Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Woohoo! My "almost new" copy of Effective Cycling arrived

So, who, amongst you ayes and noes, either actually own a copy or have read a copy?

I'm going to add Cyclecraft in as it's slightly less scholarly (dense :D) than effective cycling and therefore possibly more accessible to joe "in the gutter" commuter.

...and now for something completely different, here's a video that makes me cringe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WFhlddGqmE

...and now for something completely different, here's a video that makes me cringe

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WFhlddGqmE

I guess it's true that some cyclists swerve suddenly without signaling nor looking back and pass other cyclists too closely.

I have and have read both Forester's Effective Cycling and Hurst's The Art of Urban Cycling: Lessons from the Street. I find the latter far more readable, and far more contemporary.

I also find it somewhat interesting that both Forester and John Franklin, both from the other side of the pond, have found it "necessary" to write books on cycling.

On the other hand, I would love to see a peer review of Forester's work by Hurst, Franklin and John Allen... the latter who wrote "Street Smarts" which IS ONLINE. http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/

Of course, for balance, in a peer review, I would also like to see Pucher (http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/) who wrote Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany (http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Irresistible.pdf) and Jeffery Hiles on that committee too.

Pucher has written several other papers regarding cycling... Which are available at his web site... and Hiles wrote Listening to Bike Lanes (http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/home.html), which is an attempt to get beyond the "feud" and look at what works and what doesn't.

I own and have read The Art of Cycling and I enjoyed it. Thanks Mr. Hurst! :D

I intend to read Cyclecraft next, But the last few times I tried to buy it at Amazon it was sold out. :(

After that, I intend to read Effective Cycling. I like his reasoned and persuasive writings here on the forums, and I'm grateful for his posts. Thank you, Mr. Forester!

I just read the road. <shrug>

I have and have read both Forester's Effective Cycling and Hurst's The Art of Urban Cycling: Lessons from the Street. I find the latter far more readable, and far more contemporary.

I also find it somewhat interesting that both Forester and John Franklin, both from the other side of the pond, have found it "necessary" to write books on cycling.

On the other hand, I would love to see a peer review of Forester's work by Hurst, Franklin and John Allen... the latter who wrote "Street Smarts" which IS ONLINE. http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/

Of course, for balance, in a peer review, I would also like to see Pucher (http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/) who wrote Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany (http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Irresistible.pdf) and Jeffery Hiles on that committee too.

Pucher has written several other papers regarding cycling... Which are available at his web site... and Hiles wrote Listening to Bike Lanes (http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/home.html), which is an attempt to get beyond the "feud" and look at what works and what doesn't.

I take issue with your statement that: "Pucher who wrote 'Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany' [and] ... several other papers regarding cycling..." I have read two (or three ?) of Pucher's papers on his favorite subject, and I have never found any information regarding cycling. And when Pucher has conducted public correspondence on the subject of cycling, he has shown that he knows nothing beyond the most extreme of the common superstitions. Pucher's sources and subject are governmental reports concerning bicycle transportation, which is not cycling, but only a biased, limited, and self-serving version of actuality.

I take issue with your statement that: "Pucher who wrote 'Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany' [and] ... several other papers regarding cycling..." I have read two (or three ?) of Pucher's papers on his favorite subject, and I have never found any information regarding cycling. And when Pucher has conducted public correspondence on the subject of cycling, he has shown that he knows nothing beyond the most extreme of the common superstitions. Pucher's sources and subject are governmental reports concerning bicycle transportation, which is not cycling, but only a biased, limited, and self-serving version of actuality.

John, you do make me laugh. Thanks. ;)

I just read the road. <shrug>

Is that 'reed' or 'red', Allister, I want to know if your information is current! :D

Is that 'reed' or 'red', Allister, I want to know if your information is current! :D

The former. Or the latter, in that I 'red' it on the way to work this morning.

The former. Or the latter, in that I 'red' it on the way to work this morning.

Thanks for the translation into redneck 'merican. I trust it had a happy ending. ;)

Thanks for the translation into redneck 'merican. I trust it had a happy ending. ;)

It left me gasping.

It left me gasping.

Yeah, a well "rid" road will do that...

john has read Professor John Pucher's papers on transportation policies and was unable to find anything related to cycling?

Are you talking about the tenured Rutgers University professor from their school of Planning and Public Policy? The one that recently published "Making Cycling irresistible..."

Here's the first sentence of the abstract from the paper "making Cycling irresistable"- in case anyone has any questions about the relevance of Pucher's work- "This paper shows how the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany have made bicycling a safe, conveinent and practical way to get around their cities."


Is forestor talking about THE professor John Pucher that's been researching and writing about bicycling as urban transportation for over a decade? The Pucher that calls himelf "Car Free John", john? (in contrast to john forester's moniker, "Car Apologist john")


I wonder if john forester is being obtuse? One way or the other it looks bad - no offense, john.

john has read Professor John Pucher's papers on transportation policies and was unable to find anything related to cycling?

Are you talking about the tenured Rutgers University professor from their school of Planning and Public Policy? The one that recently published "Making Cycling irresistible..."

Here's the first sentence of the abstract from the paper "making Cycling irresistable"- in case anyone has any questions about the relevance of Pucher's work- "This paper shows how the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany have made bicycling a safe, conveinent and practical way to get around their cities."


Is forestor talking about THE professor John Pucher that's been researching and writing about bicycling as urban transportation for over a decade? The Pucher that calls himelf "Car Free John", john? (in contrast to john forester's moniker, "Car Apologist john")


I wonder if john forester is being obtuse? One way or the other it looks bad - no offense, john.

No, Bekologist, for you have made my point exactly. Pucher's opening sentence states exactly his scope and subject: governmental policies regarding bicycle transportation, which is what I stated earlier. Pucher has published nothing that explains the mechanism by which these governmental acts make cycling better. In his public correspondence, however, Pucher has demonstrated that his knowledge of bicycle transportation extends only to the most extreme popular superstitions. You praise Pucher highly for the depth of his research into "bicycling as urban transportation." It is, therefore, very significant that this Pucher has been unable to describe the mechanism by which bike-lane stripes make cycling better. That is, aside from his argument that bike-lane stripes improve the vision of elderly cyclists so they can better see the motorists who might collide with them. Amateurs such as yourself, Bekologist, have been defeated by the task of explaining why bike-lane stripes make cycling better. That professionals such as Pucher, and indeed Clarke also, have equally failed in this endeavor suggests very strongly that such a mechanism does not exist, and that all you bikeway promoters are running on nothing but popular superstition.

I have read two (or three ?) of Pucher's papers on his favorite subject, and I have never found any information regarding cycling.

If you are not being obtuse about one of your contemporaries ( who is universally regarded as a current force in bicycling transportation literature and analysis,)

then you are obviously suffering some kind of disconnect from reality, john.

If you are not being obtuse about one of your contemporaries ( who is universally regarded as a current force in bicycling transportation literature and analysis,)

then you are obviously suffering some kind of disconnect from reality, john.

John's right... technically Pucher's writings are about the promotion of cycling for transportation, and the infrastructure and policies involved. It is not about actually cycling.

But then again, nothing John has written actually promotes cycling. In fact, I have never read anything by John Forester that promotes cycling, or encourages people to take up cycling. He typically refers to that issue as "anti-motoring."

no, gene, i disagree strongly. Pucher definetly writes about bicycling. He writes at length on bicycling, bicycling safety and topics related to cycling and bicyclists and bicycling. He even writes about bicycling techniques and training in general terms.

how you both can glibly state "(pucher) doesn't write about cycling" is really beyond the pale. or beyond all (lack of) comprehension.

I mean, really.

John's right... technically Pucher's writings are about the promotion of cycling for transportation, and the infrastructure and policies involved. It is not about actually cycling.

But then again, nothing John has written actually promotes cycling. In fact, I have never read anything by John Forester that promotes cycling, or encourages people to take up cycling. He typically refers to that issue as "anti-motoring."

That is not correct. Effective Cycling was written to encourage cycling. Read the passages that describe the joys of cycling. Read what I have written so many times even in this forum, that in America bicycle transportation is likely to be done by either those whose circumstances almost compel it or those for whom the joy of cycling for transportation outweighs the costs of doing it.

It is certainly correct that a vehicular cyclist can promote bicycle transportation because he or she disapproves of motoring; there are some in this forum, for example. However, I do not bother to apply the anti-motoring criticism to such people, because they are doing good. I do apply the anti-motoring criticism to those many who promote cyclist-inferiority and incompetent bicycling on bikeways because they oppose motoring. These seem to be the most vociferous of the type in promoting the bikeway system that was designed by motorists to shove cyclists aside. Because they are doing harm to cyclists, I criticize them for all the reasons that are applicable, including their anti-motoring motivation.

no, gene, i disagree strongly. Pucher definetly writes about bicycling. He writes at length on bicycling, bicycling safety and topics related to cycling and bicyclists and bicycling. He even writes about bicycling techniques and training in general terms.

how you both can glibly state "(pucher) doesn't write about cycling" is really beyond the pale. or beyond all (lack of) comprehension.

I mean, really.

I have written that Pucher's only writings about the technical aspects of bicycle operation display no more than the extreme of popular superstition instead of real knowledge. You, Bekologist, dispute that claim. Then please provide quotations from Pucher's works that demonstrate your claim.

Oh, I seeeee, john, so when you said

"I have read two (or three ?) of Pucher's papers on his favorite subject, and I have never found any information regarding cycling"you actually meant

'Pucher writes about bicycling but my prejudices prevent me from endorsing any of it.' :rolleyes:

I will give you one thread to grasp: Pucher is not thought of as a bicycle instructor and doesn't write specifically to bicycling technique instruction....

Rutgers University Professor John Pucher, AKA 'car free john', from rutgers' Blousetein School of Planning and Public Policy definetly, MOST DEFINETLY, writes about bicycling!!!

Oh, I seeeee, john, so when you said

"I have read two (or three ?) of Pucher's papers on his favorite subject, and I have never found any information regarding cycling"you actually meant

'Pucher writes about bicycling but my prejudices prevent me from endorsing any of it.' :rolleyes:

I will give you one thread to grasp: Pucher is not thought of as a bicycle instructor and doesn't write specifically to bicycling technique instruction....

Rutgers University Professor John Pucher, AKA 'car free john', from rutgers' Blousetein School of Planning and Public Policy definetly, MOST DEFINETLY, writes about bicycling!!!

Bekologist, my challenge to you was: "I have written that Pucher's only writings about the technical aspects of bicycle operation display no more than the extreme of popular superstition instead of real knowledge. You, Bekologist, dispute that claim. Then please provide quotations from Pucher's works that demonstrate your claim."

I see that you, Bekologist, have been unable to answer the challenge about the works of the author whom you so much admire. If you want to call Pucher's field the field of bicycling, go right ahead, but whatever you name Pucher's field, he still knows nothing but the extreme of superstition about the field of bicycle traffic operation, and without that knowledge he cannot be capable of making the causal links between the governmental statistics that he presents and doing good for cyclists. Indeed, while Pucher has tried to do so, his answers are also no more than the extreme of superstition, as in his claim that bike-lane stripes improve the failing vision of elderly cyclists so they are more able to see the motor vehicles that threaten them.

woah, woah, johnny. I originally adressed the innacuracies of YOUR statement:

john, your statement earlier "I have read two (or three ?) of Pucher's papers on his favorite subject, and I have never found any information regarding cycling" is either

a)obtuse hyperbole; or

b)a blatant lie about another bicycle transportation researcher.

which one is it? is it a lie, or hyperbole?


let's look at a couple of sentences from "making cycling irresistable" and you decide if the sentence is

a) about cycling; or b) not about cycling.


"Some might assume that bicycling levels in Europe have been consistently high. In fact, cycling fell sharply during the 1950's and 1960's, when car ownership surged and cities started spreading out. From 1950 to 1975, the bike share of trips fell by roughly two thirds in a sample of dutch. danish and german cities...."

about bicycling, or not about bicycling, john?

:D

Somebody please smack me in the head for even being on this forum, but Bekologist, that passage does not discuss the operation of a bicycle. It discusses motivations for its use and disuse.

I don't even pretend to understand why you feel so strongly about your point of view, nor do I really care. I do on the other hand see the point that that passage does not focus on Bicycling, it focuses on modes of transportation. I could substitute the word "train" for "bicycle" and no one would miss a beat.

Frankly, this argument is about as useful for bike advocacy as the discussion of the commandment "Thou shall not murder" in preventing cirme. The shouted platitudes do not move transportation planners to do what you want. If you want more done, you need asses in seats and money in pockets. Get people out to demand what you believe will do the most good.

Personally, VC and bike paths are good with me. Let's get cyclists to behave well on the streets, get respect from motorists, and give us options of where to ride without cars. That would really suck, eh?:rolleyes:

woah, woah, johnny. I originally adressed the innacuracies of YOUR statement:

john, your statement earlier "I have read two (or three ?) of Pucher's papers on his favorite subject, and I have never found any information regarding cycling" is either

a)obtuse hyperbole; or

b)a blatant lie about another bicycle transportation researcher.

which one is it? is it a lie, or hyperbole?


let's look at a couple of sentences from "making cycling irresistable" and you decide if the sentence is

a) about cycling; or b) not about cycling.


"Some might assume that bicycling levels in Europe have been consistently high. In fact, cycling fell sharply during the 1950's and 1960's, when car ownership surged and cities started spreading out. From 1950 to 1975, the bike share of trips fell by roughly two thirds in a sample of dutch. danish and german cities...."

about bicycling, or not about bicycling, john?

:D

Bekologist, you are merely misusing words in the pretense that you don't understand. Or, of course, because you actually don't understand the subject, which would not surprise me at all. The reader has acquired no knowledge about how to cycle, where to cycle, why people cycle, operation of bicycles in traffic, or anything else. And, quite clearly, Pucher was not there to observe and count cyclists. The information that the reader has acquired is that governmental statistics (probably stated in the endnotes) show changes in the volume of bicycle transportation. That, we all understand, is a matter of great concern to you. But the point at issue is whether the subsequent resurgence in volume of bicycle transportation was caused by the European bikeway programs. You claim that it was, but neither you nor Pucher has offered any explanation of why bikeways would cause such a resurgence, let alone making bikeways the most probable cause. To make that connection requires that one show that bikeways make some large substantial contribution to the welfare of cyclists making transportational trips. In typical transportation analysis, the important factors are safety and convenience. There has been no showing that bikeway systems of any type produce those benefits. But, in any case, my point has always been that Pucher's own statements in public correspondence show that he is incompetent to make such an analysis, because he is ignorant of the subject of the operation of bicycles in traffic.

please. your credibility is shot.

pucher does write about bicycling.

Frankly, this argument is about as useful for bike advocacy as the discussion of the commandment "Thou shall not murder" in preventing cirme. The shouted platitudes do not move transportation planners to do what you want. If you want more done, you need asses in seats and money in pockets. Get people out to demand what you believe will do the most good.

Personally, VC and bike paths are good with me. Let's get cyclists to behave well on the streets, get respect from motorists, and give us options of where to ride without cars. That would really suck, eh?:rolleyes:

Ah, your simplist last statement is hard to argue.

Your right on target if by bike paths you mean separate roads completely separated from cars. Sidepaths are not that at all. Around here the are simply sidewalks that no one uses at all.

please. your credibility is shot.

pucher does write about bicycling.

Only when you define the subject as only what you are interested in, instead of what is necessary for reasonable discussion of the issues.

... neither you nor Pucher has offered any explanation of why bikeways would cause such a resurgence, let alone making bikeways the most probable cause.

Built it, and they will come.

It's the same reason building roads generates traffic.

Built it, and they will come.

It's the same reason building roads generates traffic.




ummmm, O. K.


Warrington cycle campaign facility of the month - http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month

... "Some might assume that bicycling levels in Europe have been consistently high. In fact, cycling fell sharply during the 1950's and 1960's, when car ownership surged and cities started spreading out. From 1950 to 1975, the bike share of trips fell by roughly two thirds in a sample of dutch. danish and german cities...."...

as someone else (more intelligent than me) pointed out

let's substitute

rail

"Some might assume that rail levels in Europe have been consistently high. In fact, railways fell sharply during the 1950's and 1960's, when car ownership surged and cities started spreading out. From 1950 to 1975, the rail share of trips fell by roughly two thirds in a sample of dutch. danish and german cities...."

pedestrian

"Some might assume that pedestrian levels in Europe have been consistently high. In fact, walking fell sharply during the 1950's and 1960's, when car ownership surged and cities started spreading out. From 1950 to 1975, the pedestrian share of trips fell by roughly two thirds in a sample of dutch. danish and german cities...."

motorbike

"Some might assume that motorbike levels in Europe have been consistently high. In fact, motorbikes fell sharply during the 1950's and 1960's, when car ownership surged and cities started spreading out. From 1950 to 1975, the motorbike share of trips fell by roughly two thirds in a sample of dutch. danish and german cities...."

ummmm, O. K.


Warrington cycle campaign facility of the month - http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month

Fair enough... how about if we start building roads like bike facilities... think that might get some attention?


All "facilities people" are asking is that the same care be put into designing proper bike facilities as goes into making decent roads. As long as no one cares, you are going to get the crap shown on that site.

You would not live in a house built in such a poor fashion... why settle for facilities built in that manner?

as someone else (more intelligent than me) pointed out

let's substitute

rail

"Some might assume that rail levels in Europe have been consistently high. In fact, railways fell sharply during the 1950's and 1960's, when car ownership surged and cities started spreading out. From 1950 to 1975, the rail share of trips fell by roughly two thirds in a sample of dutch. danish and german cities...."

pedestrian

"Some might assume that pedestrian levels in Europe have been consistently high. In fact, walking fell sharply during the 1950's and 1960's, when car ownership surged and cities started spreading out. From 1950 to 1975, the pedestrian share of trips fell by roughly two thirds in a sample of dutch. danish and german cities...."

motorbike

"Some might assume that motorbike levels in Europe have been consistently high. In fact, motorbikes fell sharply during the 1950's and 1960's, when car ownership surged and cities started spreading out. From 1950 to 1975, the motorbike share of trips fell by roughly two thirds in a sample of dutch. danish and german cities...."

And in the US, the number of trains, pedestrians, and regular cyclists has fallen... so what is your solution...

Embrace the motor car??? :rolleyes:

mark, at least you're smart enough to realize those substituted statements are actually about the subjects they describe!~!!!!!!

john f, on the other hand, has shot his credibility repeatedly in this thread alone.

ummmm, O. K.


Warrington cycle campaign facility of the month - http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month

It was only a theory (http://www.vote4cycling.com.au/cms/uploads/participation/information_sheet1.pdf).

It was only a theory (http://www.vote4cycling.com.au/cms/uploads/participation/information_sheet1.pdf).

Interesting... and Pucher is mentioned three times as a reference... Forester, none. And they cite an 8% increase in cycling.

Of course Forester will jump in and decry the whole thing as childish... :rolleyes:

as someone else (more intelligent than me) pointed out

let's substitute

rail

"Some might assume that rail levels in Europe have been consistently high. In fact, railways fell sharply during the 1950's and 1960's, when car ownership surged and cities started spreading out. From 1950 to 1975, the rail share of trips fell by roughly two thirds in a sample of dutch. danish and german cities...."

pedestrian

"Some might assume that pedestrian levels in Europe have been consistently high. In fact, walking fell sharply during the 1950's and 1960's, when car ownership surged and cities started spreading out. From 1950 to 1975, the pedestrian share of trips fell by roughly two thirds in a sample of dutch. danish and german cities...."

motorbike

"Some might assume that motorbike levels in Europe have been consistently high. In fact, motorbikes fell sharply during the 1950's and 1960's, when car ownership surged and cities started spreading out. From 1950 to 1975, the motorbike share of trips fell by roughly two thirds in a sample of dutch. danish and german cities...."

You think that you are advancing your argument by citing these correlations, which are to some extent valid. But, unfortunately, you are merely demonstrating the scientific weakness of your argument. It is a standard scientific cliche that "Correlation does not demonstrate Causation." The statement that motor transportation has taken the place of considerable portions of other transportation modes does not explain why that occurred. It could be, for instance, that the diminution in rail transport was produced by strikes of rail workers, practically forcing passenger rail users to motor instead. Of course, the real answer probably has more to do with convenience than anything else, but the correlation says nothing about that. Without a reasonable cause and effect relationship, correlation says nothing at all beyond the fact of the correlation. This is even more pertinent because the essence of the bicycle advocates' argument is that the resurgence in bicycle transportation was caused by building bikeways, and their corollary argument that building bikeways in America will produce similar results. There are no reasonable explanations for how bikeways produced the European result, and absolutely no explanations for how American bikeways would produce the European result.

I realise I'm an idiot but I only care that

cyclists are not compelled to use "cycle facilities" where provided
cyclists, pedestrians and drivers should have more training from an early age on road users rights and responsibilities
if there's a need for "cycle facilities" on perfectly good roads then they should be designed for integration and not segregation
patience and common courtesy, backed up by extremely harsh penalities, returns to the roads

You think that you are advancing your argument by citing these correlations, which are to some extent valid. But, unfortunately, you are merely demonstrating the scientific weakness of your argument. It is a standard scientific cliche that "Correlation does not demonstrate Causation." The statement that motor transportation has taken the place of considerable portions of other transportation modes does not explain why that occurred. It could be, for instance, that the diminution in rail transport was produced by strikes of rail workers, practically forcing passenger rail users to motor instead. Of course, the real answer probably has more to do with convenience than anything else, but the correlation says nothing about that. Without a reasonable cause and effect relationship, correlation says nothing at all beyond the fact of the correlation. This is even more pertinent because the essence of the bicycle advocates' argument is that the resurgence in bicycle transportation was caused by building bikeways, and their corollary argument that building bikeways in America will produce similar results. There are no reasonable explanations for how bikeways produced the European result, and absolutely no explanations for how American bikeways would produce the European result.

I agree but my stating the obvious wasn't aimed at you nor was it to prove anything regarding transportation.

I merely felt that, in my own simplistic way and as pointed out earlier by you and others (I think), the statement could apply to almost anything. Except cabbages - I couldn't get cabbages to work.

I agree but my stating the obvious wasn't aimed at you nor was it to prove anything regarding transportation.

I merely felt that, in my own simplistic way and as pointed out earlier by you and others (I think), the statement could apply to almost anything. Except cabbages - I couldn't get cabbages to work.

I understood what you were trying to do... but John just demonstrated his inherent curmudgeoness by jumping on your commentary.

Typical... fails to actually think about what is being said, just responds in a cut and paste fashion to anything that remotely appears to be something he is staunchly against. :rolleyes:

John is long past actively evaluating a real idea.

I make no pretense to understand as deeply as the great thinkers on this forum the value of VC or bikeways. I do understand, however, that what these threads are about is arrogantly shouting to the moon, in the most juvenile and offensive ways, that what is believed by either side is right, the other is wrong and blood will be drawn if an inch is given. I literally deal with this crap on a daily basis. I am a teacher. I usually just tell the involved individuals, in all seriousness, that I could not care less the rightness of either party, and they should just get back in order.

Stop spewing cliched rhetoric and faulty logic that shows no understanding or willingness to understand the other side's point. It is sophmoric and silly at best. It is counter-productive.

You still sound to outsiders like children arguing over the rules to Calvin-ball in the playground. I will now return to my normally scheduled life.

I understood what you were trying to do... but John just demonstrated his inherent curmudgeoness by jumping on your commentary.

Typical... fails to actually think about what is being said, just responds in a cut and paste fashion to anything that remotely appears to be something he is staunchly against. :rolleyes:

John is long past actively evaluating a real idea.

The issue that I think was being discussed is the extent to which correlations demonstrate causation. They don't. They only indicate a possible line of investigation to see if a causal relationship exists. No amount of listing other correlations changes the point. If that is the issue that was being discussed, I kept to it. If it was not, but was some real idea that I failed to evaluate because I missed it, then please provide me with a more comprehensive description of this new real idea.

Well, I haven't got through all of the "irresistible" paper, but its enough to see that more people on bikes leads to better bike safety. And that government programs can play a major part in encouraging people to bike and walk more. And that when well designed facilities are available even the elderly will cycle.

And that its not a superstition: Biking is more dangerous here in Automerica.

I make no pretense to understand as deeply as the great thinkers on this forum the value of VC or bikeways. I do understand, however, that what these threads are about is arrogantly shouting to the moon, in the most juvenile and offensive ways, that what is believed by either side is right, the other is wrong and blood will be drawn if an inch is given...I usually just tell the involved individuals, in all seriousness, that I could not care less the rightness of either party, and they should just get back in order.

Stop spewing cliched rhetoric and faulty logic that shows no understanding or willingness to understand the other side's point. It is sophmoric and silly at best. It is counter-productive.

You still sound to outsiders like children arguing over the rules to Calvin-ball in the playground. I will now return to my normally scheduled life.

+1

If you're going to argue a point back it up, clearly, comprehensively and be open to constructive criticism. Yes, bike lane people that means you.

OKAY, Mark...

lets' see: you start a thread about your hero, another poster mentions a current and respected bicycling transportation researcher, and john forster loses all credibility as he repeatedly tries to claim John Pucher doesn't write about bicycling.

simple enough? john forestor loses credibility as he erronously claims a referenced and contemporary bicycling transportation researcher doesn't write about bicycling.

Bek, he didn't talk about bicycling and the special skills needed to ride a bicycle in traffic. The quote you used, as I tried to point out, was about the usage of bikes for transportation. John somehow transmogrified that into a correlational argument, which obscured my point. (I however concur with his conclusion, just cuz it happened at the same time doesn't mean one caused the other.) You two are still arguing about different aspects of cycling as transportation and not paying any attention to the point of the other writer. Both of you may have good points, but to myself and Mark, we can't tell. You are so busy insisting you're right, you've stopped paying attention.

Bek, he didn't talk about bicycling and the special skills needed to ride a bicycle in traffic. The quote you used, as I tried to point out, was about the usage of bikes for transportation. John somehow transmogrified that into a correlational argument, which obscured my point. (I however concur with his conclusion, just cuz it happened at the same time doesn't mean one caused the other.) You two are still arguing about different aspects of cycling as transportation and not paying any attention to the point of the other writer. Both of you may have good points, but to myself and Mark, we can't tell. You are so busy insisting you're right, you've stopped paying attention.

+1

" I have read two (or three ?) of Pucher's papers on his favorite subject, and I have never found any information regarding cycling." -1.

maybe you don't see MY point cleary, indy v8.

Bek, the current dispute between you and John is related to aspects of cycling. You are making a point of bike usage. He is making a point about biking skills. You can be angry with me, you can stamp your feet, you can quote John again and again, but it doesn't change the fact that you are both using different definitions. One of the reasons you find yourselfs locked in this cage match is you don't stop and say, "define your terms." Once terms are defined you can agree or not.

I'll still stick to my original point. You're not talking to each other you're talking at each other. And the whole argument makes non-cyclists want nothing more than for you both to stop.

Bek, the current dispute between you and John is related to aspects of cycling. You are making a point of bike usage. He is making a point about biking skills. You can be angry with me, you can stamp your feet, you can quote John again and again, but it doesn't change the fact that you are both using different definitions. One of the reasons you find yourselfs locked in this cage match is you don't stop and say, "define your terms." Once terms are defined you can agree or not.

I'll still stick to my original point. You're not talking to each other you're talking at each other. And the whole argument makes non-cyclists want nothing more than for you both to stop.

No, we are not talking at, or past, each other, without understanding the other. I understand exactly Bekologist's tactics; whether or not he understands mine is behind some kind of curtain.

Pucher quotes governmental statistics on bicycle transportation volume, accident rates, and such in some European nations. Pucher claims, and Bekologist amplifies his claim, that bikeways produced the conditions which they desire, and would produce those conditions in America. I state the standard caution that correlation does not demonstrate causation, that one should not conclude that bikeways produced the other conditions unless there is a reasonable mechanism by which bikeways would produce those conditions. Pucher makes no attempt to demonstrate such reasonable mechanisms. With respect to car-bike collision reduction, no such effect has been demonstrated and analysis of known data shows it most unlikely. With respect to bicycle transportation volume, other conditions appear to be much stronger than the presence of bikeways.

To analyze the connection, if any, between bikeways and car-bike collisions requires a detailed knowledge of cycling in traffic. To analyze the connection, if any, between bikeways and bicycle transportation volume requires a detailed knowledge of urban patterns and the travel within them, as these affect bicycle trips. Pucher has made no such analyses. Furthermore, Pucher's own statements about cycling in traffic, made in public correspondence, show that he knows little about it but parrots the more extreme anti-motoring superstitions.

For these reasons I stated that Pucher writes about governmental reports, but not about cycling, in a field in which detailed knowledge of cycling is necessary to reach conclusions.

This allows Bekologist, who admits that he is nothing more than a nasty irritant, to claim that I am wrong because writing about governmental reports of bicycle transportation volume is writing about cycling. It is deplorable that such an obvious, and self-admitted, irritant is given credence for such a transparent misuse of words to produce irritation.