What happened to John Forester?

[John Forester]

In strictly urban areas such as the gridded corridors of a downtown area, reasonable speed limits of 25MH make vehicular cycling very suitable.

But your friends at ADC what autos running at 50-60MPH.

Arterial roads in San Diego and other places have been pushed to 50+MPH. The picture I provided is from Miramar road at Nobel near the heart of UTC. This is an intersection of a 45MPH road and 50MPH road, where people have tried to find "some other way" other than the smoothly paved roads filled with fast moving autos.

This same sort of picture exists all throughout the county, where off road paths have been created by those seeking alternatives to the existing infrastructure. Now in the case of the picture I posted, there are also trails that are enjoyed by off road enthusiasts. In other areas, the routes are beeline straight from one neighborhood to another.

I take it, genec, that you believe that urban areas should be developed with a large portion of undeveloped area suitable for cyclists when creating off-road paths. Wouldn't that create a great increase in what most of you call sprawl? And it still fails to answer the problem about all such facilities, which is the intersection problem. Maybe you need to apply a bit more intelligence to the problem?

[genec]

Since I never made such a statement about myself, and never acted as you claim, you are inventing lies.

No John I am not. I have no such motivation. I presented one quote to you, which you have chosen to spin... Thus putting it in a different perspective from what was originally presented.

Thus I have to wonder what your motivation is.

For now I will leave things as they are. I have presented my side of this discussion and cited at least one direct quote, your response has been to bend the words you originally used in an effort to soften the real truth.

[genec]

Ok, let's move on to "voluntary."

How would describe the following three cyclists, voluntary or forced?

1. has the means to own a motor vehicle but does not and cycles everywhere
2. owns a motor vehicle but cycles everywhere except when going somewhere with an unwilling/able-to-cycle partner or when there is too much to carry/too little time for cycling when factoring in the length of the trip
3. can't afford a motor vehicle and cycles everywhere and wouldn't own a motor vehicle if they could

BTW here is an example of a "dedicated" transportational cyclist:

http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=7224343&nav=0bov

But actor Geno Segers wasn't delighted when he found himself a crime victim.

Someone stole his only mode of transportation, his bike. "I was here for about a week, went out to get my bike and my bike was gone."

He doesn't have a rental car. Here for three months he uses the bike to get around "My mode of transportation is my bicycle. I brought it from St. Louis to Cleveland to Honolulu which cost me quite a whack."

[John Forester]

OK lets get over the term "dedicated."

much snipped

Now the reality is that voluntary cyclists actually make up a tiny portion of all cyclists. The vast majority are involuntary or dedicated cyclists. And indeed those cyclists will probably chose to move to a motor vehicle as soon as the opportunity presents itself... primarily because our US society does NOT support cycling as a form of transportation, but as a toy or as a temporary means for the underclass and even as a rite of passage. (this may also be one of the reasons cyclists tend to be treated as a "second class" by some members of the driving public.) But for everyone moving up the economic ladder to a motor vehicle, there is some one else moving into place as an involuntary cyclist. This is a very dynamic situation, which makes the task of "educating all cyclists" into a particular "style" even more vexing. This group tends to be so dynamic that any means of education would tend to always leave behind a large group of new emerging cyclists. Teaching cycling at the elementary school level might be the only way to reach a vast majority of these new cycling entrants.

Of course the other means might be to dedicate some of our national funding toward cycling vice the mere less than 1% of transit funding that goes to cycling now.

Imagine what might happen if instead of building 2 more 12 foot wide lanes on the local freeway (one lane either direction) the funds are dedicated to building a cycling byway instead. Instead of 24 feet of earth choking pavement, only 10 feet of pavement is laid down to support a two way path and a connected infrastructure similar to that of Finland (I might also say Amsterdam... but I've never been there... so I don't really know how things work there). Imagine if this great country chose to focus on bicycles as real means of transit... vice simply nodding to the existing pavement and saying: "use this," while inside knowing that most people will go no where near high speed roads filled with motorists. (I can't help but wonder if some of that is due to people knowing how "well" they actually drive.)

I could go on... but just keep this concept in mind... if we were to get a reduction of say 10% of the current traffic on the roads... wouldn't that be just as effective (if not much more) than adding another lane to the "soon to be congested again" highway?

Maybe it's time to think outside of the box (or "cage" if you will).


**********************************************************

BTW for Forester... I am not an "Envir-o-mentalist" or anything of the kind. I chose the words I used for impact for the audience that might chose to read this, not because I have a particular bent.

I do feel, like the president et. al., that we have become "addicted to oil" and the results thus far are obvious.


Genec, your discussion fails the test of logic; rather than just failing in logic, it presents illogicality.

You first say that the great majority of cyclists are involuntary cyclists, either by choice or by necessity. Then you present the argument that building an off-road bike path system will reduce motor traffic by 10%. The reduction in motor traffic won't come from the involuntary cyclists, because they personally do not use any. Any reduction has to come from motorists.

Your argument also discusses the problem of instructing involuntary cyclists in cycling skill. But then you offer, specifically as a different action, some large expenditure for means other than education. You don't say in this sentence what those other means are, but from the rest of your writings it is clearly for off-road bike paths.

There certainly is a problem about teaching Americans proper cycling skills. For sixty years or more we have taught Americans that they should not learn proper cycling skills. But then you argue, genec, that bikeways remove the need to learn proper cycling skills, which is utterly false, as has been demonstrated for years. Of course, your recommendation is tied to your proposal for a network of urban off-road bike paths which your argument claims eliminates the need for proper cycling skill. However, you have not ever, so far as I know, and you have specifically not claimed in this discussion to do so, presented any detailed description of your proposed system. I have never seen a practical proposal for such a system, and I have never invented one, either. Maybe you should consider the realities before sounding off.

[John Forester]

I stated: "Since I never made such a statement about myself, and never acted as you claim, you are inventing lies."


No John I am not. I have no such motivation. I presented one quote to you, which you have chosen to spin... Thus putting it in a different perspective from what was originally presented.

Thus I have to wonder what your motivation is.

For now I will leave things as they are. I have presented my side of this discussion and cited at least one direct quote, your response has been to bend the words you originally used in an effort to soften the real truth.

Genec, you are claiming that when I used the phrase "undesirable characteristics" when referring to a possible bicycle trip I must have meant what you happen to choose to consider undesirable cycling conditions rather than what I meant. This is just another demonstration of being so blinded by one's ideology that one cannot conceive that another person, when using an ambiguous phrase, does not think according to one's own ideology. I cannot help that you are so blinded; that's your characteristic for which you should be held responsible, but, unfortunately, your attitude extends out into the real world with thoroughly undesirable consequences.

Furthermore, I never made the other statement to which your refer, and which is a lie, that I stated that I avoided riding to work because of the amount of material I had to carry.

And now you bring up the subject of motivation, as applied to me. I can list three of my motivations real quick now. I aim to try to see that truth and accuracy are told. I aim to support the best practical means of getting around town by bicycle. I aim to demonstrate, for all the world to see, the ideological irrationality of the arguments by bicycle advocates.

[Allister]

To say that one is "dedicated" to cycling implies that there is some kind of hardship being endured.

What a strange interpretation. I always felt that one only became dedicated to things one loves. Must suck to be you.

[Allister]

Here are genec's own words: "How about that of a dedicated transportational cyclist... As I mentioned earlier in this thread. A cyclist who does not chose the time and place to ride, but must ride to meet obligations at whatever time and place one may have to go.

There is a difference between being a voluntary cyclist and being dedicated cyclist."

Genec is clearly saying that a voluntary cyclist chooses not to ride under conditions in which the dedicated transportational cyclist feels he must ride. That is a clear statement of his belief that much of transportational cycling is done under unpleasant conditions.

That's one of the most spectacular leaps of logic I have ever seen. You should be on 'Heroes' with a superpower like that.

Just because a bike is the only choice of transport, it doesn't necessarily follow that one regrets or dislikes that choice.

[genec]

Genec, your discussion fails the test of logic; rather than just failing in logic, it presents illogicality.

You first say that the great majority of cyclists are involuntary cyclists, either by choice or by necessity. Then you present the argument that building an off-road bike path system will reduce motor traffic by 10%. The reduction in motor traffic won't come from the involuntary cyclists, because they personally do not use any. Any reduction has to come from motorists.

Your argument also discusses the problem of instructing involuntary cyclists in cycling skill. But then you offer, specifically as a different action, some large expenditure for means other than education. You don't say in this sentence what those other means are, but from the rest of your writings it is clearly for off-road bike paths.

There certainly is a problem about teaching Americans proper cycling skills. For sixty years or more we have taught Americans that they should not learn proper cycling skills. But then you argue, genec, that bikeways remove the need to learn proper cycling skills, which is utterly false, as has been demonstrated for years. Of course, your recommendation is tied to your proposal for a network of urban off-road bike paths which your argument claims eliminates the need for proper cycling skill. However, you have not ever, so far as I know, and you have specifically not claimed in this discussion to do so, presented any detailed description of your proposed system. I have never seen a practical proposal for such a system, and I have never invented one, either. Maybe you should consider the realities before sounding off.

John I specifically used the word "imagine." I presented no such "argument." I only presented a possible scenario of what if... what if the reduction in traffic that is desired by those that desire reductions in traffic was done not by adding lanes for more cars (which will inevitably result in more congestion as they always do) but by a system of bike paths which encouraged others (motorists) to join the now tiny percent of us that do regularly cycle.

You seem to have mixed all the different concepts in my paragraphs together into one mushy pot.

I started by trying to clarify what dedicated transportational cyclist meant and why, I then went on to differentiate voluntary cyclists from dedicated transportational cyclists.

I then chose to point out the flaw in your thinking regarding your focus on voluntary cyclists verses those that make up the larger share of the regular cycling population.

Then I go into the "imagine" part... and suggest that we are beating ourselves in the head by constantly trying to reduce traffic congestion with the same tired solution... that of adding more lanes to an already wide roadway.

I then speculate about instead, the possibility of reducing congestion by building a network of bike paths and I actually do offer a proposed system by stating "connected infrastructure similar to that of Finland."

John what I propose is a system that folks will naturally gravitate to... unlike the current system which apparently requires special training... or fails, as exemplified by the number of cyclists that ride on sidewalks and find off road paths far more desirable than the paved roads.

I doubt I will ever change your mind... you have convinced yourself (and sadly, others) that nothing can work better than sharing the roadways with cars. You refuse to acknowledge that other countries (or even cities here in America) can do a fine job of reducing congestion by encouraging cycling, even if it is not strictly vehicular cycling in the manner you espouse.

May I suggest a long vacation in Finland. Bring your bike. (the ironic thing is you will find plenty of people, even your age, enjoying cycling, on some wonderful paths) BTW, I know you didn't invent the system there... and I never accused you of such a thing.

Personally I think America just hasn't put itself to the challenge. I think we can do a fine job, if we put our minds to it. (and allocate the funding) I just hate to think we have to be dragged kicking and screaming to find such a solution, when examples already exist.

Ah, but then "addictions" are like that.

[genec]

Interesting.



Thanks for finding this... I had not been able to complete my search.

[Allister]

Based on your description of ADC, it sounds like an excellent organization; I should check it out. 50-60 mph is a _perfect_ speed range, because the lessons learned in the early 1970s - when first I found 60 mph to be the top non-rod-throwing speed of my '58 VW, then Nixon announced that the speed limit would be reduced to 50 mph for efficiency reasons, and then the compromise of 55 mph was reached after some further discussion about efficiency - still apply.

You'd think with all the clever engineers out there, someone would be able to design an engine that operates at peak efficiency at all speeds, or at least in a greater range that includes speeds down to 25mph.

I guess they figure building an entire nationwide network of higher speed roads is easier.:rolleyes:

[Allister]

I started by trying to clarify what dedicated transportational cyclist meant and why, I then went on to differentiate voluntary cyclists from dedicated transportational cyclists.

That was your first mistake. You should know by now not to bicker over semantics with these bozos. They can go on all day.

[John Forester]

Interesting.

Here is what Pete actually posted:

#114
Pete Fagerlin
Superlative member

Pete Fagerlin's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2003

Originally Posted by John Forester View Post

"Furthermore, I never made the other statement to which your refer, and which is a lie, that I stated that I avoided riding to work because of the amount of material I had to carry."

Interesting.

Originally Posted by John Forester View Post

"I knew that all roads accommodated cyclists, so I cycled wherever I chose. My criteria concerned the practicality of the trip: too much time, too much to carry, formal clothes, non-cyclists involved, no secure bicycle parking, and the like."



Do I have to keep on repeating that for you people your minds cannot understand the words that your eyes read for you!

When cycling to work I arranged things so that I could carry everything that I needed. Therefore, I never avoided cycling to work because of excessive amount to carry.

[Brian Ratliff]

You'd think with all the clever engineers out there, someone would be able to design an engine that operates at peak efficiency at all speeds, or at least in a greater range that includes speeds down to 25mph.

I guess they figure building an entire nationwide network of higher speed roads is easier.:rolleyes:

Oh, it is certainly very easy. The tradeoff is that you cannot go 0-60 in 4 seconds. Fully hybrid vehicles, which have engines which turn at a rate which is independent of the wheels, have a pretty wide efficiency band. The Prius is more efficient at 25mph than at 50. Our little company has 3 people (out of 4) who own Prius', including myself. We compare numbers. The guy with a lot of freeway driving at 60-70 mph has the worst gas mileage. I have the second with my shorter rural road commutes. The guy with the best (over 50mpg) drives exclusively in city traffic.

FWIW, there is still a tradeoff. 0-60 in a Prius is a pretty laggard (by today's standards) 10 seconds.

[genec]

That was your first mistake. You should know by now not to bicker over semantics with these bozos. They can go on all day.

Apparently.

Some have even written books to show their "skills." :D

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Let the record show I put skills in quotes to show it as rhetorical irony.

[Helmet Head]

I knew that all roads accommodated cyclists, so I cycled wherever I chose. My criteria concerned the practicality of the trip: too much time, too much to carry, formal clothes, non-cyclists involved, no secure bicycle parking, and the like.

Do I have to keep on repeating that for you people your minds cannot understand the words that your eyes read for you!

When cycling to work I arranged things so that I could carry everything that I needed. Therefore, I never avoided cycling to work because of excessive amount to carry.
Ah.

So, for trips in general, the criteria you used to determine the practicality of using a bicycle for each trip included considering whether you had too much to carry. For example, if you're going to buy a TV, or going out to dinner and a show in the city 50 miles away, you would probably drive your car.

But for trips commuting to work, having "too much to carry" was never an issue.

Makes sense to me.




Give me more time and I'll find the quote where you stated that commuting was a problem due to all the things you had to carry.
Since I never made such a statement about myself, and never acted as you claim, you are inventing lies.

Gene, are you going to find a quote supporting your claim, admit your error, or pretend like you never made the claim?

[John Forester]

John I specifically used the word "imagine." I presented no such "argument." I only presented a possible scenario of what if... what if the reduction in traffic that is desired by those that desire reductions in traffic was done not by adding lanes for more cars (which will inevitably result in more congestion as they always do) but by a system of bike paths which encouraged others (motorists) to join the now tiny percent of us that do regularly cycle.

You seem to have mixed all the different concepts in my paragraphs together into one mushy pot.

I started by trying to clarify what dedicated transportational cyclist meant and why, I then went on to differentiate voluntary cyclists from dedicated transportational cyclists.

I then chose to point out the flaw in your thinking regarding your focus on voluntary cyclists verses those that make up the larger share of the regular cycling population.

Then I go into the "imagine" part... and suggest that we are beating ourselves in the head by constantly trying to reduce traffic congestion with the same tired solution... that of adding more lanes to an already wide roadway.

I then speculate about instead, the possibility of reducing congestion by building a network of bike paths and I actually do offer a proposed system by stating "connected infrastructure similar to that of Finland."

John what I propose is a system that folks will naturally gravitate to... unlike the current system which apparently requires special training... or fails, as exemplified by the number of cyclists that ride on sidewalks and find off road paths far more desirable than the paved roads.

I doubt I will ever change your mind... you have convinced yourself (and sadly, others) that nothing can work better than sharing the roadways with cars. You refuse to acknowledge that other countries (or even cities here in America) can do a fine job of reducing congestion by encouraging cycling, even if it is not strictly vehicular cycling in the manner you espouse.

May I suggest a long vacation in Finland. Bring your bike. (the ironic thing is you will find plenty of people, even your age, enjoying cycling, on some wonderful paths) BTW, I know you didn't invent the system there... and I never accused you of such a thing.

Personally I think America just hasn't put itself to the challenge. I think we can do a fine job, if we put our minds to it. (and allocate the funding) I just hate to think we have to be dragged kicking and screaming to find such a solution, when examples already exist.

Ah, but then "addictions" are like that.

There is no point in presenting subject matter in this supposedly realistic discussion that can only be imagined, rather than planned, designed, or shown. You present imaginings in this discussion, and then excuse yourself because they clearly are not real and can't be real.

Very few of us have been to Finland. You have, and you recommend their system to us. Therefore, you need to describe that system in such detail as would be persuasive in a substantial discussion. That is particularly important because this supposed Finnish system is apparently far different from anything that we know, and supposedly overcomes the difficulties inherent in those systems that we do know.

When you got into the voluntary versus dedicated cyclist differentiation, you then catalogued me as being something that I am not, purely because of the way that you chose to define the classes. That is, because I wrote that I cycled because I enjoyed it, you then claimed, without any evidence and contrary to the evidence that has been accumulated in the cycling world for thirty years, that I did not ride under conditions that you considered unpleasant, such as heavy traffic.

Now you get onto the subject of my opinion regarding cycling reducing motoring congestion. "You refuse to acknowledge that other countries (or even cities here in America) can do a fine job of reducing congestion by encouraging cycling, even if it is not strictly vehicular cycling in the manner you espouse." Please provide data concerning the proportionate reduction in motoring congestion in American cities that has been produced by encouraging cycling. That is, your argument claims that something that you call congestion has been significantly reduced by encouraging cycling. I am asking you to provide the appropriate data to support your argument and claim. Those data must necessarily be in the form of: At city X the congestion was reduced by Y% over, or in, Z years. If you do not provide such data, I must conclude, as I provisionally have done because I know of no such data, that you are simply disturbing electrons.

[noisebeam]

Oh, it is certainly very easy. The tradeoff is that you cannot go 0-60 in 4 seconds. Fully hybrid vehicles, which have engines which turn at a rate which is independent of the wheels, have a pretty wide efficiency band. The Prius is more efficient at 25mph than at 50. Our little company has 3 people (out of 4) who own Prius', including myself. We compare numbers. The guy with a lot of freeway driving at 60-70 mph has the worst gas mileage. I have the second with my shorter rural road commutes. The guy with the best (over 50mpg) drives exclusively in city traffic.

FWIW, there is still a tradeoff. 0-60 in a Prius is a pretty laggard (by today's standards) 10 seconds.

Yep, I was thinking the same. The Prius my wife and I drive (she much more) has a 32k mile lifetime mpg of 49.6 which is suburban roads (45mph, stops every 1/2-2mi) and some road trips on 75mph freeways.
Our best mpg was from Prescott to Tempe AZ, over 100 miles traveled with a 74.5mph freeway average at 65/75mph (yes it's mostly downhill ;) but with some decent climbs in there too)
I didn't realize the acceleration spec was so 'poor'. It sure feels more peppy than that. Perhaps the 0-45mph is more 'competitive' with similar sized passenger vehicles. Of course the other motor vehicle I drive is a Ford Explorer which make the Prius feel like a sports car.

Al

[Allister]

Oh, it is certainly very easy. The tradeoff is that you cannot go 0-60 in 4 seconds. Fully hybrid vehicles, which have engines which turn at a rate which is independent of the wheels, have a pretty wide efficiency band. The Prius is more efficient at 25mph than at 50. Our little company has 3 people (out of 4) who own Prius', including myself. We compare numbers. The guy with a lot of freeway driving at 60-70 mph has the worst gas mileage. I have the second with my shorter rural road commutes. The guy with the best (over 50mpg) drives exclusively in city traffic.

Cool. Shows how up to date I am with the technology. :) Now, if we can just convince the leadfoots to buy 'em...

FWIW, there is still a tradeoff. 0-60 in a Prius is a pretty laggard (by today's standards) 10 seconds.

You don't need very rapid acceleration in most situations. In fact, gentle acceleartion and braking is usually best in any amount of traffic.

[Brian Ratliff]

^^^
You are certainly not making it easy for us to establish your credentials (other than the echo chamber credentials which is the authorship of a book) in traffic cycling. You will not answer straight what kind of cycling you do, or what kind of traffic you ride in. What's the big secret?

HH didn't do it because, I suspect, he was a bit embarrassed, seeing as his actual traffic cycling credentials are not much to speak of, compared to some of the others who frequent this forum. What is your hangup?

[noisebeam]

You don't need very rapid acceleration in most situations. In fact, gentle acceleration and braking is usually best in any amount of traffic.
Unless your driving a bicycle and want a good work out. ;)

Just by driving my Ford Explorer 'gently' I went from an 18mph average (over 1yr.) to a 21mph average (over 5yrs.) Way back when I was an aggressive driver. Now I coast into stops and gently get out of them and top out at the SL and still get everywhere on time.

Al

[Brian Ratliff]

Yep, I was thinking the same. The Prius my wife and I drive (she much more) has a 32k mile lifetime mpg of 49.6 which is suburban roads (45mph, stops every 1/2-2mi) and some road trips on 75mph freeways.
Our best mpg was from Prescott to Tempe AZ, over 100 miles traveled with a 74.5mph freeway average at 65/75mph (yes it's mostly downhill ;) but with some decent climbs in there too)
I didn't realize the acceleration spec was so 'poor'. It sure feels more peppy than that. Perhaps the 0-45mph is more 'competitive' with similar sized passenger vehicles. Of course the other motor vehicle I drive is a Ford Explorer which make the Prius feel like a sports car.

Al

I've heard 9 seconds quoted as well, but it certainly isn't anywhere close to 5 or 6 seconds of your average sedan.

That said, every source I've heard, and by my own experience as well, the little car accelerates from 0-30 with times that are compariable to other cars in its class. It's the 30-60 acceleration which kills it for the 0-60 test.

[Helmet Head]

^^^
You are certainly not making it easy for us to establish your credentials (other than the echo chamber credentials which is the authorship of a book) in traffic cycling. You will not answer straight what kind of cycling you do, or what kind of traffic you ride in. What's the big secret?

HH didn't do it because, I suspect, he was a bit embarrassed, seeing as his actual traffic cycling credentials are not much to speak of, compared to some of the others who frequent this forum. What is your hangup?
First, as I've argued many times, unless something I say is based on a claim about my experience, which I try to avoid as much as possible, what do such credentials matter?

Second, how many times do I have to write about my experience before you stop making this fallacious claim?

EDIT:

Here (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=1158581&highlight=experience+years+miles#post1158581) is where I did it in the first sentence of an OP over two years ago, just a couple of months after my Mar 2005 "Join Date."

Please stop being so antagonistic (no, that's not hypocritical, for I urge against antagonism within myself at least as much as I do in others, though all to often I fail to do it).

[Brian Ratliff]

You don't need very rapid acceleration in most situations. In fact, gentle acceleartion and braking is usually best in any amount of traffic.

You are correct. 10 seconds is plenty of time to get off the line, even when accelerating onto the highways. And, like I said, the 0-30 time isn't too shabby, and is more relevent to city driving anyway.

[Allister]

When you got into the voluntary versus dedicated cyclist differentiation, you then catalogued me as being something that I am not, purely because of the way that you chose to define the classes. That is, because I wrote that I cycled because I enjoyed it, you then claimed, without any evidence and contrary to the evidence that has been accumulated in the cycling world for thirty years, that I did not ride under conditions that you considered unpleasant, such as heavy traffic.


Latching onto the semantics of 'voluntary' versus 'dedicated' was a nice tactic for avoiding the point he was making, though.

He did state that the reason for bringing it up was that he questions whether you have sufficient experience of cycling in high density traffic, whether you find it enjoyable or not, to qualify you as the expert on the subject that you present yourself as. We're still waiting for a response to that.

[Brian Ratliff]

How many times do I have to do it before you stop making this fallacious claim?

You are right, you eventually told us. After a month of asking and many 10's of posts from you about how the information was irrelevent.

It is irrelevent, but only if you accept the premises of your arguments as sound and don't question them. We didn't, and it took a month to finally find out that you have a rather pedestrian experience level, perhaps explaining a few things.

[Helmet Head]

You are right, you eventually told us. After a month of asking and many 10's of posts from you about how the information was irrelevent.

It is irrelevent, but only if you accept the premises of your arguments as sound and don't question them. We didn't, and it took a month to finally find out that you have a rather pedestrian experience level, perhaps explaining a few things.
Eventually? I had posted it long before anyone asked.

When the premises of my arguments having nothing to do with my experience or credentials, or can be evaluated independent of knowing anything about my experience or credentials, then my experience and credentials are irrelevant.

The experience and credentials of someone presenting an argument, including myself, only should matter to you if your decision on whether to accept a premise or not depends on your taking something on faith. I try to avoid doing that, and encourage you and everyone else to do the same.

I don't know about you, but for me, persuasive arguments are based on premises that can be evaluated independent of whoever is presenting them. That's why I find "credentials" to be largely irrelevant. Perhaps you're accustomed to taking more stuff on faith in the person saying something, rather than evaluating the something objectively, and so put more value on credentials.

[RobertHurst]

...
The experience and credentials of someone presenting an argument, including myself, only should matter to you if your decision on whether to accept a premise or not depends on your taking something on faith. I try to avoid doing that, and encourage you and everyone else to do the same. .

Wow. Consistently, your premises are based on faith and faith alone. I don't recall you presenting much valid evidence for any assertion you make here; in fact it seems your assertions are generally contrary to known evidence. Not having a fact in your corner doesn't deter you, you soldier on.

Edit: I should also add that you are prone to making stuff up to suit your arguments. I suppose this is because, for some reason, those arguments are just that important to you.

I don't know about you, but for me, persuasive arguments are based on premises that can be evaluated independent of whoever is presenting them. That's why I find "credentials" to be largely irrelevant. Perhaps you're accustomed to taking more stuff on faith in the person saying something, rather than evaluating the something objectively, and so put more value on credentials.

But HH, your arguments aren't persuasive. And the premises they are based on have been evaluated as baloney. Perhaps your lack of experience as a cyclist has something to do with that?

Robert

[Allister]

I don't know about you, but for me, persuasive arguments are based on premises that can be evaluated independent of whoever is presenting them.

You don't think that's how we evaluate your arguments? Just because people disagree with, it doesn't mean they have a grudge against you. Maybe you're just consistently wrong.

That's why I find "credentials" to be largely irrelevant. Perhaps you're accustomed to taking more stuff on faith in the person saying something, rather than evaluating the something objectively, and so put more value on credentials.

So some kind of knowledge and experience of the subject isn't relevant? :lol: You crack me up Serge.

You are correct in the sense that each message should be evaluated on it's merits, irrespective of the author. The point is though, that the quality of that message is determined by the level of knowledge and experience of the author, a lack of which will lead to the message being garbled, unclear, overly complicated or just plain wrong. That is why your 'ceredentials' are absolutely relevant.

[LittleBigMan]

John,

Do you bicycle in rush hour traffic on a regular basis? I think this is what Gene is trying to assertain.

If you do not, then I'd agree with Gene that your experiences with bicycling in traffic might be too limited to broaden them out to generalizations. It is relevent because there are many assumptions which your version of vehicular cycling and vehicular cycling advocacy rest upon which are challenged by other authors and commentators here on the forums. If you are to reach a wide audience, then you must justify these assumptions, not just on the back of logic, but on the back of your personal experience, and you must connect the dots and show how your personal experience is indicative to the general condition.

Brian Ratliffe,

I do not wish to pick any fights with you, but I am going to use your post to further my own point.

I asserted that on my commute (30 miles round-trip, Stone Mountain/Atlanta) I used almost no bikeways, and motorists on my commute, on normal roads without bikeways, were safe and friendly, even timid, towards me. I was challenged ad infinitum that I was lying.

Gene made the point in this thread that John Forester was substituting speculation for experience, yet I found that my own true experience was attacked by speculation, and the attacker never admitted he could be wrong.

All I can say is that I am a long-time bicycle commuter in Atlanta where there are few bike lanes and that I have happily ridden the roads here for over a decade with very few road-rage incidents. Yet they for whom this is an inconvenient truth continue to deny my experience, instead substituting their own speculation.

[sbhikes]

I carry a flute, a small guitar-like instrument, a big book full of music, a large purse full of things I might need, and a lock and have no trouble getting to work on my bike. Sometimes I stop to purchase things and can also fit those in my bag. I think John Forester doesn't know how to carry things on a bicycle.

[Allister]

All I can say is that I am a long-time bicycle commuter in Atlanta where there are few bike lanes and that I have happily ridden the roads here for over a decade with very few road-rage incidents. Yet they for whom this is an inconvenient truth continue to deny my experience, instead substituting their own speculation.

Seems to be a common problem. I've had HH do exactly the same thing to me.

I, for one, have never doubted your experience, Pete. Serge, however, really leaves me wondering.

[LittleBigMan]

Seems to be a common problem.
If only we all had the same degree of balance.

Hat's off to you.

[John Forester]

Latching onto the semantics of 'voluntary' versus 'dedicated' was a nice tactic for avoiding the point he was making, though.

He did state that the reason for bringing it up was that he questions whether you have sufficient experience of cycling in high density traffic, whether you find it enjoyable or not, to qualify you as the expert on the subject that you present yourself as. We're still waiting for a response to that.

Oh, you want to know about my experience in cycling in high density traffic?

Two years cycling in Boston and Cambridge traffic, reputably dense and difficult. A year or so cycling in Oakland CA downtown traffic. Thirty years cycling in Silicon Valley traffic, much of it along El Camino Real, with traffic volumes of 40,000 vehicles a day at 45+ mph when free to run. And through the busiest intersection of that road, with intersecting traffic volume almost as great. Three years cycling in general Los Angeles traffic, very congested, that, by official counts. And teaching classes of cyclists to cycle properly and to make left turns from and onto that El Camino Real that is mentioned above.

[Allister]

Oh, you want to know about my experience in cycling in high density traffic?

Two years cycling in Boston and Cambridge traffic, reputably dense and difficult. A year or so cycling in Oakland CA downtown traffic. Thirty years cycling in Silicon Valley traffic, much of it along El Camino Real, with traffic volumes of 40,000 vehicles a day at 45+ mph when free to run. And through the busiest intersection of that road, with intersecting traffic volume almost as great. Three years cycling in general Los Angeles traffic, very congested, that, by official counts. And teaching classes of cyclists to cycle properly and to make left turns from and onto that El Camino Real that is mentioned above.

Was that so hard?

[John Forester]

I carry a flute, a small guitar-like instrument, a big book full of music, a large purse full of things I might need, and a lock and have no trouble getting to work on my bike. Sometimes I stop to purchase things and can also fit those in my bag. I think John Forester doesn't know how to carry things on a bicycle.

Such pontification from a person so utterly ignorant about general cycling history. I designed, made or had made, and sold, three different sizes of the world's best saddlebags. I designed, made or had made, and sold, a very good set of pannier bags with internal framework so they held their shape and were easy to load. I brazed up, for all my bicycles and those of my family, except the racing bikes, proper custom fitted easy-on-and-easy-off-and-rigid baggage racks, to which the panniers were designed to fit, and which allowed more stuff to be piled on the top. I did all this for twenty-five years.

[John Forester]

Was that so hard?

Why would it be hard? Nobody had earlier asked the question about my experience in dense traffic. Once it was asked, I answered it. You people are just nastily seeking something to hold against me, and this assertion that I hide things is just another of such methods.

[TheWheelman]

Documented where?

I am curious with a personal interest because, if I start from my door, 2/3 of my 23 mile (one way) commute is on rural roads (no shoulder, 55 mph unsigned speed limit). I've ridden them in commuting capacity many dozens of times, but I have reached exactly the opposite conclusion of your "documented fact". Marginally safe, perhaps, is a better term. There is definitely an added danger when compared to your average city street with more road space and slower traffic.

The bulk of my cycling too is on roads of the "no shoulder, 55 mph" variety, and has been for 25 years. But just for you, I just dusted off one of my copies of what you apparently call the "echo chamber" (the rest of us call it "Effective Cycling"), and I didn't have to look very long to find documentation for you of the safety of rural nighttime riding. To wit: Page 269, Table 28.6, "Rank ordering of car-bike collision frequency rates by age of cyclist and location of accident (most frequent at top of each list)." Out of the six categories of types of cyclists on the chart, "Adult - rural" is the only one for which the accident type that cyclist-inferiority cyclists most fear - motorist-overtaking - is significant enough to even be _on_ the list, and the item reads as follows: "Motorist overtaking unseen cyclist (mostly in darkness)".

Don't want to become one of those statistics? Just don't be "unseen".

[Allister]

Why would it be hard? Nobody had earlier asked the question about my experience in dense traffic. Once it was asked, I answered it.

From page 3 of this thread.


I object to you portraying yourself as an cycling expert and representing the rest of us, when in fact you may not have the actual experience to do so.

Even if it hadn't been mentioned, and despite the diversion that using ambiguous terms like 'dedicated' and 'voluntary' caused, from my reading, the discussion has always been about how much experience you may or may not have. Genec is welcome to correct me if I misread.

You people are just nastily seeking something to hold against me, and this assertion that I hide things is just another of such methods.

Are you always this paranoid?

[Brian Ratliff]

@TheWheelman
You realize that rural traffic has increased, probably exponentially, at least where I live, from the early 70's when these statistics were presented. Moreover, in Forester's book, there is no way of telling how he went about deriving these statistics. They are not footnoted, and at the beginning of the section, he mentions that he "derived" the numbers he presents from the raw data from several studies, though he does not present his methodology. It's okay, since he was writing a textbook as opposed to a reference book or journal article, but unreferenced, derived statistics from a textbook from the 70's by no means constitues "documented fact".

His definition of rural is odd as well. In tables 28.3 and 28.4 he correlates accidents for urban and rural, showing that three percent of all rural accidents involve sidewalk cyclists :eek:! I've never seen a rural highway with a sidewalk. Because I cannot see how he derives the data, I cannot tell what his definition of "rural" is. There are many highways around here that used to be rural but I would now classify as suburban. Notice that there is no category for "suburban" in this text. It is because, in the 70's, suburban was still rural and most everyone still lived in cities. The trend is very much different now, with a large percentage of a city's population living in the suburbs and now the "exurbs", with corresponding changes in traffic flow.

On the roads I ride on, sight lines are short, lanes are 9-10 feet wide (substandard), and speeds are 50-75mph. Because of the exurban population (which, I admit, I am one of), there is a well defined rush hour, where traffic is many times greater than the average. My observation, from cycling in rush hour on the rural roads and urban and suburban roads of the Portland metro area, is that the rural roads are much more difficult to ride on. They are not necessarily more dangerous; as you have pointed out, most of the problem is getting the motorist to see you in time to react to your presence, and this can be easily done using bright clothing and lights for day and night respectively. But the margins for error are very much lower. Drivers are more impatient in this environment because the norm on these roads are for free reign; drivers in urban and suburban areas expect to stop or slow more. There is very little room for cars to maneuver given the speed that cars are traveling, particularly the speed of oncoming traffic, and the lack of lane width. Sightlines are short, again, given the speed, and the asphalt ends right at the fogline.

To summarize, I would not characterize cycling on rural roads as "dangerous". But if you are comparing relative risk, cycling on rural roads during rush hour times entails some added risk because of the lowered margins of error.

[randya]

Jeffrey Hiles (http://www.wright.edu/%7Ejeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html) does a great job of critiquing Effective Cycling. thanks to HH for pointing it out!

;)

[RobertHurst]

...

Don't want to become one of those statistics? Just don't be "unseen".

You possess the magic ring of visibility? Me and Frodo will be right over.

[Allister]

"Motorist overtaking unseen cyclist (mostly in darkness)".

Appropriate lighting serves you better to solve that than does riding in the lane.

[Allister]

On the roads I ride on, sight lines are short, lanes are 9-10 feet wide (substandard), and speeds are 50-75mph. Because of the exurban population (which, I admit, I am one of), there is a well defined rush hour, where traffic is many times greater than the average. My observation, from cycling in rush hour on the rural roads and urban and suburban roads of the Portland metro area, is that the rural roads are much more difficult to ride on. They are not necessarily more dangerous; as you have pointed out, most of the problem is getting the motorist to see you in time to react to your presence, and this can be easily done using bright clothing and lights for day and night respectively. But the margins for error are very much lower. Drivers are more impatient in this environment because the norm on these roads are for free reign; drivers in urban and suburban areas expect to stop or slow more. There is very little room for cars to maneuver given the speed that cars are traveling, particularly the speed of oncoming traffic, and the lack of lane width. Sightlines are short, again, given the speed, and the asphalt ends right at the fogline.

To summarize, I would not characterize cycling on rural roads as "dangerous". But if you are comparing relative risk, cycling on rural roads during rush hour times entails some added risk because of the lowered margins of error.

Mate, I would characterize a road that you describe with high volume/speed traffic as dangerous. I've ridden on such roads, but only with very low traffic volumes, which is usually fine. I can well imagine what higher volumes might be like. Is it hilly too?

I suspect the only thing that makes it rideable at all would be a much smaller volume of counterflow traffic. Can you give us an approximation of the frequency of passing traffic and it's speed during the busiest time you ride it? (not doubting you, just trying to get a clear picture)

[Allister]

Jeffrey Hiles (http://www.wright.edu/%7Ejeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch4.html) does a great job of critiquing Effective Cycling. thanks to HH for pointing it out!

;)

Effective Cyclists do not hug the curb, for another example. They ride a few feet to the right of the motor vehicle track. On a wide boulevard, this may put the cyclist well away from the edge of the road. This road position puts the rider closer to where motorists entering from side streets are looking for traffic, which makes the cyclist more visible. It also lessens the danger that a motorist will creep out from the curb into the cyclist’s path. Where lane width is tight, Effective Cyclists assertively “take the lane”

Exactly correct. How on earth did that foamhead manage to get this simple thing so very wrong?

[TheWheelman]

Appropriate lighting serves you better to solve that than does riding in the lane.

"Ample" is better than merely "appropriate" (nor is it just "lighting"; I've been additionally using a 7-inch homemade triangular reflector for 20 years), and I'm afraid that on most roads here in proudly-bikelane-free Susquehanna County we can't provide you with any choice _but_ to ride "in the lane" unless you want barbed wire wrapped around you.

[TheWheelman]

@TheWheelman
You realize that rural traffic has increased, probably exponentially, at least where I live, from the early 70's when these statistics were presented. Moreover, in Forester's book, there is no way of telling how he went about deriving these statistics. They are not footnoted, and at the beginning of the section, he mentions that he "derived" the numbers he presents from the raw data from several studies, though he does not present his methodology. It's okay, since he was writing a textbook as opposed to a reference book or journal article, but unreferenced, derived statistics from a textbook from the 70's by no means constitues "documented fact".

His definition of rural is odd as well. In tables 28.3 and 28.4 he correlates accidents for urban and rural, showing that three percent of all rural accidents involve sidewalk cyclists :eek:! I've never seen a rural highway with a sidewalk. Because I cannot see how he derives the data, I cannot tell what his definition of "rural" is. There are many highways around here that used to be rural but I would now classify as suburban. Notice that there is no category for "suburban" in this text. It is because, in the 70's, suburban was still rural and most everyone still lived in cities. The trend is very much different now, with a large percentage of a city's population living in the suburbs and now the "exurbs", with corresponding changes in traffic flow.

On the roads I ride on, sight lines are short, lanes are 9-10 feet wide (substandard), and speeds are 50-75mph. Because of the exurban population (which, I admit, I am one of), there is a well defined rush hour, where traffic is many times greater than the average. My observation, from cycling in rush hour on the rural roads and urban and suburban roads of the Portland metro area, is that the rural roads are much more difficult to ride on. They are not necessarily more dangerous; as you have pointed out, most of the problem is getting the motorist to see you in time to react to your presence, and this can be easily done using bright clothing and lights for day and night respectively. But the margins for error are very much lower. Drivers are more impatient in this environment because the norm on these roads are for free reign; drivers in urban and suburban areas expect to stop or slow more. There is very little room for cars to maneuver given the speed that cars are traveling, particularly the speed of oncoming traffic, and the lack of lane width. Sightlines are short, again, given the speed, and the asphalt ends right at the fogline.

To summarize, I would not characterize cycling on rural roads as "dangerous". But if you are comparing relative risk, cycling on rural roads during rush hour times entails some added risk because of the lowered margins of error.


Thank you for using the word "probably" in your first sentence, thereby making it even easier than it already was to tell that you use the same analysis methodology that you accuse Forester of using.

FACT - Suburb[ia] was not rural in the 1970s; I know because I was living in suburbia in the '50s and '60s.

FACT - Suburbia has always been suburbia.

FACT - Rural has always been rural.

FACT - The peak traffic volumes per lane on the most crowded roads in each, has always been about the same as it is now (demonstrable by the fact the motorists of the '50s were no more willing to go to a crusher and get their cars accordionized a little bit to facilitate fitting them into tighter openings in the traffic, than today's motorists are).

FACT - The methods by which I've had the most success in cycling in those peak traffic locations/times of each (both prior to '82 when I lived in suburbia and visited the country, and since '82 when I've been living in the country and visiting suburbia), have stayed _exactly_ the same.

FACT - Only the boundaries change.

[Bekologist]

don't you drive to work, wheelman- i mean, 'motorist'? driving 20 days a month sounds like driving to work to me....

what happened to jhon forestor? I surmise once he was confronted- no, let me say he concurred - with the reality that vehicular operation of a bicycle can be done both in bike lanes and on the shoulders of roads, his interests in visiting this forum was lessened as he can't find enough acolytes to drink the koolaid.

not to mention, the dude is devisive, derisive and rude!

[Brian Ratliff]

Thank you for using the word "probably" in your first sentence, thereby making it even easier than it already was to tell that you use the same analysis methodology that you accuse Forester of using.

FACT - Suburb[ia] was not rural in the 1970s; I know because I was living in suburbia in the '50s and '60s.

FACT - Suburbia has always been suburbia.

FACT - Rural has always been rural.

FACT - The peak traffic volumes per lane on the most crowded roads in each, has always been about the same as it is now (demonstrable by the fact the motorists of the '50s were no more willing to go to a crusher and get their cars accordionized a little bit to facilitate fitting them into tighter openings in the traffic, than today's motorists are).

FACT - The methods by which I've had the most success in cycling in those peak traffic locations/times of each (both prior to '82 when I lived in suburbia and visited the country, and since '82 when I've been living in the country and visiting suburbia), have stayed _exactly_ the same.

FACT - Only the boundaries change.

Then you have confirmed that the statistics derived and presented in Forester's book have no meaning, since they lack a category for "suburban" roads, which as you well know, differ strongly from urban and rural both, as we define the words in common language. If surburbia was common during the time that the statistical data were gathered, then either 1) the differences in traffic patterns now present were not present at the time, so suburbia was lumped into either the urban or rural data, or 2) the data set is incomplete.

Either way you cut it, there is no "documented fact" contained in Forester's derived statistics that rural traffic cycling is not relatively dangerous.

[Brian Ratliff]

The rural roads around here at rush hour have speeds of 50-60 mph. The cars tend to lump together in packs. Packs travel at full speed and contain, maybe, 5-10 cars with packs spaced out maybe a minute apart. It varies and I've never paid attention to count cars which pass. I don't do the route that often anymore. It is too stressful, even without having to account for darkness and weather.

Danger is always relative. When I say that the roads are basically safe, though more dangerous than urban or suburban roads, I mean that you have a much greater chance of riding through without major incident than not. That doesn't mean that you won't have stress. Because sightlines are short, there are very few passing locations which can accomodate even passing a bicycle, and even just a very small amount of counter traffic can make passing unworkable for long periods of time. It might be a quarter mile sometimes before a car can find space to pass a cyclist, which, if the driver were driving at 55mph and is now stuck behind you at 15mph, will seem like an eternity.

Passing locations are so sparce that it is common to be stuck behind a slow piece of farm equipment or a slow truck (going, say, 30-40mph) for 10 miles at a time.

[joejack951]

I would put 1 and 3 in the same place... however only 3 is actually "forced."

1 and 3 are dedicated. 2 is voluntary.

I know I shouldn't be surprised at how much has been posted since I last posted but I still am.

Anyway, how is a person who voluntarily foregoes owning a motor vehicle not a voluntary transportational cyclist? Is he still "dedicated" if he ever uses a plane, train, taxi, or rental car to travel?

Thank you for answering though. I think I've finally figured out YOUR definition of a "voluntary transportational cyclist" and it all comes down to whether or not the cyclist also owns a car. I think that misses the mark on a lot of people.