhdYftIgs

While that may be true for some motorists, that has no bearing on the fact that some people are incredibly fearful while riding bicycles.

p.s. "military like"? That's even sillier than your usual hyperbole.

What else would one expect when three generations (or more) of Americans have been raised to be subservient to and fearful of same-direction motor traffic, for the convenience of motorists, of course. That combination of cyclist fear and motorist convenience has determined American policy toward bicycle transportation for decades. When it had little force, it could be ignored, but now that it is institutionalized and implemented by bikeways it has become the major problem for American cycling policy.

What else would one expect when three generations (or more) of Americans have been raised to be subservient to and fearful of same-direction motor traffic, for the convenience of motorists, of course. That combination of cyclist fear and motorist convenience has determined American policy toward bicycle transportation for decades. When it had little force, it could be ignored, but now that it is institutionalized and implemented by bikeways it has become the major problem for American cycling policy.

taking into account the speeds at which drivers drive, the increasing inattention to what they're doing, and the road rage and fatal accidents we read about daily here on BF, a little trepidation is common sense, IMHO.

what's bad for cycling advocacy is ignoring these factors and urging people to just get out there, with certain skills and they'll be fine. that sounds insane. that's why it hasn't caught on.

what's bad for cycling advocacy is blanket condemnation of facilities that can help cyclist and driver alike.

But, back on topic,
it sounds like John really doesn't ride much anymore, but that's not what I care most about when it comes to his theories and opinions. It may have some bearing on him being in touch with modern cycling conditions, though.

What else would one expect when three generations (or more) of Americans have been raised to be subservient to and fearful of same-direction motor traffic, for the convenience of motorists, of course. That combination of cyclist fear and motorist convenience has determined American policy toward bicycle transportation for decades. When it had little force, it could be ignored, but now that it is institutionalized and implemented by bikeways it has become the major problem for American cycling policy.

One of the odd things I've noted about VC advocates is how many of them use lots of words -- big fancy words, if they can manage it -- to convey what are actually pretty simple ideas. I think I've now seen the source of this phenomenon.

Moreover, those simple ideas often fly in the face of commonly experienced reality. It's sort of like reading three paragraphs of thesaurus-derived fancy talk with the end result being that the author wants you to believe that birds aren't actually capable of flight. It does not seem to occur to the author that all the polysyllabic fulminations (I have a thesaurus too) in the world don't change the fact that his reader needs only step out the door to prove to himself that birds can, indeed, fly.

So I don't know all that many big fancy words, and I tend to think that anyone who uses 1000 words when 25 will suffice is probably pulling some kind of con. (See: U.S. tax code). The bottom line is that where I live, bike lanes are everywhere, and they make cycling more enjoyable for me. I don't know where the "major problem" is, but I'm not seeing it.

Doubtless that makes me "subservient to and fearful of motorized traffic." :rolleyes:

anybody remember "subservient Chicken"? maybe we can get a "subservient Vehicular Cyclist". that would be fun.

Did you measure the mirrors on that Explorer too?
I'm all for motorist accountability. Don't think I would substitute math for that.

If there's a bike lane giving you 4 feet extra, what's to keep Explo-Man from clipping you with his mirror, then?

All the pee-wee has to do is move his teeny-weeny hinie over 18 inches.

And where I ride, they move over quite a bit more.

Space, the Final Frontier....

Me too. I have a suspicion, however, that our versions of "too narrow" are distinctly different. I'm again reminded of the fellow with the helmetcam video "taking the lane" because the street was "too narrow". He apparently needed more than the three+ feet of room between the right wheel track and the gutter pan. I don't.
It's a lane to be used, for crying out loud. Use it, or share it, one or the other.

That's how I ride.

Seriously, I see your point. You're taking the space you need.

I repeat in terms more simply, Bekologist, just in case you cannot understand the issue. Your argument is based on the idea that my sixty years of extensive cycling, much done when I was seriously concerned about proper cycling and about bicycle transportation, is now worthless because cycling conditions have changed so much that only modern experience of your kind is relevant.


are you no longer seriously concerned about proper cycling and bicycle transportation?

Touch! A definite touch!

(With apologies to Sherlock Holmes...)

I think it's obvious that J.F. doesn't ride a bike anymore and has never dealt with a dumb broad in huge suv talking on a cellphone, or texting or doing her make-up. And I think it's also obvious that Fagerlin is a jam and a jab who doesn't understand much other than being a dick for dicks sake.

The ugly reality of "the ultimate driving machine... " http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070816/ap_on_bi_ge/crash_tests_sedans

"The 2008 BMW 5 Series was the worst performer in new side-impact crash tests of luxury sedans by the insurance industry."

"Growing sales of SUVs and pickups have exacerbated height mismatches among passenger vehicles, thereby increasing the risks to occupants of many vehicles struck in the side," Insurance Institute President Adrian Lund said in a news release."

Once again showing that ads do not match reality, when it comes to the auto industry.

Auto ads = Hyperbole.

[QUOTE=bmike;5078656]are you no longer seriously concerned about proper cycling and bicycle transportation?[/QUOTE

You should not be quite as silly as you write. I am still seriously concerned about proper cycling and bicycle transportation. The evidence is here; if I were not so concerned I would not be reading such absurd conclusions that you choose to invent to suit your agenda.

taking into account the speeds at which drivers drive, the increasing inattention to what they're doing, and the road rage and fatal accidents we read about daily here on BF, a little trepidation is common sense, IMHO.

what's bad for cycling advocacy is ignoring these factors and urging people to just get out there, with certain skills and they'll be fine. that sounds insane. that's why it hasn't caught on.

what's bad for cycling advocacy is blanket condemnation of facilities that can help cyclist and driver alike.

But, back on topic,
it sounds like John really doesn't ride much anymore, but that's not what I care most about when it comes to his theories and opinions. It may have some bearing on him being in touch with modern cycling conditions, though.

The speeds at which people drive? Where is your evidence that this has had a significant effect on how to cycle? I have spent much of my life cycling on roads with speed limits of 65 (and some with no limit), and on arterial roads with speed limits of 45. I do not see that these speeds have increased.

You assert that motorists today are more distracted than they have been in previous times. I do not know of any such study; your claim may be correct, it may not be. However, the degree to which this claim may or may not be correct is dwarfed by the other side of your argument. That is, that bikeways aid distracted motorists in operating correctly.

What evidence have you for your claim? Put up or shut up.

I rather doubt that there is any such evidence, and the evidence that we have is against it. In every significant interaction between bikeway traffic and motor traffic, the traffic patterns produced by the bikeway present more difficulties, are harder to understand, and are physically more difficult to observe, than the standard traffic patterns. Given that a motorist is suffering from greater distraction, it is highly unlikely that these additional distractions produced by bikeways are beneficial.

One of the odd things I've noted about VC advocates is how many of them use lots of words -- big fancy words, if they can manage it -- to convey what are actually pretty simple ideas. I think I've now seen the source of this phenomenon.

Moreover, those simple ideas often fly in the face of commonly experienced reality. It's sort of like reading three paragraphs of thesaurus-derived fancy talk with the end result being that the author wants you to believe that birds aren't actually capable of flight. It does not seem to occur to the author that all the polysyllabic fulminations (I have a thesaurus too) in the world don't change the fact that his reader needs only step out the door to prove to himself that birds can, indeed, fly.

So I don't know all that many big fancy words, and I tend to think that anyone who uses 1000 words when 25 will suffice is probably pulling some kind of con. (See: U.S. tax code). The bottom line is that where I live, bike lanes are everywhere, and they make cycling more enjoyable for me. I don't know where the "major problem" is, but I'm not seeing it.

Doubtless that makes me "subservient to and fearful of motorized traffic." :rolleyes:

Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. Just so long as you stick with the argument that you prefer roads with bikelanes to roads without, just as a matter of personal preference, without reference to any measurable quantity such as accident rate or skills required, you cannot be judged on any but aesthetic grounds. There's nothing to argue about; it's like preferring vanilla ice cream to chocolate.

But, if that's so, why do you bother to participate in this forum? You have nothing to say of any substance.

The speeds at which people drive? Where is your evidence that this has had a significant effect on how to cycle? I have spent much of my life cycling on roads with speed limits of 65 (and some with no limit), and on arterial roads with speed limits of 45. I do not see that these speeds have increased.

You assert that motorists today are more distracted than they have been in previous times. I do not know of any such study; your claim may be correct, it may not be. However, the degree to which this claim may or may not be correct is dwarfed by the other side of your argument. That is, that bikeways aid distracted motorists in operating correctly.

What evidence have you for your claim? Put up or shut up.

I rather doubt that there is any such evidence, and the evidence that we have is against it. In every significant interaction between bikeway traffic and motor traffic, the traffic patterns produced by the bikeway present more difficulties, are harder to understand, and are physically more difficult to observe, than the standard traffic patterns. Given that a motorist is suffering from greater distraction, it is highly unlikely that these additional distractions produced by bikeways are beneficial.

John the evidence is all around you and you refuse to look at it.

Various roadways in the San Diego area alone have had increased speed limits and the evidence is as simple as the faded stencil on the road reading 45 or 40MPH while the posted sign with a "corrected" speed limit, shows 50MPH. Nothing was done to improve the roadway. Sight lines remain the same. Kearny Villa road is a classic example... once posted at 45MPH, now posted at 65MPH... and with special bike lanes, as motorists have killed two cyclists in only a few years in "infrequent and rare overtaking collisions."

Regarding the evidence against cell phones, various studies have been done (try using google to see for yourself) regarding the distractive nature of these devices, and comparing the user to a drunken driver in attention and cognitive capabilities... such devices were not common as far back as the mid '90s. This very evidence has been the source for legislators to pass laws requiring at least hands free operation of these devices. Text messaging which quite obviously is a distraction, did not even exist in the US some 15 years ago and is now commonly practiced frequently by the least skilled motorists... young teens.

To say that the motoring environment and thus the shared cycling environment has not changed "significantly" since you wrote your book, is akin to putting your head in the sand.

Now as to the evidence that bikeways may or may aid distracted motorists... the same can also be said for motorists encountering cyclists using the best VC methods... there is no evidence to show that a distracted motorist is any more likely to observe that cyclist any more than they would an automobile in the same location. In fact, there is evidence is that automobile rear end collisions are the most frequent kind, due largely to distraction. If distracted motorists are not aware of big shiny cars in front of them, how indeed will they see cyclists acting in vehicular manner in front of them?

Dear John:

Do cell phones blind drivers? http://news.com.com/2100-1033-982325.html?tag=fd_top

Talking on a mobile phone while driving creates "tunnel vision" and reduces response time by about 20 percent, according to a new study.
By Ben Charny
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: January 27, 2003, 5:25 PM PST
New research from the University of Utah has revealed a potentially lethal "tunnel vision" that drivers get while talking on a cell phone.



Just Drive! http://www.froedtert.com/HealthResources/JustDrive/DrivingResearchandStatistics/

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for 15-20 year olds
* Driver inattention is the most prevalent cause of collisions, accounting for for an estimated 25 percent to 56 percent of crashes


Driven to Distraction http://www.caa.ca/driventodistraction/how/stats.html
A study released in April 2006 by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that distractions, including drowsy driving, are a contributing factor in 8 out of every 10 police-reported traffic crashes, or an estimated 4 million crashes per year.

Cars, Safety and flying... some potent statistics
http://homepage.mac.com/lesposen/iblog/B80495344/C475525321/E1986814212/index.html
Please see the list of citations at the bottom. Mostly PDFs. I didn't read them but there may be useful info.
“Both distracted driving and drowsy driving are significantly underreported, since there’s no objective measure as there is for blood-alcohol levels,” says Jane Stutts, Ph.D., associate director of the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center in Chapel Hill. “People do both all the time, so they don’t think it’s dangerous.”

I could go on, but Google is your friend.

Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. Just so long as you stick with the argument that you prefer roads with bikelanes to roads without, just as a matter of personal preference, without reference to any measurable quantity such as accident rate or skills required, you cannot be judged on any but aesthetic grounds. There's nothing to argue about; it's like preferring vanilla ice cream to chocolate.
You are the one arguing for change. I am the arguing for, essentially, status quo, or at least the extension thereof. Now if you happen to have stats indicating that "VC" is safer than "non VC", I'm all ears. Of course, I think in all my years of riding I've personally seen one guy who could possibly have been riding "VC", and I'm not entirely sure of that. (He could have just been some nutcase. I'm not entirely sure how to tell the difference.) So any stats you could come up with would almost have to be based upon a hopelessly small sample.

BTW, how are "skills" a measurable quantity? Does one sign up for the Forester school of bike skills and get graded?

But, if that's so, why do you bother to participate in this forum? You have nothing to say of any substance.
And yet people seem not to like you, for some reason. :lol:

You are the one arguing for change. I am the arguing for, essentially, status quo, or at least the extension thereof. Now if you happen to have stats indicating that "VC" is safer than "non VC", I'm all ears.

Actually status quo is roads without bike lanes. Bike lanes are a relatively new addition to most streets in the US, being added largely from about some time in the '70s.

Vehicular cycling has been practiced for quite some time prior, John only wrote a book about it in the '70s.

However, the practices of vehicular cycling were generally done on roads with less traffic and slower speeds than those which exist today. Newer vehicular cycling skills have been suggested to deal with faster traffic and distracted motorists... but none of these have been studied.

Vehicular cycling does work well on lower speed streets. However there is a general trend supported by "the 85 percentile rule" toward raising speeds on surface streets. Even John Forester admits that negotiation with motor traffic can be difficult when the speed differential is greater than 15MPH.

The real irony is that vehicular cycling depends on motorists obeying the laws and sharing the road... if motorists obeyed the law, bike lanes would also work very well. The fundamental flaw in any cyclist using the road in any manner is the need of some co-operation of motorists.

What makes me a jam and a jab?

I eagerly await your reply!

p.s. You being car free and anti-car isn't a valid reason.

That's easy, you are a jerk! Well I've been reading your posts on a number of threads in several sub-forums and one thing is you don't seem to have an understanding of sociology and semiotics or the extrapolation of data. One doesn't have to know exactly what every person is thinking to understand group-think. You use this argument frequently and it's very immature and kinda bubba. Played team sports and drive a big truck eh?
As far as I can tell. You and John both like the "you're dumb I won't respond to that" line. Argument for the sake of it is not good discourse. From your attitude you are an impatient driver and rider, I don't give two shakes about mindless "how do you knows?" i just do, I think that studying human nature and fortysome years on a bike(not all at once;)) give me this ability. So put on your cape and clip in superman. p.s. John, answer the question already.

The evidence is here; if I were not so concerned I would not be reading such absurd conclusions that you choose to invent to suit your agenda.

So, evidence of your seriousness is your responding to absurd posts on BikeForums?

So, evidence of your seriousness is your responding to absurd posts on BikeForums?

This whole thread was set up to discuss Forester. If he didn't respond the folks here who've had their feelings hurt by Forester over the years would be complaining that he was ignoring them. So count your blessings. Forester is responding to your absurd posts.

Actually status quo is roads without bike lanes. Bike lanes are a relatively new addition to most streets in the US, being added largely from about some time in the '70s.

Vehicular cycling has been practiced for quite some time prior, John only wrote a book about it in the '70s.



This is true, and I'd like for y'all to mull this over. Forester wrote a book covering vehicular cycling and some of the basics of bicycle purchasing, maintenance, and repair in the 1970s. There wasn't a lot of new information in this book. It congealed the experiences of British and American road cyclists from the last two decades of the 19th century through the time that Forester wrote the book and developed the EC program. Congealing tradition is a great accomplishment, and I'd expect any mature person to feel gratitude for his work.

I haven't seen anything written since the 70's which has been a substantial improvement over his book.

Given that his views of cycling are regarded as terribly outdated by many people on this list, could you give me a resource which reflects current best cycling practice? If you'll provide me with books, articles, websites, I'll review them in good faith and post the reviews both here and on my blog.

This whole thread was set up to discuss Forester. If he didn't respond the folks here who've had their feelings hurt by Forester over the years would be complaining that he was ignoring them. So count your blessings. Forester is responding to your absurd posts.

Thanks for pointing out that my posts are absurd.

Thanks for pointing out that my posts are absurd.

You're quite welcome, but I can't really take credit for that observation. You were on the vanguard of that minor epiphany, and I salute and thank you for it :D

You're quite welcome, but I can't really take credit for that observation. You were on the vanguard of that minor epiphany, and I salute and thank you for it :D

So, by chance, how many posts of mine have you read?

So, by chance, how many posts of mine have you read?

Three which are relevant to this discussion. All of them fit the bill.

But to put it in perspective, I view this whole thread as absurd, so I was really generalizing the "you" to this discussion at large. I'm not trying to undercut your contribution to the overall absurdity of this thread, but you've taken my post a bit too personally.:D

So is it better to be absurd, or to be a jam? Or a jab? And if you add a :D is it still an insult?

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?

I haven't seen anything written since the 70's which has been a substantial improvement over his book.

Given that his views of cycling are regarded as terribly outdated by many people on this list, could you give me a resource which reflects current best cycling practice?
Forester Brand Science was good for you in the 1970's and rings just as true today, eh?:rolleyes:
Given that you accept without question Forester's quantitative claims about the effectiveness of Vehicular Cycling "practice" (AKA cyclists "fare best" when trained and read in Effective Cycling ) it is no wonder you haven't seen any "improvement."

You obviously haven't seen the critiques of Forester's sophomoric statistical techniques to arrive at his conclusions. You obviously haven't seen in Forester's tome the fabrications of data and wild extrapolation of a conjured safety record of a mystical population of Vehicular Cyclists who use "best cycling practice." And you and the other true believers will never see anything better than the Real Truth, revealed to you by JF. I am sure you will feel free to toady on with a clear conscience.

If distracted motorists are not aware of big shiny cars in front of them, how indeed will they see cyclists acting in vehicular manner in front of them?

I would be interested to see a breakdown of car-motorcycle collision types and how it compares to car-car collision types, particularly normalized per million miles of travel.

Most car-car rear-end collisions happen when the car in front decellerates while the following driver is inattentive to it. It's rare for drivers to rear-end other traffic that is traveling at constant reduced speed or has been stopped for some time, because sight distances normally allow plenty of time to see such traffic ahead, and drivers have become conditioned to looking far enough ahead to handle conditions ahead. The main problem seems to be when they are following another vehicle and they assume it will maintain its current speed while they divert their attention.

I wonder if a driver following a more vulnerable road user such as a motorcyclist will pay more attention to them and follow at a more conservative distance. If so, this compensation would reduce the rear-end collision rate. (I believe many drivers who follow me while I take the lane in urban traffic on my bike are obsessed with my roadway position and are less likely to lose track of my speed.) Also, two-wheeled cycles cannot decellerate as fast as cars, and so they may create fewer such challenges for following drivers. So, based on these hypotheses, I think it would be interesting to see what the motorcycle stats look like.

What's most different for bicyclists, I think, is the increased probability of their position being occluded by a large vehicle that swerves out from behind them at the last second, putting them in the path of a tailgating driver who cannot see them for more than a couple of seconds before overtaking - and the driver may be distracted for those couple of seconds. This is the subject of another thread right now. This type of collision appears to be rare, but is one that I am concerned about when I operate on busy high-speed roads. In downtown, slower urban streets, however, where there are lots of cyclists operating in travel lanes so narrow that it's difficult for drivers to overtake without moving out of the cyclist's lane, overtaking collisions involving cyclists appear to be especially rare, and intersection crashes are higher. So, I tend to be much more critical of engineering designed to protect cyclists from overtaking traffic in downtown areas in exchange for higher intersection conflicts than I am about bike lane and bike path projects along limited acces arterials and controlled access freeways, respectively.

What's most different for bicyclists, I think, is the increased probability of their position being occluded by a large vehicle that swerves out from behind them at the last second, putting them in the path of a tailgating driver who cannot see them for more than a couple of seconds before overtaking - and the driver may be distracted for those couple of seconds. This is the subject of another thread right now. This type of collision appears to be rare, but is one that I am concerned about when I operate on busy high-speed roads.
You are quite right to be concerned about the non urban/high speed scenario described above. I assume you recognize that the the presumed "rarity" of this type of accident is likely directly related to the rarity of cyclists who allow themselves to be found cycling in such a scenario on a regular basis. IOW, few cyclists are willing to ride at all under such conditions, especially not alone.

You are quite right to be concerned about the non urban/high speed scenario described above. I assume you recognize that the the presumed "rarity" of this type of accident is likely directly related to the rarity of cyclists who allow themselves to be found cycling in such a scenario on a regular basis. IOW, few cyclists are willing to ride at all under such conditions, especially not alone.

I think it's a contributing factor, but not the whole story. For example, I don't think many people walk on rural highways in darkness, but they represent a large percentage of the pedestrian deaths here. So some things are dangerous enough to result in high statistics, despite not being done very often.

I think there are a lot of lone cyclists riding here on high-speed narrow-lane roads, a lot of lone cyclists riding on busy narrow-lane roads, and a lot of groups of cyclists operating on busy, high-speed narrow-lane roads. I don't see as many lone cyclists operating on busy high-speed narrow-lane roads, particularly where access points are far enough apart for speeds to exceed 50 mph. Ironically, the lack of lone cyclists and lack of collision stats on such roads makes it harder to gain political support for improving such roads for cycling.

I don't see as many lone cyclists operating on busy high-speed narrow-lane roads, particularly where access points are far enough apart for speeds to exceed 50 mph. Ironically, the lack of lone cyclists and lack of collision stats on such roads makes it harder to gain political support for improving such roads for cycling.

And that is exactly the scenario I thought rightfully concerned you. The same scenario I ride in every day. I recognize that few others choose to experience an environment where the cyclist in the traffic lane is at risk from the fast tailgating driver who doesn't see the cyclist "suddenly revealed" when the first vehicle operator belatedly passes the cyclist at full speed. If there were any other option to get to work, I would not experience such a cycling environment either.

John Forester Brand advice is useless for such cycling. And JF Brand statistical mumbo jumbo about effectiveness, fabricated safety records and "faring best" is less than useless for such conditions (among other conditions.) And always has been useless. 30 years of JF "experience," such as it is, adds no credibility to the statistical/"scientific" JF Brand gibberish.

They are both design variants based on the original H1... they are hardly military qualified; don't even use the same frame or other military parts... but don't tell the consumer that, who is indeed buying that vehicle not for speed, agility, comfort, nor even off road ability, but due to the connection to the H1, and the "tough military like appearance." It is something of a marketing scam, but folks still buy into it.
Yes. We seem to be in some type of arms race to see who can have the most oversized (supersized?) vehicles on the road. As far as other vehicles on the road are concerned, they are military vehicles.

I think it's a contributing factor, but not the whole story. For example, I don't think many people walk on rural highways in darkness, but they represent a large percentage of the pedestrian deaths here. So some things are dangerous enough to result in high statistics, despite not being done very often.

I think there are a lot of lone cyclists riding here on high-speed narrow-lane roads, a lot of lone cyclists riding on busy narrow-lane roads, and a lot of groups of cyclists operating on busy, high-speed narrow-lane roads. I don't see as many lone cyclists operating on busy high-speed narrow-lane roads, particularly where access points are far enough apart for speeds to exceed 50 mph. Ironically, the lack of lone cyclists and lack of collision stats on such roads makes it harder to gain political support for improving such roads for cycling.

High speed narrow lane roads are often in rural environments where motorists are used to seeing tractors and other low speed vehicles... On the other hand the urban environment has mulitlaned highspeed roads were motorists generally don't expect slow moving vehicles such as tractors... and those motorists have a tendency to distraction by cell phone etc and tend to tailgate and tend to change lanes quite a bit in reaction to perceived delays... all coupled can lead easily to the the overtaking situations that worry even you. What's most different for bicyclists, I think, is the increased probability of their position being occluded by a large vehicle that swerves out from behind them at the last second, putting them in the path of a tailgating driver who cannot see them for more than a couple of seconds before overtaking - and the driver may be distracted for those couple of seconds. This is the subject of another thread right now. This type of collision appears to be rare, but is one that I am concerned about when I operate on busy high-speed roads.

These types of roads were somewhat rare back in the 70s, and thus did not tend to fall into the statistics used by JF to support his claims. Exceptions did exist... such as the Chicago Loop... but again these high speed road structures were generally rare, but have since been widely adopted by road engineers... usually associtated with the "lollypop" type housing development being feed by such multilaned arterials.

yes, john forester is out of touch with present day bicycling conditions.

High speed narrow lane roads are often in rural environments where motorists are used to seeing tractors and other low speed vehicles...

Don't be confused. Motorists can see slow moving farm equipment regardless of the vehicles in front of them; not so with relatively tiny bikes which may be invisible until the last second when the vision blocking vehicle in front finally alters lateral lane position to pass and reveals the previously hidden bicycle to the high speed motorist who may/may not have an opportunity to safely pass. The visibility issue is magnified in darkness with the typical lighting of even the well lit/reflectorized bicycle commuter. It too can be hidden from approaching high speed vehicles by last second reactions of the motorists leading the pack.

You're another liar about my cycling years. And, I repeat, there has been no significant difference between 1999 and 2007. People who frequently lie show both their character and their failure to have credible opinions.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.

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.


Because, as you noted, John Forester couldn't give a darn about transportational/utility cycling or the cyclists who have that as their priority. The only Real'True Cyclists worthy of the Great One's support are the fitness, competitive and enthusiast/club cyclists.

Forester has been consistent on this issue from the beginning, and for him, nothing has changed: everyone who doesn't agree with his preferences/priorities/conclusions is either unworthy or an enemy or both.

Don't be confused. Motorists can see slow moving farm equipment regardless of the vehicles in front of them; not so with relatively tiny bikes which may be invisible until the last second when the vision blocking vehicle in front finally alters lateral lane position to pass and reveals the previously hidden bicycle to the high speed motorist who may/may not have an opportunity to safely pass. The visibility issue is magnified in darkness with the typical lighting of even the well lit/reflectorized bicycle commuter. It too can be hidden from approaching high speed vehicles by last second reactions of the motorists leading the pack.

How true, the size difference is indeed a huge factor. Good point. Thanks

Don't be confused. Motorists can see slow moving farm equipment regardless of the vehicles in front of them; not so with relatively tiny bikes which may be invisible until the last second when the vision blocking vehicle in front finally alters lateral lane position to pass and reveals the previously hidden bicycle to the high speed motorist who may/may not have an opportunity to safely pass. The visibility issue is magnified in darkness with the typical lighting of even the well lit/reflectorized bicycle commuter. It too can be hidden from approaching high speed vehicles by last second reactions of the motorists leading the pack.

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.

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.

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.

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. 40% of the trips in the US are less than 2 miles in length... certainly a bicycle could be the answer for most of these (except in the case of hauling large heavy loads) and certainly the population as a whole could use the exercise. The reduction of the use of motor vehicles for these trips could dramatically reduce both the load on local roadways and the air pollution levels.