Google sponsored links
First, this is in no way meant as a attack or anything of the like on John Forester. While a lot of us disagree with & do not like what he has to say he has a right to say it.
I am calling a statment by him into question though. That statement is this one:
Most Americans on bicycles ride in the manner that they learned as children, according to societal norms that were produced by the motoring establishment in order to keep cyclists in their place.
Let's use the members of BF as a representation of most Americans. Vote in this poll, either yes or no, which will indicate whether you still ride in the manner that you learned as a child. Yes meaning you still do & no meaning you do not.
I would really like to see proof of the so called societal norms. What does that even mean, anyway? I'd love to see the documented proof that the motoring public created to keep cyclists in their place. Does such proof exist? If it does can anyone provide a web link to it?
This is an archived thread, you can find the full version of this thread, with images, links and more content
here.
Ready to buy? Check out these two online bike stores:
-
http://www.nashbar.com (you can find the latest bike nashbar coupons in
this thread)
-
http://www.performancebike.com (you can find the latest performance bike coupons in
this thread)
Cya on the forums,
- The BikeForums Team
-
http://www.bikeforums.net
if you start questioning forester's logic the whole 'vc' house of cards collapses, frsncyclst.
I don't, but I think the key words in that statement are "most Americans".
Most Americans also don't see bikes as a viable transportation option.
Most are overweight and suffer the related health issues.
Most are not on BF, etc.
forstors statement about most bicyclists riding like children is just one of his many hyperbolic fallacies he weakly bases his assumptions on.
First, this is in no way meant as a attack or anything of the like on John Forester. While a lot of us disagree with & do not like what he has to say he has a right to say it.
I am calling a statment by him into question though. That statement is this one:
Most Americans on bicycles ride in the manner that they learned as children, according to societal norms that were produced by the motoring establishment in order to keep cyclists in their place.
Let's use the members of BF as a representation of most Americans. Vote in this poll, either yes or no, which will indicate whether you still ride in the manner that you learned as a child. Yes meaning you still do & no meaning you do not.
I would really like to see proof of the so called societal norms. What does that even mean, anyway? I'd love to see the documented proof that the motoring public created to keep cyclists in their place. Does such proof exist? If it does can anyone provide a web link to it?
The bolded statement above is a false premise. "Most Americans" do not frequent BF, nor do "most Americans" readily regularly ride a bicycle. The fact is that while the US enjoys more bicycles per capita than most other nations, we also have nearly the lowest number of regular cyclists, amounting to about 2% of all transportation needs in the nation. (I rounded up)
Now the ironic thing is that this creates a rather interesting picture of the bike industry in the US... an industry that manages to sell a product that is almost immediately stored in the garage, and rarely used.
The majority of cycling that is done in this country is recreational "park and path" riding.
So to use BF members as a representation of "most Americans" is to paint a pretty false picture.
Bek, where does JF get his knowledge from? Or where does he claim to? Is it from personal experience? has he worked in a civil engineering field or in public administration? Does he have any sort of formal education to back up his claims?
He is good at spewing his rhetoric & expects everyone to swallow it & has no problem insulting people when we disagree & will not swallow it. But where is it coming from?
In other words what are his credentials?
If it is from personal experience, then I'm sorry, but that is not enough to convince me or anyone else for that matter that what he says is true or right. It would be like me telling a anti-helmet cyclist who has never had an accident, that a helmet saved my life & only basing it on my personal experience & expecting the anti-helmet cyclist to start wearing a helmet, based on that. It just won't work.
Has anyone bothered to ask John what his credentials are or where he gets his experience or so called expertise from? If not then it is time to call that into question as well. I am indeed questioning his credibility.
you do know about the history of EC, his efforts in california getting bikes NOT recognized as vehicles, forestors ouster from the LAB, his ostracisism from the mainstream bicycling advocacy community due his engineering prejudices, his allegiance with a pro motorist organization, and his efforts against bike infrastructure in this country, don't you?
You know about his admitted sellout in California of bicyclists to the motorists' interests and the resulting ban along many of CA's high speed trasnportation cooridors?
he wrote a book 35 years ago about bicycling. I wonder what's changed? On this forum he was recently recommending acetlyene bike lamps or 3W halogens.... :roflmao: one small indicator how out of touch he is about contemporary bicycling.
johns unproven theories, his weak and unsurpportable data is just part of the story. not to mention his contradictions regarding how bikes should operate in narrow lanes of travel.
his pithy fallacy 'bikes fare best when they act and are treated as drivers as vehicles' is also incorrect; bicyclists "fare best when they act and are treated in communities as drivers of human powered vehicles and accomodated as such"
his decades old, outdated rant in the face of overwhelming world evidence to the contrary is, like membership in the flat earth society, pathetic.
Bek, where does JF get his knowledge from? Or where does he claim to? Is it from personal experience? has he worked in a civil engineering field or in public administration? Does he have any sort of formal education to back up his claims?
Uh, not Bek here. But to try to answer some of your questions, here is JF's CV from his web site: http://www.johnforester.com/Consult/currvita.htm
Here is his home page: http://www.johnforester.com/
Bek, where does JF get his knowledge from? Or where does he claim to? Is it from personal experience? has he worked in a civil engineering field or in public administration? Does he have any sort of formal education to back up his claims?
He is good at spewing his rhetoric & expects everyone to swallow it & has no problem insulting people when we disagree & will not swallow it. But where is it coming from?
In other words what are his credentials?
If it is from personal experience, then I'm sorry, but that is not enough to convince me or anyone else for that matter that what he says is true or right. It would be like me telling a anti-helmet cyclist who has never had an accident, that a helmet saved my life & only basing it on my personal experience & expecting the anti-helmet cyclist to start wearing a helmet, based on that. It just won't work.
Has anyone bothered to ask John what his credentials are or where he gets his experience or so called expertise from? If not then it is time to call that into question as well. I am indeed questioning his credibility.
See http://johnforester.com/Articles/Facilities/bikelane.htm
This outlines the method used to observe the behavior of cycling populations and some of the results. I admit that all of my formal observations have been made in the cycling centers of Northern California, and, hence, are not representative of the USA as a whole. The reason for this limitation is travel time and money.
However, it is commonly believed that the behavior of cyclists in Northern California, as having been a center of bicycle activism for many years, is somewhat better than that in the nation as a whole. At any rate, I see no reason to suppose that the behavior of cyclists in the cycling centers of Northern California is worse than that of the nation as a whole.
I know of no similar studies made anywhere else in the world.
[QUOTE=frmsncyclst;6185089]Most Americans on bicycles ride in the manner that they learned as children, according to societal norms that were produced by the motoring establishment in order to keep cyclists in their place.
Let's use the members of BF as a representation of most Americans. Vote in this poll, either yes or no, which will indicate whether you still ride in the manner that you learned as a child. Yes meaning you still do & no meaning you do not.
/QUOTE]
Part 1. So there's been a conspiracy to keep cyclists in their place? Probably started by the aliens that crashed in New Mexico. Just what is the motoring establishment? Is this another definition for the Trilateral Comission? Enough with the conspiracy theories.
Part 2. Sort of. Still have to push on the pedals to make it go. But nowadays, I stop at traffic signs and signals, give the right of way, ride with the flow of traffic, etc. When I was growing up, in a small town in PA, there were so many fewer cars one could ride about anywhere, any way, without worry. Times and place have changed.
I agree that BF riders in no way represent most Americans.
What if one was taught to ride VC as a child and still does? That would be a yes vote, wouldn't it?
What if one was taught to ride VC as a child and still does? That would be a yes vote, wouldn't it?
So far as I have observed, the only American cyclists who learned vehicular cycling as children are either immigrants from European nations where that was the national norm, or are the children of vehicular-cycling parents. It is possible that there are a few who learned it, as children, through some other route. However, none of the older published child-cyclist traffic-training literature shows vehicular cycling. They all show cyclist-inferiority cycling. Street Smarts is the modern publication that might be read by children that shows vehicular cycling, and I hope that it is producing a change.
I voted Yes in your poll.
My parents did not allow me to ride a bike until I was 9. They had a strict rule about this and none of my siblings rode until 9. I did actually borrow a bike from a friend and rode a bit before that, but rarely.
At age 9 I was given a Schwinn, and attended a "bike rodeo" which was a series of safety demonstrations and tests that was sponsored by the local fire department. After that I was allowed to ride my bike to school... on the streets, as there were no sidewalks or bike lanes or paths.
As an adult the biggest changes are that I now wear a helmet nearly all the time, I ride a multispeed bike most of the time, and I have shoes that clip onto the pedals. I also ride in much heavier traffic, and have managed to do a bit of touring in all sorts of conditions.
Basically I ride pretty much in the same manner as I did when younger, albeit with more skill and experience. There were a few years between age 16-19 when auto driving replaced cycling in my life, but at about 20 years old I rediscovered cycling and was actually car free for about 7 years...
First, this is in no way meant as a attack or anything of the like on John Forester. While a lot of us disagree with & do not like what he has to say he has a right to say it.
I am calling a statment by him into question though. That statement is this one:
Most Americans on bicycles ride in the manner that they learned as children, according to societal norms that were produced by the motoring establishment in order to keep cyclists in their place.
Let's use the members of BF as a representation of most Americans. Vote in this poll, either yes or no, which will indicate whether you still ride in the manner that you learned as a child. Yes meaning you still do & no meaning you do not.
I would really like to see proof of the so called societal norms. What does that even mean, anyway? I'd love to see the documented proof that the motoring public created to keep cyclists in their place. Does such proof exist? If it does can anyone provide a web link to it?There are really two parts to his statement. First, most Americans on bicycles ride in the manner that they learned as children. Second, according to societal norms that were produced by the motoring establishment in order to keep cyclists in their place.
Both clauses depend on the subject "Most Americans on bicycles." That's ambiguous-- does that include every American who rides a bicycle, or does it only include every American who rides a bicycle regularly (let's say more than twice a week)?
If he's talking about any American who might ride a bike at least once a year, he may be right that most Americans ride in the manner that they learned as children. If he's talking about cycling enthusiasts (leaving out those who ride through economic or legal necessity, rather than through personal choice), then he's probably wrong.
The second clause could mean that laws were written establishing the rights and duties of all vehicle users, and defining where and when in the road those vehicle users may operate. If that's what he means, then he's right. If he means that the "motoring establishment" developed "societal norms" for the express purpose of discriminating against cyclists, well, if you didn't drink the Koolaid, you probably don't subscribe to that theory.
snipped
Part 1. So there's been a conspiracy to keep cyclists in their place? Probably started by the aliens that crashed in New Mexico. Just what is the motoring establishment? Is this another definition for the Trilateral Comission? Enough with the conspiracy theories.
The names of the organizations represented on the two committees that produced the American bikeway laws and designs are well known. They consisted of governmental organizations with highway responsibilities, who would have to carry out the designs, plus the Auto Club of Southern California and the California Highway Patrol, who were the foremost advocates for shoving cyclists aside. The only cyclist representatives permitted were me, on the first committee, and John Finley Scott, on the second committee. One of the organizations, naturally, was the League of California Cities, whose representative informed the Legislature that the League members felt that unless the results of these committees were enacted into law and properly funded, the member cities would have no means of controlling the actions of the bicyclists who were flooding their streets.
I repeat, for the umpteenth time, that this was not a conscious conspiracy. Because it was the reflection of typical, and unquestioned [except by vehicular cyclists], social attitudes, there was no need to conspire. That's the way that Americans thought, and they still do, and it is also the way that most of you in these discussions think. Motorists want cyclists out of their way, while most cyclists want to be protected from same-direction motor traffic; the two sides of the same coin, and equally wrong.
I learned how to ride a bike when I was 6. I rode on dirt paths and small city streets back then. Now I dont do as many wheelies. And I can't buy a good "Cheater Slick" rear tire. Also gave up the grip tassles and sissy bars. I lived far away from Southen California.
Now I take up the whole lane and speed more often than I did as a kid. I am more inclinded to procceed through a light after looking, rather than waiting for the light to turn green. I still ride the sidewalks somethimes, but probably am more aware of the dangers of that.
Just because the dominant ethos concerning cycling is wrong, does not mean that adopting VC is the best way to change the dominant perspective. For example how much of the moterist attitude that "those cyclists belong off of the street", is due to the fact that motorists are allways late getting to work or to pick up the kids? How much is due to the fact that the roads are too congested for cars to even be used to the fullest capacity of the horse power that they contain? How many questions are asked about cycling on drivers tests? No doubt that as more drivers hit the roads, motorists' frustration will continue to grow. But so will the understanding that bikes do belong on the street for precisely that reason.
Having said that I would support both VC and seperated facilities when appropriate. However I would rather not have some seperated facilities, if it made it against the law to also use the street.
:roflmao: what a fallacy.
....I admit that all of my formal observations have been made in the cycling centers of Northern California, and, hence, are not representative of the USA as a whole......I know of no similar studies made anywhere else in the world.
thirty year old data set out to prove a biased hypothesis? no similar studies have ever been done? no other data supports johns?
:roflmao:
See http://johnforester.com/Articles/Facilities/bikelane.htm
This outlines the method used to observe the behavior of cycling populations and some of the results. I admit that all of my formal observations have been made in the cycling centers of Northern California, and, hence, are not representative of the USA as a whole. The reason for this limitation is travel time and money.
However, it is commonly believed that the behavior of cyclists in Northern California, as having been a center of bicycle activism for many years, is somewhat better than that in the nation as a whole. At any rate, I see no reason to suppose that the behavior of cyclists in the cycling centers of Northern California is worse than that of the nation as a whole.
I know of no similar studies made anywhere else in the world.
Ok so I take this to mean your experience is or has been limited to northern California. So why then do you claim that your teachings & rhetoric will work for every where in the US? Where else in the US have you ridden to great extent?
My cycling resume currently includes a large portion of the state of Iowa, a good portion of the state of South Dakota from the Black Hills, Sioux Falls & SE South Dakota, The eastern side of Wyoming around the Devil's Tower area, a small portion of the NE part of Nebraska & a good portion of Honolulu, Hawaii.
My biggest issue with VC is that it creates a false dichotomy. It says either A) everyone supports VC or B) You all will have to ride on the separate facilities.
This has a way of de-emphasizing the many good parts to the VC rhetoric.
... it is commonly believed that the behavior of cyclists in Northern California, as having been a center of bicycle activism for many years, is somewhat better than that in the nation as a whole.
I love the use of phrases like "it is commonly believed...", which is basically a way of saying, "I believe" and therefore to convince you of the weight of my opinion I will say, "it is commonly believed".
But that aside let's examine the second part of this statement in a logical fashion.
If "the behavior of cyclists in Northern California, as having been a center of bicycle activism for many years, is somewhat better than that in the nation as a whole."
then should we conclude that all areas with a high degree of "bicycle activism" (whatever that is?) produce better behaved cyclists? Is John saying that areas like Portland, OR or areas with a larger percentage of cyclists actually improve cyclists skills over areas with fewer cyclists? So, does more cycling activity produce better, safer cyclists??!!
The Rutger's study, recently debated thoroughly in these forums, shows evidence that bike facilities (bike lanes, bike paths) encourage cycling and increase the numbers of people on bikes and that those increased numbers actually promote cycling safety.
John, I believe, disputes this conclusion, but it seems to me a well-documented study and one that certainly corroborates my own personal observations. Do others have similar experience?
Given the volume of posts in the commuting forum of BF and the percentage of cyclists who ride either exclusively or a large percentage of their daily commute on a bike path I would think the Rutgers study to be correct. If there were evidence to the contrary either in documented studies or consistent individual observations then I would be inclined to change my opinion.
I think many of John's statements are worth calling into question- they often lead to quite interesting conclusions.
Has anyone bothered to ask John what his credentials are or where he gets his experience or so called expertise from? If not then it is time to call that into question as well. I am indeed questioning his credibility.
Just check out his website.
http://www.johnforester.com/
So to use BF members as a representation of "most Americans" is to paint a pretty false picture.
Gene is right on a money here. So the poll has little meaning with respect to the original JF statement.
One thing I forgot to mention when I stated where I have ridden is it has not always been VC. Especially in Honolulu. Honolulu has an impressive system of on street bike routes, bike lanes & trails. Some of the BL's could be designed better, yes. Others are really nice to ride on & you would not want to ride in the travel lane. The road that goes around toward the winward side of the island is a divided 4 lane in the city that starts/ends at the H1, speed is 35 to 45 mph until it turns into the hwy that leads out to Sandy Beach PArk & up the winward side to the North Shore. In the city limits there is a BL on each side. A very nice BL at that. Once you're out of town you are in the travel lane. Very pleasent to ride on despite heavy traffic.
If I had to describe or label my cycling habits, abilities or style I would probably say it is adaptive more then anything else. Sometimes it is VC, only when it needs to be, sometimes it is not, again only when it needs to be. There is no such thing as 100% VC, never will be as far as I'm concerned. I think it is impossible.
And no JF, this is not because I have been corrputed or convinced by the general motoring public to think this way & take this attitude toward because it is what the motoriing public thinks my place should be.
BTW there is nothing scientific about my claims or statments about my cycling ability or style. It is simply personal experience. I admit that. If there were ever scientific proof I would certainly provide evidence of it.
What if one was taught to ride VC as a child and still does? That would be a yes vote, wouldn't it?
My dad taught me to ride according to the rules of the road when I was a kid, but I'd still have to vote No, because I like to think that I've learned some things and refined my riding over the last 40 some years. ;)
I voted no. I figured out pretty quickly what put me in danger, and what was safest on the road, and modified my riding to suit, and that's an ongoing process. VC, when I encountered it in the form of the Effective Cycling book, never taught me anything new.
I was never really taught the rules of the road as a child (I did know which side to ride on at least), but when I took it up as an adult, after being a licensed car driver for a while, it never occured to me to ride in any way but in accordance with the rules of the road. I'm not sure why Forester thinks other people aren't capable of coming to the same conclusion - it's not rocket science.
.....The Rutger's study, recently debated thoroughly in these forums, shows evidence that bike facilities (bike lanes, bike paths) encourage cycling and increase the numbers of people on bikes and that those increased numbers actually promote cycling safety.
John, I believe, disputes this conclusion, but it seems to me a well-documented study and one that certainly corroborates my own personal observations. Do others have similar experience?
Absoutely. the rutgers study IS well documented and should corroborate your experieces. It jives with mine as well.
Cities that are better accomodated have both more bicyclists as well as more 'vehicular' law abiding bicyclists.
In The city of seattle, only 3.9 percent of streets have bike lanes but we have higher bicycling participation than many (US) cities our size. on over 96 percent of our streets, most bicyclists act as competant, 'vehicular' bicyclists...and we 'vehicular bicyclists' also get to use bike lanes vehicularily, and paths as vehicular cyclists too! Very very few bicyclists subscribe to the prejudices john forestor has about bike specific infrastructure.
I even hypothesise bike facilites can create MORE vehicular cycling activity by bicyclists, and this carries over to greater vehicularity by bicyclists along UN-accomodated roads.
Should many of forestors comments be brought into question? absolutely. many of his ideas about bicycling are incorrect.
I learned to cycle vehiculary when I was a child. Of course that is not what my parents called it though. Interestingly related to what JF said above my parents had recently immigrated from Europe before I was born.
Al
The Rutger's study, recently debated thoroughly in these forums, shows evidence that bike facilities (bike lanes, bike paths) encourage cycling and increase the numbers of people on bikes and that those increased numbers actually promote cycling safety.
John, I believe, disputes this conclusion, but it seems to me a well-documented study and one that certainly corroborates my own personal observations. Do others have similar experience?
I thought that the study was interesting and told a story. But it is hard for me to pin down what the effect of "X" was in accounting for the difference in cycling in say NYC, London, and Copenhagen. In other words, what was the effect of removing auto parking versus putting in a bike lane? I don't think you can identify the effect from the paper. We can go on with many other claims in the paper. So I have trouble writing that it is evidence that bike lanes have such and such effect.
That written, here in the DC area, local municipalities have made an effort to provide facilities. Some of which -- anecdotally writing -- have made a significant impact on the number of cycle commuters. Here that would be the bridges with cycling accommodations that cross the Potomac.
The roads I rode on as a child simply do not exist anymore. I'm of the same vein as Chip... I've become adaptive.
So far as I have observed, the only American cyclists who learned vehicular cycling as children are either immigrants from European nations where that was the national norm, or are the children of vehicular-cycling parents. It is possible that there are a few who learned it, as children, through some other route. However, none of the older published child-cyclist traffic-training literature shows vehicular cycling. They all show cyclist-inferiority cycling. Street Smarts is the modern publication that might be read by children that shows vehicular cycling, and I hope that it is producing a change.
Interesting.
I voted yes. I'm 51 years old. At some point in the early sixties my grandparents gave my brother and I pamphlets on bicycle safety. I certainly wouldn't claim that it taught vehicular cycling, but what the pamphlet taught was bike safety when riding on the roads. What I remember most was the insistence on acting like a car in the sense of stopping at stop signs and red lights, and signaling turns (and stops.).
By and large the only signaling change I've made since my childhood is to use an extended right arm for a right turn (as opposed to the car centric bent 90 degree left arm).
I can't claim that this was vehicular cycling, but it was in the neighborhood. I didn't grow up with the sense that it was my responsibility to cower at the curb line.
I should note that I was considered to be a dork by my peers for signaling my turns!
Speedo
My dad taught me to ride according to the rules of the road when I was a kid, but I'd still have to vote No, because I like to think that I've learned some things and refined my riding over the last 40 some years. ;)
Yeah. Where's the choice "Life Long Learning"?
Speedo
Interesting.
I voted yes. I'm 51 years old. At some point in the early sixties my grandparents gave my brother and I pamphlets on bicycle safety. I certainly wouldn't claim that it taught vehicular cycling, but what the pamphlet taught was bike safety when riding on the roads. What I remember most was the insistence on acting like a car in the sense of stopping at stop signs and red lights, and signaling turns (and stops.).
By and large the only signaling change I've made since my childhood is to use an extended right arm for a right turn (as opposed to the car centric bent 90 degree left arm).
I can't claim that this was vehicular cycling, but it was in the neighborhood. I didn't grow up with the sense that it was my responsibility to cower at the curb line.
I should note that I was considered to be a dork by my peers for signaling my turns!
Speedo
Your description tallies quite well with the instructions of the time. Stop at stop signs. But you do not mention instruction in how to determine when to start again. Signal your turns. But you do not mention instruction in how to determine if the way is clear, or from what point to start your turn. We have been all through these discussions time after time with people who received these instructions and then proceeded to act without judgement as to when and how. These instructions were written on the assumption that cyclists are unable to exercise traffic judgement and should stay out of traffic as much as possible, and, when it was necessary to "enter" traffic, as for a left turn, to do so without using the judgement that is necessary.
Note the import of the instructions. Stopping at stop signs protects the motorists who have right of way. Signalling your turns alerts motorists that the cyclist is going to do something stupid, like turn in front of them.
One of the objectives of my instructional program for child cyclists was to demonstrate that children have the visual and mental abilities necessary to exercise traffic judgement, in contrast to the societal judgement that cyclists, especially child cyclists, do not have those abilities. As I have often phrased it, any child who can play a reasonable game of soccer has the visual, mental, and physical abilities necessary for riding properly in traffic.
Note the import of the instructions. Stopping at stop signs protects the motorists who have right of way. Signalling your turns alerts motorists that the cyclist is going to do something stupid, like turn in front of them.
Or, as I stated in the original post, "acting like a car". Acting vehicularly perhaps?
I'm not saying that I was taught the bible according to Forester. I would agree that I received more instruction on sex from my parents than I did about riding a bicycle in traffic, and my sex education consisted of (I'm not kidding) "You know, if you ever have any questions about anything, you can ask me." But I am saying that there was some useful information available, and it was possible for a kid from the suburbs to stumble onto it.
Speedo
Signalling your turns alerts motorists that the cyclist is going to do something stupid, like turn in front of them.
Can you please elaborate on that statement?
Are you suggesting cyclists not signal their intentions?
Are you suggesting that cyclists signal but don't look back or confirm that they have indeed been noticed before they turn?
Or are you suggesting that cyclists are just plain stupid- no matter what they do.
What happened to the OP? He was banned?
Let's use the members of BF as a representation of most Americans. Vote in this poll, either yes or no, which will indicate whether you still ride in the manner that you learned as a child. Yes meaning you still do & no meaning you do not.
As a child, I was taught to ride in the street, and my parents encouraged me to do so. I rode several miles with friends between downtown Washington DC and Rockville, Md. at a young age (12,) and there were no bike facilities, then.
But those I talk to here in Georgia, whom I work with, seem to have been raised to believe the sidewalk is the place to ride, that they were taught to do that as children. So I have had an uphill battle explaining to them that a bicycle is an adult's vehicle that is ridden in the lane with motor vehicles, according to the same principles that apply to motor traffic.
So, yes, I still ride in a similar fashion to the way I rode as a child, but since I put many more miles on my bike in urban traffic now, I'm sure my riding style is quite matured. The vehicular cycling principles set forth by John Forester and others have served me well in over a decade of regular bicycle commuting over a 30 mile round-trip route with very little in the way of bicycle facilities.
I love riding my bike and it would be terrible for me to do without my daily commute. But I wonder if I would be riding the way I do now if I had not learned at least the basics as a child.
As I have often phrased it, any child who can play a reasonable game of soccer has the visual, mental, and physical abilities necessary for riding properly in traffic.
I've never heard you say that, but it's a very interesting point.
Note that how important a role "situational awareness" plays in being able to play a reasonable game of soccer. Not only do you have to know where the ball is, but where the other players are, both those on your team and those on the opposing team, including those behind you. You also have to be able to update your situational awareness in a constantly changing environment. You also have to be pretty good at predicting what others will do given the set of rules that apply, and what each individual's goal is. Indeed, it's very similar to what you have to do when riding in traffic. Also, just being able to kick a ball is not enough to be able to play a reasonable game of soccer, you need to have the physical skills to control the ball while dribbling, and then launching it precisely enough to get it in the vicinity of where you want it. What a great analogy.
Note the import of the instructions [provided at the time]. Stopping at stop signs protects the motorists who have right of way. Signalling your turns alerts motorists that the cyclist is going to do something stupid, like turn in front of them.
Can you please elaborate on that statement?
Are you suggesting cyclists not signal their intentions?
Are you suggesting that cyclists signal but don't look back or confirm that they have indeed been noticed before they turn?
Or are you suggesting that cyclists are just plain stupid- no matter what they do.
This is what is so confounding. Someone (Forester in this case) writes something that seems totally clear to me, and then someone else replies to it in a manner that indicates they interpreted it completely differently. One sentence producing practically diametrically opposed interpretations. Now fill a book with 600 pages of sentences like that, and it's no wonder some people get a completely different idea of what Forester is saying than what he's actually saying.
Of course he is not suggesting that cyclists not signal their intentions. Why would you or anyone else even think that?
Of course he is not suggesting that cyclists signal but don't look back or confirm that they have indeed been noticed before they turn?
But haven't you ever seen adult cyclists, much less kids, signal (without looking) and go? They seem to think that just signaling gives them the right of way to go. It sounds ridiculous, I know, but it's the only logical conclusion based on their behavior. Also, as you know, and as Robert Hurst notes in his book as well (in a chapter entitled Looking Back), the practice of looking back is not as simple as it sounds. That's why that all needs to be addressed in the instruction. Just telling kids to signal, and nothing else, is not nearly enough if your goal is cyclist safety (but it is if your goal is motorist convenience). That's what Forester means, of course. No reasonably experienced cyclist could have possibly meant anything else with those words, and I find it astounding that someone with the experience that you obviously have could interpret it any other way.
I don't mean to harp on this, but I feel this type of miscommunication lies at the heart of much of the disagreement here. Like Robert's insistence that Forester's depiction of vehicular excludes defensive practices entirely. How anyone could read anything Forester has written and conclude that I find to be totally baffling.
This is what is so confounding. Someone (Forester in this case) writes something that seems totally clear to me, and then someone else replies to it in a manner that indicates they interpreted it completely differently. One sentence producing practically diametrically opposed interpretations. Now fill a book with 600 pages of sentences like that, and it's no wonder some people get a completely different idea of what Forester is saying than what he's actually saying.
Of course he is not suggesting that cyclists not signal their intentions. Why would you or anyone else even think that?
Of course he is not suggesting that cyclists signal but don't look back or confirm that they have indeed been noticed before they turn?
But haven't you ever seen adult cyclists, much less kids, signal (without looking) and go? They seem to think that just signaling gives them the right of way to go. It sounds ridiculous, I know, but it's the only logical conclusion based on their behavior. Also, as you know, and as Robert Hurst notes in his book as well (in a chapter entitled Looking Back), the practice of looking back is not as simple as it sounds. That's why that all needs to be addressed in the instruction. Just telling kids to signal, and nothing else, is not nearly enough if your goal is cyclist safety (but it is if your goal is motorist convenience). That's what Forester means, of course. No reasonably experienced cyclist could have possibly meant anything else with those words, and I find it astounding that someone with the experience that you obviously have could interpret it any other way.
I don't mean to harp on this, but I feel this type of miscommunication lies at the heart of much of the disagreement here. Like Robert's insistence that Forester's depiction of vehicular excludes defensive practices entirely. How anyone could read anything Forester has written and conclude that I find to be totally baffling.
Evidently there are at least two of us who don't know how to interpret what we read as I came to the same conclusion as buzzman.
Must not be smart enough? Okay.
same conclusion here as well, script.
john disengenously and sophistically frames a lot of arguments with his 'childish cycling' beratement.
Evidently there are at least two of us who don't know how to interpret what we read as I came to the same conclusion as buzzman.
I'm not surprised, and, again, I honestly think this kind of misunderstanding is at the root of much of the debate here.
Must not be smart enough? Okay.
I obviously don't know what it is, though I suspect it has to do with learning to understand meaning when written a certain way. There are writers with styles that I have trouble following. But at least I know when I don't understand someone, that there is no point in criticizing what I don't understand.
Anyway, now that you've read my explanation, does it make sense to you? When you go back and read the entire original post in context, does my interpretation make sense? Does yours still make sense? Here's what Forester originally wrote:
Your description tallies quite well with the instructions of the time. Stop at stop signs. But you do not mention instruction in how to determine when to start again. Signal your turns. But you do not mention instruction in how to determine if the way is clear, or from what point to start your turn. We have been all through these discussions time after time with people who received these instructions and then proceeded to act without judgement as to when and how. These instructions were written on the assumption that cyclists are unable to exercise traffic judgement and should stay out of traffic as much as possible, and, when it was necessary to "enter" traffic, as for a left turn, to do so without using the judgement that is necessary.
Note the import of the instructions. Stopping at stop signs protects the motorists who have right of way. Signalling your turns alerts motorists that the cyclist is going to do something stupid, like turn in front of them.
One of the objectives of my instructional program for child cyclists was to demonstrate that children have the visual and mental abilities necessary to exercise traffic judgement, in contrast to the societal judgement that cyclists, especially child cyclists, do not have those abilities. As I have often phrased it, any child who can play a reasonable game of soccer has the visual, mental, and physical abilities necessary for riding properly in traffic.
Maybe my familiarity with what else he has written makes it easier for me to understand what he means here?
Having said that, I still find it baffling that Buzz, you or anyone else with even a modicum of exposure to Forester could think for a microsecond that he might seriously suggest that cyclists not signal their intentions. I mean, isn't it obvious that he is criticizing the way instructions have been given out in the past?
Out of all that, Buzz pulled out the statement in bold: " Signalling your turns alerts motorists that the cyclist is going to do something stupid, like turn in front of them." Is it really not clear that he is talking from the POV of the providers of the "instructions of the time" that he is obviously criticizing?
Do you ever find yourself thinking, "that makes no sense, he must mean something else"? Does that trigger you to reread and try to understand what else he might mean?
I'm trying to understand how you or anyone else could read that and end up interpreting it the way that you did. What is it about the way that he wrote that cause you to interpret it that way?
same conclusion here as well, script.
john disengenously and sophistically frames a lot of arguments with his 'childish cycling' beratement.
Given that you had the "same (wrong) conclusion" about what he meant, that means you don't understand what he wrote. Thus, you have no basis to judge what he writes as being disingenuous, sophistic framing, or anything else, because you obviously are not making the effort to comprehend what he's writing, much less judge it.
The other thing you guys (Buzzman, Script, Bek) seem to have in common is relatively little interest in what someone actually means by the words that they write, and much more interest in your interpretation of their words, regardless of the writer's intent. Such obstinacy makes communication practically impossible.
misunderstanding by WHO?
Some think its you and john, head.
The Rutgers University study is exponentially more supported than any of john's crackpot theories about bicycling.
Judging simply on a prepondernce of data sourced from a great variety of vetted sources supporting the conclusions reached by noted university researchers, your and john's approach towards bicycling transportation engineering is, what can we say, 'wrong.'
As I have often phrased it, any child who can play a reasonable game of soccer has the visual, mental, and physical abilities necessary for riding properly in traffic.
now THAT'S a stretch! By that logic, lets change the liscensing requirements & the kids could drive THEMSELVES to school! I'm sure the soccer moms would prefer that to the kids biking in traffic- she knows how violent and disctracted soccer moms in SUVs can be-
what age of kid? 5? 7? 10? 14? and do you mean slow back streets or high speed narrow laned arterials? AT what speed of passing traffic should the kids go from taking a narrow lane of traffic to riding near the edge of narrow lanes, john?
Having said that, I still find it baffling that Buzz, you or anyone else with even a modicum of exposure to Forester could think for a microsecond that he might seriously suggest that cyclists not signal their intentions. I mean, isn't it obvious that he is criticizing the way instructions have been given out in the past?
Not hardly... Forester has made some wacky suggestions in the past, such as his earlier admonition against mirrors.
Some feel that his current stand against bike lanes or his "childish cycling" commentary are also equally wacky. Others find his notion of "cyclist inferiority" to be a clear indicator of wayward thinking.
I mean isn't it obvious that perhaps some of his notions might be a bit unusual?
misunderstanding by WHO?
Some think its you and john, head.
Well, if I'm the one who misunderstood what John meant, he will tell us, that much you can count on.
And if you don't recognize the writer as being the authority on what his own words mean, that too makes communication impossible.
Not hardly... Forester has made some wacky suggestions in the past, such as his earlier admonition against mirrors.
Some feel that his current stand against bike lanes or his "childish cycling" commentary are also equally wacky. Others find his notion of "cyclist inferiority" to be a clear indicator of wayward thinking.
I mean isn't it obvious that perhaps some of his notions might be a bit unusual?
They might seem wacky only if you didn't understand them in the first place.
His early admonitions against mirror use are well reasoned, as are John Franklin's.
Without looking, can you explain them? I can. That's the difference. That's why to you their notions might seem unusual, but to me they don't. Because I have made the effort to understand them.
You can state your opinion that his current stand against bike lanes is wacky, but you probably can't accurately explain the reasons he holds that opinion. Yet you feel justified in referring to it as wacky. What is wacky is judging something to be wacky that you don't understand well enough to explain.
naw, forestor's theories are soundly crackpot, head.
And if you don't recognize the writer as being the authority on what his own words mean, that too makes communication impossible.
so spoke the master of obfuscation.
:rolleyes:
Previous -
Top -
Next
Copyright 1999 - 2007
BikeForums.Net - All rights reserved.
Common bike forum topics in clue bicycles, cycling, mountain biking,
cycling jerseys, shorts, socks, shoes and bike equiptment selection.