Vehicular Cycling (VC) - What happened to John Forester?

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

I'll attempt to clarify. First off, I would never strongly say that I "love" cycling. I enjoy it, but I think love is a strong word for any activity. As to hardships, can you honestly say that if cycling was going to make your life miserable for a year that you'd keep it up? What if your significant other made you miserable for a year? Would you give up on her the same way?

Most of what could generally be considered "hardships" with cycling are expected consequences (both good and bad) for someone who enjoys cycling. Things like a longer travel time, exposure to the elements, sweating, sore muscles, and a honking motorist all fall into this category for me. Now, real hardships in my opinion would be things like losing a job or a friend or your home because you wanted to continue cycling. If I was dedicated to someone or some cause (where the use of the word love becomes appropriate in my mind) I would endure real hardship to continue on with that which I'm dedicated to.

Does my statement make more sense now? I believe this is in line with what JF has posted about his level of dedication to cycling. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Our resident "bekologist", whatever a bekologist is, wrote:
"don't you drive to work, wheelman- i mean, 'motorist'? driving 20 days a month sounds like driving to work to me...."

TF: "To work"? I only "[motor] to work" _4_ days a month! Be careful with your parsing of snippets, Bekologist. What I said was that I _motor_, for _some_ purpose or another, 20 days a month. If the transportation-requiring aspects of my several businesses were as _simple_, as yours apparently are, as yo-yoing up and down the same route daily with sub-7-ton loads to some sugar-daddy company, I too would be able to keep my motoring down to once every two months (as I have a good number of times in the past and probably will again in the future).

But speaking of "two months" (a figure that I got off of you), thanks for reminding me of the question that I asked and that you conspicuously avoided answering. First let's bring any audience member who might have just hopped aboard, up to speed: In one breath, you said that you haven't used your car to go to the grocery store in two years. In another breath, you said that you start your car up once every two months to keep the "engine circulating" (implying that it must be common for there to be lulls of more than two months in the occasions of mountain rescues that you'd said are what you keep the car for) (and the "engine circulating" is obviously an oversimplification, because you must know that it wouldn't do for anything _else_ to freeze up - I've found the brake drums, for example, to be frozen up at the end of one of my non-motoring periods and the clutch to be weak for the first hundred or so miles at the end of a couple of others - and therefore, the wisdom of _driving_ a few _miles_ with your car must be a no-brainer on those once-every-two-months occasions, for ensuring that everything is still turnkey for in case there's a mountain-rescue call).

So here's the question again: What destinations _do_ you motor to, on those once-every-two-_months_, non-mountain-rescue, motoring trips on which you say that the destination hasn't been the grocery store in two _years_?

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

TF: Since you seem to spend more time wading through the various charts in Effective Cycling than I've done in years, you should have no trouble finding at least one of the items of "documentation": A half-minute's worth of arithmetic that you can do from one or another of the charts shows that approximately 9 times more car-bike collisions come from the cyclist's front and sides than from the rear.

Rural cycling is "relatively dangerous" in terms of danger from the rear, but danger from the rear is the smallest danger of all to begin with. Therefore, your "relatively dangerous" categorization for rural cycling is cancelled out by the "relatively dangerous" high density of intersections and driveways that urban cycling must deal with.

The cyclist-inferiority, bikeway engineers who have to suppress such facts in order to keep their jobs, might have "documentation"-citing methodologies more appealing to the college boys than what I've done above, but they don't have the transportational-cycling experience that us Chainguarders have.

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

TF: Since you seem to spend more time wading through the various charts in Effective Cycling than I've done in years, you should have no trouble finding at least one of the items of "documentation": A half-minute's worth of arithmetic that you can do from one or another of the charts shows that approximately 9 times more car-bike collisions come from the cyclist's front and sides than from the rear.

Rural cycling is "relatively dangerous" in terms of danger from the rear, but danger from the rear is the smallest danger of all to begin with. Therefore, your "relatively dangerous" categorization for rural cycling is cancelled out by the "relatively dangerous" high density of intersections and driveways that urban cycling must deal with.

The cyclist-inferiority, bikeway engineers who have to suppress such facts in order to keep their jobs, might have "documentation"-citing methodologies more appealing to the college boys than what I've done above, but they don't have the transportational-cycling experience that us Chainguarders have.

It has been a while since I looked at this evidence, how do these charts account for variability in severity of injuries? If they fail to distinguish a "boo-boo" from a broken leg from a broken neck, how does this affect your conclusions?

I drive friends with physical disabilities that prevent them from owning a car on errands, or friends without cars to the feed store.

who cares?

I know- being a daily, vehicular cyclist- that vehicular bicycle operation can take place in bike lanes and on the shoulders of roads.

VC as a bicycling technique, flawed as it is if you go according to 'the gospel of jhon', is not the end all, be-all panacea to bicycling as transportation.


Since vehicular operation of a bicycle can take place on accomodating shoulders and bike lanes, the VC'ist blanket denial of bicycling infrastructure has political and dogmatic elements unrelated to operating a bicycle.

@invisiblehand
The charts are a compilation of the raw data from several studies. They are not footnoted in any way, and the methodology of their compilation is unknown to me. Without recovering the missing information about methodology, I don't think you can find an answer to your question.

@TheWheelman
I cannot accept the numbers in those charts as "documented proof" because the charts are not documented in any way. I have no independent way of telling what those charts are actually measuring, short of simply taking Mr. Forester at his word. I could do that, but seeing as he is a blatent partisan and the numbers are over 30 years old, I am inclined not to.

@invisiblehand
The charts are a compilation of the raw data from several studies. They are not footnoted in any way, and the methodology of their compilation is unknown to me. Without recovering the missing information about methodology, I don't think you can find an answer to your question.

That is my recollection. In that case, I have trouble drawing a meaningful conclusion. I personally would be willing to trade 9 "boo-boo"s for a broken neck or whatever the ratio works out to be from the tables.

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.

It comes down to what is one's primary mode of travel. If one chooses to bike on good days and only when good routes are available (as indicated in Forester's ADC paper (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5471668&postcount=105), which he now spins differently (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5471940&postcount=107)) then you are a voluntary cyclist.

If, on the other hand, your primary means of transit is by bike, vice car (not withstanding the use of other plane, train, taxi, or rental car as needed for away travel), then you are a "dedicated" cyclist. Even if you have the means to acquire a car... as many car free cyclists have... the fact that you have chosen to make a bike your primary means of transit means that you will find yourself in the position of using bicycles for all your everyday needs, vice just those few trips which you deem "ideal" for cycling.

Ask yourself this... what is in the garage? What are you likely to use to go to work? What would you use to go shopping. How do you visit friends? What role is a bike in your life... is it primarily for recreation, or do you use it for everything? If someone called you right now and said come over... and asked how long it would take... do you even think in terms of using a car and freeway minutes?

A dedicated cyclist is one who would likely get there by bike before even considering renting a car.

A voluntary cyclist is one who "chooses which trips to make by bicycle according to their needs and desires." -- Forester. from http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf

Of course you may have seen his spin... (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5471940&postcount=107)

Does owning a car a motorist make? Not if the vehicle isn't driven. I know lots of people that have some classic car sitting in a back yard or in a garage... they never use that vehicle. They are "dedicated**" to some other means of transit; perhaps a bike, or motorcycle or even another car...

.
.
.
.
.
.
** sorry I keep going back to that term "dedicated" as I somewhat dismissed it earlier (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=5470658&postcount=89)... it's just I don't like the term Forester uses... "involuntary," as if one is forced to ride a bike. His use of that term somewhat shows his mindset, I believe.

A half-minute's worth of arithmetic that you can do from one or another of the charts shows that approximately 9 times more car-bike collisions come from the cyclist's front and sides than from the rear.

Regardless of where this figure is coming from (and I see it quoted a great deal without anyone actually providing numbers, years and locations), it is completely at odds with studies of adult cyclists riding on the road that have been conducted where I live.

The cyclist-inferiority, bikeway engineers who have to suppress such facts in order to keep their jobs, might have "documentation"-citing methodologies more appealing to the college boys than what I've done above, but they don't have the transportational-cycling experience that us Chainguarders have.

I'm not what you meant by this, but to me it reads:

"No matter what actual data and information you provide that contradicts me, I will disregard it outright and claim that they rigged the study to keep their jobs because I know from experience I am right."

You must have meant something else, right?

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!

Bekologist, you have repeated time and again that the fact that a vehicular cyclist sometimes uses a bike lane or shoulder is of great significance. I do not understand that this fact is significant of any theory, and you, who keeps on making the assertion, have never explained why you consider this fact to be significant.

Furthermore, your idea that I place so much significance on your statement that this realization (or whatever) has caused me to drop out of these discussions is absolutely false. The reason that I pay little attention to these discussions is that the arguments of the bicycle advocates, despite being so ill-informed, are so full of claims and assertions, repeated ad infinitum, that there is little point in wasting time on them. However, when, as now, those people tell lies about me, then I do become motivated to pay more attention.

As to my divisiveness, that's all to the good, for bicycle advocacy ought to be reformed. As to my derisive comments, so many of the writings by you bicycle advocates deserve no better. As for my supposed rudeness, at least my rudeness is far more cultured than is your low-level crudity, Bekologist.

BR:
"I cannot accept the numbers in those charts as 'documented proof' because the charts are not documented in any way. I have no independent way of telling what those charts are actually measuring, short of simply taking Mr. Forester at his word. I could do that, but seeing as he is a blatent partisan and the numbers are over 30 years old, I am inclined not to."

TF:
They're documented in what the accepted way was back before the Bill Gateses of the world put books with indexes in the back of them out of vogue (for, apparently, guys like you) and replaced them with electricity-wasting urls. Either look in the index, which tells you what pages on which to find mentions of "Cross", "Kaplan", etc., or just go to www.JohnForester.com . Links to the respectable studies from much more recently - the numbers of which happen to (on second thought, _not_ _just_ "happen to", because like I said in my previous post, the relevent factors don't change over the decades) closely agree with the over-30-year-old ones - can be found by anybody with time to wade through the Chainguard archives.

From page 3 of this thread.



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.



Are you always this paranoid?

Not at all, only when dealing with bicycle advocates who so frequently tell lies about me.

Paranoia: In abnormal psychology and psychiatry, a type of psychosis in which the individual experiences delusions, typically of persecution and/or grandeur. It is often accompanied by hallucinations. [Bullock and Stallybrass: Harper Dictionary of Modern Thought] The key word there is "delusions". I may have delusions, most of us do, but the lies that are so frequently written about me in this forum are facts that obviate any need for delusions of persecution.

cultured rudeness? :roflmao:

john. vehicular bicyclists can ride in bike lanes. vehicularily. your pogrom against bicycling infrastructure is dishonest.

Ghettocruiser wrote:
"Regardless of where this figure is coming from (and I see it quoted a great deal without anyone actually providing numbers, years and locations), it is completely at odds with studies of adult cyclists riding on the road that have been conducted where I live."

TF: Url of where we might find the numbers, years and locations, please.

@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.

In the pages immediately before tables 28.3 and 28.4 of Effective Cycling are the descriptions of the studies from which the data are taken and analyzed, together with the statement that a more detailed description of the statistical studies is in Bicycle Transportation. All the data on types of car-bike collision come from Cross's national statistics (as described in the earlier pages). If Cross's data show that in 3% of rural car-bike collisions the previous position of the cyclist was riding on the sidewalk, that is what I put down. You want to argue that Cross misclassified the rural/urban nature of roads, go right ahead. Just don't accuse me of making some kind of mistake, unless you can show that it was my error.

Furthermore, the highway safety group at U of N. Carolina made a duplicate study recently, not nearly as good as Cross's study, but sufficient to show that the pattern of collision types has not changed to any significant extent.

Your description of the increase in traffic on certain roads is typical, but it does not mean that the intensity of traffic has increased on all roads. As urban areas expand, the formerly rural roads immediately around them do experience an increase in traffic intensity, but that gets reduced as those roads become urbanized, with greater capacity. So the next "ring" of roads becomes overloaded, while the far outer roads experience little increase in traffic. This effect is particularly noticeable in the American South, where government practices prevent the widening of the affected roads until extreme overload is reached; it would be better to widen the roads earlier in the process, and might even be cheaper then.

Not at all, only when dealing with bicycle advocates who so frequently tell lies about me.

Paranoia: In abnormal psychology and psychiatry, a type of psychosis in which the individual experiences delusions, typically of persecution and/or grandeur. It is often accompanied by hallucinations. [Bullock and Stallybrass: Harper Dictionary of Modern Thought] The key word there is "delusions". I may have delusions, most of us do, but the lies that are so frequently written about me in this forum are facts that obviate any need for delusions of persecution.

Now you're getting pedantic about defining psychological disorders? :lol: Do they define 'cyclist inferiority complex' in the same place you got that one?

TF:
Are you trying to shift the burden of proof to me? I was not the person who made the claim about the rural roads. You were. You were also the person who described this claim as "documented fact", though you fail to provide your documentation. Instead, you point me to a textbook, telling me to believe the undocumented figures published in said book without question.

You miss the point about where the numbers came from. You cite "Cross", "Kaplan", etc. But the numbers printed in the textbook are not from those studies. They are numbers which are derived, by method unknown, from the raw data collected as part of those studies. There is a difference.

And, yes, I am proud of my education. I worked extremely hard for 8 years to arrive at this point. I am an engineer now. Research used in science and engineering are published according to guidelines. Guidelines which are the cumulation of many decades of refinement, which force the researcher to publish his methods, and forces the methods to be of sound science. Mr. Forester neither presents his methodology, nor are any of his publications or experiments in the area of sound science. This is why, dispite his apparent status as an "expert", Mr. Forester has never successfully published a paper which was of original work. The best he could do is an invited work for an obsure journal which covered the debate, but which entered in no new knowledge. In fact, the "data" in that article was merely copy and pasted from his two books, written over two decades ago.

Mr. Forester talks good sense in the chapter on traffic cycling in his book Effective Cycling. It is good teaching aid. Just as the basic 5 paragraph essay is the foundation of sound writing, his description of how to ride a bicycle in traffic is a good foundation for sound traffic cycling. He fails though, when he expands his textbook to make it into a political and ideological foundation for bicycling advocacy. He overreaches badly when he talks about "bicycle inferiority complex", for instance, and he has trouble with his arguments against bike lanes because he cannot provide any objective data, only thought experiments, to bear on the debate.

"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),

:rolleyes: More pointless quibbles over semantics.

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.

Never said otherwise. If you have to take the lane, you have to take it. I was talking about doing it only to be more visible, when there's otherwise room to share.

John here are your very words for all to see:

genec
genec

Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: san diego

Originally Posted by John Forester View Post
I never wrote such nonsense, and I never acted as you state. Your ideology both blinds you to obvious facts and leads you to invent falsehoods.
John here are your very words for all to see:
Originally Posted by John Forester

Voluntary transportational cyclists choose which trips to make by bicycle according to their needs and desires. Their prime motivation is the enjoyment of cycling. This enjoyment in cycling causes them to want to travel by bicycle when that is possible and does not have undesirable characteristics.
From http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf

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.


From http://www.americandreamcoalition.org/forester.pdf

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.

Here is the material from the same document that genec quotes that discusses the matter in greater detail:

"Voluntary cyclists do not respond to the niche considerations above. They recognize that the activity of bicycle transportation rarely provides transportational benefits and generally incurs transportational disadvantages. They accept the transportational disadvantages as the price they pay for their enjoyment of cycling. Transportational cyclists have need to start and end their trips in the same locations as motorists. Transportational cycling, practically by definition, involves cycling, on a regular basis, in areas and along routes with motor traffic. The planning and engineering consequences will be discussed below.

People who choose to perform transportational cycling have certain personal characteristics. One characteristic is that they do not have the typical exaggerated fear of motor traffic; those who do just don't participate in voluntary transportational cycling. That leads to another characteristic, that they are willing to participate in an activity that most people consider to be unduly dangerous and suitable only for risk-taking odd-balls. That is not the only social disadvantage. Participating in bicycle transportation is seen as an activity of odd people, involving being seen in peculiar clothes (even though these are changed upon reaching the destination), and often involves limitations in social activities associated with employment. Even though bicycle transportation usually requires a higher than usual degree of physical and emotional fitness, transportational cyclists are seen as unwilling, or unable, to participate in the career-advancing social conformity of the workplace.

One might think that the physical activity portion of transportational cycling would appeal to those whose working activities involve physical fitness. That is not so. The physical laborer has enough at work to satisfy his needs; it is the desk worker, and particularly the intellectual laborer, who feels the need for the physical activity that his work does not provide.

This analysis provides the basis for these characteristics of typical voluntary transportational cyclists.

Work in professions in which technical excellence is valued above conformity.

Prefer to think for themselves.

Think in objective terms.

Rarely have to be involved in persuading people (as opposed to participating in objective discussion).

Are inclined to be physically active.

Are not frequently required to travel during the work day or for multi-day trips.
Therefore, voluntary transportational cyclists are more likely to be found among professors, scientists, engineers, technicians, attorneys, doctors. Voluntary transportational cyclists are less likely than usual to be found among salesmen, preachers, and politicians."


That illustrates the kind of discussion that has been going on.

I stated that I was always a voluntary cyclist, that I cycled because I enjoyed cycling. So a bunch of you accuse me of failing to become experienced in cycling in traffic. One of you extracts three sentences from my ADC presentation saying that voluntary cyclists decide on which trips to make by bicycle, and proclaims that this proves that voluntary cyclists never ride in heavy traffic. Of course, that person refused to note that the rest of the paper demonstrates exactly the opposite, that voluntary transportational cyclists recognize that they frequently have to ride the roads with the heaviest traffic at the times of heaviest traffic, and do so because:

"People who choose to perform transportational cycling have certain personal characteristics. One characteristic is that they do not have the typical exaggerated fear of motor traffic;..."

In short, voluntary transportational cyclists are relatively unconcerned about dense motor traffic, unlike the bicycle advocates on this forum who are so obsessed with fear of same-direction motor traffic that that fear permeates all their discussions. That is precisely the obsession that prevents so many of you on this forum from being able to understand written documents that are reasonably understood by readers without this obsession.

cultured rudeness? :roflmao:

john. vehicular bicyclists can ride in bike lanes. vehicularily. your pogrom against bicycling infrastructure is dishonest.

Repetition of nonsense does not increase the degree of accuracy, though in some circles it has increased the degree of credibility.

The fact that bike lanes are sometimes the correct place to ride does not demonstrate that they always are the correct place to ride, and says nothing at all about the hypothesis on which they are based. This has been explained time and again. Either you have only a very low level of intelligence, or you mind is so biased by your ideology that it cannot apply your intelligence to the discussion.

Bekologist wrote:
"I drive friends with physical disabilities that prevent them from owning a car on errands, or friends without cars to the feed store.

"who cares?"


TF:
_You_ do! You're even enough of a busybody to care about _my_ motoring! So, I clarified some more about it to you.

I, on the other hand, _don't_ care about _your_ motoring. I said very early on in my participation here, that my proposed Bicyclists' Rights Triad http://www.newmilfordbike.com/Triad.htm does not prohibit motoring. That means that I don't care if you motor to the grocery store every hour of every day all year! The issue, rather, is your credibility. You used a suspected (and _still_ suspected BTW, since, at least where I live, the nearest "feed" store has two _food_ stores on the _way_ _to_ it) lie to further your agenda of acting like you're better than Chainguarders are. That is why I repeated my question as to whether you motor to the grocery store only once every two years, as you implied in one post, or as frequently as once every two months, as you implied in another.


"I know- being a daily, vehicular cyclist- that vehicular bicycle operation can take place in bike lanes and on the shoulders of roads."

TF:
Vehicular bicycle operation can take place in the space between two trees in the woods too! (The space between the two trees becomes a vehicular road by the mere presence of a mounted bike, in my opinion.) These sorts of capabilities of vehicular bicycling are not news to me.

No, but if you could figure out how to quote, as even the 13 year olds on this forum can, that would be helpful.



"My criteria concerned the practicality of the trip"

So if you had to carry too much, that made the trip impractical by bicycle, and you got there some other way.

What an ineffective, posturing gasbag you are.

It's too bad that the carnies let you escape from their sideshow.

By your standards, I am. However, your statement says that you have limited your traveling to bicycling and walking. That is, unless you are also an ineffective, posturing gasbag.

I simply say that, by the standards of most people, mine is a more reasonable position that that which your words imply is your position.

John, I am amazed at the patience you exhibit in the face of these pigeon-livered, impertinent bugbears. You are a hero of cycling, and I'm dumbfounded by the mere notion of someone deigning to attempt to "improve" perfection by writing another cycling book after you wrote Effective Cycling.

Frankly, I think that if a person cannot muster enough intelligence to pass a basic Vehicular Cycling test, they should be sterilized for the sake of our society's genetic superiority as a whole. What say you?

john,

your acceptance regarding banning bicyclists from (some) roads because of speed differentials recognizes two classes of vehicular operation (bicycles and cars). according to jhon, some roads should be 'motorized only' because of speed differentials. two modes of transportation, seperated because of speed differentials.

This is well on the way to admitting bicycling infrastructure to accomodate speed differentials between bicycles and cars can work in the same transportation cooridor.

TF: Url of where we might find the numbers, years and locations, please.

http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/pdf/car-bike_collision_type10.pdf

Let's see:

12% of all collisions... that sounds almost as low as you said.

But.. removing accidents where the rider was on the sidewalk, we're up to about 17%

Now, forget skinned elbows, what about fatal accidents...

The Toronto study found that overtaking accidents caused 40% of all the cycling fatalities in the study, and more than half of fatalities where the cause of the accident could be classified.

Or, based on the way the study approximated fault, 80% of fatalities when the cyclist was not at fault were motorist-overtaking collisions.

But I wonder why you asked for the link to the study anyways? Of course, as these guys (the city coroner and his ilk) are not real "chain-guarders", they'll say anything to keep their jobs, right?

Now provide, something, ANYTHING that indicates there are nine times as many cyclists hit from the sides and front as from behind. Url of where we might find the numbers, years and locations, please.

Vehicular bicycle operation can take place in the space between two trees in the woods too! (The space between the two trees becomes a vehicular road by the mere presence of a mounted bike, in my opinion.)

Coming soon to a lift-access mountain bike resort near you: Vehicular Hucking.


Maybe my DH bike needs a mirror so I can verify ROW on a leftish position before I case the doubles again.

TF:
Are you trying to shift the burden of proof to me? I was not the person who made the claim about the rural roads. You were. You were also the person who described this claim as "documented fact", though you fail to provide your documentation. Instead, you point me to a textbook, telling me to believe the undocumented figures published in said book without question.

You miss the point about where the numbers came from. You cite "Cross", "Kaplan", etc. But the numbers printed in the textbook are not from those studies. They are numbers which are derived, by method unknown, from the raw data collected as part of those studies. There is a difference.

And, yes, I am proud of my education. I worked extremely hard for 8 years to arrive at this point. I am an engineer now. Research used in science and engineering are published according to guidelines. Guidelines which are the cumulation of many decades of refinement, which force the researcher to publish his methods, and forces the methods to be of sound science. Mr. Forester neither presents his methodology, nor are any of his publications or experiments in the area of sound science. This is why, dispite his apparent status as an "expert", Mr. Forester has never successfully published a paper which was of original work. The best he could do is an invited work for an obsure journal which covered the debate, but which entered in no new knowledge. In fact, the "data" in that article was merely copy and pasted from his two books, written over two decades ago.

Mr. Forester talks good sense in the chapter on traffic cycling in his book Effective Cycling. It is good teaching aid. Just as the basic 5 paragraph essay is the foundation of sound writing, his description of how to ride a bicycle in traffic is a good foundation for sound traffic cycling. He fails though, when he expands his textbook to make it into a political and ideological foundation for bicycling advocacy. He overreaches badly when he talks about "bicycle inferiority complex", for instance, and he has trouble with his arguments against bike lanes because he cannot provide any objective data, only thought experiments, to bear on the debate.

Mr. B. Ratliff complains that my work in bicycle transportation engineering does not meet scientific standards, giving some specific examples. "You miss the point about where the numbers came from. You cite "Cross", "Kaplan", etc. But the numbers printed in the textbook are not from those studies. They are numbers which are derived, by method unknown, from the raw data collected as part of those studies. There is a difference." The numbers that I quote from Kaplan are his numbers. No change. The numbers about types of car-bike collisions that I quote from Cross are produced, as I have explained in writing, by adding up each type from the data sheets that are published as part of the Cross publication. For example, to derive the proportion of car-bike collision in which the cyclist was cycling on the sidewalk, I simply added up the proportions given for each diagram of a cyclist riding on a sidewalk. There's nothing obscure about that.

As for having no publications, I have had papers published by the Bicycling Committee of the Transportation Research Board of the United States, an Arm of the National Academy of Sciences, and I served for several years as referee of papers offered to that committee. I spent a great deal of time trying to ensure that papers before that committee were evaluated according to the standard "Rules for Referees", by Bernard K. Forscher, published in "Science", and they frequently refused to do so. They frequently accepted papers that flagrantly violated those rules, and they frequently invented criticism of papers that were in accordance with those rules, all on the basis of the bikeway superstition.

It is unfortunate that bicycle transportation engineering is of such low priority in this world, and the bikeway superstition so prevalent, that every attempt to found a proper journal (there have been several) has failed after some months of publication, call it for lack of funds or of interest.

However, the paucity of information has to be faced, just as it is in standard science (where there is never sufficient information for proof, only for disproof), by evaluating the weight of the evidence on each side of the issue. Which has better support from the weight of the evidence, the vehicular-cycling hypothesis or the bikeway hypothesis? Furthermore, there is the additional issue that might affect policy. That is, what is the probability that sufficient evidence might be discovered to overturn, to reverse, the now present weight of the evidence.

The present weight of the evidence is that there is plenty of evidence in favor of the vehicular-cycling hypothesis, and none in favor of the bikeway hypothesis (popularity is not scientific evidence, except in popularity contests). As for the future prospects, the evidence in support of the vehicular-cycling hypothesis was assembled by rather inexpensive means, largely by amateurs, Cross being the major professional exception (and his government money was granted before it was evident that his results would support the vehicular-cycling hypothesis). Over the same period, a large amount of government money, say tens of millions of dollars, has been spent on professional investigations that were intended to discover scientific support for the bikeway hypothesis, all of which failed to find such support. Therefore, it is most reasonable to conclude that the probability that sufficient evidence will ever be found to overturn the vehicular-cycling hypothesis in favor of the bikeway hypothesis is substantially zero.

That is the proper way to evaluate the scientific evidence that is available.

john,

your acceptance regarding banning bicyclists from (some) roads because of speed differentials recognizes two classes of vehicular operation (bicycles and cars). according to jhon, some roads should be 'motorized only' because of speed differentials. two modes of transportation, seperated because of speed differentials.

This is well on the way to admitting bicycling infrastructure to accomodate speed differentials between bicycles and cars can work in the same transportation cooridor.

You really don't understand logic, do you, Bekologist? If speed differential justifies prohibiting bicycle travel on freeways (I don't say that, by the way), then it also justifies the contrary to your argument, the prohibition of cycling on normal roadways also. Go ahead and make your argument to all your buddies, and see what they say to it.

Now you're getting pedantic about defining psychological disorders? :lol: Do they define 'cyclist inferiority complex' in the same place you got that one?

No, but I am a bit more than pedantic when considering the lies about me that are being written in this forum.

Not just my standards Johnny boy. There are others who share the same low opinion of you as well.



My statement says nothing about my traveling, as it relates entirely to your traveling.

Innefective? Check.

Gasbag? Check.

I see, I must be an ineffective gasbag because I have not limited my traveling to bicycling and walking. Yet you are not an ineffective gasbag because you also have not limited your traveling to bicycling and walking? Very strange, isn't it, that I, who have never claimed to have limited my traveling to bicycling and walking, is accused of being an ineffective gasbag because I have not done so, while you, who keeps on proclaiming your bicycle activism while criticizing mine, assert that you are immune to the same accusation, even though you have not so limited your traveling. That's what you are saying about yourself, anyway; but whether or not it is correct I have no means of knowing. Are you going to 'fess up, prevaricator?

I'll attempt to clarify. First off, I would never strongly say that I "love" cycling. I enjoy it, but I think love is a strong word for any activity.
To put this statement into context, let's remember JoeJack is to be married shortly.

Let's revisit this after you've been married a few years. ;)

http://www.toronto.ca/transportation/publications/bicycle_motor-vehicle/pdf/car-bike_collision_type10.pdf

Let's see:

12% of all collisions... that sounds almost as low as you said.

But.. removing accidents where the rider was on the sidewalk, we're up to about 17%

Now, forget skinned elbows, what about fatal accidents...

The Toronto study found that overtaking accidents caused 40% of all the cycling fatalities in the study, and more than half of fatalities where the cause of the accident could be classified.

Or, based on the way the study approximated fault, 80% of fatalities when the cyclist was not at fault were motorist-overtaking collisions.

But I wonder why you asked for the link to the study anyways? Of course, as these guys (the city coroner and his ilk) are not real "chain-guarders", they'll say anything to keep their jobs, right?

Now provide, something, ANYTHING that indicates there are nine times as many cyclists hit from the sides and front as from behind. Url of where we might find the numbers, years and locations, please.

Based on your own "12%" quote (12% being close to a ninth of a Benny) from the url that _you_ provided (I proudly don't get pdfs, so I'll take your word for it that the site says what you say it says), _that_ url indicates "nine times", I guess more or less just as the book that I already referred y'all to, does.

The issue of percentages of cyclists hit from this or that direction, is completely separate from the issue of percentages of cyclist fatalities. Please produce your first shred of any quote, of anybody in this thread denying that car-overtaking car-bike collisions are more likely to be fatal than other kinds are. They _are_ relatively likely to be fatal, and that is why VCs keep them sufficiently rare as to not have to worry about them. They do so by methodologies such as, but not limited to, having proper (much more proper than probably the majority of the cyclists who became the statistics, I might add) nighttime conspicuity equipment.

So... I guess the carny theory is out.

No, but I am a bit more than pedantic when considering the lies about me that are being written in this forum.

They're all out to get you!!

your argument, the prohibition of cycling on normal roadways also.

I don't recall him ever making that argument. Can you provide a link?

john, you believe in seperation by speed, restricting or prohibiting bicycling on high speed roads. this seperation by speed differential is an admission speed differential should be considered when bicycles mix with motor traffic.

With respect to freeways, I have held that it is not unreasonable to limit freeways to high-speed traffic as long as there is an equal route for slow-speed traffic. There is nothing wrong in letting motorists take advantage of the high speed of their vehicles provided that slow speed traffic has equivalent service on slow-speed roads.

and a quick jump to your admittance that bicyclists can ride vehicularily in a preffered class bike lane leads to:

speed differentials between vehicles can be accommodated in the same transportation cooridor.

what kind of 'bicycle transportation engineer' are you anyway,jhon, if all you do is act the obstructionist to bicycling engineering controls and accomodation, yet proclaim bikes and cars shouldn't mix on high speed roads? you sound like an anti-bicycle engineer to me, jhon.

That sentence cracks me up, especially the "supposed rudeness" disclaimer that is followed so closely by "my rudeness." There is no "supposed rudeness" Johnny boy when you admit that you are rude.

The "cultured rudeness" bit just sends it over the top.

Thanks for sharing John.
;)

The expert on rudeness has spoken.

Now I've seen everything...

:D

john, you believe in seperation by speed, restricting or prohibiting bicycling on high speed roads. this seperation by speed differential is an admission speed differential should be considered when bicycles mix with motor traffic.



and a quick jump to your admittance that bicyclists can ride vehicularily in a preffered class bike lane leads to:

speed differentials between vehicles can be accommodated in the same transportation cooridor.

what kind of 'bicycle transportation engineer' are you anyway,jhon, if all you do is act the obstructionist to bicycling engineering controls and accomodation, yet proclaim bikes and cars shouldn't mix on high speed roads? you sound like an anti-bicycle engineer to me, jhon.

Bekologist, your utter inability to conduct a logical discussion is demonstrative of the fact that the bikeway system that you advocate is the product of illogicality. No system that was based on logic, facts, and reason would need the kind of advocacy that you provide.

what a cagey dodger!!

my ability to draw correlations is in no way demonstrative of any illogicality regarding the positive benefits of bicycling infrastructure.

john, you state in this thread you support banning bikes from 'freeways' when there's a nearby slower speed road that serves the same destinations- you support speed classifications and separation because of speed differential.

you also support the assertion bicyclists can ride vehicularily in preferred class lanes.

I suggest you reconcile these two admittances.


I wonder if, in gene's and helmet head's neighborhoods, you will, in a few years, support banning bicycles from high speed roads that are NOT freeways if there are slow speed roads bicyclists can ride on nearby.

I ask, what kind of 'bicycle transportation engineer' are you, REALLY, if all you do is act the obstructionist when bicycling infrastructure along transportation cooridors is brought up? you are an anti-bicycling transportation engineer in my opinion, the anti-bicyclist.

just read teh Jeffrey Hiles critique. He acknowledges what is good about Foresterology, and rejects the hoodoo part. in language that even an industrial engineer should be able to understand.

This is 2007. The latest bike facility built on my commute is (by all standards) a great bike path parallel to the RR track (and road) with limited intersections. I support it, generally.

But I also avoid it, generally. When it reaches a major intersection, it dumps cyclists (and everyone else) into a crosswalkthat is always completely blocked by a motor vehicle. There's no way to get across, even hopping the curb.

So, I hop the curb 30 to 50 yards before the intersection (if I use the path.)

Not exactly smart, in my not-so-humble opinion.

Mostly, I stick to the road. It's a lot less stressful for me.

Based on your own "12%" quote (12% being close to a ninth of a Benny) from the url that _you_ provided (I proudly don't get pdfs, so I'll take your word for it that the site says what you say it says), _that_ url indicates "nine times", I guess more or less just as the book that I already referred y'all to, does.

Alright let me read you a critical quote:

Collisions involving motorists overtaking cyclists are among the top three most frequent collision types and, like the “Door Prize” (Type 6), they occur most often in the central area. These collisions also involved significantly more adult cyclists (age 25 to 40) than most other crash types.


SO You DEMAND "numbers, years and locations" and the best you can provide "go buy John' book, I can't open a PDF".

You have NO evidence to support your claims, and your effort to turn around the Toronto study is misuse of statistics at best.

Forget the link to the study, I know you don't have it. I'll give you something easier: Provide the LOCATION AND TIME PERIOD of the study that you originally got the "9 times" from.


The issue of percentages of cyclists hit from this or that direction, is completely separate from the issue of percentages of cyclist fatalities.

That's a pretty inane defense in the face of some ugly numbers. Do you really think cyclists have this so-called from-behind traffic phobia because they are afraid of collisions that cause few or no injuries? Do you think people are really worried about getting hit by a car causing... skinned knees?

And about all your nighttime visibility equipment that VC's are sure to use, that's a sensible precaution. But had you bothered to read the link, you would have found: Light and weather conditions do not appear to have been significant factors in this type of crash.

what a cagey dodger!!

my ability to draw correlations is in no way demonstrative of any illogicality regarding the positive benefits of bicycling infrastructure.

john, you state in this thread you support banning bikes from 'freeways' when there's a nearby slower speed road that serves the same destinations- you support speed classifications and separation because of speed differential.

you also support the assertion bicyclists can ride vehicularily in preferred class lanes.

I suggest you reconcile these two admittances.


I wonder if, in gene's and helmet head's neighborhoods, you will, in a few years, support banning bicycles from high speed roads that are NOT freeways if there are slow speed roads bicyclists can ride on nearby.

I ask, what kind of 'bicycle transportation engineer' are you, REALLY, if all you do is act the obstructionist when bicycling infrastructure along transportation cooridors is brought up? you are an anti-bicycling transportation engineer in my opinion, the anti-bicyclist.

I never have argued that speed differential is the justification for prohibiting bicycle traffic from freeways; that's your superstition that prevents you from understanding what has been written.

That has nothing to do with whether riding in a bike lane or not riding in a bike lane is the appropriate action considering the other circumstances.

I can't help your intellectual incompetence; only you are in a position to improve it.

some snipped

I ask, what kind of 'bicycle transportation engineer' are you, REALLY, if all you do is act the obstructionist when bicycling infrastructure along transportation cooridors is brought up? you are an anti-bicycling transportation engineer in my opinion, the anti-bicyclist.

My criterion is the safety and welfare of those who cycle. I cannot help it that you believe that "bicycling infrastructure along transportation corridors" does better for cyclists than would a policy of vehicular cycling on well-designed roads, when there is no evidence to support such and considerable evidence against. Your foolish belief is your problem, but you shouldn't advocate your superstition as public policy.

john, why do you intend to ban bicycles from high speed 'freeway' roads?

how soon before you begin to lobby to ban bicycles from 45 mph arterials for the benefit of motorists?

With respect to freeways, I have held that it is not unreasonable to limit freeways to high-speed traffic as long as there is an equal route for slow-speed traffic. There is nothing wrong in letting motorists take advantage of the high speed of their vehicles provided that slow speed traffic has equivalent service on slow-speed roads.

I've ridden plenty of miles on the interstates, am I soon to be banned from interstates and state highways because of jhon's allegiance to motorist superiority? jhon seems to prefer the banning of bicycles from high speed 'freeway' type roads. seperation by speed classification. ban bikes on high speed roads.

an anti-bicyclist point of view. where does jhon's 'vision' end???

oh, and jhon, your criteria of 'vehicular cycling on well designed roads' can include bike lanes and shoulders that do not conflict with vehicular cycling, dude.

http://paradigmhosting.net/images/sideshowjohn.jpg

How scurrilous and vile of you to post this!

I'm a newcomer to this forum, but I never learn quicker than when I jump in with both feet, so here goes:

My opinion: Bikes don't belong on roads with a speed limit greater than 35 mph. Period.

Caveats: All limited-access highways should have a dedicated bike lane physically separated from the road and the shoulder. No non-limited-access road should ever have a speed limit greater than 35 mph. Period.

There is no good reason for automobiles to travel faster than 35 mph except under very controlled conditions - at those speeds they are lethal to everyone they come in contact with, including other automobiles.

Addendum - greetings, I am a cyclist and sometimes motorist in Portland, Oregon. I was born in Detroit, Michigan, and as you can see, I am highly opinionated. I love a good discussion, and I welcome other people finding factual flaws in my arguments, so fire away!

I'm a newcomer to this forum, but I never learn quicker than when I jump in with both feet, so here goes:

My opinion: Bikes don't belong on roads with a speed limit greater than 35 mph. Period.

Caveats: All limited-access highways should have a dedicated bike lane physically separated from the road and the shoulder. No non-limited-access road should ever have a speed limit greater than 35 mph. Period.

There is no good reason for automobiles to travel faster than 35 mph except under very controlled conditions - at those speeds they are lethal to everyone they come in contact with, including other automobiles.

Addendum - greetings, I am a cyclist and sometimes motorist in Portland, Oregon. I was born in Detroit, Michigan, and as you can see, I am highly opinionated. I love a good discussion, and I welcome other people finding factual flaws in my arguments, so fire away!

That was quite an entrance. Welcome.

Silly.

Silly.

So above 35 mph cars kill other cars? Or do you mean that above 35 mph cars kill other drivers?

Either way, that's really silly also.

Rather than dismissing my statements with a single word, what are your reasons why you believe they are silly?

Cars above 35 mph kill people - fact, bourne out in studies. Also simple physics - damage increases with the square of velocity. We allow 45 mph speed limits for the convenience of motorists, and it costs 40-45k lives each year. I argue that 40,000 deaths is unacceptable in the name of "convenience". Car speeds should be limited to curtail serious injuries and deaths - at 35 mph the relative speed between a car and a bike is less than 25 mph.

Boy did you pick the wrong thread to introduce yourself in.
Kinda like dropping a virgin in a pit of pirates. ;)
Welcome to the forums though... now RUN!!! RUN TO ANOTHER THREAD! :D
I'm a newcomer to this forum, but I never learn quicker than when I jump in with both feet, so here goes:

My opinion: Bikes don't belong on roads with a speed limit greater than 35 mph. Period.

Caveats: All limited-access highways should have a dedicated bike lane physically separated from the road and the shoulder. No non-limited-access road should ever have a speed limit greater than 35 mph. Period.

There is no good reason for automobiles to travel faster than 35 mph except under very controlled conditions - at those speeds they are lethal to everyone they come in contact with, including other automobiles.

Addendum - greetings, I am a cyclist and sometimes motorist in Portland, Oregon. I was born in Detroit, Michigan, and as you can see, I am highly opinionated. I love a good discussion, and I welcome other people finding factual flaws in my arguments, so fire away!